Citations

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.

Introduction: Scant data exist on prognostic factors, survival and treatment (Tx)-related outcomes in SCNSL. We conducted a multicenter international analysis to identify prognostic factors and outcomes in SCNSL at diagnosis (de novo), or after frontline Tx (1L) either with (concomitant) or without (isolated) systemic (syst) relapse. Methods: This study collected data from patients (pts) treated between 2001-2023 at 35 centers. Overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were calculated from SCNSL diagnosis to first event (death for OS, relapse/death for PFS) or last follow-up. Uni- (UVA) and multivariable (MVA) Cox analyses were performed to assess prognostic factors; Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate survival. Results: 1173 (US: 863, UK: 273, Canada: 37) pts with SCNSL were included. Baseline characteristics were median age: 62 years (interquartile range 52.5-69), male sex: 58.7%, elevated LDH: 71.1%, stage III/IV: 88.6%, HIV: 3%, transformed LBCL (tLBCL): 13.8%, non-germinal center B-cell like (non-GCB) subtype: 52.3%, double expressor (DE): 40%, MYC rearrangement (MYC-R): 28.3%, MYC/BCL2 double hit: 16.6%, MYC/BCL2/BCL6 triple hit (TH): 6.1%. Among 522 pts with de novo SCNSL, 84.2% had involvement of a single CNS compartment (44.7% brain parenchyma; 40.4% leptomeningeal [lepto]). 1L regimens included 36.2% R-CHOP with high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX), 12.5% MARIETTA-type, and 9.8% R-CODOX-M/IVAC; 54.6% received intrathecal chemotherapy. Consolidation Thiotepa-based autologous stem cell transplant (TT-ASCT) occurred in 15.3%. The majority of pts who underwent TT-ASCT had previously achieved CR or PR in syst (92.5%) and CNS (72.5%) compartments. At median follow-up 25.7 months (mos), subsequent relapse was observed in 27.5% TT-ASCT recipients: 36.3% had isolated CNS, 27.4% syst, and 36.3% concomitant. 588 pts presented with SCNS after 1L (66.2% isolated, 33.8% concomitant). Brain parenchyma involvement was observed in 56.8%, lepto in 22.6%. Tx included 31.6% HD-MTX combination (eg, R-MPV, MTR); 18.4% HD-MTX +/- rituximab; 16.2% MARIETTA-type; and 9.4% platinum-based regimen. Consolidation TT-ASCT occurred in 22.4% (n=132), and 13.8% (n=81) received CAR-T cell therapy (excluding subsequent relapses in de novo group). Syst (65.1%) & CNS (69.1%) responses (CR/PR) were higher before TT-ASCT compared to CAR-T cell (49.5% & 54.5%, respectively). After TT-ASCT, 52 pts (39.3%) relapsed, mainly in the CNS (n=30, 57.7%), with only 4 (7.7%) concomitant. After CAR-T, 48 pts (59.3%) relapsed: 15 (31.2%) isolated in CNS and 15 (31.2%) concomitant. 12-month cumulative incidence of relapse (with death as competing risk) was 21.1% after TT-ASCT and 55.8% after CAR-T. In 63 pts (5.4%), the first CNS event occurred >2 lines of Tx. With median follow-up of the entire cohort of 24.6 mos, median PFS and OS were 11 and 21 mos, respectively. mPFS and mOS were significantly better in pts with de novo SCNSL (13.4 & 47.4 mos) compared to SCNSL after 1L (10.4 & 14.2 mos) and >2 lines of Tx (6.5 & 9.7 mos); P<0.0001. Factors associated with significantly shorter OS in UVA across all presentations were age >60, male sex, GCB subtype, MYC-R, tLBCL, DE, TH, elevated LDH, ECOG PS ≥2, SCNSL after 1L (vs. de novo), and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L. Of these, age >60, male sex, MYC-R, ECOG PS ≥2, and failure to achieve response to 1L remained significant in MVA. In de novo cases, age >60, DE, ECOG PS≥2, and failure to achieve syst/CNS response to 1L were associated with poorer OS; for pts with SCNSL after 1L, age >60, GCB subtype, and ECOG PS ≥2 were significant. Pts treated with HD-MTX-based regimens after 1L experienced longer OS than those treated with platinum regimens or high-dose cytarabine. In de novo cases, TT-ASCT was significantly associated with longer OS (HR=0.58; P=0.025) in MVA after adjusting for significant factors, 1L type, and response. For SCNSL at relapse, TT-ASCT (HR=0.34; P<.0001) and isolated SCNSL presentation (vs. concomitant HR=0.70, P=0.007) were associated with longer OS, adjusting for significant factors, type of second-line Tx, & site of CNS relapse. Conclusions: This study represents the largest analysis of SCNSL inclusive of all modes of presentation. Concomitant SCNSL at relapse was associated with poor outcomes, while TT-ASCT consolidation was associated with improved OS in de novo & relapsed disease. Despite advances in LBCL SCNSL remains an unmet therapeutic need.

