Citations

BACKGROUND: Surgical intervention remains an important option in the management of vestibular schwannoma (VSs). Development of a systematic approach to choose the most appropriate route for this intervention, based on existing published evidence, is an important goal. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature published since the 2018 Congress of Neurological Surgeons Guideline on surgical intervention for patients with sporadic VSs and use this information to update that set of recommendations. METHODS: The literature in the PubMed and MEDLINE databases from January 2015 through May 20, 2022, was searched for manuscripts pertaining to surgical intervention for VSs. Those manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria were then analyzed for creation of recommendations in response to a set of updated questions. RESULTS: The resultant findings included a considerable amount of data that did not alter the recommendations form the 2018 publication on this topic. Thus, recommendations stating hearing preservation surgery through the middle fossa or retrosigmoid approach may be considered in individuals with good preoperative hearing as an alternative to simple observation remain. In addition, if microsurgical resection is necessary after stereotactic radiosurgery, it is recommended that patients be counseled that there is an increased likelihood of a subtotal resection and decreased facial nerve function. In some questions, insufficient data were present to create an answer and that is stated. CONCLUSION: This guideline demonstrates surgical intervention for VSs and represents a range of options, and the choice of the intervention depends on the specific aspects of the lesion and the individual that harbors them. Objective refinement of those choices will require thoughtful research design by investigations that wish to address those items for which we still have insufficient information. The full guideline can be seen online at https://www.cns.org/guidelines/treatment-adults-vestibular-schwannoma/7-surgical-resection-treatment-of-patients-with-ve-2

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a major global health problem with no disease-modifying therapies. Interleukin-1 (IL-1) is a critical cytokine associated with the pathophysiology of OA and can be inhibited by IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra). Here, we tested the delivery of a gene therapeutic encoding the human IL-1Ra to the knee in a phase 1, open-label clinical trial that enrolled nine patients with radiographic knee OA. The IL-1Ra gene was delivered by a self-complementary (sc)–recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV) serotype 2.5 (sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra) by intra-articular injection into an index knee at one of three doses: low [1 × 10 11 viral genomes (vg)], mid (1 × 10 12 vg), or high (1 × 10 13 vg). The primary outcome was safety. There were no serious adverse events (AEs) related to sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra. Two AEs occurred that were possibly related to the vector. Both were effusions with increased pain and resolved with conservative treatment. sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra did not cause changes in vital signs, physical findings, or clinical laboratory measures. Less than 1% of the injected dose of sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra vg was detected in circulation after 1 day and was cleared within a week. Titers of neutralizing antibodies to AAV2.5 rose in serum and synovial fluid. In all cases, IL-1Ra concentration increased in the synovial fluid, and IL-1Ra concentrations remained elevated after 1 year. Baseline pain and function scores improved during the study. Therefore, we found that intra-articular gene therapy with sc-rAAV2.5IL-1Ra was safe. The sustained increase in local IL-1Ra in human knee joints supports the further clinical examination of this therapy to provide therapeutic benefit in OA.

PURPOSE Continued improvement in outcomes is needed for advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC). Methods Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (800 mg IV once every 2 weeks) plus cetuximab (500 mg/m 2 IV once every 2 weeks) versus avelumab alone once every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. Cetuximab was given for 1 year in the avelumab + cetuximab arm. Crossover at progression to avelumab + cetuximab was allowed. Randomization was 1:1, stratified by PD-L1 and HIV status. Patients had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, were anti–PD-1/PD-L1 monoclonal antibody–naive, had no previous cetuximab in the advanced setting, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and could be HIV+ (CD4 >200, viral load <200). Patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS; null hypothesis: median = 12 months v alternative hypothesis: 21 months or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha .2, n = 57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rates (ORRs), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. RESULTS Sixty patients were enrolled; 57 patients were evaluable. The median age was 72 years, all were HIV–; 75.4% was PD-L1+, 84.2% had head/neck origin, 47.4% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab (median, 11.1 [7.6-not reached (NR)] v 3.0 months [2.7-13.6] hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.23 to 0.97], P = .018). Avelumab patients who crossed over (n = 9) to combination had a median PFS after crossover of 11.3 months (5.8-NR). The confirmed ORR was 27.6% with avelumab + cetuximab and 21.4% with avelumab. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 48.3% and 21.5% of patients with avelumab + cetuximab (most common: rash [20.7%], infusion reaction [20.7%]) and avelumab, respectively. CONCLUSION Avelumab + cetuximab significantly improved PFS versus avelumab alone in patients with advanced cSCC. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with the combination of cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade.

