Citations

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Abstract Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T) therapies have demonstrated significant clinical efficacy in hematologic malignancies, but have proven challenging in solid tumors, in part owing to a lack of tumor-specific targets and unmanageable toxicity. Mesothelin (MSLN) expression normally is limited to the mesothelium of major body cavities but can be upregulated in diverse solid tumor types (cancer.gov/tcga), making it a potential target for cancer therapy. MSLN-targeted cell therapy approaches, including CAR T and T-cell receptor fusion therapies, have shown promising clinical activity; however, on-target, off-tumor toxicity including fatal events have occurred (Beatty, et al. Gastroenterology. 2018.; Haas, et al. Mol Ther. 2023.; Hong, et al. ESMO 2021. Abstract 9590.). A2B694 is an autologous logic-gated, MSLN-targeted Tmod CAR T therapy that addresses the challenges of on-target, off-tumor toxicity by combining 2 CARs: an activating and blocking receptor. The activator recognizes MSLN present on the surface of both tumor and normal cells; the blocker inhibits the CAR T activator when it binds human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-A*02, which is present in normal cells and often lost in tumor cells. Thus, in patients with tumor-associated HLA-A*02 loss of heterozygosity (LOH), the blocker prevents on-target, off-tumor toxicity on normal cells owing to retained HLA-A*02 expression (Hamburger, et al. Mol Immunol. 2020). Through this unique selective mechanism, A2B694 may provide a therapeutic window to treat patients with MSLN-expressing solid tumors exhibiting HLA-A*02 LOH. Methods: EVEREST-2 (NCT06051695) is a first-in-human, phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of A2B694 in adults with recurrent unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic cancers with MSLN expression, including non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, or other solid tumors with MSLN expression. Eligible patients must have progressed following standard of care therapy. Enrollment to EVEREST-2 occurs through the prescreening study BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119), which identifies patients with tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH via next-generation sequencing (Tempus AI, Inc). Eligible patients enroll in the BASECAMP-1 study and undergo leukapheresis. A2B694 is manufactured from cryopreserved T cells when clinically appropriate for patients. The primary objective of phase 1 is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of A2B694 and identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The dose-expansion phase will confirm RP2D and collect biomarker data to further characterize A2B694. Phase 2 will assess overall response rate per RECIST v1.1. The first patient was enrolled on EVEREST-2 in April 2024. Dose escalation is ongoing. Citation Format: Julian R. Molina, Antonious Hazim, Oliver Dorigo, Salman R. Punekar, Monica Avila, Diane M. Simeone, Kedar Kirtane, Gottfried E. Konecny, Jeffrey Ward, Matthew Block, Jennifer Specht, Leslie Boyd, Yanyan Lou, Jong Chul Park, Jacqueline D. Xuan, Ramez N. Eskander, Gayanie Ong, Marco Davila, Wendy Langeberg, Marcela Maus, Armen Mardiros, Frederick L. Locke, Andrea Wise, David G. Maloney, John Welch, J. Randolph Hecht. EVEREST-2: A seamless phase 1/2 study of A2B694, a logic-gated Tmod CAR T-cell therapy, in patients with mesothelin-expressing solid tumors with human leukocyte antigen-A*02 loss of heterozygosity [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT186.

