Citations

OBJECTIVE In many individuals, type 2 diabetes (T2D) remains poorly controlled despite taking multiple glucose-lowering therapies. Several studies have demonstrated that endogenous hypercortisolism is prevalent among these individuals. We tested whether cortisol-directed therapy improves their glycemic control. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS In this prospective, multicenter, double-blind study, 136 individuals with T2D (hemoglobin A1c [HbA1c] 7.5%–11.5% [58–102 mmol/mol] on multiple medications) and hypercortisolism (by dexamethasone suppression test) were randomized 2:1 to the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist mifepristone (300–900 mg once daily; n = 91) or placebo (n = 45) for 24 weeks, with stratification by presence/absence of an adrenal imaging abnormality. The primary end point was the change in HbA1c. Secondary end points included changes in glucose-lowering medications, weight, and waist circumference and safety. RESULTS Mean baseline HbA1c in the study cohort was 8.55% (69.9 mmol/mol). At 24 weeks, the least squares mean (LSM) difference from placebo in HbA1c was −1.32% (95% CI −1.81 to −0.83; P < 0.001). Participants receiving mifepristone experienced reductions in body weight and waist circumference (placebo-adjusted LSM differences of −5.12 kg [95% CI −8.20 to −2.03] and −5.1 cm [−8.23 to −1.99], respectively). Of participants on mifepristone, 46% discontinued therapy, compared with 18% on placebo. Adverse events with mifepristone (>10% of participants) included hypokalemia, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, headache, peripheral edema, diarrhea, and dizziness, consistent with mifepristone’s known tolerability profile. Increases in blood pressure also occurred. CONCLUSIONS In individuals with inadequately controlled T2D and hypercortisolism, cortisol-directed medical therapy with mifepristone reduced HbA1c, with a manageable tolerability profile.

Importance Tau positron emission tomography (PET) allows in vivo detection of neurofibrillary tangles, a core neuropathologic feature of Alzheimer disease (AD). Objective To provide estimates of the frequency of tau PET positivity and its associated risk of clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants Longitudinal study using data pooled from 21 cohorts, comprising a convenience sample of 6514 participants from 13 countries, collected between January 2013 and June 2024. Cognitively unimpaired individuals and patients with a clinical diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment (MCI), AD dementia, or other neurodegenerative disorders were included. Exposures Tau PET with flortaucipir F 18, amyloid-β (Aβ) PET, and clinical examinations. Tau PET scans were visually rated as positive according to a US Food and Drug Administration– and European Medicines Agency–approved method, designed to indicate the presence of advanced neurofibrillary tangle pathology (Braak stages V-VI). Main Outcomes and Measures Frequency of tau PET positivity and absolute risk of clinical progression (eg, progression to MCI or dementia). Results Among the 6514 participants (mean age, 69.5 years; 50.5% female), median follow-up time ranged from 1.5 to 4.0 years. Of 3487 cognitively unimpaired participants, 349 (9.8%) were tau PET positive; the estimated frequency of tau PET positivity was less than 1% in those aged younger than 50 years, and increased from 3% (95% CI, 2%-4%) at 60 years to 19% (95% CI, 16%-24%) at 90 years. Tau PET positivity frequency estimates increased across MCI and AD dementia clinical diagnoses (43% [95% CI, 41%-46%] and 79% [95% CI, 77%-82%] at 75 years, respectively). Most tau PET–positive individuals (92%) were also Aβ PET positive. Cognitively unimpaired participants who were positive for both Aβ PET and tau PET had a higher absolute risk of progression to MCI or dementia over the following 5 years (57% [95% CI, 45%-71%]) compared with both Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–negative (17% [95% CI, 13%-22%]) and Aβ PET–negative/tau PET–negative (6% [95% CI, 5%-8%]) individuals. Among participants with MCI at the time of the tau PET scan, an Aβ PET–positive/tau PET–positive profile was associated with a 5-year absolute risk of progression to dementia of 70% (95% CI, 59%-81%). Conclusions and Relevance In a large convenience sample, a positive tau PET scan occurred at a nonnegligible rate among cognitively unimpaired individuals, and the combination of Aβ PET positivity and tau PET positivity was associated with a high risk of clinical progression in both preclinical and symptomatic stages of AD. These findings underscore the potential of tau PET as a biomarker for staging AD pathology.

