Citations

Background: Hybrid debranching repair of pararenal and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms was initially designed as a better alternative to standard open repair, addressing the limitations of endovascular repair involving the visceral aorta. We reviewed the collective outcomes of hybrid debranching repairs using extra-anatomic, open surgical debranching of the renal-mesenteric arteries, followed by endovascular aortic stenting. Methods: Data from patients who underwent hybrid repair in 14 North American institutions during 10 years were retrospectively reviewed. Society of Vascular Surgery scores were used to assess comorbidity risk. Early and late outcomes, including mortality, morbidity, reintervention, and patency were analyzed. Results: A total of 208 patients (118 male; mean age, 71±8 years old) were treated by hybrid repair with extraanatomic reconstruction of 657 renal and mesenteric arteries (mean 3.2 vessels/patient). Mean aneurysm diameter was 6.6±1.3 cm. Thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysms were identified in 163 (78%) patients and pararenal aneurysms in 45 (22%). A single-stage repair was performed in 92 (44%) patients. The iliac arteries were the most common source of inflow (n=132; 63%), and most (n=150; 72%) had 3 or more bypasses. There were 30 (14%) early deaths, ranging widely across sites (0%–21%). A Society of Vascular Surgery comorbidity score >15 was the primary predictor of early mortality ( P <0.01), whereas mortality was 3% in a score ≤9. Early complications occurred in 140 (73%) patients and included respiratory complications in 45 patients (22%) and spinal cord ischemia in 22 (11%), of whom 10 (45%) fully recovered. At 5 years, survival was 61±5%, primary graft patency was 90±2%, and secondary patency was 93±2%. The most significant predictor of late mortality was renal insufficiency ( P <0.0001). Conclusions: Mortality after hybrid repair and visceral debranching is highly variable by center, but strongly affected by preoperative comorbidities and the centers’ experience with the technique. With excellent graft patency at 5 years, the outcomes of hybrid repair done at centers of excellence and in carefully selected patients may be comparable (or better) than traditional open or even totally endovascular approaches. However, in patients already considered as high-risk for surgery, it may not offer better outcomes.

Objective: The aim of this multicentric registry was to assess the outcomes of “anteRior versus posteRior divisional bRanches Of the hYpogastric artery as distAl landing zone for iLiac branch devices (R3OYAL).” Methods: The main exposure of interest for the purpose of this study was the internal iliac artery (IIA) divisional branch (anterior vs posterior) that was used as distal landing zone. Early endpoints included technical success and adverse events. Late endpoints included survival, primary/secondary IIA patency, and IIA branch instability. Results: A total of 171 patients were included in the study, of which 50 received bilateral implantation of iliac branch devices (IBDs). This resulted in a total of 221 incorporated IIAs included in the final analysis, of which 40 were anterior divisional branches and 181 were posterior divisional branches. Technical success was high in both groups (anterior division: 98% vs posterior division: 100%, P = .18). Occurrence of any adverse event was noted in 14% of patients in both groups ( P = 1.0). The overall rate of freedom from the composite IBD branch instability did not show significant differences between patients receiving distal landing in the anterior or posterior division of the IIA at 3 years (79% vs 87%, log-rank test = .215). The 3-year estimates of IBD patency were significantly lower in patients who received distal landing in the anterior divisional branch than those who received distal landing in the posterior divisional branch (primary patency: 81% vs 96%, log-rank test = .009; secondary patency: 81% vs 97%, log-rank test < .001). Conclusions: The use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the IIA as distal landing zone for IBD implantation shows comparable profiles in terms of immediate technical success, perioperative safety, and side-branch instability up to 3 years. However, IBD patency at 3 years was higher when the distal landing zone was achieved within the posterior divisional branch of the IIA. Clinical Impact The results from this large multicentric registry confirm that use of the anterior or posterior divisional branches of the internal iliac artery (IIA) as distal landing zone for implantation of iliac branch devices (IBD) shows comparable profiles of safety and feasibility, thereby allowing to extend the indications for endovascular repair of aorto-iliac aneurysms to cases with unsuitable anatomy within the IIA main trunk. Although mid-term rates of device durability and branch instability seem to be similar, the rates of primary and secondary IBD patency at three years was favored when the distal landing zone was achieved in the posterior divisional branch of the IIA.

The NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer provide recommendations for the diagnosis, evaluation, treatment, and follow-up of patients with bladder cancer and other urinary tract cancers (upper tract tumors, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, primary carcinoma of the urethra). These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel discussion behind recent important updates to the guidelines regarding the treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer, including how to treat in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage; new roles for immune checkpoint inhibitors in non–muscle invasive, muscle-invasive, and metastatic bladder cancer; and the addition of antibody–drug conjugates for metastatic bladder cancer.

