Citations

Anthracyclines are one of the most widely used and effective chemotherapies in oncology, but their most important side effect is the cumulative, dose-related cardiotoxicity leading to congestive heart failure in ~5% of individuals. Methodology and pharmacogenetic studies for predicting which individuals are at high risk and subsequently the development of targeted and individualized cardioprotective plans are beginning to make progress. Here, we review current putative risk genes and variants, the strength of evidence for each genetic association and the interaction between risk genes, in the context of known clinical risk factors and potential novel cardioprotective strategies.

Abstract Purpose: Structural variants (SV) of the MYC gene region are common in multiple myeloma and influence disease progression. However, the prognostic significance of different MYC SVs in multiple myeloma has not been clearly established. Experimental Design: We conducted a retrospective study of multiple myeloma comparing MYC SV subtypes identified by next-generation sequencing (NGS) and FISH to MYC expression and disease survival using 140 cases from Mayo Clinic and 658 cases from the MMRF CoMMpass study. Results: MYC SVs were found in 41% of cases and were classified into nine subtypes. A correlation between the presence of a MYC SV and increased MYC expression was identified. Among the nine MYC subtypes, the non-immunoglobulin (non-Ig) insertion subtype was independently associated with improved outcomes, while the Ig insertion subtype, specifically involving the IgL gene partner, was independently associated with poorer outcomes compared with other MYC SV subtypes. Although the FISH methodology failed to detect approximately 70% of all MYC SVs, those detected by FISH were associated with elevated MYC gene expression and poor outcomes suggesting a different pathogenic role for FISH-detected MYC subtypes compared with other MYC subtypes. Conclusions: Understanding the impact of different MYC SVs on disease outcome is necessary for the reliable interpretation of MYC SVs in multiple myeloma. NGS approaches should be considered as a replacement technique for a more comprehensive evaluation of the multiple myeloma clone.

Background: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an important modifiable and independent risk factor for stroke. AF is associated with 2-4% annual risk for first time stroke and about 8% annually for recurrent stroke. Anticoagulant therapy reduces the risk by 60%, while the relative risk reduction (RRR) obtained from antiplatelet therapy is only 20%. The effect is more robust for secondary than for primary prevention. Risk stratification schemes are utilized to assess an individual’s risk of future stroke and to determine the optimal antithrombotic or anticoagulation regimen for stroke prevention. Despite Warfarin’s superiority over antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risk of AF related systemic embolism, Warfarin is largely underutilized. The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and reasons behind withholding anticoagulation in patient with AF related cardioembolic stroke in our institution. Method: We extracted patients from our Get With The Guideline’s (GWTG) database who were admitted to Mayo Clinic AZ between January 2004 and December 2009. Two authors (TK and NL) independently identified all patients with the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation who were not prescribed Warfarin therapy upon discharge, then reviewed to identify the reason(s) why anticoagulation was not initiated. Factors such as discharge disposition (home, acute rehabilitation, long term nursing facility, hospice, other) and functional status (able to ambulate independently, with assistance, unable to ambulate, or not documented) were also assessed to help support the decision process. Results: From a total of 1295 patients, 305 with AF were identified. Patients who expired 48 (3.7%) from un-related causes were excluded. Of the 257 patients, 206 (80.2%) were anticoagulated and 51 (19.8%) were not anticoagulated. We found that in the anticoagulated group, patients discharged home were more likely to receive anticoagulation (89.2%), followed by those discharged to acute rehabilitation and skilled nursing facilities (77%). Those discharged to hospice were the least likely to receive anticoagulation (6.4%). In addition, patients with greater functional ability were also more likely to receive anticoagulation (independent 89.8%, vs. assisted 76.7%, vs. non-ambulatory 33.3%; p<0.0001). Reasons to withhold anticoagulation therapy at discharge included terminal illness/comfort measures only (40.0%); risk/discomfort due to bleeding (24%); risk of falls (13.0%); and patient refusal (9.0%). Discussion: Based on the results, we conclude that functional status and disposition at discharge are significant factors influencing the decision to anticoagulate after cardioembolic stroke attributed to AF.