11507 Background: Advanced uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis. Standard-of-care treatments, including trabectedin (Tb) or pazopanib (P), provide median progression-free survival (PFS) of 3-4 months (mo) and objective response rates (ORR) of ~11%. Homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) in a subset of uLMS supports the use of PARP inhibitors combined with DNA-damaging agents. Preclinical studies demonstrated synergistic activity of olaparib and temozolomide (T+O), and a prior single-arm Phase II study of T+O showed promising efficacy independent of an established biomarker, warranting further investigation in a randomized setting. Methods: Alliance A092104 is a Phase II/III trial evaluating olaparib (200 mg BID) plus temozolomide (75 mg/m² daily, days 1-7, every 21 days) versus investigator’s choice of Tb or P in patients (pts) with advanced uLMS who progressed on ≥2 prior systemic therapies. Stratification factors included ECOG (0-1 vs. 2) and prior lines (2 vs. ≥3). The Phase II (Phase III) primary endpoint was PFS (OS), with a planned suspension of accrual at the end of Phase II. A total of 70 evaluable pts (58 PFS events) were needed to detect an improvement in PFS from 4 vs. 8 mo with power of 90% and 1-sided type I error of 10%, with futility assessed after 29 PFS events. Upon meeting the Phase II futility threshold for PFS, the trial was permanently closed. Data were released from the data and safety monitoring board. Pts continue to be followed for outcomes. Results: 74 pts enrolled (Arm 1: T+O, n = 37; Arm 2: investigator’s choice, n = 37 (Tb, 18; P, 13; 6 pts did not start treatment). The arms were balanced for baseline demographics except race, with the T+O arm having a higher proportion of black/African American (29.7% vs. 16.2%). 21 pts remain on treatment. Hematologic adverse events (AEs) were more frequent in the T+O arm, with Grade 4 neutropenia (19.5%) and thrombocytopenia (8.3%) both managed by dose reductions. Non-hematologic Grade 3 AEs were higher in the investigator’s choice arm (45.2% vs. 13.9%). No Grade 5 AEs were reported. In the first 70 pts, with a median follow-up of 5.9 mo, and 39 total PFS events, the median PFS was 3.2 mo (95% CI: 2.0-NE) for T+O versus 5.6 mo (95% CI: 2.8-NE) for investigator’s choice (HR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.60-2.17; 1-sided stratified log rank p = 0.50). Within Arm 2, the median PFS for Tb and P were respectively 5.6 (95% CI: 3.1-NE) and 3.8 (95% CI: 1.5-NE) mo. 3 pts in the T+0 arm and 1 patient in the investigator’s choice arm (Tb) had a confirmed partial response. Conclusions: The trial did not meet its primary endpoint of PFS in Phase II. This suggests that a biomarker may be needed before there is further exploration of PARP inhibitor-based regimens in uLMS. Overall survival and analysis of tissue-based biomarkers will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT05432791 .

e21600 Background: Uveal melanoma (UM), the most common intraocular malignancy in the U.S., metastasizes in 50% of patients, frequently to the liver (~90%) with poor prognosis (median overall survival [mOS] 1 year). Metastatic UM (mUM) literature is limited (due to its rarity/complexity) and management remains challenging, as standard therapies—liver-directed approaches (e.g. transarterial chemoembolization [TACE]) and systemic therapy with tebentafusp (limited to HLA-A*02:01-positivity)—offer limited efficacy, with no durable responses or significant survival benefits. Interestingly, Delcath’s recent FOCUS Phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy of the melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System for unresectable mUM, with an objective response rate (ORR) of 36.3%, 1-year OS of 80%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) of 9 months. Here, we present a large retrospective study of liver-predominant mUM treated with immunoembolization (IE) at a tertiary academic center. This study provides valuable data to the underreported mUM literature. We also compare our findings with Delcath’s trial to contextualize results and identify clinical factors influencing treatment response and prognosis. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed charts of mUM patients treated with IE (age ≥18 years, 2010–2023). Data collected included demographics, clinical/pathology/molecular details, and management/outcomes. Subgroup analysis on prior systemic therapy use was performed (similar to Delcath). The primary outcome was OS at 12 and 24 months. Results: 43 patients were included (100% White, 62.8% female, median age 62). Most had choroidal type (95.3%), hepatic-only metastases (90.7%), and were treatment-naïve before IE (72.1%). Across 249 IE procedures (5.8 per patient, mean duration 9.1 months), we observed median PFS and OS of 9.2 and 23 months, respectively - comparable to Delcath’s trial (9 and 20.5 months). Despite higher disease progression in our study (62.8% vs. 25.3%) and lower best clinical response (27.9% vs. 73.7%), 1-year (67% vs. 80%) and 2-year OS rates (49% vs. 43%) were similar. Subgroup analysis revealed better outcomes in previously treated patients (n = 12) compared to treatment-naïve patients (n = 31), with improved median PFS (29.9 vs. 7.2 months) and 1- and 2-year OS (75% vs. 65% and 58.3% vs. 41.9%, respectively). This contrasts with Delcath’s findings, where prior therapy did not significantly affect PFS or OS. Median PFS was comparable in treatment-naïve groups (7.2 vs. 9 months) but markedly improved in our previously treated group (29.9 vs. 9.2 months). Conclusions: We highlight IE’s comparable efficacy to Delcath’s melphalan/Hepatic Delivery System regarding mUM PFS and OS, with added benefits for previously treated patients. While our findings advance understanding of mUM management, more prospective studies are needed to improve therapeutic strategies/patient outcomes.

