Citations

Background: Annual rankings by US News and World Report are a widely utilized metric by both health care leaders and patients. One longstanding measure is time to treatment of femur shaft fractures. Hospitals able to provide at least 80% of pediatric patients with an operating room start time within 18 hours of admission to the emergency department score better as part of the overall pediatric orthopaedic ranking. Therefore, it is important to determine whether the 18-hour treatment time for pediatric femur shaft fractures is a clinically meaningful metric. Methods: A retrospective review of clinical outcomes of 174 pediatric patients (aged below 16 y) with isolated femur shaft fractures (Injury Severity Score=9) was conducted from 1997 to 2017 at a single level I pediatric trauma center. The 2 comparison groups were patients receiving fracture reduction within 18 hours of emergency department admission (N=87) or >18 hours (N=87). Results: Patient, injury, and surgical characteristics were similar between the 2 groups. Both groups had a similar mean age (treatment <18 h=7.5 y; treatment >18 h=8.1 y). Patients who received treatment within 18 hours were more often immobilized postoperatively (70.1% vs. 53.5%; P=0.0362) and had a shorter median hospital length of stay (2 vs. 3 d; P=0.0047). There were no statistically significant differences in any outcomes including surgical site infection, time to weight-bearing (treatment <18 h mean=48.1 d vs. 52.5 d), time to complete radiographic fracture healing (treatment <18 h mean=258.9 d vs. 232.0 d), decreased range of motion, genu varus/valgus, limb length discrepancy, loss of reduction, or persistent pain. Conclusions: Treatment of pediatric femur shaft fractures within 18 hours does not impact clinical outcomes. National quality measures should therefore use evidence-based metrics to help improve the standard of care. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic level III.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of &gt; 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

Abstract Background: Therapies for myelofibrosis (MF) are limited and most are palliative. The JAK1/2 inhibitor ruxolitinib reduces spleen size and MF-related symptoms and improves survival, but can be limited by dose-dependent anemia and thrombocytopenia. Moreover, nearly half of ruxolitinib responders relapse within 5 years. PI3Kd is highly expressed in MF patient samples, independent of ruxolitinib pre-exposure. In JAK2-mutated cell lines, inhibition of PI3K/AKT signaling reduced proliferation and clonogenic potential. The once daily, next generation PI3Kd inhibitor TGR-1202 inhibited PI3K/AKT signaling and led to apoptosis in leukemia and lymphoma cell lines and was well-tolerated in clinical studies, with a toxicity profile distinct from that of ruxolitinib and other PI3Kd inhibitors. We hypothesized that adding TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib could resensitize or augment the response of MF patients with lost or suboptimal response to single-agent ruxolitinib. Objective: To assess safety of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib in MF patients Secondary Objectives: Hematologic response, symptom assessment Methods: MF patients who had sub-optimal responses to ruxolitinib continued their highest tolerated dose of ruxolitinib without change for ≥ 8 weeks, and were assigned to escalating doses of TGR-1202 in a standard 3+3 algorithm. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by NCI-CTCAE v4.03. Efficacy was assessed according to IWG-MRT consensus response criteria. Symptoms were assessed by the MPN symptom assessment form total symptom score (TSS). All patients received Pneumocystis pneumonia prophylaxis after cycle 1. Results: Eleven MF patients were enrolled and received 400 mg (n=3), 800 mg (n=6), or 600 mg TGR-1202 (n=2) daily. Nine were evaluable for response. Median age was 66y, 73% were male. All had ECOG PS 0-1. Five patients had mutations in JAK2, 4 in CALR, and 3 in MPL; these were mutually exclusive with exception of 1 patient with CALR and MPL mutations (Table 1). Median number of cycles of TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib treatment was 5 (1-13). Grade 2 anemia was the most common AE (Table 2). Two patients had asymptomatic Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase that persisted after drug was held, meeting criteria for dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) in 2 separate cohorts (TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 15mg BID and TGR-1202 800mg+ruxolitinib 10mg BID). Both patients had peak plasma TGR-1202 concentrations 1.5-2x higher than the other patients receiving 800mg TGR-1202, although steady-state levels were equivalent. The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of TGR-1202 in combination with ruxolitinib was not established. Two patients went off-study due to AEs, and 3 due to progressive disease. One of 9 evaluable patients achieved complete remission and 7 had stable disease. Seven of the 9 evaluable patients had improvement in hematologic parameters and 8 had reduced MF symptoms with a median 33% decrease in TSS (Fig. 1). Conclusions: TGR-1202 + ruxolitinib was well-tolerated. Pharmacokinetic data were consistent with single-agent TGR-1202 (unpublished data), indicating that ruxolitinib does not alter absorption or metabolism of TGR-1202. Grade 3 elevations in amylase and lipase