PURPOSE: The benefit of routine pre-emptive screening for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections in patients with cancer before cancer-directed therapies is unclear. Herein, we characterize the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer who were diagnosed with COVID-19 by routine screening (RS) in comparison with those diagnosed on the basis of clinical suspicion or exposure history (nonroutine screening [NRS]). METHODS: A multisite prospective observational study was conducted at three major and five satellite campuses of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center between March 18 and July 31, 2020. The primary outcome was COVID-19–related hospital admission. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit admissions and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Five thousand four hundred fifty-two patients underwent RS in the outpatient setting only, and 44 (0.81%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. RS detected 19 additional patients from the scheduled inpatient admissions for surgical or interventional procedures or inpatient chemotherapy. One hundred sixty-one patients were diagnosed with COVID-19 on the basis of NRS. COVID-19–related hospitalization rate (17.5% v 26.7%; P = .14), intensive care unit admission (1.6% v 5.6%; P = .19), and mortality (4.8% v 3.7%; P = .72) were not significantly different between the RS and NRS groups. In the multivariable analysis, age ≥ 60 years (odds ratio, 4.4; P = .023) and an absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.4 × 109/L (odds ratio, 9.2; P = .002) were independent predictors of COVID-19–related hospital admission. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 positivity rate was low on the basis of RS. Comparing the hospital admission and mortality outcomes with the NRS cohort, there were no significant differences. The value of routine pre-emptive screening of asymptomatic patients with cancer for COVID-19 remains low.

Abstract Background: In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved median progression-free survival (PFS, 16.4 vs 9.3 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.553) and overall survival (OS, 46.7 vs 37.3 months; HR, 0.757) compared with placebo plus fulvestrant in hormone receptor-positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients who were endocrine therapy (ET) resistant, regardless of menopausal status. Here, we report findings in the premenopausal subgroup of the MONARCH 2 trial. Methods: The premenopausal subgroup included patients with natural menstrual bleeding who received a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist at least 4 weeks prior to study treatment start date and for the entire study duration. Of the 669 patients enrolled in the MONARCH 2 trial, 114 were premenopausal (abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, n=72; placebo plus fulvestrant, n=42), and were included in this analysis. The primary objective was investigator-assessed PFS and secondary objectives were OS, objective response rate, and safety and tolerability. Exploratory analyses included time to second disease progression (PFS2), time to chemotherapy (TTC), and chemotherapy-free survival (CFS). Results: At the primary objective cutoff (14 February, 2017), median PFS was not reached for the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm versus 10.52 months for the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR, 0.415; 95% CI, 0.246-0.698). At the pre-specified OS interim cutoff (20 June, 2019), median PFS was 28.6 months in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant arm compared with 10.26 months in the placebo plus fulvestrant arm (HR, 0.477; 95% CI, 0.302-0.755). OS benefit was observed in the abemaciclib plus fulvestrant compared to fulvestrant alone (HR, 0.689; 95% CI, 0.379-1.252, median, not reached vs 47.3 months). Improvements were also observed for the exploratory outcomes of PFS2 (HR, 0.599), TTC (HR, 0.674), and CFS (HR, 0.642) with the addition of abemaciclib to fulvestrant. The safety profile was generally consistent with results disclosed previously. Conclusions: Results of the premenopausal subgroup in the MONARCH 2 trial were consistent with the improved clinical outcomes observed in the intent-to-treat population. The analysis provides support for the use of abemaciclib plus fulvestrant (with ovarian suppression) as an effective treatment option for premenopausal patients with HR+, HER2- ABC who are ET-resistant. Clinical trial registration: NCT02107703. Registered 08 April 2014- Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02107703

PURPOSE The ATEMPT trial was designed to determine if treatment with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) caused less toxicity than paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH) and yielded clinically acceptable invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) among patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–positive (HER2+) breast cancer (BC). METHODS Patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2+ BC were randomly assigned 3:1 to T-DM1 or TH and received T-DM1 3.6 mg/kg IV every 3 weeks for 17 cycles or T 80 mg/m 2 IV with H once every week × 12 weeks (4 mg/kg load →2 mg/kg), followed by H × 39 weeks (6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The co-primary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities (CRTs) in patients treated with T-DM1 versus TH and to evaluate iDFS in patients receiving T-DM1. RESULTS The analysis population includes all 497 patients who initiated protocol therapy (383 T-DM1 and 114 TH). CRTs were experienced by 46% of patients on T-DM1 and 47% of patients on TH ( P = .83). The 3-year iDFS for T-DM1 was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), which rejected the null hypothesis ( P < .0001). Serially collected patient-reported outcomes indicated that patients treated with T-DM1 had less neuropathy and alopecia and better work productivity compared with patients on TH. CONCLUSION Among patients with stage I HER2+ BC, one year of adjuvant T-DM1 was associated with excellent 3-year iDFS, but was not associated with fewer CRT compared with TH.

