Citations

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) commonly encompasses combination of drugs within the three drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators and (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies, both for newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. With increasing appreciation of disease heterogeneity based on underlying genetic abnormality, and demonstration of efficacy of venetoclax in patients with t(11;14) MM, the outcomes with commonly used MM regimens among the different cytogenetic subgroups are of great interest. Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, is being studied in t(11;14) positive MM patients who have received at least two prior lines of treatment (NCT03539744; CANOVA). However, outcomes in previously treated t(11;14) MM patients using standard of care approaches in the real-world setting is limited. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving pomalidomide + dexamethasone (PomDex) in ≥3 rd line were selected, similar to those being enrolled in the ongoing CANOVA trial. Patients were also required to have prior exposure to lenalidomide and a PI without a history of transplant within 16 weeks prior to PomDex initiation. Patients enrolled in a clinical trial were excluded. Overall best response, time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed after initiation of PomDex. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Fifty-two patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 63 years, 60% were male. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines at start of PomDex, at a median of 4.3 years from diagnosis; 52% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 34% of patients with PomDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 6.1 months and median OS was 19.2 months. Conclusion: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone in the ongoing CANOVA study as well as combinations using the pomalidomide backbone. Disclosures Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, 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; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: 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, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gonzalez De La Calle: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Mangiacavalli: GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kastritis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Esteves: AbbVie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Delforge: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Manthena: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services .

The structure and function of soft tissues are intimately connected. Some soft tissues are organized in such a way that they have material properties that are anisotropic, that is, the measured properties depend on which direction they are measured. Some such tissues are the brain, kidney, arteries, and cardiac and skeletal muscle. We will provide a brief overview of work targeted at characterization of the anisotropic mechanical properties in kidney and cardiac and skeletal muscles. In many cases, these tissues can be assumed to be transversely isotropic, which allows for simplification in estimating their mechanical properties. The use of propagating shear waves can be used to determine these mechanical properties. As a comparison example, we will show data from characterization of renal tissue with ultrasound shear wave elastography (SWE) and optical coherence elastography. We will also provide an overview of evaluation of skeletal muscle mechanical properties using shear wave elastography techniques and use of model fitting to estimate mechanical properties. Special care must be taken in evaluation of such anisotropic tissues to ensure that measurements are standardized across practices and studies.

AbstractBackgroundThe anatomical structure around the pancreatic head is very complex and it is important to understand its precise anatomy and corresponding anatomical approach to safely perform minimally invasive pancreatoduodenectomy (MIPD). This consensus statement aimed to develop recommendations for elucidating the anatomy and surgical approaches to MIPD.MethodsStudies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network method. Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted recommendations, with a goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations with the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsThree clinical questions were addressed, providing six recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a consensus of 75%. Preoperatively evaluating the presence of anatomical variations and superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV) branching patterns was recommended. Moreover, it was recommended to fully understand the anatomical approach to SMA and intraoperatively confirm the SMA course based on each anatomical landmark before initiating dissection.ConclusionsMIPD experts suggest that surgical trainees perform resection based on precise anatomical landmarks for safe and reliable MIPD.

AbstractBackgroundSurgical views with high resolution and magnification have enabled us to recognize the precise anatomical structures that can be used as landmarks during minimally invasive distal pancreatectomy (MIDP). This study aimed to validate the usefulness of anatomy‐based approaches for MIDP before and during the Expert Consensus Meeting: Precision Anatomy for Minimally Invasive HBP Surgery (February 24, 2021).MethodsTwenty‐five international MIDP experts developed clinical questions regarding surgical anatomy and approaches for MIDP. Studies identified via a comprehensive literature search were classified using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network methodology. Online Delphi voting was conducted after experts had drafted the recommendations, with the goal of obtaining >75% consensus. Experts discussed the revised recommendations in front of the validation committee and an international audience of 384 attendees. Finalized recommendations were made after a second round of online Delphi voting.ResultsFour clinical questions were addressed, resulting in 10 recommendations. All recommendations reached at least a 75% consensus among experts.ConclusionsThe expert consensus on precision anatomy for MIDP has been presented as a set of recommendations based on available evidence and expert opinions. These recommendations should guide experts and trainees in performing safe MIDP and foster its appropriate dissemination worldwide.