were considered DLTs, per protocol. Although the clinical significance of these asymptomatic laboratory findings is not clear, the protocol was amended to further assay these labs and to exclude concomitant medications with the potential to increase amylase/lipase. Importantly, no grade ≥3 hepatotoxicity, colitis, or thrombocytopenia was seen and no MTD was found. Although only one patient achieved CR, 89% demonstrated clinical benefit with the addition of TGR-1202 to ruxolitinib, supporting further exploration of this combination. Disclosures Strickland: Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Ambit: Consultancy; Baxalta: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy, Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutica: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Miskin:TG Therapeutics, Inc: Employment, Equity Ownership. Cavers:TG Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Sportelli:TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Michaelis:Pfizer: Equity Ownership; Cellgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria. Mesa:CTI: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Savona:Amgen Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ariad: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Incyte: 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; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

BACKGROUND. Cutaneous erythema and histopathology features in patients post allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) are nonspecific, making it difficult to distinguish acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) from engraftment syndrome, drug reactions, viral infections, and other etiologies. Biopsies from different locations on the same patient frequently differ in aGVHD grade, and serial biopsies of a single lesion are not possible. Proper biopsy site selection, timing, and serial noninvasive microscopic monitoring may improve our understanding and management of aGVHD. In this study, we tested the feasibility of noninvasive reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) to detect key histopathology features of cutaneous aGVHD. STUDY POPULATION. We enrolled 11 patients with high clinical suspicion of cutaneous aGVHD, as determined by a transplant physician. In total, 16 lesions of cutaneous aGVHD-affected site were imaged by RCM (6x6 mm2en face images at four different depths) and subsequently biopsied (4x4 mm punch biopsy). 9 out of 11 patients had only skin involvement, and 2 patients had skin and gut aGVHD. 5 patients had >50% body surface area (BSA) affected, 1 had 18-50% BSA, and 5 had <18% BSA. 8 out of 11 patients required systemic corticosteroids and 3 patients received topical corticosteroids. All patients were imaged before starting treatment. METHODS. We used a clinical confocal microscope (Vivascope 1500, Caliber I.D.), which enables real-time evaluation of epidermal and superficial dermal tissue at sub-cellular resolution. Four reflectance confocal microscopists blinded to histopathology independently evaluated the presence or absence of 18 RCM features1. Concurrently, four dermatopathologists blinded to clinical and confocal information determined the presence or absence of 19 histopathology features, as well as the Lerner aGVHD grade. A histologic feature was determined as "present" in a lesion when marked by most experts (expert vote) or resolved by a fifth expert in case of a disagreement among four experts. The reflectance confocal microscopist vote was then correlated to the dermatopathologist expert vote for 17 overlapping features. We also evaluated the interrater variability among microscopists and among dermatopathologists. RESULTS. The main aGVHD features by Lerner grade had > 88% correlation between RCM and histopathology: (1) basal vacuolar change, (2) presence of dyskeratotic keratinocytes, and (3) dermal inflammation. By contrast, dyskeratotic cells and inflammation at the adnexal structures had <50% correlation. This may be attributed to the fact that more adnexal structures are typically visible in the 6x6 mm2 RCM horizontal tissue view compared to vertical section histopathology. We found a similar interrater variability among RCM experts (70%) and dermatopathologists (68%). CONCLUSIONS. In this pilot study, we show that noninvasive label-free RCM of skin enables detection of the main Lerner grade features of cutaneous aGVHD. We found a similar interrater variability among reflectance confocal microscopists and among dermatopathologists who each independently evaluated the presence or absence of a list of aGVHD features. Future studies can build on this work to evaluate the feasibility of RCM to determine cutaneous aGVHD grade, as well as distinguish between rash due to aGVHD and drug reactions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. This work was supported in part by Career Development Award Number IK2 CX001785 from the United Sates Department of Veterans Affairs Clinical Science R&D (CSRD) Service. Saknite I, Gill M, Alessi-Fox C, Byrne M, Jagasia M, Gonzalez S, Ardigo M, Tkaczyk ER. Features of cutaneous acute graft-versus-host disease by reflectance confocal microscopy. Br J Dermatol (2019). Disclosures Christi: Caliber I.D.: Employment, Equity Ownership. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Jagasia:Kadmon: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Janssen: Research Funding. Tkaczyk:Incyte: Consultancy.

