Citations

PURPOSE Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC), an aggressive malignancy, is associated with a poor prognosis and an unmet need for effective treatment, especially for patients without BRAF mutations or NTRK or RET fusions. Lenvatinib is US Food and Drug Administration–approved for radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer and has previously demonstrated activity in a small study of patients with ATC (n = 17). We aimed to further evaluate lenvatinib in ATC. METHODS This open-label, multicenter, international, phase II study enrolled patients with ATC, who had ≥ 1 measurable target lesion, to receive lenvatinib 24 mg once daily. The primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1 and safety. Responses were confirmed ≥ 4 weeks after the initial response. Additional end points included progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). RESULTS The study was halted for futility as the minimum ORR threshold of 15% was not met upon interim analysis. The interim analysis set included the first 20 patients. The full analysis set includes all 34 enrolled and treated patients. In the full analysis set, one patient achieved a partial response (ORR, 2.9%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 15.3). More than half of the evaluable patients experienced tumor shrinkage; three patients experienced a > 30% tumor reduction. The median progression-free survival was 2.6 months (95% CI, 1.4 to 2.8); the median overall survival was 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 8.2). The most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were hypertension (56%), decreased appetite (29%), fatigue (29%), and stomatitis (29%). No major treatment-related bleeding events or grade 5 treatment-related AEs occurred. CONCLUSION The safety profile of lenvatinib in ATC was manageable, and many AEs were attributable to the progression of ATC. The results suggest that lenvatinib monotherapy may not be an effective treatment for ATC; further investigation may be warranted.

Abstract PurposeOur study aimed to use chest CT-angiogram (CTA) to assess if right ventricular (RV) dilation, quantified as an increased RV:LV (left ventricle) ratio, is associated with adverse outcomes in the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) infection.MethodsWe reviewed clinical, laboratory, and chest CTA findings in COVID-19 patients (n=100), and two control groups: normal subjects (n=10) and subjects with organizing pneumonia (n=10). On a chest CTA, we measured basal dimensions of the RV and LV in a focused 4-chamber view; and dimensions of pulmonary artery (PA) and aorta (AO) at the PA bifurcation level. ResultsAmong the COVID-19 cohort, the mean age (±SD) was 55.1±14.9 years and 55% were female. A higher RV:LV ratio was correlated with adverse outcomes, defined as ICU admission, intubation, or death. In patients with adverse outcomes, the RV:LV ratio was 1.06±0.10, vs 0.95±0.15 in patients without adverse outcomes. Among the adverse outcomes group, compared to the control subjects with organizing pneumonia, the lung parenchymal damage was lower (22.6±9.0 vs 32.7±6.6), yet the RV:LV ratio was higher (1.06±0.14 vs 0.89±0.07). In ROC analysis, RV:LV ratio had an AUC= 0.707 with an optimal cut-off of RV:LV 1.1 as a predictor of adverse outcomes. In a validation cohort (n=25), an RV:LV ≥1.1 as a cut-off predicted adverse outcomes with an odds ratio of 76:1.ConclusionIn COVID-19 patients, RV:LV ratio ≥1.1 on CTA-chest is correlated with adverse outcomes. RV dilation in COVID-19 is out of proportion to parenchymal lung damage, pointing towards a vascular and/or thrombotic injury in the lungs.

