Zhang, Jun

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend 3-hour cardiac amyloid radionuclide imaging (CARI) for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. Citing rapid blood clearance of 99m Tc-hydroxymethylene-diphosphonate (HMDP) and efficient laboratory throughput, 1-hour imaging is increasingly practiced despite limited supporting evidence. We sought to compare diagnostic performance and interpreter experience of 1-hour versus 3-hour HMDP-CARI. METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (n=114) underwent both 1-hour and 3-hour HMDP single photon emission computed tomography (CT)/CT. Two cardiologist-radiologist reader teams, blinded to imaging timepoint (1 versus 3 hours), assessed overall interpretation, single photon emission CT–based Perugini grade, interpretation difficulty, interpreter confidence, and need for CT-fused images for anatomic localization. Discordant, equivocal, and difficult cases were arbitrated by a third tie-breaking team. The myocardial-to-blood-pool radiotracer uptake ratio (3-dimensional Score) was measured as a surrogate of contrast resolution. RESULTS: Interinterpreter agreement was high at both time points (κ≥0.81), with more cases requiring arbitration at 3 hours versus 1 hour (22% versus 13%; P =0.049). Overall interpretation and Perugini grades were concordant between time points in 111/114 (97%) and 106/114 (93%) patients, respectively. Three patients (3%) were negative at 1 hour but equivocal at 3 hours, all of which were clinically ruled out for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy. Interpreter confidence was comparable at both timepoints (97% versus 95%; P =0.317). Compared with 3-hour imaging, contrast resolution was inferior (lower 3-dimensional score, P <0.001) and CT fusion was more frequently needed (57% versus 31%, P <0.001) at 1-hour imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, blinded comparison of 1-hour versus 3-hour HMDP-CARI, diagnostic performance and interpreter experience were similar, with readers requesting CT fusion more frequently at 1 hour to optimize myocardial-to-blood pool discrimination.

Abstract Pulmonary large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) is a rare, aggressive lung tumor marked by significant molecular heterogeneity. In a study of 590 patients across two independent cohorts, we observed comparable overall survival across treatment regimens (chemotherapy, chemoimmunotherapy, immunotherapy) without unexpected adverse events. Genomic analysis identified distinct NSCLC-like (KEAP1, KRAS, STK11 mutations) and SCLC-like (RB1, TP53 mutations) LCNEC subtypes, with 80% aligning with SCLC transcriptional profiles. Serial sampling revealed stable mutational but shifting transcriptomic landscapes over time. NSCLC-like LCNECs showed elevated FGL-1 (a LAG-3 ligand) and SPINK1 expression, while SCLC-like subtypes expressed higher levels of DLL3. Immunofluorescence confirmed FGL-1 in NSCLC-like LCNECs, and H&E slide analyses indicated fewer tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in LCNECs versus other lung cancers. These findings highlight LCNEC’s distinct immunogenomic profile, supporting future investigations into LAG-3, SPINK1, and DLL3-targeted therapies.

AbstractBackgroundQuantitative methods of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG‐PET) interpretation, including the percent change in FDG uptake from baseline (ΔSUV), are under investigation in lymphoma to overcome challenges associated with visual scoring systems (VSS) such as the Deauville 5‐point scale (5‐PS).MethodsIn CALGB 50303, patients with DLBCL received frontline R‐CHOP or DA‐EPOCH‐R, and although there were no significant associations between interim PET responses assessed centrally after cycle 2 (iPET) using 5‐PS with progression‐free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), there were significant associations between central determinations of iPET ∆SUV with PFS/OS. In this patient cohort, we retrospectively compared local vs central iPET readings and evaluated associations between local imaging data and survival outcomes.ResultsAgreement between local and central review was moderate (kappa = 0.53) for VSS and high (kappa = 0.81) for ∆SUV categories (<66% vs. ≥66%). ∆SUV ≥66% at iPET was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p = 0.002), but VSS was not. Associations with PFS/OS when applying local review vs central review were comparable.ConclusionsThese data suggest that local PET interpretation for response determination may be acceptable in clinical trials. Our findings also highlight limitations of VSS and call for incorporation of more objective measures of response assessment in clinical trials.

