Citations

Background: Gilteritinib is approved for the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) AML and FLT3-mutation (FLT3mut+). However, the gilteritinib phase 3 ADMIRAL study (Perl et al NEJM 2019) enrolled prior to widespread adoption of either midostaurin as a component of standard intensive induction and consolidation or post-transplant FLT3inhibitor (FLT3i) maintenance. Some mechanisms of drug resistance can be shared across FLT3i's, suggesting response to gilteritinib might differ in patients treated with frontline FLT3i. A better understanding of how prior therapy modulates response to gilteritinib is necessary to clarify this novel agent's role in the current FLT3-mutated AML treatment algorithm. Methods: This is an ongoing multi-institutional analysis from 13 US centers identifying patients who received gilteritinib alone or as combination therapy for the treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patients who received gilteritinib as a part of an ongoing trial were excluded. Response criteria were identical to the ADMIRAL trial. For patients with available data and a composite complete remission (CRc), we defined clinically measurable residual disease (cMRD) negative status by bone marrow flow cytometry using a cutoff of <1 x 10x105 cells as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for FLT3 mutation with a minimum sensitivity of 5%. Survival from the time of gilteritinib initiation was recorded. Multivariate analysis included all variables collected to determine interaction with patient outcome (CR and survival data). Kaplan-Meier curves and log rank test were used for survival analysis after gilteritinib initiation. Results: 72 patients treated with prior FLT3i exposure received gilteritinib for treatment of R/R FLT3mut+ AML. Patient characteristics are presented in table-1 with 46 (64%) previously receiving midostaurin, 19 (26%) sorafenib, and 7 (10%) other FLT3i. 8 (11%) received more than one prior TKI. NGS at diagnosis were available in 66 patients (92%) and co-mutations in DNMT3A, NPM1 and NRAS were observed in more than 10% of patients. Average duration of gilteritinib therapy was 5.7 months (range: 0.2-25 months). 27 (37.5%) received stem cell transplant (SCT) before gilteritinib and 15 (21%) underwent SCT after gilteritinib. The composite CR rate (CRc, defined as CR + CRi + CRp) was 51.4% (n= 37 patients). With regard to specific FLT3i's, we found no significant difference in median survival (7.1 months and 6.4 months for midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively) or remission rates (CRc 54% and 47% for prior midostaurin and sorafenib, respectively). The CRc rate for patients who received only prior 7+3 and midostaurin with or without consolidation was 58% with a median survival of 7.8 months. A trend toward higher CRc rate was noted in patients treated with gilteritinib in combination regimens rather than as a single agent (64% vs 43%, respectively, p=0.09 using Chi-square test). No survival advantage for combination therapy was seen over single agent. Survival was longest in patients who obtained a CR, particularly a cMRD negative response; this remained significant after censoring at the time of SCT (figures 1&2). Patients who received SCT after gilteritinib had significantly longer survival than non-transplanted patients (9.3 months vs 5.6 months, respectively, HR 0.44, 95% CI 0.2-0.8)(figure-3). Patients with concurrent mutations of NPM1/DNMT3A had a trend toward a higher CRc compared to FLT3 mutation alone (71% vs 50%, p= 0.2) but similar survival. With regard to mutations associated with drug resistance to other FLT3i's, patients with both FLT3-ITD and FLT3-D835 mutation had similar response and survival to FLT3-ITD alone. However, patients with MAPK pathway activating mutations (e.g. NRAS and PTPN11) had lower CRc (37.5% vs 59.5%) and poorer median survival than other patients (3.3 months vs 7.5 months) (HR 2.2- 95% CI 1.1-4.4) p value <0.01(figure-4). Conclusions: In this multi-center, retrospective analysis, gilteritinib remains a clinically active agent after treatment failure of prior FLT3i's (midostaurin or sorafenib). Mutations activating MAPK pathway have been implicated in secondary gilteritinib resistance but are seldom co-mutated at initial FLT3mut+ AML diagnosis. While further study is required, we hypothesize that their detection after frontline FLT3i therapy may represent treatment-emergent clones with propensity for pan-FLT3i resistance. Disclosures Zeidan: Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria; Aprea: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; CCITLA: Other; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Yilmaz:Pint Pharma: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Daicho Sankyo: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; 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; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy. Daver:Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Syndax: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Servier: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novimmune: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Fate Therapeutics: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Perl:Novartis: Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Other; FORMA Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Actinium Pharmaceuticals Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; New Link Genetics: Honoraria, Other; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: writing/editorial support, travel costs for meeting presentations related to study, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Writing/editorial support, travel costs for meetings, Research Funding; Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Beat AML: Consultancy; Arog Pharmaceuticals Inc: Other: uncompensated consulting, travel costs for meetings; FUJIFILM Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel costs for meeting. Altman:Kartos: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Amphivena: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Syros: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Immune Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; ASH: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety and monitoring committee; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Advisory Board - no payment but was reimbursed for travel; Kura Oncology: Other: Scientific Advisory Board - no payment accepted, Research Funding; BioSight: Other: No payment but was reimbursed for travel , Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Agios: Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Theradex: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Other: Advisory Board, Speaker (no payment), Steering Committee (no payment), Research Funding; PrIME Oncology: Consultancy; PeerView: Consultancy; Cancer Expert Now: Consultancy; France Foundation: Consultancy; Fujifilm: Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Some of the patients we are reporting on received gilteritinib in combination with other agents which is off-label use.

Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) are known to differentially impact prognosis in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Deletion6q23 (del6q23) has been reported in ~2-3% of CLL patients at diagnosis; however, its prognostic significance remains indeterminate. Methods: We identified previously untreated CLL patients from the Mayo Clinic CLL Database seen between 1/1995 - 2/2020 who had FISH performed. The clinical characteristics, concomitant cytogenetic abnormalities, time to first therapy (TTFT), and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with del6q23 to those without this abnormality. TTFT was analyzed from FISH date until treatment or last known untreated date, accounting for competing risk of death. OS was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier methods from FISH date. In a matched (CLL-IPI risk score and sex) analysis, Cox regression analysis was used to determine the association between TTFT/OS and presence of del6q23. The Mayo Clinic IRB approved this study. Results: A total of 3101 CLL patients were identified; their median age at diagnosis was 64 years and 66% were male. Of these patients, 42 (1.3%) had evidence of del6q23 by FISH. Compared to patients without del6q23, patients with del6q23 carried a more adverse clinical and cytogenetic profile at the time of diagnosis including advanced Rai stage (22% Rai III/IV vs. 9% Rai III/IV; P = 0.002), unmutated IGHV genes (91% vs. 43%; P < 0.001), and high/very high risk CLL-IPI (50% vs. 27%; P < 0.001). Del6q23 was the sole abnormality in 13 patients (31%). Of the remaining patients, del6q23 was concomitantly present with del13q in 8 patients (19%), and with either del11q or del17p in 21 patients (50%). Of the 42 patients with del6q23, 29 received first line therapy: chemoimmunotherapy in 16 patients, BTK inhibitor in 7 patients, and an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody alone in 6 patients. The median follow-up of the entire cohort was 7.3 years. The median TTFT in patients with del6q23 was 0.7 years while the 5-year OS was 76%. Patients with del6q23 demonstrated significantly shorter TTFT and reduced OS when compared to patients without del6q23 (Figures 1A and 1B). The shorter TTFT was also evident for patients with del6q23 compared to patients without del6q23 divided according to the Dohner risk category (Figure 2A), although there was no difference in OS between these groups of patients (Figure 2B). Because del6q23 patients were enriched for other unfavorable prognostic markers, we identified four control patients without del6q23, matched by CLL-IPI risk score and sex, to each treatment-naïve patient with del6q23. Patients with del6q23 showed a borderline statistically significant shorter TTFT (median 0.7 years versus 3.9 years; P = 0.07) and a nonsignificant association with OS (median 10.9 years versus 10.3 years; P = 0.28). Conclusion: Del6q23 by FISH in previously untreated CLL represents an uncommon abnormality. When compared to patients without del6q23, patients with del6q23 tend to have more adverse clinical and cytogenetic profiles at baseline, which likely confer a worse prognosis as reflected by shorter TTFT compared to patients without this abnormality. Figure Disclosures Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Kay:Sunesis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kenderian:Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Parikh:Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; Verastem Oncology: Honoraria.

