Citations

AbstractBackgroundThe Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo clinic has followed patients with degenerative speech and/or language disorders for over a decade. In this presentation I will present data from this cohort to inform a broader discussion about the importance of apraxia of speech (AOS) and its subtypes, heterogeneity within the agrammatic PPA variant, and perils of mixed phenotypes.MethodWe reviewed the NRG database to identify patients who initially presented with isolated (PPAOS), AOS in conjunction with agrammatic aphasia (AOS‐PAA), isolated agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and patients who had PAA or AOS overlapping with another degenerative diagnosis. Data from the following clinical instruments were abstracted: WAB AQ (aphasia severity), UPDRS III (parkinsonism), WAB Praxis (ideomotor apraxia), and the MoCA (cognitive ability). We assessed the effect of baseline diagnosis and AOS subtype on these outcomes over time using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. We qualitatively reviewed longitudinal diagnostic trajectories. Preliminary analyses were done on available autopsy data.ResultPAA was associated with greater aphasia at baseline and more rapid decline; PPAOS was associated with normal language at baseline and slow decline; and PAA‐AOS with intermediate baseline aphasia and decline. However, for those with AOS longitudinal decline differed based on AOS subtype: prosodic PPAOS was associated with the slowest decline and phonetic PAA‐AOS with the fastest. Some patients met criteria for non‐PPA disorders during follow up. However, compared to patients who met criteria for these disorders at enrollment, the speech/language‐first patients remained qualitatively distinct, and neither resembled the cases that were mixed at onset. Preliminary autopsy data suggests that AOS is predictive of tau and that the specific tauopathy may be related to the initial syndrome and AOS subtype.ConclusionThe differences between PAA, PAA‐AOS and PPAOS suggest that these disorders should not be lumped. In fact, the longitudinal trajectories are sufficiently different that doing so would add noise to observational and interventional studies. Instead, more detailed phenotyping, including AOS subtype, can aid prognostication and may improve prediction of the underlying pathology. Finally, caution should be exercised when considering PPAOS and PPA patients for other FTLD diagnostic categories.

A case is described in which oxalosis occurred in an 11-year-old boy. The patient had experienced the formation of numerous calculi and multiple operations for removal of the calculi. The clinical, pathologic and histochemical findings in the case are presented. The unusual features of the case are extensive deposits of calcium oxalate crystals in the kidneys, bone marrow, spleen, liver, blood vessels, and adrenal cortex. Calcium oxalate, a relatively inert substance, appears to effect renal damage by virtue of its deposition in the renal tissue. While many aspects of oxalate metabolism remain obscure, it is generally presumed that oxalosis represents an as yet undefined metabolic defect.