Background: The majority of patients respond to steroid treatment for graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), but the typically high doses and prolonged courses can cause substantial morbidity. GVHD can be classified at onset into two groups with significant differences in treatment response and non-relapse mortality (NRM) by clinical criteria (Minnesota risk) but the more favorable standard risk group still experiences high rates of treatment failure and NRM [MacMillan, BBMT 2015]. We previously validated a serum biomarker-based (ST2+REG3α) risk stratification system, MAGIC algorithm probabilities (MAPs), that can stratify patients both at initiation and during treatment into risk groups for treatment response and NRM [Hartwell, JCI Insight 2017, Srinagesh, Blood Adv 2019]. GVHD that is Minnesota standard risk and has a low MAP (i.e., Ann Arbor 1) at start of treatment represents a low risk group with >80% response rate to steroids and ~10% NRM [Etra, Blood 2023]. We hypothesized that serial monitoring of GVHD symptom severity and MAPs twice (days (d) 7 and 14) in patients with clinical and biomarker defined low risk GVHD could further stratify patients into clinically meaningful groups. Methods: We retrospectively determined MAPs at d7 and 14 in 450 patients with low risk GVHD who participated in a prospective, multi-center, observational trial and were treated with systemic steroids between 2015-2023. MAPs <0.291 at days 7 and 14 were defined as low risk based on a previously validated threshold [Major-Monfried Blood 2018]. Clinical responses were scored as complete (CR), partial (PR), or non-response (NR) by standard criteria. Initiation of second line therapy was considered NR. Patients were categorized into three groups (A-C) based on clinical responses and MAPs at days d7 and 14. A: CR/PR by d14 and low MAP at both d7+14; B: stable or worse GVHD (NR) by d14 with low MAP at both d7 and 14; C: any response with a high MAP at d7 or 14. The endpoints were clinical response at day 28 (overall response rate, ORR=CR or PR), regardless of earlier response status, and 6-month NRM. Results: The median age of the study population was 54 years (range: 0-79); 19% of patients received PT-Cy for GVHD prophylaxis. Target organ involvement was skin ± upper GI (66%), lower GI (23%), isolated UGI (11%), and skin+liver (1%), and GVHD severity was grade I (35%), II (61%), and III (4%) at start of treatment. Patients in group A (n=310, 69%), clinical responders with low MAPs through day 14, had excellent d28 ORR (93%) and very low NRM (4%). GVHD in this group was considered ultra-low risk (ULR) and subset analyses revealed highly consistent d28 ORR and NRM, regardless of target organ severity, age (<18, 18-59, >60), HCT-CI score, conditioning intensity, and GVHD prophylaxis. Group B patients comprised clinical non-responders with low MAPs through day 14 (n=112, 25%); half of them responded by d28 and their NRM was low (8%), albeit double that of group A (p=0.079). Group C was small (n=28, 6%) and included both clinical responders (n=20, 4%) and clinical non-responders (n=8, 2%) who had at least one high MAP through day 14. Their d28 ORR was 54% but NRM increased four-fold (32%) and was significantly worse than patients who maintained low MAPs regardless of clinical response (p<0.001). Conclusion: Serial monitoring by clinical response and biomarkers during the first two weeks of treatment identifies a small number of high risk patients whose GVHD is initially low risk (group C). This group experiences high NRM regardless of clinical response to steroid treatment and may benefit from treatment escalation. Patients with low risk GVHD who do not have an early clinical response to steroids but maintain low MAPs, (group B) have reasonably good long-term outcomes with standard treatment. Finally, serial monitoring identifies a very large subset of patients with ULR GVHD (group A) who respond exceptionally well to standard treatment and experience very low rates of 6-month NRM regardless of pre-transplant characteristics and GVHD prophylaxis. Such patients may benefit from treatment de-escalation strategies such as shorter courses of lower dose steroids, a strategy we are currently testing in a clinical trial (NCT05090384).

