Citations

Abstract Purpose: The CLASSICAL-Lung clinical trial tested the combination of pepinemab, an IgG4 humanized mAb targeting semaphorin 4D, with the PD-L1 inhibitor avelumab to assess the effects of coupling increased T-cell infiltration and reversal of immune suppression via pepinemab with sustained T-cell activation via checkpoint inhibition. Patients and Methods: This phase Ib/II, single-arm study was designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of pepinemab in combination with avelumab in 62 patients with advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), including immunotherapy-naïve (ION) patients and patients whose tumors progressed following anti-PD-1/L1 monotherapy (IOF). The main objectives were to evaluate safety/tolerability, establish a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), obtain a preliminary evaluation of antitumor activity, and investigate candidate biomarker activity. Results: The combination was well tolerated with no major safety signals identified. Pepinemab, 10 mg/kg with avelumab, 10 mg/kg, every 2 weeks, was selected as the RP2D. Among 21 evaluable ION patients, 5 patients experienced partial responses (PR), 4 patients evidenced clinical benefit ≥1 year, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 81%. Notably, overall response rate with the combination therapy was higher than previously reported for single-agent avelumab in the PD-L1-negative/low population. Among 29 evaluable IOF patients, the combination resulted in a DCR of 59%, including 2 PR and 7 patients with durable clinical benefit of ≥23 weeks. Biomarker analysis of biopsies demonstrated increased CD8 T-cell density correlating with RECIST response criteria. Conclusions: The combination of pepinemab with avelumab was well tolerated in NSCLC and showed signs of antitumor activity in immunotherapy-resistant and PD-L1-negative/low tumors.

Teplizumab treatment of nondiabetic relatives at high risk for T1D induces partially exhausted CD8 + T cells and improves beta cell function.

We describe the anesthetic and operative techniques utilized for a tracheal tumor resection in a pediatric patient with 95% tracheal occlusion. In prior tracheal tumor cases that dictated complete resection, our team had been able to comfortably bypass a tumor with an endotracheal tube. In this case, we could not intubate past the tumor. A rigid bronchoscope was able to be placed past the tumor, so we continued with sternotomy and dissection before cardiopulmonary bypass while ventilating through that bronchoscope as our definitive airway.

Abstract Background: Several scales have been developed in the past two decades to evaluate Niemann-Pick disease Type C (NPC) severity in clinical practice and trials. However, a lack of clarity concerning which scale to use in each setting is preventing the use of standardised assessments across the world, resulting in incomparable data sets and clinical trial outcome measures. This study aimed to establish agreed approaches for the use of NPC severity scales in clinical practice and research. Methods: A Delphi method of consensus development was used, comprising three survey rounds. In Round 1, participants were asked nine multiple-choice and open-ended questions to gather opinions on the six severity scales and domains. In Rounds 2 and 3, questions aimed to gain consensus on the opinions revealed in Round 1 using a typical Likert scale.Results: Nineteen experts, active in NPC paediatric and adult research and treatment, participated in this study. Of these, 16/19 completed Rounds 1 and 2 and 19/19 completed Round 3. Consensus (defined as ≥70% agreement or neutrality) was achieved for 66.7% of the multiple-choice questions in Round 2 and 83% of the multiple-choice questions in Round 3. Consensus was almost reached (68%) on the use of the 5-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice in clinical practice. Consensus was reached (74%) for the 17-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice in clinical trial settings, but the domains measured in the 5-domain scale should be prioritised as the primary endpoints. Experts called for educational and training materials on how to apply the NPCCSS (17- and 5-domains) for clinicians working in NPC.Conclusions: In achieving a consensus on the use of the 17-domain NPCCSS scale as the first choice for assessing clinical severity of NPC in clinical trial settings, but prioritising the domains in the 5-domain NPCCSS scale for routine clinical practice, this study can help to inform future discussion around the use of the existing NPC clinical severity scales. For routine clinical practice, the study helps provide clarity on which scale is favoured by a significant proportion of a representative body of experts, in this case, the 5-domain NPCCSS scale.

