Citations

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-10.

Background: To evaluate differences in the proportion of uterine fibroid (UF) treatments that are uterine-sparing between Black women and White women and identify factors that could explain disparities. Methods: Women at age 18–54 years who were enrolled from 10 clinical sites in the United States into the Comparing Options for Management: Patient-Centered Results for UFs (COMPARE-UF) treatment registry completed questionnaires before their UF procedure. UF symptoms and quality of life were assessed by questionnaires. Details on UF imaging and treatment (hysterectomy, myomectomy, or uterine artery embolization [UAE]) were collected from each patient's medical record. Random-effects logistic regression was used to assess the association between race and the odds of having a uterine-sparing procedure versus hysterectomy. Subgroup analyses compared each uterine-sparing procedure with hysterectomy. Results: In this cohort of 1141 White women and 1196 Black women, Black women tended to be younger (median 41.0 vs. 42.0 years) and report worse symptoms, pain, and function on every scale compared with White women. Black women were more likely to have had a prior UF treatment compared with White women (22.8% vs. 14.6%). White women had more hysterectomies (43.6% vs. 32.2%) and myomectomies (50.9% vs. 50.2%) versus Black women. Black women had more UAEs (15.1% vs. 4.7%) than White women. After adjusting for clinical site and other variables, Black women had greater odds than White women of having a myomectomy (odds ratio [OR] = 2.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63–3.56) or a UAE versus hysterectomy (OR = 4.24, 95% CI = 2.41–7.46). Conclusion: In these participants, Black women were more likely to schedule a uterine-sparing UF treatment and a nonsurgical UF treatment than their White counterparts; this may not be true for all women. Longer comparative effectiveness studies are needed to inform women about the durability of UF treatments. Greater understanding of factors influencing treatment selection is needed as are studies that include women without access to tertiary care centers. Clinical Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02260752 (enrollment start: November 2015).

Objective: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. Methods: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. Results: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. Conclusions: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objective Solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients have moderately increased risk of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC). We evaluated the incidence and survival of PAC in 2 cohorts and aimed to identify potential risk factors. Methods This study performed a retrospective cohort analysis. Cohort A was extracted from the United Network of Organ Sharing data set and cohort B from SOT recipients evaluated at 3 Mayo Clinic transplant centers. The primary outcome was age-adjusted annual incidence of PAC. Descriptive statistics, hazard ratios, and survival rates were compared. Results Cohort A and cohort B included 617,042 and 29,472 SOT recipients, respectively. In cohort A, the annual incidence rate was 12.78 per 100,000 in kidney-pancreas, 13.34 in liver, and 21.87 in heart-lung transplant recipients. Receiving heart-lung transplant, 50 years or older, and history of cancer (in either recipient or donor) were independent factors associated with PAC. Fifty-two patients developed PAC in cohort B. Despite earlier diagnosis (21.15% with stage I–II), survival rates were similar to those reported for sporadic (non-SOT) patients. Conclusions We report demographic and clinical risk factors for PAC after SOT, many of which were present before transplant and are common to sporadic pancreatic cancer. Despite the diagnosis at earlier stages, PAC in SOT portends a very poor survival.

Abstract Background and study aim Delayed bleeding is a common adverse event following endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of large colorectal polyps. Prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of nonpedunculated polyps larger than 20 mm reduces the incidence of severe delayed bleeding, especially in proximal polyps. This study aimed to evaluate factors associated with complete prophylactic clip closure of the mucosal defect after EMR of large polyps. Methods This is a post hoc analysis of the CLIP study (NCT01936948). All patients randomized to the clip group were included. Main outcome was complete clip closure of the mucosal resection defect. The defect was considered completely closed when no remaining mucosal defect was visible and clips were less than 1 cm apart. Factors associated with complete closure were evaluated in multivariable analysis. Results In total, 458 patients (age 65, 58 % men) with 494 large polyps were included. Complete clip closure of the resection defect was achieved for 338 polyps (68.4 %); closure was not complete for 156 (31.6 %). Factors associated with complete closure in adjusted analysis were smaller polyp size (odds ratio 1.06 for every millimeter decrease [95 % confidence interval 1.02–1.08]), good access (OR 3.58 [1.94–9.59]), complete submucosal lifting (OR 2.28 [1.36–3.90]), en bloc resection (OR 5.75 [1.48–22.39]), and serrated histology (OR 2.74 [1.35–5.56]). Conclusions Complete clip closure was not achieved for almost one in three resected large nonpedunculated polyps. While stable access and en bloc resection facilitate clip closure, most factors associated with clip closure are not modifiable. This highlights the need for alternative closure options and measures to prevent bleeding.