9002 Background: KRAS is a key mediator of the RAS/MAPK signaling cascade that promotes cellular growth and proliferation. KRASG12C mutation occurs in ̃14% of NSCLC. Adagrasib, an investigational agent, is a KRASG12C inhibitor that irreversibly and selectively binds KRASG12C, locking it in its inactive state. Adagrasib is optimized for favorable pharmacokinetic (PK) properties, including long half-life (̃24 h), dose-dependent PK, and central nervous system penetration; it has demonstrated objective response and favorable tolerability in the Phase 1/1b setting. Methods: KRYSTAL-1 (NCT03785249) is a multicohort Phase 1/2 study evaluating adagrasib as monotherapy or in combination regimens in patients with advanced solid tumors harboring a KRASG12C mutation. Here we report the first disclosure from all patients enrolled in Cohort A, a Phase 2 cohort with registrational intent, evaluating adagrasib given 600 mg orally BID in patients with NSCLC previously treated with platinum-based chemotherapy and anti-PD-1/L1 therapy. Study objectives include evaluating efficacy (objective response rate [ORR], duration of response [DOR], progression-free survival [PFS], overall survival [OS]), safety, PK, and exploratory correlative analyses. Objective tumor response was assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Results: As of the 15 October 2021 data cutoff, 116 patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation were enrolled and treated, with a median follow-up of 12.5 months. Baseline characteristics include median age 64 years, 65% female, and 15.5%/83.6% with ECOG PS 0/1; 98.3% of patients received adagrasib following prior treatment with immunotherapy and chemotherapy, with a median of 2 prior systemic therapies. The ORR (by BICR) was 42.9% (48/112) and the disease control rate was 79.5% (89/112); 31 patients remain on treatment. Median DOR was 8.5 months (95% CI 6.2–13.8), median PFS was 6.5 months (95% CI 4.7–8.4), median OS was 12.6 months (95% CI 9.2–NE). Treatment-related AEs (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 97.4% of patients, grade ≥3 TRAEs in 45.7%, 2 grade 5 TRAEs, and 8 (6.9%) TRAEs led to discontinuation. The most commonly reported (≥25%) TRAEs (any grade) were diarrhea (62.9%), nausea (62.1%), vomiting (47.4%), fatigue (40.5%), ALT/AST increased (27.6%/25%), blood creatinine increased (25.9%); the most commonly reported (≥5%) TRAEs (grade 3/4) were lipase increased (6%) and anemia (5.2%). Additional subgroup analyses will be presented, including selected demographics, molecular markers and sites of metastases. Conclusions: Adagrasib is well tolerated and demonstrates promising efficacy in pretreated patients with NSCLC harboring a KRASG12C mutation. A Phase 3 trial evaluating adagrasib monotherapy versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC is ongoing (NCT04685135). Clinical trial information: NCT03785249.

