Citations

ObjectiveFailure to recognize symptoms of human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+)OPSCC) at presentation can delay diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to identify patient factors and provider patterns that contribute to delayed diagnosis.Study DesignRetrospective case series.SettingTertiary care center.MethodsPatients with HPV(+)OPSCC receiving intent‐to‐cure treatment from 2006 to 2016. Clinical data, workup, and care timelines were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable linear regressions were performed to determine associations.ResultsOf 703 included patients, 627 (89%) were male, and mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 59 (9) years. The mean (SD) delay to diagnosis was 148.8 (243.51) days, with an average delay of 63 (154.91) days from symptom onset to first presentation and 82.8 (194.25) days from first presentation to diagnosis. Most patients visited at least 2 providers (n = 546, 78%) before diagnosis and saw their primary care physician at first presentation (n = 496, 71%). The most common imaging and biopsy obtained before diagnosis was neck computed tomography (n = 391, 56%) and neck fine‐needle aspiration (n = 423, 60%), respectively. On multivariable linear regression, being a homemaker, being a current smoker, seeing 3 or more providers, and getting a magnetic resonance imaging scan were associated with significant delays in diagnosis (P <. 01, all). Treatment with antibiotics and a suspicion for HPV(+)OPSCC at first presentation were associated with decreased delays in diagnosis (P <. 01, both).ConclusionsPatient delays in seeking medical attention and provider delays in recognizing the appropriate diagnosis both contribute to delays of care in HPV(+)OPSCC. Improved patient and provider education is necessary to expedite the diagnosis of HPV(+)OPSCC.

Abstract Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with acute lymphoblastic leukemia have improved outcomes when treated with pediatric-inspired regimens. CALGB 10403 was the largest prospective study to evaluate the feasibility of using a pediatric regimen in AYAs with acute lymphoblastic leukemia up to 40 years of age. This article presents the toxicity events observed in the CALGB 10403 study and compares these toxicities vs those observed among AYAs treated on the same arm of the companion Children’s Oncology Group (COG) AALL0232 study. Toxicities in CALGB 10403 were similar to those observed in COG AALL0232. Some grade 3 to 4 adverse events were more often reported in CALGB 10403 compared with COG AALL0232 (hyperglycemia, hyperbilirubinemia, transaminase elevation, and febrile neutropenia). Adverse events correlated with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2 and some with increasing age. The mortality rate in CALGB 10403 was low (4%) and similar to that in the COG AALL0232 trial. A caveat to this analysis is that only 39% of CALGB 10403 patients completed all planned protocol treatment. In COG AALL0232, although 74% of patients aged &lt;18 years completed treatment, only 57% of patients aged ≥18 years completed treatment. This scenario suggests that issues associated with age and treating physician may be a factor. Due to its improved survival rates compared with historical controls, the CALGB 10403 regimen is now a standard of care. The hope is that the rate of protocol completion will increase as more familiarity is gained with this regimen. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00558519 (CALGB 10403) and #NCT00075725 (COG AALL0232).

AbstractPurpose:Fumarate hydratase–deficient renal cell carcinoma (FH-deficient RCC) is a rare but lethal subtype of RCC. Little is known about the genomic profile of FH-deficient RCC, and the therapeutic options for advanced disease are limited. To this end, we performed a comprehensive genomics study to characterize the genomic and epigenomic features of FH-deficient RCC.Experimental Design:Integrated genomic, epigenomic, and molecular analyses were performed on 25 untreated primary FH-deficient RCCs. Complete clinicopathologic and follow-up data of these patients were recorded.Results:We identified that FH-deficient RCC manifested low somatic mutation burden (median 0.58 mutations per megabase), but with frequent somatic copy-number alterations. The majority of FH-deficient RCCs were characterized by a CpG sites island methylator phenotype, displaying concerted hypermethylation at numerous CpG sites in genes of transcription factors, tumor suppressors, and tumor hallmark pathways. However, a few cases (20%) with low metastatic potential showed relatively low DNA methylation levels, indicating the heterogeneity of methylation pattern in FH-deficient RCC. Moreover, FH-deficient RCC is potentially highly immunogenic, characterized by increased tumor T-cell infiltration but high expression of immune checkpoint molecules in tumors. Clinical data further demonstrated that patients receiving immune checkpoint blockade–based treatment achieved improved progression-free survival over those treated with antiangiogenic monotherapy (median, 13.3 vs. 5.1 months; P = 0.03).Conclusions:These results reveal the genomic features and provide new insight into potential therapeutic strategies for FH-deficient RCC.

