Citations

Background In this open-label, randomized, non-comparative, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A091401) we report on three expansion cohorts treated with nivolumab (N) with and without ipilimumab (N+I) and provide a multi-omic correlative analysis of actionable biomarkers. Methods Patients were randomized (non-comparative) to receive either N or N+I. The primary endpoint was a 6-month confirmed response rate (CRR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary endpoints included treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Multi-omic correlative analyses were conducted using samples from both the primary and expansion cohorts. Results A total of 66 patients were evaluated for the primary endpoint with disease including gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST, n=18), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS, n=24), and dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS, n=24). Neither N nor N+I achieved a complete or partial response in the GIST expansion cohort. In DDLPS and UPS, the primary response endpoint of CRR was met with N+I (both 16.6%, 2/12) but not with N alone (both 8.3%, 1/12). In the GIST cohort, TRAE was higher with N+I treatment, halting enrollment as required per protocol. In a correlative analysis of patients for the expansion cohort and the original cohort (n=86), traditional biomarkers of immunotherapy response were not correlated with response in any histological subtype. Markers of genomic instability including the presence of gene fusions and increased subclonal mutations correlated with improved clinical outcomes. Conclusions This expansion cohort reaffirms the outcomes of A091401. There remains a pressing need to determine the role of and predictive biomarkers for immunotherapy in sarcoma. Trial registration number NCT02500797.

PURPOSE Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader designed to deliver continuous ER target inhibition, including in ESR1- mutant breast cancer. This phase Ia/b trial determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy, in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer. The ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) ABC experience is reported here. METHODS An i3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by dose expansions of imlunestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemaciclib with or without aromatase inhibitor (AI), everolimus, or alpelisib. Imlunestrant was administered orally once daily and with the combination partner per label. RESULTS Overall, 262 patients with ER+/HER2– ABC were treated (phase Ia, n = 74; phase Ib, n = 188). Among patients who received imlunestrant monotherapy (n = 114), no dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations occurred. At the RP2D (400 mg once daily), patients (n = 51) reported grade 1-2 nausea (39.2%), fatigue (39.2%), and diarrhea (29.4%). Patients at RP2D had received previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i; 92.2%), fulvestrant (41.2%), and chemotherapy (29.4%) for ABC and achieved a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 8.3). Among patients who received imlunestrant + abemaciclib (n = 42) and imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI (n = 43), most (69.4%) were treatment-naïve for ABC; all were CDK4/6i-naïve. Patients treated with imlunestrant + everolimus (n = 42)/alpelisib (n = 21) had received previous CDK4/6i (100%), fulvestrant (34.9%), and chemotherapy (17.5%) for ABC. No new safety signals or interactions with partnered drugs were observed. The mPFS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to not available) for imlunestrant + abemaciclib and was not reached for imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI. The mPFS with imlunestrant + everolimus/alpelisib was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 19.1)/9.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 11.1). Antitumor activity was evident regardless of ESR1 mutation status. CONCLUSION Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy, had a manageable safety profile with evidence of preliminary antitumor activity in ER+/HER2– ABC.

ABSTRACT Errors in antibiotic prescriptions are frequent, often resulting from the inadequate coverage of the infection-causative microorganism. The efficacy of iAST, a machine-learning-based software offering empirical and organism-targeted antibiotic recommendations, was assessed. The study was conducted in a 12-hospital Spanish institution. After model fine-tuning with 27,531 historical antibiograms, 325 consecutive patients with acute infections were selected for retrospective validation. The primary endpoint was comparing each of the top three of iAST’s antibiotic recommendations’ success rates (confirmed by antibiogram results) with the antibiotic prescribed by the physicians. Secondary endpoints included examining the same hypothesis within specific study population subgroups and assessing antibiotic stewardship by comparing the percentage of antibiotics recommended that belonged to different World Health Organization AWaRe groups within each arm of the study. All of iAST first three recommendations were non-inferior to doctor prescription in the primary endpoint analysis population as well as the secondary endpoint. The overall success rate of doctors’ empirical treatment was 68.93%, while that of the first three iAST options was 91.06% ( P < 0.001), 90.63% ( P < 0.001), and 91.06% ( P < 001), respectively. For organism-targeted therapy, the doctor’s overall success rate was 84.16%, and that of the first three ranked iAST options was 97.83% ( P < 0.001), 94.09% ( P < 0.001), and 91.30% ( P < 0.001), respectively. In empirical therapy, compared to physician prescriptions, iAST demonstrated a greater propensity to recommend access antibiotics, fewer watch antibiotics, and higher reserve antibiotics. In organism-targeted therapy, iAST advised a higher utilization of access antibiotics. The present study demonstrates iAST accuracy in predicting antibiotic susceptibility, showcasing its potential to promote effective antibiotic stewardship. CLINICAL TRIALS This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT06174519 .

Abstract The Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network conducted a phase 3 randomized trial comparing gilteritinib with placebo after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for FLT3-ITD+ acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The primary analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS); however, patients with FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) peri-HCT had significantly longer RFS with gilteritinib. This analysis investigates the effect of post-HCT gilteritinib vs placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL was measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), FACT-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), and EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) at post-HCT randomization; day 29; months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24; and/or end of therapy. HRQOL and clinically meaningful differences were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using mixed model repeated measures to evaluate longitudinal change from baseline and stratified Cox model to evaluate time to improvement. HRQOL completion rate was acceptable (&gt;70%) across all time points and measures. There were no differences in HRQOL scores at any time point between cohorts. Clinically meaningful and time to improvement in HRQOL were similar in both arms. Despite higher treatment-emergent adverse effects with gilteritinib, response to the question of being “bothered by side effects of treatment” did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis of MRD-positive and negative patients demonstrated no differences in HRQOL between arms. For patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML undergoing HCT, gilteritinib maintenance was not associated with any difference in HRQOL or patient-reported impact of side effects. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02997202.