Abstract Background In 2021, the American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation established the Multi‐Disciplinary Post‐Acute Sequelae of SARS‐CoV‐2 Infection Collaborative to provide guidance from established Long COVID clinics for the evaluation and management of Long COVID. The collaborative previously published eight Long COVID consensus guidance statements using a primarily symptom‐based approach. However, Long COVID symptoms most often do not occur in isolation. Aims This compendium aims to equip clinicians with an efficient, up‐to‐date clinical resource for evaluating and managing adults experiencing Long COVID symptoms. The primary intended audience includes physiatrists, primary care physicians, and other clinicians who provide first‐line assessment and management of Long COVID symptoms, especially in settings where subspecialty care is not readily available. This compendium provides a holistic framework for assessment and management, symptom‐specific considerations, and updates on prevalence, health equity, disability considerations, pathophysiology, and emerging evidence regarding treatments under investigation. Because Long COVID closely resembles other infection‐associated chronic conditions (IACCs) such as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, the guidance in this compendium may also be helpful for clinicians managing these related conditions. Methods Guidance in this compendium was developed by the collaborative's established modified Delphi approach. The collaborative is a multidisciplinary group whose members include physiatrists, primary care physicians, pulmonologists, cardiologists, psychiatrists, neuropsychologists, neurologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, speech and language pathologists, patients, and government representatives. Over 40 Long COVID centers are represented in the collaborative. Results Long COVID is defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine as “an IACC that occurs after SARS‐CoV‐2 infection and is present for at least 3 months as a continuous, relapsing and remitting, or progressive disease state that affects one or more organ systems.” The current global prevalence of Long COVID is estimated to be 6%. Higher prevalence has been identified among female gender, certain racial and ethnic groups, and individuals who live in nonurban areas. However, anyone can develop Long COVID after being infected with the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus. Long COVID can present as a wide variety of symptom clusters. The most common symptoms include exaggerated fatigue and diminished energy windows, postexertional malaise (PEM)/postexertional symptom exacerbation (PESE), cognitive impairment (brain fog), dysautonomia, pain/myalgias, and smell and taste alterations. Holistic assessment should include a traditional history, physical examination, and additional diagnostic testing, as indicated. A positive COVID‐19 test during acute SARS‐CoV‐2 infection is not required to diagnose Long COVID, and currently, there is no single laboratory finding that is definitively diagnostic for confirming or ruling out the diagnosis of Long COVID. A basic laboratory assessment is recommended for all patients with possible Long COVID, and consideration for additional labs and diagnostic procedures is guided by the patient's specific symptoms. Current management strategies focus on symptom‐based supportive care. Critical considerations include energy conservation strategies and addressing comorbidities and modifiable risk factors. Additionally, (1) it is essential to validate the patient's experience and provide reassurance that their symptoms are being taken seriously because many patients have had their symptoms dismissed by loved ones and clinicians; (2) physical activity recommendations must be carefully tailored to the patient's current activity tolerance because overly intense activity can trigger PEM/PESE and worsened muscle damage; and (3) treatment recommendations should be delivered with humility because there are many persistent unknowns related to Long COVID. To date, there are limited data to guide medication management specifically in the context of Long COVID. As such, medication use generally follows standard practice regarding indications and dosing, with extra attention to prioritize (1) patient preference via shared decision‐making and (2) cautious use of medications that may improve some symptoms (eg, cognitive/attention impairment) but may worsen other symptoms (eg, PEM/PESE). Numerous clinical trials are investigating additional treatments. The return‐to‐work process for individuals with Long COVID can be challenging because symptoms can fluctuate, vary in nature, affect multiple functional areas (eg, physical and cognitive), and often manifest as an “invisible disability” that may not be readily acknowledged by employers or coworkers. Clinicians can help patients return to work by identifying suitable workplace accommodations and resources, providing necessary documentation, and recommending occupational or vocational therapy when needed. If these efforts are unsuccessful and work significantly worsens Long COVID symptoms or impedes recovery, applying for disability may be warranted. Long COVID is recognized as a potential disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Conclusion To contribute to the overall health and well‐being for all patients, Long COVID care should be delivered in a holistic manner that acknowledges challenges faced by the patient and uncertainties in the field. For more detailed information on assessment and management of specific Long COVID symptoms, readers can reference the collaborative's symptom‐specific consensus guidance statements.