6002 Background: There is a need for continued improvement in outcomes with systemic therapy for advanced cSCC. Pre-clinical data suggest immunologic synergy between IgG1 mAb therapy targeting EGFR and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Methods: Alliance A091802 is a randomized phase II trial of avelumab (AV) (800 mg) plus cetuximab (C) (500 mg/m2) vs. AV alone every 2 weeks for up to 2 years (yrs). C was given for 1 yr in the AV+C arm. Crossover at progression to AV+C was allowed in the AV arm. Randomization was 1:1 and stratified by PD-L1 [+(>1%) vs. -] and HIV status (+ vs. -). Eligible patients (pts) had distant metastatic or unresectable locally advanced cSCC, anti-PD-1/PD-L1 mAb naive, no prior cetuximab in the advanced setting, ECOG PS 0-2, HIV+ if CD4 >200 and VL <200. Pts with CLL, immunosuppression, or active autoimmune diseases were excluded. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) (Ho: Median=12 mo vs Ha: 21 mo or a 75% improvement, power of 80% with one-sided alpha 0.2, n=57, 37 PFS events required). Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), confirmed response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate, and toxicity. After 31/37 events, an early unplanned analysis (along with sensitivity analyses) was performed because it became apparent that 37 events would not be reached. These results were submitted to the Alliance Data and Safety Monitoring Board, which recommended releasing the data. Data cutoff was 1/16/25. Results: 60 pts were enrolled between 2019-2023; 57 pts were evaluable. Median age was 72 yrs (41‒93), 96.5% were white, 91.2% male, all HIV-; 75.4% PD-L1+. 84.2% were head/neck origin, 47.1% had distant metastasis, and there were no differences in baseline characteristics by arm. AV+C significantly improved PFS compared to AV [median 11.1 months (mo) (7.6‒not reached (NR)) vs. 4.8 mo (2.8‒NR) hazard ratio (HR) 0.53 95% CI (0.26‒1.09), one-sided p=0.041]. The median OS of AV+C vs. AV was NR (25.2‒NR) vs. 35.8 mo (18.6‒NR) HR 0.77 (0.33‒1.78) p=0.267. ORR was 31.0% in the AV+C arm and 21.4% in the AV arm. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAE) of any grade (G) occurred in 93% and 78.6%, respectively, and were G>3 in 48.3% and 21.5% of pts in the AV+C [most common G3 TRAEs were rash (20.7%) and infusion-related reaction (20.7%)] and AV arms, respectively. There were no G5 events. Outcomes after crossover and by PD-L1 status will be presented subsequently. Conclusions: Avelumab plus cetuximab significantly improved PFS vs. avelumab alone in advanced cSCC pts, without unexpected toxicity. Alliance A091802 supports a larger confirmatory study with combination cetuximab and PD-1:PD-(L)1 blockade. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology); U10CA180888 (SWOG); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . EMD Serono CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100004755. Clinical trial information: NCT03944941 .

