Citations

AbstractBackgroundHepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.MethodsEight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two.A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.ConclusionsThese guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher‐quality evidence.

Introduction: Among the most challenging complications of hemophilia A is inhibitor formation. A T-cell dependent B-cell response to exogenous factor VIII (FVIII), inhibitors result in a high burden of disease, with poorly controlled bleeding, twice the hospitalizations, 10-fold the cost, and 3.5-fold the mortality of non-inhibitor patients. Thus, a major goal of hemophilia management is to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. With the availability of novel therapies, including eloctate, a recombinant Fc-fusion protein (rFVIII-Fc) which induces regulatory T cells to promote FVIII tolerance, and emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal FVIII mimetic, we designed the INHIBIT Clinical Trials Platform (X01HL143024), Fig.1. The platform is composed of two linked randomized phase III trials, the Inhibitor Prevention Trial (NCT04303559), comparing rFVIII-Fc vs emicizumab prophylaxis to prevent inhibitors, and the Inhibitor Eradication Trial (NCT04303572), comparing rFVIII-Fc immune tolerance induction (ITI) plus emicizumab vs rFVIII-Fc ITI alone to eradicate inhibitors. The platform uses adaptive design to incorporate historical data (Bayesian priors) on inhibitor formation to increase power and promote efficient use of rare data. Yet, there is equipoise regarding the optimal approach to inhibitor prevention and eradication, and, as clinical practice is changing, we aimed to test the feasibility of the INHIBIT trial design. Methods: To establish design feasibility, we conducted interviews with 30 hemophilia treatment center (HTC) physicians participating in the INHIBIT trials, to determine prophylaxis and tolerance regimens they prescribe and perceived barriers to the INHIBIT trials design. A 4-question survey was subsequently emailed to these physicians to ascertain the initial prophylaxis regimens they prescribe in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A, and the initial immune tolerance induction (ITI) they prescribe in high-responding inhibitor patients with severe hemophilia A; if new inhibitors had been observed during emicizumab prophylaxis, and willingness to participate in post-trial surveillance. Results: In interviews, HTC physicians indicated the issues that influenced choice of prophylaxis/ ITI regimen were patient preference, family history of inhibitors, infusion frequency, IV access, port requirement, and family fatigue. In the absence of clinical trials data in PUPs, there was general agreement that emicizumab prophylaxis, with it simpler subcutaneous (SQ) administration, might delay or potentially prevent inhibitors. Survey findings in Table 1 indicated 75% of physicians prescribe extended half-life (EHL) FVIII in a once-weekly prophylaxis regimen, as planned in the Prevention Trial, despite the persistent 27% inhibitor rate (ALong PUPs Trial, Königs et al, ISTH 2020) and potential risks with port use. There was support for the 1:3 preferential randomization to emicizumab in the Prevention Trial due to the simpler SQ route, despite concern it might delay rather than prevent inhibitor formation, although no inhibitors were reported by physician survey with emicizumab use alone. There was also concern that breakthrough bleeds requiring FVIII during emicizumab prophylaxis, might lead to immune activation and inhibitor formation. There was strong agreement, however, in 29 (97%) of physicians to participate in post-trial surveillance for long-term inhibitor outcomes. FVIII ITI was considered essential to eradicate inhibitors, despite the intensity of the infusion regimen. Notably, 60% prescribe emicizumab with FVIII ITI, as planned in the Eradicate Trial, although the every-other-day infusion was considered a potential barrier to participation. Omitting FVIII ITI was not favored due to the risk of inhibitor anamnesis if FVIII treatment was subsequently required for surgery or acute hemorrhages. Despite these concerns, there was agreement to participate in the trials. Discussion: Physician interviews and surveys confirm there is heterogeneity in current hemophilia clinical practice, specifically in initial prophylaxis regimens and in initial immune tolerance regimens, including agent choice and duration. However, there is physician consensus with the INHIBIT trial aims and with the proposed INHIBIT trial regimens to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. Disclosures Ragni: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding. Seaman:Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Acharya:Novonordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BPL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Wheeler:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tarango:Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Other; Bayer: Consultancy, Other; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other. Dunn:ATHN: Research Funding; Spire: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; uniQure: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Nationwide Children's Hospital: Current Employment. Kulkarni:Sanofi/ Bioverativ, Bayer, Biomarin, Shire/Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Freeline: Other: clinical trial research grants ; Bioverativ/Sanofi, BPL, Genentech, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Takeda, Catalyst Bioscience Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ahuja:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; XaTek, Inc.: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Chitlur:Takeda: Honoraria; Biovertiv: Honoraria; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pipe:Apcintex, Bayer, BioMarin, Catalyst Biosciences, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Freeline, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; Medical and Scientific Advisory Council to the National Hemophilia Foundation; Medical Advisory Board to World Federation of Hemophilia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malec:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Leissinger:Bayer: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Uniqure: Consultancy; Spark: Consultancy. Carpenter:Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Academy of Pediatrics: Other: PREP Heme/Onc editorial board; Kedrion: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Knoll:NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Bioverativ Inc: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Young:Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria. Thornburg:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lucas:CRISPR Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hwang:Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Abstract Background: Accumulating evidence suggests a relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Independent genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer have identified 16 and 27 risk regions, respectively, four of which overlap between the two cancers. We aimed to identify joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci by performing a meta-analysis of GWAS summary statistics from these two cancers. Methods: Using LDScore regression, we explored the genetic correlation between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. To identify loci associated with the risk of both cancers, we implemented a pipeline of statistical genetic analyses (i.e., inverse-variance meta-analysis, colocalization, and M-values) and performed analyses stratified by subtype. Candidate target genes were then prioritized using functional genomic data. Results: Genetic correlation analysis revealed significant genetic correlation between the two cancers (rG = 0.43, P = 2.66 × 10−5). We found seven loci associated with risk for both cancers (PBonferroni < 2.4 × 10−9). In addition, four novel subgenome-wide regions at 7p22.2, 7q22.1, 9p12, and 11q13.3 were identified (P < 5 × 10−7). Promoter-associated HiChIP chromatin loops from immortalized endometrium and ovarian cell lines and expression quantitative trait loci data highlighted candidate target genes for further investigation. Conclusions: Using cross-cancer GWAS meta-analysis, we have identified several joint endometrial and ovarian cancer risk loci and candidate target genes for future functional analysis. Impact: Our research highlights the shared genetic relationship between endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer. Further studies in larger sample sets are required to confirm our findings.

BackgroundThe goal of this study was to assess the impact of trastuzumab on locoregional failure.METHODSThe analysis included 2763 patients with HER2‐positive (HER2+) breast cancer who were randomly assigned to adjuvant doxorubicin (A), cyclophosphamide (C), paclitaxel (T) and trastuzumab (H) (arm A, AC→T [n = 922]; arm B, AC→T→H [n = 988]; arm C, AC→T+H→H [n = 853]). Radiotherapy was given after AC→T concurrently with H. Radiotherapy was given after lumpectomy (L) or after mastectomy (M) with ≥4 positive lymph nodes but was optional for 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. Locoregional failures at 10 years (LFR10) as first events were compared using competing risk analysis.ResultsThe median follow‐up was 13.0 years. The first site of failure was local‐only in 96 cases, locoregional in 16 cases, regional in 32 cases, and not specified in 2 cases; LFR10 was 4.8% (95% CI 4.1%‐5.7%). LFR10 was 5.5% (95% CI 4.3%‐7.2%), 4.9% (95% CI 3.7%‐6.4%), and 2.8% (95% CI 1.9%‐4.1%) in arms A, B, and C (B vs A: hazard ratio [HR] 0.91, P = .62; C vs A: HR 0.72, P = .12). For estrogen receptor–positive patients, LFR10 was 3.7% (95% CI 2.8%‐4.8%) and for estrogen receptor–negative patients, it was 6.1% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.4%; HR 0.61, P = .004). Local treatment included L+RT (n = 1044 [38%]), M+RT (n = 1025 [37%]), and M (n = 694 [25%]). LFR10 was 6.% (95% CI 5.0%‐7.8%), 3.0% (95% CI 2.1%‐4.3%), and 5.5% (95% CI 4.0%‐7.4%) for L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M+RT vs L+RT: HR 0.43, P < .001; M vs L+RT: HR 0.88, P = .57). For 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes, LFR10 was 6.5% (95% CI 4.8%‐8.9%), 4.1% (95% CI 2.4%‐7.0%), and 4.3% (95% CI 2.9%‐6.5%) in L+RT, M+RT, and M, respectively (M vs L+RT: HR 0.68, P = .14; M vs M+RT: HR 1.2, P = .6).ConclusionLow 10‐year LFRs were seen regardless of trastuzumab use. Differences in local therapy in patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes did not appear to improve local control. Local therapy studies for HER2+ and other tumor characteristics are important as the role of local therapies continues to evolve.

