Su, Christopher

Introduction The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1102 study (BMT CTN 1102, NCT02016781) was a multicenter, biologic assignment trial, where patients aged 50-75 with intermediate-2 or high risk de novo myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) were assigned to reduced-intensity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (alloHCT) or best supportive care (non-alloHCT) based on donor availability. A parallel economic evaluation was performed alongside BMT CTN 1102. Here, we report on the financial impact of the treatment protocol on patients using a prospective cost diary study conducted within the trial. Methods BMT CTN 1102 enrollees were offered the option to participate in the parallel cost diary study at the same time of primary study enrollment. The cost diary survey instrument, comprised of 19 questions, covered the domains of out-of-pocket (OOP) costs of healthcare and financial hardship indicators. Surveys were distributed at 1- (1M), 7- (7M), and 19-months (19M) after enrollment. Study participants were grouped by actual treatment received, rather than group assignment. Responses were analyzed using univariate Fisher's exact and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for association. Results Out of 216 enrollee invitations, 138 patients (64%) returned at least one survey. Total completed surveys at the 1M, 7M, and 19M timepoints were 103 (39%), 93 (35%), and 71 (27%), respectively. 50 (36%) completed only one survey, while 41 (39%) completed surveys at all three timepoints. Of all respondents, median age was 67.7 years (IQR: 64.8-70.3), 88 (64%) were male, 128 (93%) white, and 126 (91%) were non-Hispanic. Among respondents of the 1M, 7M and 19M surveys, 82 (80%), 78 (84%), 65 (92%) received alloHCT, respectively. Mean OOP costs by category are presented in Table 1. While alloHCT patients experienced higher OOP costs compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (outpatient services, prescription medications, and accommodations for healthcare), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, total OOP costs were significantly higher among alloHCT patients at 1 and 7 months (mean over past 30 days, 1M: $889 vs. $217, p=0.046; 7M: $678 vs. $349, p=0.03; 19M: $328 vs. $103, p=0.15). Financial hardship indicators are presented in Table 2. While alloHCT patients experienced greater financial hardship compared to non-alloHCT patients across all categories (mobilized reserve funds, borrowed money to pay for care, developed debt due to care), none of the comparisons were statistically significant. However, alloHCT patients were significantly more likely to experience at least one of these factors of financial hardship at 7 months (1M: 38% vs. 19%, p=0.13; 7M: 42% vs. 13%; p=0.04; 19M: 37% vs. 0%, p=0.08). Discussion Patients with MDS who received alloHCT incurred substantially more OOP costs overall compared to patients who did not receive alloHCT, most notably for accommodations related to alloHCT. Similarly, alloHCT patients were more likely to develop financial hardship, including mobilizing reserve funds, borrowing money, and developing debt. These findings demonstrate that treatment-related OOP expenditures associated with alloHCT are substantial and may pose significant burdens for some populations receiving alloHCT. Financial navigation and assistance, which have been shown to help patients address cost burden in solid tumor settings, should be considered for MDS patients prior to alloHCT. Small final sample sizes limited our analyses significantly; further research into OOP costs and financial hardship among larger cohorts of alloHCT patients are necessary to confirm these findings. Acknowledgement Support for this study was provided by grants #U10HL069294 and #U24HL138660 to the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

Immunotherapy has transformed lung cancer management, but PSC remains an aggressive subtype with a poor prognosis. This study investigates the differential expression of PD-L1 and alternative immune checkpoints (ICs; B7x, B7-H3, and HHLA2), and genetic alterations in PSCs. Tumor specimens of 41 PSC patients were evaluated. PD-L1, B7x, B7-H3, and HHLA2 were positive in 75.0%, 67.6%, 73.0%, and 91.9% of tumors, respectively. PD-L1 expression was significantly higher in the epithelial compared to the sarcomatoid component (median TPS: 50% vs. 0%, p = 0.010). Expression of PD-L1 in both components was only seen in 32.1% of patients. However, at least one IC was expressed in 92.9% of epithelial and 100% of sarcomatoid components. Furthermore, METex14 was detected in 19.5% of patients and was associated with a higher sarcomatoid percentage. Our preclinical studies revealed that METex14 induced PD-L1 expression via MAPK or PI3K/Akt pathways, and MET inhibitors decreased PD-L1 expression. Our findings demonstrate distinct expressions of ICs in PSC subcomponents. Thus, combination IC inhibition as a therapeutic strategy in PSC warrants further exploration. A high percentage of METex14 in PSC and its role in regulating PD-L1 expression reveal different therapeutic targets in this aggressive NSCLC subtype.

