Citations

AbstractDeeper responses are associated with longer survival in multiple myeloma (MM); however, limited data exist on the impact of response kinetics on outcomes. We investigated progression‐free survival (PFS) and duration of response (DOR) by response depth and in early (best confirmed response 0–4 months; n = 424) versus late responders (best confirmed response >4 months; n = 281). Newly diagnosed patients enrolled in TOURMALINE‐MM2 receiving ixazomib‐lenalidomide‐dexamethasone (IRd) (n = 351) or placebo‐Rd (n = 354) were evaluated post hoc. Deeper responses were associated with longer PFS (complete response [CR] not reached [NR], very good partial response [VGPR] 37.2 months, partial response [PR] 16.4 months) and DOR (CR NR, VGPR 42.6 months, PR 15.4 months). Among patients with a PFS (n = 511) or DOR (n = 484) of ≥6 months who achieved ≥PR, median PFS was prolonged among late versus early responders receiving IRd (59.7 vs. 17.9 months) or placebo‐Rd (56.6 vs. 12.4 months), as was median DOR (IRd, NR vs. 20.9 months; placebo‐Rd, 58.2 vs. 11.7 months). While the treatment paradigm for newly diagnosed MM is treatment to progression, our findings suggest slowness of response to a proteasome inhibitor‐immunomodulatory drug‐steroid combination is not a negative predictor of outcome.

Abstract Objectives We investigated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine safety in pregnant and breastfeeding women with autoimmune diseases (AID) in the COVID-19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) study. Methods Delayed-onset (>7 days) vaccine-related adverse events (AE), disease flares and AID-related treatment modifications were analysed upon diagnosis of AID vs healthy controls (HC) and the pregnancy/breastfeeding status at the time of at least one dose of vaccine. Results Among the 9201 participants to the self-administered online survey, 6787 (73.8%) were women. Forty pregnant and 52 breastfeeding patients with AID were identified, of whom the majority had received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine (100% and 96.2%, respectively). AE were reported significantly more frequently in pregnant than in non-pregnant patients (overall AE 45% vs 26%, P = 0.01; minor AE 40% vs 25.9%, P = 0.03; major AE 17.5% vs 4.6%, P < 0.01), but no difference was found in comparison with pregnant HC. No difference was observed between breastfeeding patients and HC with respect to AE. Post-vaccination disease flares were reported by 17.5% of pregnant and 20% of breastfeeding patients, and by 18.3% of age- and disease-matched non-pregnant and non-breastfeeding patients (n = 262). All pregnant/breastfeeding patients who experienced a disease flare were managed with glucocorticoids; 28.6% and 20% of them required initiation or change in immunosuppressants, respectively. Conclusion This study provides reassuring insights into the safety of COVID-19 vaccines administered to women with AID during the gestational and post-partum periods, helping overcome hesitant attitudes, as the benefits for the mother and for the fetus by passive immunization appear to outweigh potential risks.

Abstract The role of measurable residual disease (MRD) in multiple myeloma patients treated with chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells is uncertain. We analyzed MRD kinetics during the first year after idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) infusion in 125 relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma patients enrolled in KarMMa. At month 1 after ide-cel, there were no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) between patients in less than complete response (CR) versus those in CR; only MRD status was predictive of significantly different PFS at this landmark. In patients with undetectable MRD at 3 months and beyond, PFS was longer in those achieving CR versus <CR. Persistent MRD in the 10−6 logarithmic range and reappearance of normal plasma cells in MRD-negative patients were associated with inferior PFS. This study unveils different prognostic implications of serological and MRD response dynamics after ide-cel and suggests the potential value of studying the reappearance of normal plasma cells as a surrogate of loss of CAR T-cell functionality. Significance: This is one of the first studies evaluating the impact of CR and MRD dynamics after CAR T therapy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. These data help interpret the prognostic significance of serological and MRD responses at early and late time points after CAR T-cell infusion. See related commentary by Landgren and Kazandjian, p. 346 . This article is featured in Selected Articles from This Issue, p. 337

Objective: This study aims at establishing benchmark values for best achievable outcomes following open major anatomic hepatectomy for liver tumors of all dignities. Background: Outcomes after open major hepatectomies vary widely lacking reference values for comparisons among centers, indications, types of resections, and minimally invasive procedures. Methods: A standard benchmark methodology was used covering consecutive patients, who underwent open major anatomic hepatectomy from 44 high-volume liver centers from 5 continents over a 5-year period (2016–2020). Benchmark cases were low-risk non-cirrhotic patients without significant comorbidities treated in high-volume centers (≥30 major liver resections/year). Benchmark values were set at the 75th percentile of median values of all centers. Minimum follow-up period was 1 year in each patient. Results: Of 8044 patients, 2908 (36%) qualified as benchmark (low-risk) cases. Benchmark cutoffs for all indications include R0 resection ≥78%; liver failure (grade B/C) ≤10%; bile leak (grade B/C) ≤18%; complications ≥grade 3 and CCI ® ≤46% and ≤9 at 3 months, respectively. Benchmark values differed significantly between malignant and benign conditions so that reference values must be adjusted accordingly. Extended right hepatectomy (H1, 4-8 or H4-8) disclosed a higher cutoff for liver failure, while extended left (H1-5,8 or H2-5,8) were associated with higher cutoffs for bile leaks, but had superior oncologic outcomes, when compared to formal left hepatectomy (H1-4 or H2-4). The minimal follow-up for a conclusive outcome evaluation following open anatomic major resection must be 3 months. Conclusion: These new benchmark cutoffs for open major hepatectomy provide a powerful tool to convincingly evaluate other approaches including parenchymal-sparing procedures, laparoscopic/robotic approaches, and alternative treatments, such as ablation therapy, irradiation, or novel chemotherapy regimens.