Abstract Introduction: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A041202 is a NCI National Clinical Trials Network phase 3 study (NCT01886872) comparing BR (Arm 1) with ibrutinib (Arm 2) and the combination of ibrutinib plus rituximab (Arm 3) to determine whether ibrutinib-containing regimens are superior to chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), and whether rituximab adds benefit to ibrutinib therapy. Initial results showed that ibrutinib-containing regimens had superior PFS to CIT, and that rituximab added to ibrutinib did not improve PFS over ibrutinib alone. Pts and Methods: Eligible pts on A041202 were those age ≥ 65 years with previously untreated, symptomatic CLL. Pts had a CrCl > 40 mL/min, bilirubin < 1.5 x ULN, and no significant life-limiting intercurrent illness or need for warfarin treatment. Pts were stratified on Rai stage, Zap-70 methylation performed centrally, and del(17)(p13.1) or del(11)(q22.3) by local interphase cytogenetics and were randomized 1:1:1 to each arm. Pts on Arm 1 who progressed could cross over to Arm 2. Here we present an updated analysis after the third planned interim analysis of Arms 2 and 3 versus Arm 1, and at the second planned interim analysis for Arms 3 vs 2. PFS and OS were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and corresponding hazard ratios with p-values were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models. These data encompass patient visits through April 2020 and were locked 15 February 2021. Results: Between 12/9/2013 and 5/16/2016, 547 pts were randomized (Arms 1: 183, 2: 182, and 3: 182). Baseline characteristics have previously been reported; briefly, median age was 71 years, 53% had unmethylated Zap-70, 61% were IGHV unmutated (performed in 66% of patients), 6% had del(17p) and 20% del(11q) by central FISH. Stimulated karyotype was performed centrally and revealed ≥ 3 abnormalities in 27%, and ≥ 5 in 11% of patients. With median follow-up of 55 months (mo), median PFS was 44 mo (95% CI 38-54) in Arm 1 and has not been reached in Arms 2 or 3 [Arm 2 vs 1 hazard ratio (HR): 0.36, 95% CI 0.26-0.52, p<0.0001; Arm 3 vs 1 HR 0.36, 95% CI 0.25-0.51, p<0.0001; Arms 3 vs 2 HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.66-1.48, p=0.96]. 48-month PFS estimates were 47%, 76% and 76% in Arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively (Figure 1). At this time, there are no significant differences in overall survival (OS) among arms (p=0.49). 48-month OS estimates were 84%, 85%, and 86% in Arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively (Figure 2). The benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT, with no additional benefit of rituximab when combined with ibrutinib, was consistent for all subgroups of patients defined by TP53 abnormalities, del(11q), complex karyotype, and IGHV (Figure 3). No significant interaction effects were observed between treatment arm and del(11q), complex karyotype, or IGHV. However, greater benefit of ibrutinib regimens over CIT was observed among patients with TP53 abnormalities than without (p<0.001). Thus in Arm 1, PFS was significantly worse for those with TP53 abnormalities vs without (HR 5.32, 95% CI 3.05-9.27, p<0.0001), but in Arms 2 and 3 combined, there was no significant difference in PFS by presence/absence of TP53 abnormalities (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.51-1.91, p=0.98). Notable adverse events with ibrutinib include atrial fibrillation or flutter (afib) and hypertension (HTN). All grade afib was seen in 11 pts on BR (6%) and 67 pts on ibrutinib (19%). All grade HTN was seen in 95 pts on BR (54%) and 263 pts on ibrutinib (73%). Conclusions: This update of the A041202 trial continues to show that ibrutinib regimens prolong PFS over BR for older patients with treatment-naïve CLL. With longer follow-up, these benefits continue to be seen across subgroups, including those associated with higher risk disease. Strikingly, within the ibrutinib arms, there does not appear to be inferior PFS for patients with abnormalities in TP53, the highest risk feature seen in CLL, and a predictor of inferior PFS with ibrutinib in relapsed CLL. This differentiates ibrutinib (and perhaps BTKi in general) from other targeted therapy paradigms for treatment-naïve CLL. Similar to prior studies, rates of afib and HTN continue to increase with time on therapy. These data support the use of ibrutinib as initial therapy in CLL, and strengthen the rationale for use of ibrutinib for high risk disease. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org, Pharmacyclics, Inc Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Woyach: Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Ding: Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Bartlett: ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Brander: Pfizer: Consultancy, Other: Biosimilars outcomes research panel; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy; Juno Therapeutics/Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LOXO: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; NCCN: Other: panel member; ArQule/Merck: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; DTRM: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: informCLL registry steering committee, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Barr: Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Rogers: Pharmacyclics LLC: Consultancy; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Research Funding; ovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Research Funding. Parikh: Pharmacyclics, MorphoSys, Janssen, AstraZeneca, TG Therapeutics, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AbbVie, and Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Verastem Oncology, and AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Coutre: Acerta: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larson: Epizyme: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; CVS/Caremark: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding. Erba: AbbVie Inc: Other: Independent review committee; 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; 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. Litzow: Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee. Blachly: INNATE: Consultancy, Honoraria; KITE: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria. Owen: Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Abramson: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; EMD Serono: Consultancy; Genmab: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Kymera: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy; Allogene Therapeutics: Consultancy; Seagen Inc.: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy. Brown: Abbvie, Acerta/Astra-Zeneca, Beigene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Juno/Celgene, Catapult, Eli Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Janssen, MEI Pharma, Morphosys AG, Nextcea, Novartis, Pfizer, Rigel: Consultancy; Invectys: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Committee Service; Gilead, Loxo/Lilly, SecuraBio, Sun, TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Stone: Onconova: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria; Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract PURPOSE Vertebral compression fracture (VCF) is a potential adverse effect following stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for spinal metastases. In this analysis, we developed and internally validated a risk stratification model for VCF. METHODS From an initial set of 680 treatments, we excluded those with proton therapy, prior surgical intervention, or missing data. The final dataset had 464 treatments in 313 patients. Delineations of VCF and all radiographic components of the spinal instability neoplastic score (SINS) were determined by a radiologist. Recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) was conducted using separate training (70%), internal validation (15%), and test (15%) sets. The log-rank test was used as the criterion for node splitting. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 21 months, we identified 84 VCF (18%), including 65 (77%) de novo and 19 (23%) progressive fractures. There was a median 9 months (IQR: 3 – 21) to VCF. From an initial set of 15 candidate variables, six were identified using the backwards selection method, feature importance testing, and a correlation heatmap. Four were then selected in the highest-fidelity RPA models: epidural tumor extension, lumbar location, gross tumor volume > 10 cc, and SINS > 6. One point was assigned to each variable, and the resulting multivariate Cox model had a concordance of 0.760. Each one point increase in score was associated with increasing rates of VCF. Low-risk lesions (score: 0-1, n=273) had 2-year freedom from VCF of 92%, compared to 80% for intermediate-risk (score: 2, n=99) and 56% (score: 3-4, n=92) for high-risk lesions (p < 0.0001). Cumulative incidence curves with death as a competing risk showed increased VCF with higher scores via Gray’s test (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Our internally-validated model identifies a subgroup of patients with high risk for VCF who may benefit from prophylactic surgical stabilization or vertebroplasty.

