Citations

63 Background: Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce mortality by detecting and removing advanced precancerous lesions (APL) and early-stage invasive disease. One guideline-included strategy is the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA), which combines detection of methylation DNA markers (MDMs), KRAS mutations, and fecal hemoglobin. Since the mt-sDNA pivotal study was conducted, novel biomarkers have been discovered. A panel of highly discriminant MDMs ( LASS4, LRRC4, PPP2R5C, and reference marker ZDHHC1) was identified through a blinded, case-control study of archival specimens. Here, we evaluated the performance of this novel mt-sDNA panel, combined with fecal hemoglobin, in archival stool samples weighted to early-stage CRC and prospectively collected APL, simulating a screening population. Methods: The verification study featured 777 samples—210 cases (112 CRC [49 stage I, 38 stage II, 17 stage III, and 8 stage IV] and 98 APL) and 567 controls (176 non-APL and 391 colonoscopy-negative)—from three trials (NCT01397747, NCT01260168, and NCT02503631). Median APL size was 12 mm (interquartile range: 10 mm to 15 mm), with 86.7% adenomas (n = 85) and 13.3% sessile serrated polyps (SSPs; n = 13). The average age was 65.5 years for cases (57% men) and 63.2 for controls (47% men). Samples were processed through homogenization, targeted MDM capture, bisulfite conversion, and MDM quantitation using Long‐probe Quantitative Amplified Signal (LQAS). Fecal hemoglobin was quantified using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Samples were split into stratified 75%/25% training-testing sets and model outcomes were cross-validated 1,000 times. Results: Mean performance from the cross-validation analysis is summarized in the table below. Overall sensitivity was 95.2% for CRC and 57.2% for APL, with specificities of 89.8% (no CRC/APL) and 92.4% (no neoplasia). Subgroup analyses showed high sensitivity for early-stage CRC, with 93.4% at stage I and 94.2% at stage II. By APL subtype, sensitivity was 82.9% for high-grade dysplasia, 73.4% for villous lesions, 49.8% for tubular lesions, and 30.2% for SSPs. Conclusions: These data support high sensitivity and specificity for a second-generation mt-sDNA panel. A multicenter pivotal trial evaluating the panel is underway (NCT04144738). [Table: see text]

Abstract: Many sports medicine physicians are currently considering introducing regenerative medicine into their practice. Regenerative medicine and the subclassification of orthobiologics are a complicated topic and have produced widely varying opinions. Although there is concern by government regulators, clinicians, scientists, patient advocacy organizations, and the media regarding the use of regenerative medicine products, there is also excitement about the potential benefits with growing evidence that certain regenerative medicine products are safe and potentially efficacious in treating musculoskeletal conditions. Sports medicine physicians would benefit from decision-making guidance about whether to introduce orthobiologics into their practice and how to do it responsibly. The purpose of this position statement is to provide sports medicine physicians with information regarding regenerative medicine terminology, a brief review of basic science and clinical studies within the subclassification of orthobiologics, regulatory considerations, and best practices for introducing regenerative medicine into clinical practice. This information will help sports medicine physicians make informed and responsible decisions about the role of regenerative medicine and orthobiologics in their practice.

