Citations

Abstract Up to 85% of adult cancer survivors and 99% of adult survivors of childhood cancer live with an accumulation of chronic conditions, frailty, and/or cognitive impairments resulting from cancer and its treatment. Thus, survivors often show an accelerated development of multiple geriatric syndromes and need therapeutic interventions. To advance progress in this area, the National Cancer Institute convened the second of 2 think tanks under the auspices of the Cancer and Accelerated Aging: Advancing Research for Healthy Survivors initiative. Experts assembled to share evidence of promising strategies to prevent, slow, or reverse the aging consequences of cancer and its treatment. The meeting identified research and resource needs, including geroscience-guided clinical trials; comprehensive assessments of functional, cognitive, and psychosocial vulnerabilities to assess and predict age-related outcomes; preclinical and clinical research to determine the optimal dosing for behavioral (eg, diet, exercise) and pharmacologic (eg, senolytic) therapies; health-care delivery research to evaluate the efficacy of integrated cancer care delivery models; optimization of intervention implementation, delivery, and uptake; and patient and provider education on cancer and treatment-related late and long-term adverse effects. Addressing these needs will expand knowledge of aging-related consequences of cancer and cancer treatment and inform strategies to promote healthy aging of cancer survivors.

Abstract Background: The biology, pathology and clinical course of CD5+ chronic B cell lymphoproliferative disorders (CD5+ B-CLPD) excluding chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) are poorly defined. These patients could either have a leukemic variant of a known B cell malignancy or a novel disease entity. Objective: To define the clinical features and pathology of CD5+ B-CLPD, compare these features to CLL, and test the hypothesis that at least some of these patients have a unique B cell malignancy. Methods: The study was conducted with Institutional Review Board permission. We studied 231 patients evaluated in the Division of Hematology at Mayo Clinic Rochester between 1996 and 2008 who had CD5+ monoclonal B cell population in the peripheral blood and/or bone marrow, and in whom CLL and MCL was not diagnosed after flow cytometry, histology and interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) examinations. Data were abstracted from patient records and from the Mayo Clinic CLL database. Statistical analysis: To compare differences in characteristics between CD5+ and CLL patients, χ2 statistics were used for qualitative variables (gender, treatment, vital status) and t-tests were used for quantitative variables (age). We performed survival and time to treatment analyses with results displayed using Kaplan-Meier curves and p-values calculated using a log-rank test. Results: We analyzed data on 231 CD5+ B-CLPD patients diagnosed between 7/1/1976 and 5/2/2008 and 1572 CLL patients diagnosed in the same time period. Median follow-up from diagnosis was 2.5 years (range 0 to 25.1 years) for the CD5+ patients and 5.2 years (range 0 to 29.9 years) for CLL patients. CD5+ B-CLPD patients had a median age at diagnosis of 68 years (range 30–94 years) with male predominance (61.5%). One hundred and nine of 231 (52.4%) patients received treatment for their CD5+ B-CLPD and 162 (70.1%) patients were alive at the time of last follow-up. As a group, CD5+ B-CLPD patients had a similar male predominance to CLL but were older at diagnosis. CD5+ B-CLPD patients required their first treatment significantly sooner than CLL patients (median 2.0 years vs. 6.8 years, (p< 0.001) and a higher percentage of CD5+ B-CLPD patients required treatment (52.4% vs. 37.5%, p<0.0001). In addition, CD5+ B-CLPD patients had a shorter survival from diagnosis than CLL patients (median 8.4 years vs. 12.5 years, p<0.001). In 60 patients the CD5+ B-CLPD disease was the leukemic phase of a known lymphoma (lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, n=34; nodal marginal zone lymphoma, n=6; splenic marginal zone lymphoma, n=16; MALT lymphoma, n=4), 46 patients had incomplete data, and 125 patients did not have pathological and flow cytometry features of a known lymphoid malignancy. Next we compared clinical outcome among the 125 patients with unclassifiable CD5+ B-CLPD to the CLL patients. The unclassifiable CD5+B-CLPD patients were older at diagnosis (median 69 vs. 65 years, p=0.0003) but there were no significant differences in time to treatment (median 9.0 years vs. 6.8 years, p=0.93) or the proportion of patients receiving treatment (30% vs. 37.5%, p=0.11). The survival from diagnosis was shorter for unclassifiable CD5+ B-CLPD patients (median 6.3 vs. 12.5 years, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this large series of CD5+ B-CLPD patients we found that a large subset did not meet diagnostic criteria for known B-cell malignancies and could have a novel disease. This will need to be investigated further. We reviewed the pathology of all available archived tissue and intend to examine additional clinical and prognostic information including molecular prognostic markers. Our data provide a clinical rationale for the careful differentiation between patients with CLL and CD5+ B-CLPD.

