Citations

Abstract Background The risks of breast cancer in African American (AA) women associated with inherited mutations in breast cancer predisposition genes are not well defined. Thus, whether multigene germline hereditary cancer testing panels are applicable to this population is unknown. We assessed associations between mutations in panel-based genes and breast cancer risk in 5054 AA women with breast cancer and 4993 unaffected AA women drawn from 10 epidemiologic studies. Methods Germline DNA samples were sequenced for mutations in 23 cancer predisposition genes using a QIAseq multiplex amplicon panel. Prevalence of mutations and odds ratios (ORs) for associations with breast cancer risk were estimated with adjustment for study design, age, and family history of breast cancer. Results Pathogenic mutations were identified in 10.3% of women with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative breast cancer, 5.2% of women with ER-positive breast cancer, and 2.3% of unaffected women. Mutations in BRCA1, BRCA2, and PALB2 were associated with high risks of breast cancer (OR = 47.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 10.43 to >100; OR = 7.25, 95% CI = 4.07 to 14.12; OR = 8.54, 95% CI = 3.67 to 24.95, respectively). RAD51D mutations were associated with high risk of ER-negative disease (OR = 7.82, 95% CI = 1.61 to 57.42). Moderate risks were observed for CHEK2, ATM, ERCC3, and FANCC mutations with ER-positive cancer, and RECQL mutations with all breast cancer. Conclusions The study identifies genes that predispose to breast cancer in the AA population, demonstrates the validity of current breast cancer testing panels for use in AA women, and provides a basis for increased referral of AA patients for cancer genetic testing.

7109 Background: We previously reported results of treating MF patients with 3 cycles of 300, 400, or 500 mg of SAR302503 (NCT01420770; Blood 2012;120:21 Abs 2837). This is a report of efficacy and safety after 6 cycles. Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with intermediate-2 or high-risk MF and splenomegaly were eligible. SAR302503 is administered orally, once a day in consecutive 4-week cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Spleen response (≥35% reduction in spleen volume vs baseline) was assessed by MRI/CT (blinded independent central review). Results: 31 patients were enrolled (n=10 in the 300 and 400 mg groups; n=11 to 500 mg). Risk status was balanced in all but the 300 mg group (70% high-risk). Most patients were JAK2V617F positive (90%) and blood transfusion independent (81%). Spleen response rates at the end of cycle (EOC) 6 (secondary end point) were 30% (3/10) in the 300 mg group, 60% (6/10) with 400 mg, and 55% (6/11) with 500 mg compared with EOC 3 rates of 30%, 50%, and 64%, respectively. One patient on 500 mg who had a spleen response at EOC 3 (39% reduction), but not at EOC 6 (25% reduction) had dose reductions to 200 mg due to anemia. Median number of cycles was 13 (range, 2–17) and 24 patients have been on treatment >12 months. SAR302503 reduced baseline constitutional symptoms at the EOC 3, with the greatest responses for night sweats in 14/15 patients (93%), itching 10/14 (71%), early satiety and abdominal pain, each in 10/18 (56%). Most common adverse events were anemia and diarrhea, with grade 3–4 rates of 58% and 13%, respectively. The rate of grade 3–4 thrombocytopenia was 16%. There was no grade 3–4 neutropenia. The diarrhea rate tended to decrease after the first 2 treatment cycles. There have been no reports of withdrawal syndrome after stopping SAR302503. Median JAK2V617F allele burden was 93% at baseline, 87% at the EOC 3, and 78% at EOC 6 in 19/26 patients who had available samples. The expression of 22 of 97 cytokines was significantly regulated (≥1.5 fold difference; p<0.05) after cycle 1. Conclusions: In this Phase II trial, continued treatment with SAR302503 was associated with clinically meaningful reductions in splenomegaly. Symptom data will be updated. Clinical trial information: NCT01420770.