Abstract Introduction: Most people who die from prostate cancer are older than 75 years. However, prostate cancer diagnosed at younger ages is often more aggressive. While epidemiologic studies have examined the association between age and survival in patients with prostate cancer overall, the clinical drivers of this relationship in patients with advanced disease remain unclear. We leveraged the International Registry of Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN, NCT03151629) to (1) quantify the association between age and overall survival and (2) explore whether this association is explained by treatments. Methods: We included 3, 734 patients enrolled from 15 countries with new diagnoses of metastatic hormone sensitive (mHSPC, N=2, 642) or castration resistant prostate cancer (CRPC, N=1, 092). Age at enrollment was categorized as <55, 55-59, 60-64 (reference), 65-69, 70-74, 75-79, 80-84, 85+ years. We computed age-specific death rates (95% confidence intervals [CIs]) by disease state (mHSPC, CRPC) at enrollment. To explore whether this relationship was explained by treatment, we fitted disease state-stratified Cox models and sequentially adjusted for (1) de novo metastatic status and country, and (2) baseline treatment (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] alone, ADT + androgen receptor pathway inhibitors [ARPI], ADT + chemotherapy, ADT + ARPI + chemotherapy, other). Results: Over 5.5 years of follow-up (median: 3.2 years, IQR: 1.7, 4.8), 995 patients died from any cause. Younger patients were more likely to have de novo metastatic disease. Among those with mHSPC at enrollment, the age-specific death rates per 1, 000 person-years followed a J-shaped pattern: 80 (95% CI: 54, 117) in patients under 55 years, 58 (46, 74) in patients aged 60-64, 102 (78, 133) in patients aged 80-84, and 172 (125, 236) in patients aged 85 and older. The death rates among those with CRPC followed a similar pattern, albeit rates were higher in magnitude: 212 (95% CI: 140, 323) in patients under 55 years, 153 (115, 202) in patients aged 60-64, 200 (155, 258) in patients aged 80-84, and 204 (142, 291) in patients aged 85 and older. After adjusting for disease state, country, and the timing of diagnosis of metastases, death rates were substantially higher for ages 75-79 (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1, 1.7), 80-84 years (HR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2, 2.1), and 85 years and older (HR 2.0; 95% CI: 1.5, 2.7) compared to ages 60-64 years. Patients aged under 55 years had 1.4-fold higher death rates (95% CI: 1.0, 1.9) compared to those 60-64 years. After additionally adjusting for baseline treatment, overall survival remained worse for the older patients and the youngest age group with hazard ratios remaining meaningfully unchanged. Conclusion: Age at enrollment is associated with overall survival in people with advanced prostate cancer enrolled in IRONMAN in a J-shaped pattern. This relationship is not explained by differences in baseline treatment. Citation Format: Hannah E. Guard, Michelle O. Sodipo, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Lauren E. Howard, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher M. Sauer, Robert Dreicer, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim N. Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, Michael Kolinsky, Vincent Khoo, Joaquin Mateo, Chidiebere N. Ogo, Rana R. McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Russell Szmulewitz, Young E. Whang, Anand Sharma, Frédéric Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica S. Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi T. Odedina, Simon Anderson, Simone Badal, Natalie Greaves, Karen A. Autio, Laurel Cannon, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Marie Grant, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel J. George, Lorelei A. Mucci, IRONMAN investigator team. Disentangling the association between age and overall survival in an international cohort of patients with advanced prostate cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 4935.