Background FDG-PET is used in staging and response assessments in patients (pts) with DLBCL. An analysis of 158 pts with DLBCL receiving R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R on CALGB/Alliance 50303 failed to show an association between the interim PET (iPET, after cycle 2 of therapy) visual 5-point scale score (5-PS) by central review and progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), but did show a significant association between percent change in FDG uptake from baseline to after cycle 2 (∆SUV) and PFS/OS (Schoder et al. 2020). As central review of FDG-PET is not feasible in routine practice, we retrospectively compared local vs central readings, and determined associations from local imaging data with PFS/OS. Methods 126 pts at baseline and 109 at iPET had local imaging data submitted across 21 institutions. Visual scores 1-3 defined PET- and scores 4-5 defined PET+ disease. ∆SUV was defined as the percent change in the maximum SUV at any site (maxSUV) from baseline to iPET. Continuous ∆SUV and categorized ∆SUV (&lt;66% vs &gt;66%) were analyzed. Differences in quantitative measures were calculated as the local minus central result. The Kappa statistic estimated agreement in PET and ∆SUV groups between local and central review. PFS and OS distributions for local PET and ∆SUV groups were landmarked at iPET, estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared using the log-rank test. Results At baseline, maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 118 pts. Median maxSUV was 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.3) by local review and 24.3 (range: 5.9-77.0) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -12.9 to 21.9), with 50% of differences between -1.1 and 0.1, and 90% of differences between -7.8 and 4.1. In 106 pts with visual iPET 5-PS results, 52 (49.1%) were PET+ by local review and 37 (34.9%) by central review. Agreement in local and central review was moderate (kappa=0.53), occurring in 81 pts (76.4%; 32 PET+ and 49 PET-). Disagreement occurred in 25 patients, 20 with local PET+ but central PET- and 5 with local PET- but central PET+. iPET maxSUV was reported locally and centrally in 90 pts. Median maxSUV was 3.4 (range: 0-18.3) by local review and 3.3 (range: 1.2-18.2) by central review. The median difference in maxSUV was 0 (range: -8.6 to 2.4), with 50% of differences between -0.3 and 0.4, and 90% of differences between -4.4 and 1.8. ∆SUV was calculated in 87 pts. Median ∆SUV was 84.6% (range: -3.0% to 95.9%) by local review and 85.1% (range: -34.9% to 95.8%) by central review. The median difference in ∆SUV was -0.3 (range: -19.6 to 31.9), with 50% of differences between -2.1 and 1.1, and 90% of differences between -7.1 and 12.3. ∆SUV was &lt;66% in 12 (13.8%) pts by local review and 12 pts by central review. Agreement in local and central review was high (kappa=0.81), occurring in 83 pts (95.4%; 10 with ∆SUV &lt;66%, 73 with ∆SUV &gt;66%). Disagreement occurred in 4 pts, 2 in each direction. Using local data, PFS and OS estimates were numerically lower in pts with iPET+ vs iPET- disease, but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.12 and p=0.15). Two-year estimates for PFS were 79% (95% CI 68-91%) and 89% (95% CI 81-98%), and 2-year estimates for OS were 84% (95% CI 75-95%) and 96% (95% CI 91-100%) in pts with iPET+ and iPET-, respectively. In contrast, ∆SUV groups were significantly associated with PFS and OS (p=0.03 and p=0.002). Two-year estimates for PFS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 87% (95% CI 79-95%) and 2-year estimates for OS were 56% (95% CI 34-94%) and 93% (95% CI 88-99%) in pts with ∆SUV &lt;66% and ∆SUV &gt;66%, respectively. Conclusion Agreement in visual 5-PS at iPET was moderate; most discrepancies arose from a local PET+ result when central review called PET-. Differences in maxSUV and ∆SUV tended to be small. Grouping ∆SUV resulted in only 4 discrepancies (4.6%). Similar to the previous analysis using central data, the separation in PFS and OS curves using local data for ∆SUV was greater than by visual 5-PS. Encouragingly, the agreement in ∆SUV of &lt;66% vs ≥66% was high between local and central review. Overall agreement however may be unduly influenced by the large proportion of pts with ∆SUV ≥66%, with less certainty in agreement for pts with ∆SUV &lt;66%. Larger prospective studies comparing local and central imaging data are warranted to best determine the utility of local imaging in clinical trials. Support: P30 CA008748, U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00118209 (CALGB 50303) Disclosures Kahl: Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BeiGene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche Laboratories Inc: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy. Friedberg:Astellas: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma - A member of the AstraZeneca Group, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.: Other; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche: Other: Travel expenses; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy. Leonard:MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Sutro: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; GenMab: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Regeneron: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Miltenyi: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding.

Introduction: The increasing use of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) cytology to examine pancreatic neoplasms has led to an increase in the diagnosis of metastases to the pancreas. Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is the most common metastasis to the pancreas. Our study examines 33 cases of metastatic RCC to the pancreas sampled by EUS-FNA from four large tertiary care hospitals. Materials and Methods: We searched the cytopathology database for RCC metastatic to the pancreas diagnosed by EUS-FNA from January 2005 to January 2015. Patient age, history of RCC, nephrectomy history, follow-up postnephrectomy, radiological impression, and EUS-FNA cytologic diagnosis were reviewed. Results: Thirty-three patients were identified. The average age was 67.5 years (range, 49–84 years). Thirty-two patients had a previous documented history of RCC. One patient had the diagnosis of pancreatic metastasis at the same time of the kidney biopsy. Thirty-one patients had been treated with nephrectomy. Twenty-seven patients were being monitored annually by computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. Twenty-five patients had multiple masses by imaging, but 8 patients had a single mass in the pancreas at the time of EUS-FNA. EUS-FNA of 20 cases showed classic morphology of RCC. Thirteen cases had either “atypical” clinical-radiologic features or morphologic overlaps with primary pancreatic neoplasms or other neoplasms. Cell blocks were made on all 13 cases and immunochemical stains confirmed the diagnosis. Conclusions: EUS-FNA cytology is useful for the diagnosis of metastatic RCC to the pancreas. Cytomorphology can be aided with patient history, imaging analyses, cell blocks, and immunochemical stains.