Citations

OBJECTIVE Investigations of the combined effects of neoadjuvant Onyx embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) on brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have not accounted for initial angioarchitectural features prior to neuroendovascular intervention. The aim of this retrospective, multicenter matched cohort study is to compare the outcomes of SRS with versus without upfront Onyx embolization for AVMs using de novo characteristics of the preembolized nidus. METHODS The International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized based on AVM treatment approach into Onyx embolization (OE) and SRS (OE+SRS) or SRS alone (SRS-only) cohorts and then propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was AVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiological and symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RICs), and cyst formation. Comparisons were analyzed using crude rates and cumulative probabilities adjusted for competing risk of death. RESULTS The matched OE+SRS and SRS-only cohorts each comprised 53 patients. Crude rates (37.7% vs 47.2% for the OE+SRS vs SRS-only cohorts, respectively; OR 0.679, p = 0.327) and cumulative probabilities at 3, 4, 5, and 6 years (33.7%, 44.1%, 57.5%, and 65.7% for the OE+SRS cohort vs 34.8%, 45.5%, 59.0%, and 67.1% for the SRS-only cohort, respectively; subhazard ratio 0.961, p = 0.896) of AVM obliteration were similar between the matched cohorts. The secondary outcomes of the matched cohorts were also similar. Asymptomatic and symptomatic embolization-related complication rates in the matched OE+SRS cohort were 18.9% and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Pre-SRS AVM embolization with Onyx does not appear to negatively influence outcomes after SRS. These analyses, based on de novo nidal characteristics, thereby refute previous studies that found detrimental effects of Onyx embolization on SRS-induced AVM obliteration. However, given the risks incurred by nidal embolization using Onyx, this neoadjuvant intervention should be used judiciously in multimodal treatment strategies involving SRS for appropriately selected large-volume or angioarchitecturally high-risk AVMs.

AbstractA 10‐year‐old Guatemalan girl with past medical history of Epstein‐Barr virus‐associated smooth muscle tumors (EBV‐SMT) and combined immunodeficiency presented for evaluation of painful intraoral lesions. On examination, she was noted to have multiple, white to flesh‐colored, soft, flat‐topped papules, and plaques on the buccal and labial mucosa. Human papillomavirus type 13 was detected on PCR with PGMY primers of previously biopsied buccal tissue, confirming a diagnosis of Heck's disease (multifocal epithelial hyperplasia). We present an immunosuppressed, pediatric patient with two rare, virus‐associated neoplastic disorders that have not been previously reported to occur in the same individual.

