Citations

Background: The management of severe radiocapitellar joint pathologies in young patients is challenging. Radial head arthroplasty (RHA) is a treatment option in the adult population, but most surgeons avoid implementing it in younger patients, and there are no published results for patients younger than 16 years. Methods: Our retrospective cohort describes 5 patients (4 male 1 female) who underwent cementless modular RHA at an average age of 14 years (range: 13 to 15). The preoperative diagnoses were post-traumatic radiocapitellar incongruity and arthrosis because of previous Salter-Harris type 3 or 4 fractures of the radial head in 3 cases; and axial instability of the forearm following failed radial head excision in 2 cases. Because of the complexity of the elbow pathology in these cases, all underwent concomitant procedures including: contracture release (5 cases), corrective ulnar osteotomy (2 cases), distal ulnar shortening osteotomy, excision of radioulnar synostosis, microfracture of the capitellum, and partial excision of the medial triceps (1 case each). Collected data included patient-reported outcomes, visual analog scale pain score at rest and during physical activity and radiographic assessment of arthritis and prosthesis loosening. Results: Average clinical follow-up was 8 years (range: 3 to 13). All 5 patients were pain-free at rest, and 3 reported moderate elbow pain (visual analog scale: 5 to 6) with physical activity. At an average radiographic follow-up of 3 years (range: 0.5 to 5), 3 patients showed mild progression of elbow arthrosis, but there were no signs of progressive capitellar erosion or implant loosening. Only 1 complication was noted—development of heterotopic ossification in 1 patient, which required open heterotopic ossification excision and contracture release 2 years following the RHA. None of the patients required prosthesis revision or removal. Conclusion: RHA was successful in improving pain and axial forearm stability in this very small series of adolescent patients. Concerns regarding long-term longevity and complications still exist. Considering the lack of other reliable treatment options, RHA may be indicated in this challenging patient population. Level of Evidence: Level IV: therapeutic study—case series.

Abstract Background: Relapsed or refractory (R/R) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) or lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) remain a therapeutic challenge, especially in elderly patients(pts) or those with T-cell immunophenotype. Inhibition of apoptosis is an increasingly recognized mechanism for resistance to conventional chemotherapy. Recently, the oral bcl-2 inhibitor venetoclax (VEN) has shown remarkable activity in a variety of hematologic malignancies. Preclinical data in both B- and T-ALL suggests synergy of VEN with vincristine(VCR). Liposomal VCR (L-VCR) is FDA approved for relapsed ALL having progressed following 2 or more antileukemia therapies. We designed a phase I/II trial (EA9152) of the combination of L-VCR and VEN for pts with r/r B-or T-cell ALL or LL. Here, we report for the first time the safety and efficacy outcomes of the phase I portion of this trial (NCT03504644). Methods: This open-label phase I/II study enrolled pts age>=18 with ALL or LL who were R/R to multiagent chemotherapy. Subjects could have received prior VCR or VEN . In a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design, subjects were given a two week lead-in phase of single agent VEN in the following schedule: dose level 1 - 20, 50, 100, 200 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 400 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; dose level 2 - 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42; and dose level 3 ‒ 100, 200, 400, 600 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 800 mg on days 5 ‒ 42. Weekly L-VCR 2.25mg/m 2 IV was started on D15 of cycle 1, and starting day 1 for subsequent cycles (cycle 2+ = 28 days). For cycle 2 and beyond, VEN 400mg, 600mg, or 800mg based on dose level was given starting on day 1 of the cycle. Primary objective of the phase I portion was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of VEN in combination with L-VCR. Secondary objectives included determining preliminary response rates. Results: EA9152 was activated on April 26, 2018 and the phase I portion closed to accrual on March 2, 2021. Among the 18 pts in dose escalation (Table 1), the median age was 42 years (22-77). The majority of pts were male (56%), white (80%), and with a performance status (PS) of 1 (78%). Among 13 pts with disease diagnosis reported, 9 had ALL and 4 had LL. Seventeen of 18 (94%) reported previous chemotherapy, two of which had previous stem cell