Objectives/Hypothesis To describe the pre‐implant audiometric profile of adult cochlear implant (CI) recipients to investigate whether current binaural candidacy requirements prevent access to patients who could benefit from CI. Study Design Retrospective case series. Methods Retrospective review from 2016 to 2018 evaluating preoperative pure‐tone thresholds and speech perception scores in the ipsilateral and contralateral ear. Results A total of 252 adult CI recipients undergoing 270 implants were identified. Median age at time of implantation was 70.5 years (IQR 61.3–78.3) for those undergoing unilateral implantation and 59.0 (IQR 48.0–72.3) for those undergoing bilateral implantation ( P < .01). For unilateral implantation, median pre‐implantation speech perception performance in the ear to be implanted was 8.0% (IQR 0%–26.0%) for CNC word scores, and 9.0% (IQR 0%–34.0%) for AzBio sentence scores in quiet. Median speech perception performance in the contralateral ear was 36.0% (IQR 14.0%–60.0%) on CNC word scores, and 48.5% (IQR 17.5%–76.0%) on AzBio sentence tests. Speech perception scores were significantly different between ears for word and sentence tests ( P < .01). Patients older than age 65 were significantly less likely to undergo bilateral implantation ( P = .03). Conclusions Adult CI recipients exhibit substantially poorer pre‐implant speech perception scores than the commonly utilized ipsilateral qualifying threshold of 50% on sentence testing. Yet, existing insurance paradigms limit patients by excessively stringent binaural best‐aided requirements. This limitation likely leads to worse device performance as patients often wait years for their binaural hearing to qualify while their ear to be implanted potentially experiences an unnecessarily extended duration of deafness. Older patients also experience a unique delay in referral for cochlear implantation. Level of Evidence 3‐ Retrospective review Laryngoscope , 131:E2007–E2012, 2021

AbstractBackgroundOur understanding of the biological changes in the brain associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology and cognitive impairment remains incomplete. Unbiased discovery proteomic analysis of AD brain can help to increase our understanding of these changes.MethodWe analyzed dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, precuneus, and temporal cortex of control, asymptomatic AD, and AD brains from multiple different centers by label‐free quantitative mass spectrometry and weighted protein co‐expression analysis to obtain a consensus protein co‐expression network of AD brain. We also analyzed cerebrospinal fluid to investigate potential biomarkers related to this network.ResultThe network consisted of 13 protein co‐expression modules. Six of these modules correlated with amyloid‐β plaque burden, tau neurofibrillary tangle burden, cognitive function, and clinical functional status, and were altered in asymptomatic AD, AD, or in both disease states. These six modules reflected synaptic, mitochondrial, sugar metabolism, extracellular matrix, cytoskeletal, and RNA binding/splicing biological functions. The identified protein network modules were preserved in a community‐based cohort analyzed by a different quantitative mass spectrometry approach. They were also preserved in temporal lobe and precuneus brain regions. Some of the modules were influenced by aging, and showed changes in other neurodegenerative diseases such as frontotemporal dementia and corticobasal degeneration. The module most strongly associated with AD pathology and cognitive impairment was the sugar metabolism module. This module was enriched in AD genetic risk factors, and was also highly enriched in microglia and astrocyte protein markers associated with an anti‐inflammatory state, suggesting that the biological functions it represents may serve a protective role in AD. Proteins from the sugar metabolism module were increased in cerebrospinal fluid from asymptomatic AD and AD cases, highlighting their potential as biomarkers of the altered brain network.ConclusionIn this study of >2000 brains and nearly 400 cerebrospinal fluid samples by quantitative proteomics, we identify proteins and biological processes in AD brain that may serve as therapeutic targets and fluid biomarkers for the disease.