Abstract Background monarchE is a phase 3, open-label study evaluating abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) compared to ET alone in patients with node positive, HR+, HER2-, high risk early breast cancer (EBC) that resulted in a statistically significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) at a pre-planned interim analysis. Following the positive interim analysis, patients continued to be followed for IDFS, distant recurrence, and overall survival. Methods After surgery and, as indicated, radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy, 5,637 patients with HR+, HER2-, high risk EBC were randomized (1:1) to standard of care adjuvant ET with or without abemaciclib (150 mg BD for 2 years). Patients with ≥4 positive nodes, or 1-3 nodes and either grade 3 disease, tumor size ≥5 cm, or central Ki-67 ≥20% were eligible. Here we present results of the primary outcome IDFS analysis which was planned after approximately 390 IDFS events. Results At the primary outcome analysis, median follow-up was approximately 19 months in both arms (an increase of 3.5 months from the interim analysis). A total of 1437 (25.5%) patients had completed the 2-year treatment period; 3281 (58.2%) were still in the 2-year treatment period. With 395 IDFS events observed in the intent-to-treat population, abemaciclib plus ET continued to demonstrate superior IDFS versus ET alone, with a 28.7% reduction in the risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0009; HR = 0.713; 95% CI = 0.583, 0.871). Two-year IDFS rates were 92.3% in the abemaciclib plus ET arm and 89.3% in the ET alone arm. There was a consistent benefit of abemaciclib in all prespecified subgroups. The addition of abemaciclib to ET also resulted in an improvement in distant relapse-free survival (DRFS). Overall survival was immature at the time of analysis. A key secondary endpoint was efficacy in patients with centrally assessed high Ki-67 (≥20%) (Ki-67H) (n=2498). Disease characteristics were well balanced between the arms of this population. Abemaciclib plus ET demonstrated superior IDFS vs ET alone, with a 30.9% reduction in risk of developing invasive disease (p=.0111; HR = 0.691; 95% CI = 0.519, 0.920) and 2-year IDFS rates of 91.6% and 87.1%, respectively. An improvement in DRFS treatment effect was also observed in the Ki-67H population. At the time of data cutoff, the median treatment duration of abemaciclib was 17.3 months and the median duration of ET was balanced between the arms (18.3 months in the abemaciclib arm and 18.7 months in the ET alone arm). Safety was consistent with the results at the interim IDFS analysis and with the known safety profile of abemaciclib. Conclusions At the primary outcome analysis, with a median follow-up of approximately 19 months, abemaciclib combined with ET continued to demonstrate a clinically meaningful improvement in IDFS in patients with HR+, HER2-, node-positive, high risk, EBC with a statistically significant improvement in IDFS in patients with central Ki-67 ≥20%. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03155997 Table 1: PrimaryOutcome EfficacyIntent-to-Treat PopulationIntent-to-Treat PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationKi-67 ≥20% (Ki-67H) PopulationEndpointAbemaciclib + ET N=2808ET alone N=2829Abemaciclib + ET N=1262ET alone N=1236IDFS# events, n (%)163 (5.8)232 (8.2)82 (6.5)115 (9.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.713 (0.583, 0.871)p=.0111 0.691 (0.519, 0.920)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)92.3 (90.9, 93.5)89.3 (87.7, 90.7)91.6 (89.4, 93.4)87.1 (84.3, 89.5)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95% CI)3 (1.1, 5.0)4.5 (1.2, 7.7)DRFS# events, n (%)131 (4.7)193 (6.8)65 (5.2)102 (8.3)log rank P value, HR (95% CI)p=.0009 0.687 (0.551, 0.858)0.609 (0.445, 0.833)Rate (%) at 2 years (95% CI)93.8 (92.6, 94.9)90.8 (89.3, 92.1)93.6 (91.6, 95.1)88.5 (85.7, 90.7)Difference (%) in 2-year rates (95%CI)3 (1.2, 4.8)5.1 (2.1, 8.1) Citation Format: Joyce A. O'Shaughnessy, Stephen Johnston, Nadia Harbeck, Masakazu Toi, Young-Hyuck Im, Mattea Reinisch, Zhimin Shao, Pirkko Liisa Kellokumpu Lehtinen, Chiun-Sheng Huang, Alexey Tryakin, Matthew Goetz, Hope S Rugo, Elzbieta Senkus, Laura Testa, Michael Andersson, Kenji Tamura, Guenther G. Steger, Lucia Del Mastro, Joanne Cox, Tammy Forrester, Sarah Sherwood, Xuelin Li, Ran Wei, Miguel Martin, Priya Rastogi. Primary outcome analysis of invasive disease-free survival for monarchE: abemaciclib combined with adjuvant endocrine therapy for high risk early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS1-01.

Abstract Steroid-refractory (SR) acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) remains a major cause of nonrelapse mortality (NRM) after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), but its occurrence is not accurately predicted by pre-HCT clinical risk factors. The Mount Sinai Acute GVHD International Consortium (MAGIC) algorithm probability (MAP) identifies patients who are at high risk for developing SR GVHD as early as 7 days after HCT based on the extent of intestinal crypt damage as measured by the concentrations of 2 serum biomarkers, suppressor of tumorigenesis 2 and regenerating islet-derived 3α. We conducted a multicenter proof-of-concept “preemptive” treatment trial of α-1-antitrypsin (AAT), a serine protease inhibitor with demonstrated activity against GVHD, in patients at high risk for developing SR GVHD. Patients were eligible if they possessed a high-risk MAP on day 7 after HCT or, if initially low risk, became high risk on repeat testing at day 14. Thirty high-risk patients were treated with twice-weekly infusions of AAT for a total of 16 doses, and their outcomes were compared with 90 high-risk near-contemporaneous MAGIC control patients. AAT treatment was well tolerated with few toxicities, but it did not lower the incidence of SR GVHD compared with controls (20% vs 14%, P = .56). We conclude that real-time biomarker-based risk assignment is feasible early after allogeneic HCT but that this dose and schedule of AAT did not change the incidence of SR acute GVHD. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03459040.