Introduction: Cryopreservation of peripheral blood stem cell (PBSC) or bone marrow (BM) grafts is rarely performed, thus information about the effect of cryopreservation on graft characteristics and HCT outcomes is limited. Given the global pandemic leading to changing practices for donor graft collection and increasing utilization of cryopreservation, we evaluated the outcomes of HCT recipients who received either fresh or cryopreserved allogeneic BM or PBSC grafts. The primary endpoint was engraftment. Secondary endpoints were incidence of acute graft-vs.-host disease (aGVHD), relapse, transplant related mortality (TRM), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods: We included 7397 patients transplanted between 2013 and 2018. 1883 cryopreserved graft recipients were divided into three cohorts based on graft source and donor type: matched related (MRD) PBSC (n=1,051), matched unrelated (MUD) PBSC (n=678), and matched related or unrelated bone marrow donors (n=154). All patients received conventional calcineurin-based GVHD prophylaxis strategies. Patients who received cryopreserved grafts were matched with 5514 patients who received fresh adjusting for graft type (BM vs. PB), donor source (MRD vs. 8/8 MUD), Disease Risk Index (DRI, low risk vs. intermediate risk vs. high risk), recipient age (within 5-years) and propensity score (within 1 standard deviation from pooled sample). The propensity score was based on age, Karnofsky score, diagnosis, disease risk index, HCT-comorbidity index, and conditioning intensity. The level of statistical significance for the main analyses was p<0.01 due to multiple comparisons. The reason for cryopreservation was available on a subset of URD product recipients. Results: Baseline characteristics for all cohorts are shown in Table 1. CD34+ doses reflect enumeration at infusion. In univariate analyses, rates of graft failure and neutrophil recovery at day 28 were similar for cryopreserved and fresh grafts for BM or related PBSC recipients but differed in cryopreserved vs. fresh MUD PBSC (5% vs 2%, p<0.001 and 87 vs 94%, p<0.001, respectively). Rates of platelet recovery within 28 days were similar in marrow cohorts, but lower with cryopreserved related (92% vs 96%, p<0.001) and MUD PBSC (87 vs 94%, p<0.001) grafts. In matched pair multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in any outcomes with cryopreserved vs fresh BM grafts, irrespective of donor type. With related donor PBSC, cryopreservation was associated with decreased platelet recovery (HR=0.73, CI=0.68-0.78, p<0.001) and an increased risk of both grade II-IV (HR=1.27, CI=1.09-1.48, p=0.002) and grade III-IV (HR=1.48, CI=1.19-1.84, p<0.001) aGVHD, but had no impact on other outcomes. In contrast, with MUD PBSC grafts, cryopreservation was associated with delayed engraftment of neutrophils (HR=0.77, CI=0.71-0.84, p<0.001) and platelets (HR=0.61, CI=0.56-0.66, p<0.001), an increased risk of TRM (HR=1.4, CI=1.18-1.66, p<0.001) and relapse (HR=1.32, CI=1.11-1.58, p=0.002), and decreased DFS (HR=1.36, CI=1.20-1.55, p<0.001) and OS (HR=1.38, CI=1.22-1.58, p<0.001) but did not affect the incidence of aGVHD. In a subset analysis of 299 URD recipients, the most common reason for cryopreservation was delays due to patient-related events, eg., additional chemotherapy, infection. These recipients had decreased OS compared to products cryopreserved for non-patient reasons (HR=0.65, CI=0.44-0.96, p=0.029). Conclusions: The retrospective nature of this analysis, and the fact that cryopreservation is likely to have been performed in recipients with a different (higher) risk profile compared to those receiving fresh products limits our ability to draw firm confusions. Despite these limitations, we conclude that cryopreservation in some patient populations may have a negative impact on engraftment and transplant outcomes. The decision to cryopreserve donor grafts, particularly PBSC grafts, should be carefully considered and highlights the need for further investigation of the effect of cryopreservation of allogeneic grafts where patient factors can be controlled for. Disclosures Farhadfar: CSL Behring: Research Funding; Incyte pharmaceutical: Other: Member of GVHD advisory forum. Frey:Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Syntax: Consultancy, Honoraria. Devine:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy. Shaw:Orca Bio: Consultancy. Wingard:Shire: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Ansun: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Merck: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; Cidara: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial; ReViral: Other: Personal Fees - serve on data monitoring committee for clinical trial.