Abstract Background: Endx is a Tam metabolite with promising antitumor activity in Tam and aromatase inhibitor (AI) resistant estrogen receptor (ER) positive (+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods: This randomized phase II study compared progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity of Endx 80 mg/day to Tam 20 mg/day in patients (pts) with ER+ MBC. Eligibility included postmenopausal women, ECOG PS 0-2, prior progression on AI but not Tam (unlimited endocrine therapy [ET] lines allowed), and a preregistration biopsy confirming ER+ (>10% nuclear staining) and HER2-negative MBC. Stratified randomization was used balancing prior CDK 4/6 inhibitor (CDK 4/6i) use and/or everolimus (yes/no), measurable disease (yes/no) and endocrine resistance (primary/secondary) between arms. Pts randomized to Tam were allowed to cross over to Endx at progression. Due to short expected median PFS, differences in PFS were assessed using approaches for interval-censored data (ICD). 40 eligible pts were to be randomized to each arm so a one-sided alpha=0.10 generalized log-rank test (GLRT) would have a 90% chance of detecting a 50% decrease in hazard of disease progression with Endx (median: 6 months) relative to Tam (median: 3 months). Secondary endpoints include clinical benefit rate (stable or partial response > 6 cycles) (CBR) for measurable and non-measurable disease. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data were obtained Day (d) 1 (4 hour), end of cycle 2, and at time of progression. Results: From March 2015 to March 2017, 108 women with endocrine refractory recurrent or MBC were preregistered. 27 pts did not register due to: biopsy demonstrating ER-/HER2- (3 pts), ER+/HER2+ (5 pts), cancer other than breast (3 pts), no cancer in specimen (6 pts), brain metastases (2 pts), acute infection (1 pt), progression on or recent use of Tam (2 pts), or pt refusal (5 pts). 4/81 pts who registered were excluded due to ineligibility (3 pts) or refusal to start protocol treatment (1 pt). The study cohort consisted of 40 pts randomized to Endx and 37 pts to Tam. The median (m) number of ETs in the metastatic setting was 2 (range 1-4) for each arm including prior CDK 4/6i (Endx: 42.5%, Tam: 29.7%) and everolimus (Endx: 35.0%, Tam: 40.5%). The m cycle number was 6 for Endx (range: 1-35) and 3 for Tam (range: 1-42). PFS for Endx was not significantly different compared to Tam (HR= 0.77; 95% CI: 0.49-1.22, GLRT p=0.309; mPFS: Endx 130 days [95% CI: 76-138 days] and Tam 42 days [95%CI: 24-129 days]). However, PFS was significantly longer in pts with no prior CDK 4/6i in the Endx arm (GLRT p=0.002; HR(no/yes)=0.31; 95%CI: 0.15-0.65) but not in the Tam arm (GLRT p=0.708) (unplanned analysis). Severe (grade (G) 3+) toxicities included: Endx G3 hypertriglyceridemia (3 pts); Tam: G3 hypertension with G2 stroke (1 pt), G3 thromboembolic event (1 pt), and G3 abdominal, bone and liver pain (1 pt). In Endx arm, d1 m Endx plasma concentration (conc) was 216 ng/ml (n=17; range: 144-400). For Tam arm, d1 m Tam conc was 17 ng/ml (n=17; range:11-23) (Endx not detectable). For the 25 pts that crossed over to Endx, CBR was 28.0% (90% CI: 14.0-46.2%) and 14 pts had pk data at progression. A lower median Endx conc (6 ng/ml range: 3.3-16.3) was observed in Tam patients at progression who then had Endx clinical benefit compared to Tam pts without clinical benefit after Endx crossover (median Endx 12 ng/ml; range 4.4-36.6).Conclusions: In endocrine-resistant breast cancer, Z-Endx was not significantly superior to Tam, but clinical benefit was observed in 28% that crossed over to Endx after Tam progression. In pts with no prior CDK 4/6i, the observation of significantly longer PFS in the Endx arm is hypothesis generating. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171, U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN), https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; Clinical Trials.gov Identifier:NCT02311933 Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Vera J Suman, Joel M Reid, Mary Kuffel, Sarah A Buhrow, Renee M McGovern, John Black, Travis Dockter, William F Symmans, Minetta C Liu, John R Hawse, James Doroshow, Anna M Storniolo, Jerry M Collins, Howard Streicher, Matthew M Ames, James N Ingle, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey. A randomized phase II trial of tamoxifen versus Z-endoxifen HCL in postmenopausal women with metastatic estrogen receptor positive, HER2 negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD7-06.

Abstract Background: Breast cancer arising in young women is more likely to have higher risk features than in older women and more likely to be associated with germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations. We previously reported a higher distribution of luminal B-like tumors among young women. Here we present the clinical and pathologic features of invasive disease in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer, and associations between surrogate molecular subtype and BRCA 1/2 mutation status. Methods: Among 1,297 young women (aged ≤40 years) with breast cancer enrolled from 2006-2016, tumor histopathological features were examined by central review, and biomarker status was extracted from pathology reports. Based on histologic grade and biomarker expression, invasive tumors were categorized as luminal A-like (LA=ER/PR+ and HER2-, histologic grade 1 or 2), luminal B-like (LB=ER/PR+ and HER2+, or ER/PR+, HER2-, and grade 3), HER2 enriched (E) (ER/PR- and HER2+) or triple negative (TN=ER-, PR- and HER2-). Tumor stage, clinical characteristics, and BRCA status were retrieved by medical record review (and patient survey for BRCA status if not in medical record). Results: The majority of women presented with early stage invasive disease (8% stage 0, 32% stage 1, 40% stage 2, 15% stage 3; 5% stage 4). Among invasive tumors with evaluable molecular phenotype (n=1,136), 57% were high grade and the distribution of subtypes was: 33% LA, 42% LB, 8% HER2E, and 16% TN (Table 1). Among different age groups (≤ 30, 31-35, and 36-40 years), there were no significant differences in molecular phenotype, tumor stage, tumor grade or histopathological features including presence of tumor necrosis, lymphocytic infiltration, and central fibrotic focus. 96% of women were tested for BRCA1 and BRCA2 germline mutations, and 127 (11%) tested positive: 65% were BRCA1+, and 35% were BRCA2+ (table 2). Among BRCA1+ patients, 2% of cancers were LA, 30% LB, 5% HER2E, and 62% TN; among BRCA2+, 29% were LA, 56% LB, 2% HER2E, and 13% TN. These proportions were relatively consistent across age groups. BRCA1+ patients’ tumors were proportionately more TN and BRCA2+ patients’ tumors more likely to be LB/HER2 negative (p<0.0001), irrespective of age category. Conclusion: In a large cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤40, there was no association between age group (≤ 30, 31-35, vs. 36-40 years) and tumor stage, grade, or tumor molecular phenotype among women with invasive disease. As in older women, tumor molecular phenotype does vary by BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation status, which has implications for prevention and treatment. Table 1. Subtype by age groupTotal (n=1136)≤30 yrs (n=144)31-35 yrs (n=314)36-40 yrs (n=678)p=0.42Luminal