Citations

Abstract Background With limited severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) testing capacity in the United States at the start of the epidemic (January–March 2020), testing was focused on symptomatic patients with a travel history throughout February, obscuring the picture of SARS-CoV-2 seeding and community transmission. We sought to identify individuals with SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the early weeks of the US epidemic. Methods All of Us study participants in all 50 US states provided blood specimens during study visits from 2 January to 18 March 2020. Participants were considered seropositive if they tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies with the Abbott Architect SARS-CoV-2 IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and the EUROIMMUN SARS-CoV-2 ELISA in a sequential testing algorithm. The sensitivity and specificity of these ELISAs and the net sensitivity and specificity of the sequential testing algorithm were estimated, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The estimated sensitivities of the Abbott and EUROIMMUN assays were 100% (107 of 107 [95% CI: 96.6%–100%]) and 90.7% (97 of 107 [83.5%–95.4%]), respectively, and the estimated specificities were 99.5% (995 of 1000 [98.8%–99.8%]) and 99.7% (997 of 1000 [99.1%–99.9%]), respectively. The net sensitivity and specificity of our sequential testing algorithm were 90.7% (97 of 107 [95% CI: 83.5%–95.4%]) and 100.0% (1000 of 1000 [99.6%–100%]), respectively. Of the 24 079 study participants with blood specimens from 2 January to 18 March 2020, 9 were seropositive, 7 before the first confirmed case in the states of Illinois, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Mississippi. Conclusions Our findings identified SARS-CoV-2 infections weeks before the first recognized cases in 5 US states.

e17518 Background: Morbidity and mortality for patients with cervical cancer has improved significantly over the past few decades with modern multimodal therapy. However, neuroendocrine carcinoma of the uterine cervix (NCUC), which accounts for 1-2% of cervical cancers, remains a deadly subtype. In this study, we combine data from Mayo Clinic (MC) and the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) to provide information on tumor characteristics, treatment, and outcomes. Methods: The electronic medical record was reviewed for patients with NCUC from MC and UIHC. Data on diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes were collected through chart review. Primary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included median survival, survival at 1 year after surgery, and survival at 1 year by first line chemotherapy agent. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate median PFS, median survival, and OS. Fisher’s test analysis was used to calculate survival at 1 year after surgery and by first line chemotherapy agent. Results: There were 62 patients (MC: 26, UIHCC: 36) with NCUC stage I-IV (stage I: 29, stage II: 9, stage III: 7, stage IV: 14, unknown: 3). Median age of diagnosis was 47 years (range 21-77 years). By subtype, 47 were small cell (76%), 9 were large cell (15%), and 6 were unknown/undetermined (9%). The initial treatment modalities for each patient are outlined in the table. 28 patients had complete/partial response or stable disease from first line treatment, while 10 patients had disease progression. Of the patients who initially responded or had stable disease, 16 later progressed (57%) with a median time to progression of 15 months. Median follow up was 65.1 months with a median OS of 28.5 months. Median survival for those with stage I was 40.9 months, stage II: 54.6 months, stage III: 8.75 months, and stage IV: 11.7 months. There was a significant difference in overall survival at 1 year between those who received surgery and those who did not in stage I/II ( p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in overall survival at 1 year for those who received surgery in stage III/IV. There was no statistical difference in survival at 1 year for carboplatin or cisplatin in combination with etoposide as first line chemotherapy agent. Conclusions: NCUC is an aggressive malignancy that is usually progressive despite multimodal therapy. Our study demonstrated a median overall survival of 28.5 months and 5-year survival rate of 21%. Our study showed a survival benefit at 1 year for those who receive surgery with stage I/II NCUC. There was no significant survival benefit at 1 year between carboplatin or cisplatin in combination with etoposide as first line agent.[Table: see text]

