Citations

Objectives Women with Turner syndrome (TS) are frequently counselled against pregnancy due to lack of data and unclear aortic dissection risk. However, with advances in fertility therapy, more women with TS are contemplating pregnancy. This study compared rates of adverse cardiovascular (CV) outcomes among: (1) pregnant and non-pregnant women with TS and (2) pregnant women with TS with/without structural heart disease. Methods Retrospective analysis of pregnant and age-matched non-pregnant controls with TS (2005–2017) across 10 CV centres was done. Data were collected at initial evaluation in pregnancy and outcomes were assessed to 6 months postpartum. Adverse CV events were defined as CV death, aortic dissection/rupture and/or aortic intervention. Non-pregnant age-matched controls were followed over the same time period. Results Sixty-eight pregnancies were included (60 women, mean age 33 years, 48% primigravid, 49% fertility therapy, 80% structurally normal heart, 25% XO karyotype). Based on American Society of Reproductive Medicine criteria, 10 pregnancies occurred in women stratified to high-risk category. There were no CV events in the pregnant women or in the non-pregnant women with TS. Obstetric events complicated 12 (18%) pregnancies with 9 (13%) attributed to hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. Fetal events included small for gestational age neonates (18%), preterm delivery (15%) and fetal death (3%). Conclusions This study helps to refine the approach to pregnancy in women with TS. Among women with TS without structural heart disease, pregnancy does not impose an increased risk of CV outcomes. Among women with TS with structural heart disease, the risk of pregnancy is not as prohibitive as previously described but does require ongoing evaluation.

Mycosis fungoides (MF) is the most common subtype of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), and Sézary syndrome (SS) is a rare erythrodermic and leukemic subtype of CTCL characterized by significant blood involvement. Although early-stage disease can be effectively treated predominantly with skin-directed therapies, systemic therapy is often necessary for the treatment of advanced-stage disease. Systemic therapy options have evolved in recent years with the approval of novel agents such as romidepsin, brentuximab vedotin, and mogamulizumab. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the diagnosis and management of MF and SS (with a focus on systemic therapy).

Abstract Background Immunosuppression in glioblastoma (GBM) is an obstacle to effective immunotherapy. GBM-derived immunosuppressive monocytes are central to this. Programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) is an immune checkpoint molecule, expressed by GBM cells and GBM extracellular vesicles (EVs). We sought to determine the role of EV-associated PD-L1 in the formation of immunosuppressive monocytes. Methods Monocytes collected from healthy donors were conditioned with GBM-derived EVs to induce the formation of immunosuppressive monocytes, which were quantified via flow cytometry. Donor-matched T cells were subsequently co-cultured with EV-conditioned monocytes in order to assess effects on T-cell proliferation. PD-L1 constitutive overexpression or short hairpin RNA–mediated knockdown was used to determined the role of altered PD-L1 expression. Results GBM EVs interact with both T cells and monocytes but do not directly inhibit T-cell activation. However, GBM EVs induce immunosuppressive monocytes, including myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and nonclassical monocytes (NCMs). MDSCs and NCMs inhibit T-cell proliferation in vitro and are found within GBM in situ. EV PD-L1 expression induces NCMs but not MDSCs, and does not affect EV-conditioned monocytes T-cell inhibition. Conclusion These findings indicate that GBM EV-mediated immunosuppression occurs through induction of immunosuppressive monocytes rather than direct T-cell inhibition and that, while PD-L1 expression is important for the induction of specific immunosuppressive monocyte populations, immunosuppressive signaling mechanisms through EVs are complex and not limited to PD-L1.