Abstract Background Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) treatment targets include mucosal healing based on standardized endoscopic scoring systems. The rates and ease of use of these scoring systems in practice have not been well described. We aimed to assess the rates and factors associated with the use of IBD endoscopic scoring systems in practice from IBD LIVE attendees. Methods IBD Live is an international case-based conference focusing on the management of patients with IBD. We created a web-based survey consisting of 38 questions on the frequency and ease of use of various IBD endoscopic scores. This survey was emailed to the IBD Live listserv in March 2022 with a second email sent 14 days later. We included only respondents who are currently performing endoscopy. Continuous variables were analyzed using an unpaired student’s t-test. Categorical variables were analyzed using Pearson’s chi-square test. Results There were 65 responses out of 170 (38.2% response rate) regular attendees. Eleven responses were excluded (4 with no response on the use of endoscopy scores, and 7 were not performing endoscopy). Of the respondents, 72.2% are from the United States, 70.4% are adult gastroenterologists, 53.9% in academic practice, and 40.7% in practice for ≥15 years. Of the endoscopy scores used ≥50% of the time, 74.1% were using the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES), 72.3% using the Rutgeerts Score, 61.2% using the Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn’s Disease, and 28.6% using the Pouchitis Disease Activity Index. Attending IBD LIVE ≥ monthly (P = .028), attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .020), and having the scoring system incorporated into the endoscopy documentation software (P = .002) were associated with more consistent use of the MES. Attending IBD Live at least monthly (P = .026), having an IBD volume of ≥50% (P = .011), and attending an IBD conference at least every 2 years (P = .004) was associated with more frequent use of the Rutgeerts score. There were no factors that increased the use of other endoscopic scores. Conclusions The MES and the Rutgeerts score are more commonly used with much lower rates of use of endoscopic scores for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis. The use of these endoscopy scores is more common among those who regularly attend IBD conferences, have higher volume IBD practices, and have these scoring systems incorporated into endoscopy software. Further evaluation of barriers to use and ways to improve utilization of endoscopic scoring for Crohn’s disease and pouchitis is needed.

Background For acute proximal intracranial artery occlusions, contact aspiration may be more effective than stent‐retriever for first‐line reperfusion therapy. Due to the lack of data regarding medium vessel occlusion thrombectomy, we evaluated outcomes according to first‐line technique in a large, multicenter registry. Methods Imaging, procedural, and clinical outcomes of patients with acute proximal medium vessel occlusions (M2, A1, or P1) or distal medium vessel occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or further) treated at 37 sites in 10 countries were analyzed according to first‐line endovascular technique (stent‐retriever versus aspiration). Multivariable logistic regression and propensity‐score matching were used to estimate the odds of the primary outcome, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction score of 2b–3 (“successful recanalization”), as well as secondary outcomes (first‐pass effect, expanded Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction 2c‐3, intracerebral hemorrhage, and 90‐day modified Rankin scale, 90‐day mortality) between treatment groups. Results Of the 440 included patients (44.5% stent‐retriever versus 55.5% aspiration), those treated with stent‐retriever had lower baseline Alberta Stroke Program Early Computed Tomography Scale scores (median 8 versus 9; P <0.01), higher National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale scores (median 13 versus 11; P =0.02), and nonsignificantly fewer medium‐distal occlusions (M3, A2, P2, or other: 17.4% versus 23.8%; P =0.10). Use of a stent‐retriever was associated with 15% lower odds of successful recanalization (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; [95% CI 0.74–0.98]; P =0.02), but this was not significant after multivariable adjustment in the total cohort (adjusted OR, 0.88; [95% CI 0.72–1.09]; P =0.24), or in the propensity‐score matched cohort (n=105 in each group) (adjusted OR, 0.94; [95% CI 0.75–1.18]; P =0.60). There was no significant association between technique and secondary outcomes in the propensity‐score matched adjusted models. Conclusion In this large, diverse, multinational medium vessel occlusion cohort, we found no significant difference in imaging or clinical outcomes with aspiration versus stent‐retriever thrombectomy.