Introduction: As therapeutic options for cancer increase at an unprecedented rate, understanding patient's awareness and attitudes is imperative to optimize their participation in shared decision making. Patient surveys are a powerful tool to gain insight into patient awareness but are cumbersome to administer on a large scale. With the advent of technology and virtual care, electronic surveys are being utilized more widely but their validity compared to approaching the patients in-person has not been established. We conducted a survey regarding awareness and preferences for clinical trials in-person and electronically and compared results systematically in a matched cohorts of patients with MM. Methods: A 52-question survey (including the domains: knowledge, trust, fear, external influence and optimism) was administered in-person to cancer patients at Mayo Clinic campuses (NCT04630431), of which patients with MM were identified for this analysis. The same survey was administered to MM patients enrolled in the online portal HealthTree® Cure Hub. Observations from the in-person and online cohorts were matched and weighted based on coarsened exact matching utilizing the “MatchIt” package based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, and marital status. Question responses were converted to an agreeance score scaled from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Mean and standard deviation measurements were calculated. Weighted t-tests were conducted using these numeric scores and the matched weights. Results: Final matched cohorts included 83% (n=65) of the in-person and 69% (n=149) of the online participants. Mean age was 63.5 (± 8.5) years with 52% females for in-person vs. 65.9 (± 7.5) years and 54% females in the online participants. In-person cohort included 83% White, 14% Black and 12% Hispanic participants while online cohort had 94% White, 5% Black and 13% Hispanics/Latinos. Education level with 4-year degree or higher was reported by 66% in-person and 75% online participants. Both cohort respondents on average rated a strong likelihood of participating in a clinical trial (in-person 4.04, CI: 3.73-4.35; online 4.34, CI: 4.19-4.5). There was significant agreeance between the 2 cohorts on majority of the questionnaire domains. For basic knowledge about clinical trials, while none of the individual questions in the category were significantly different, the online group had a higher aggregate agreeance score of 3.91 vs. 3.73 for the in-person group with a significant difference of 0.18 (CI: 0.5-0.31, p=0.008). For external influence, the online group had a higher aggregate agreeance score (3.52) than the in-person group (3.15; Difference: 0.37, CI: 0.22-0.52, p<0.001), with the only question-level significant difference being for the question that regulatory agencies effectively control what is being advertised by the pharmaceutical industry (4.46 ± 0.64 vs. 3.48 ± 0.76, p<0.001). Conclusions: Online surveys are an effective tool for gaining insight into patient understanding, attitudes and awareness on a variety of topics and can be conducted efficiently on a larger scale than in-person studies, which may be more time and resource intensive. Our study provides evidence of general agreeance between a matched cohort of in-person and online survey respondents, providing validity to carefully conducted, planned online survey tools. The online cohort in our study overall had better knowledge about clinical trials and a better understanding about external influences on available clinical trial result information. These results will help boost studies to collect patient-level responses such that their beliefs and awareness can be better understood and incorporated in optimizing healthcare resource utilization.