Scientific societies aiming to foster inclusion of scientists from underrepresented (UR) backgrounds among their membership often delegate primary responsibility for this goal to a diversity-focused committee. The National Science Foundation has funded the creation of the Alliance to Catalyze Change for Equity in STEM Success (ACCESS), a meta-organization bringing together representatives from several such STEM society committees to serve as a hub for a growing community of practice. Our goal is to coordinate efforts to advance inclusive practices by sharing experiences and making synergistic discoveries about what works. ACCESS has analyzed the approaches by which member societies have sought to ensure inclusivity through selection of annual meeting speakers. Here we discuss how inclusive speaker selection fosters better scientific environments for all and identify challenges and promising practices for societies striving to maximize inclusivity of speakers in their scientific programming.

Abstract BackgroundNiemann–Pick disease type C (NPC) is a rare, progressive, neurodegenerative disease associated with neurovisceral manifestations resulting from lysosomal dysfunction and aberrant lipid accumulation. A multicentre, prospective observational study (ClinicalTrials.gov ID:NCT02435030) of individuals with genetically confirmed NPC1 or NPC2 receiving routine clinical care was conducted, to prospectively characterize and measure NPC disease progression and to investigate potential NPC-related biomarkers versus healthy individuals. Progression was measured using the abbreviated 5-domain NPC Clinical Severity Scale (NPCCSS), 17-domain NPCCSS and NPC clinical database (NPC-cdb) score. Cholesterol esterification and heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) levels were assessed from peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), cholestane-3β,5α-,6β-triol (cholestane-triol) from serum, and unesterified cholesterol from both PBMCs and skin biopsy samples. The inter- and intra-rater reliability of the 5-domain NPCCSS was assessed by 13 expert clinicians’ rating of four participants via video recordings, repeated after ≥3 weeks. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.ResultsOf the 36 individuals with NPC (2–18 years) enrolled, 31 (86.1%) completed the 6–14-month observation period; 30/36 (83.3%) were receiving miglustat as part of routine clinical care. A mean (±SD) increase in 5-domain NPCCSS scores of 1.4 (±2.9) was observed, corresponding to an annualized progression rate of 1.5. On the 17-domain NPCCSS, a mean (±SD) progression of 2.7 (±4.0) was reported. Compared with healthy individuals, the NPC population had significantly lower levels of cholesterol esterification (p<0.0001), HSP70 (p<0.0001) and skin unesterified cholesterol (p=0.0006). Cholestane-triol levels were significantly higher in individuals with NPC versus healthy individuals (p=0.008) and correlated with the 5-domain NPCCSS (Spearman’s correlation coefficient=0.265, p=0.0411). The 5-domain NPCCSS showed high ICC agreement in inter-rater reliability (ICC=0.995) and intra-rater reliability (ICC=0.937). ConclusionsProgression rates observed were consistent with other reports on disease progression in NPC. The 5-domain NPCCSS reliability study supports its use as an abbreviated alternative to the 17-domain NPCCSS that focuses on the most relevant domains of the disease. The data support the use of cholestane-triol as a disease monitoring biomarker and the novel methods of measuring unesterified cholesterol could be applicable to support NPC diagnosis. Levels of HSP70 in individuals with NPC were significantly decreased compared with healthy individuals.

Background: Neuromuscular training (NMT) has been shown to attenuate high-risk biomechanics in uninjured athletes. At the time that athletes return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), they demonstrate hip biomechanical deficits associated with injury to the reconstructed knee versus the uninjured contralateral knee. Purpose: The primary purpose of the study was to examine whether an NMT program can improve single-leg drop (SLD) landing hip biomechanics for athletes after ACLR. Secondarily, we compared the posttraining SLD hip biomechanics of athletes after ACLR with a control group of athletes who also completed the NMT program. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 18 ACLR and 10 uninjured athletes were recruited and completed a 12-session NMT program. A knee-specific questionnaire and biomechanics of an SLD task was evaluated for each athlete before and after NMT. Paired t tests were used to compare pre- and posttraining International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to assess the main effects and interactions of testing session × limb for the ACLR athletes. A 2-way ANOVA was conducted to quantify the interactions and main effects of group × limb. Results: There was a significant increase ( P = .03) in IKDC scores from pre- to posttraining. For the ACLR athletes, there was a significant session × limb interaction for hip external rotation moment ( P = .02) and hip abduction angle ( P = .013). Despite increases in hip external rotation moment, no significant changes from pre- to posttraining were observed for the involved limbs. No significant changes were observed for hip abduction angle of the involved limbs between training sessions. Significant main effects of session ( P < .05) revealed that athletes landed with greater hip excursion, lower hip flexion moment, and lower ground-reaction force after training. The posttraining comparison between the ACLR and control groups found no significant group × limb interactions for any of the hip kinematic or kinetic variables. A significant main effect of group ( P < .05) revealed that the ACLR athletes landed with greater hip flexion angle and hip external rotation moment. Conclusion: ACLR athletes demonstrated an improvement in SLD hip biomechanics and neuromuscular control after participating in an NMT program. Clinical Relevance: This evidence indicates a potential role for NMT to improve hip biomechanics during an SLD task so as to reduce ACL injury risk.

