Citations

Abstract Roughly 50% of newly diagnosed breast cancer is stage 1, the majority being ER/PR positive, HER2- negative. Genomic assays such as Oncotype DX® have identified patients with reduced distant metastasis and lack of chemotherapy benefit, allowing patients to avoid excess toxicity. These genomic assays have been shown to be prognostic for local-regional recurrence (LRR). The de-escalation of therapy is of interest to patients, providers, and payers. Low risk, as identified by both the use of Oncotype and Mammaprint® is associated with low LRR after lumpectomy and breast radiotherapy. TRIAL DESIGN: In the DEBRA trial, we hypothesized that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) alone is non-inferior to BCS plus radiotherapy for in-breast cancer control and breast preservation in women intending appropriate endocrine therapy for stage 1 (ER and/or PR-positive, HER2-negative, and Oncotype DX Recurrence Score [RS] low) breast cancer. Stratification is by age (<60; ≥60), tumor size (≤1 cm; >1-2 cm), and RS <11, RS 11-18. Patients are randomized to either breast radiotherapy (RT) plus endocrine therapy (arm 1) or to observation and endocrine therapy (arm 2). Arm 1 therapy is post-lumpectomy breast RT using standard methods (hypo- or conventional-fractionated whole breast irradiation with or without boost, accelerated partial breast irradiation) and at least 5 years of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor). In arm 2, at least 5 years of endocrine therapy (tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitor) will be given. The specific regimen of endocrine therapy in both arms is at the treating physician’s discretion. ELIGIBLITY: Patients who are stage 1: pT1 (2 cm), pN0, age ≥50 to <70 years, status post (s/p) lumpectomy with negative margins (no ink on tumor ), s/p axillary nodal staging (SNB or AND), ER and/or PR positive by ASCO/CAP, HER2-negative by ASCO/CAP, and Oncotype DX RS of ≤18 on diagnostic core biopsy or resected specimen. ENDPOINTS: Primary: In-breast recurrence (IBR). Secondary: Breast conservation rate, invasive in-breast recurrence (IIBR), relapse free interval (RFI), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), overall survival (OS), patient-reported breast pain, patient-reported worry about recurrence, and adherence to endocrine therapy. STATISTICS: We assume a clinically acceptable difference in IBR of 4% at 10 years to judge omission of RT as non-inferior (10-year event-free survival for RT group is 95.6% versus 91.6% for the omission of RT group). To be able to detect non-inferiority with 80% power and a one sided α=0.025, and assuming that there would be a ramp-up in accrual in the first two years of the study (leveling off in Years 3-5), 1,670 (835 per arm) patients are required to be randomized. This conservatively assumes loss to follow-up will be 1% per year. Some of the T1a patients accrued to this study will have oncotype DX scores >18, making them ineligible for the study. An extra step in the accrual process will require us to register 1,714 patients to ensure our final randomized cohort is 1,670 patients. Accrual: Screen 1,714 to randomize 1,670 into the study. Contact information: Protocol: CTSU member website: https://www.ctsu.org. NRG Oncology Pgh Clinical Coordinating Dpt: 1-800-477-7227 or ccd@nsabp.org. Support: U10CA180868, U10CA180822. NCT04852887. Citation Format: Julia White, Stewart J Anderson, Eleanor ER Harris, Eleftherios P Mamounas, Daniel G Stover, Patricia A Ganz, Reshma Jagsi, Reena S Cecchini, Carmen Bergom, Valerie Theberge, Mahmoud El-Tamer, Rich C Zellars, Dean A Shumway, Guang-Pei Chen, Thomas B Julian, Norman Wolmark. Evaluating de-escalation of breast radiation (DEBRA) following lumpectomy for breast conservative treatment of stage 1, hr+, HER2-, RS ≤18 breast cancer: NRG-BR007 a phase III trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-18-04.

AbstractModern fluoroscopes used for image guidance have become quite complex. Adding to this complexity are the many regulatory and accreditation requirements that must be fulfilled during acceptance testing of a new unit. Further, some of these acceptance tests have pass/fail criteria, whereas others do not, making acceptance testing a subjective and time‐consuming task. The AAPM Task Group 272 Report spells out the details of tests that are required and gives visibility to some of the tests that while not yet required are recommended as good practice. The organization of the report begins with the most complicated fluoroscopes used in interventional radiology or cardiology and continues with general fluoroscopy and mobile C‐arms. Finally, the appendices of the report provide useful information, an example report form and topics that needed their own section due to the level of detail.