5554 Background: A better understanding regarding the burden of treatment side effects in patients with gynecological malignancies could help guide symptom interventions and oncologic therapy decision-making. We aim to inform understanding of symptom burden in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by analyzing patient-reported symptom data from patients treated for this condition over a 16-month period. Methods: Patients receiving medical oncology care at Mayo Clinic Rochester and at Midwest Mayo Clinic Health System community sites have received symptom-focused surveys prior to each medical oncology visit since March 28, 2019 through the Enhanced Electronic Health Record Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control Study (E2C2). These surveys, administered either through the electronic medical record portal or on a clinic tablet prior to each oncology office visit, no more frequently than every 2 weeks, include six linear analogue scales measuring sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, and fatigue (SPADE), as well as physical dysfunction on a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Scores of 0-3 were considered mild symptoms, 4-6 moderate symptoms, and 7-10 severe symptoms. We collected survey results from March 28, 2019 to July 20, 2020 for patients with EOC and reviewed the number of surveys per patient in addition to the average symptom scores. Results: From March 2019 to July 2020, for patients with EOC, there were 2974 encounter-based surveys from 762 patients. The number of surveys completed by each patient ranged from 1-20. The following number of patients returned the correlating number of surveys: 1 survey:240 patients; 2 surveys:145; 3 surveys:79; 4 surveys:56; 5 surveys:58; 6 surveys:45; 7 surveys:38; 8 surveys:27; 9 surveys:22; ≥10 surveys:52. The average score from all surveys for each symptom was: 2.41 for sleep disturbance, 2.03 for pain, 2.32 for anxiety, 1.97 for emotional distress, 3.26 for fatigue, and 2.50 for physical dysfunction. Please see the table for the proportion of surveys that reported symptoms as mild, moderate, or severe. Conclusions: Fatigue and physical dysfunction were reported most frequently in patients with EOC, while emotional distress and pain were reported least frequently. 20% of surveys reported moderate to severe emotional distress, while 40% reported moderate to severe fatigue. A targeted approach to symptom management is needed for patients undergoing EOC evaluation and treatment. Our next steps in this analysis include an assessment of potential predictors of greater symptom burden (e.g., specific treatments, age, and other clinical and sociodemographic characteristics). Clinical trial information: NCT03892967. [Table: see text]

5017 Background: HDCT/ASCT represents a curative salvage treatment for patients with GCT but is rarely used for other solid tumors. Patients undergoing HDCT/ASCT for hematologic neoplasms require revaccination for their childhood immunizations. Whether this is necessary in patients with GCT is unknown. Methods: In this prospective longitudinal study, patients with GCT undergoing HDCT-ASCT from 11/2010 to 5/2018 had serologies for Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, and Varicella Zoster measured before HDCT and at 3, 6, and in a subset, 12+ months after the last HDCT with results at these timepoints compared using descriptive statistics. In addition, titer levels at ≥6 months post-transplant were matched 1:1 for age and gender with HL patients who underwent HDCT/ASCT during the same time period. Immunity was compared between cohorts using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test. Results: Of 80 patients with GCT (median age 30, 84% nonseminoma), 91% received 3 sequential transplants and 68 had repeat titers at ≥6 months. Immunity at baseline was >95% for Diphtheria, Tetanus and Polio and 89% for Varicella Zoster but lower for Measles (74%), Mumps (85%), and Rubella (83%) (Table). Compared to baseline, proportional immunity for all infections was similar at 3, 6, and 12 months post-transplant in the GCT population (≥6 months shown in Table). Matching resulted in 58 GCT-HL pairs. One-year immunity was numerically lower for most infections in the HL vs. GCT patients and significantly decreased for Measles and Rubella (Table). Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess vaccine titers following HDCT/ASCT for GCT. We demonstrate that HDCT/ASCT does not result in loss of immunity to childhood vaccines and that GCT patients retain protective titers more frequently than those with HL. However, 15-31% of GCT patients lack MMR immunity at baseline and at 1-year post-ASCT. Therefore, we recommend checking MMR titers at 1-year post-ASCT with revaccination of those lacking immunity. Titer evaluation and revaccination is not necessary for other childhood immunizations.[Table: see text]