A-like377 (33%)48 (33%)99 (32%)230 (34%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)59 (41%)137 (44%)281 (41%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)27 (19%)68 (22%)150 (22%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)32 (22%)69 (22%)131 (19%)HER2E95 (8%)13 (9%)34 (11%)48 (7%)Triple Negative187 (16%)24 (17%)44 (14%)119 (18%) Table 2. Subtype by BRCA statusTotal(n=1136)BRCA1+(n=82)BRCA2+(n=45)No mutation/not tested(n=1009)p<0.0001Luminal A-like377 (33%)2 (2%)13 (29%)362 (36%)Luminal B-like477 (42%)25 (30%)25 (56%)427 (42%)• ER/PR+, HER2-, grade 3245 (22%)21 (26%)18 (40%)206 (20%)• ER/PR+, HER2+232 (20%)4 (5%)7 (16%)221 (22%)HER2E95 (8%)4 (5%)1 (2%)90 (9%)Triple Negative187 (16%)51 (62%)6 (13%)130 (13%) Citation Format: Yaileen D Guzman-Arocho, Shoshana M. Rosenberg, Philip Poorvu, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Greg Kirkner, Craig Snow, Rulla M. Tamimi, Jeffrey Peppercorn, Lidia Schapira, Virginia F. Borges, Steven E. Come, Elena F. Brachtel, Ellen Warner, Ann H. Partridge, Laura C. Collins. Clinicopathological features and BRCA 1/2 status in a large prospective cohort of young women with breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-02.

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), a major public health problem that is rising in prevalence, is associated with high morbidity and mortality and is considered to be the greatest unmet need in cardiovascular medicine today because of a general lack of effective treatments. To address this challenging syndrome, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a working group made up of experts in HFpEF and novel research methodologies to discuss research gaps and to prioritize research directions over the next decade. Here, we summarize the discussion of the working group, followed by key recommendations for future research priorities. There was uniform recognition that HFpEF is a highly integrated, multiorgan, systemic disorder requiring a multipronged investigative approach in both humans and animal models to improve understanding of mechanisms and treatment of HFpEF. It was recognized that advances in the understanding of basic mechanisms and the roles of inflammation, macrovascular and microvascular dysfunction, fibrosis, and tissue remodeling are needed and ideally would be obtained from (1) improved animal models, including large animal models, which incorporate the effects of aging and associated comorbid conditions; (2) repositories of deeply phenotyped physiological data and human tissue, made accessible to researchers to enhance collaboration and research advances; and (3) novel research methods that take advantage of computational advances and multiscale modeling for the analysis of complex, high-density data across multiple domains. The working group emphasized the need for interactions among basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological scientists and across organ systems and cell types, leveraging different areas or research focus, and between research centers. A network of collaborative centers to accelerate basic, translational, and clinical research of pathobiological mechanisms and treatment strategies in HFpEF was discussed as an example of a strategy to advance research progress. This resource would facilitate comprehensive, deep phenotyping of a multicenter HFpEF patient cohort with standardized protocols and a robust biorepository. The research priorities outlined in this document are meant to stimulate scientific advances in HFpEF by providing a road map for future collaborative investigations among a diverse group of scientists across multiple domains.