Abstract Background Recurrent pleomorphic adenoma (PA) can be a lifelong disease, and rates of subsequent recurrence are high. Methods Patients between 2000 and 2015 were identified. Primary outcome was subsequent recurrence after surgical salvage. Results Twenty‐seven of 84 patients developed a subsequent recurrence. Risk factors for subsequent recurrence included a higher number of previous recurrences ( P < .01), worse preoperative facial nerve function ( P < .01), and deep parotid lesion(s) ( P < .01). Interval since last surgery was protective ( P < .01), specifically >10 years since last surgery ( P < .01). For patients with a >10‐year interval since their last surgery, the subsequent recurrence‐free rate at 10 years follow‐up was 80.2% vs 31.8%. Conclusions For patients presenting with a >10‐year interval since their last surgery, subsequent recurrence rates are low, which may allow for as needed surveillance recommendations. For patients presenting with recurrent PA and ≤10 years since their last surgery, a closer surveillance is warranted.

Biological sex is increasingly recognized as a critical determinant of health and disease, particularly relevant to the topical COVID-19 pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. Epidemiological data and observational reports from both the original SARS epidemic and the most recent COVID-19 pandemic have a common feature: males are more likely to exhibit enhanced disease severity and mortality than females. Sex differences in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 share mechanistic foundations, namely, the involvement of both the innate immune system and the canonical renin-angiotensin system (RAS). Immunological differences suggest that females mount a rapid and aggressive innate immune response, and the attenuated antiviral response in males may confer enhanced susceptibility to severe disease. Furthermore, the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) is involved in disease pathogenesis in cardiovascular disease and COVID-19, either to serve as a protective mechanism by deactivating the RAS or as the receptor for viral entry, respectively. Loss of membrane ACE2 and a corresponding increase in plasma ACE2 are associated with worsened cardiovascular disease outcomes, a mechanism attributed to a disintegrin and metalloproteinase (ADAM17). SARS-CoV-2 infection also leads to ADAM17 activation, a positive feedback cycle that exacerbates ACE2 loss. Therefore, the relationship between cardiovascular disease and COVID-19 is critically dependent on the loss of membrane ACE2 by ADAM17-mediated proteolytic cleavage. This article explores potential mechanisms involved in COVID-19 that may contribute to sex-specific susceptibility focusing on the innate immune system and the RAS, namely, genetics and sex hormones. Finally, we highlight here the added challenges of gender in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Smooth muscle conditions of the chest have diverse clinical and imaging manifestations and may involve nearly every thoracic structure. Differentiation among these conditions requires the integration of clinical, radiologic, and histopathologic data. Histologic examination in conjunction with immunohistochemistry is essential for differentiation from other spindle cell neoplastic mimics. Familiarity with these entities will ensure the inclusion of smooth muscle conditions in the differential diagnosis of thoracic soft tissue lesions and potentially guide the clinician in appropriate management. We review the clinical, imaging, and histopathologic features of thoracic smooth muscle-related conditions organized by the anatomic structures affected.