transplant. Median treatment cycles received is 1 (range 1-11). One patient, having received 11 cycles, remains on study at the time of data analysis. Grade >=3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 89% of treated pts, with neutrophil count decreased (67%), white blood cell decreased (56%), and anemia (50%) as the most common. One pt experienced grade 3 tumor lysis syndrome. Twelve pts were considered evaluable for MTD determination. Six pts were considered not evaluable for toxicity analysis on account of withdraw of consent for treatment (n=4) or rapid disease progression (n=2). Two pts (2 of 3) at dose level 3 experienced DLTs, one each of hypokalemia and heart failure. Therefore, the MTD of the combination was determined to be dose level 2 - VEN 50, 100, 200, 400 mg on days 1, 2, 3, 4 and 600 mg on days 5 ‒ 42 and for subsequent cycles, with L-VCR 2.25mg/m2 IV weekly. In regards to best overall responses observed (Table 2) 4 of 18 pts (22%) achieved complete response (CR), 4 patients (22%) had stable disease, and 7 (39%) had progressive disease. Two patients in CR were found to be measurable residual disease (MRD) negative as well. Conclusions: In the phase 1 portion of this study, the combination of VEN and L-VCR was found to be safe for patients with ALL and LL. The MTD of the combination was found to be VEN 600mg daily with encouraging preliminary efficacy seen including MRD negative responses. The phase 2 portion of this trial is actively enrolling with VEN 600mg daily starting C1D1. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Palmisiano: Takeda: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Foundation One: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding. Claxton: Astellas: Other: Clinical Trial; Novartis: Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding. Park: BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy. Podoltsev: Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria. Atallah: Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy. Dinner: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria. Webster: AmGen: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy. Luger: Syros: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Brystol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Hoffman LaRoche: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Litzow: AbbVie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Pluristem: Research Funding; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inihibitor, is not FDA-approved for use in ALL.

Abstract Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have improved the outcomes of patients with Philadelphia chromosome positive (Ph+) acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Many older patients (pts) are not good candidates for intensive chemotherapy and are treated with TKIs plus corticosteroids or low intensity chemotherapy. Although the remission rates with this approach have been high, the median disease-free survival (DFS) has been short. Therefore, novel treatment strategies are needed. This trial evaluated the feasibility of combining the TKI dasatinib with prednisone and blinatumomab in older pts with Ph+ ALL. Methods: This trial was activated through the NCTN in January 2015 and closed to accrual in April 2021. Pt eligibility included: age ≥ 65 years; Ph+ or Ph-like ALL (with dasatinib-sensitive fusions or mutations); newly diagnosed or relapsed/ refractory; no evidence of central nervous system (CNS) disease; and adequate organ function. Treatment: For induction, pts received dasatinib 140 mg/d orally (PO) Days 1-56 along with prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d PO Days 1-24. Pts achieving complete remission (CR) or CR with incomplete count recovery (CRi) (Day 28 or Day 56) continued dasatinib until Day 84 followed by 3 cycles of post-remission therapy (PRT) with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Pts not achieving CR or CRi by Day 56 received re-induction with blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Day 35 of blinatumomab. Pts not achieving CR/ CRi could receive a second cycle of blinatumomab. This was followed by 3 cycles of PRT with blinatumomab/ dasatinib. Maintenance therapy consisted of prednisone 60 mg/m 2/d x 5 days every 28 days for a total of 18 cycles along with dasatinib 140 mg po qd indefinitely. CNS prophylaxis included intrathecal (IT) methotrexate every 4-6 weeks x 8 doses. IT methotrexate was given at least 2 days apart from blinatumomab. Response was assessed at Days 28, 56, 84 and additional time points were dependent on response. Minimal residual disease (MRD) was assessed centrally by multi-color flow cytometry at Day 28. Statistics: 9 eligible/ evaluable pts receiving PRT were to be evaluated before enrolling additional pts. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were defined as: > Grade 3 non-hematologic toxicities with the exception of nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea (if manageable with supportive care measures) or Grade 4 neutropenia lasting > 42 days with possible relationship to dasatinib or blinatumomab. If due to unexpected accrual, 12 pts were evaluable for DLT, the following rules would apply. If > 4 of the 12 pts experienced a DLT, the study would be temporarily closed pending review. Upon re-opening, 8 additional eligible and evaluable pts would be enrolled for a total of 20 pts receiving blinatumomab. Results: Due to rapid accrual, 16 pts enrolled before accrual was paused to assess feasibility and safety. Twelve pts were evaluable for DLT and 4 experienced a DLT: Grade 3 dyspnea and gastrointestinal pain (n=1), Grade 3 hypertension (n=1), Grade 3 dyspnea (n=1), Grade 3 hyperglycemia (n=1). These adverse events were deemed acceptable by the NCI and FDA and the study re-opened. A total of 25 eligible pts were accrued. The median age was 73 years (range 62-87). All pts were newly diagnosed. One pt was Ph-like, with the remainder being Ph+; 89% of Ph+ pts had additional cytogenetic abnormalities. During induction, 2 pts experienced treatment-related non-hematologic Grade 4 toxicities. No Grade 4 or higher treatment-related non-hematologic toxicities occurred during post-remission therapy or maintenance. Twenty-three out of 25 pts (92%) achieved a CR during dasatinib-based and prednisone induction therapy. Four did not receive PRT (2 due to adverse events, 1 to receive transplant, 1 because of insurance issues). Sixteen pts who achieved CR had MRD data. Five out of 16 pts (31%) were MRD negative at Day 28. One pt remains on PRT and 10 are on maintenance. The median follow up for pts who are alive is 1.7 years. The median overall survival (OS) and DFS have not been reached as of July 8, 2021. Kaplan-Meier 3-year estimates of OS and DFS are 85% (95% CI 58%-95%) and 80% (95% CI 55%-92%), respectively (Figure). Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the feasibility of combining dasatinib and blinatumomab in Ph+ ALL. In addition, with 1.7 years of follow up, outcomes are encouraging with high estimated 3-year DFS and OS. Longer follow up will be needed to determine the durability of these results. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Advani: Kite Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Immunogen: Research Funding; OBI: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Moseley: BioSight Ltd: Consultancy. Wood: Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Juno, Pfizer, Amgen, Seattle Genetics: Other: Laboratory Services Agreement. Park: Intellia: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Wieduwilt: Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Reata: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Jeyakumar: Jazz: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding. Atallah: Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy. Gerds: PharmaEssentia Corporation: Consultancy; CTI BioPharma: Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Constellation: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. O'Brien: Amgen, Astellas, Celgene, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Oncology, Aptose Biosciences Inc., Vaniam Group LLC, AbbVie, Alexion, Verastem, Juno Therapeutics, Vida Ventures, Autolus, Johnson and Johnson, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, NOVA Research Company, Eli Lill: Consultancy; Kite, Regeneron, Acerta, Caribou, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, TG Therapeutics, Pfizer, Sunesis: Research Funding. Othus: Celgene: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Merck: Consultancy; Biosight: Consultancy; Glycomimetics: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Stone: Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Onconova: Consultancy; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Erba: AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; ALX Oncology; Amgen Inc; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; FORMA Therapeutics; Forty Seven Inc; Gilead Sciences Inc; GlycoMimetics Inc; ImmunoGen Inc; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; MacroGenics Inc; Novartis; PTC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; AbbVie Inc; Agios Pharmaceuticals Inc; Astellas; Bristol Myers Squibb; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb company; Daiichi Sankyo Inc; Genentech, a member of the Roche Group; GlycoMimetics Inc; Incyte Corporation; Jazz Pharmaceuticals Inc; Kura Oncology; Nov: Other: Advisory Committee.