Importance Objectively measuring how Mohs defect reconstruction changes casual observer attention has important implications for patients and facial plastic surgeons. Objective To use eye-tracking technology to objectively measure the ability of Mohs facial defect reconstruction to normalize facial attention. Design, Setting, and Participants This observational outcomes study was conducted at an academic tertiary referral center from January to June 2016. An eye-tracking system was used to record how 82 casual observers directed attention to photographs of 32 patients with Mohs facial defects of varying sizes and locations before and after reconstruction as well as 16 control faces with no facial defects. Statistical analysis was performed from November 2018 to January 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures First, the attentional distraction caused by facial defects was quantified in milliseconds of gaze time using eye tracking. Second, the eye-tracking data were analyzed using mixed-effects linear regression to assess the association of facial defect reconstruction with normalized facial attention. Results The 82 casual observers (63 women and 19 men; mean [SD] age, 34 [12] years) viewed control faces in a similar and consistent fashion, with most attention (65%; 95% CI, 62%-69%) directed at the central triangle, which includes the eyes, nose, and mouth. The eyes were the most visually important feature, capturing a mean of 60% (95% CI, 57%-64%) of fixation time within the central triangle and 39% (95% CI, 36%-43%) of total observer attention. The presence of Mohs defects was associated with statistically significant alterations in this pattern of normal facial attention. The larger the defect and the more centrally a defect was located, the more attentional distraction was observed, as measured by increased attention on the defect and decreased attention on the eyes, ranging from 729 (95% CI, 526-931) milliseconds for small peripheral defects to 3693 (95% CI, 3490-3896) milliseconds for large central defects. Reconstructive surgery was associated with improved gaze deviations for all faces and with normalized attention directed to the eyes for all faces except for those with large central defects. Conclusions and Relevance Mohs defects are associated with altered facial perception, diverting attention from valuable features such as the eyes. Reconstructive surgery was associated with normalized attentional distraction for many patients with cutaneous Mohs defects. These data are important to patients who want to know how reconstructive surgery could change the way people look at their face. The data also point to the possibility of outcomes prediction based on facial defect size and location before reconstruction. Eye tracking is a valuable research tool for outcomes assessment that lays the foundation for understanding how reconstructive surgery may change perception and normalize facial deformity.

Drug induced liver injury is a very frequent cause of hepatotoxicity and within that group, herbal and dietary supplements are a well described subcategory. The following clinical vignette describes the case of a young man with acute hepatitis secondary to the use of Ilex paraguariensis, also known as yerba mate, which is a herbal product commonly drunk in South America. This is the first written case of mate tea induced hepatotoxicity.

