Citations

Key Points Asymptomatic pyuria is associated with kidney failure and faster kidney function decline irrespective of the ADPKD gene and cystic growth. The eGFR decline occurred after detection of asymptomatic pyuria without significant changes in the rate of total kidney volume growth. This study supports the use of asymptomatic pyuria as an enriching prognostic biomarker to predict faster disease progression. Background Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) has phenotypic variability only partially explained by established biomarkers that do not readily assess pathologically important factors of inflammation and kidney fibrosis. We evaluated asymptomatic pyuria (AP), a surrogate marker of inflammation, as a biomarker for disease progression. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with ADPKD. Patients were divided into AP and no pyuria (NP) groups. We evaluated the effect of pyuria on kidney function and kidney volume. Longitudinal models evaluating kidney function and kidney volume rate of change with respect to incidences of AP were created. Results There were 687 included patients (347 AP, 340 NP). The AP group had more women (65% versus 49%). Median ages at kidney failure were 86 and 80 years in the NP and AP groups (log rank, P =0.49), respectively, for patients in Mayo Imaging Class (MIC) 1A–1B as compared with 59 and 55 years for patients in MIC 1C–1D–1E (log rank, P =0.02), respectively. Compared with the NP group, the rate of kidney function (ml/min per 1.73 m 2 per year) decline shifted significantly after detection of AP in the models, including all patients (−1.48; P <0.001), patients in MIC 1A–1B (−1.79; P <0.001), patients in MIC 1C–1D–1E (−1.18; P <0.001), and patients with PKD1 (−1.04; P <0.001). Models evaluating kidney volume rate of growth showed no change after incidence of AP as compared with the NP group. Conclusions AP is associated with kidney failure and faster kidney function decline irrespective of the ADPKD gene, cystic burden, and cystic growth. These results support AP as an enriching prognostic biomarker for the rate of disease progression.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Over the past few years, the NCCN Guidelines for Melanoma: Cutaneous have been expanded to include pathways for treatment of microscopic satellitosis (added in v2.2020), and the following Principles sections: Molecular Testing (added in v2.2019), Systemic Therapy Considerations (added in v2.2020), and Brain Metastases Management (added in v3.2020). The v1.2021 update included additional modifications of these sections and notable revisions to Principles of: Pathology, Surgical Margins for Wide Excision of Primary Melanoma, Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy, Completion/Therapeutic Lymph Node Dissection, and Radiation Therapy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights discuss the important changes to pathology and surgery recommendations, as well as additions to systemic therapy options for patients with advanced disease.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Abstract Background: Despite the promise of targeted agents in hematology, the high price of cancer therapies is a rapidly evolving problem. Until now, the increase in price of targeted anti-cancer treatments used in common hematological malignancies has not been evaluated. Here, we report patterns in price changes from 2015-2019 for multiple in-class anticancer medications for common hematologic malignancies. Methods: We utilized the publicly available Medicare Part D provider utilization and payment database from 2015 to 2019. We extracted drug prices (using generic names) for commonly used targeted anticancer agents for acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma. The primary outcome was the correlation of average change in Medicare spending per dosage unit among the multiple brand-name medications within each class available. We additionally calculated compound annual growth rates (CAGRs) [i.e. mean annual growth rates over a specified period of time] for medication costs within each class, and compared it with the consumer price index (CPI) (a measure of the average change over time in the prices of consumer items) and inflation rate. Agents without in-class competitor were excluded. CPI and inflation rates came from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Results: The study included 6 BCR-ABL inhibitors (1 generic), 2 BTK inhibitors, 2 IDH inhibitors, 2 FLT3 inhibitors, 3 IMIDs, 3 PI, 2 PI3K inhibitors, and 5 anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies. The median (range) Pearson correlation coefficient values for drugs within each class were -0.155 (-0.984-0.992) for BCR-ABLi, -0.362 for BTKi, 0.234 (0.215-0.999) for IMIDs, 0.899 (-0.034-0.988) for PIs, and 0.954 (0.847-0.999) for anti-CD20 antibodies. The median correlation coefficient for BCR-ABLi was 0.751 if generic imatinib was excluded. The correlation coefficient between 2 nd and 3 rd generation IMIDs was 0.999. Non-generic BCR-ABLi and anti-CD20 antibodies showed strong linear association in price increase between two drugs within the same class. Due to drug novelty, coefficient could not be calculated for therapies with 2 or fewer data points (midostaurin, gilteritinib, enasidenib, ivosidenib, idelalisib, duvelisib). There was no significant correlation between expenditure for BTKi, PIs, and IMIDs. The median CAGRs in costs over this 5-year period were: were 6.29% for BCR-ABLi, 18.36% for BTKi, 2.69% for IDHi, 4.23% for FLT3i, 10.63% for IMIDs, 5.11% for PIs, 5.79% for PI3Ki, and 5.85% for anti-CD20s. The median CAGR in costs for modern precision-driven cancer therapeutic classes outpaced CPI (2.26%/year), and the average inflation rate (1.90%/year). Conclusions: Increase in cost within the same class should be weighed against incremental clinical benefit for the patients. For non-generic BCR-ABLi and anti-CD20 antibodies, despite there being several agents, the rise in drug expenditures correlated closely, calling into question the true value of within-class competition. There is an urgent need for drug pricing reform given the average expenditure of Medicare part D, and ultimately out-of-pocket costs for our patients with cancer continues to trend upwards. Increased advocacy efforts are needed to ensure precision therapeutics remains an attainable and sustainable goal. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: MM that is refractory to a proteasome inhibitor (PI), an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD) and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody (CD38MoAb) is labeled triple-class refractory (TCR) and recognized as a modern therapeutic challenge. In recent years, new agents have shown activity in this setting in single arm trials and many more are in development. The assessment of the impact of new agents in the TCR setting is impaired by limited information on the therapeutic outcomes of these patients when treated with non-investigational therapies. Methods: We utilized an independent RWD dataset of patients with MM refractory to CD38MoAb built from academic collaboration (MAMMOTH study) to identify patients with TCR MM who received subsequent therapy. Patients with MM that was CD38MoAb refractory but not TCR were followed longitudinally and only included if, after subsequent lines of therapy, MM became TCR. Patients were excluded if they had plasma cell leukemia, poor renal function (serum creatinine &gt; 2 mg/dl) or if next therapy after TCR status included experimental agents. Refractoriness to a MM agent was defined as lack of objective response and/or progression while receiving therapy or within 60 days of last dose as per International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) criteria. Time zero for analysis was initiation of next therapy after MM became TCR. Response to therapy and progression were adjudicated utilizing IMWG criteria. MM that was TCR but also exposed to 2 PIs, 2 IMiDs and a CD38MoAb was considered penta-exposed, and when refractory to 2 PIs, 2 IMiDs and a CD38MoAb, it was considered penta-refractory. Results: Data collection occurred between 2016 and 2018 (prior to commercial availability of selinexor, belantamab mafodotin, melflufen or ide-cel). Of 275 patients in the MAMMOTH study, 177 were included. Median age was 65 years (range 27-90), 53% were male, 76% white, 28 % had International Staging System stage 3, and 29% high risk cytogenetics [t(4;14), t(14;16) or del(17p)]. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 5 (range 3-17), median time from diagnosis to TCR was 4.8 years (range 0.9-19.4), 73% had received prior autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation, 84% were refractory to bortezomib or ixazomib, 58% were refractory to carfilzomib, 87% to lenalidomide and 74% to pomalidomide. Penta-exposed patients were 58% and penta-refractory 30%. The first regimen after MM became TCR included cytotoxic chemotherapy in 45%, CD38MoAb in 25%, SLAMF7 MoAb in 7%, carfilzomib in 24%, and pomalidomide in 34% of cases. Overall response rate (ORR) was 30% (20.9% PR, 7.3% VGPR and 1.7% CR). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.8 mo. (95% C.I. 2.3-3.2) and overall survival (OS) 8.6 mo. (95% C.I. 6.8-10.3),(Figure). For Patients with MM that was penta-exposed (N=102), ORR was 30%, median PFS was 2.7 mo (95% C.I 2.1-3.2), and median OS 7.7 mo (95% C.I. 6.0-9.4). For patients with penta-refractory MM (N=53), ORR was 32%, median PFS was 2.5 mo. (95% C.I. 1.7-3.3), and median OS 6.9 mo. (95% C.I. 4.9-8.9). PFS or OS was similar among patients who were TCR but not penta-exposed, TCR plus penta-exposed but not penta- refractory or TCR plus penta-refractory (Figure). Outcomes according to next regimen after MM became TCR are outlined in the Table. In multivariable analysis, no factor was predictor of PFS while refractoriness to carfilzomib (HR 2.2, 95% C.I. 1.5-3.3), presence of high-risk chromosome abnormalities (HR 1.5, 95% C.I. 1.0-2.2) and short interval from diagnosis to TCR (HR 0.92, 95% C.I. 0.85-0.99) were predictors of shorter OS. Conclusions: Patients with TCR MM have a uniformly low chance of response to subsequent conventional therapy with short PFS and OS even when not penta-exposed or penta-refractory. This dataset provides efficacy benchmark for new therapies being developed in this setting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Costa: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cornell: Abvvie: Current Employment. Chhabra: GSK: Honoraria. Liedtke: Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Clinical Trial Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Kansagra: GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; 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; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cota Health: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Alynylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giri: PackHealth: Research Funding; CareVive: Honoraria, Research Funding. Malek: Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Advisory board ; Cumberland Inc.: Research Funding; Bluespark Inc.: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Other: Advisory Board; Medpacto Inc.: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria. Vij: BMS: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Honoraria; CareDx: Honoraria; Legend: Honoraria; Biegene: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Harpoon: Honoraria. Usmani: Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Array BioPharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; EdoPharma: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Hari: Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar: Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: 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; Carsgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Beigene: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Sanofi: Research Funding.