Abstract Background: CD19 CAR T cell therapies have demonstrated high initial complete remission (CR) rates of 70-80% in relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) with durable remissions observed in a subset of patients. Despite the remarkable initial CR rate, relapses occur in 20-45% of patients and with increasing use of CD19 CAR T cell therapies in ALL, a key remaining clinical question is the role of post-CAR HCT. Methods: Patients up to 26 years treated with the commercial (i.e., tisagenlecleucel) or investigational CD19 CAR T cell products from 2014 to 2019 in the United States were included. The objectives were to examine the impact of post-CAR HCT on mortality, disease-free survival (DFS), leukemia relapse, GVHD and transplant related mortality among HCT recipients. The intent of HCT was analyzed as consolidation when there was no evidence of post-CAR T cell relapse prior to HCT. Cox regression multivariable analysis used HCT as time-dependent variable along with age, performance status and time from diagnosis to CAR-T cell infusion to evaluate its impact on outcomes. Results: We identified 347 patients who received CD19 CAR T cells from 86 centers. Median age was 13 (range, 0.4-26 years) with 39% of patients from Hispanic or Latino ethnic origin. Patients were high risk and heavily pretreated; 56% had poor cytogenetics, 51% had ≥3 line of prior therapies and 34% had prior HCT. Most of the patients (74%) received tisagenlecleucel. Disease burden at the time of CAR T cell infusion included morphologic disease (≥5% bone marrow blasts) (65%), measurable residual disease (MRD) positive (16%) and negative CR (18%). CRS of all grades was observed in 57.6% and grade 3-4 CRS in 13%; neurotoxicity of all grades was observed in 25% and grade 3-4 in 8%. With a median follow-up of 12.7 months (range, 2.2-60.3), DFS at 3, 6 and 12 months following CAR T cell infusion was 80.9% % (95% CI: 76.6%-84.9%), 71.2% (95% CI: 66.1%-76.0%) and 57.6% (95% CI: 51.8%-63.3%), respectively. OS at 3, 6 and 12 months was 93.6% (95% CI: 90.8%-96.0%), 89.8% (95% CI: 86.4%-92.8%) and 79.4% (95% CI: 74.7%-83.6%), respectively. Incidences of relapse without censoring at subsequent HCT at month 3, 6 and 12 were 18.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-22.8%), 28.2% (95% CI: 23.5%-33.3%), and 40.6% (95% CI: 35.0%-46.3%), respectively. Of the 347 patients who received CD19 CAR therapy, 62 patients (18%) had subsequent HCT in CR as a consolidation post-CAR with a median time from CAR T to HCT of 4.7 months (range, 1.1-18.6). 36% had a prior HCT (i.e., pre-CAR), 87% received myeloablative regimen and among the 57 patients with MRD evaluation 56 were negative (98%). Frequencies of post-CAR HCT did not change during the 5-year study period. Overall, transplant related mortality (TRM) at month 6 was 8.9% (95% CI: 3.6-16.1), and grade 2-4 acute GvHD was observed in 38.0% (95% CI: 28.4-48.2) of patients at month 6. Post-CAR HCT used as a consolidation was associated with lower relapse (hazard ratio (HR) 0.37; p=0.037) but no significant impact on mortality (HR 0.75, p=0.51) or DFS (HR=0.46, p=0.057). When accounting for any HCT performed after CAR T cell, HCT was associated with higher mortality (Figure). Conclusions: This is the largest clinical series to date examining the impact of post-CAR HCT on clinical outcome of R/R B-ALL patients. We found that 18% of the patients had post-CAR HCT as a consolidation therapy with a favorable safety profile of 8.9% TRM rate despite a prior transplant rate of 36%. Consolidation HCT after CAR T cell resulted in significant reduction in leukemia relapse with a trend towards better DFS. Consolidation HCT seem safe and incurred a benefit by reducing disease relapse. Further studies in understanding the role of consolidation HCT as planned, or post-CAR T cell response-based strategy or treatment for early B-cell recovery are needed to further define the best candidates for HCT after tisagenlecleucel . Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Park: BMS: Consultancy; Affyimmune: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Curocel: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Minerva: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; PrecisionBio: Consultancy; Intellia: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Autolus: Consultancy; Servier: Consultancy; Artiva: Consultancy; Kura Oncology: Consultancy. Nikiforow: Kite/Gilead: Other: ad HOC Advisory Boards; Novartis: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Iovance: Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards; Glaxo Smith Kline (GSK): Other: ad Hoc Advisory Boards. Hu: Kite/Gilead: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Ahmed: Merck: Research Funding; Tessa Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding. Badar: Pfizer Hematology-Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Cairo: Servier: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sobi: Speakers Bureau; Omeros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Nektar: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dholaria: Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Jazz: Speakers Bureau; MEI: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Grover: Kite: Other: Advisory Board; Genentech: Research Funding; ADC: Other: Advisory Board; Tessa: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Locke: Gerson Lehrman Group: Consultancy; Emerging Therapy Solutions: Consultancy; Moffitt Cancer Center: Patents & Royalties: field of cellular immunotherapy; Calibr: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Wugen: Consultancy, Other; Legend Biotech: Consultancy, Other; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Iovance Biotherapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Novartis: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; GammaDelta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Takeda: Consultancy, Other; EcoR1: Consultancy; Cowen: Consultancy; Umoja: Consultancy, Other; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding; Cellular Biomedicine Group: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Scientific Advisory Role, Research Funding. Murthy: CRISPR Therapeutics: Research Funding. Mussetti: GILEAD: Other: Clinical trials participation, Research Funding; TAKEDA: Honoraria; NOVARTIS: Honoraria, Other: Clinical trials participation. Pulsipher: Jasper Therapeutics: Honoraria; Adaptive: Research Funding; Equillium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Qayed: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medexus: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mesoblast: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Other. Reshef: Gilead, BMS, Precision, Immatics, Atara, Takeda, Shire, Pharmacyclics, Incyte: Research Funding; Gilead and Novartis: Honoraria; Bayer, BMS, Regeneron, TScan, Synthekine, Atara, Jasper: Consultancy. Rizzieri: Kite: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Acrotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Teva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AROG: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celltrion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mustang: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria. Sharma: Vertex Pharmaceuticals/CRISPR Therapeutics: Other: Salary support paid to institution; Medexus Inc: Consultancy; CRISPR Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Vindico Medical Education: Honoraria; Spotlight Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Salary support paid to institution. Schultz: BMS DSMB: Other: payment; Sobi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Turtle: Century Therapeutics Ad hoc advisory boards (last 12 months): Nektar Therapeutics, Allogene, PACT Pharma, Astra Zeneca, Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Eureka Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caribou Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; T-CURX: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Myeloid Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ArsenalBio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Minerva: Other; Nektar Therapeutics: Other; Juno Therapeutics/BMS: Other: Payments, Patents & Royalties: Patent licensed to Juno Therapeutics.; Precision Biosciences, Eureka Therapeutics, Caribou Biosciences, Myeloid Therapeutics, ArsenalBio: Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pasquini: Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Perales: MorphoSys: Honoraria; Cidara: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Miltenyi Biotec: Honoraria, Other; Sellas Life Sciences: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Omeros: Honoraria; Nektar Therapeutics: Honoraria, Other; Equilium: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Other; NexImmune: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria, Other; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria, Other; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Medigene: Honoraria.

Background: There is no consensus how to determine the varus laxity due to the LCL injury using the ultrasonography. There is a risk of lateral collateral ligament injury during or after arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release for tennis elbow. The equator of the radial head has been suggested as a landmark for the safe zone to not increase this risk; however, the safe zone from the intra-articular space has not been established. Hypothesis: Increased elbow varus laxity due to lateral collateral ligament–capsular complex (LCL-cc) injury could be assessed reliably via ultrasound. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Eight cadaveric elbows were evaluated using a custom-made machine allowing passive elbow flexion under gravity varus stress. The radiocapitellar joint (RCJ) space was measured via ultrasound at 30° and 90° of flexion during 4 stages: intact elbow (stage 0), release of the anterior one-third of the LCL-cc (stage 1), release of the anterior two-thirds (stage 2), and release of the entire LCL-cc (stage 3). Two observers conducted the measurements separately, and the mean RCJ space in the 3 LCL-cc injury models (stages 1-3) at both flexion angles was compared with that of the intact elbow (stage 0). We also compared the measurements at 30° versus 90° of flexion. Results: At 30° of elbow flexion, the RCJ space increased 2 mm between stages 0 and 2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1-3 mm; P < .01) and 4 mm between stages 0 and 3 (95% CI, 2-5 mm; P < .01). At 90° of elbow flexion, the RCJ space increased 1 mm between stages 0 and 2 (95% CI, 1-2 mm; P < .01) and 2 mm between stages 0 and 3 (95% CI, 2-3 mm; P < .01). Conclusion: Elbow varus laxity under gravity stress can be reliably assessed via ultrasound by measuring the RCJ space. Clinical Relevance: Because ultrasonographic measurement of the RCJ space can distinguish the increasing varus laxity seen with release of two-thirds or more of the LCL-cc, the anterior one-third of the LCL-cc, based on the diameter of the radial head, can be considered the safe zone in arthroscopic extensor carpi radialis brevis release for tennis elbow.