Background: Age-related clonal hematopoiesis (ARCH) is a precursor state to blood cancers and is associated with epigenetic age acceleration (EpiAgeAccel) (Aging Cell, 2021). While ARCH in combination with AgeAccel has the highest risk for all cause mortality and cardiovascular disease, not much is known about context-relevant clonal hematopoiesis (CRCH) - CH occurring in the context of prior chemo/radiation, bone marrow failure and germline predisposition syndromes. CRCH has a unique mutational signature enriched in genes in DNA damage response and repair (TP53 and PPM1D). To answer this question, we assessed EpiAge in a prospective cohort of patients with both ARCH and CRCH. Methods: Patients were prospectively recruited for CH and EpiAge assessment from the Mayo Clinic CH clinic between 2022 and 2024. Demographic and clinical data including chronologic age, BMI, sex, blood counts, and medical history were recorded at the time of enrollment. CH status was determined using error corrected sequencing on peripheral blood (PB) DNA. All somatic variants with a variant allele frequency (VAF) ≥0.5% were considered as CH. For EpiAge analysis PB DNA was analyzed using the Illumina MethylationEPIC array. The resulting beta values were used to obtain epigenetic age estimates using Horvath's clock (Genome Biol., 2013), Hannum's Clock (Mol Cell., 2013), PhenoAge (Aging, 2018), DunedinPACE (eLife, 2022), and predicted telomere length (Aging, 2019). Results: 106 (62%) of 170 patients assessed were found to have CH, with the most frequent mutations being TET2 (19%), PPM1D (17%), DNMT3A (16%), ASXL1 (9%), and TP53 (6%); median VAF 9.5%. Except for a higher median chronologic age (68 vs 60 years, p<0.001) in the CH group, baseline characteristics including BMI, comorbidities, baseline blood counts, sex and tobacco use history were similar between the two groups. The CH group demonstrated significant EpiAgeAccel by all three clocks: Horvath (p=0.001), Hannum (p<0.001), and PhenoAge (p<0.001); with an increase in biological age of 4.9 years (95% CI 2-7.7) by Horvath clock, 4.8 years (95% CI 2.2-7.5) by Hannum clock, and 7 years (95% CI 2.9-10.5) by PhenoAge, after adjusting for chronologic age, sex, smoking status, and cancer history. CH was also associated with increased DunedinPACE of aging by 0.13 biological year per chronologic year (bioyear/chronoyear) (95% CI 0.06-0.2, p<0.001), and shortened telomere lengths by 0.24kb (95% CI 0.11-0.35, p<0.001) after adjusting for chronologic age and excluding patients with telomere biology disorders. CH patients were then further classified into ARCH-63 (59%) and CRCH-43 (41%). While the median chronological age (69 vs 67 years) was similar between the 2 groups, CRCH patients had lower Hgb [10.9g/dL vs. 13g/dL (p=0.0001)] , lower platelet [146x109/L vs. 192x109/L (p=0.0132)] and lower WBC [4.4x109/L vs. 5.2x109/L (p=0.0345)]. The median BMI, comorbidities, and tobacco use history were similar between the 2 groups. The 3 most common ARCH mutations were TET2 (20%), DNMT3A (19%), and ASXL1 (14%), while, PPM1D (27%), TET2 (18%), and DNMT3A (14%) were frequent in CRCH. There was no significant difference found in median EpiAge via Horvath (68 vs 67.5years p=0.2826), Hannum (65 vs 66 years p=0.9333), or PhenoAge (55 vs 56 years p=0.618) between ARCH and CRCH. However, DunedinPACE of aging was higher in CRCH (1.27 vs 1.18 bioyear/chronoyear p=0.0148) and median telomere length was shorter in CRCH (6.35 vs 6.49kb p=0.0247), in comparison to ARCH. Multivariable regression analysis was completed for both ARCH and CRCH compared to non-CH, adjusting for chronologic age, smoking status, and male sex. While both ARCH and CRCH demonstrated EpiAgeAccel via Horvath(5.8years p=0.0001, 3.4 years p=0.051), Hannum(5years p=0.001, 4.5 years p=0.007), and PhenoAge (6.7years p=0.002, 7.6 years p=0.002) clocks, CRCH more than doubled DunedinPACE (0.2 bioyear/chronoyear, p<0.001) of aging compared to ARCH (0.08 bioyear/chronoyear, p=0.026). CRCH also demonstrated double the decrease in telomere length (0.34kb, p<0.001) compared to ARCH (0.17kb, p=0.015). Conclusion: Our prospective CH cohort study validates the association between CH and EpiAgeAccel using several different methylation clocks and for the first time, highlights increased pace of aging and shorter telomere lengths in CRCH versus ARCH. Correlations with cardiovascular disease and mortality outcomes are ongoing.

