Citations

Abstract Introduction: In oncology clinical trials, overall survival (OS) is considered the gold standard efficacy endpoint. However, in multiple myeloma, the prolonged survival times and availability of multiple salvage therapies render it difficult to rely on OS as a primary endpoint. Instead, progression-free survival (PFS) or clinical response can be a relevant biomarker. At the same time, some health technology assessment bodies will only consider evidence based on patient-relevant endpoints, such as morbidity, mortality, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), within their benefit assessments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide insights into how a treatment affects HRQoL, including symptoms and functioning. In the phase 3 MAIA trial, daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (D-Rd) demonstrated a significantly prolonged PFS and rapid and sustained improvements in PROs compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Rd) alone at a median follow-up of 28 months. Updated results with longer follow-up confirmed a continued PFS benefit, deepening best clinical responses, and a significant OS benefit with D-Rd. Here, we report the results of analyses exploring the relationship between clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs in the MAIA trial. Methods: In MAIA (NCT02252172), TIE patients with NDMM were randomized to D-Rd or Rd until disease progression (PD) or unacceptable side effects. Clinical response and PD were defined per the International Myeloma Working Group uniform response criteria. PROs were assessed at baseline, on day 1 of cycles 3, 6, 9, and 12 for year 1, every 6 months thereafter until PD, or at end of treatment and at 8 and 16 weeks post-progression using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item (EORTC QLQ-C30). The current analyses were conducted on patients with a baseline PRO assessment and ≥1 post-baseline PRO assessment using a clinical cutoff date of February 19, 2021. Patients from both treatment groups were pooled and stratified by best clinical response. For PROs, the threshold for clinically meaningful change from baseline was defined a priori as ≥10 points based on published literature. Analyses were conducted for the global health status (GHS), fatigue, and pain scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30. The proportions of patients with clinically meaningful improvement in these PROs from baseline at any time while on treatment were calculated for and compared across best clinical response subgroups. For this analysis, patients were censored at the time of PD or discontinuation of therapy. Results were summarized with odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Additionally, the proportions of patients with clinically meaningful worsening in PROs from baseline at the time of and post-progression were also calculated for those who had PD. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Nominal P-values are presented. Results: Best clinical response at a median follow-up of 56.2 months for the 710 patients included in this analysis is shown in the Table. For GHS, fatigue, and pain, the proportion of patients who reported clinically meaningful improvement from baseline increased with increasing depth of best clinical response. Odds ratios comparing best clinical response vs stable disease reflect this relationship and are shown in the Figure. Of the 264 patients who experienced PD and had PRO data at the time of or post-progression, 38.6%, 54.9%, and 39.4% reported meaningful worsening of GHS, pain, and fatigue, respectively, at the time of or post-progression. Conclusions: Patients with deeper best clinical response were more likely to report meaningful improvements in PROs. Patients who experienced PD reported worsening of GHS and symptoms at the time of or following progression. These analyses provide evidence of the association between key clinical efficacy endpoints and PROs and demonstrate the patient relevance of these clinical endpoints. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Perrot: Abbvie: Honoraria; BMS Celgene: 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; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kumar: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: 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. Plesner: Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; CSL Behring: Other: Advisor; Janssen: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: Advisor, Research Funding; Genmab: Research Funding. Orlowski: Asylia Therapeutics, Inc., BioTheryX, Inc., and Heidelberg Pharma, AG.: Other: Laboratory research funding; CARsgen Therapeutics, Celgene, Exelixis, Janssen Biotech, Sanofi-Aventis, Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Other: Clinical research funding; 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; 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; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Celgene BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Bahlis: Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nahi: XNK Therapeutics AB: Consultancy. Hulin: abbvie: Honoraria; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Quach: Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, 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; Janssen/Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Antengene: Consultancy, 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; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Goldschmidt: GSK: Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Amgen: 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; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Celgene: 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; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grant; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or Provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grant; Mundipharma: Research Funding; MSD: Research Funding; Molecular Partners: Research