Abstract Objectives: We aimed to compare the segmentation performance of the current prominent deep learning (DL) algorithms with ground-truth segmentations and to validate the reproducibility of the manually created 2D echocardiographic four cardiac chamber ground-truth annotation.Background: Recently emerged DL based fully-automated chamber segmentation and function assessment methods have shown great potential for future application in aiding image acquisition, quantification, and suggestion for diagnosis. However, the performance of current DL algorithms have not previously been compared with each other. In addition, the reproducibility of ground-truth annotations which are the basis of these algorithms have not yet been fully validated.Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 500 consecutive patients who underwent transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) from December 2019 to December 2020. Simple U-net, Res-U-net, and Dense-U-net algorithms were compared for the segmentation performances and clinical indices such as left atrial volume (LAV), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), LV end systolic volume (LVESV), LV mass, and ejection fraction (EF) were evaluated. The inter- and intra- observer variability analysis was performed by two expert sonographers for a randomly selected echocardiographic view in 100 patients (apical 2-chamber, apical 4-chamber, and parasternal short axis views).Results: The overall performance of all DL methods was excellent (average Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) 0.91 to 0.95 and average Intersection over union (IOU) 0.83 to 0.90), with the exception of LV wall area on PSAX view (average DSC of 0.83, IOU 0.72). In addition, there were no significant difference in clinical indices between ground truth and automated DL measurements. For inter- and intra observer variability analysis, the overall intra observer reproducibility was excellent: LAV (ICC = 0.995), LVEDV (ICC = 0.996), LVESV (ICC = 0.997), LV mass (ICC = 0.991) and EF (ICC = 0.984). The inter-observer reproducibility was slightly lower as compared to intraobserver agreement: LAV (ICC = 0.976), LVEDV (ICC = 0.982), LVESV (ICC =0.970), LV mass (ICC = 0.971), and EF (ICC = 0.899).Conclusions: The three current prominent DL-based fully automated methods are able to reliably perform four-chamber segmentation and quantification of clinical indices. Furthermore, we were able to validate the four cardiac chamber ground-truth annotation and demonstrate an overall excellent reproducibility, but still with some degree of inter-observer variability.

Abstract Aims To evaluate the benefit of speckle tracking radial strain imaging (STRSI)-guided left ventricular (LV) lead (LVL) positioning in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients (pts) with ischaemic cardiomyopathy with CRT indication. Methods and results We conducted a prospective randomized controlled trial. Patients were enrolled in nine centres with 2:1 randomization into two groups (guided vs. control). Patients underwent STRSI to identify the optimal LV position from six LV segments at midventricular level. Implantation via STRSI was attempted for recommended segment in the guided group only. Follow-up included echocardiography (6 months) and clinical evaluation (6 and 12 months). The primary endpoint was comparison % reduction in LV end-systolic volume at 6 months with baseline. Secondary endpoints included hospitalizations for heart failure and death, and improvement in additional echocardiographic measurements and quality of life score. A total of 172 patients (115 guided vs. 57 control) were enrolled. In the guided group, 60% of the implanted LV leads were adjudicated to be successfully located at the recommended segment, whereas in the control group 44% reached the best STRSI determined segment. There was no difference between the groups in any of the primary or secondary endpoints at 6 and 12 months. Conclusion Our findings suggest that echo-guided implantation of an LV lead using STRSI does not improve the clinical or echocardiographic response compared with conventional implantation.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) focus on the classification of ALL subtypes based on immunophenotype and cytogenetic/molecular markers; risk assessment and stratification for risk-adapted therapy; treatment strategies for Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-positive and Ph-negative ALL for both adolescent and young adult and adult patients; and supportive care considerations. Given the complexity of ALL treatment regimens and the required supportive care measures, the NCCN ALL Panel recommends that patients be treated at a specialized cancer center with expertise in the management of ALL This portion of the Guidelines focuses on the management of Ph-positive and Ph-negative ALL in adolescents and young adults, and management in relapsed settings.