AbstractBackgroundMultiple myeloma (MM) measurable residual disease (MRD) evaluated by flow cytometry is a surrogate for progression‐free and overall survival in clinical trials. However, analysis and reporting between centers lack uniformity. We designed and evaluated a consensus protocol for MM MRD analysis to reduce inter‐laboratory variation in MM MRD reporting.MethodsSeventeen participants from 13 countries performed blinded analysis of the same eight de‐identified flow cytometry files from patients with/without MRD using their own method (Stage 1). A consensus gating protocol was then designed following survey and discussions, and the data re‐analyzed for MRD and other bone marrow cells (Stage 2). Inter‐laboratory variation using the consensus strategy was reassessed for another 10 cases and compared with earlier results (Stage 3).ResultsIn Stage 1, participants agreed on MRD+/MRD− status 89% and 68% of the time respectively. Inter‐observer variation was high for total numbers of analyzed cells, total and normal plasma cells (PCs), limit of detection, lower limit of quantification, and enumeration of cell populations that determine sample adequacy. The identification of abnormal PCs remained relatively consistent. By consensus method, average agreement on MRD− status improved to 74%. Better consistency enumerating all parameters among operators resulted in near‐unanimous agreement on sample adequacy.ConclusionUniform flow cytometry data analysis substantially reduced inter‐laboratory variation in reporting multiple components of the MM MRD assay. Adoption of a harmonized approach would meet an important need for conformity in reporting MM MRD for clinical trials, and wider acceptance of MM MRD as a surrogate clinical endpoint.

The NCCN Guidelines for Squamous Cell Skin Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, clinical stage, and treatment options for patients with cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. The NCCN panel meets annually to discuss updates to the guidelines based on comments from panel members and the Institutional Review, as well as submissions from within NCCN and external organizations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the introduction of a new surgical recommendation terminology (peripheral and deep en face margin assessment), as well as recent updates on topical prophylaxis, immunotherapy for regional and metastatic disease, and radiation therapy.

Microglial homeostasis has emerged as a critical mediator of health and disease in the central nervous system. In their neuroprotective role as the predominant immune cells of the brain, microglia surveil the microenvironment for debris and pathogens, while also promoting neurogenesis and performing maintenance on synapses. Chronological ageing, disease onset, or traumatic injury promotes irreparable damage or deregulated signaling to reinforce neurotoxic phenotypes in microglia. These insults may include cellular senescence, a stable growth arrest often accompanied by the production of a distinctive pro‐inflammatory secretory phenotype, which may contribute to age‐ or disease‐driven decline in neuronal health and cognition and is a potential novel therapeutic target. Despite this increased scrutiny, unanswered questions remain about what distinguishes senescent microglia and non‐senescent microglia reacting to insults occurring in ageing, disease, and injury, and how central the development of senescence is in their pivot from guardian to assailant. To intelligently design future studies to untangle senescent microglia from other primed and reactionary states, specific criteria must be developed that define this population and allow for comparisons between different model systems. Comparing microglial activity seen in homeostasis, ageing, disease, and injury allows for a more coherent understanding of when and how senescent and other harmful microglial subpopulations should be targeted.

PurposeTo improve the estimation of coil sensitivity functions from limited auto‐calibration signals (ACS) in SENSE‐based reconstruction for brain imaging.MethodsWe propose to use deep learning to estimate coil sensitivity functions by leveraging information from previous scans obtained using the same RF receiver system. Specifically, deep convolutional neural networks were designed to learn an end‐to‐end mapping from the initial sensitivity to the high‐resolution counterpart. Sensitivity alignment was further proposed to reduce the geometric variation caused by different subject positions and imaging FOVs. Cross‐validation with a small set of datasets was performed to validate the learned neural network. Iterative SENSE reconstruction was adopted to evaluate the utility of the sensitivity functions from the proposed and conventional methods.ResultsThe proposed method produced improved sensitivity estimates and SENSE reconstructions compared to the conventional methods in terms of aliasing and noise suppression with very limited ACS data. Cross‐validation with a small set of data demonstrated the feasibility of learning coil sensitivity functions for brain imaging. The network learned on the spoiled GRE data can be applied to predict sensitivity functions for spin‐echo and MPRAGE datasets.ConclusionA deep learning‐based method has been proposed for improving the estimation of coil sensitivity functions. Experimental results have demonstrated the feasibility and potential of the proposed method for improving SENSE‐based reconstructions especially when the ACS data are limited.