TPS3161 Background: The p53 pathway has been implicated in antitumor immunity, including antigen presentation and T-cell proliferation. Loss of p53 function can increase resistance to immunotherapy across many tumor types. Eprenetapopt (eprenet) is a small molecule that stabilizes the folded structure of p53, resulting in activation of mutant p53 and stabilization of wild-type (WT) p53. It also targets the cellular redox homeostasis, resulting in induction of apoptosis in tumor cells. In vivo, mice carrying supernumerary copies of the TP53 gene harbor a pro-inflammatory tumor microenvironment, an effect recapitulated in TP53 normal-copy mice treated with eprenetapopt. Combining eprenetapopt and anti-PD1 or anti-CTLA4 therapy resulted in enhanced tumor growth inhibition and improved survival in TP53 WT mice inoculated with B16 melanoma and MC38 colon adenocarcinoma cells . Based on these results, we hypothesized that eprenet-induced p53 stabilization may augment response to immunotherapy. To test this hypothesis, we are conducting a phase 1b/2 study of eprenet in combination with pembrolizumab (eprenet+pembro) in pts with solid tumors. Methods: The primary objectives are to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and to assess the safety and tolerability of eprenet+pembro in pts with advanced solid tumors. The secondary objectives are to estimate the anti-tumor activity and to describe the pharmacokinetics of the combination. Exploratory objectives include assessing predictive and pharmacodynamic markers of response. The study includes a safety lead-in with a 3+3 dose de-escalation design for pts with advanced solid tumors with known tumor TP53 mutation status ( TP53 WT is acceptable) (max 18 pts), followed by expansion cohorts in pts with NSCLC, gastric/GEJ and urothelial cancer (max 100 pts). In expansion, pts with urothelial and gastric cancers must be naïve to anti-PD-1/ L1 therapy. Eprenet is given IV once daily on Days 1–4 while pembro is administered on Day 3 of each 21-day cycle. The RP2D of eprenet+pembro is considered the dose at which ≤ 1 of 6 pts in a cohort has a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). Primary endpoints are occurrence of DLTs, adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs with eprenet+pembro. Key secondary endpoints are best objective response, progression free survival and overall survival. Exploratory endpoints include gene mutations by next generation sequencing (including TP53), mRNA expression, multiplex immunohistochemistry and transcriptomics, multiplex flow cytometry on peripheral blood mononuclear cells and cytokines in serum. Continuous monitoring of toxicity will be conducted. The trial opened in May 2020 and is actively enrolling patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04383938.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Bladder Cancer focuses on the clinical presentation and workup of suspected bladder cancer, treatment of non–muscle-invasive urothelial bladder cancer, and treatment of metastatic urothelial bladder cancer because important updates have recently been made to these sections. Some important updates include recommendations for optimal treatment of non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer in the event of a bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) shortage and details about biomarker testing for advanced or metastatic disease. The systemic therapy recommendations for second-line or subsequent therapies have also been revised. Treatment and management of muscle-invasive, nonmetastatic disease is covered in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Bladder Cancer available at NCCN.org . Additional topics covered in the complete version include treatment of nonurothelial histologies and recommendations for nonbladder urinary tract cancers such as upper tract urothelial carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma of the prostate, and primary carcinoma of the urethra.

39 Background: The excess risk of high-grade prostate cancer in the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (PCPT) among men randomized to finasteride raised concerns that a chemoprevention benefit would be offset by increased mortality. Two 2019 publications had contrasting results whether 5-ARIs increased prostate cancer mortality. In PCPT, there was no excess prostate cancer mortality. In a VA study, 5-ARI use was associated with later stage at diagnosis and 39% higher prostate cancer mortality risk. We studied men with regular access to health care and screening to address this conflicting evidence. Methods: We performed two parallel analyses in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study. 5-ARI use was reported on biennial questionnaires starting in 1996. In line with PCPT, we studied 38,047 men for cancer incidence and mortality through 2016. In line with the VA study, we undertook a case-only study of 4,225 patients with localized/locally advanced cancers followed similarly. We estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals accounting for screening patterns, lifestyle factors, and concomitant medications. Results: 5-ARI ever-users (n = 4,101; 10.7%) were more likely to have had regular PSA screening (74% vs. 57% nonusers) and a negative prostate biopsy before diagnosis. Neither ever 5-ARI use (HR 1.08, 0.73-1.60, 445 events) nor long-term use ( > 4 years, HR 1.03, 1.03-2.02) were associated with lethal prostate cancer. There was no difference in stage. Diagnostic PSA levels were lower in 5-ARIs users (10.0 vs. 16.0 ng/ml in never-users). Among nonmetastatic cases, 278 men died of prostate cancer; there was no association between 5-ARIs and prostate cancer survival (HR 0.85, 0.51-1.43). Conclusions: Our results align with PCPT and show no excess risk of lethal prostate cancer, no higher stage at diagnosis, and no excess mortality after diagnosis associated with 5-ARI. Men on 5-ARIs had more interactions with health care, which may have led to higher quality care. This contrasts with the VA study where men on 5-ARIs were diagnosed later due to suppressed PSA and had worse survival. These results show the importance of real-world data in framing the benefits and risks associated with 5-ARIs.