Background: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for pts with R/R LBCL with ≥ 2 prior systemic therapies. With a median follow-up of 27.1 months in ZUMA-1, the objective response rate (ORR) with axi-cel was 83% (58% complete response rate) in pts with refractory LBCL. Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 11% and 32% of pts, respectively (Locke FL, et al. LancetOncol. 2019). Although CRS can be ameliorated with use of the anti-IL-6 receptor antibody tocilizumab, NEs may be unaffected or worsened by tocilizumab (Gust J, et al. Cancer Discov. 2017; Lee DW, et al. Blood. 2014; Santomasso BD, et al. Cancer Discov. 2018; Locke FL, et al. ASH 2017. #1547). Identification of mitigation strategies for NEs is complicated by a significant association between CAR T cell expansion and both ORR and Grade ≥ 3 NEs, suggesting a correlation between efficacy and adverse events (AEs; Neelapu SS, et al. N EnglJ Med. 2017). ZUMA-1 Cohort 4 suggested that earlier utilization of systemic corticosteroids for broad immune system suppression in pts with mild NEs and low-grade CRS may reduce the incidence of Grade ≥ 2 NEs without significant impact on efficacy (Topp MS, et al. ASH 2019. #243). However, this reactive approach has not fully abrogated NEs; as such, proactive strategies to further improve safety management with CAR T cell therapy without negatively impacting efficacy are needed. Upon tumor challenge, CAR T cells produce granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; Giavridis T, et al. Nat Med. 2018), which acts to promote myeloid activation, expansion, and cytokine production (Spath S, et al. Immunity. 2017). GM-CSF was among the cytokines significantly associated with Grade ≥ 3 NEs in ZUMA-1 (Neelapu SS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2017). Notably, peak GM-CSF levels occurred before those of most other cytokines, and no direct association was observed between GMCSF levels and ORR (Rossi JM, et al. EMA Workshop, 2016). These findings suggest that GM-CSF may initiate inflammatory events that cause NEs and that GM-CSF inhibition has the potential to improve the safety of CAR T cells, without impacting efficacy. GM-CSF depletion with lenzilumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody that neutralizes GM-CSF, prevented CRS and NEs in preclinical models of CAR T cell toxicity (Sterner RM, et al. Blood2019). The Phase 1/2 ZUMA19 study is evaluating sequenced therapy with lenzilumab and axi-cel to prevent axi-cel-related CRS and NEs in pts with R/R LBCL. Methods: Eligible pts are adults (≥ 18 y) with LBCL who relapsed after ≥ 2 systemic lines of therapy or are chemorefractory - defined as i) a best response of progressive disease (PD) or stable disease (SD) to ≥ 4 cycles of first-line systemic therapy (SD duration ≤ 6 months); or ii) a best response of PD or SD after ≥ 2 cycles of the most recent second-or-later line of systemic therapy. Prior therapy must have included an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and an anthracycline-containing regimen. Pts will undergo leukapheresis and may receive optional corticosteroid bridging therapy. Pts will then receive lymphodepleting chemotherapy on Days ‒3 to ‒5 followed by Day 0 administration of lenzilumab and, 6 hours later, a single infusion of axi-cel (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). Phase 1 will initially enroll pts in 2 dose-escalation cohorts; each will receive a single infusion of lenzilumab. Safety data will be reviewed after 3 and 6 (if needed) pts in each cohort have been followed for 28 days. The recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) of lenzilumab will be based on the dose-limiting toxicity rate (phase 1 primary endpoint), and, if necessary, translational assessment of GM-CSF axis suppression. Phase 2 will assume a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint for phase 2 is the incidence of Grade ≥ 2 NEs within 28 days of axi-cel administration. Efficacy, safety (including CRS and NEs), and blood levels of CAR T cells and cytokines (including GM-CSF) will be evaluated as secondary endpoints. An interim analysis will be performed when 14 subjects have received the RP2D in Phase 1 or 2 and are followed for ≥ 28 days after axi-cel infusion. If futility criteria are not met, enrollment will continue. Primary analysis will be performed after 30 pts are treated with RP2D of lenzilumab and have ≥ 6 months of follow up. ZUMA-19 is open and actively recruiting pts. Disclosures Kenderian: Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy. Oluwole:Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. McCarthy:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Juno Therapeutics, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board , Research Funding is to Roswell Park, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Magenta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board; Starton: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Advisory Board. Reshef:Celgene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Kiadis: Research Funding; Monsanto: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Immatics: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel support, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Magenta: Consultancy. Shiraz:Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; ORCA BioSystems: Research Funding. Ahmed:Humanigen, Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Le Gall:Kite, a Gilead Company: Ended employment in the past 24 months; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Nahas:Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Tang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Neelapu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Cellectis: Research Funding; Calibr: Other; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; N/A: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Legend Biotech: Other; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees.