Background The epidemiological transition of non-communicable diseases replacing infectious diseases as the main contributors to disease burden has been well documented in global health literature. Less focus, however, has been given to the relationship between sociodemographic changes and injury. The aim of this study was to examine the association between disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from injury for 195 countries and territories at different levels along the development spectrum between 1990 and 2017 based on the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 estimates. Methods Injury mortality was estimated using the GBD mortality database, corrections for garbage coding and CODEm—the cause of death ensemble modelling tool. Morbidity estimation was based on surveys and inpatient and outpatient data sets for 30 cause-of-injury with 47 nature-of-injury categories each. The Socio-demographic Index (SDI) is a composite indicator that includes lagged income per capita, average educational attainment over age 15 years and total fertility rate. Results For many causes of injury, age-standardised DALY rates declined with increasing SDI, although road injury, interpersonal violence and self-harm did not follow this pattern. Particularly for self-harm opposing patterns were observed in regions with similar SDI levels. For road injuries, this effect was less pronounced. Conclusions The overall global pattern is that of declining injury burden with increasing SDI. However, not all injuries follow this pattern, which suggests multiple underlying mechanisms influencing injury DALYs. There is a need for a detailed understanding of these patterns to help to inform national and global efforts to address injury-related health outcomes across the development spectrum.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common and lethal primary brain tumor, and novel therapeutic strategies that make a substantial impact on outcomes are sorely needed. Immunotherapies have shown great promise in the treatment of a number of cancers in recent year, and a concerted effort is being made to apply these treatment paradigms to GBM. However, many GBM patients exhibit profound immunosuppression, likely limiting the efficacy of such approaches. The mechanisms of this immunosuppression are poorly understood, but tumor-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs), may play a role. We demonstrate that GBM-derived EVs induce the development of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and non-classical monocytes (NCMs). We further demonstrate that these EV-induced monocytic cells are immunosuppressive, resulting in impaired T cell proliferation upon co-culture. We found that the immunosuppressive effects of tumor-derived EVs appear to be driven by the induction of these immunosuppressive monocytes, as EV treatment of T cells did not significantly impact T cell proliferation. Further, we sought to characterize the important of programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) in the induction of these immunosuppressive monocyte populations. We found PD-L1 to be expressed in the EVs from GBM cell lines, and that modulation in PD-L1 expression via either constitutive overexpression or shRNA-mediated knockdown resulted in concordant changes in expression in tumor-derived EVs. We demonstrate that PD-L1 is important for the induction of NCM but not for MDSCs. Taken together, these findings point to a significant role for tumor-derived EVs in the induction of immunosuppressive monocytes in GBM, and that these cells may be a driving force of systemic immunosuppression. PD-L1 is one factor expressed in EVs that has immunomodulatory properties, but additional EV cargo likely plays a major role in the induction of immunosuppressive cells.