Abstract Pathogenic sequence variants (PSV) in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) are associated with increased risk and severity of prostate cancer. We evaluated whether PSVs in BRCA1/2 were associated with risk of overall prostate cancer or high grade (Gleason 8+) prostate cancer using an international sample of 65 BRCA1 and 171 BRCA2 male PSV carriers with prostate cancer, and 3,388 BRCA1 and 2,880 BRCA2 male PSV carriers without prostate cancer. PSVs in the 3′ region of BRCA2 (c.7914+) were significantly associated with elevated risk of prostate cancer compared with reference bin c.1001-c.7913 [HR = 1.78; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25–2.52; P = 0.001], as well as elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 3.11; 95% CI, 1.63–5.95; P = 0.001). c.756-c.1000 was also associated with elevated prostate cancer risk (HR = 2.83; 95% CI, 1.71–4.68; P = 0.00004) and elevated risk of Gleason 8+ prostate cancer (HR = 4.95; 95% CI, 2.12–11.54; P = 0.0002). No genotype–phenotype associations were detected for PSVs in BRCA1. These results demonstrate that specific BRCA2 PSVs may be associated with elevated risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. Significance: Aggressive prostate cancer risk in BRCA2 mutation carriers may vary according to the specific BRCA2 mutation inherited by the at-risk individual.

Abstract The amplified MYCN gene serves as an oncogenic driver in approximately 20% of high-risk pediatric neuroblastomas. Here we show that MYC itself is a potent transforming gene in a separate subset of high-risk neuroblastoma cases (~10%), based on (i) its upregulation by focal enhancer amplification or genomic rearrangements leading to enhancer hijacking, and (ii) its ability to transform neuroblastoma precursor cells in a transgenic animal model. The aberrant regulatory elements associated with oncogenic MYC activation include focally amplified distal enhancers or translocation of highly active enhancers from other genes to within topologically associating domains containing the MYC gene locus. The clinical outcome for patients with high levels of MYC expression is virtually identical to that of patients with amplification of the MYCN gene, a known high-risk feature of this disease. Together, these findings establish MYC as a bona fide oncogene in a clinically significant group of high-risk childhood neuroblastomas. Citation Format: Mark W. Zimmerman, Yu Liu, Shuning He, Adam D. Durbin, Brian J. Abraham, John Easton, Ying Shao, Beisi Xu, Shizhen Zhu, Xiaoling Zhang, Nina Weichert-Leahey, Richard A. Young, Jinghui Zhang, A. Thomas Look. MYC activation through enhancer hijacking or focal enhancer amplification drives a subset of high-risk pediatric neuroblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Pediatric Cancer Research: From Basic Science to the Clinic; 2017 Dec 3-6; Atlanta, Georgia. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(19 Suppl):Abstract nr IA19.

Abstract The amplified MYCN gene serves as an oncogenic driver in approximately 20% of high-risk pediatric neuroblastomas. Here we show that c-MYC itself is a potent transforming gene in a separate subset of high-risk neuroblastoma cases (~10%), based on (i) its upregulation by focal enhancer amplification or genomic rearrangements leading to enhancer hijacking, and (ii) its ability to transform neuroblastoma precursor cells in a transgenic animal model. The aberrant regulatory elements associated with oncogenic c-MYC activation include focally amplified distal enhancers or translocation of highly active enhancers from other genes to within topologically associating domains containing the c-MYC gene locus. The clinical outcome for patients with high levels of c-MYC expression is virtually identical to that of patients with amplification of the MYCN gene, a known high-risk feature of this disease. Together, these findings establish c-MYC as a bona fide oncogene in a clinically significant group of high risk childhood neuroblastomas. Citation Format: Mark W. Zimmerman, Yu Liu, Shuning He, Adam D. Durbin, Brian J. Abraham, John Easton, Ying Shao, Xu Beisi, Shizhen Zhu, Xiaoling Zhang, Zhaodong Li, Nina Weichert-Leahey, Richard A. Young, Jinghui Zhang, A. Thomas Look. c-MYC drives a subset of high-risk pediatric neuroblastoma and is activated through mechanisms including enhancer hijacking and focal enhancer amplification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 4135.