*equal contribution of AB, RLL, BD and JCB Background: Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) is common with increasing age, and older adults with AML rarely achieve long-term remission with chemotherapy. Gene discovery studies in older adults with AML have shown that this malignancy is characterized by a multitude of somatic genomic alterations beginning with initiating somatic events followed by acquisition of collaborative transforming mutations. Despite these important biologic insights, current therapeutic approaches to AML remain limited, particularly in adults ≥ 60 years of age. The Beat AML trial was designed to assess the feasibility of using genetic profiling to assign patients (pts) to molecularly defined, subtype-specific therapies within 7 days of the initial diagnosis in a multi-center clinical trial setting, and to delineate the role of molecularly informed first-line treatment of AML with mechanism based novel therapies. Methods: Treatment-naïve patients with AML were enrolled in this prospective trial which offered accelerated cytogenetic and comprehensive mutational testing within 7 days followed by treatment assignment using these molecular data. Pt eligibility included age ≥ 60 years with non-APML AML, no known CNS leukemia, no prior hypomethylating agent (HMA) therapy and no clinical need for emergent therapy. Eligible pts were profiled by local cytogenetics analysis and using a central next generation sequencing (NGS) assay (Foundation Medicine, Inc.) with all molecular data required for treatment assignment (TA) obtained < 7 days. TA was made centrally using a pre-determined algorithm considering somatic cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone, available targeted therapeutics for specific AML subsets, and the likelihood of cure with intensive chemotherapy. Results: From November 2016 to January 2019, 487 pts with a suspected diagnosis of AML had enrolled at 14 clinical sites; 395 were eligible for the study (77% of the patients not eligible for the study had an alternative diagnosis). The median age of eligible patients was 72 years (range: 60 to 92) with 38% being≥ 75 years and 16% with treatment-related AML. From the 395 eligible patients, 374 (94.7%) were centrally assigned to the different cytogenetic/genomic groups within 7 days. The most common groups were TP53 mutated (19%) and marker negative (18%) molecular groups. The Beat AML trial is dynamic by design, thereby allowing different arms to open over time; all trial arms are designed to evaluate for substantial clinical efficacy in small, molecularly defined patient subsets. As shown in Figure 1, 224 patients (57%) had a TA and consented to a BEAT AML sub-study. Of the remaining 171 patients, 103 received standard therapy defined as induction therapy (7+3) or hypomethylation agent (25 before TA and 78 after TA), 28 received an alternative investigational agent (5 before TA and 23 after TA), 38 received palliative care, and 2 had an unknown treatment status and are grouped with the palliative care patients in subsequent analyses; 9 patients died before TA (2 who received standard therapy and 7 in the palliative care group). Demographic, clinical, performance and molecular characteristics were not largely different between pts who elected targeted therapy as part of the BEAT AML trial versus those who elected standard therapy. As shown in Figure 2, the overall survival was significantly longer for patients enrolled in a targeted therapy arm as part of the BEAT AML trial compared to those who elected standard therapy. (p<0.0001). The 30-day estimated death rate was 3.7% (95% CI: 1.9-7.2) for patients electing treatment on a BEAT AML sub-study, 20.4% (95% CI: 13.0-31.2) for those receiving standard therapy, 0% for those receiving an investigational therapy, and 72.6% (95% CI: 57.8-85.7) for the palliative care group. Conclusion: Our data support the feasibility of a rapid precision medicine approach in older patients with previously untreated AML. Patients with AML who elected treatment assigned based upon cytogenetic and molecular alterations in the dominant clone using a novel precision medicine approach had significantly improved overall survival versus those who elected standard of care treatment. Disclosures Levine: Gilead: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Qiagen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Loxo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Lilly: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Borate:Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Stein:Agios: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas Pharma US, Inc: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bioline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Patel:France Foundation: Honoraria; Dava Oncology: Honoraria; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Baer:Takeda: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding. Stock:Daiichi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Research to Practice: Honoraria; UpToDate: Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Deininger:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; TRM: Consultancy; Sangoma: Consultancy; Fusion Pharma: Consultancy; Adelphi: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Humana: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Sangamo: Consultancy; Blueprint: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blum:Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Astellas,: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; AmerisourceBergen: Consultancy. Schiller:Amgen: Other, Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Constellation Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Eli Lilly and Company: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Genzyme: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; J&J: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer Pharmaceuticals: Equity Ownership, Research Funding; Sangamo Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol Myer Squibb: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Biomed Valley Discoveries: Research Funding. Olin:Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Clovis: Research Funding; Ignyta: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Mirati Therapeutics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Spectrum: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Lin:Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Traer:AbbVie: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Notable Labs: Equity Ownership. Odenike:AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Research Funding; Oncotherapy: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; CTI/Baxalta: Research Funding. Arellano:Gilead: Consultancy. Vergilio:Roche Holding AG: Equity Ownership; Foundation Medicine: Employment. Brennan:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Vietz:Foundation Medicine: Employment. Druker:ALLCRON: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees , Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Burroughs Wellcome Fund: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cepheid: Consultancy, Honoraria; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Equity Ownership, Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; Patient True Talk: Consultancy; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (antibody royalty): Patents & Royalties: #2524, antibody royalty; Pfizer: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties: Dana-Farber Cancer Institute license #2063, Monoclonal antiphosphotyrosine antibody 4G10, exclusive commercial license to Merck & Co; OHSU (licensing fees): Patents & Royalties: #2573, Constructs and cell lines harboring various mutations in TNK2 and PTPN11, licensing fees ; Amgen: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aptose Biosciences: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beta Cat: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Stock options; Beat AML LLC: Other: Service on joint steering committee; CureOne: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Other: former member of Scientific Advisory Board; ICON: Other: Scientific Founder of Molecular MD, which was acquired by ICON in Feb. 2019; Monojul: Other: former consultant; Novartis: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Patents & Royalties: Patent 6958335, Treatment of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors, exclusively licensed to Novartis, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: PI or co-investigator on clinical trial(s) funded via contract with OHSU., Research Funding. Byrd:Novartis: Other: Travel Expenses, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Research Funding; Ohio State University: Patents & Royalties: OSU-2S; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract Aims While right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is associated with worse prognosis in co-morbid pulmonary hypertension and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (PH-HFpEF), the mechanisms driving RV dysfunction are unclear. We evaluated the extent and clinical correlates of diffuse RV myocardial fibrosis in PH-HFpEF, as measured by cardiovascular magnetic resonance-derived extracellular volume (ECV). Methods and results We prospectively enrolled participants with PH-HFpEF (n = 14), pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; n = 13), and controls (n = 8). All participants underwent high-resolution cardiovascular magnetic resonance, and case subjects (PH-HFpEF and PAH) additionally underwent right heart catheterization. T1 mapping was performed using high-resolution modified look-locker inversion recovery with a 1 × 1 mm2 in-plane resolution. RV free wall T1 values were quantified, and ECV was calculated. Participants with PH-HFpEF were older and carried higher rates of hypertension and obstructive sleep apnoea than those with PAH. While RV ECV was similar between PH-HFpEF and PAH (33.1 ± 8.0 vs. 34.0 ± 4.5%; P = 0.57), total pulmonary resistance was lower in PH-HFpEF compared with PAH [PH-HFpEF: 5.68 WU (4.70, 7.66 WU) vs. PAH: 8.59 WU (8.14, 12.57 WU); P = 0.01]. RV ECV in PH-HFpEF was associated with worse indices of RV structure (RV end-diastolic volume: r = 0.67, P = 0.01) and RV function (RV free wall strain: r = 0.59, P = 0.03) but was not associated with RV afterload (total pulmonary resistance: r = 0.08, P = 0.79). Conversely, there was a strong correlation between RV ECV and RV afterload in PAH (r = 0.57, P = 0.04). Conclusions Diffuse RV fibrosis, as measured by ECV, is present in PH-HFpEF and is associated with adverse RV structural and functional remodelling but not degree of pulmonary vasculopathy. In PH-HFpEF, diffuse RV fibrosis may occur out of proportion to the degree of RV afterload.