Abstract Background Pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are increasingly found on cross-sectional imaging, with the majority having a low risk for malignancy. The added value of fine-needle aspiration (FNA) in risk stratification remains unclear. We evaluated the impact of three FNA needles on diagnostic accuracy, clinical management, and the ability to accrue fluid for tumor markers. Methods A multicenter prospective trial randomized 250 patients with PCLs ≥ 13 mm 2:1:1 to 19G Flex, 19G, and 22G needles with crossover for repeated FNA procedures. Diagnostic accuracy was established at 2-year follow-up, with the final diagnosis from surgical histopathology or consensus diagnosis by experts based sequentially on clinical presentation, imaging, and aspirate analysis in blinded review. Results Enrolled patients (36 % symptomatic) had PCLs in the head (44 %), body (28 %), and tail (26 %). Percentage of cyst volume aspirated was 78 % (72 % – 84 %) for 19G Flex, 74 % (64 % – 84 %) for 22G, and 73 % (63 % – 83 %) for 19G (P = 0.84). Successful FNA was significantly higher for 19G Flex (89 % [82 % – 94 %]) and 22G (82 % [70 % – 90 %]) compared with 19G (75 % [63 % – 85 %]) (P = 0.02). Repeated FNA was required more frequently in head/uncinate lesions than in body and tail (P < 0.01). Diagnostic accuracy of the cyst aspirate was 84 % (73 % – 91 %) against histopathology at 2-year follow-up (n = 79), and 77 % (70 % – 83 %) against consensus diagnosis among nonsurgical cases (n = 171). Related serious adverse events occurred in 1.2 % (0.2 % – 3.5 %) of patients. Conclusions Our study results demonstrate a statistically significant difference among the three needles in the overall success rate for aspiration, but not in the percentage of cyst volume aspirated. Flexible needles may be particularly valuable in sampling cystic PCLs in the pancreatic head/uncinate process.

AbstractClinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention—the starting point for delivery of “All the right care, but only the right care,” an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) research in colonoscopy is progressing rapidly but widespread clinical implementation is not yet a reality. We aimed to identify the top implementation research priorities. Methods An established modified Delphi approach for research priority setting was used. Fifteen international experts, including endoscopists and translational computer scientists/engineers, from nine countries participated in an online survey over 9 months. Questions related to AI implementation in colonoscopy were generated as a long-list in the first round, and then scored in two subsequent rounds to identify the top 10 research questions. Results The top 10 ranked questions were categorized into five themes. Theme 1: clinical trial design/end points (4 questions), related to optimum trial designs for polyp detection and characterization, determining the optimal end points for evaluation of AI, and demonstrating impact on interval cancer rates. Theme 2: technological developments (3 questions), including improving detection of more challenging and advanced lesions, reduction of false-positive rates, and minimizing latency. Theme 3: clinical adoption/integration (1 question), concerning the effective combination of detection and characterization into one workflow. Theme 4: data access/annotation (1 question), concerning more efficient or automated data annotation methods to reduce the burden on human experts. Theme 5: regulatory approval (1 question), related to making regulatory approval processes more efficient. Conclusions This is the first reported international research priority setting exercise for AI in colonoscopy. The study findings should be used as a framework to guide future research with key stakeholders to accelerate the clinical implementation of AI in endoscopy.