Background: Pts with high-risk LBCL have poor outcomes with R-CHOP chemoimmunotherapy (Sathyanarayanan, et al. ASH 2016. #106), and ≈50% of pts will not achieve long-term disease remission (Coiffier, et al. ASH Ed Program. 2016), highlighting unmet need for new therapies. Axi-cel, an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, was approved for treatment of adults with R/R LBCL after ≥ 2 lines of systemic therapies based on the pivotal study, ZUMA-1 (Neelapu SS, et al. NEJM. 2017). ZUMA-12 is a Phase 2, multicenter, open-label, single-arm study of axi-cel as part of first-line therapy in pts with high-risk LBCL. Here, we present interim efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PK) results from ZUMA-12. Methods: Eligible adults (≥ 18 y) met 2 criteria for high-risk LBCL: i) double- or triple-hit lymphoma by fluorescent in situ hybridization per investigator or LBCL with IPI score ≥ 3; and ii) positive interim PET per Lugano Classification (Cheson, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2014; Deauville score [DS] 4 or 5) after 2 cycles of an anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody and anthracycline containing regimen, which served as a dynamic risk assessment. Pts with PMBCL were not eligible. Pts underwent leukapheresis (≥ 2 wks after prior systemic therapy) and optional non-chemotherapy bridging at investigator discretion, followed by conditioning chemotherapy (cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2/d and fludarabine 30 mg/m2/d for 3 d) and a single axi-cel infusion (target dose, 2 × 106 CAR T cells/kg). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed complete response (CR) rate per Lugano. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), frequency of adverse events (AEs), and levels of CAR T cells and cytokines in blood and serum. Results: As of July 15, 2020, 31 pts have been enrolled and treated, and as of January 24, 2020, in a planned interim analysis, 15 pts were treated with axi-cel with ≥ 3 mos of follow-up. Median age was 60 y (range, 39 - 86), 67% of pts were male, 73% had ECOG of 1, 40%/60% had DS4/5; 60% had double- or triple-hit status per investigator, and 67% had IPI score ≥ 3. Baseline characteristics were largely comparable to ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 except for lower median tumor burden in ZUMA-12 (ZUMA-1: 3897 mm2 vs ZUMA-12: 1610 mm2). Of 12 response-evaluable pts (pts with centrally confirmed high-risk LBCL who received axi-cel), the investigator-assessed ORR was 92% (95% CI, 62% - 100%) with a CR rate of 75% (95% CI, 43% - 95%); 75% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 pts treated (safety analysis set), the investigator-assessed ORR was 93% (95% CI, 68% - 100%) with a CR rate of 80% (95% CI, 52% - 96%); 86% of pts had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Of 15 safety-evaluable pts, 80% experienced Grade ≥ 3 AEs. The most common Grade ≥ 3 AEs (≥ 25% of pts) were white blood cell count decreased (40%), anemia (27%), and encephalopathy (27%). Grade ≥ 3 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and neurologic events (NEs) occurred in 20% and 27% of pts, respectively. All CRS and 10/11 NEs of any grade resolved (causally unrelated Grade 1 tremor was ongoing in 1 pt at data cutoff). Median time to onset of CRS was 4 d (range, 1 - 8), with median duration of 5 d (range, 2 - 12). Median time to onset of NEs was 9 d (range, 2 - 44), with median duration of 10 d (range, 1 - 40). Grade ≥ 3 infection was reported in 27% and Grade ≥ 3 neutrophil count decreased was reported in 20%. No Grade 5 AEs occurred. Despite similar assessment schedule and methodology, median peak CAR T cell levels were greater in ZUMA-12 vs ZUMA-1 Cohort 1 (131 cells/µL [range, 10 - 555] vs 32 cells/µL [range, 1 - 1514]). Median CAR T cell expansion (AUC0-28) was also greater in ZUMA-12 (1124 cells/µL × d [range, 147 - 4261]; ZUMA-1: 357 cells/µL × d [range, 5 - 11,507]). Median time to peak levels of CAR T cells in blood was 7 d after infusion. PK were similar in pts with double- or triple-hit lymphoma and IPI score ≥ 3. Updated safety, efficacy, and PK results will be reported, along with product characteristics and levels of key cytokines. Conclusion: ZUMA-12 is the first study evaluating CAR T cell therapy as first-line therapy in high-risk LBCL, which notably was defined by both histology and/or IPI and dynamic risk assessment with PET scan. Axi-cel demonstrated significant clinical benefit, with high ORR and CR rates and a manageable safety profile in pts for whom there is an unmet medical need. The study also provides new insights into the pharmacology of CAR T cell therapy for pts exposed to fewer prior therapies. Disclosures Neelapu: Pfizer: Other: personal fees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Merck: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; N/A: Other; Adicet Bio: Other; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Other, Research Funding; Celgene: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Other: personal fees; Allogene Therapeutics: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties; Precision Biosciences: Other: personal fees, Research Funding; Cell Medica/Kuur: Other: personal fees; Incyte: Other: personal fees; Acerta: Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Legend Biotech: Other; Calibr: Other. Dickinson:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharp & Dohme: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Oluwole:Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy. Herrera:Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy. Thieblemont:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Bayer: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Cellectis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel support; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Hospira: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding. Ujjani:AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Verastem Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Research Funding; Atara: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy. Lin:Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vineti: Consultancy; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Juno: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. Riedell:Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys: Research Funding. Kekre:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. de Vos:Bayer: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Yang:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Milletti:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Goyal:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment. Kawashima:Kite, a Gilead Company: Current Employment; Gilead Sciences: Other: stock or other ownership . Chavez:Merck: Research Funding; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; BeiGene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.