Classic Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) is characterized by the presence of abnormal large cells known as Hodgkin Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells. Curative intent chemotherapy has a 90% response rate, but for refractory patients, current immunotherapies remain insufficient. Ongoing research aims to enhance therapy and patient outcomes by focusing on the tumor microenvironment (TME), a complex environment that includes diverse non-malignant cells, including immune cells, which constitute a critical component of the TME. Utilizing multiplex analysis to comprehend these intricate interactions can pave the way for identifying novel strategies to combat cancer more effectively. CD30-targeted therapies and PD1/PDL1 inhibitors are under investigation clinically and could potentially benefit from adding checkpoint markers such as TIM-3 to enhance patient outcomes by addressing T-cell exhaustion. Such combination strategies will require assays and analysis strategies that can describe both spatial and multi-marker data. Multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) is a valuable tool for analyzing spatial biology, patient selection, mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics and biomarker assays predictive of response. Describing the relationship between T cell exhaustion and response in cHL may guide the development of targeted treatments aimed at restoring the immune system's ability to recognize and eliminate cancer cells. Twenty-five to thirty percent of cHL patients with advanced stages do not respond to standard therapies. To understand the mechanisms of resistance, we developed a mIF panel (CD4, CD8, CD30, PD-1, PD-L1, and TIM3) for formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded cHL tissues on the OPAL Tyramide Signal Amplification system and the Leica Bond RX. A set of commercially sourced cHL whole tissue samples (n=5) were used to develop and validate the panel, with qualitative evaluations by a Hematopathologist affirming that the mIF and 3, 3'-diaminobenzidine (DAB) staining yielded comparable results. Subsequently, a cohort of cHL samples (n=34) were stained and underwent exploratory image (Halo) and data (Microsoft Excel and R Studio) analyses. The image analysis strategy includes cell segmentation and phenotyping for all markers in the panel, identifying individual cell populations and multi-marker co-expressing cell populations. Additionally, spatial analysis describes the relationships between key phenotypes in the TME. The quantity of exhausted T cells, their average distance to HRS cells and the average count of exhausted T cells within different proximities of HRS cells will be presented. The development of this mIF assay for cHL demonstrates its consistent application at a mid-scale level across a diverse patient population with varying medical backgrounds and treatment histories. This approach provides a deeper understanding of immune response diversity and cellular composition within cHL. Future deployment of the panel against clinical trial samples with outcomes and responses will yield further insights.

