Citations

3597 Background: Colon cancer (CC) incidence and mortality have decreased since the 1970s, but the incidence in young adults (20-49 years) is increasing. There are limited data suggesting that, as a group, patients with early onset CRC (eoCC) may have different phenotypic characteristics compared to those with late onset CRC (loCC, age ≥ 50 years). Methods: Individual patient data on 35,713 subjects with stage III CC from 25 randomized studies (recruiting between 1987 and 2009) in the ACCENT database were pooled. The distributions of demographics, clinicopathological features, biomarkers, and outcome data were summarized by age group. Overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence free rate (RFR), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed by Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox models stratified by treatment arms within studies, adjusting for gender, race, body mass index, performance status, disease stage, grade, risk group, number of lymph nodes examined, disease sidedness and molecular markers. Results: Using a 5% difference between age groups as the clinically meaningful cutoff, patients with stage III eoCC (n = 6246) had similar distributions according to gender, race, PS, risk group, tumor sidedness and T/N stage compared to those with loCC (n = 29467). Patients with eoCC were significantly less likely to be overweight (30.2% vs 36.2%) but more commonly had ≥ 12 lymph nodes resected (69.5% vs 58.7%). The eoCC tumors were more frequently mismatch repair deficient (16.4% vs 11.5%), and less likely to have BRAFV600E (5.6% vs 14.0%), suggesting a higher frequency of Lynch syndrome in eoCC. In univariate analysis, patients with stage III eoCC had significantly better OS, DFS, and SAR; the difference between 3-year DFS and RFR strongly suggests the OS/DFS difference between these the eoCC and loCC may be due to increased competing risks and comorbidities in patients with loCC. In multivariate analysis, age at onset lost its prognostic value when outcome was adjusted for molecular markers. The clear relation between age of onset and KRAS/BRAF status was confirmed in the interaction analysis. Conclusions: Tumor biology was an important determinant of prognosis regardless of patient age. In multivariate analysis age of onset was not a statistically significant determinant of outcome.[Table: see text]

Abstract Patients with core-binding factor (CBF) acute myeloid leukemia (AML), caused by either t(8;21)(q22;q22) or inv(16)(p13q22)/t(16;16)(p13;q22), have higher complete remission rates and longer survival than patients with other subtypes of AML. However, ∼40% of patients relapse, and the literature suggests that patients with inv(16) fare differently from those with t(8;21). We retrospectively analyzed 537 patients with CBF-AML, focusing on additional cytogenetic aberrations to examine their impact on clinical outcomes. Trisomies of chromosomes 8, 21, or 22 were significantly more common in patients with inv(16)/t(16;16): 16% vs 7%, 6% vs 0%, and 17% vs 0%, respectively. In contrast, del(9q) and loss of a sex chromosome were more frequent in patients with t(8;21): 15% vs 0.4% for del(9q), 37% vs 0% for loss of X in females, and 44% vs 5% for loss of Y in males. Hyperdiploidy was more frequent in patients with inv(16) (25% vs 9%, whereas hypodiploidy was more frequent in patients with t(8;21) (37% vs 3%. In multivariable analyses (adjusted for age, white blood counts at diagnosis, and KIT mutation status), trisomy 8 was associated with improved overall survival (OS) in inv(16), whereas the presence of other chromosomal abnormalities (not trisomy 8) was associated with decreased OS. In patients with t(8;21), hypodiploidy was associated with improved disease-free survival; hyperdiploidy and del(9q) were associated with improved OS. KIT mutation (either positive or not tested, compared with negative) conferred poor prognoses in univariate analysis only in patients with t(8;21).