The coexistence of expiratory central airway collapse and diaphragmatic paralysis presents a diagnostic and treatment challenge. Both entities are underrecognized causes of dyspnea, cough, sputum production, and orthopnea. Optimal treatment must be individualized and is best achieved by a multidisciplinary team. We present a case of a patient with profound functional impairment from dyspnea and hypoxemia due to expiratory central airway collapse, complicated by bronchiectasis from recurrent respiratory infections, and diaphragmatic paralysis.

Abstract Background It is unclear how acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-directed therapies are used in children with life-threatening COVID-19 in US hospitals. We described characteristics of children hospitalized in the intensive care unit or step-down unit (ICU/SDU) who received COVID-19-directed therapies and the specific therapies administered. Methods Between March 15, 2020 and December 27, 2020, children &lt;18 years of age in the ICU/SDU with acute COVID-19 at 48 pediatric hospitals in the United States were identified. Demographics, laboratory values, and clinical course were compared in children who did and did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies. Trends in COVID-19-directed therapies over time were evaluated. Results Of 424 children in the ICU/SDU, 235 (55%) received COVID-19-directed therapies. Children who received COVID-19-directed therapies were older than those who did not receive COVID-19-directed therapies (13.3 [5.6-16.2] vs 9.8 [0.65-15.9] years), more had underlying medical conditions (188 [80%] vs 104 [55%]; difference = 25% [95% CI: 16% to 34%]), more received respiratory support (206 [88%] vs 71 [38%]; difference = 50% [95% CI: 34% to 56%]), and more died (8 [3.4%] vs 0). Of the 235 children receiving COVID-19-directed therapies, 172 (73%) received systemic steroids and 150 (64%) received remdesivir, with rising remdesivir use over the study period (14% in March/April to 57% November/December). Conclusion Despite the lack of pediatric data evaluating treatments for COVID-19 in critically ill children, more than half of children requiring intensive or high acuity care received COVID-19-directed therapies.

AbstractIntroductionBronchoscopic lung volume reduction (BLVR) with endobronchial valves (EBVs) has emerged as an important treatment method for patients with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) are a frequent complication following BLVR with EBV. However, there is no consensus on the prevention of AECOPD.ObjectivesOur study aims to compare the outcomes of different prophylactic measures on the occurrence of AECOPD after BLVR with EBV.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, retrospective study of patients who underwent BLVR with EBV at six different institutions. Emphasis was directed towards the specific practices aimed at preventing AECOPD: antibiotics, steroids, antibiotics plus steroids, or no prophylaxis. Subgroups were compared, and odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsA total of 170 patients were reviewed. The rate of AECOPD was 21.2% for the full cohort. Patients who received prophylaxis had a significantly lower rate of AECOPD compared with those who did not (16.7% vs. 46.2%; p = 0.001). The rate was lowest in patients who received antibiotics alone (9.2%). There was no significant difference in the rate of AECOPD between patients who received steroids alone or antibiotics plus steroids, compared with the other subgroups. The OR for AECOPD was 4.3 (95% CI: 1.8–10.4; p = 0.001) for patients not receiving prophylaxis and 3.9 (95% CI: 1.5–10.1; p = 0.004) for prophylaxis other than antibiotics alone.ConclusionsAdministration of antibiotics after BLVR with EBV was associated with a lower rate of AECOPD. This was not observed with the use of steroids or in combination with antibiotics.