Abstract Prompted by the activity of lenalidomide (Revlimid®) in pts with chronic idiopathic myelofibrosis (CIMF), we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the combination of lenalidomide and prednisone in a phase II study for pts with CIMF. The rationale for this combination is that the anti-angiogenic and anti-TNFa effects of lenalidomide may be potentiated by the effects of prednisone to reduce marrow fibrosis and improve hematopoiesis in CIMF. Initial therapy consisted of lenalidomide 10 mg/d (dose level [DL] 0) on days 1–21 of a 28–day cycle for 6 cycles, in combination with prednisone 30 mg/d orally during cycle 1, 15 mg/d orally during cycle 2, and 15 mg/d every other day during cycle 3. The lenalidomide dose could be reduced to 5 mg/d (DL -1) or to 5 mg/d every other day (DL -2), or increased to 15 mg/d (DL +1) or 20 mg/d (DL +2) depending upon toxicity or lack of response, respectively. A total of 40 pts (23 male, 17 female) have been enrolled. The median age was 62 years (range, 41–86), time from CIMF diagnosis to the study treatment 10 months (range, 0–269), WBC count 87x109/L (range, 1.1–89), hemoglobin 9.8 g/dL (range, 7.8–17.3), platelets 137x109/L (range, 8–1183). Pts had received a median of 1 prior therapy (range 0–4): hydroxyurea (HU; n=14), anagrelide (AG; n=4), azacitidine (n=6), steroids (n=5), thalidomide (n=4), and interferon (n=3). Ten (25%) pts had not received any prior therapy. JAK2 V617F mutation was detected in 18 (50%) of 36 tested pts and 20 (50%) of 40 had abnormal cytogenetics. A total of 260 cycles have been administered. All 40 pts are evaluable for response and toxicity. Responses have been observed in 12 (30%) pts, including complete response (CR) in 2 (normal blood counts and <5% bone marrow blasts, off HU, AG, growth factors, and no transfusions); partial response (PR) in 7 (at least 2 of the following: Hb increase by ≥2 g/dL, 50% increase in platelets, decrease of bone marrow blasts or organomegaly by ≥50%, normalization of WBC count without blasts, or reduction in bone marrow fibrosis; off HU, AG, growth factors, and transfusion independence); and hematologic improvement (HI) in 3 (at least 2 of the following: decrease by ≥25% of pretreatment leukocytosis, splenomegaly, or marrow blasts, or increase of Hb by ≥1g/dl without growth factor or transfusion support or platelets by ≥25%; off HU, AG, growth factors). Median time to response was 12 weeks (range, 2–32). Responses have been sustained for a median of 15 wks (range, 5–36) and are ongoing in all 12 responders. Overall, 21 (53%) pts experienced grade 3–4 toxicity, being the most frequent neutropenia, anemia, musculoskeletal pain, and fatigue. Twenty-four (60%) pts have required dose reduction to DL -1, of which 5 (12.5%) further reduced to DL -2. One (2.5%) pt dose-escalated to DL +1, while 15 (25%) remained at DL 0. Twenty-one (53%) pts discontinued lenalidomide due to: lack of response (n=8), pt’s decision (n=7), grade 3–4 toxicity (n=5), and poor compliance (n=1). No deaths or transformation to acute myeloid leukemia occurred. In summary, the combination of lenalidomide and prednisone is an active and generally well-tolerated regimen for pts with CIMF. Longer follow-up is warranted to evaluate the durability of ongoing responses. Updated results will be presented at the meeting.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) is a rare disorder caused by the pathologic activation of the immune system. In children, either a molecular diagnosis consistent with HLH or five out of the following eight criteria are considered necessary for a diagnosis of HLH (HLH-04 criteria): 1) fever; 2) splenomegaly; 3) cytopenia in two or more cell lines; 4) hypertriglyceridemia (≥265 mg/dL) or hypofibrinogenemia (≤150 mg/dL); 5) hemophagocytosis in the bone marrow, spleen, or lymph nodes; 6) hyperferritinemia (≥500 mcg/L); 7) impaired NK cell function; and 8) elevated soluble CD25 (sCD25). These