1649 Background: Findings from our prior large-scale comparative effectiveness trial showed the equivalent effect of delivering early palliative care via video versus in-person on quality of life among patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We now report on whether the two care delivery modalities were equivalent with respect to patient-reported communication with clinicians about their end-of-life (EOL) care preferences and hospice utilization. Methods: Between 6/14/2018 and 5/4/2023, we enrolled 1250 patients with newly diagnosed advanced NSCLC in a randomized trial of early palliative care across 22 US cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to meet with a palliative care clinician every 4 weeks from enrollment through the course of the disease, either via video or in the outpatient clinic. Participants completed self-report surveys at baseline and weeks 12, 24, 36, and 48, including an item asking if they had discussed with their clinicians the care they would want to receive if dying (yes/no); patients’ final assessments prior to death or last follow up were analyzed. We reviewed patients’ health records to collect data on hospice referral and length of stay. To test the equivalence in these outcomes, we used a binomial generalized linear model with the identity link function (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±8% for patient-reported communication about EOL care) and linear regression (pre-specified equivalence margin of ±6 days for mean length of stay in hospice). P-values were adjusted for multiplicity using a Bonferroni correction. Results: Of the 1250 enrolled participants, 888 (71.0%) completed at least one survey post baseline regarding whether they communicated with clinicians about EOL care preferences. Among those, 29.1% of the video group and 26.0% of the in-person group reported “yes,” indicating that they recalled such EOL care discussions (difference = 3.1%, 95% CI: -1.8%, 8.1%; p = 0.26 for equivalence). During the course of the trial, 733/1250 (58.6%) patients died, of whom 537/733 (73.3%) were referred to hospice. Mean lengths of hospice stay were 25.3 days for the video group versus 25.1 days for the in-person group (difference = 0.2, 95% CI: -7.0, 7.4; p = 0.46 for equivalence). When excluding outlying patients receiving hospice services > 180 days (n = 13), the mean lengths of hospice stay were 19.1 (video group) versus 19.7 (in-person group) days (difference = -0.6, 95% CI: -4.6, 3.3; p = 0.06 for equivalence). Conclusions: Although thresholds were not met to confirm equivalence statistically, the two modalities for delivering early palliative care demonstrate very similar outcomes with respect to patient-clinician communication about EOL care and hospice utilization. These findings provide further evidence of the utility of video visits for providing high quality palliative and EOL care. Clinical trial information: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier ( NCT03375489 ) .

e13622 Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized treatment of hematologic malignancies; however, severe toxicities like cytokine release syndrome (CRS) remain a limitation to broader utilization. Using a large dataset of patients treated with CAR-T, we developed a machine learning (ML) model leveraging multi-model patient characteristics to predict the risk of CRS onset with clinically meaningful lead times. Methods: A prospectively maintained dataset of CAR-T patients treated at Mayo Clinic was used. Baseline disease/patients characteristics, labs, ECG, echocardiogram, and vital signs (including data from remote patient monitoring program) were collected. A 24-hour rolling window was used to generate daily averages, maximum, minimum, and deltas for each parameter. ECG and echocardiogram data were forward-imputed; vital signs and labs were not imputed. Each day-post-infusion served as a potential event (CRS onset vs. no CRS). A gradient boosting classifier was trained and tested on a subset of patients (n = 351) using 1,000 bootstrap iterations, evaluating 24-, 48-, and 72-hour lead times. Shapley-based feature importance guided simplification to an 11-feature model, externally validated on an independent cohort (n = 51). Models’ performance assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 402 patients treated with CAR-T were examined. Median age was 64 years and 36% were female. Primary diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma (n = 240) or multiple myeloma (n = 162). A total of 226,332 vital sign measurements and 372,871 lab values, as well as ECG and echocardiogram data, were collected for 30 days post-infusion. Overall, 79.8% of patients experienced CRS within 30 days. The full ML model demonstrated AUCs of 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.93), 0.83 (95% CI 0.77–0.88), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.87) for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour predictions of CRS, respectively. Including “day of CRS onset post CAR-T” as a feature improved the 72-hour AUC to 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90). A model restricted to vital signs alone showed AUCs of 0.88, 0.75, and 0.71 for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour horizons. An 11-feature model—focusing on temperature, blood pressure, fibrinogen, CRP, serum sodium level, QRS interval, and lymphocyte counts—maintained high accuracy at 24 hours (AUC 0.90, 95% CI 0.86–0.93) and was validated externally using an independent dataset with an AUC of 0.92. Conclusions: Our ML model provides a reliable approach for predicting if/when CRS will occur, with up to three days of lead time before clinical manifestation, offering an opportunity for proactive management. The robust performance of a parsimonious 11-feature model supports practical adoption across clinical settings and real-time risk stratification to enhance patient safety. Prospective validation and integration into clinical workflows will be critical to translating these findings into practice.

