Fiala, Mark A

801 Background: SBA is a rare, poorly understood gastrointestinal malignancy. Adenocarcinomas are often grouped with other small bowel cancer histologies in epidemiologic and outcomes reports, which limits the ability to detect SBA-specific trends. Recent studies in European populations show increasing SBA incidence, but there are limited published data in American cohorts. Identifying trends in SBA can improve understanding of the population most at risk for developing SBA. This study describes U.S. trends in SBA incidence and outcomes from 2000 to 2019. Methods: Using the 2022 SEER research-limited dataset, we identified SBA cases and measured the incidence change from 2000-2019. We built linear regression models to evaluate changes in annual incidence by groups, including sex, race, and age of diagnosis, separately. We then compared the overall incidence and trends between subgroups. We investigated overall survival (OS) through the SEER research case listings for SBA patients diagnosed during the study period. Results: An average of 0.67 cases/100,000 SBA cases were reported annually from 2000-2019, with a median diagnosis age of 69 years. SBA incidence has increased annually by 0.3% per year from 2000-2019 (p=0.05). From 2000-2019, men were at a higher risk for SBA compared to women (p=0.02). In men, SBA cases increased at a rate of 0.004 cases/100,000/year from 2000-2019 (p=0.01) and a nonsignificant decrease in women of 0.00012 cases/100,000/year. There were no statistically significant differences in incidence or the change in incidence of SBA by race. The age-adjusted incidence was significantly higher each year between 2000 and 2019 in the > 70 cohort compared to the <70 cohort (p=0.02). Cases of SBA increased at a rate of 0.02 cases/100,000/year in adults >70 years (p=0.02). There were no differences in incidence rates in patients <70 years. There was no significant difference in OS for patients diagnosed with SBA in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019 (p=0.21). Conclusions: The overall annual incidence of SBA is increasing in the U.S. population. The most significant rate increases are in men and adults older than 70. In the SEER population, trends in SBA contrast with the recent rise of colorectal cancer in the young adult population, highlighting the unique nature of SBA compared to other gastrointestinal malignancies. Additionally, survival outcomes in patients diagnosed with SBA have remained stable over the past 20 years, while other malignancies have shown improvement in the same period. The small cohort size and the lack of a universal U.S. cancer registry limited this evaluation. Improved reporting of SBA cases and further research to identify risk factors are urgently needed to reduce the growing impact of SBA.

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.

Abstract Purpose To determine if the COVID‐19 pandemic has further exacerbated racial disparities in late‐stage presentation of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers. Methods We conducted a registry‐based retrospective study of patients with newly reported diagnoses of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers between March 2019–June 2019 (pre‐COVID‐19) and March 2020–June 2020 (early‐COVID‐19). We compared the volume of new diagnoses and stage at presentation according to race between both periods. Results During the study period, a total of 3528 patients had newly diagnosed cancer; 3304 of which had known disease stages and were included in the formal analyses. 467 (14.1%) were Blacks, and 2743 were (83%) Whites. 1216 (36.8%) had breast, 415 (12.6%) had colorectal, 827 (25%) had lung, and 846 (25.6%) had prostate cancers, respectively. The pre‐COVID‐19 period included 2120 (64.2%), and the early‐COVID‐19 period included 1184 (35.8%), representing a proportional 44.2% decline in the volume of new cases of breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers, p < 0.0001. Pre‐COVID‐19, 16.8% were diagnosed with metastatic disease, versus 20.4% early‐COVID‐19, representing a proportional increase of 21.4% in the numbers of new cases with metastatic disease, p = 0.01. There was a non‐significant proportional decline of 1.9% in Black patients diagnosed with non‐metastatic breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers early‐COVID‐19 ( p = 0.71) and a non‐significant proportional increase of 7% in Black patients diagnosed with metastatic disease ( p = 0.71). Difference‐in‐difference analyses showed no statistically significant differences in metastatic presentation comparing Black to White patients. Conclusion While we identified substantial reductions in the volume of new cancer diagnoses and increases in metastatic presentations due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, the impact was similar for White and Black patients.

