Citations

Significance Lipid droplets (LDs) are specialized fat-storage organelles that can be used as a fuel source by many types of cells when nutrients are scarce. One mechanism used by hepatocytes (the functional cells of the liver) for the catabolism of these energy reserves is the lysosome-directed process of autophagy. Traditionally, autophagy necessitates the enclosure of cargo within a double-membrane autophagosome before delivery to the lysosome for degradation. Here, we use live-cell and electron microscopy to demonstrate that stable contacts between LDs and lysosomes in hepatocytes can result in the transfer of both proteins and lipids from LDs directly into the lysosome in the absence of an autophagosomal intermediate. These findings reveal a mechanism used for lipid homeostasis in the liver.

AbstractBackgroundUsing an objective mathematical algorithm to assess corticolimbic involvement of neurofibrillary tangle pathology, we identified three AD subtypes: hippocampal sparing (HpSp) AD, typical AD, and limbic predominant AD. Typical AD brains were representative of the expected patterns of hippocampal and cortical involvement as outlined by Braak tangle stage. In contrast, we discovered an extreme phenotype that exists outside of the Braakian‐concept of neurofibrillary tangle patterns. Hippocampal sparing AD cases demonstrate unexpected sparing of the hippocampus relative to severely involved association cortices and limbic predominant AD cases demonstrate inundation of the hippocampus relative to mildly involved association cortices. Using these AD subtypes, our objective was to leverage our understanding of disease spectrum to uncover transcriptomic changes that underlie selective vulnerability of the hippocampus in AD.MethodWe performed RNA‐sequencing in 40 neuropathologically diagnosed AD cases (10 HpSp, 20 Typical and 10 Limbic) and 15 controls to uncover gene expression changes associated with phenotype differences allowing us to prioritize 44 genes for further exploration. Validation with NanoString and quantification with digital pathology were performed in an expanded cohort of 158 AD cases (36 HpSp, 79 Typical and 35 Limbic) and 32 controls. We quantified digital pathology measures of early tangle pathology (CP13), mature tangle pathology (Ab39), amyloid‐β (33.1.1). In addition, we measured cellular markers for microglia (CD68), endothelia (CD34), and astroglia (GFAP). Deep learning based prediction models were employed, which nominated the SLC38A2 gene as a predictor of AD.ResultThe SLC38A2 gene was originally prioritized in our RNA‐sequencing data based upon differential expression between controls and typical AD. We observed upregulation of SLC38A2 in all AD subtypes. RNA‐seq gene expression measures validated well with NanoString for SLC38A2 (R=0.97, p<0.001). Regression analysis identified early tangle (p=0.011) and late tangle measures (p=0.026) as significant predictors of gene expression, but not amyloid measures (p=0.74). Microgliosis approached significance (p=0.052), but with no contribution from endothelial cell burden (p=0.17) or astrogliosis (p=0.58). Age approached significance (p=0.06), but not sex (p=0.88) or APOE‐ε4 status (p=0.10).ConclusionOur data supports consideration of intra‐disease divergence with regard to case stratification and may reveal genes previously masked by heterogeneity of cohorts.

Abstract The treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with cancer is challenging because these patients have increased risks of both recurrent VTE and major bleeding, along with patient-specific and cancer-related factors that influence the approach to treatment. Historically, anticoagulant therapy with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), given for both initial and long-term treatment, has been the preferred approach recommended by practice guidelines. Most recently, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines indicate that the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban, edoxaban, or rivaroxaban are preferred for patients without gastric or gastroesophageal lesions. DOACs have been associated with an increased risk of major bleeding in patients with gastrointestinal and possibly genitourinary cancers, and DOACs should either not be used (especially in those with intact intraluminal tumors) or be used with caution in patients with these cancers. Fatal or life-threatening bleeding occurs with similar frequency with DOACs or LMWH, and most major bleeding with DOACs can be managed with transfusion and standard measures. The patient's willingness and ability to comply with LMWH injections, and their treatment preference, should also be considered. Patients with cancer who have VTE should be treated with anticoagulation for a minimum of 6 months. Anticoagulation should be continued indefinitely while cancer is active or under treatment or if there are persistent risk factors for recurrent VTE. This article summarizes the evidence from clinical trials of LMWH and DOACs that underpins the NCCN guideline recommendations, addresses several controversies and caveats regarding anticoagulant treatment, and offers evidence-based, practical suggestions on patient selection for treatment with DOACs. Implications for Practice Several randomized trials support the addition of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to the therapeutic armamentarium for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE). These agents come with unique risks and patient- and cancer-specific variables that must be evaluated during the course of a patient's cancer care. This narrative review discusses findings from clinical trials of low-molecular-weight heparin and DOACs for the treatment of cancer-associated VTE, evidence that supports the recent National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. A personalized approach to treatment is proposed that addresses patient selection for treatment with DOACs, factors that influence efficacy and safety, controversies and caveats, and suggestions for their resolution in clinical practice.