criteria have been extrapolated to diagnose HLH in adults; however, it's unclear if these same criteria are applicable in the adult population. METHODS: We reviewed the Mayo Clinic electronic medical record for all adult (≥18 years) hospitalized patients with an admission serum ferritin of ≥500 mcg/L from January 2012 through December 2014. Patients' charts were reviewed and those who met the HLH-04 criteria were considered to have HLH. For the remainder of the patients, the etiology for hyperferritinemia was determined based on chart review and discharge diagnoses. Logistic regression models were used to assess the ability of these values in predicting a diagnosis of HLH. The Mayo Clinic IRB approved this study. RESULTS: We identified 1,329 patients with a serum ferritin ≥500 mcg/L. Of these, HLH was diagnosed in 28 (2.1%) patients (malignancy-associated HLH in 11 patients, infection-associated HLH in 4 patients, autoimmune-associated HLH in 7 patients, and idiopathic HLH in 6 patients). Table 1 describes the etiology of hyperferritinemia in the remaining 1,301 patients. In contrast to pediatric hospitalized patients (Allen, Pediatr Blood Cancer, 2008), adults are more likely to have malignancy (28.1% vs 7%; p<0.05); bacterial infection (21% vs. 13%; p=0.001); liver disease (9.9% vs. 2.7%; p<0.05); and cardiac disease (7.2% vs. 1.5%; p=0.0001) as the etiology of hyperferritinemia during their hospitalization. Among all patients in the study, the following variables were associated with higher odds of having HLH compared to hyperferritinemia due to an alternate cause: elevated ferritin (odds ratio [OR] 35.97, p<0.01); thrombocytopenia (OR 15.22, p<0.01), cytopenias defined by HLH-04 criteria (OR 8.04, p<0.01); elevated admission serum bilirubin (OR 1.05, p=0.02); and peak serum bilirubin (OR 1.05, p<0.01). After stepwise selection in multivariate analysis, serum ferritin ≥2,600 mcg/L and platelets ≤100 x 109/L were independently associated with HLH diagnosis (OR 24.9 and 7.8 respectively; p<0.01 for both). The area under the curve (AUC or c-statistic) ranges from 0.5 for no ability to discriminate, to 1.0 for perfect discrimination; this model has an AUC of 0.91, which shows very good discrimination between cases and controls. An adult hospitalized patient with a combination of serum ferritin ≥2,600 mcg/L and platelets ≤100x109/L predicts a ~200 fold increased likelihood of being diagnosed with HLH as compared to hospitalized adult meeting neither of these criteria (Figures 1 and 2). CONCLUSION: In contrast to hospitalized pediatric patients, the etiology of hyperferritinemia in adults is more likely to be malignancy, bacterial infection, liver disease, and cardiac disease. We conclude that a combination of serum ferritin ≥2,600 mcg/L and platelet count ≤100 x 109/L can be used as screening criteria to help identify adult patients most likely to have HLH. The traditional 5/8 criteria to diagnose HLH in pediatric patients do not appear necessary for establishing a diagnosis of HLH in adult patients. These observations need replication in an independent data set prior to broader applicability. Table 1.Patients with ferritin > 500 mcg/L with underlying cause for elevation.Number Diagnosed (%)Cardiac Disease95 (7.2%)Liver Disease131 (9.9%)Renal Disease87 (6.6%)Infectious343 (25.8%)Malignancy373 (28.1%)Autoimmune118 (8.9%)Solid Organ Transplant34 (2.6%)Stem Cell Transplant16 (1.2%)Bone Marrow Failure9 (0.7%)Shock39 (2.9%)Idiopathic53 (4.0%)Hemoglobinopathies3 (0.2%) Figure 1. ROC curve for the multivariable model with ferritin > 2,600 (yes/no) and platelets below 100,000 (yes/no) in the model with a very good discrimination c-statistic of 0.91. Figure 1. ROC curve for the multivariable model with ferritin > 2,600 (yes/no) and platelets below 100,000 (yes/no) in the model with a very good discrimination c-statistic of 0.91. Figure 2. Figure 2. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.