Background Given the low haemorrhagic risk of intracranial low-grade dural arteriovenous fistulas (dAVFs), the benefits of routine intervention remain controversial. This study compares patient outcomes treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) versus conservative management. Method Multicentre retrospective analysis of the Consortium for Dural Arteriovenous Fistula Outcomes Research and the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation data. Inclusion criteria were (1) intracranial low-grade dAVF diagnosed by catheter-based angiography, (2) no prior dAVF-related haemorrhage and (3) management with upfront SRS (intervention group) or conservative management (observation group). The primary outcome was symptomatic improvement. Secondary outcomes included dAVF obliteration, up-conversion, haemorrhage, improvement and favourable modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at follow-up. Results 304 patients with a mean age of 56 years (SD 13.5) and a follow-up of 46.7 months (SD 45.5) were included. 135 (44.4%) were managed conservatively and 169 (55.6%) had upfront SRS. Compared with the observation group, symptomatic and mRS Score improvement (≥1-point decrease in baseline score) was more likely in the intervention group (95.1% vs 58.5%; OR=13.75 (5.61–33.69) and 37.0% vs 24.0%; OR=1.85 (1.09–3.15), respectively). These findings remained significant after multiple imputation and propensity score matching. Remaining outcomes were similar between groups. The all-cause mortality rate was 5.4% (n=16), unrelated to the dAVF or treatment. Five (3.0%) SRS-related complications were reported and resolved during the follow-up period. Conclusions SRS was associated with increased symptomatic and mRS Score improvement for low-grade dAVFs compared with conservative management. SRS had a low complication risk and did not appear to alter dAVF obliteration or haemorrhage. Future prospective trials on SRS as a first-line intervention for symptomatic low-grade dAVFs should be considered.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

TPS1138 Background: The SV-BR-1-GM breast cancer cell line activates anti-tumor immunity by expressing tumor associated antigens and secreting GM-CSF which enhances dendritic cell activation and promotes adaptive (T-cell mediated) and innate (dendritic and NK cell) immune responses. The cells are also engineered to optimize immune recognition through pt specific HLA antigen matching. SV-BR-1-GM acts through direct antigen presentation and CD4+ T-cell activation and, when combined w/ checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), has demonstrated clinical benefit in 54 heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pts. In pts w/ disease progression following CPI therapy, similar or improved progression free survival (PFS) compared to their prior treatment regimen. Disease control following antibody drug conjugates was observed in 40%of pts. Clinical benefit was seen in 5 out of 8 pts w/ untreated intracranial metastases. CD8+ Immuno-PET imaging suggests systemic activation, w/ increased CD8+ tumor infiltrating lymphocytes at both primary and metastatic tumor sites, as well as lymphoid organs. Optimized sequencing of CPI w/ SV-BR-1-GM and its latest phase 3 formulation have shown enhanced clinical outcomes, including improved overall survival (OS) (median 13.4 mos), PFS (3.6 mos), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; 61%).These findings have informed refinements to the ongoing pivotal, registration enabling Phase 3 trial, designed to optimize pt selection and treatment sequencing strategies. Methods: This ongoing multicenter, randomized, open label Phase 3 trial evaluates Bria-IMT + CPI vs. Treatment of Physician’s Choice (TPC) in MBC pts lacking approved curative therapies. Pts are randomized 1:1:1 to Bria-IMT + CPI, TPC, or Bria-IMT monotherapy (discontinued after 150 enrollments to prioritize combination arms). The Bria-IMT regimen consists of: Day -2: Cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m², Day 0: 20M irradiated SV-BR-1-GM cells, Day 2/3: 0.1 mcg pegylated α interferon at each inoculation site. CPI infusion is administered Day -3 to 3. Cycles q3w. TPC regimens follow site specific SOC. Imaging q6w (first 2 cycles), then q8w. Eligibility includes all MBC subtypes, including CNS mets, and permits prior CPI therapy ( >21 days pre-treatment). There will be 100 sites across the U.S., Canada, and ex-North America w/ an enrollment target of 404. The trial is currently active at 59 sites with 217 sub investigators. To date, 67 pts screened: 46 randomized (median age 56 yrs [34–83], median 6 [2–13] prior lines of therapy. The primary endpoint is OS, with an interim analysis at 144 events targeting a hazard ratio of 0.6. Secondary endpoints: PFS, overall response rate, CBR, CNS event free survival, and TWiST. Safety analyses ongoing; pt reported outcomes assess subjective treatment impact. Clinical trial information: NCT03328026 .