Funding. O'Dwyer: Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; ONK Therapeutics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy. Venner: Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Weisel: 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; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; Sanofi: 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; 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria. Raje: Celgene, Amgen, Bluebird Bio, Janssen, Caribou, and BMS: Other. Macro: Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: Travel accomodation, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria; Celgen/BMS: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Leleu: Sanofi: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria; Merck: Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Carsgen Therapeutics Ltd: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Gilead Sciences: Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Non-financial support. Liu: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fastenau: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gries: Janssen: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Ho: DRG Abacus: Consultancy; Emalex Biosciences: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Mistry: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Tromp: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Delioukina: Janssen: Current Employment. Vermeulen: Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Usmani: Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; EdoPharma: Consultancy; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Clinical trials of novel salvage therapies (ST) have encouraging outcomes for relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma (R/R cHL) after autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT); yet studies comparing novel ST with conventional salvage chemotherapy are lacking. In a single center cohort, we demonstrated that bendamustine/brentuximab (BBV) had higher overall response rates (ORR) and complete response (CR) rates in ASCT-eligible R/R cHL (Desai et al JCO, 2021). Herein we report comparative outcomes of novel and conventional ST in R/R cHL who undergo ASCT, in a large multicenter retrospective cohort. Methods: Consecutive R/R cHL pts who underwent ASCT at 12 institutions across United States were included. Demographics and clinical variables at relapse including age, sex, B symptoms, stage, bulky disease (BD, single mass > 6 cm) extra nodal disease (END), primary refractory disease (PRD) and early relapse (ER, within 1 year) were recorded by electronic health records review. Study objectives were ORR, CR to first ST, post-ASCT PFS and OS by final ST. Time to event endpoints were defined from date of ASCT. Results: From 12 participating institutions, 853 pts of R/R cHL who underwent ASCT were eligible for this study. Median age was 33 (14-72) years, 457 (54%) were male, 446 (52%) had BD, 257 (30%) had advanced stage, 271 (32%) had END, 369 (43%) had B symptoms, 142 (17%) had PRD and 307 (36%) had ER. All 853 received at least 1 ST, 245 received 2 ST, 71 received 3 ST and 26 received 4 ST. Seven groups of ST were identified: 1. Conventional platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) group including ICE, DHAP and ESHAP 2. BBV 3. Brentuximab Vedotin and nivolumab (BV/Nivo) 4. BV alone (BV) 5. gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (Gem) 6. checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) and 7. other miscellaneous agents (Misc). 1st ST was as follows: 553 had PBC; 69 had BBV; 48 had BV/Nivo; 65 had BV; 49 had Gem; 4 had CPI and 63 had Misc. There was no significant difference in the baseline characteristics by type of 1 st ST (data not shown). BBV had significantly higher ORR (92% vs 79%, p<0.001) and CR rate (80% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. BV/Nivo had significantly higher CR rate (67% vs 49%, p <0.001) and a trend towards higher ORR (86% vs 79%, p = 0.1) compared to PBC. BV had significantly lower ORR (62% vs 79%, p <0.001) and CR rate (34% vs 49%, p <0.001) compared to PBC. There was no difference in ORR and CR rate of PBC, Gem, CPI and Misc agents. Final ST prior to ASCT was PBC in 451, BBV in 76, BV/Nivo in 48, BV in 87, CPI in 24, Gem in 90 and Misc in 64. Table 1 lists K-M estimates of 2-year survival probabilities for different Final ST groups. Median follow up was 3 (range 0.1-13) years. BV/Nivo group had significantly higher proportion of patients with PRD and BD than PBC, no other differences in baseline characteristics were identified amongst ST groups (data not shown). BV/Nivo (HR: 0.1 (CI 95:0.02-0.4), p<0.01) and CPI (HR: 0.12 (CI 95:0.03-0.5), p<0.01) had significantly higher PFS than PBC. There was no significant difference in PFS between other ST groups (Figure 1a). Type of ST was not significantly associated with difference in OS (Figure 1b). 536 pts underwent ASCT in CR, 273 underwent ASCT in partial response (PR) and 31 underwent ASCT with progressive disease (PD). Pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.6 (CI 95:1.3-2.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR: 4.1 (CI 95: 2.5-6.8), p<0.001) predicted significantly lower PFS compared to CR (Figure 2a). OS was also significantly lower in pts with pre-ASCT PR (HR 1.7 (CI 95: 1.2-1.6), p<0.001) and PD (HR 5.3 (CI 95: 2.8-10), p<0.001) (Figure 2b). Higher number of pre-ASCT ST predicted lower PFS (HR 1.3 (CI 95: 1.1-1.6), p<0.001) and OS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-1.8), p<0.001). In pts with pre-ASCT CR, all 36 who had pre-ASCT CR after BV/Nivo were alive and relapse free for follow up of 0.1-5 yrs. BV/Nivo was associated with significantly higher PFS (HR 0.1 (CI 95: 0.01-0.7), p <0.05) but not OS compared to PBC in this subgroup. Increasing number of pre-ASCT ST predicted worse PFS (HR 1.5 (CI 95: 1.2-2.0), p<0.01) and OS (HR 2.2 (CI 95: 1.4-3.4), p<0.001) in this subgroup as well. Conclusions: BV/Nivo has a higher CR rate and better post-ASCT PFS compared to conventional chemotherapy and can lead to durable remissions in pts with pre-ASCT CR. BBV had a higher response rate and similar post-ASCT survival to conventional chemotherapy. BV had lower response rates compared to chemotherapy. Novel ST such as BV/Nivo and BBV may be preferable to conventional chemotherapy in R/R cHL. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Spinner: Notable Labs: Honoraria. Bachanova: FATE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; KaryoPharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cell: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dorritie: SITC presentation: Honoraria; Genmab: Research Funding; University of Pittsburgh/UPMC Hillman Cancer Center: Current Employment; Janssen: Research Funding; F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Juno/BMS: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; OncLive/Institutional Perspectives on Cancer presentation: Honoraria. Arai: Magenta Therapeutics: Research Funding. Maurer: Nanostring: Research Funding; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diefenbach: Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; IMab: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Perlmutter Cancer Center at NYU Langone Health: Current Employment; AbbVie: Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Gilead: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; MEI: Consultancy, Research Funding. Nowakowski: Kyte Pharma: Consultancy; Ryvu Therapeutics: Consultancy; Selvita: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Bantham Pharmaceutical: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Zai Labolatory: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Kymera Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy; Nanostrings: Research Funding. Advani: Astellas/Agensys: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cell Medica: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Forty Seven: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genetech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura: Research Funding; Kyowa: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Regeneron: Research Funding; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: PSAP encodes saposin C, the co-activator of glucocerebrosidase, encoded by GBA. GBA mutations are associated with idiopathic/isolated REM sleep behavior disorder (iRBD), a prodromal stage of synucleinopathy. Objective: To examine the role of PSAP mutations in iRBD. Methods: We fully sequenced PSAP and performed Optimized Sequence Kernel Association Test in 1,113 iRBD patients and 2,324 controls. We identified loss-of-function (LoF) mutations, which are very rare in PSAP, in three iRBD patients and none in controls (uncorrected p = 0.018). Results: Two variants were stop mutations, p.Gln260Ter and p.Glu166Ter, and one was an in-frame deletion, p.332_333del. All three mutations have a deleterious effect on saposin C, based on in silico analysis. In addition, the two carriers of p.Glu166Ter and p.332_333del mutations also carried a GBA variant, p.Arg349Ter and p.Glu326Lys, respectively. The co-occurrence of these extremely rare PSAP LoF mutations in two (0.2%) GBA variant carriers in the iRBD cohort, is unlikely to occur by chance (estimated co-occurrence in the general population based on gnomAD data is 0.00035%). Although none of the three iRBD patients with PSAP LoF mutations have phenoconverted to an overt synucleinopathy at their last follow-up, all manifested initial signs suggestive of motor dysfunction, two were diagnosed with mild cognitive impairment and all showed prodromal clinical markers other than RBD. Their probability of prodromal PD, according to the Movement Disorder Society research criteria, was 98% or more. Conclusion: These results suggest a possible role of PSAP variants in iRBD and potential genetic interaction with GBA, which requires additional studies.

BACKGROUND Little is known about the autoreactive B cells in antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody–associated (ANCA-associated) vasculitis (AAV). We aimed to investigate tolerance checkpoints of circulating antigen-specific proteinase 3–reactive (PR3 + ) B cells. METHODS Multicolor flow cytometry in combination with bioinformatics and functional in vitro studies were performed on baseline samples of PBMCs from 154 well-characterized participants of the RAVE trial (NCT00104299) with severely active PR3-AAV and myeloperoxidase-AAV (MPO-AAV) and 27 healthy controls (HCs). Clinical data and outcomes from the trial were correlated with PR3 + B cells (total and subsets). RESULTS The frequency of PR3 + B cells among circulating B cells was higher in participants with PR3-AAV (4.77% median [IQR, 3.98%–6.01%]) than in participants with MPO-AAV (3.16% median [IQR, 2.51%–5.22%]) and participants with AAV compared with HCs (1.67% median [IQR, 1.27%–2.16%], P < 0.001 for all comparisons), implying a defective central tolerance checkpoint in patients with AAV. Only PBMCs from participants with PR3-AAV contained PR3 + B cells capable of secreting PR3-ANCA IgG in vitro, proving they were functionally distinct from those of participants with MPO-AAV and HCs. Unsupervised clustering identified subtle subsets of atypical autoreactive PR3 + memory B cells accumulating through the maturation process in patients with PR3-AAV. PR3 + B cells were enriched in the memory B cell compartment of participants with PR3-AAV and were associated with higher serum CXCL13 levels, suggesting an increased germinal center activity. PR3 + B cells correlated with systemic inflammation (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, P < 0.05) and complete remission ( P < 0.001). CONCLUSION This study suggests the presence of defective central antigen-independent and peripheral antigen-dependent checkpoints in patients with PR3-AAV, elucidating the selection process of autoreactive B cells. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00104299. Funding The Vasculitis Foundation, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the NIH, and the Mayo Foundation for Education and Research.