TPS595 Background: Patients (pts) with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than pts with a pathologic complete response (pCR). Post neoadjuvant T-DM1 has improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but pts with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes and recurrences in the central nervous system are a problem. More effective treatment strategies are needed. The CompassHER2 trials, EA1181 and A011801, leverage pCR to tailor post neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ EBC. EA1181 is a NAT de-escalation trial of a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) in clinical stage II-III HER2+ EBC; pts with a pCR complete HP +/- adjuvant radiation (RT) +/- endocrine therapy (ET). A011801 is an escalation trial for pts with high risk HER2+ RD after NAT, examining addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to adjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Pts. with high-risk HER2+ RD (e.g. ER-,node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1+ placebo (pb), vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of T and H +/- P. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (̃15-30% enrollees); these pts must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801. Pts who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is higher with addition of T-DM1 to tucatinib in pts with HER2+ EBC with RD after NAT; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in pts with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints will also be evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-),and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 pts; activation and completion dates are 01/6/21 and ̃ 01/2028. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Clinical trial information: NCT04457596.

Dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is characterized by dilatation of the left ventricle and impaired systolic function and is the second most common cause of heart failure after coronary heart disease. The etiology of DCM is diverse including genetic pathogenic variants, infection, inflammation, autoimmune diseases, exposure to chemicals/toxins as well as endocrine and neuromuscular causes. DCM is inherited in 20–50% of cases where more than 30 genes have been implicated in the development of DCM with pathogenic variants in TTN (Titin) most frequently associated with disease. Even though male sex is a risk factor for heart failure, few studies have examined sex differences in the pathogenesis of DCM. We searched the literature for studies examining idiopathic or familial/genetic DCM that reported data by sex in order to determine the sex ratio of disease. We found 31 studies that reported data by sex for non-genetic DCM with an average overall sex ratio of 2.5:1 male to female and 7 studies for familial/genetic DCM with an overall average sex ratio of 1.7:1 male to female. No manuscripts that we found had more females than males in their studies. We describe basic and clinical research findings that may explain the increase in DCM in males over females based on sex differences in basic physiology and the immune and fibrotic response to damage caused by mutations, infections, chemotherapy agents and autoimmune responses.

Compared to idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension (IPAH), patients with portopulmonary hypertension (POPH) have worse survival. Health disparities may contribute to these differences but have not been studied. We sought to compare socioeconomic factors in patients with POPH and IPAH and to determine whether socioeconomic status and/or POPH diagnosis were associated with treatment and health‐care utilization. We performed a cross‐sectional study of adults enrolled in the Pulmonary Hypertension Association Registry. Patients with IPAH (n = 344) and POPH (n = 57) were compared. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to be college graduates (19.6% vs. 34.9%, p = 0.02) and more likely to be unemployed (54.7% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.001) and have an annual household income below poverty level (45.7% vs. 19.0%, p < 0.001). Patients with POPH had similar functional class, quality of life, 6‐min walk distance, and mean pulmonary arterial pressure with a higher cardiac index. Compared with IPAH, patients with POPH were less likely to receive combination therapy (46.4% vs. 62.2%, p = 0.03) and endothelin receptor antagonists (28.6% vs. 55.1%, p < 0.001) at enrollment with similar treatment at follow‐up. Patients with POPH had more emergency department visits (1.7 ± 2.1 vs. 0.9 ± 1.2, p = 0.009) and hospitalizations in the six months preceding enrollment (1.5 ± 2.1 vs. 0.8 ± 1.1, p = 0.02). Both POPH diagnosis and lower education level were independently associated with a higher number of emergency department visits. Compared to IPAH, patients with POPH have lower socioeconomic status, are less likely to receive initial combination therapy and endothelin receptor antagonists but have similar treatment at follow‐up, and have increased health‐care utilization.