Citations

TPS632 Background: Male breast cancer is a rare disease, and most cases are hormone receptor-positive (HR+). Due to a lack of clinical trials, male breast cancer has historically been treated based on data extrapolated from women. However, there are substantial knowledge gaps in the comparative efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes of endocrine therapies for male breast cancer. While tamoxifen is the current standard of care, additional data are warranted for aromatase inhibitors (AI), gonadal suppression, and cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. Methods: This is an open-label, multicenter, randomized, phase II trial designed to evaluate different endocrine therapies in men with HR+ and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer. A total of 60 men will be enrolled across nine (9) sites within the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC). Key eligibility criteria include male sex and stage I, II, or III HR+/HER2- breast cancer before surgical resection of the primary tumor and axillary nodes. Key exclusion criteria include prior anti-cancer therapy for the current breast cancer or any other malignancy within the past 12 months, and inflammatory breast cancer. The trial has two phases. The first phase is a window of opportunity component in which newly diagnosed men are randomized 1:1:1 to either tamoxifen (Arm A), anastrozole (Arm B), or anastrozole plus degarelix (Arm C) given for three weeks. The primary endpoint for the window phase is Ki-67 reduction from the baseline diagnostic biopsy to the research biopsy at the end of the window phase. The second phase consists of neoadjuvant treatment, in which the tamoxifen group is randomized 1:1 to tamoxifen (Arm D) versus tamoxifen plus abemaciclib (Arm E), and the anastrozole alone (Arm B) and anastrozole plus degarelix (Arm C) groups are merged and then randomized 1:1 to anastrozole plus degarelix (Arm F) versus anastrozole plus degarelix plus abemaciclib (Arm G). The duration of the neoadjuvant phase is four (4) months, and the primary endpoint of this phase is residual cancer burden (RCB) index at time of surgery. The trial is powered for the RCB endpoint in a 2 x 2 factorial design to detect a 0.6 unit decrease in RCB index with 80% power and alpha=10%. For the Ki-67 endpoint, we assume an approximately 50% reduction in Arms A and B; Arm C will be of interest if it leads to ≥80% reduction in Ki-67. Secondary endpoints include: estradiol and testosterone levels at baseline, end of window, and during neoadjuvant phase; preoperative endocrine prognostic index (PEPI) score at surgery; adverse events; and patient-reported outcomes (including quality of life). Tumor tissue will be collected for correlative analyses. The study opened to enrollment at Dana-Farber in October 2023, and additional sites will open in 2024. Clinical trial information: NCT05501704 .

Molecular investigations have led to increased therapeutic options for prostatic adenocarcinoma. A single case report of a PRPSAP1 :: NTRK3 gene fusion occurring in prostate cancer was previously reported. A review of the literature revealed that NTRK gene rearrangements are exceedingly rare molecular events in prostate cancer. NTRK gene fusions can be oncogenic drivers or develop as resistance mechanisms. The tumor-agnostic approvals of TRK inhibitors by the FDA provide additional rationale for molecular investigations of aggressive prostatic adenocarcinomas. This may prove to be an additional therapeutic option for patients with aggressive prostatic carcinomas refractory to initial therapy. We report a case of an aggressive castrate-resistant prostatic adenocarcinoma with a BMP6 :: NTRK3 gene fusion.

Objective: This study investigates Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols’ impact on long-term opioid and sedative use following mastectomy with or without implant-based breast reconstruction (IBBR). Background: ERAS protocols for patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR are associated with decreased length of stay, increased rate of same-day discharge, decreased postoperative pain, and decreased postoperative opioid requirements. However, less is known about their effect on opioid and sedative use beyond 90 days after surgery. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients undergoing mastectomy with or without IBBR at a single institution between January 2013 and December 2019. Mastectomy ERAS protocols were implemented in February 2017, creating 2 groups: pre-ERAS and ERAS. Baseline characteristics and prevalence of chronic opioid and sedative use were compared. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression predicted factors associated with increased odds of chronic opioid and sedative use. Results: A total of 756 patients were evaluated: 405 pre-ERAS and 351 ERAS. Post-ERAS, chronic opioid use decreased in opioid-naive (40% vs 30%, P=0.024) and opioid-tolerant patients (58% vs 37%, P=0.002), with no increase in chronic sedative use. There were decreased odds of chronic opioid use for all ERAS patients (OR=0.57, 95% CI: 0.42–0.76), and of IBBR patients, those receiving subcutaneous implants (OR=0.31, 95% CI: 0.20–0.48). There was increased chronic opioid-use odds if undergoing bilateral surgery (OR=1.54, 95% CI: 1.14–2.08), 2-stage reconstruction (OR=9.78, 95% CI: 5.94-16.09), and for patients with higher PACU pain scores (OR=1.09, 95% CI: 1.03–1.14) or >150 discharge OMEs (OR=2.63, 95% CI: 1.48–4.68). Conclusion: ERAS protocols for mastectomy patients with or without IBR are associated with decreases in chronic opioid use, without concomitant increases in chronic sedative use.