OBJECTIVE Indication for surgery in brainstem cavernous malformations (BSCMs) is based on many case series, few comparative studies, and no randomized controlled trials. The objective of this study was to seek consensus about surgical management aspects of BSCM. METHODS A total of 29 experts were invited to participate in a multistep Delphi consensus process on the surgical treatment of BSCM. RESULTS Twenty-two (76%) of 29 experts participated in the consensus. Qualitative analysis (content analysis) of an initial open-ended question survey resulted in 99 statements regarding surgical treatment of BSCM. By using a multistep survey with 100% participation in each round, consensus was reached on 52 (53%) of 99 statements. These were grouped into 4 categories: 1) definitions and reporting standards (7/14, 50%); 2) general and patient-related aspects (11/16, 69%); 3) anatomical-, timing of surgery–, and BSCM-related aspects (22/37, 59%); and 4) clinical situation–based decision-making (12/32, 38%). Among other things, a consensus was reached for surgical timing, handling of associated developmental venous anomalies, handling of postoperative BSCM remnants, assessment of specific anatomical BSCM localizations, and treatment decisions in typical clinical BSCM scenarios. CONCLUSIONS A summary of typical clinical scenarios and a catalog of various BSCM- and patient-related aspects that influence the surgical treatment decision have been defined, rated, and interpreted.

Background Evidence-based international expert consensus regarding the impact of peripheral nerve block (PNB) use in total hip/knee arthroplasty surgery. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis: randomized controlled and observational studies investigating the impact of PNB utilization on major complications, including mortality, cardiac, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, renal, thromboembolic, neurologic, infectious, and bleeding complications. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library including Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, were queried from 1946 to August 4, 2020. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to assess evidence quality and for the development of recommendations. Results Analysis of 122 studies revealed that PNB use (compared with no use) was associated with lower ORs for (OR with 95% CIs) for numerous complications (total hip and knee arthroplasties (THA/TKA), respectively): cognitive dysfunction (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.53/OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.80), respiratory failure (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.74/OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.75), cardiac complications (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.93/OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.86), surgical site infections (OR 0.55 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64/OR 0.86 95% CI 0.80 to 0.91), thromboembolism (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.96/OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.96) and blood transfusion (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.86/OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.90 to 0.92). Conclusions Based on the current body of evidence, the consensus group recommends PNB use in THA/TKA for improved outcomes. Recommendation: PNB use is recommended for patients undergoing THA and TKA except when contraindications preclude their use. Furthermore, the alignment of provider skills and practice location resources needs to be ensured. Evidence level: moderate; recommendation: strong.

AbstractBackgroundRecent population-based female breast cancer and prostate cancer polygenic risk scores (PRS) have been developed. We assessed the associations of these PRS with breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 pathogenic variant carriers.Methods483 BRCA1 and 1318 BRCA2 European ancestry male carriers were available from the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). A 147-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) prostate cancer PRS (PRSPC) and a 313-SNP breast cancer PRS were evaluated. There were 3 versions of the breast cancer PRS, optimized to predict overall (PRSBC), estrogen receptor (ER)–negative (PRSER-), or ER-positive (PRSER+) breast cancer risk.ResultsPRSER+ yielded the strongest association with breast cancer risk. The odds ratios (ORs) per PRSER+ standard deviation estimates were 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] =1.07 to 1.83) for BRCA1 and 1.33 (95% CI = 1.16 to 1.52) for BRCA2 carriers. PRSPC was associated with prostate cancer risk for BRCA1 (OR = 1.73, 95% CI = 1.28 to 2.33) and BRCA2 (OR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.34 to 1.91) carriers. The estimated breast cancer odds ratios were larger after adjusting for female relative breast cancer family history. By age 85 years, for BRCA2 carriers, the breast cancer risk varied from 7.7% to 18.4% and prostate cancer risk from 34.1% to 87.6% between the 5th and 95th percentiles of the PRS distributions.ConclusionsPopulation-based prostate and female breast cancer PRS are associated with a wide range of absolute breast and prostate cancer risks for male BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers. These findings warrant further investigation aimed at providing personalized cancer risks for male carriers and informing clinical management.