Background Management of delirium in intensive care units is challenging because effective therapies are lacking. Music is a promising nonpharmacological intervention. Objectives To determine the feasibility and acceptability of personalized music (PM), slow-tempo music (STM), and attention control (AC) in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit, and to estimate the effect of music on delirium. Methods A randomized controlled trial was performed in an academic medical-surgical intensive care unit. After particular inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, patients were randomized to groups listening to PM, relaxing STM, or an audiobook (AC group). Sessions lasted 1 hour and were given twice daily for up to 7 days. Patients wore noise-canceling headphones and used mp3 players to listen to their music/audiobook. Delirium and delirium severity were assessed twice daily by using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the CAM-ICU-7, respectively. Results Of the 1589 patients screened, 117 (7.4%) were eligible. Of those, 52 (44.4%) were randomized, with a recruitment rate of 5 patients per month. Adherence was higher in the groups listening to music (80% in the PM and STM groups vs 30% in the AC group; P = .01), and 80% of patients surveyed rated the music as enjoyable. The median number (interquartile range) of delirium/coma-free days by day 7 was 2 (1-6) for PM, 3 (1-6) for STM, and 2 (0-3) for AC (P = .32). Median delirium severity was 5.5 (1-7) for PM, 3.5 (0-7) for STM, and 4 (1-6.5) for AC (P = .78). Conclusions Music delivery is acceptable to patients and is feasible in intensive care units. Further research testing use of this promising intervention to reduce delirium is warranted.

Background: Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide post-autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has shown to improve progression-free survival (PFS) in multiple myeloma (MM), and has largely become the standard of care. However, toxicity leads to early discontinuation in nearly one-third of patients and additional options are needed (McCarthy, et al, JCO, 2017). Ixazomib is another maintenance option that has been shown to improve PFS; however, studies comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib are lacking. In this randomized phase 2 study, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of using lenalidomide and ixazomib as part of consolidation and maintenance therapies after ASCT (NCT02253316). Methods: Eligible patients, age 18-70 with newly diagnosed MM undergoing ASCT during first-line treatment, were consented prior to ASCT. Approximately 4 months following ASCT, patients received 4 cycles of consolidation therapy with IRd [ixazomib 4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle, lenalidomide 15 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8 and 15]. Primary data on IRd consolidation were presented at ASH 2018 (Abstract 109920). One month after the last consolidation cycle, patients were randomized (1:1) to maintenance therapy with single-agent ixazomib (4 mg on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle) or lenalidomide (10 mg daily months 1-3 followed by 15 mg for months 4+). The arms were stratified based on MRD-status post-consolidation. In total, 237 patients were enrolled from 10 US centers. This abstract coincides with planned interim analysis 3 which is the first comparison of ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance. While the study was not powered to compare PFS between the two arms, the sample will provide a reasonable power to estimate non-inferiority. There is a planned stopping rule for non-inferiority set at a hazard ratio of &gt;1.3 in favor of lenalidomide. Secondary end-points include MRD-negativity following 12 cycles and toxicity. Results: At time of abstract submission, 215 patients had completed IRd consolidation and 191 had begun maintenance. 90 were randomized to ixazomib and 94 to lenalidomide. 7 patients were not randomized due to toxicity during consolidation; data from these patients are not included in the analyses. The characteristics of the two arms are summarized in Table 1. Hematologic toxicity has been infrequent with ixazomib with neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurring in 11% and 23% of patients. In comparison, neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred in 45% and 35% of patients on lenalidomide. The most common non-hematologic toxicities in both arms have been GI-related and infections, both expected events. 16% of patients on ixazomib have experienced Grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicity compared to 34% on lenalidomide. No grade 3 or higher peripheral neuropathy has been reported in either arm. 11% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued due to toxicity and another 9% have required a dose reduction to 3mg. Lenalidomide toxicity has led to discontinuation in 15% of patients and another 12% were dose reduced to 5mg. Only 45% of patients receiving 4+ cycles of lenalidomide were able to titrate to the 15mg dose. After a median follow-up of 11.2 months from randomization (19.7 months post-ASCT), 30% of patients on ixazomib have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. After a median follow-up of 12.3 months from randomization (20.2 months post-ASCT), 18% patients on lenalidomide have discontinued treatment due to disease progression. Conclusion: Ixazomib and lenalidomide maintenance have been well tolerated to date. A comparison of PFS is currently being conducted as part of interim analysis 3 and final results will be presented, representing the first report directly comparing lenalidomide and ixazomib maintenance. Table 1: Disclosures Vij: Genentech: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Martin:Amgen, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Roche and Juno: Consultancy. Fiala:Incyte: Research Funding. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Kaufman:Celgene: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Hofmeister:Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria; Nektar: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imbrium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gregory:Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Berdeja:AbbVie Inc, Amgen Inc, Acetylon Pharmaceuticals Inc, Bluebird Bio, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Celgene Corporation, Constellation Pharma, Curis Inc, Genentech, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech Inc, Kesios Therapeutics, Lilly, Novartis, Poseida: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Amgen Inc, BioClinica, Celgene Corporation, CRISPR Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Janssen Biotech Inc, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kite Pharma Inc, Prothena, Servier, Takeda Oncology: Consultancy. Chari:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Millennium/Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Oncoceutics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Rosko:Vyxeos: Other: Travel support.