Background: Pts with high-risk LBCL have poor outcomes with R-CHOP chemoimmunotherapy (Sathyanarayanan, et al. ASH 2016. #106), and ≈50% of pts will not achieve long-term disease remission (Coiffier, et al. ASH Ed Program. 2016), highlighting unmet need for new therapies. Axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, was approved for treatment of adults with R/R LBCL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapies based on the pivotal study, ZUMA-1 (Neelapu SS, et al. NEJM. 2017). ZUMA-12 is a Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line therapy in pts with high-risk LBCL. Here, we present interim efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) results from ZUMA-12. Methods: Eligible adults (≥ 18 y) met 2 criteria for high-risk LBCL: i) double- or triple-hit lymphoma by fluorescent in situ hybridization per investigator or LBCL with IPI score ≥ 3; and ii) positive interim PET per Lugano Classification (Cheson, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014; Deauville score [DS] 4 or 5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline containing regimen, which served as a dynamic risk assessment. Pts with PMBCL were not eligible. Pts underwent leukapheresis (≥ 2 wks after prior systemic therapy) and optional non-chemotherapy bridging at investigator discretion, followed by conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2/d and fludarabine 30 mg/m2/d for 3 d) and a single axi-cel infusion (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response (CR) rate per Lugano. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines in blood and serum. Results: As of July 15, 2020, 31 pts have been enrolled and treated, and as of January 24, 2020, in a planned interim analysis, 15 pts were treated with axi-cel with ≥ 3 mos of follow-up. Median age was 60 y (range, 39 - 86), 67% of pts were male, 73% had ECOG of 1, 40%/60% had DS4/5; 60% had double- or triple-hit status per investigator, and 67% had IPI score ≥ 3. Baseline characteristics were largely comparable to ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 except for lower median tumor burden in ZUMA-12 (ZUMA-1: 3897 mm2 vs ZUMA-12: 1610 mm2). Of 12 response-evaluable pts (pts with centrally confirmed high-risk LBCL who received axi-cel), the investigator-assessed ORR was 92% (95% CI, 62% - 100%) with a CR rate of 75% (95% CI, 43% - 95%); 75% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 pts treated (safety analysis set), the investigator-assessed ORR was 93% (95% CI, 68% - 100%) with a CR rate of 80% (95% CI, 52% - 96%); 86% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 safety-evaluable pts, 80% experienced Grade ≥ 3 AEs. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs (≥ 25% of pts) were white blood cell count decreased (40%), anemia (27%), and encephalopathy (27%). Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 20% and 27% of pts, respectively. All CRS and 10/11 NEs of any grade resolved (causally unrelated Grade 1 tremor was ongoing in 1 pt at data cutoff). Median time to onset of CRS was 4 d (range, 1 - 8), with median duration of 5 d (range, 2 - 12). Median time to onset of NEs was 9 d (range, 2 - 44), with median duration of 10 d (range, 1 - 40). Grade ≥ 3 infection was reported in 27% and Grade ≥ 3 neutrophil count decreased was reported in 20%. No Grade 5 AEs occurred. Despite similar assessment schedule and methodology, median peak CAR T cell levels were greater in ZUMA-12 vs ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 (131 cells/µL [range, 10 - 555] vs 32 cells/µL [range, 1 - 1514]). Median CAR T cell expansion (AUC0-28) was also greater in ZUMA-12 (1124 cells/µL × d [range, 147 - 4261]; ZUMA-1: 357 cells/µL × d [range, 5 - 11,507]). Median time to peak levels of CAR T cells in blood was 7 d after infusion. PK were similar in pts with double- or triple-hit lymphoma and IPI score ≥ 3. Updated safety, efficacy, and PK results will be reported, along with product characteristics and levels of key cytokines. Conclusion: ZUMA-12 is the first study evaluating CAR T cell therapy as first-line therapy in high-risk LBCL, which notably was defined by both histology and/or IPI and dynamic risk assessment with PET scan. Axi-cel demonstrated significant clinical benefit, with high ORR and CR rates and a manageable safety profile in pts for whom there is an unmet medical need. The study also provides new insights into the pharmacology of CAR T cell therapy for pts exposed to fewer prior therapies. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; N/A: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Other; Calibr: Other. Dickinson:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oluwole:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Herrera:Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Thieblemont:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bayer: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Hospira: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riedell:Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Kekre:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. de Vos:Bayer: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Yang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Milletti:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Chavez:Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

Background Erenumab, a calcitonin gene‐related peptide (CGRP) receptor monoclonal antibody, has been well tolerated with good efficacy for the preventive treatment of episodic and chronic migraine in phase 2 and phase 3 clinical trials. Limited post‐market observations are available to validate these findings in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic population with complex comorbidities and refractory migraine. Objective The goal of this study is to demonstrate the real‐world performance of erenumab among patients in a tertiary care headache clinic by describing patient selection, experience, and clinical characteristics after 6 months of erenumab therapy. Methods A retrospective, exploratory, observational study was conducted on patients receiving at least 1 erenumab injection (70 or 140 mg). Baseline data obtained by chart review and telephone calls were compared to 6‐month follow‐up telephone calls. The primary outcome was the reduction in self‐reported headache days per month at baseline compared to 6 months for those with complete 6‐month data. The significance level was set at P < .05. Secondary analyses explored the distribution of headache severity, responder rates, Migraine Disability Assessment scores, adverse effects, ineffective preventives, comorbidities, wearing‐off, and discontinuation. Results Of the 101 patients who consented to participate, 89.1% (90/101) were women, and the mean age of all patients was 49 years (range, 19‐80 years). At baseline, 94.1% (95/101) of patients had chronic migraine, 5.0% (5/101) had episodic migraine, and 18.8% (19/101) had medication overuse headache. The mean (SD) number of baseline headache and migraine days per month for the entire cohort were 24.3 (8.2) and 18.2 (9.3) days, respectively. Participants had numerous comorbidities and had tried a mean of 11.2 unique oral medications and 4.8 unique medication categories before receiving erenumab, including 83.2% (84/101) who had also received onabotulinumtoxinA. Six‐month post‐erenumab follow‐up data were available for 42.6% (43/101) of participants. For these 43 participants, the number of headache days per month decreased significantly by 6.5 days from a baseline mean (SD) of 24.8 (6.47) days to 18.3 (12) days at 6‐month follow‐up ( P < .001); similarly, the monthly migraine days decreased significantly by 8.4 days from a baseline mean of 19.1 (9.3) days to 10.7 days at 6‐month follow‐up ( P < .001). The 50% responder rate was 34.9% (15/43) for monthly headache days and 54.8% (23/43) for monthly migraine days. Of all 101 participants, 28 (27.7%) discontinued erenumab, primarily because it was ineffective (39.3%, 11/28) or because of adverse effects (42.9%, 12/28). Conclusion This post‐market observational study of patient experience describes response to erenumab in a real‐world tertiary headache clinic with a complex patient population. Overall, these complex patients had a significant positive clinical response to erenumab, but with high rates of discontinuation. This study also noted a 1‐week wearing‐off response and high rates of constipation. Further post‐market studies are needed to better characterize patient selection and real‐world response to erenumab.