Background The purpose of this study is to evaluate how prior breast augmentation impacts rates of complications and risk for reoperation after mastectomy with concurrent breast reconstruction. Methods Patients undergoing nipple-sparing, skin-sparing, or simple mastectomy with implant-based reconstruction from 2008 to 2018 were identified in a prospective database. Postoperative complications and reoperations were then analyzed comparing patients with prior augmentation to patients without history of previous breast surgery. Results A total of 468 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 4 years. Of these, 72 had prior augmentation mammoplasty. These patients underwent nipple-sparing (52, 72%), skin-sparing (15, 21%), or simple (5, 7%) mastectomy with immediate direct-to-implant (46, 61%) or tissue expander (26, 35%) reconstruction. On univariate analysis, this cohort had a lower body mass index (23.3 vs 25.3, P = 0.003), a higher rate of nipple-sparing mastectomy (72% vs 54%, P = 0.01), and a higher prevalence of stage I disease (44% vs 33%, P = 0.04). Differences in age, comorbidities, reconstructive techniques, tumor size, and neoadjuvant/adjuvant therapies were not significant. Overall complication rate between patients with or without prior augmentation did not significantly differ (51% vs 50%, P = 0.83); no significant differences in rates of surgical site infection, hematoma, mastectomy skin flap/wound necrosis, nipple complications, implant loss, or capsular contracture were found. Analysis of reoperations between patients with and without prior augmentation revealed no significant differences in average number of subsequent planned, unplanned, or total reoperations. On multivariate analysis, prior breast augmentation was found to be associated with significantly increased risk for undergoing ≥1 unplanned reoperation (odds ratio, 2.28; 95% confidence interval, 1.28–4.05, P = 0.005). Conclusions Prior augmentation mammoplasty does not significantly affect rates of postoperative complications after mastectomy with concurrent reconstruction. Although prior augmentation does not affect number of subsequent reoperations on average, it does increase the risk of experiencing 1 or more unplanned reoperation after mastectomy with reconstruction.

Abstract Purpose: Intratumoral immunosuppression mediated by myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) represents a potential mechanism of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) resistance in solid tumors. By promoting TAM and MDSC infiltration, IL1β may drive adaptive and innate immune resistance in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and in other tumor types. Experimental Design: Using the RENCA model of RCC, we evaluated clinically relevant combinations of anti-IL1β plus either anti-PD-1 or the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib. We performed comprehensive immune profiling of established RENCA tumors via multiparameter flow cytometry, tumor cytokine profiling, and single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). Similar analyses were extended to the MC38 tumor model. Results: Analyses via multiparameter flow cytometry, tumor cytokine profiling, and single-cell RNA-seq showed that anti-IL1β reduces infiltration of polymorphonuclear MDSCs and TAMs. Combination treatment with anti-IL1β plus anti-PD-1 or cabozantinib showed increased antitumor activity that was associated with decreases in immunosuppressive MDSCs and increases in M1-like TAMs. Conclusions: Single-cell RNA-seq analyses show that IL1β blockade and ICI or TKI remodel the myeloid compartment through nonredundant, relatively T-cell–independent mechanisms. IL1β is an upstream mediator of adaptive myeloid resistance and represents a potential target for kidney cancer immunotherapy.