ABSTRACT Background Immune exclusion inhibits anti-tumor immunity and response to immunotherapy, but its mechanisms remain poorly defined. In triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), an aggressive and generally immune-rich subtype, an immune-cold microenvironment predicts poor prognosis due to a limited response to chemotherapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors. This study aimed to identify mechanisms regulating immune infiltration in TNBC. Methods We performed spatial transcriptomic analysis comparing immune-enriched versus immune-cold treatment-naïve TNBCs. Functional analyses, including loss-of-function and reconstitution experiments, were conducted to investigate the role of Trophoblast Cell-Surface Antigen 2 (TROP2), a key target of anti-cancer Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs), in promoting TNBC progression. A humanized TROP2 syngeneic TNBC model was used to assess the effects of TROP2-targeting in combination with anti-PD1 therapy. Additionally, data from patients treated with immune checkpoint blockade were used to test hypotheses from the preclinical findings. Results We reveal that TROP2 controls barrier-mediated immune exclusion in TNBC through Claudin 7 association and tight junction regulation. TROP2 expression is inversely correlated with T cell infiltration and predicts poor outcomes in TNBC. We demonstrate that TROP2 is sufficient to drive tumor progression in vivo in a CD8 T cell-dependent manner, while its loss deregulates expression and localization of multiple tight junction proteins, enabling T cell infiltration. We show that TROP2 targeting via hRS7, the antibody component of the ADC Sacituzumab govitecan (SG), enhances the anti-PD1 response and improves T cell accessibility and effector function. Correspondingly, TROP2 expression is highly associated with lack of response to anti-PD1 therapy in human breast cancer. Conclusions This study defines a new mechanism of barrier-mediated immune exclusion in cancer controlled by TROP2-dependent tight junctions. This mechanism drives tumor progression but can be targeted via TROP2-directed therapy to activate anti-tumor immunity and enhance immunotherapy response. What is already known on this topic Barrier-mediated immune exclusion is emerging as a mechanism of immune evasion in cancer such as triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), but its molecular underpinnings remain poorly understood. TROP2 is a surface glycoprotein targeted by antibody-drug conjugates such as Sacituzumab govitecan, yet its functional role beyond drug delivery has been unclear. What this study adds This study identifies TROP2 as a key regulator of tight junction-mediated immune exclusion in TNBC, independent of its intracellular signaling function. TROP2 promotes an immune-cold tumor microenvironment by enforcing mechanical barriers that limit T cell infiltration. How this study might affect research, practice or policy These findings establish TROP2 as a functional driver of immune evasion and provide a mechanistic rationale for combining TROP2-targeting therapies with immune checkpoint inhibitors to overcome resistance in immune-excluded tumors.

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.

Cephalosporins have traditionally been administered as an intermittent infusion. With the knowledge that cephalosporins demonstrate a time-dependent pharmacodynamic profile, administration via continuous infusion may provide more effective antibiotic exposure for successful therapy. Proposed benefits of administration via continuous infusion include less IV manipulation, decreased potential for antibiotic resistance, and potential cost savings. The objective of this review was to provide a detailed assessment of available evidence for the use of continuous infusion cephalosporins and practical dosing and administration recommendations. Studies were gathered and assessed for inclusion via a literature search of PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE using mesh terms [“continuous infusion” and “cephalosporin”], “intermittent infusion”, [“intermittent versus continuous” and “cephalosporin”], “continuous infusion cephalosporin”, as well as specific drug names. References from included studies were also evaluated for inclusion. Data which compared the two administration methods (continuous infusion vs. intermittent infusion) were evaluated. Thirty-five studies were analyzed among several cephalosporins with variable delivery. Dosing regimens utilized in the selected studies were assessed with known compatibility and stability data and further summarized.

Abstract Objective Childhood SjD (cSjD) is a rare disease. There are no widely accepted diagnostic or classification criteria for cSjD. To fill this gap, members from the CARRA Sjögren Disease Workgroup and the International Childhood Sjögren Disease Workgroup created a clinical diagnostic algorithm. This study evaluated the accuracy of this algorithm using an international cohort of participants with clinician-diagnosed cSjD. Methods First, experts developed a cSjD diagnostic algorithm through a series of virtual workgroup meetings. Using the adult classification criteria as a framework, experts modified the algorithm through opinion and literature review. The group discussed and finalized each algorithm step by achieving majority rule. Then, R statistical software was used to evaluate each participant’s disease status in the diagnostic algorithm via an international cohort of 300 cSjD cases. Results The diagnostic algorithm has three distinct clinical pathways representing the key clinical presentation in cSjD: parotitis, extraglandular manifestations, and sicca symptoms. The algorithm showed an overall sensitivity of 75% in the population that had enough data to complete at least one pathway of the algorithm (n = 100 filtered out of 300). The parotitis (70%) and sicca pathways (82%) had the highest sensitivity, and the extraglandular pathway (52%) had the lowest. Conclusion As cSjD lacks a diagnostic strategy, this algorithm provides a clinical tool for evaluating children with cSjD-like symptoms. It performed well in an international cohort of cSjD, supporting the integration of this algorithm into clinical practice; however, its utility may be limited by low utilization of diagnostic testing in this population.