MDJ and MTJ contributed equally; FLL and AG contributed equally. Introduction Axicabtagene ciloleucel (axi-cel) and tisagenlecleucel (tisa-cel) are autologous anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapies approved for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) who have failed at least two lines of systemic therapy. In the ZUMA-1 trial that led to axi-cel approval, the median time between apheresis and delivery of CAR T cells to the treating facility was 17 days (Neelapu, Locke et al. NEJM 2018). Bridging therapy, defined as lymphoma therapy given between apheresis and the start of lymphodepleting chemotherapy, was not permitted on ZUMA-1. By contrast, the pivotal JULIET trial for tisa-cel (Schuster et al. NEJM 2019) had a median time from enrollment to infusion of 54 days and 92% of patients received bridging therapy. Whether bridging therapy affects lymphoma CAR T outcomes is unknown. Here we evaluate patients receiving bridging therapy for axi-cel in a large multicenter cohort. Methods and Results The US Lymphoma CAR T Consortium includes seventeen US academic centers that contribute data from lymphoma patients treated with standard of care (SOC) CAR T-cell therapy independently of manufacturers. As of 8/31/2018, 300 patients were apheresed with intent to manufacture SOC axi-cel for LBCL. Of the 23 patients that underwent apheresis for axi-cel and did not receive it, 20 had lymphoma progression or death that precluded CAR T infusion, of which 16 received bridging therapy. In this study, we analyze the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population of 276 patients receiving CAR T infusion with a median follow up of 9 months. In this group, 146 (53%) patients received bridging therapy while 130 (47%) patients received no bridging therapy. Bridging therapy consisted of steroids alone (n = 35, 24%), chemotherapy (n = 73, 50%), radiation (n = 24, 16%), or targeted therapies (n = 14, 10%). At baseline, a higher proportion of patients in the bridging therapy group had an ECOG score of 2 - 4 vs. 0 - 1 (bridging 24.8%, no bridging 6.1%, p &lt;0.001), IPI score of 3 -5 vs. 0 - 2 (bridging 67.6%, no bridging 34.3%, p &lt;0.001), bulky disease greater than 10 cm (28.2% vs. 13.0%, p = 0.002), immunohistochemical double expression of MYC and BCL2 (42.5% vs. 24.6%, p =0.004) and would not have met all the eligibility criteria for ZUMA-1 for reasons other than bridging therapy (48.6% vs. 30.0%, p = 0.002). After axi-cel infusion, patients in the bridging group had similar rates of severe (grade 3 or higher) cytokine release syndrome (CRS) (8.2% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.34) and ICANS (35.2% vs. 28.2%, p = 0.25). However, the rate of ICU admission was higher in the bridging group (41.4% vs. 22.9%, p = 0.001) as was median length of hospital stay (15 vs. 14 days, p = 0.02). While data on cytopenias was not collected, use of G-CSF after CAR T therapy was higher in the bridging group (48.2% vs. 32.1%, p = 0.006). In terms of outcomes, in multivariate analysis correcting for confounding features, there was no statistically significant difference in overall response rate (p = 0.2), complete response rate (p = 0.19), and progression free survival (p = 0.3) between bridging and no bridging groups; but bridging therapy was associated with significantly poorer overall survival (p = 0.001) and lymphoma specific survival (p = 0.019) (figure 1.). Both death due to lymphoma (33.1% vs. 13.0%) and death due to treatment-related mortality (TRM) (6.9% vs. 1.5%) were higher in the bridging group (p &lt;0.001). Conclusions Lymphoma patients receiving bridging therapy had poorer prognostic factors at baseline and after axi-cel infusion experienced decreased lymphoma-specific and overall survival compared with patients with no bridging. This inferior outcome raises the possibility that bridging therapy may identify a sub-group of lymphoma patients with a different biology, or alternatively, bridging therapy may have an effect on the host or the tumor microenvironment that may impact CAR-T efficacy. With or without bridging, 7% of patients in our series did not receive axi-cel due to lymphoma progression and/or death. In addition, there may have been patients where bridging prevented progression or death prior to axi-cel infusion. Prospective evaluation of different bridging strategies is warranted to determine if any can improve outcomes after axi-cel, and/or if they should be utilized only for patients requiring emergent disease control during the manufacture period. Disclosures Jain: Kite/Gilead: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Spectrum: Honoraria. Lin:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BlueBird Bio: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sorrento: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lunning:Curis: Research Funding; Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; MiRagen: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; DAVA: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; OncLive: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; VANIUM: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy. Reagan:Kite, A