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

As part of the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation (MMRF) immune atlas pilot project, we compared immune cells of multiple myeloma bone marrow samples from 18 patients assessed by single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq), mass cytometry (CyTOF), and cellular indexing of transcriptomes and epitopes by sequencing (CITE-seq) to understand the concordance of measurements among single-cell techniques. Cell type abundances are relatively consistent across the three approaches, while variations are observed in T cells, macrophages, and monocytes. Concordance and correlation analysis of cell type marker gene expression across different modalities highlighted the importance of choosing cell type marker genes best suited to particular modalities. By integrating data from these three assays, we found International Staging System stage 3 patients exhibited decreased CD4+ T/CD8+ T cells ratio. Moreover, we observed upregulation of RAC2 and PSMB9, in natural killer cells of fast progressors compared with those of nonprogressors, as revealed by both scRNA-seq and CITE-seq RNA measurement. This detailed examination of the immune microenvironment in multiple myeloma using multiple single-cell technologies revealed markers associated with multiple myeloma rapid progression which will be further characterized by the full-scale immune atlas project. Significance: scRNA-seq, CyTOF, and CITE-seq are increasingly used for evaluating cellular heterogeneity. Understanding their concordances is of great interest. To date, this study is the most comprehensive examination of the measurement of the immune microenvironment in multiple myeloma using the three techniques. Moreover, we identified markers predicted to be significantly associated with multiple myeloma rapid progression.

Purpose: Multiple myeloma (MM) treatment has changed tremendously, with significant improvement in patient out-comes. One group with a suboptimal benefit is patients with high-risk cytogenetics, as tested by conventional karyotyping or fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Methodology for these tests has been published, but not necessarily standardized. Methods: We address variability in the testing and reporting methodology for MM cytogenetics in the United States using the ongoing African American Multiple Myeloma Study (AAMMS). We evaluated clinical and cytogenetic data from 1,221 patients (1,161 with conventional karyotyping and 976 with FISH) tested between 1998 and 2016 across 58 laboratories nationwide. Results: Interlab and intralab variability was noted for the number of cells analyzed for karyotyping, with a significantly higher number of cells analyzed in patients in whom cytogenetics were normal (P 5.0025). For FISH testing, CD138-positive cell enrichment was used in 29.7% of patients and no enrichment in 50% of patients, whereas the remainder had unknown status. A significantly smaller number of cells was analyzed for patients in which CD138 cell enrichment was used compared with those without such enrichment (median, 50 v 200; P, .0001). A median of 7 loci probes (range, 1-16) were used for FISH testing across all laboratories, with variability in the loci probed even within a given laboratory. Chromosome 13–related abnormalities were the most frequently tested abnormality (n5956; 97.9%), and t(14;16) was the least frequently tested abnormality (n 5 119; 12.2%). Conclusions: We report significant variability in cytogenetic testing across the United States for MM, potentially leading to variability in risk stratification, with possible clinical implications and personalized treatment approaches.

Bendamustine is a multifunctional alkylating agent with single agent activity in myeloma. We designed the current phase 1/2 trial to determine the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) of bendamustine that can be safely combined with lenalidomide and dexamethasone and to assess the safety and efficacy of the combination. Patients with relapsed MM following at least 1 prior therapy, but no more than four lines of prior therapy and with measurable disease were enrolled. Bendamustine 75 mg/m2 given on days 1 and 2, lenalidomide 25 mg given days 1–21 and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, was the recommended Phase 2 dose. Seventy‐one patients were accrued: 21 on Phase 1 and 50 on Phase 2. The median age was 62.3 years; patients had a median of three prior lines of therapy (range 1–4), with over 70% of the patients having received prior lenalidomide, bortezomib, and/or peripheral blood stem cell transplant. Thirty‐four of 70 (49%) patients had a confirmed partial response or better, including 20 patients (29%) with a very good partial response or better. An additional 4 patients had a minor response, translating to an overall 55% clinical benefit rate. Grade 3 or higher toxicity was seen in 96% of patients, with ≥grade 3 hematologic in 94% and nonhematologic in 50%. The median progression free survival was 11.8 months and the median duration of response was 23 months. The combination of bendamustine, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone is very effective in relapsed multiple myeloma with high response rates and durable responses Am. J. Hematol. 90:1106–1110, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.