Abstract To evaluate the racial and ethnic differences in prevalence of germline pathogenic variants (PVs) and the effect of race and ethnicity on breast cancer (BC) risk among carriers, results of multigene testing of 77 900 women with BC (non-Hispanic White [NHW] = 57 003; Ashkenazi-Jewish = 4798; Black = 6722; Hispanic = 5194; and Asian = 4183) were analyzed, and the frequency of PVs in each gene were compared between BC patients (cases) and race- and ethnicity-matched gnomAD reference controls. Compared with NHWs, BRCA1 PVs were enriched in Ashkenazi-Jews and Hispanics, whereas CHEK2 PVs were statistically significantly lower in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians (all 2-sided P &lt; .05). In case-control studies, BARD1 PVs were associated with high risks (odds ratio &gt; 4.00) of BC in Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians; ATM PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among all races and ethnicities except Asians, whereas CHEK2 and BRIP1 PVs were associated with increased risk of BC among NHWs and Hispanics only. These findings suggest a need for personalized management of BC risk in PV carriers based on race and ethnicity.

BackgroundThe association of community factors and outcomes after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) has not been comprehensively described. Using the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps (CHRR) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), this study evaluated the impact of community health status on allogeneic HCT outcomes.MethodsThis study included 18,544 adult allogeneic HCT recipients reported to the CIBMTR by 170 US centers in 2014‐2016. Sociodemographic, environmental, and community indicators were derived from the CHRR, an aggregate community risk score was created, and scores were assigned to each patient (patient community risk score [PCS]) and transplant center (center community risk score [CCS]). Higher scores indicated less healthy communities. The impact of PCS and CCS on patient outcomes after allogeneic HCT was studied.ResultsThe median age was 55 years (range, 18‐83 years). The median PCS was –0.21 (range, –1.37 to 2.10; standard deviation [SD], 0.42), and the median CCS was –0.13 (range, –1.04 to 0.96; SD, 0.40). In multivariable analyses, a higher PCS was associated with inferior survival (hazard ratio [HR] per 1 SD increase, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0089). Among hematologic malignancies, a tendency toward inferior survival was observed with a higher PCS (HR, 1.04; 99% CI, 1.00‐1.08; P = .0102); a higher PCS was associated with higher nonrelapse mortality (NRM; HR, 1.08; 99% CI, 1.02‐1.15; P = .0004). CCS was not significantly associated with survival, relapse, or NRM.ConclusionsPatients residing in counties with a worse community health status have inferior survival as a result of an increased risk of NRM after allogeneic HCT. There was no association between the community health status of the transplant center location and allogeneic HCT outcomes.

Abstract Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is often diagnosed too late for effective therapy. The classic strategy for early detection biomarker advancement consists of initial retrospective phases of discovery and validation with tissue samples taken from individuals diagnosed with disease, compared with controls. Using this approach, we previously reported the discovery of a blood biomarker panel consisting of thrombospondin-2 (THBS2) and CA19-9 that together could discriminate resectable stage I and IIa PDAC as well as stages III and IV PDAC, with c-statistic values in the range of 0.96 to 0.97 in two phase II studies. We now report that in two studies of blood samples prospectively collected from 1 to 15 years prior to a PDAC diagnosis (Mayo Clinic and PLCO cohorts), THBS2 and/or CA19-9 failed to discriminate cases from healthy controls at the AUC = 0.8 needed. We conclude that PDAC progression may be heterogeneous and for some individuals can be more rapid than generally appreciated. It is important that PDAC early-detection studies incorporate high-risk, prospective prediagnostic cohorts into discovery and validation studies. Prevention Relevance: A blood biomarker panel of THBS2 and CA19-9 detects early stages of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma at diagnosis, but not when tested across a population up to 1 year earlier. Our findings suggest serial sampling over time, using prospectively collected samples for biomarker discovery, and more frequent screening of high-risk individuals.