Butt, Omar H.

AbstractBackgroundAdults with Down Syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia as they age. This is attributed to triplication of the amyloid precursor protein gene. Recent work demonstrated that amyloid is elevated in DS and accumulates in a similar topography to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD). Tau accumulation is the second hallmark of AD and may be measured using tau positron emission tomography (PET) imaging. The pattern of tau accumulation remains unknown in DS.MethodIn a cross‐sectional analysis we evaluated amyloid and tau positron emission tomography (PET) in 124 participants with DS (109 cognitively stable, 8 symptomatic, 7 no consensus), 29 ADAD mutation carriers (26 asymptomatic, 3 symptomatic), and 201 cognitively normal non‐mutation carriers (CN). Regional cortical standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) for tau imaging were obtained and compared by cognitive status. Similarly, regional cortical amyloid SUVR were obtained and converted to centiloids. We then compared the magnitude of tau burden as well as spatial spread of tau across groups relative to amyloid burden.ResultCompared to CN, tau PET binding was elevated in participants with (µDS = 2.12 ± 0.22 SUVR, µADAD = 2.52 ± 0.37 SUVR) and without (µDS = 1.24 ± 0.15 SUVR, µADAD = 1.16 ± 0.19 SUVR) cognitive changes. For both groups, tau increased with increasing amyloid (centiloids). In some regions, DS had greater tau burden for a given amyloid level (centiloids) (Figure 1). There was increased spatial distribution of tau throughout the brain for participants with DS compared to CN. In contrast, tau burden was more focal in participants with ADAD with tau primarily elevated in posterior regions (Figure 2).ConclusionWhile tau burden was higher with symptomatic disease for both groups, significant differences existed in the overall amount and spatial spread. Tau spread was greatest in participants with DS and more diffuse compared to ADAD. These results indicate a substantial tau burden is present in DS, and suggest not only anti‐amyloid but also tau‐reducing agents should be considered for treating cognitive decline in adults with DS.

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.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.

AbstractBackgroundGiven the triplication of chromosome 21 and the location of the amyloid precursor protein gene on chromosome 21, almost all adults with Down syndrome (DS) develop Alzheimer disease (AD)‐like pathology and dementia during their lifetime. Comparing amyloid accumulation in DS to autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), another genetic form of AD, may improve our understanding of early AD pathology development.MethodWe assessed amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in 192 participants with DS and 33 sibling controls from the Alzheimer’s Biomarker Consortium‐Down Syndrome (ABC‐DS) and 265 mutation‐carriers (MC) and 169 familial controls from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) (Table 1). We calculated regional standard uptake value ratios (SUVR) using a cerebellar cortex reference region and converted global amyloid burden SUVR to centiloids. We compared amyloid PET by cognitive status and estimated‐years‐to‐symptom‐onset (EYO). EYO was calculated for DIAN participants by subtracting their age from parental age of symptom onset and for ABC‐DS participants by subtracting their age from 50.2 years, a published average age of symptom onset in a large sample of individuals with DS (Fortea et al., 2020). In a subset of participants, we assessed the relationship between amyloid PET and CSF Aβ42/40.ResultThe relationship between CSF Aβ42/40 and amyloid PET was similar in DS and MC participants (Figure 1). We did not observe significant differences between MC and DS grouped by cognitive status (Figure 2). However, when assessed over EYO, global amyloid burden was significantly elevated in MC at EYO ≥ ‐23 but was not elevated in DS until EYO ≥ ‐15 (Figure 3). We observed early cortical and subcortical amyloid PET increases in both groups, but we also measured some regional differences in amyloid PET changes between MC and DS, specifically in the medial occipital region (Figure 4 and 5).ConclusionThese results demonstrate similarities in the relationship between amyloid biomarkers and the levels of amyloid accumulation in ADAD and DS. However, we also observed a 5‐10 year delay and some regional differences in amyloid accumulation in DS. This is important for future clinical trials to consider when recruiting participants and determining treatment efficacy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Immunotherapies targeting PD-1 in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) have shown limited activity. We hypothesize combining therapies targeting immunosuppressive pathways with cytotoxic and antiangiogenic therapies will improve survival. This nonrandomized, noncomparative Phase II study examines safety and efficacy of an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody (retifanlimab), hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and bevacizumab, with or without an IDO1 inhibitor (epacadostat), in patients with rGBM. METHODS This is an open-label Phase II study of two regimens. Regimen A examines retifanlimab (500mg IV Q4W) + bevacizumab (10mg/kg IV Q2W) + HFRT (3.5Gy/day x 10) in patients with IDH1/2-WT rGBM. Regimen B adds epacadostat. Key inclusions include dexamethasone ≤ 4 mg/day and reirradiation candidacy. The primary endpoint is overall survival (OS) probability at 9 months (OS-9). An increase of OS-9 from 38% (bevacizumab alone) to 60% was considered clinically relevant and required 24 efficacy evaluable patients. RESULTS Regimen A accrual is complete; interim results are as follows: 26 rGBM enrolled, with 24 evaluable [median age 64.2 years (42.1-81.8); 29% female; 29% MGMT promotor methylated; 33.3% with multi-focal disease; median KPS 90 (70-100); median baseline dexamethasone 0 mg (0-4) and ALC 1,000 cells/µl (300-3,700)]. Patients received a median of 6 cycles as of May 2022 (2-24). Median follow-up is 16.0 months. Interim median PFS is 7.0 months (95%CI: 4.5~11.1) and median OS is 12.2 months (95%CI 7.1~18.0). Regimen A met primary endpoint with OS-9 of 67% (95%CI: 44~82%). Overall response rate is currently 58% (95%CI: 36.94~77.2%). There were five possible immune-related grade 3+ toxicities to date (n = 1 each colitis, vomiting, and seizure; n = 2 diarrhea). Regimen B is enrolling. CONCLUSIONS Interim analysis suggests combination retifanlimab, HFRT, and bevacizumab in rGBM is generally well-tolerated, with encouraging OS and PFS at the time of submission. Correlative analysis is ongoing and will be presented at the meeting.