Abstract We explored minimal residual disease (MRD) in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) and transplant-ineligible (TIE) newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) using data from 4 phase 3 studies (POLLUX, CASTOR, ALCYONE, and MAIA). Each study previously demonstrated that daratumumab-based therapies improved MRD negativity rates and reduced the risk of disease progression or death by approximately half vs standards of care. We conducted a large-scale pooled analysis for associations between patients achieving complete response or better (≥CR) with MRD-negative status and progression-free survival (PFS). MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing (10−5 sensitivity threshold). Patient-level data were pooled from all 4 studies and for patients with TIE NDMM and patients with RRMM who received ≤2 prior lines of therapy (≤2 PL). PFS was evaluated by response and MRD status. Median follow-up (months) was 54.8 for POLLUX, 50.2 for CASTOR, 40.1 for ALCYONE, and 36.4 for MAIA. Patients who achieved ≥CR and MRD negativity had improved PFS vs those who failed to reach CR or were MRD positive (TIE NDMM and RRMM hazard ratio [HR] 0.20, P &lt; .0001; TIE NDMM and RRMM ≤2 PL HR 0.20, P &lt; .0001). This benefit occurred irrespective of therapy or disease setting. A time-varying Cox proportional hazard model confirmed that ≥CR with MRD negativity was associated with improved PFS. Daratumumab-based treatment was associated with more patients reaching ≥CR and MRD negativity. These findings represent the first large-scale analysis with robust methodology to support ≥CR with MRD negativity as a prognostic factor for PFS in RRMM and TIE NDMM. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02076009, #NCT02136134, #NCT02195479, and #NCT02252172.

Abstract In patients with transplant-ineligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM), daratumumab reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 44% in MAIA (daratumumab/lenalidomide/dexamethasone [D-Rd]) and 58% in ALCYONE (daratumumab/bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [D-VMP]). Minimal residual disease (MRD) is a sensitive measure of disease and response to therapy. MRD-negativity status and durability were assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE. MRD assessments using next-generation sequencing (10−5) occurred for patients achieving complete response (CR) or better and after at least CR at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months from the first dose. Progression-free survival (PFS) by MRD status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were analyzed in the intent-to-treat population and among patients achieving at least CR. In MAIA (D-Rd, n = 368; lenalidomide and dexamethasone [Rd], n = 369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n = 350; bortezomib/melphalan/prednisone [VMP], n = 356), the median duration of follow-up was 36.4 and 40.1 months, respectively. MRD-negative status and sustained MRD negativity lasting ≥6 and ≥12 months were associated with improved PFS, regardless of treatment group. However, daratumumab-based therapy improved rates of MRD negativity lasting ≥6 months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%) and ≥12 months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%), both of which translated to improved PFS vs control groups. In a pooled analysis, patients who were MRD negative had improved PFS vs patients who were MRD positive. Patients with NDMM who achieved MRD-negative status or sustained MRD negativity had deep remission and improved clinical outcomes. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02252172 (MAIA) and #NCT02195479 (ALCYONE).

Abstract There is a lack of large comparative study on the outcomes of reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplantation using fludarabine/busulfan (FB) and fludarabine/melphalan (FM) regimens. Adult AML patients from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research who received first RIC allo-transplant between 2001 and 2015 were studied. Patients were excluded if they received cord blood or identical twin transplant, total body irradiation in conditioning, or graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis with in vitro T-cell depletion. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS), secondary end points were leukemia-free survival (LFS), nonrelapse mortality (NRM), relapse, and GVHD. Multivariate survival model was used with adjustment for patient, leukemia, and transplant-related factors. A total of 622 patients received FM and 791 received FB RIC. Compared with FB, the FM group had fewer transplant in complete remission (CR), fewer matched sibling donors, and less usage of anti-thymocyte globulin or alemtuzumab. More patients in the FM group received marrow grafts and had transplantation before 2005. OS was significantly lower within the first 3 months posttransplant in the FM group (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.82, P &lt; .001), but was marginally superior beyond 3 months (HR = 0.87, P = .05). LFS was better with FM compared with FB (HR = 0.89, P = .05). NRM was significantly increased in the FM group during the first 3 months of posttransplant (HR = 3.85, P &lt; .001). Long-term relapse was lower with FM (HR = 0.65, P &lt; .001). Analysis restricted to patients with CR showed comparable results. In conclusion, compared with FB, the FM RIC showed a marginally superior long-term OS and LFS and a lower relapse rate. A lower OS early posttransplant within 3 months was largely the result of a higher early NRM.