1001 Background: Imlunestrant (imlu) is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen receptor degrader. The EMBER-3 trial, in patients (pts) with ER+, HER2- ABC who had disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, showed significant progression free survival (PFS) improvement with imlu vs standard therapy (SOC, fulvestrant or exemestane) in pts with ESR1 mutations ( ESR1 m), and with imlunestrant+abemaciclib (imlu+abema) vs imlu in all pts, regardless of ESR1 m. Exploratory PRO analyses are presented here. Methods: EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at baseline (BL) and every 8 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified QLQ-C30 analysis used a longitudinal mixed model for repeated measures to calculate mean change from BL in pts with BL and ≥1 post-BL score. PRO-CTCAE (diarrhea frequency) was administered weekly, reporting 0 (never) to 4 (almost constantly). PRO-CTCAE (injection site reaction [ISR]) was administered to fulvestrant recipients weekly for 2 weeks post-injection, reporting yes/no (pain, swelling, redness). Descriptive analysis was used for PRO-CTCAE. Results: In pts with ESR1 m, imlu monotherapy was associated with many improved or maintained EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, whereas scores with SOC were declined or maintained. Specifically, pts with ESR1 m on imlu had improved global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QOL) and physical function (PF) scores, while scores with SOC declined (mean change differences between treatments: 9.9 [0.1, 19.7] and 6.2 [-0.8, 13.1], respectively). These PRO findings mirror the PFS findings in this group. In the overall population, GHS/QOL scores declined similarly with imlu vs SOC (mean change differences: 0.5 [-4.7, 5.7]), while PF scores were maintained with imlu vs a slight decline with SOC (mean change difference: 2.5 [-1.1, 6.1]). Most fulvestrant recipients (72%) reported ISR at any time while on treatment, with a mean of 31% during the first week of the first 6 cycles. Imlu+abema vs imlu showed broadly similar declines in all pts, with minimal mean change differences in GHS/QOL and PF scores (0.8 [-7.4, 5.9]; -2.2 [-6.6, 2.2], respectively). Pts reported similarly low rates of “frequent” or “almost constant” diarrhea with imlu (3%) and SOC (2%) and higher rates with imlu+abema (22%). Conclusions: PROs from EMBER-3 demonstrated that patients with ESR1 m had better GHS/QOL and PF with imlu vs SOC, mirroring efficacy results. While the frequency of CTCAE defined ISRs was low, the high rate of PRO-CTCAE ISR demonstrates that this clinically relevant adverse event is underappreciated by physicians. Additionally, all pts had generally comparable GHS/QOL and PF with imlu+abema vs imlu. Overall, these results support the efficacy and safety of imlu compared to existing SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04975308 .