Background: The purpose of this multicenter, randomized trial was to determine the optimal dosing regimen of tranexamic acid (TXA) to minimize perioperative blood loss in revision total hip arthroplasty. Methods: Six centers prospectively randomized 175 patients to 1 of 4 regimens: (1) 1-g intravenous (IV) TXA prior to incision (the single-dose IV group), (2) 1-g IV TXA prior to incision followed by 1-g IV TXA after arthrotomy wound closure (the double-dose IV group), (3) a combination of 1-g IV TXA prior to incision and 1-g intraoperative topical TXA (the combined IV and topical group), or (4) 3 doses totaling 1,950-mg oral TXA (the multidose oral group). Randomization was based on revision subgroups to ensure equivalent group distribution. An a priori power analysis (α = 0.05; β = 0.80) determined that 40 patients per group were required to identify a >1-g/dL difference in postoperative hemoglobin reduction between groups. Per-protocol analysis involved an analysis of variance, Fisher exact tests, and two 1-sided t tests for equivalence. Demographic and surgical variables were equivalent between groups. Results: No significant differences were found between TXA regimens when evaluating reduction in hemoglobin (3.4 g/dL for the single-dose IV group, 3.6 g/dL for the double-dose IV group, 3.5 g/dL for the combined IV and topical group, and 3.4 g/dL for the multidose oral group; p = 0.95), calculated blood loss (p = 0.90), or transfusion rates (14% for the single-dose IV group, 18% for the double-dose IV group, 17% for the combined group, and 17% for the multidose oral group; p = 0.96). Equivalence testing revealed that all possible pairings were statistically equivalent, assuming a >1-g/dL difference in hemoglobin reduction as clinically relevant. There was 1 venous thromboembolism, with no differences found between groups (p = 1.00). Conclusions: All 4 TXA groups tested had equivalent blood-sparing properties in the setting of revision total hip arthroplasty, with a single venous thromboembolism reported in this high-risk population. Based on the equivalence between groups, surgeons should utilize whichever of the 4 investigated regimens is best suited for their practice and hospital setting. Given the transfusion rate in revision total hip arthroplasty despite TXA utilization, further work is required in this area. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Mitral valve-in-valve (ViV) and valve-in-ring (ViR) are alternatives to surgical reoperation in patients with recurrent mitral valve failure after previous surgical valve repair or replacement. Our aim was to perform a large-scale analysis examining midterm outcomes after mitral ViV and ViR. Methods: Patients undergoing mitral ViV and ViR were enrolled in the Valve-in-Valve International Data Registry. Cases were performed between March 2006 and March 2020. Clinical endpoints are reported according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC) definitions. Significant residual mitral stenosis (MS) was defined as mean gradient ≥10 mm Hg and significant residual mitral regurgitation (MR) as ≥ moderate. Results: A total of 1079 patients (857 ViV, 222 ViR; mean age 73.5±12.5 years; 40.8% male) from 90 centers were included. Median STS-PROM score 8.6%; median clinical follow-up 492 days (interquartile range, 76–996); median echocardiographic follow-up for patients that survived 1 year was 772.5 days (interquartile range, 510–1211.75). Four-year Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 62.5% in ViV versus 49.5% for ViR ( P <0.001). Mean gradient across the mitral valve postprocedure was 5.7±2.8 mm Hg (≥5 mm Hg; 61.4% of patients). Significant residual MS occurred in 8.2% of the ViV and 12.0% of the ViR patients ( P =0.09). Significant residual MR was more common in ViR patients (16.6% versus 3.1%; P <0.001) and was associated with lower survival at 4 years (35.1% versus 61.6%; P =0.02). The rates of Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium–defined device success were low for both procedures (39.4% total; 32.0% ViR versus 41.3% ViV; P =0.01), mostly related to having postprocedural mean gradient ≥5 mm Hg. Correlates for residual MS were smaller true internal diameter, younger age, and larger body mass index. The only correlate for residual MR was ViR. Significant residual MS (subhazard ratio, 4.67; 95% CI, 1.74–12.56; P =0.002) and significant residual MR (subhazard ratio, 7.88; 95% CI, 2.88–21.53; P <0.001) were both independently associated with repeat mitral valve replacement. Conclusions: Significant residual MS and/or MR were not infrequent after mitral ViV and ViR procedures and were both associated with a need for repeat valve replacement. Strategies to improve postprocedural hemodynamics in mitral ViV and ViR should be further explored.