Objectives We describe the methodology of Post–Acute Pancreatitis Pancreatic Exocrine Insufficiency (PAPPEI), a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study. The objectives of PAPPEI are to estimate the incidence rate of post–acute pancreatitis (AP) pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI), define factors that determine the development of post-AP PEI, and evaluate the impact of post-AP PEI on nutritional status and quality of life. Methods Enrollment started in June 2017 in 3 expert academic centers in the United States. Data were collected during hospitalization (baseline) at 3 and 12 months after enrollment. Fecal elastase-1 was used to assess PEI. Study questionnaires are completed by patient interview and review of electronic medical records. Blood is obtained to evaluate vitamin deficiencies and nutritional markers. Results As of August 2020, 77 subjects have completed the baseline evaluation. The median age was 58 years (interquartile range, 39–67 years), 38% were male, and 90% were white. The etiology of AP was biliary in 39 subjects (51%), and 51 subjects (66%) had mild AP. Three- and 12-month follow-up data have been collected in 29 and 13 subjects, respectively. Conclusion The PAPPEI study aims to expand our understanding of post-AP PEI incidence, including its impact on nutritional status and quality of life.

AbstractBackground and AimThe primary aim was to validate the Pancreatitis Activity Scoring System (PASS) in a multicenter prospectively ascertained acute pancreatitis (AP) cohort. Second, we investigated the association of early PASS trajectories with disease severity and length of hospital stay (LOS).MethodsData were prospectively collected through the APPRENTICE consortium (2015–2018). AP severity was categorized based on revised Atlanta classification. Delta PASS (ΔPASS) was calculated by subtracting activity score from baseline value. PASS trajectories were compared between severity subsets. Subsequently, the cohort was subdivided into three LOS subgroups as short (S‐LOS): 2–3 days; intermediate (I‐LOS): 3–7 days; and long (L‐LOS): ≥7 days. The generalized estimating equations model was implemented to compare PASS trajectories.ResultsThere were 434 subjects analyzed including 322 (74%) mild, 86 (20%) moderately severe, and 26 (6%) severe AP. Severe AP subjects had the highest activity levels and the slowest rate of decline in activity (P = 0.039). Focusing on mild AP, L‐LOS subjects (34%) had 28 points per day slower decline; whereas, S‐LOS group (13%) showed 34 points per day sharper decrease compared with I‐LOS (53%; P < 0.001). We noticed an outlier subset with a median admission‐PASS of 466 compared with 140 in the rest. Morphine equivalent dose constituted 80% of the total PASS in the outliers (median morphine equivalent dose score = 392), compared with only 25% in normal‐range subjects (score = 33, P value < 0.001).ConclusionsThis study highlighted that PASS can quantify AP activity. Significant differences in PASS trajectories were found both in revised Atlanta classification severity and LOS groups, which can be harnessed in AP monitoring/management (ClincialTrials.gov number, NCT03075618).

Abstract Background Rigorous evaluation of the calibration and discrimination of breast-cancer risk-prediction models in prospective cohorts is critical for applications under clinical guidelines. We comprehensively evaluated an integrated model incorporating classical risk factors and a 313-variant polygenic risk score (PRS) to predict breast-cancer risk. Methods Fifteen prospective cohorts from six countries with 239 340 women (7646 incident breast-cancer cases) of European ancestry aged 19–75 years were included. Calibration of 5-year risk was assessed by comparing expected and observed proportions of cases overall and within risk categories. Risk stratification for women of European ancestry aged 50–70 years in those countries was evaluated by the proportion of women and future cases crossing clinically relevant risk thresholds. Results Among women &lt;50 years old, the median (range) expected-to-observed ratio for the integrated model across 15 cohorts was 0.9 (0.7–1.0) overall and 0.9 (0.7–1.4) at the highest-risk decile; among women ≥50 years old, these were 1.0 (0.7–1.3) and 1.2 (0.7–1.6), respectively. The proportion of women identified above a 3% 5-year risk threshold (used for recommending risk-reducing medications in the USA) ranged from 7.0% in Germany (∼841 000 of 12 million) to 17.7% in the USA (∼5.3 of 30 million). At this threshold, 14.7% of US women were reclassified by adding the PRS to classical risk factors, with identification of 12.2% of additional future cases. Conclusion Integrating a 313-variant PRS with classical risk factors can improve the identification of European-ancestry women at elevated risk who could benefit from targeted risk-reducing strategies under current clinical guidelines.