Abstract Introduction: The phase 3 MAIA study (NCT02252172) evaluated the addition of daratumumab (D) to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) in patients (pts) with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM). At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, D-Rd prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) versus Rd alone, despite almost half of the pts in the Rd arm who received subsequent therapy receiving a daratumumab-containing regimen as any subsequent line of therapy (Facon T, et al. Presented at: European Hematology Association 2021 Virtual Congress. Abstract LB1901). Approximately 20% to 50% of pts with MM have baseline renal impairment that can affect the choice and efficacy of therapy (Dimopoulos MA, et al. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2016;34[13]:1544-1557). Here, we report results from MAIA for D-Rd vs Rd in pts with impaired renal function based on lenalidomide starting dose at a median follow-up of 56.2 months. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation due to age ≥65 years or comorbidities were randomized 1:1 to receive D-Rd or Rd. Pts in both arms received 28-day cycles of oral Rd (R: 25 mg [10 mg recommended if creatinine clearance (CrCl) was 30-50 mL/min] on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg [20 mg if aged >75 years or body-mass index <18.5 kg/m 2] on Days 1, 8, 15, 22). Pts in the D-Rd arm also received intravenous D (16 mg/kg once weekly for Cycles 1-2, once every 2 weeks for Cycles 3-6, and once every 4 weeks thereafter). Pts in both arms were treated until disease progression or unacceptable safety events. The primary endpoint was PFS, and a secondary endpoint was OS. Renal impairment was defined as a baseline CrCl of ≤60 mL/min. Results: 737 pts were randomized (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369); 162 (44%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 142 (38%) pts in the Rd arm had renal impairment as defined. At a median follow-up of 56.2 months, in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg (25 mg subgroup; D-Rd, n=60 [37%]; Rd, n=62 [44%]), a PFS and OS advantage was observed with D-Rd versus Rd (Table). In pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of <25 mg (<25 mg subgroup; D-Rd, n=98 [60%]; Rd, n=75 [53%]), median PFS and OS were prolonged with D-Rd versus Rd (Table). Among pts in the 25 mg subgroup who died (D-Rd, n=12; Rd, n=29), disease progression was the primary cause of death in 6 (50%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 10 (34%) pts in the Rd arm. Among pts in the <25 mg subgroup who died (D-Rd, n=44; Rd, n=37), disease progression was the primary cause of death in 16 (36%) pts in the D-Rd arm and 11 (30%) pts in the Rd arm. Conclusion: After ~5 years of follow-up, D-Rd showed a PFS improvement versus Rd in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM and renal impairment regardless of lenalidomide starting dose. An OS advantage for D-Rd versus Rd was observed in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of 25 mg; in pts with renal impairment who received a lenalidomide starting dose of <25 mg, median OS was prolonged for D-Rd versus Rd, but the OS benefit was less pronounced. Overall, among pts with renal impairment, PFS and OS benefits of D-Rd versus Rd were observed regardless of lenalidomide starting dose; however, dose recommendations per the lenalidomide prescribing information should be followed. Many transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM may not receive a second line of therapy; our results support the frontline use of D-Rd to provide prolonged disease control in transplant-ineligible pts with NDMM and renal impairment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Usmani: Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar: Novartis: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Plesner: CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, EcoR1 Capital LLC, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sanofi-Aventis, and Takeda P: Consultancy, Honoraria; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; Asylia Therapeutics, Inc.: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Patents & Royalties; Amgen, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Forma Therapeutics, Genzyme, GSK Biologicals, Janssen Biotech, Juno Therapeutics, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Inc., Kite Pharma, Neoleukin Corporation, Oncopeptides AB, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, I: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moreau: Abbvie: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria. Bahlis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; abbvie: Honoraria. Quach: GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; CSL: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Antengene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding. O'Dwyer: ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy. Perrot: Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: 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; BMS Celgene: 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; Abbvie: Honoraria. Venner: Janssen: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding. Weisel: Novartis: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Roche: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding. Leleu: Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Pei: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh: Janssen: Current Employment. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment.

ObjectiveThe relative risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and COVID‐19 disease severity among people with rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) compared to those without RMDs is unclear. This study was undertaken to quantify the risk of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in those with RMDs and describe clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 in these patients.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature review using 14 databases from January 1, 2019 to February 13, 2021. We included observational studies and experimental trials in RMD patients that described comparative rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection, hospitalization, oxygen supplementation/intensive care unit (ICU) admission/mechanical ventilation, or death attributed to COVID‐19. Methodologic quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools or the Newcastle‐Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (RRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated, as applicable for each outcome, using the Mantel‐Haenszel formula with random effects models.ResultsOf the 5,799 abstracts screened, 100 studies met the criteria for inclusion in the systematic review, and 54 of 100 had a low risk of bias. Among the studies included in the meta‐analyses, we identified an increased prevalence of SARS–CoV‐2 infection in patients with an RMD (RR 1.53 [95% CI 1.16–2.01]) compared to the general population. The odds of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mechanical ventilation were similar in patients with and those without an RMD, whereas the mortality rate was increased in patients with RMDs (OR 1.74 [95% CI 1.08–2.80]). In a smaller number of studies, the adjusted risk of outcomes related to COVID‐19 was assessed, and the results varied; some studies demonstrated an increased risk while other studies showed no difference in risk in patients with an RMD compared to those without an RMD.ConclusionPatients with RMDs have higher rates of SARS–CoV‐2 infection and an increased mortality rate.