PURPOSE To report the results of OPAL (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03574779 ) cohort A, a single-arm substudy of niraparib plus dostarlimab and bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced, platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS Participants with PROC who received 1-2 previous lines of therapy were treated with niraparib (200 or 300 mg once daily), dostarlimab (500 mg once every 3 weeks for four 21-day cycles, followed by 1,000 mg once every 6 weeks), and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1. Safety was also assessed. Exploratory biomarker end points included evaluation of changes in the tumor molecular profile and microenvironment using baseline and on-treatment tumor samples. RESULTS Of 41 enrolled participants (median age, 66.0 years [range, 37-83 years]), 9.8% had tumors that were BRCA-mutated, 19.5% were homologous recombination (HR)–deficient, and 17.1% were HR repair (HRR)–mutated. As of the cutoff date, all participants discontinued treatment. The ORR was 17.1% (80% CI, 9.8 to 27.0), including one complete response (2.4%); the disease control rate was 73.2% (80% CI, 62.3 to 82.2). Two participants withdrew before first postbaseline scan because of adverse events (AEs). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent AEs were reported in 92.7% of participants, with the most common being hypertension (26.8%). Response was not correlated with BRCA, HRR, HR deficiency (HRD), or PD-L1 status. Changes suggesting immune activation were observed in on-treatment samples after triplet therapy. CONCLUSION Results demonstrated modest activity of niraparib, dostarlimab, and bevacizumab in participants with PROC, many of whom had prognostic factors for poor treatment response. Most participants with response were bevacizumab-naïve. No association was found with HRD, BRCA, or PD-L1 status. AEs were consistent with previous monotherapy reports, except that hypertension was reported more frequently.

Abstract Purpose: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are targeted therapies with robust efficacy in solid cancers, and there is intense interest in using EGFR-specific ADCs to target EGFR-amplified glioblastoma (GBM). Given GBM’s molecular heterogeneity, the bystander activity of ADCs may be important for determining treatment efficacy. In this study, the activity and toxicity of two EGFR-targeted ADCs with similar auristatin toxins, Losatuxizumab vedotin (ABBV-221) and Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M), were compared in GBM patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and normal murine brain following direct infusion by convection-enhanced delivery (CED). Experimental Design: EGFRviii-amplified and non-amplified GBM PDXs were used to determine in vitro cytotoxicity, in vivo efficacy, and bystander activities of ABBV-221 and Depatux-M. Nontumor-bearing mice were used to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of ADCs using LC-MS/MS and immunohistochemistry. Results: CED improved intracranial efficacy of Depatux-M and ABBV-221 in three EGFRviii-amplified GBM PDX models (Median survival: 125 to >300 days vs. 20–49 days with isotype control AB095). Both ADCs had comparable in vitro and in vivo efficacy. However, neuronal toxicity and CD68+ microglia/macrophage infiltration were significantly higher in brains infused with ABBV-221 with the cell-permeable monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), compared with Depatux-M with the cell-impermeant monomethyl auristatin F. CED infusion of ABBV-221 into the brain or incubation of ABBV-221 with normal brain homogenate resulted in a significant release of MMAE, consistent with linker instability in the brain microenvironment. Conclusions: EGFR-targeting ADCs are promising therapeutic options for GBM when delivered intratumorally by CED. However, the linker and payload for the ADC must be carefully considered to maximize the therapeutic window.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post‐vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post‐vaccination.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted among participants with self‐reported new‐onset SAIDs using the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset—a validated, patient‐reported e‐survey—to analyze the long‐term safety of COVID‐19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new‐onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio.ResultsOf 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new‐onset SAID post‐vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new‐onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9–9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3–5.3; p = .004). New‐onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1–1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3–1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2–4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs.ConclusionThis study reports a low occurrence of new‐onset SAIDs following COVID‐19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre‐existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID‐19 vaccination in the general population. However, long‐term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post‐vaccination.

AbstractBackgroundThe pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self‐reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.MethodsLeveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot‐tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID‐19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).DiscussionWe present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.ConclusionCollaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large‐scale, patient‐focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.

Introduction In the current paper, the “carotid artery calcium score” method is presented with the target to offer a metric method to quantify the amount of calcification in the carotid artery. Model and Definition The Volume of Interest (VOI) should be extracted and those voxels, with a Hounsfield Unit (HU) value ≥130, should be considered. The total weight value is determined by calculating the sum of the HU attenuation values of all voxels with values ≥130 HU. This value should be multiplied by the conversion factor (“or voxel size”) and divided by a weighting factor, the attenuation threshold to consider a voxel as calcified (and therefore 130 HU): this equation determines the Carotid Artery Calcium Score (CACS). Results In order to provide the demonstration of the potential feasibility of the model, the CACS was calculated in 131 subjects (94 males; mean age 72.7 years) for 235 carotid arteries (in 27 subjects, unilateral plaque was present) considered. The CACS value ranged from 0.67 to 11716. A statistically significant correlation was found (rho value = 0.663, p value = .0001) between the CACS in the right and left carotid plaques. Moreover, a statistically significant correlation between the age and the total CACS was present (rho value = 0.244, p value = .005), whereas no statistically significant difference was found in the distribution of CACS by gender ( p = .148). The CACS was also tested at baseline and after contrast and no statistically significant difference was found. Conclusion In conclusion, this method is of easy application, and it weights at the same time the volume and the degree of calcification in a unique parameter. This method needs to be tested to verify its potential utility, similar to the coronary artery calcium score, for the risk stratification of the occurrence of cerebrovascular events of the anterior circulation. Further studies using this new diagnostic tool to determine the prognostic value of carotid calcium quantification are needed.