Citations

Abstract Enasidenib (ENA) is an inhibitor of isocitrate dehydrogenase 2 (IDH2) approved for the treatment of patients with IDH2-mutant relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML). In this phase 2/1b Beat AML substudy, we applied a risk-adapted approach to assess the efficacy of ENA monotherapy for patients aged ≥60 years with newly diagnosed IDH2-mutant AML in whom genomic profiling demonstrated that mutant IDH2 was in the dominant leukemic clone. Patients for whom ENA monotherapy did not induce a complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi) enrolled in a phase 1b cohort with the addition of azacitidine. The phase 2 portion assessing the overall response to ENA alone demonstrated efficacy, with a composite complete response (cCR) rate (CR/CRi) of 46% in 60 evaluable patients. Seventeen patients subsequently transitioned to phase 1b combination therapy, with a cCR rate of 41% and 1 dose-limiting toxicity. Correlative studies highlight mechanisms of clonal elimination with differentiation therapy as well as therapeutic resistance. This study demonstrates both efficacy of ENA monotherapy in the upfront setting and feasibility and applicability of a risk-adapted approach to the upfront treatment of IDH2-mutant AML. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03013998.

Importance There is an unmet need for novel medical therapies before recommending invasive therapies for patients with severely symptomatic obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM). Mavacamten has been shown to improve left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) gradient and symptoms and may thus reduce the short-term need for septal reduction therapy (SRT). Objective To examine the cumulative longer-term effect of mavacamten on the need for SRT through week 56. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, randomized clinical trial with placebo crossover at 16 weeks, conducted from July 2020 to November 2022. Participants were recruited from 19 US HCM centers. Included in the trial were patients with obstructive HCM (New York Heart Association class III/IV) referred for SRT. Study data were analyzed April to August 2023. Interventions Patients initially assigned to mavacamten at baseline continued the drug for 56 weeks, and patients taking placebo crossed over to mavacamten from week 16 to week 56 (40-week exposure). Dose titrations were performed using echocardiographic LVOT gradient and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) measurements. Main Outcome and Measure Proportion of patients undergoing SRT, remaining guideline eligible or unevaluable SRT status at week 56. Results Of 112 patients with highly symptomatic obstructive HCM, 108 (mean [SD] age, 60.3 [12.5] years; 54 male [50.0%]) qualified for the week 56 evaluation. At week 56, 5 of 56 patients (8.9%) in the original mavacamten group (3 underwent SRT, 1 was SRT eligible, and 1 was not SRT evaluable) and 10 of 52 patients (19.2%) in the placebo crossover group (3 underwent SRT, 4 were SRT eligible, and 3 were not SRT evaluable) met the composite end point. A total of 96 of 108 patients (89%) continued mavacamten long term. Between the mavacamten and placebo-to-mavacamten groups, respectively, after 56 weeks, there was a sustained reduction in resting (mean difference, −34.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, −43.5 to −24.5 mm Hg and −33.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, −41.9 to −24.5 mm Hg) and Valsalva (mean difference, −45.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, −56.5 to −34.6 mm Hg and −54.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, −66.0 to −43.3 mm Hg) LVOT gradients. Similarly, there was an improvement in NYHA class of 1 or higher in 51 of 55 patients (93%) in the original mavacamten group and in 37 of 51 patients (73%) in the placebo crossover group. Overall, 12 of 108 patients (11.1%; 95% CI, 5.87%-18.60%), which represents 7 of 56 patients (12.5%) in the original mavacamten group and 5 of 52 patients (9.6%) in the placebo crossover group, had an LVEF less than 50% (2 with LVEF ≤30%, one of whom died), and 9 of 12 patients (75%) continued treatment. Conclusions and Relevance Results of this randomized clinical trial showed that in patients with symptomatic obstructive HCM, mavacamten reduced the need for SRT at week 56, with sustained improvements in LVOT gradients and symptoms. Although this represents a useful therapeutic option, given the potential risk of LV systolic dysfunction, there is a continued need for close monitoring. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04349072

AbstractYoung adults have increasing genomic testing opportunities; however, little is known about how equipped they feel about making decisions to learn personal genomic information. We conducted qualitative interviews with 19 young adults, ages 18–21 years old, enrolled in a research study where they made decisions about learning personal genomic risk for developing preventable, treatable, and adult‐onset conditions and carrier status for autosomal recessive conditions. Participants had the option to include a parent in their study visit and the decision‐making process. The goal of this project was to explore young adults' reasons for involving or not involving a parent in the study and to assess young adults' perspectives about parental roles in their healthcare. Nine participants included a parent in the study and ten did not include a parent. Eleven participants received genomic test results before the interview, while eight participants had not yet received their results at the time of the interview. The study team developed a coding guide and coded interview transcripts inductively and deductively using an interpretive descriptive‐analytic approach. Logistical issues dominated solo participants' reasons for not involving a parent in the study, whereas those who involved a parent often cited a close relationship with the parent and the parent's previous involvement in the participant's healthcare as reasons for involving them. Both groups of participants described gradually transitioning to independent healthcare decision‐making with age and felt their comfort in medical decision‐making depends on the severity of and their familiarity with the situation. Participants recommended that future genomic researchers or clinicians give young adults the option to involve a parent or friend as a support person in research or clinical visits. Although young adults may have different journeys toward independent healthcare decision‐making, some may benefit from continued parental or peer involvement after reaching the age of legal adulthood.

Abstract Modern histologic imaging platforms coupled with machine learning methods have provided new opportunities to map the spatial distribution of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. However, there exists no standardized method for describing or analyzing spatial immune cell data, and most reported spatial analyses are rudimentary. In this review, we provide an overview of two approaches for reporting and analyzing spatial data (raster versus vector‐based). We then provide a compendium of spatial immune cell metrics that have been reported in the literature, summarizing prognostic associations in the context of a variety of cancers. We conclude by discussing two well‐described clinical biomarkers, the breast cancer stromal tumor infiltrating lymphocytes score and the colon cancer Immunoscore, and describe investigative opportunities to improve clinical utility of these spatial biomarkers. © 2023 The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

AbstractThe clinical significance of the tumor‐immune interaction in breast cancer is now established, and tumor‐infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) have emerged as predictive and prognostic biomarkers for patients with triple‐negative (estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2‐negative) breast cancer and HER2‐positive breast cancer. How computational assessments of TILs might complement manual TIL assessment in trial and daily practices is currently debated. Recent efforts to use machine learning (ML) to automatically evaluate TILs have shown promising results. We review state‐of‐the‐art approaches and identify pitfalls and challenges of automated TIL evaluation by studying the root cause of ML discordances in comparison to manual TIL quantification. We categorize our findings into four main topics: (1) technical slide issues, (2) ML and image analysis aspects, (3) data challenges, and (4) validation issues. The main reason for discordant assessments is the inclusion of false‐positive areas or cells identified by performance on certain tissue patterns or design choices in the computational implementation. To aid the adoption of ML for TIL assessment, we provide an in‐depth discussion of ML and image analysis, including validation issues that need to be considered before reliable computational reporting of TILs can be incorporated into the trial and routine clinical management of patients with triple‐negative breast cancer. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.