Abstract Objectives To describe the histologic features that are helpful in the diagnosis of the rare bronchiolar adenomas/ciliated muconodular papillary tumors (BAs/CMPTs) during intraoperative consultation. Methods Multi-institutional retrospective review of frozen sections of 18 BAs/CMPTs. Results In 14 of 18 cases, BA/CMPT was the primary reason for sublobar lung resection, and in 4 cases, BA/CMPT was an incidental finding intraoperatively for resections performed for carcinoma in other lobes. There were 11 proximal-type/classic BAs/CMPTs and 7 distal-type/nonclassic BAs/CMPTs. Only 3 (16.7%) of 18 were correctly diagnosed at the time of frozen section, all of which were proximal type/classic. The remainder were diagnosed as adenocarcinoma (n = 7); invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma (n = 1); non–small cell lung carcinoma (n = 1); cystic mucinous neoplasm, favor adenocarcinoma (either mucinous or colloid type) (n = 1); favor adenocarcinoma, cannot exclude CMPT (n = 1); atypical proliferation (n = 2); mucinous epithelial proliferation (n = 1); and mucous gland adenoma (n = 1). Conclusions BA/CMPT can potentially be misdiagnosed as carcinoma during intraoperative consultation. On retrospective review of the frozen sections, the presence of the following may help to avoid misdiagnosis: a mixture of bland ciliated columnar cells, mucinous cells, and, most important, a basal cell layer, as well as a lack of necrosis, significant atypia, and mitoses.

Abstract BACKGROUND Prior comparisons of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with or without embolization were inherently flawed, due to differences in the pretreatment nidus volumes. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of embolization and SRS, vs SRS alone for AVMs using pre-embolization malformation features. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Patients were categorized into the embolization and SRS (E + SRS) or SRS alone (SRS-only) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was defined as AVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiologic and symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RIC), and cyst formation. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 101 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched E + SRS vs SRS-only cohorts (48.5% vs 54.5%; odds ratio = 0.788, P = .399). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were also similar between the E + SRS (33.0%, 46.4%, 56.2%, and 60.8%, respectively) and SRS-only (32.9%, 46.2%, 56.0%, and 60.6%, respectively) cohorts (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 1.005, P = .981). Cumulative probabilities of radiologic RIC at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were lower in the E + SRS (25.0%, 25.7%, 26.7%, and 26.7%, respectively) vs SRS-only (45.3%, 46.2%, 47.8%, and 47.8%, respectively) cohort (SHR = 0.478, P = .004). Symptomatic and asymptomatic embolization-related complication rates were 8.3% and 18.6%, respectively. Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, symptomatic RIC, and cyst formation were similar between the matched cohorts. CONCLUSION This study refutes the prevalent notion that AVM embolization negatively affects the likelihood of obliteration after SRS.

Abstract BACKGROUND Embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) using ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) embolization may influence the treatment effects of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) differently than other embolysates. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of pre-SRS AVM embolization with vs without Onyx through a multicenter, retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Embolized AVMs treated with SRS were selected and categorized based on embolysate usage into Onyx embolization (OE + SRS) or non-Onyx embolization (NOE + SRS) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using de novo AVM features for comparative analysis of outcomes. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 45 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (47% vs 51%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.837, P = .673). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration were also similar between the OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (subhazard ratio = 0.992, P = .980). Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiation-induced changes, cyst formation, and embolization-associated complications were similar between the matched cohorts. Sensitivity analysis for AVMs in the OE + SRS cohort embolized with Onyx alone revealed a higher rate of asymptomatic embolization-associated complications in this subgroup compared to the NOE + SRS cohort (36% vs 15%; OR = 3.297, P = .034), but the symptomatic complication rates were similar. CONCLUSION Nidal embolization using Onyx does not appear to differentially impact the outcomes of AVM SRS compared with non-Onyx embolysates. The embolic agent selected for pre-SRS AVM embolization should reflect both the experience of the neurointerventionalist and target of endovascular intervention.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States ( n = 32) and Jordan ( n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.