Abstract Introduction: Lenalidomide (len) is an immunomodulatory agent with single agent activity in relapsed and refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). CHOEP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, and prednisone) is a common initial regimen. Herein, we report the completed phase II results of the combination of len-CHOEP. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had newly diagnosed PTCL, ANC ≥1000 cells/mm3, platelets ≥100 K/mm3, and adequate organ function. Based on phase I results [Lunning et al. T-cell Forum 2018] 10 mg of len was chosen for phase II. CHOEP was administered at standard doses with len given on days 1-10 of 21-day cycle for six planned cycles. Mandatory prophylaxis included aspirin (ASA) or alternative thromboprophylaxis and growth factor support per institutional guidelines with each cycle. A PET/CT after two cycles (PET-2) for interim response assessment was required per protocol. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) by PET/CT after 6 cycles (PET-6) of len-CHOEP utilizing the revised Cheson 2007 criteria with secondary endpoints to include toxicity, overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), 2-year PFS, and overall survival (OS). Pts who had CR or partial response (PR) at the end of therapy had the option of len maintenance (10 mg/day for 21 out of 28 days) for 1-year or consolidative autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) without len maintenance. Per protocol pts dosed at 10 mg in phase I (N=8) were included in the phase II analysis. Results: Forty pts with PTCL-NOS (23), ALK negative ALCL (5) and AITL (12) enrolled into the phase II portion. Median age was 62 years (range 24-79) and 21 were male. Thirty (75%) pts completed all 6 cycles. Reasons for discontinuing len-CHOEP early were toxicity (n=6) and progressive disease (PD; n=4). PET-2 was not done in 4/40 pts (n=2 each either not performed or PD). In an intent to treat (ITT) analysis the CR rate at the end of treatment was 48% (19/40; 95CI-32-64%) with an ORR of 68%. In pts who completed 6 cycles (n=30) the CR/ORR rate was 63%/87% respectively. Seven pts (18%) experienced primary treatment failure. Of the 19 pts in CR at end of initial therapy, 14 were in a CR at PET-2 assessment. Two pts in a PET-2 CR discontinued prior to cycle 6 due to toxicity and have not progressed. Five pts converted from a PR to CR after PET-2, but 7 of 13 PRs remained PRs. Responding pts (CR/PR; n=30) proceeded either to an ASCT (n=18), len maintenance (n=10) or neither (investigator/pts preference; n=2). At a median follow up of 13 months (range: 4-23 months), the 1-year estimated PFS and OS is 68% [95% CI--50-80%] and 89% [95%CI--73-96%] respectively. There were five grade (G) 5 events including PD (n=1), secondary malignancy (n=1; AML), sepsis (n=2), and cardiac arrest (n=1). Serious or recurrent adverse events (SAEs or AEs) of interest occurring during any cycle included 38% G 3-4 febrile neutropenia despite mandated GCSF use, 43% G 3-4 anemia, 43% G 3-4 thrombocytopenia (without report of G 3-4 bleeding or bruising despite ASA use), 3% G3-4 rash (all G 23%), and 8% G 3-4 diarrhea (all G 43%). Conclusions: The phase II portion of the study in an ITT population noted an unexpectedly modest 48% CR rate and a high discontinuation rate (15%) due to AEs or SAE. The utility of response at PET-2 and post initial therapy strategy (len maintenance vs ASCT) continue to be monitored for PFS and OS in this limited cohort. Improving frontline outcomes for pts with PTCL remains an unmet need. Disclosures Lunning: Celgene: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Genzyme: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Horwitz:Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy; Kyowa-Hakka-Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola: Consultancy; Aileron Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Corvus: Consultancy; Spectrum: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Infinity/Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding. Advani:Janssen Pharmaceutical: Other: Institutional Research Support; Cell Medica: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Merck: Other: Institutional Research Support; Forty Seven, Inc: Other: Institutional Research Support; Millenium: Other: Institutional Research Support; Roche/Genentech: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role, Institutional Research Support; Pharmacyclics: Other: Institutional Research Support; Celgene: Other: Institutional Research Support; Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Institutional Research Support; Kura: Other: Institutional Research Support; Infinity: Other: Institutional Research Support; Autolus: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Kyowa: Other: Consulting/Advisory Role; Takeda: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role and Institutional Research Support; Agensys: Other: Institutional Research Support; Gilead/Kite: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role; Seattle Genetics: Other: Consultancy/Advisory role, Institutional Research Support; AstraZeneca: Other: Consultancy/Advisory Role. Vose:Epizyme: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte Corp.: Research Funding; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.: Research Funding. Mehta-Shah:Verastem: Research Funding; Genetech: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy. Haverkos:Viracta Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Moskowitz:ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck & Co: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding.

Physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R) is a specialty of medicine focused on optimizing function and quality of life for individuals with physical impairments, injuries, or disabling illnesses. Given the sometimes acute nature of the loss of function and even loss of independence, there are significant palliative care (PC) needs within patients seen by PM&R. This article, written by a team of PM&R and PC specialists, aims to help the PC team better understand the world of postacute care, expand their toolkit for treating musculoskeletal and neurological symptoms, improve prognostication for patients with brain and spinal cord injuries, and decide when patients may benefit from PM&R consultation and support. There is significant overlap between the populations treated by PM&R and PC. Better integration between these specialties will help patients to maintain independence as well as advance excellent patient-centered care.