Citations

Brachial Plexus Injuries are a catastrophic situation that affects patients on many levels. While many treatment options are discussed in the literature, general treatment principles should be applied, especially in the acute phase. In addition to the surgeon's expert knowledge of anatomy and injury characteristics, education of the patient concerning the ramifications of their injury and providing clear expectations of realistic outcomes are imperative for both the surgeon and the patient. A review of the principles of acute surgical treatment will be presented.

Abstract We evaluate the impact of donor types on outcomes of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) in myelofibrosis, using the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data for HCTs done between 2013 and 2019. In all 1597 patients, the use of haploidentical donors increased from 3% in 2013 to 19% in 2019. In study-eligible 1032 patients who received peripheral blood grafts for chronic-phase myelofibrosis, 38% of recipients of haploidentical HCT were non-White/Caucasian. Matched sibling donor (MSD)–HCTs were associated with superior overall survival (OS) in the first 3 months (haploidentical hazard ratio [HR], 5.80 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.52-13.35]; matched unrelated (MUD) HR, 4.50 [95% CI, 2.24-9.03]; mismatched unrelated HR, 5.13 [95% CI, 1.44-18.31]; P < .001). This difference in OS aligns with lower graft failure with MSD (haploidentical HR, 6.11 [95% CI, 2.98-12.54]; matched unrelated HR, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.20-4.51]; mismatched unrelated HR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.58-5.72]). There was no significant difference in OS among haploidentical, MUD, and mismatched unrelated donor HCTs in the first 3 months. Donor type was not associated with differences in OS beyond 3 months after HCT, relapse, disease-free survival, or OS among patients who underwent HCT within 24 months of diagnosis. Patients who experienced graft failure had more advanced disease and commonly used nonmyeloablative conditioning. Although MSD-HCTs were superior, there is no significant difference in HCT outcomes from haploidentical and MUDs. These results establish haploidentical HCT with posttransplantation cyclophosphamide as a viable option in myelofibrosis, especially for ethnic minorities underrepresented in the donor registries.

2017 Background: MDM2 inhibits tumor suppressor p53. Brigimadlin, a potent MDM2–p53 antagonist, restores wild-type (wt) p53 function and has shown early efficacy in pts with solid tumors (LoRusso et al Cancer Disc 2023). GBM is an area of unmet need with 5-year survival <10%. In p53 wt GBM pt-derived xenograft models, brigimadlin promotes tumor cell apoptosis and extends survival in combination with RT. Methods: NCT05376800 is a Ph 0/Ia open-label, single-arm trial that aims to measure brigimadlin concentration in brain tumor tissue in pts with histologically or radiologically newly diagnosed GBM eligible for resection (Ph 0) and determine the maximum tolerated dose of brigimadlin plus RT in pts with TP53wt, IDH wt, MGMT promoter unmethylated GBM (Ph Ia). In Ph 0, pts received one brigimadlin dose (30 mg or 45 mg) ~12–24 h before resection. Ph 0 primary endpoints are the measured total concentration and the calculated unbound concentration of brigimadlin in brain tissue homogenate from non-contrast enhancing (NCE) and contrast enhancing (CE) regions. The predefined threshold for trial continuation is 0.5 nmol/L (corresponding to IC50 in GBM cell lines) unbound brigimadlin in CE samples in ≥50% of pts. Brigimadlin concentration was measured using LC/MS and corrected for amount of brigimadlin in residual blood. Unbound concentration was calculated using an in vitro estimate of unbound fraction (fu): 0.654% (rat brain slice). fu in human plasma was 0.22%. Kp,uu (ratio of unbound concentration in brain vs plasma) was calculated. Biomarker testing was performed. Results: Data are available for 11 pts (brigimadlin 30 mg: n=6; 45 mg: n=5). In the 30 mg group, median total brigimadlin concentration in NCE samples was 267 nmol/L (4 samples, range 86–316 nmol/L) and 332 nmol/L (6 samples, range 272–952 nmol/L) in CE samples. In the 45 mg group, median total brigimadlin concentration in NCE samples was 197 nmol/L (5 samples, range 140–347 nmol/L) and 603 nmol/L (5 samples, range 441–905 nmol/L) in CE samples. Unbound concentration exceeded the 0.5 nmol/L threshold in most cases (Table). Post-brigimadlin, an increase in selected p53 target gene expression was observed in CE vs NCE tissue. Conclusions: Unbound brigimadlin concentrations in CE regions in all pts receiving the low dose of 30 mg brigimadlin exceeded the 0.5 nmol/L threshold. Kp,uu in most patients was close to 1 in CE regions. Biomarker data support target engagement in brain tissue. Our findings support continued investigation of brigimadlin in GBM. Recruitment is ongoing. Updated data will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT05376800 . [Table: see text]

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical trial updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported. Two years of adjuvant abemaciclib combined with endocrine therapy (ET) resulted in a significant improvement in invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) that persisted beyond the 2-year treatment period in patients with hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative, node-positive, high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). Here, we report 5-year efficacy results from a prespecified overall survival (OS) interim analysis. In the intent-to-treat population, with a median follow-up of 54 months, the benefit of abemaciclib was sustained with hazard ratios of 0.680 (95% CI, 0.599 to 0.772) for IDFS and 0.675 (95% CI, 0.588 to 0.774) for DRFS. This persistence of abemaciclib benefit translated to continuous separation of the curves with a deepening in 5-year absolute improvement in IDFS and DRFS rates of 7.6% and 6.7%, respectively, compared with rates of 6% and 5.3% at 4 years and 4.8% and 4.1% at 3 years. With fewer deaths in the abemaciclib plus ET arm compared with the ET-alone arm (208 v 234), statistical significance was not reached for OS. No new safety signals were observed. In conclusion, abemaciclib plus ET continued to reduce the risk of developing invasive and distant disease recurrence beyond the completion of treatment. The increasing absolute improvement at 5 years is consistent with a carryover effect and further supports the use of abemaciclib in patients with high-risk EBC.