Abstract Background Although 20 pancreatic cancer susceptibility loci have been identified through genome-wide association studies in individuals of European ancestry, much of its heritability remains unexplained and the genes responsible largely unknown. Methods To discover novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and possible causal genes, we performed a pancreatic cancer transcriptome-wide association study in Europeans using three approaches: FUSION, MetaXcan, and Summary-MulTiXcan. We integrated genome-wide association studies summary statistics from 9040 pancreatic cancer cases and 12 496 controls, with gene expression prediction models built using transcriptome data from histologically normal pancreatic tissue samples (NCI Laboratory of Translational Genomics [n = 95] and Genotype-Tissue Expression v7 [n = 174] datasets) and data from 48 different tissues (Genotype-Tissue Expression v7, n = 74–421 samples). Results We identified 25 genes whose genetically predicted expression was statistically significantly associated with pancreatic cancer risk (false discovery rate < .05), including 14 candidate genes at 11 novel loci (1p36.12: CELA3B; 9q31.1: SMC2, SMC2-AS1; 10q23.31: RP11-80H5.9; 12q13.13: SMUG1; 14q32.33: BTBD6; 15q23: HEXA; 15q26.1: RCCD1; 17q12: PNMT, CDK12, PGAP3; 17q22: SUPT4H1; 18q11.22: RP11-888D10.3; and 19p13.11: PGPEP1) and 11 at six known risk loci (5p15.33: TERT, CLPTM1L, ZDHHC11B; 7p14.1: INHBA; 9q34.2: ABO; 13q12.2: PDX1; 13q22.1: KLF5; and 16q23.1: WDR59, CFDP1, BCAR1, TMEM170A). The association for 12 of these genes (CELA3B, SMC2, and PNMT at novel risk loci and TERT, CLPTM1L, INHBA, ABO, PDX1, KLF5, WDR59, CFDP1, and BCAR1 at known loci) remained statistically significant after Bonferroni correction. Conclusions By integrating gene expression and genotype data, we identified novel pancreatic cancer risk loci and candidate functional genes that warrant further investigation.

PURPOSE The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay is prognostic among women with early-stage estrogen receptor–positive (ER+) and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) breast cancer and is used to inform recommendations for chemotherapy. Women ≤ 40 years of age represent a minority of patients studied using gene expression profiles. METHODS The Young Women's Breast Cancer Study is a prospective cohort of women diagnosed with breast cancer at age ≤ 40 years and enrolled patients between 2006 and 2016 (N = 1,302). We identified patients with stage I-III ER+/HER2− breast cancer. The RS assay was performed on banked specimens for patients who had not been tested clinically. Distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) was assessed by TAILORx and traditional RS risk groups among patients with axillary node–negative (N0) and limited node–positive (N1) breast cancer. RESULTS Among eligible women (N = 577), 189 (33%) had undergone RS testing, and 320 (56%) had banked specimens sufficient for testing. Median follow-up was 6.0 years. Median age at diagnosis was 37.2 years; 300 of 509 patients (59%) had N0 breast cancer, of whom 195 (65%) had an RS of 11-25 and fewer than half (86 of 195; 44%) received chemotherapy. Six-year DRFS rates were 94.4% and 92.3% (RS < 11), 96.9% and 85.2% (RS 11-25), and 85.1% and 71.3% (RS ≥ 26) among women with N0 and N1 disease, respectively. CONCLUSION The RS assay is prognostic among young women with node-negative and limited node-positive breast cancer, representing a valuable tool for risk stratification. Disease outcomes with a median follow-up of 6 years among young women with N0 disease and an RS of 0-25, a minority of whom received chemotherapy, and node-positive disease with an RS < 11 were very good, whereas those with N0 disease and an RS ≥ 26 or N1 disease with an RS ≥ 11 experienced substantial risk of early distant recurrence.