Gilead Company: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Oluwole:Pfizer: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy. McGuirk:Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation. Deol:Novartis: Other: Advisory board; Kite: Other: Advisory board; Agios: Other: Advisory board. Goy:University of Nebraska: Research Funding; Hakensackumc: Research Funding; Astrazenca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Hackensack University Medical Center, RCCA: Employment; Genentech: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; Takeda: Other: Grants outside of the submitted work; COTA: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: leadership role for profit healthcare company. Hill:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celegene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Munoz:Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Fosunkite: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics /Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy. Chavez:Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Kite Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Speakers Bureau. Vose:Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Grants, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Legend Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Miklos:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Juno: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite-Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AlloGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Precision Bioscience: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Miltenyi Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Becton Dickinson: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Neelapu:Cellectis: Research Funding; Allogene: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; BMS: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Karus: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Precision Biosciences: Consultancy; Cell Medica: Consultancy. Bennani:Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Andreadis:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Roche: Equity Ownership; Celgene: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Employment; Merck: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy. Sehgal:Juno/Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Research Funding. Locke:Novartis: Other: Scientific Advisor; Kite: Other: Scientific Advisor; Cellular BioMedicine Group Inc.: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Gastric cancer risk evolves over time due to environmental, dietary, and lifestyle changes including Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection and consumption of hot peppers (i.e. capsaicin). H. pylori infection promotes gastric mucosal injury in the early phase of capsaicin exposure. In addition, capsaicin consumption is reported to suppress immune function and increase host susceptibility to microbial infection. This relationship suggests a need to investigate the mechanism of how both H. pylori infection and capsaicin contribute to gastric inflammation and lead to gastric cancer. No previous experimental animal models have been developed to study this dual association. Here we developed a series of mouse models that progress from chronic gastritis to gastric cancer. C57-Balb/c mice were infected with the H. pylori (SS1) strain and then fed capsaicin (0.05% or 0.2g/kg/day) or not. Consequently, we investigated the association between H. pylori infection and capsaicin consumption during the initiation of gastric inflammation and the later development of gastric cancer. Tumor size and phenotype were analyzed to determine the molecular mechanism driving the shift from gastritis to stomach cancer. Gastric carcinogenesis was also prevented in these models using the ornithine decarboxylase inhibitor DFMO (2-difluoromethylornithine). Results: This study provides evidence showing that a combination of H. pylori infection and capsaicin consumption leads to gastric carcinogenesis. The transition from chronic gastritis to gastric cancer is mediated through interleukin-6 (IL-6) stimulation with an incidence rate of 50%. However, this progression can be prevented by treating with anti-inflammatory agents. In particular, we used DFMO to prevent gastric tumorigenesis by reducing inflammation and promoting recovery of disease-free stasis. The anti-inflammatory role of DFMO highlights the injurious effect of inflammation in gastric cancer development and the need to reduce gastric inflammation for cancer prevention. Conclusions: Overall, these mouse models provide reliable systems for analyzing the molecular mechanisms and synergistic effects of H. pylori and capsaicin on human cancer etiology. Accordingly, preventive measures like reduced capsaicin consumption, H. pylori clearance, and DFMO treatment can lessen gastric cancer incidence. Lastly, anti-inflammatory agents like DFMO can play important roles in prevention of inflammation-associated gastric cancer.