1543 Background: Treatment toxicity may limit the ability of cancer patients to receive all recommended cycles of therapy. Four to six cycles of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) is a common adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for early-stage breast cancer. We assessed the impact of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), coupled with a collaborative care model-based symptom management intervention, on the number of cycles of TC received by patients with breast cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial, conducted between March 2019 and January 2023 at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Patients regularly reported the severity of 6 SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Each symptom score was interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The E2C2 intervention included symptom management education modules, clinician decision support aids, and the option to discuss severe symptoms with a nurse, physical therapist, or social worker. Patients with breast cancer who received at least one cycle of TC were included in this analysis. We compared the number of cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide completed by patients in the control condition versus those in the intervention condition. Results: We identified 198 patients with breast cancer who received TC during the control condition and 128 who received TC during the intervention condition. Median age was 61.3 years in the control group and 60.3 years in the intervention group, and 94% and 95% were white, respectively. Those receiving treatment during the control condition, on average, completed 3.53 cycles of docetaxel, while those receiving TC during the intervention condition completed 3.77 cycles ( p = 0.014). Seventy-eight percent in the control group completed at least 4 cycles of docetaxel, compared to 84% in the intervention group. Those receiving TC during the control condition completed an average of 3.71 cycles of cyclophosphamide, compared to 3.78 cycles in the intervention condition (p = 0.231). Eighty-four percent of patients in the control group and 86% in the intervention group completed at least 4 cycles of cyclophosphamide. Conclusions: Routine PRO surveillance, coupled with guideline-based collaborative care interventions, was associated with completion of a greater number of cycles of docetaxel. These findings suggest that routine symptom surveillance and management may enhance the docetaxel tolerance profile and improve treatment adherence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, allowing for delivery of an optimized treatment course.

7037 Background: TRANSCEND CLL 004 (NCT03331198) is a phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized, multicohort study in adult patients (pt) with R/R chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma with liso-cel mono and liso-cel + ibrutinib combo cohorts. Given the study design, we performed PS matching/weighting to adjust for differences in key covariates between cohorts to compare efficacy and safety. Methods: Here, PS is the probability of receiving combo given the covariates and estimated by logistic regression. Covariates were hemoglobin, LDH, number of prior therapies, platelets, prior BTKi + venetoclax exposure, R/R on prior BTKi, and bulky disease for efficacy; and ALC, bulky disease, CRP, ferritin, and number of prior therapies for safety. PS balancing methods were optimal 1:1 matching, average treatment effect for treated pts (ATT) full matching, and ATT inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Efficacy endpoints were response (CR rate, ORR) and time to event endpoints (DOR, PFS, OS). Safety endpoints were proportions of pts with any-grade (gr)/gr ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and investigator-identified neurological events (NE). Results: Fifty-one and 88 efficacy-evaluable pts were treated at dose level 2 (100 × 10 6 CAR + T cells) in the combo and mono cohorts, respectively. Before matching/weighting on PS, odds of achieving CR and overall response were statistically significantly higher for combo (Table). DOR did not differ between cohorts. For PFS and OS, HRs were lower with combo vs mono (not statistically significant [NS]). Odds of gr ≥ 3 CRS/NE were lower with combo vs mono (NS). After matching/weighting, odds of CR (except IPTW ATT) and overall response remained statistically significantly higher in combo. HRs for PFS and OS and ORs for gr ≥ 3 CRS/NE were numerically lower with combo vs mono (NS, except IPTW ATT for PFS). HRs for DOR were less but close to HR of 1. Conclusions: The liso-cel + ibrutinib combo demonstrated a trend for better efficacy and safety vs liso-cel mono, with statistically significant differences for CR rate and ORR. Clinical trial information: NCT03331198 . Efficacy and safety outcomes: combo vs mono. No adjustment ATT optimal 1:1 IPTW - ATT CR rate, OR (95% CI) 2.07* (1.01–4.28) 2.40* (1.05–5.66) 2.00(0.89–4.61) ORR, OR (95% CI) 3.96* (1.68–10.51) 3.43* (1.33–9.71) 4.18* (1.63–11.78) DOR, HR (95% CI) 0.98(0.51–1.87) 0.88(0.43–1.78) 0.96(0.50–1.85) PFS, HR (95% CI) 0.62(0.37–1.02) 0.61(0.35–1.05) 0.59* (0.35–0.98) OS, HR (95% CI) 0.70(0.38–1.28) 0.73(0.37–1.43) 0.66(0.36–1.22) CRS, OR (95% CI) 0.63(0.26–1.56) 0.67(0.24–1.84) 0.69(0.24–1.88) Gr ≥ 3 CRS, OR (95% CI) 0.23(0.01–1.35) 0.49(0.02–5.28) 0.26(0.01–1.94) NE, OR (95% CI) 0.84(0.41–1.68) 0.92(0.40–2.08) 1.10(0.48–2.52) Gr ≥ 3 NE, OR (95% CI) 0.56(0.19–1.45) 0.58(0.16–1.89) 0.68(0.19–2.30) *Statistically significant difference at 5% level.