AbstractBackgroundPARP (poly(ADP‐ribose) polymerase) inhibitors (PARPi) are now standard of care in metastatic castrate‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients with select mutations in DNA damage repair (DDR) pathways, but patients with ATM‐ and BRCA2 mutations may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist in response to taxanes, which may inform treatment sequencing decisions.MethodsmCRPC patients (N = 158) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were retrospectively identified from 11 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan−Meier analyses were performed and Cox hazard ratios (HR) were calculated for progression‐free survival (PFS) as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy.ResultsFifty‐eight patients with ATM mutations and 100 with BRCA2 mutations were identified. Fourty‐four (76%) patients with ATM mutations received taxane only or taxane before PARPi, while 14 (24%) received PARPi only or PARPi before taxane. Patients with ATM mutations had longer PFS when taxane was given first versus PARPi given first (HR: 0.74 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37−1.50]; p = 0.40). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with ATM mutations who received taxane first (HR: 0.56 [CI: 0.20−1.54]; p = 0.26). Among patients with BRCA2 mutations, 51 (51%) received taxane first and 49 (49%) received PARPi first. In contrast, patients with BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS when PARPi was given first versus taxane given first (HR: 0.85 [CI: 0.54−1.35]; p = 0.49). Similarly, OS was longer in patients with BRCA2 mutations who received PARPi first (HR: 0.75 [CI: 0.41−1.37]; p = 0.35).ConclusionsOur retrospective data suggest differential response between ATM and BRCA2 mutated prostate cancers in terms of response to PARPi and to taxane chemotherapy. When considering the sequence of PARPi versus taxane chemotherapy for mCRPC with DDR mutations, ATM, and BRCA2 mutation status may be helpful in guiding choice of initial therapy.

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

PURPOSE Two poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (olaparib and rucaparib) are US Food and Drug Administration–approved for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/ 2 mutations, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. METHODS We conducted a multicenter retrospective analysis involving 12 sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 patients with BRCA1/ 2-altered mCRPC who were treated with PARP inhibitors. The primary efficacy end point was the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% PSA decline) rate. Secondary end points were PSA progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical or radiographic PFS, and overall survival. We compared clinical outcomes, and other genomic characteristics, among BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1 and 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2), and veliparib (n = 2). At diagnosis, 72% of patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. BRCA1 patients were more likely to have metastatic disease at presentation (69% v 37%; P = .04). Age, baseline PSA, metastatic distribution, and types of previous systemic therapies were similar between groups. There were equal proportions of germline mutations (51% v 46%; P = .78) in both groups. BRCA1 patients had more monoallelic (56% v 41%; P = .49) and concurrent TP53 (55% v 36%; P = .32) mutations. PSA 50 responses in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered patients were 23% versus 63%, respectively ( P = .01). BRCA2 patients achieved longer PSA-PFS (HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.92 to 4.09; P = .08), PFS (HR, 2.08; 95% CI, 0.99 to 4.40; P = .05), and overall survival (HR, 3.01; 95% CI, 1.32 to 6.83; P = .008). Biallelic (compared with monoallelic) mutations, truncating (compared with missense) mutations, and absence of a concurrent TP53 mutation were associated with PARP inhibitor sensitivity. CONCLUSION PARP inhibitor efficacy is diminished in BRCA1- versus BRCA2-altered mCRPC. This is not due to an imbalance in germline mutations but might be related to more monoallelic mutations and/or concurrent TP53 alterations in the BRCA1 group.

5040 Background: PARPi have shown promise in mCRPC pts with mutations in DNA repair, but ATM- and BRCA2-altered pts may respond differently to PARPi. We hypothesized that differences may also exist for taxane therapy, aiding in treatment sequencing decisions. Methods: mCRPC pts (N = 137) with deleterious ATM or BRCA2 mutations who received taxanes, PARPi, or both were identified from 8 US academic centers. Demographic, treatment, and survival data were collected. Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed for time-to-treatment-discontinuation (TTD), as well as overall survival (OS), from time of first taxane or PARPi therapy. Cox hazard ratio (HR) regression analyses were performed, adjusting for Gleason sum (≤7 vs. 8-10). For OS, receipt of subsequent therapies following first taxane or PARPi was also included as a covariate. Results: 50 ATM- and 87 BRCA2-mutated pts were identified. 40/50 (80%) of ATM-mutated pts received taxane only or taxane prior to PARPi, while 10/50 (20%) received PARPi only or PARPi prior to taxane. ATM-mutated pts showed a trend towards longer TTD when taxane was given first vs PARPi given first (P = 0.08, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.50 [95% CI: 0.24–1.08]). Considering all pts who received taxane first, ATM-mutated pts had longer TTD than BRCA2-mutated pts who received taxane first ( P= 0.04, adjusted HR for ATM 0.61 [CI: 0.37–0.99]). Among ATM-mutated pts, OS was longer in those receiving taxane first ( P= 0.06, adjusted HR for taxane treatment 0.33 [CI: 0.10–1.05]). Among BRCA2-mutated pts, 43/87 (49%) received taxane first and 44/87 (51%) received PARPi first. BRCA2-mutated pts had longer TTD when PARPi was given first vs taxane given first ( P< 0.0001, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 0.32 [CI: 0.19–0.56]). Considering all pts who received PARPi first, BRCA2-mutated pts also had longer TTD than ATM-mutated pts who received PARPi first ( P= 0.0031, adjusted HR for BRCA2 0.29 [CI: 0.12–0.66]). There was no significant OS difference in BRCA2-mutated pts regarding which treatment was given first ( P= 0.63, adjusted HR for PARPi treatment 1.18 [CI: 0.59–2.35]). Conclusions: Our data in ATM- and BRCA2-mutated mCRPC pts suggests a trend towards improved clinical outcomes when taxanes are used prior to PARPi in ATM-mutated pts, while the reverse sequence appears to be better for BRCA2-mutated pts.[Table: see text]