Abstract Background: Persons of African ancestry (AA) experience a 1.5-2-fold risk of multiple myeloma (MM) compared to persons of European ancestry (EA). We assembled a set of MM patients with self-reported AA in order to evaluate the contribution of genetics to etiology in this high-risk group. Methods: Here we present the results of a meta-analysis of two GWAS in 1,813 cases and 8,871 controls of AA. We also conducted an admixture mapping scan to identify risk alleles associated with local ancestry, fine-mapped the 23 known susceptibility loci to find markers that could better capture MM risk in individuals of AA, and constructed a polygenic risk score (PRS) to assess the aggregated effect of known MM risk alleles. Finally, we conducted an eQTL analysis measuring gene expression in those genes harboring a risk variant in malignant plasma cells from 292 of the patients from a single site. Results: In GWAS analysis, we identified two suggestive novel loci located at 9p24.3 and 9p13.1 at P&lt;1 × 10-6, but no genome-wide significant association was noted. In admixture mapping, we observed a genome-wide significant inverse association between local AA at 2p24.1-23.1 and MM risk in AA individuals. 20 of the 23 known EA risk variants showed directional consistency and 9 replicated at P&lt;0.05 in AA individuals. In eight regions, we identified markers that better capture MM risk in persons of AA. AA individuals with a PRS in the top 10% had a 1.82-fold (95%CI: 1.56, 2.11) increased MM risk compared to those with average risk (25-75%). The strongest functional association was between the risk allele for variant rs56219066 at 5q15 and lower ELL2 expression (P= 5.1 × 10–12). Conclusion: Our study shows that common genetic variation contributes to MM risk individuals of AA. This abstract is also being presented as Poster C040. Citation Format: Zhaohui Du, Niels Weinhold, Gregory Chi Song, Kristen A. Rand, David J. Van Den Berg, Amie E. Hwang, Xin Sheng, Victor Hom, Sikander Ailawadhi, Ajay K. Nooka, Seema Singhal, Karen Pawlish, Edward Peters, Cathryn Bock, Ann Mohrbacher, Alexander Stram, Sonja I. Berndt, William J. Blot, Graham Casey, Victoria L. Stevens, Rick Kittles, Phyllis J. Goodman, W. Ryan Diver, Anselm Hennis, Barbara Nemesure, Eric A. Klein, Benjamin A. Rybicki, Janet L. Stanford, John S. Witte, Lisa Signorello, Esther M. John, Leslie Bernstein, Antoinette Stroup, Owen W. Stephens, Maurizio Zangari, Frits Van Rhee, Andrew Olshan, Wei Zheng, Jennifer J. Hu, Regina Ziegler, Sarah J. Nyante, Sue Ann Ingles, Michael Press, John David Carpten, Stephen Chanock, Jayesh Mehta, Graham A Colditz, Jeffrey Wolf, Thomas G. Martin, Michael Tomasson, Mark A. Fiala, Howard Terebelo, Nalini Janakiraman, Laurence Kolonel, Kenneth C. Anderson, Loic Le Marchand, Daniel Auclair, Brian C.-H. Chiu, Elad Ziv, Daniel Stram, Ravi Vij, Leon Bernal-Mizrachi, Gareth J. Morgan, Jeffrey A. Zonder, Carol Ann Huff, Sagar Lonial, Robert Z. Orlowski, David V. Conti, Christopher A. Haiman, Wendy Cozen. A meta-analysis of genome-wide association study and eQTL analysis of multiple myeloma among African Americans [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2019 Sep 20-23; San Francisco, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(6 Suppl_2):Abstract nr PR05.