TPS1125 Background: Despite the many available treatments for patients (pts) with HR+, HER2– recurrent/metastatic breast cancer (MBC), optimal treatment after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) is unclear. One possible CDK4/6i resistance mechanism is increased expression of Aurora kinase A (AURKA), a key mitosis regulator associated with poor prognosis. Further implicated in CDK 4/6i resistance, high c-Myc or RB1 loss of function (LOF) are associated with transcriptional co-regulation or synthetic lethality, respectively, with AURKA. Alisertib is a highly selective, reversible, ATP-competitive, orally administered, small-molecule AURKA inhibitor with antiproliferative activity in HR+ BC-derived cell lines and BC xenograft models. Models with elevated AURKA or c-Myc expression, or RB1 LOF show greater alisertib sensitivity. Alisertib had activity in phase 1 and 2 trials, including objective response rates (ORRs) of 19.6–20% and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 5.4–5.6 months alone or with fulvestrant in pts with HR+/HER2–, endocrine-resistant MBC. The most common treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were neutropenia, anemia, and leukopenia. Methods: ALISCA-Breast1 (NCT06369285) is a randomized phase 2 study. Primary objective: to determine the optimal alisertib dose administered with endocrine therapy (ET) based on AEs and serious AEs per CTCAE v5.0 and efficacy (ORR, duration of response, disease-control rate, PFS, overall survival). Secondary objectives: to identify biomarkers of efficacy and alisertib pharmacokinetics (PK). Key inclusion criteria: ≥18 years; ECOG performance status 0 or 1; confirmed HR+, HER2–, recurrent/metastatic breast adenocarcinoma not amenable to curative therapy; available tumor tissue for biomarker analyses; progression on or after ≥2 prior ET lines in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior CDK4/6i with ET in recurrent/metastatic setting. Key exclusion criteria: prior chemotherapy in recurrent/metastatic setting; prior AURKA-specific or pan-Aurora-targeted agents; unstable brain metastases. Eligible pts will be randomized 1:1:1 to alisertib 30 mg, 40 mg, or 50 mg orally twice daily on days 1−3, 8–10, and 15–17 every 28 days, plus physician’s choice of anastrozole, letrozole, exemestane, fulvestrant, or tamoxifen not previously used in recurrent/metastatic setting or progressed upon in adjuvant setting; ≤50 pts will be enrolled per arm in the USA and Europe. All pts will undergo sparse PK sampling. Tumor tissue will be centrally assessed for biomarkers, including RB1, MYC, TP53, ESR1, PI3K/AKT pathway, HER2 and AURKA genomic alterations/expression levels. The study will determine the optimal alisertib dose to combine with ET and may identify biomarker(s) defining pts with the greatest benefit from alisertib-based therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT06369285 .

TPS3164 Background: TUB-030 is a novel antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) targeting 5T4, an oncofetal antigen expressed in various solid tumors with limited expression in healthy tissues. TUB-030 leverages optimized biophysical properties, an effector-silenced antibody, and an exatecan payload to maximize the therapeutic index and minimize off-target toxicities. Preclinical studies demonstrated potent anti-tumor activity, including long-lasting tumor regression at doses as low as 1 mg/kg and durable responses even in tumors with low 5T4 expression. Methods: 5-STAR 1-01 is a multicenter, first-in-human dose escalation and dose optimization Phase I/IIa clinical trial designed to investigate safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the anti-5T4 ADC TUB-030 in patients with advanced and metastatic solid tumors. Eligible patients have one of the following tumor types: head and neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC), non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), small cell lung cancer, pleural mesothelioma, triple-negative breast cancer, HR+/HER2- breast cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, pancreatic adenocarcinoma, colorectal cancer, bladder cancer, prostate cancer, cervical cancer, osteosarcoma, or soft tissue sarcomas and must have exhausted available standard-of-care therapies. Phase I is an open-label, single-arm dose escalation trial, with administration every 21 days. Dose escalation follows an accelerated titration design (ATD) transitioning to Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) upon predefined toxicity thresholds. Backfill cohorts are planned in NSCLC and HNSCC to further evaluate the safety and efficacy profile at, or near, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Primary endpoints include safety and tolerability of TUB-030 as monotherapy, determination of the MTD and the recommended phase II doses; secondary endpoints assess pharmacokinetics, immunogenicity, and preliminary clinical activity using RECIST v1.1 criteria. Exploratory endpoints include analysis of circulating tumor DNA. In phase IIa, dose-optimization will evaluate two dose levels in select indications in order to identify the optimal dose for further development. Enrollment of approximately 130 patients across the US and Canada is planned, with dose escalation currently underway. This study investigates TUB-030, a novel 5T4 targeted ADC as a therapy for advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Clinical trial information: NCT06657222 .

Abstract Nearly half of premature deaths can be prevented with healthy lifestyle behaviours. However, most older adults do not adhere to established guidelines to promote a healthy lifestyle. We propose a tailored framework of lifestyle medicine that acknowledges the complex contexts and care needs of older adults. The proposed framework of lifestyle medicine for older adults integrates their lived experiences (e.g. social determinants of health, built environment), the 5 M framework of geriatric medicine (i.e. Mind, Mobility, Medications, Multicomplexity, Matters Most) and the six pillars of lifestyle medicine (i.e. nutrition/diet, physical activity/exercise, restorative sleep, stress management, avoidance of risky substances, positive social connections) through a novel transdisciplinary approach. Guided by the updated framework, key gaps and opportunities are presented to advance lifestyle medicine practice, research and policy with the goal of promoting sustained behaviour change and improving the healthspan of older adults.