e13603 Background: Over half of Americans report favoring access to experimental treatments even if they have yet to be proven either safe or effective, yet only 3-5% are enrolled in clinical trials and a fraction of a percent in expanded access. The Expanded Access (EA) program (aka “compassionate use”) and Right-to-Try (RTT) are parallel federal mechanisms that offer qualifying patients access to off-trial experimental treatments. Our study aimed to capture the views and experiences of oncologists on obtaining eligible medicine using the FDA’s EA and is the first to report findings on physician attitudes toward RTT. Methods: We conducted 21 semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis of oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the U.S. Participants were purposely selected to have experience with EA. Results: Oncologists’ considerations for offering EA options to patients were based on a sound scientific rationale, reasonable risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation. Although oncologists’ experience positively correlated with level of ease in navigating EA, most remained largely unfamiliar with RTT. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT with patients and none had obtained an experimental therapeutic under this pathway. When informed about RTT, oncologists articulated 3 sets of concerns including limited safety and oversight, unclear structure and lack of requirements to collect and report data, and the potential for inflating patient expectations. Published work by others have shown that patients desire experimental options to be offered and report that physicians do not always offer experimental medicine taking into account factors, such as, reimbursement. Given that oncologists may factor in variables such as patient motivation, and potentially affordability or health literacy, when considering whether experimental medicine is appropriate to offer their patient, there may be a need to develop a conversation aid so that clinically relevant options are presented to patients equitably and patient choice is enhanced. Conclusions: Further research to better understand patient perspectives and potential discordant views between patients and oncologists is needed in order to design shared decision-making tools to inform oncologists about off-trial preapproval pathways and help both oncologists and patients navigate the thorny issues of experimental oncology.

Abstract Background The federal Right-to-Try (RTT) Act created an alternate regulatory pathway for preapproval access to investigational drugs. A few studies have examined the experiences of physicians with the Food and Drug Administration’s Expanded Access Programs, but to our knowledge, no study has yet to examine their attitudes and experiences toward RTT. Methods This study explored the views of 21 oncologists at a major cancer center with 3 main sites across the United States using semi-structured interviews and qualitative analysis. Participants were selected to have experience with Expanded Access Programs. Results Most oncologists had limited familiarity with RTT, and several reported confusion about the legislation, including whether patients have a right to investigational drugs and an obligation for companies to provide them. Although oncologists were interested in decreased regulatory burdens, 3 areas of concern were articulated: lack of safety and oversight, unclear structure and no provision for data collection, and potential heightening of patient expectations. Only 4 oncologists had experience discussing RTT, and none formally attempted to obtain the drug through this mechanism. Participants questioned the practicality of RTT legislation and suggested alternative ways to improve access. Conclusions The study provides foundational empirical data underlying challenging ambiguities by experienced oncologists familiar with off-trial use of investigational therapeutics and reaffirms the role of physicians and regulatory bodies in mitigating the risks of investigational drugs. Our findings highlight the need for medical centers to inform oncologists about RTT and other preapproval pathways so that they are able to address questions from patients interested in nontrial investigational drugs.

Abstract The oncogenic transcription factor c-Maf has been proposed as an ideal therapeutic target for multiple myeloma (MM), but how to achieve it is still elusive. In the present study, we found the Otub1/c-Maf axis could be a potential target. Otub1, an OTU family deubiquitinase, was found to interact with c-Maf by mass spectrometry. Otub1 abrogates c-Maf K48-linked polyubiquitination, thus preventing its degradation and enhancing its transcriptional activity. Specifically, this deubiquitinating activity depends on its Lys71 and the N terminus but is independent of UBE2O, a known E2 of c-Maf. Otub1 promotes MM cell survival and MM tumor growth. In contrast, silence of Otub1 leads to c-Maf degradation and c-Maf-expressing MM cell apoptosis. Therefore, the Otub1/c-Maf axis could be a therapeutic target of MM. In order to explore this concept, we performed a c-Maf recognition element–driven luciferase-based screen against US Food and Drug Administration–approved drugs and natural products, from which the generic cardiac glycoside lanatoside C (LanC) is found to prevent c-Maf deubiquitination and induces its degradation by disrupting the interaction of Otub1 and c-Maf. Consequently, LanC inhibits c-Maf transcriptional activity, induces c-Maf-expressing MM cell apoptosis, and suppresses MM growth and prolongs overall survival of model mice, but without apparent toxicity. Therefore, the present study identifies Otub1 as a novel deubiquitinase of c-Maf and establishes that the Otub1/c-Maf axis is a potential therapeutic target for MM.