We clarify that DNA damage triggers autophagy by CHK2-FOXK axis, and misregulation of this pathway leads to chemoresistance.

Background: Bronchial carcinoid often appears hypervascular on bronchoscopic visualization and may be associated with hemoptysis. The diagnostic yield and bleeding complications associated with bronchoscopic biopsy of bronchial carcinoid tumors remain unclear. Materials and Methods: Patients with bronchial carcinoid tumors that were bronchoscopically visualized and biopsied at our tertiary referral medical center, over an 8-year period from 2010 to 2017, were retrospectively identified and reviewed to assess diagnostic yield and bleeding complications. Correlations with patient characteristics and carcinoid tumor features were analyzed. Results: Forty-nine patients were included (57% female). Tumors were predominantly (71%) located in proximal airways (mainstem and lobar bronchi). Bronchoscopic biopsy was diagnostic in 45 patients (92%). Thirteen patients (27%) experienced moderate (n=12, 25%) or severe (n=1, 2%) bleeding. Among these, 6 tumors (46%) had a vascular appearance and 4 patients (31%) had experienced recent hemoptysis. However, neither vascularity nor hemoptysis was associated with bleeding at biopsy (P=0.68 and 0.73, respectively). Carcinoid tumors were classified as typical in 79% and atypical in 21% with no difference in diagnostic yield or bleeding risk (P=0.28 and 0.92, respectively). Tumor size was also not associated with increased diagnostic yield or bleeding risk (P=0.54 and 0.39, respectively). Conclusion: Bronchoscopic biopsy of endobronchial carcinoid is associated with a high diagnostic yield and severe bleeding is rarely encountered. Diagnostic yield and bleeding seemed independent of vascular tumor appearance or history of recent hemoptysis.

Abstract BACKGROUND The newest advances in DNA sequencing are based on technologies that perform massively parallel sequencing (MPS). Since 2006, the output from MPS platforms has increased from 20 Mb to &gt;7 Tb. First-generation MPS platforms amplify individual DNA molecules to multiple copies and then interrogate the sequence of those molecules. Second-generation MPS analyzes single unamplified molecules to generate much longer sequence reads but with less output than first-generation MPS and lower first-pass accuracy. With MPS technologies, it is now possible to analyze genomes, exomes, a defined subset of genes, transcriptomes, and even methylation across the genome. These technologies have and will continue to completely transform the clinical practice. CONTENT The major first- and second-generation MPS platforms and how they are used in clinical practice are discussed. SUMMARY The ability to sequence terabases of DNA per run on an MPS platform will dramatically change how DNA sequencing is used in clinical practice. Currently, MPS of targeted gene panels is the most common use of this technology clinically, but as the cost for genome sequencing inches downward to $100, this may soon become the method of choice (with the caveat that, at least in the near term, clinical-grade genome sequencing with interpretation may cost much more than $100). Other uses of this technology include sequencing of a mixture of bacterial and viral species (metagenomics), as well as the characterization of methylation across the genome.