Introduction: Hypomethylating agents (HMAs) or DNA methyltransferase inhibitors (DNMTi) such as decitabine or azacitidine are established standard of care for the treatment of MDS and CMML. The oral bioavailability of these agents has been limited due to rapid degradation by cytidine deaminase (CDA) in the gut and liver, hence requiring intravenous infusion or subcutaneous injections daily for 5-7 days every month (m). This parenteral administration requirement adds significant burden to older cancer patients due to daily time commitment and travel to treatment centers. It also increases exposure to and infection risk with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Oral decitabine 35 mg/cedazuridine 100 mg (ASTX727) is an oral fixed dose combination drug of decitabine and the CDA inhibitor cedazuridine that have shown 99% (90% CI 93% to 106%) equivalent exposure to standard dose IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 in a randomized cross-over study (Garcia-Manero et al, ASH 2019). Here, we present the clinical efficacy and safety results of oral decitabine/cedazuridine from 133 patient study in MDS and CMML (ASTX727-02 ASCERTAIN study). Methods: We used a randomized cross over design where patients were randomized in the first 2 cycles 1:1 to either Sequence A: decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg in Cycle 1 followed by IV decitabine at 20 mg/m2 in Cycle 2, or Sequence B: IV decitabine in Cycle 1 followed by oral decitabine/cedazuridine in Cycle 2 to do an intra-patient comparison of decitabine PK (primary PK endpoint: decitabine AUC equivalence over 5 days of dosing). Cycles were repeated every 28 days. All patients received oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all subsequent cycles from Cycle 3 onwards until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients were eligible as per the FDA-approved label of IV decitabine (MDS patients by FAB classification including CMML, or MDS IPSS Intermediate-1, 2 or high-risk patients). Clinical endpoints were best response as assessed by an independent expert panel according to International Working Group (IWG) 2006 response criteria, transfusion independence for at least 8 or 16 consecutive weeks, overall survival, and safety. Adverse events (AEs) were graded by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v 4.03. Results: 138 subjects were randomized, of whom 133 were treated on study. The median age was 71.0 years (range 44-88), 65% were male, 88% MDS and 12% CMML, 43% were either red blood cells (RBCs) or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 25% had poor-risk cytogenetics, and 42% had baseline bone marrow blasts &gt;5%. At the data cutoff for the response analysis, the median duration of follow up was 12.6 m (range 9.3 to 20.5 m) with median number of treatment cycles of 8 (range 1 to 18). Of the 133 treated patients the best response was complete response (CR) in 28 patients (21%; 95% CI 15-29%), marrow (m)CR with hematological improvement (HI) in 20 patients (15%), mCR without HI in 23 patients (17.3%), and HI in 10 patients (7.5%) for an overall objective response (CR+mCR+HI) in 81 patients (61%; 95% CI 52-69%). Median duration of CR was 7.5 m (range 1.6 to 17.5 m), and median time to CR was 4.3 m (range 2.1 to 15.2 m). Of the 133 treated patients 27 (20%) went on to receive allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant. Of the 57 patients who were either RBCs or platelets transfusion-dependent at baseline, 30 (53%) became transfusion independent for both RBCs and platelets for at least 8 consecutive weeks, and 19 (33%) were both RBCs and platelets transfusion independent for at least 16 consecutive weeks. Median survival has not been reached. Most common Treatment-Emergent AEs of Grade ≥3 regardless of causality were neutropenia in 51.5%, thrombocytopenia in 50%, anemia in 40%, febrile neutropenia in 26%, leukopenia in 21%, pneumonia in 12%, and sepsis in 7% of patients treated with oral decitabine/cedazuridine (excluding the IV decitabine cycle). Summary/Conclusions: Efficacy and safety from oral decitabine 35 mg/ cedazuridine 100 mg daily for 5 days every 28 days are consistent with clinical data from standard IV decitabine 20 mg/m2 daily for 5 days. Oral decitabine/cedazuridine is the only oral HMA with systemic exposure equivalent to its injectable drug. Further investigation of oral decitabine/cedazuridine in all-oral combination studies is warranted and underway. Disclosures Savona: BMS: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ryvu: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Patents & Royalties; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astex: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sunesis: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Griffiths:Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech Inc: Research Funding; Boston Biomedical: Honoraria; AbbVie Inc: Honoraria; Persimmune: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex Pharmceuticals: Research Funding. Zeidan:CCITLA: Other; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BeyondSpring: Consultancy, Honoraria; Taiho: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cardinal Health: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Jazz: Consultancy, Honoraria; Trovagene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Ionis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Acceleron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer-Ingelheim: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene / BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Agios: Consultancy, Honoraria; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; MedImmune/Astrazeneca: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Astellas: Consultancy, Honoraria. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; France Foundation: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy. Keating:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Shire: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Taiho: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Dao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Fazal:Jansen: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Jazz Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Karyopham: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Glaxosmith Kline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Stemline: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Odenike:Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astex Pharmaceuticals, NS Pharma, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Oncology, Oncotherapy, Agios, CTI/Baxalta, Aprea: Other: Institutional research funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Impact Biomedicines: 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. Kantarjian:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; BioAscend: Honoraria; Delta Fly: Honoraria; Ascentage: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Actinium: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Immunogen: Research Funding; Aptitute Health: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Oxford Biomedical: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive biotechnologies: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy. Roboz:Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy; Amphivena: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Array BioPharma: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Actinium: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Trovagene: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Jasper Therapeutics: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Helsinn: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy. Busque:Pfizer: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Wells:Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Leber:Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Otsuka Pharmaceutical: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Palladin: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Treadwell: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Lundbeck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Keer:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Current Employment. Garcia-Manero:Acceleron Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; H3 Biomedicine: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amphivena Therapeutics: Research Funding; Helsinn Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding.

AbstractAnaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) rearranged lung cancers represent 4% to 6% of all pulmonary adenocarcinomas, and echinoderm microtubule associated protein like 4 (EML4)‐ALK fusions are the most common subgroup. Herein, we report a case of two successive drug reactions due to ALK inhibitors. A 69‐year‐old female with stage IVB EML4‐ALK fused lung adenocarcinoma developed a generalized morbilliform eruption 10 days after starting alectinib. Skin biopsy findings were consistent with a drug reaction. Her findings resolved after alectinib was discontinued. Another ALK inhibitor, lorlatinib was started and she developed multiple asymptomatic cutaneous and oral nodules 4 months later. Biopsies from these nodules showed sarcoidal granulomas without evidence of metastases or infection. ALK inhibitors are associated with numerous adverse events, including various cutaneous eruptions. However, a sarcoidal drug reaction involving the skin has not been reported. Identification of drug reactions to targeted therapy can avoid long‐term sequelae and misinterpretation of the clinical findings as disease progression or infection.

While rapid-onset vasodilation (ROV) has been shown to decrease in older individuals, it is unclear if sex contributes to the decline with aging. We sought to identify if sex-related differences exist in the ROV response to single forearm contractions in young and older adults. Our data suggest sex-related differences are present among older but not young individuals, with women having an attenuated response. These data indicate sex plays a role in decreased vasodilation with aging.

Background Most children with intermediate‐risk rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) have gross disease (group III) at the initiation of chemotherapy. Delayed primary excision (DPE) after induction chemotherapy allows for a reduction in adjuvant radiation dose, but with the risk of potential surgical morbidity. The objectives of this study were to compare outcomes in children with group III RMS who did and did not undergo DPE and to assess surgical morbidity. Methods The study included 369 patients who had clinical group III RMS at sites amenable to DPE from intermediate‐risk Children's Oncology Group studies D9803 (encouraged DPE) and ARST0531 (discouraged DPE). Results The primary tumor site was bladder/prostate (136 patients; 37%), extremity (97 patients; 26%), trunk (24 patients; 7%), retroperitoneum (91 patients; 25%), or intrathoracic/perineum/perianal (21 patients; 6%). In total, 112 patients (53.9%) underwent DPE in D9803, and 26 patients (16.2%) underwent DPE in ARST0531 ( P < .001), with loss of vital organ or function in 30 of 138 patients (22%). DPE allowed for a reduced radiation dose in 110 of 135 patients (81%; 51% were reduced to 36 Gy, and 30% were reduced to 42 Gy). Patients who underwent DPE had improved unadjusted overall survival ( P = .013). In adjusted regression analysis, the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI 0.43‐1.16) was similar for patients who did and did not undergo DPE and was improved for the subset of patients who had tumors of the trunk and retroperitoneum (hazard ratio, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20‐0.97). Conclusions Children with group III RMS have equivalent or improved outcomes with DPE and can receive a decreased radiation dose for definitive local control. The choice of local control modality should weigh the potential morbidity of surgery versus that of higher dose irradiation.