Abstract ECT2 is an activator of RHO GTPases that is essential for cytokinesis. In addition, ECT2 was identified as an oncoprotein when expressed ectopically in NIH/3T3 fibroblasts. However, oncogenic activation of ECT2 resulted from N-terminal truncation, and such truncated ECT2 proteins have not been found in patients with cancer. In this study, we observed elevated expression of full-length ECT2 protein in preneoplastic colon adenomas, driven by increased ECT2 mRNA abundance and associated with APC tumor-suppressor loss. Elevated ECT2 levels were detected in the cytoplasm and nucleus of colorectal cancer tissue, suggesting cytoplasmic mislocalization as one mechanism of early oncogenic ECT2 activation. Importantly, elevated nuclear ECT2 correlated with poorly differentiated tumors, and a low cytoplasmic:nuclear ratio of ECT2 protein correlated with poor patient survival, suggesting that nuclear and cytoplasmic ECT2 play distinct roles in colorectal cancer. Depletion of ECT2 reduced anchorage-independent cancer cell growth and invasion independent of its function in cytokinesis, and loss of Ect2 extended survival in a KrasG12D Apc-null colon cancer mouse model. Expression of ECT2 variants with impaired nuclear localization or guanine nucleotide exchange catalytic activity failed to restore cancer cell growth or invasion, indicating that active, nuclear ECT2 is required to support tumor progression. Nuclear ECT2 promoted ribosomal DNA transcription and ribosome biogenesis in colorectal cancer. These results support a driver role for both cytoplasmic and nuclear ECT2 overexpression in colorectal cancer and emphasize the critical role of precise subcellular localization in dictating ECT2 function in neoplastic cells. Significance: ECT2 overexpression and mislocalization support its role as a driver in colon cancer that is independent from its function in normal cell cytokinesis.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer. Methods We collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI. Results ICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8–32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3–10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI. Conclusions Patients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery.