Abstract Objective To identify and disseminate research priorities for the headache field that should be areas of research focus during the next 10 years. Background Establishing research priorities helps focus and synergize the work of headache investigators, allowing them to reach the most important research goals more efficiently and completely. Methods The Headache Research Priorities organizing and executive committees and working group chairs led a multistakeholder and international group of experts to develop headache research priorities. The research priorities were developed and reviewed by clinicians, scientists, people with headache, representatives from headache organizations, health‐care industry representatives, and the public. Priorities were revised and finalized after receiving feedback from members of the research priorities working groups and after a public comment period. Results Twenty‐five research priorities across eight categories were identified: human models, animal models, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management, treatment, inequities and disparities, research workforce development, and quality of life. The priorities address research models and methods, development and optimization of outcome measures and endpoints, pain and non‐pain symptoms of primary and secondary headaches, investigations into mechanisms underlying headache attacks and chronification of headache disorders, treatment optimization, research workforce recruitment, development, expansion, and support, and inequities and disparities in the headache field. The priorities are focused enough that they help to guide headache research and broad enough that they are widely applicable to multiple headache types and various research methods. Conclusions These research priorities serve as guidance for headache investigators when planning their research studies and as benchmarks by which the headache field can measure its progress over time. These priorities will need updating as research goals are met and new priorities arise.

AbstractPurposeThe time structures of proton spot delivery in proton pencil beam scanning (PBS) radiation therapy are essential in many clinical applications. This study aims to characterize the time structures of proton PBS delivered by both synchrotron and synchrocyclotron accelerators using a non‐invasive technique based on scattered particle tracking.MethodsA pixelated semiconductor detector, AdvaPIX‐Timepix3, with a temporal resolution of 1.56 ns, was employed to measure time of arrival of secondary particles generated by a proton beam. The detector was placed laterally to the high‐flux area of the beam in order to allow for single particle detection and not interfere with the treatment. The detector recorded counts of radiation events, their deposited energy and the timestamp associated with the single events. Individual recorded events and their temporal characteristics were used to analyze beam time structures, including energy layer switch time, magnet switch time, spot switch time, and the scanning speeds in the x and y directions. All the measurements were repeated 30 times on three dates, reducing statistical uncertainty.ResultsThe uncertainty of the measured energy layer switch times, magnet switch time, and the spot switch time were all within 1% of average values. The scanning speeds uncertainties were within 1.5% and are more precise than previously reported results. The measurements also revealed continuous sub‐milliseconds proton spills at a low dose rate for the synchrotron accelerator and radiofrequency pulses at 7 µs and 1 ms repetition time for the synchrocyclotron accelerator.ConclusionThe AdvaPIX‐Timepix3 detector can be used to directly measure and monitor time structures on microseconds scale of the PBS proton beam delivery. This method yielded results with high precision and is completely independent of the machine log files.

AbstractPrior studies have suggested that immune thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (iTTP) may display seasonal variation; however, methodologic limitations and sample sizes have diminished the ability to perform a rigorous assessment. This 5‐year retrospective study assessed the epidemiology of iTTP and determined whether it displays a seasonal pattern. Patients with both initial and relapsed iTTP (defined as a disintegrin and metalloprotease with thrombospondin type motifs 13 activity <10%) from 24 tertiary centers in Australia, Canada, France, Greece, Italy, Spain, and the US were included. Seasons were defined as: Northern Hemisphere—winter (December–February); spring (March–May); summer (June–August); autumn (September–November) and Southern Hemisphere—winter (June–August); spring (September–November); summer (December–February); autumn (March–May). Additional outcomes included the mean temperature in months with and without an iTTP episode at each site. A total of 583 patients experienced 719 iTTP episodes. The observed proportion of iTTP episodes during the winter was significantly greater than expected if equally distributed across seasons (28.5%, 205/719, 25.3%–31.9%; p = .03). Distance from the equator and mean temperature deviation both positively correlated with the proportion of iTTP episodes during winter. Acute iTTP episodes were associated with the winter season and colder temperatures, with a second peak during summer. Occurrence during winter was most pronounced at sites further from the equator and/or with greater annual temperature deviations. Understanding the etiologies underlying seasonal patterns of disease may assist in discovery and development of future preventative therapies and inform models for resource utilization.

Background In an effort to improve migraine management around the world, the International Headache Society (IHS) has here developed a list of practical recommendations for the acute pharmacological treatment of migraine. The recommendations are categorized into optimal and essential, in order to provide treatment options for all possible settings, including those with limited access to migraine medications. Methods An IHS steering committee developed a list of clinical questions based on practical issues in the management of migraine. A selected group of international senior and junior headache experts developed the recommendations, following expert consensus and the review of available national and international headache guidelines and guidance documents. Following the initial search, a bibliography of twenty-one national and international guidelines was created and reviewed by the working group. Results A total of seventeen questions addressing different aspects of acute migraine treatment have been outlined. For each of them we provide an optimal recommendation, to be used whenever possible, and an essential recommendation to be used when the optimal level cannot be attained. Conclusion Adoption of these international recommendations will improve the quality of acute migraine treatment around the world, even where pharmacological options remain limited.