Abstract Aims We sought to determine whether the Diamond–Forrester classification using non-invasive haemodynamic measurements by 2-D and Doppler echocardiography would predict hospital mortality in cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) patients. Methods and results We retrospectively analysed unique patients admitted to the CICU at Mayo Clinic Rochester from 2007 to 2018. Doppler-derived cardiac index (CI) and ratio of mitral valve E velocity to medial mitral annulus e′ velocity (E/e′ ratio) were used to classify patients into four profiles: Profile I (warm/dry), Profile II (warm/wet), Profile III (cold/dry), and Profile IV (cold/wet). Logistic regression was used to determine predictors of hospital mortality, and Cox proportional-hazards analysis was used to determine predictors of mortality during one year of follow-up. We included 4563 patients with a mean age of 68.3 ± 14.3 years, including 36.2% female patients. The distribution of each profile was as follows: I, 47.4%; II, 36.2%; III, 7.9%; IV, 8.5%. A total of 5.8% patients died during hospitalization, and 18.1% died by 1 year. Patients with either low CI or elevated E/e′ ratio had higher in-hospital and 1 year mortality. Patients with elevated E/e′ ratio (i.e. Profiles II and IV) had an increased risk of death during hospitalization and at 1 year after multivariate adjustment (adjusted hazard ratio 1.72 and 2.17 for 1 year mortality, respectively, compared with Profile I, P &lt; 0.01). Conclusions Simple Doppler echocardiographic assessment can be used to identify haemodynamic profiles defined by the Diamond–Forester classification in patients admitted in CICU. These profiles predict outcomes and may be used to guide therapy in critically ill patients.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum is common in throwing athletes and is believed to result from repetitive overloading on the radiocapitellar (RC) joint, although the cause and mechanism remain unclear. The torsional forces (moments) generated by the triceps during elbow extension pull only on the ulna; therefore, the radial head moves passively across the capitellum and is effectively “dragged along” by the ulna. Any laxity in the proximal radioulnar joint could lead to asynchronous motion between the radius and ulna, resulting in the radial head lagging behind the coronoid and possibly malarticulating with the capitellum during such motion. Hypothesis: Radial head motion on the capitellum lags behind ulnohumeral joint motion during simulated throwing. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 8 cadaveric elbows were tested under simulated throwing, including active extension of the elbow generated by pulling of the triceps under valgus stress, as well as during passive extension under valgus stress to serve as a reference. Ulnohumeral motion was tracked using a video camera. Radial head motion was tracked using an intra-articular, thin-film pressure sensor mounted on the capitellum, and the longitudinal movement of the center of force (COF) of the radial head was measured. Radial head motion was compared between passive and active motion for each 10° of elbow extension from 90° to 20°. Results: Elbow motion during simulated active extension reached an angular velocity of 366 deg/s. Radial head motion during simulated active extension significantly lagged compared with its motion during passive extension at every elbow extension angle examined between 70° and 20° ( P < .001). The maximal lag reached a mean of 4 mm (range, 2-7 mm). In other words, RC and ulnohumeral motion were asynchronous during simulated throwing. Conclusion: This study describes a novel phenomenon: motion of the radial head across the capitellum during rapid extension, such as in baseball pitching, lags behind that seen during passive elbow motion. According to a new proposed theory of OCD lesion development, this lag should result in RC incongruency and elevated shear forces on the capitellum due to edge loading. Clinical Relevance: We propose a new biomechanical explanation for OCD of the capitellum in baseball pitchers: radial head lag. Understanding this process is the first step in efforts to prevent this common injury.