Objectives To evaluate outcomes of patients achieving a post‐treatment pathological stage of <ypT2N0 at radical cystectomy (RC) following neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) to identify an optimal definition of pathological response. Patients and Methods Patients from 10 international centres who underwent NAC for cT2–4aN0–1 MIBC and achieved <ypT2N0 disease at RC were included. The primary outcome was time to recurrence, either local or distant. Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to evaluate associations between clinicopathological variables and outcomes. Results A total of 625 patients were included. The median age was 66 years and 80% were male. Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC, 56%) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (MVAC)/dose‐dense (dd)MVAC (32%) were the most common NAC regimens. ypT0, pure ypTis, ypTa ±ypTis and ypT1 ± ypTis were attained in 58.1%, 20.0%, 7.6% and 14.2% of patients, respectively. The cumulative incidence of recurrence at 5 years was 9%, 16%, 29% and 30%, respectively. Pathological stage was prognostic for recurrence, with ypTa ± Tis (hazard ratio [HR] 3.20, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40–7.30) and ypT1 ± Tis disease (HR 4.03, 95% CI 2.13–7.63) associated with a significantly higher recurrence risk. Pure ypTis (HR 1.66, 95% CI 0.82–3.38) and the type of NAC regimen (ddMVAC: HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.55–4.56; MVAC: HR 1.18, 9%% CI 0.25–5.54; reference: GC) were not associated with recurrence. Conclusion We propose that optimal pathological response after NAC be defined as attainment of ypT0N0/ypTisN0 at RC. Patients with ypTaN0 or ypT1N0 disease (with or without Tis) at RC displayed a significantly higher risk of recurrence and may be candidates for trials investigating adjuvant therapy.

100 Background: Two PARP inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib) are now FDA approved for mCRPC patients with mutations in BRCA1/2, but the relative efficacy of PARP inhibition in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC is understudied. Methods: We conducted a multi-center retrospective analysis involving 11 academic sites. We collected genomic and clinical data from 123 BRCA1/2-altered mCRPC patients receiving PARP inhibitor treatment. The primary efficacy endpoint was PSA50 response rate (≥50% decline in PSA level). Secondary endpoints were PFS (clinical, radiographic or PSA progression, whichever occurred first) and overall survival (OS). We also captured information on other concurrent genomic alterations. We compared genomic characteristics and clinical outcomes among BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. Results: A total of 123 patients (13 BRCA1, 110 BRCA2) were included. PARP inhibitors used were olaparib (n = 116), rucaparib (n = 3), talazoparib (n = 2) and veliparib (n = 2). All BRCA1 and 71% of BRCA2 patients had Gleason 8-10 disease. Compared to BRCA2 patients, BRCA1 patients were more likely to have received prior taxane chemotherapy (77% vs 62%). Age, baseline PSA, and prior enzalutamide/abiraterone treatment were similar between groups. PSA50 responses in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered patients were 38% vs 65% respectively ( P= 0.06). Median PFS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 3.0 mo (95%CI, 0.9–5.1) vs 8.0 mo (95%CI, 5.3–10.6) respectively (HR 0.42, P= 0.01). Similarly, median OS in BRCA1 vs BRCA2 patients was 11.0 mo (95%CI, 9.9–12.1) vs 24.0 mo (95%CI, 18.2–29.8) respectively (HR 0.33, P= 0.005). There were roughly equal proportions of germline mutations (50% vs 45%) and biallelic mutations (31% vs 25%) in the BRCA2 and BRCA1 groups, respectively. There were numerically more TP53 mutations in the BRCA1 vs BRCA2 group (40% vs 29%, P= 0.45), but an equal number of mutations in other key genes ( PTEN, RB1 and AR). Conclusions: PARP inhibitor activity is diminished in BRCA1- vs BRCA2-altered mCRPC. In our cohort, this differential activity was not explained by mutation origin (germline vs somatic) or allelic status (mono- vs biallelic). These findings warrant validation.