5001 Background: Tak is an oral selective nonsteroidal 17, 20-lyase inhibitor that blocks the synthesis of gonadal and adrenal androgens. We evaluated the clinical benefit of Tak with ADT in pts with newly diagnosed mHSPC. Methods: Pts with mHSPC with a Zubrod performance status (PS) of 0-2 and a PSA of ≥ 2 ng/ml were randomized 1:1 to ADT+Tak (300 mg twice daily) or ADT+Bic (50 mg daily). Stratification factors included PS (0-1 vs ≥2), extent of disease (minimal vs extensive), and receipt of ADT prior to registration (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS; based on PSA, imaging or clinical progression), PSA at 7 months (≤0.2 vs 0.2 < PSA; ≤-4 vs. > 4 ng/ml) and adverse event (AE) profile. With 2.75 yrs to accrue 1,186 eligible pts and 3 additional yrs of follow-up, we would have 90% power to determine a 33% improvement in OS from 54 to 72 mos (1-sided α = 0.025). A final analysis was pre-specified after 523 deaths using a 1-sided α = 0.022 to account for interim analyses. Results: Between 3/2013 and 7/2017, 1,313 pts were randomized and 1,279 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (32 pts were ineligible and 2 pts withdrew consent). Median age was 68 yrs and 10% of subjects were Black. Median PSA was 30 ng/mL (range 2-6710) and 49% of pts had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 yrs, PFS and PSA response were significantly improved with Tak over Bic but no significant improvement in OS was observed (Table). More grade 3/4 AEs occurred in Tak vs. Bic arms (43% vs. 14%), and included hypertension (20% vs. 5%) and fatigue (5% vs. 2%). Five pts in Tak and 1 pt in the Bic arm had grade 5 AE. Conclusions: Despite clinically meaningful improvement in various outcome measures with Tak+ADT over Bic+ADT in this representative population of mHSPC, the improvement in OS did not meet the pre-specified criteria for statistical significance. The median OS of 70 mos in the control arm (standard ADT) was higher than that reported in contemporary phase 3 trials in this setting, and 16 mos higher than originally estimated. This trial sets a new landmark for survival estimates when pts with mHSPC have access to multiple approved subsequent life-prolonging therapies. Funding: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180820; U10CA180821; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Takeda Pharmaceutical Company LTD) Clinical trial information: NCT01809691. [Table: see text]

3517 Background: Incidence of early-onset colorectal cancer (eoCRC, age < 50) is steadily increasing. Decisions on adjuvant treatment (adjTx) regimen and duration should consider tx adherence, toxicity (tox) and expected outcomes in a population with life-expectancy longer than late onset CRC (loCRC, age ≥ 50). Methods: Individual patient data from stage II/III patients (pts) from 6 randomised trials in the IDEA database were used to compare characteristics, tx adherence, and adverse events of eoCRC to loCRC. To reduce the confounder of non-cancer-related deaths due to age/co-morbidities, time-to-recurrence (TTR) and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were compared by stratified Gay k-sample test. 5-year cancer-specific mortality (CSM) rate were estimated by adjusted cumulative incidence function. 3-year relapse-free survival (RFS) rate were compared by stratified and adjusted COX models. Results: Out of 16,349 pts included, 1564 (9.6%) were eoCRC. Compared to loCRC, eoCRC had lower percent of male pts (51% vs 57%, p < 0.01) better performance status (PS0 86% vs 80%, p < 0.01), similar T stage distribution (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 vs 77/23, p = 0.97), higher rate of N2 disease (24% vs 22%, p < 0.01), more likely to complete pre-planned duration of adjTx (83.2% vs 78.2%, p < 0.01) and received a higher tx intensity especially with 6 month tx (mean oxaliplatin dose intensity 75% vs 72%, p < 0.01; capecitabine 85% vs 78%, p < 0.01; 5FU 85% vs 82% p < 0.01). Gastrointestinal tox was more common in eoCRC (any grade nausea 58% vs 45%, p < 0.01; any grade vomiting 22% vs 16%, p < 0.01); haematological tox was more frequent in loCRC (62% vs, 69%, p = < 0.01); any grade neuropathy rate was similar (75%). Significant interaction was found between age and T stage for TTR (p = 0.04). Clinical outcome estimates and comparisons are shown in Table. Notably, high risk stage III (T4/N2) eoCRC had significantly lower 3-y RFS rate (54% vs 64%, HRadj 0.74, p < 0.01). Conclusions: eoCRC have better tx adherence than loCRC, as expected. While in high risk stage II and low risk stage III, cancer-specific outcomes are not different, in high risk stage III young age is negatively prognostic and associated with significantly higher relapse rate and risk of CRC death; this is despite a higher administered adjTx-intensity, suggesting a more aggressive disease biology. Clinical trial information: NCT00749450 (SCOT); NCT00646607 (TOSCA); NCT01150045 (CALGB/SWOG 80702); NCT00958737 (IDEA France) [Table: see text]