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

2058 Background: Immunotherapies targeting the programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway in recurrent glioblastoma (rGBM) have failed. We hypothesize that combining therapies targeting multiple immunosuppressive pathways with cytotoxic and antiangiogenic therapies will improve survival. Here, we evaluate the safety and efficacy of an anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody (retifanlimab), hypofractionated radiotherapy (HFRT), and bevacizumab, with or without an oral IDO1 inhibitor (epacadostat), in patients with rGBM in a nonrandomized, noncomparative sequential two-arm Phase II study. Methods: This is an open-label Phase II study of 2 sequential cohorts (Table). Cohort A first examines retifanlimab + bevacizumab + HFRT in patients with IDH1/2-WT rGBM. After a toxicity monitoring period, Cohort B, which adds epacadostat, starts enrolling. Key inclusion criteria includes dexamethasone ≤ 4 mg/day at registration and candidacy for reirradiation. Previous bevacizumab use for radiation necrosis is permitted. The primary endpoint is OS probability at 9 months (OS-9). Secondary endpoints include PFS, OS, and toxicity. Exploratory endpoints include immunological phenotyping of blood and tissue. An increase of OS-9 from 38% (bevacizumab alone) to 60% is considered clinically relevant. Results: From 6/2020 to 12/2021, we have completed accrual for cohort A and the interim analysis results are presented here: 25 patients with rGBM enrolled, with 23 evaluable. Median age is 64.3 years (42.1-81.8), 30.4% female, 30.4% MGMT promotor methylated, median KPS 90 (range 70-100), baseline dexamethasone 0 mg (range 0-4) with 52.2% of patients on dexamethasone during the first 3 cycles, median baseline ALC 1,000 cells/µl (range 300-3,700). Patients received a median of 6 cycles to date (range 2-20). Median follow-up is 11.97 months per the reverse Kaplan-Meier method. Interim analysis shows a median PFS of 9.9 months (95%CI: 5.5 to not reached (NR)) and median OS of 12.2 months (95%CI 7.3-NR). Notably, Cohort A met the primary endpoint with an OS-9 of 71.4% (95%CI: 46.7% -86.1%). No dose limiting toxicities have been yet observed. Two treatment-related grade 3 toxicities have occurred (myositis, hypertension). Cohort B enrollment is ongoing, and correlative studies pending. Conclusions: Interim analysis suggests retifanlimab combined with HFRT and bevacizumab in patients with rGBM is well-tolerated and had encouraging OS and PFS at the time of data cutoff. Cohort B, which adds epacadostat, is currently enrolling. Clinical trial information: NCT03532295. [Table: see text]