A rare APOE variant APOE3 -Jac reduces self-aggregation and promotes healthy brain aging.

Abstract Synucleinopathies are clinically and pathologically heterogeneous disorders characterized by pathologic aggregates of α-synuclein in neurons and glia, in the form of Lewy bodies, Lewy neurites, neuronal cytoplasmic inclusions, and glial cytoplasmic inclusions (GCIs). Synucleinopathies can be divided into two major disease entities: Lewy body disease (LBD) and multiple system atrophy (MSA). Common clinical presentations of LBD are Parkinson's disease (PD), PD with dementia (PDD), and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB), while MSA has two major clinical subtypes, MSA with predominant cerebellar ataxia (MSA-C) and MSA with predominant parkinsonism (MSA-P). There are currently no disease-modifying therapies for the synucleinopathies, but elucidation of genetics and mechanisms of α-synuclein conversion to pathologic oligomers and insoluble fibrils offer hope for eventual therapies. It remains unclear how α-synuclein can be associated with distinct cellular pathologies (e.g., Lewy bodies and GCI) and what factors determine neuroanatomical and cell type vulnerability. Accumulating evidence from in vitro and in vivo experiments suggests that α-synuclein species derived from LBD and MSA are distinct "strains" having different seeding properties. Recent advancements in in vitro seeding assays, such as real-time quaking-induced conversion (RT-QuIC) and protein misfolding cyclic amplification (PMCA), not only demonstrate distinct seeding activity in the synucleinopathies, but also offer exciting opportunities for molecular diagnosis using readily accessible peripheral tissues. Cryogenic electron microscopy (cryo-EM) structural studies of α-synuclein derived from recombinant or brain-derived filaments provide new insight into mechanisms of seeding in synucleinopathies. In this review, we describe clinical, genetic and neuropathologic features of synucleinopathies, including a review of classification and staging schemes for LBD. We also review evidence supporting the existence of distinct α-synuclein strains in LBD and MSA.

Abstract Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease that is the most common cause of dementia. Our previous studies have shown that increased expression of the SERPINA5 gene is associated with hippocampal vulnerability in AD, and that the SERPINA5 protein binds to tau and co-localizes within neurofibrillary tangles. To determine if genetic variants in the SERPINA5 gene may be contributing to this phenotype, we sequenced 103 autopsy-confirmed young-onset AD cases with a positive family history of cognitive decline. We observed one individual with a rare missense variant (rs140138746) in the SERPINA5 gene, resulting in an amino acid change (p.E228Q). We screened a further 1170 neuropathologically diagnosed AD cases and identified an additional 5 carriers of this variant, resulting in an allelic frequency of 0.002141 within our AD validation cohort, which was comparable to online genomic databases. Although not significant, SERPINA5 p.E228Q variant carriers were found to be younger at age of onset and age of death than non-carriers. SERPINA5 p.E228Q variant carriers had a longer disease duration than non-carriers, which approached significance. To further elucidate possible neuropathologic contributions of the SERPINA5 p.E228Q variant, we carried out descriptive neuropathologic burden analysis on a variant carrier that was matched to a non-carrier for age, sex, disease duration, Braak tangle stage, TDP-43 positive status, and who possessed an APOE ε4 risk allele. Interestingly, SERPINA5 burden was lower in the SERPINA5 p.E228Q carrier than the non-carrier in 9 corticolimbic brain regions studied, which exaggerated the tau:SERPINA5 immunohistochemical ratio. The SERPINA5 p.E228Q carrier was observed to have more severe neuronal loss in several brain regions compared to the non-carrier. Together, we cautiously interpret these findings to suggest that the SERPINA5 p.E228Q variant may stall tangle maturity and slow AD disease progression, thus prolonging disease duration in these individuals.