e14516 Background: IEC are arguably the most promising therapy in oncology, and FDA approvals for CAR T cells are a testament to their real potential. This has led to a great growth of clinical trials (CT), making the evaluation of their associated data increasingly challenging. To facilitate this process, we performed a systematic review of ClinicalTrials.gov focused on IEC therapies in oncology. We performed an analysis of the CT data and forecast trends for 2025. Methods: CT registries were retrieved from ClinicalTrials.gov with a systematic search query. We included CT registered between 1993-2020, which used IEC-based therapies in oncology. Statistical analysis using descriptive and inferential methods allowed us to identify trends and establish forecasts. Results: We identified 938 registrations of IEC-CTs in oncology, and 51% of those were active. The most common IEC type was CAR T (51%), followed by NK (15%), TCR T (8%), TIL (8%), and CIK (3%). 69% of IEC-CTs were aimed at a specific target vs. 31% that lack that specificity. The number of annual CAR T-CTs continue to increase, and we forecast 320 registrations during 2025. Since 2018, the number of CTs using unmodified T cells and TIL has increased (largely due to metastatic melanoma studies). NK cells CTs represent 8% of all registrations, and by 2025 we anticipate that >150 NK-based CTs will be registered per year, a number similar to CAR T-CTs registered during 2020. IEC-CTs based on allogeneic sources represent 18% of all registrations and are expected to grow 2.5 fold in the next 5 years. In solid tumors, the most common IEC-CTs are based on Non-CAR studies, while in hem-malignancies 76% of CTs are CAR T. Only one solid tumor, CAR T-CT, has reached phase 2/3, while 7 CIK-CTs were used to target various organ tumors. Conclusions: IEC-CTs continue to grow exponentially and represent an active field of clinical research in oncology. Allogeneic and NK-CTs increase rapidly and are among the most promising IEC-CTs. A rising proportion of CTs in solid tumors are using CIK and TIL rather than CAR T-cells, which are more popular for treating hem-malignancies. This is a direct reflection of the challenges associated with CAR T infiltration and persistence in solid tumors. Our analyses indicate that annual IEC-CTs registrations will double by 2025. We anticipate the increase in cellular therapy options will demand an organized response, including adequate logistical planning and policy implementation in response to the landscape changes in clinical oncology during the upcoming years.[Table: see text]

AbstractCSNK2B has recently been implicated as a disease gene for neurodevelopmental disability (NDD) and epilepsy. Information about developmental outcomes has been limited by the young age and short follow‐up for many of the previously reported cases, and further delineation of the spectrum of associated phenotypes is needed. We present 25 new patients with variants in CSNK2B and refine the associated NDD and epilepsy phenotypes. CSNK2B variants were identified by research or clinical exome sequencing, and investigators from different centers were connected via GeneMatcher. Most individuals had developmental delay and generalized epilepsy with onset in the first 2 years. However, we found a broad spectrum of phenotypic severity, ranging from early normal development with pharmacoresponsive seizures to profound intellectual disability with intractable epilepsy and recurrent refractory status epilepticus. These findings suggest that CSNK2B should be considered in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with a broad range of NDD with treatable or intractable seizures.

BACKGROUND: There is a continued perception that intravenous line (IV) placement is contraindicated in the arm ipsilateral to prior breast cancer surgery to avoid breast cancer–related lymphedema (BCRL). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the risk for development of BCRL in ipsilateral arm IV placement compared to contralateral arm IV placement to prior breast cancer surgery. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review, via our Integrated Clinical Systems and Epic Electronic Heath Record of IV placement for anesthesia and surgery in patients with a prior history of breast cancer surgery with or without axillary lymph node dissection. Complication rates were compared for IVs placed in the ipsilateral and contralateral arms. We identified 3724 patients undergoing 7896 IV placements between January 1, 2015, and May 5, 2018, with a prior history of breast cancer surgery via their index anesthesia and surgical procedures. RESULTS: The median time from breast cancer surgery to IV placement was 1.5 years (range, 1 day to 17.8 years). Of 2743 IVs placed in the arm contralateral to prior breast cancer surgery, 2 had a complication, corresponding to an incidence of 7.3 per 10,000 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9–26.3 per 10,000). Of 5153 IVs placed in the arm ipsilateral to prior breast cancer surgery, 2 IVs had a complication, for an incidence of 3.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 0.5–14.0 per 10,000). The frequency of complications was not found to differ significantly between the groups ( P = .91), and the 95% CI for the risk difference (ipsilateral minus contralateral) was −23 to +8 complications per 10,000. The complication rate is similar when only the first IV placed following breast cancer surgery is considered (overall 5.4 per 10,000 [95% CI, 0.7–19.4] per 10,000; contralateral 7.0 [95% CI, 0.2–39.0] per 10,000, ipsilateral 4.4 [95% CI, 0.1–24.2] per 10,000; P = 1.00; 95% CI for risk difference [ipsilateral minus contralateral], −41 to +22 per 10,000). CONCLUSIONS: We found very few complications in patients who had an IV placed for surgery following a previous breast cancer surgery and no complications in those patients with IV placement ipsilateral with axillary node dissection. Avoidance of IV placement in the arm ipsilateral to breast cancer surgery is not necessary.