Abstract Background: Approximately 1% of all new cases of breast cancer (BC) occur in men. Care of male BC is largely based on extrapolation from treatment strategies and management of symptoms in women. The impact of BC diagnosis and therapy on Quality of Life (QoL) in women with BC is well documented. Comprehensive, prospective data about QoL in men treated for BC are sparse. Due to the lack of a validated male BC QoL questionnaire, we previously evaluated the QoL of the male BC using the original EORTC QLQ-C30 and breast module QLQ BR23 with “female” items replaced by male-specific items from the EORTC QoL prostate module (EORTC QLQ-PR25). The development of a validated worldwide questionnaire for male BC is sponsored by EORTC QoL Group and will be completed in cooperation with EORTC Breast Group and the International Male BC Program (a cooperation between EORTC-BCG, TBCRC, within the BIG and NABCG networks) Trial design: The evaluation of the QoL issues relevant for male BC, as well as the translation of issues into items to build the tool for QoL assessment in male BC will be carried out through four phases: 1. A systematic Literature review 2. Interviews with patients 3. Interviews with Health Care Professionals (HCP) 4. Consultation of experts in Oncology and QoL Inclusion criteria: • Histologically proven early BC or metastatic BC in male patients • Age ≥ 18 years • Ability to understand and fill out questionnaires • Written informed consent Exclusion criteria: • Other cancer in the past 5 years except non-melanotic skin cancer • Patients participating in interventional clinical studies with QoL as primary endpoint • Any condition potentially hampering compliance with the study protocol Aims: The study proposes to carry out an evaluation of the QoL issues relevant for male patients with BC, and translating the issues into questions to build the tool for an adequate QoL assessment in these patients. The specific aims are: 1) To carry out an evaluation of the existing EORTC QLQ-BR 45 (adapting for male BC) and for suitability of use in male BC patients 2) To carry out an evaluation of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 (adapting for male BC) for suitability of use in male BC patients 3) To provide recommendations to the EORTC on a suitable assessment approach to assess QOL in male BC Statistical methods: A systematic literature review to assess what factors are unique to male BC patients in influencing their QoL and what QoL measures exist for them will be performed. This will be conducted by reviewing all studies with male BC participants and including investigator brochures describing side effects in male BC patients, as well as by evaluating issues captured by other existing EORTC modules. The final list of potential QoL issues relevant to the male BC will be tested for relevance and importance in semi-structured qualitative interviews with patients and HCP. A total of 2-5 patients per year will be recruited from collaborating hospitals/countries. At least 40 in total will be interviewed before, during, or after treatment for male BC. At least 2 experts/country from the all collaborating centres will be included in the interview to discuss and consider the potential issues. Finally, the issue list will be translated into questions to build the tool for a QoL assessment in male BC patients. Present accrual and target accrual This study started in October 2019. A systematic literature review has been completed. Seventeen centres from worldwide are participating in the study. New centers may still join. Contact information for people with a specific interest in the trial Vesna Bjelic-Radisic E-Mail: Vesna.Bjelic-Radisic@helios-gesundheit.de Fatima Cardoso e-mail: fatimacardoso@fundacaochampalimaud.pt Citation Format: Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Fatima Cardoso, Joachim Weis, Eveline Bleiker, David Cameron, Galina Velikova, Karatzyna Pogoda, Samantha Serpentini, Kevin Punie, Rinat Yerushalmi, Erika Matos, Birgit Carly, Ivana Bozovic-Spasojevic, Markus Fleisch, Zoe Luisa Probst, Sina Maria Schafer, Nicola Russell, Sofie Tombeur, Joanna Vermeij, Heidi Roelstraete, Kathryn Ruddy, Juan I Arraras, Andrew Bottomley. Adaption of the EORTC quality of life breast cancer module for male breast cancer - phase I [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT-14-01.