Abstract Introduction: The standard of care for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) has evolved with the expanded approval of androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) alongside androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). ADT alone has been shown to affect cognitive function. However, the cognitive impact of distinct treatment combinations remains unclear. We investigated the association between first-line systemic treatments and the trajectory of subjective cognitive function among mHSPC survivors in the International Registry for Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer (IRONMAN). Methods: This analysis included 2435 newly diagnosed mHSPC patients enrolled across 15 countries between July 2017 and August 2024. Treatments were reported by site personnel and physicians. For this analysis, we focused on first-line systemic treatment and classified treatment groups at enrollment as ADT monotherapy (referent), ADT + ARPIs, or ADT + chemotherapy. Subjective cognitive function was assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 Cognitive Function subscale, with patient-reported scores (range 0-100) collected at enrollment and every 3 months for up to 5 years; higher scores reflect better cognitive function. Associations were estimated using linear mixed effects models with clustering by study site and country to examine differences at enrollment and across trajectories of subjective cognitive function by first-line treatment, adjusting for demographic and clinical factors. Results: Median age at enrollment was 70 years, with a median follow-up of 1.7 years. 724 (30%) participants were treated with ADT monotherapy, 1317 (54%) with ADT + ARPIs, and 394 (16%) with ADT + chemotherapy. Mean cognitive function scores at enrollment were 85.4 (Standard Deviation [SD] 19.5) for participants treated with ADT monotherapy, 86.7 (SD 17.3) for ADT + ARPIs, and 86.7 (SD 18.0) for ADT + chemotherapy. Cognitive function scores decreased by -0.60 points (95% Confidence Interval [CI] -0.72, -0.48) per year among those treated with ADT monotherapy, with similar rates observed for those treated with ADT + chemotherapy. Participants treated with ADT + ARPIs had a slower decline in cognitive function, with scores decreasing by -0.36 points (95% CI -0.60, -0.08) per year. Conclusion: In this international cohort of mHSPC survivors, subjective cognitive function scores were generally high at enrollment but declined over time. There was no evidence of worse cognitive function in those treated with ADT + ARPIs nor ADT + chemotherapy over time compared to ADT monotherapy. Cognitive functioning is a key component of survivorship, and defining cognitive trajectories associated with first-line treatment can inform supportive interventions, patient treatment decision-making, and clinical guidelines. Citation Format: Michelle O. Sodipo, Alicia K. Morgans, Erica T. Warner, Emily M. Rencsok, Lauren E. Howard, Colleen B. McGrath, Anna Siefkas, Konrad H. Stopsack, Christopher Sauer, Robert Drecier, Emilio Esteban, Hassan M. Dogo, Ademola Popoola, Charles Waihenya, Anders Bjartell, Kim Chi, Sebastien Hotte, Richard Cathomas, Deborah Enting, Scott Tagawa, Michael Ong, David Lorente, Elisabeth Heath, Rana McKay, Stefanie Fischer, Heather H. Cheng, Young E. Whang, Frederic Pouliot, Simon Crabb, Monica Chatwal, Miguel A. Climent, Raymond McDermott, Ian D. Davis, Camille Ragin, Folakemi Odedina, Natalie Greaves, Simone Badal, Simon Anderson, Sharon Harrison, Karen Autio, Laurel Cannon, Marie Grant, Alyssa Chan-Cuzydlo, Travis Gerke, Hannah D. McManus, Philip W. Kantoff, Daniel George, Sebastien Haneuse, Lorelei A. Mucci, on behalf of the IRONMAN Registry. First-line therapies and subjective cognitive function trajectories among international metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer survivors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3630.

Background: Immediate lymphatic reconstruction (ILR) via lymphovenous anastomosis is performed in patients undergoing axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) to minimize the risk of lymphedema. Following ALND, drains are placed to prevent seromas, while prolonged drain days are associated with increased risk of infection. The study aim was to determine the impact of ILR on the number of drain days following ALND in patients with breast cancer. Methods: We report a post-hoc analysis of a prospective trial (April 2018-January 2023) comparing patients with breast cancer who underwent ALND with ILR (intervention arm) vs ALND without ILR (control arm). Wilcoxon rank sum test and chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests compared continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Multivariable quantile regression models evaluated the difference in drain days and days until drain removal criteria were met with covariates adjusted. Results: Data from 214 patients were analyzed (n = 115 interventional arm, n = 99 control arm). The intervention arm had a median of 15 axillary drain days compared to 11 days in the control arm ( P = .001). There was no significant difference between groups when measuring drain days based on the date the drain met removal criteria, rather than actual drain removal date. Seroma incidence was lower in the intervention arm (3.5%) vs the control arm (12.1%) ( P = .017) without a statistical difference in incidence of infection. Conclusion: ALND with ILR does not decrease the number of drain days compared to ALND without ILR in patients with breast cancer, although we found the incidence of seromas to be lower without increase in incidence of infection.