Introduction: The NHLBI National MDS Study (NCT02775383) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 92 community hospitals and 29 academic centers. It enrolls patients undergoing work up for suspected MDS to understand the genetic, epigenetic, and biological factors associated with the initiation and progression of the disease. Previously untreated, cytopenic participants undergo both local and centralized pathology review and are assigned a diagnosis, including MDS, MDS/MPN, AML with blasts < 30%, and "Other". Emerging data suggests that Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), along with cytogenetics and clinical variables, may improve MDS diagnostic precision. Given that our study relies on central review (with additional tertiary pathology review used to adjudicate disagreements), we examined whether targeted gene sequencing data could be used to increase the agreement between local and central pathologic diagnosis of MDS vs. Other. Methods: Peripheral blood and bone marrow (BM) biopsy specimens from cytopenic patients, along with clinical history, CBC, and other results including karyotyping, FISH and pathology reports from local pathologists were reviewed by central pathologists. The updated 2016 WHO classifications were used to diagnose MDS. Targeted exon sequencing of 96 genes was performed using BM specimens. A subset of 648 individuals that were classified as MDS (n=212) or Other (n=436, including 90 CCUS and 89 individuals with other cancers) by pathology assessments were selected. A mean coverage of 1,317X was achieved and variants had a minimum variant allele frequency (VAF) of 2% (except FLT3). Variants for 596 subjects were manually reviewed to retain likely disease-causing variants to build a binary classifier (MDS vs. Other) using the maximum VAF per gene as input (Figure 1). Subjects diagnosed with MDS or Other by both central and local pathology were used for training, validation, and testing, and were considered "gold standard" (GS) cases (n=546). These subjects were split into 4 random groups with equal proportions of MDS cases. 75% of the GS cases were used to train and validate lasso-regularized logistic regression models using 3-fold cross validation. ROC curve analysis was carried out using the remaining 25% of GS cases (Test Set 1) on the best model to identify an optimal probability cut off point for classifying subjects as MDS. Model performance was then tested on 50 subjects for which the central and local pathology diagnosis disagreed (Test Set 2), as well as on 52 additional subjects irrespective of agreement (Test Set 3). Results : The best performing logistic regression model retained 7 genes as most informative in a discriminating diagnosis of MDS from Other based on their VAFs, in order of impact: TP53, SF3B1, U2AF1, ASXL1, TET2,STAG2, and SRSF2. We used this model to assign probabilities for each of the subjects in Test Set 1 and to estimate the performance using ROC analysis (Figure 1), resulting in a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89. We chose a probability cut-off of ≥0.17, being associated with a high percentage of correct classification of MDS with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.90 and 0.81, respectively. Among the cohort of 50 subjects with a discordant local and central pathology diagnosis (Test Set 2), the classifier accurately reassigned 37 subjects (accuracy = 74%) from the local to the central pathology. The blinded tertiary pathology reviewer agreed with central in all Test Set 2 cases. This included 24/34 MDS cases that had been labeled as Other by local pathology (positive predictive value [PPV]=0.89). 3/16 final pathology-classified Other cases were mis-classified as MDS by the local pathologist (negative predictive value [NPV] = 0.57). Next, we assessed the ability of the model to predict MDS vs. Other for 52 additional independent subjects using the third pathologist's diagnosis to break any ties (Test Set 3). The classifier correctly predicted 15/21 MDS cases (PPV=0.83) and misclassified 6/31 Others as MDS (NPV=0.82). The overall accuracy was 83%. Conclusions: We identified that VAFs for 7 genes can correctly re-classify subjects as either MDS or Other in 74% of cases that were misclassified between local and central pathology review. Further assessment on an independent cohort showed an accuracy of 83% of the model. Taken together, these data suggest that complementing pathology reviews with targeted sequencing of 7 genes could improve MDS diagnosis. Disclosures Lindsley: MedImmune: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bejar:Aptose Biosciences: Current Employment; AbbVie/Genentech: Honoraria; Astex/Otsuka: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Forty-Seven/Gilead: Honoraria; Genoptix/NeoGenomics: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foran:H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Komrokji:Acceleron: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Alexion, BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Padron:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Starczynowski:Captor Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tolero Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kurome Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Abstract This International Consensus Classification and Nomenclature for the congenital bicuspid aortic valve condition recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valves: 1. The fused type (right-left cusp fusion, right-non-coronary cusp fusion and left-non-coronary cusp fusion phenotypes); 2. The 2-sinus type (latero-lateral and antero-posterior phenotypes); and 3. The partial-fusion (forme fruste) type. The presence of raphe and the symmetry of the fused type phenotypes are critical aspects to describe. The International Consensus also recognizes 3 types of bicuspid valve-associated aortopathy: 1. The ascending phenotype; 2. The root phenotype; and 3. Extended phenotypes.

Abstract This International evidence-based nomenclature and classification consensus on the congenital bicuspid aortic valve and its aortopathy recognizes 3 types of bicuspid aortic valve: 1. Fused type, with 3 phenotypes: right-left cusp fusion, right-non cusp fusion and left-non cusp fusion; 2. 2-sinus type with 2 phenotypes: Latero-lateral and antero-posterior; and 3. Partial-fusion or forme fruste. This consensus recognizes 3 bicuspid-aortopathy types: 1. Ascending phenotype; root phenotype; and 3. extended phenotypes.

The NCCN Guidelines for Central Nervous System (CNS) Cancers focus on management of adult CNS cancers ranging from noninvasive and surgically curable pilocytic astrocytomas to metastatic brain disease. The involvement of an interdisciplinary team, including neurosurgeons, radiation therapists, oncologists, neurologists, and neuroradiologists, is a key factor in the appropriate management of CNS cancers. Integrated histopathologic and molecular characterization of brain tumors such as gliomas should be standard practice. This article describes NCCN Guidelines recommendations for WHO grade I, II, III, and IV gliomas. Treatment of brain metastases, the most common intracranial tumors in adults, is also described.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts >5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

AbstractInfection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient‐ and surgeon‐dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting postoperative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 0.9–54.5; p = .045). Diabetes (odds ratio, 28.6; 95% CI, 5.5–149.9; p = .004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR.