Citations

Purpose: To describe the multimodal imaging findings of extensive choroidal caverns within a choroidal nevus in an eye with pachychoroid spectrum disease. Methods: A 69-year-old woman was referred with a known history of branch retinal vein occlusion in the right eye and choroidal nevus in the left eye. Fundus examination of both eyes revealed subretinal yellow deposits, suggestive of pachydrusen. Retinal venous collaterals were noted in the temporal macular of the right eye. A lightly pigmented choroidal lesion with nearly confluent overlying drusen and retinal pigment epithelial alterations, consistent with chronic choroidal nevus, was noted in the macula of the left eye. Results: Optical coherence tomography B-scans revealed thickened choroid (pachychoroid) with subfoveal choroidal thickness of 504 µ m and 580 µ m with large hyporeflective spaces suggestive of pachyvessels in both eyes. In the region of the choroidal nevus, the choroidal vascular spaces appeared comparatively large and were classified as “caverns” measuring up to 480 µ m in diameter. Optical coherence tomography angiography and indocyanine green angiography demonstrated the absence of flow within the caverns. Indocyanine green angiography further illustrated choroidal vascular hyperpermeability with patchy hyperfluorescent areas in both eyes. Wide-field swept-source optical coherence tomography showed mild posterior scleral bowing, a feature occasionally documented with choroidal nevus, and highlighted greater hyporeflectivity and hypertransmission on optical coherence tomography within the caverns compared with the noncavernous choroidal vessels. Conclusion: Choroidal caverns can occur within choroidal nevus in the setting of pachychoroid disease.

ABSTRACTThere is a high prevalence of blood-borne infections in West Africa. This study sought to determine the seroprevalence of blood-borne infections, including hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), HIV, and syphilis, in blood donors in Burkina Faso. Blood donors were recruited from 2009 to 2013 in four major cities in Burkina Faso of urban area (Ouagadougou) and rural area (Bobo Dioulasso, Fada N’Gourma, and Ouahigouya). Serology tests including hepatitis B surface antigen, anti-HCV, anti-HIV, and rapid plasma reagin test were used for screening and were confirmed with ELISA. Disease prevalence was calculated among first-time donors. Incidence and residual risk were calculated from repeat donors. There were 166,681 donors; 43,084 had ≥ 2 donations. The overall seroprevalence of HBV, HCV, HIV, and syphilis were 13.4%, 6.9%, 2.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. The incidence rates (IRs) of HBV, HCV, HIV, and syphilis infection were 2,433, 3,056, 1,121, and 1,287 per 100,000 person-years. There was lower seroprevalence of HBV and HCV in urban area than in rural area (12.9% versus 14.0%, P < 0.001; and 5.9% versus 8.0%, P < 0.001), and no difference in HIV (2.1% versus 2.1%, P = 0.25). The IRs of new HBV, HCV, HIV, and syphilis were 2.43, 3.06, 1.12, and 1.29 per 100,000 person-years, respectively. The residual risk was one per 268 donations for HBV, one per 181 donations for HCV, and one per 1,480 donations for HIV, respectively. In conclusion, this comprehensive study from four blood donation sites in Burkina Faso showed high HBV and HCV seroprevalence and incidence with high residual risk from blood donation.

Abstract Background: Pregnancy-related issues are a priority for young breast cancer (BC) patients. Increasing evidence has shown that pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis is feasible. Nevertheless, few BC survivors conceive following anticancer treatment completion and many physicians remain concerned about the potentially detrimental effects of pregnancy after BC in terms of fetal/obstetrical outcomes and maternal prognosis. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims at providing updated and solid evidence on these important issues. Methods: A systematic literature review up to January 31, 2020 with no language restriction was conducted to identify studies including patients with a pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis. Chances of pregnancy after BC, fetal and obstetrical outcomes, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Pooled relative risks (RRs), hazard ratios (HRs) or odds ratio (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using the random effects models. The study is registered with the PROSPERO registration number CRD42020158324. Results: Overall, 39 studies were included. Out of the 8,265,713 young women included in these studies, 8,093,401 were from the general population, 57,739 had cancers other than BC, 114,573 had BC. Among the 114,573 BC patients, 7,505 had a pregnancy after BC diagnosis and 107,068 did not. Compared to women from the general population, BC patients had 60% reduced chances of having a pregnancy following anticancer treatment completion (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.32-0.49). Among other cancer patients, only women with prior cervical cancer had lower pregnancy rates (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.31-0.35) than BC patients. Compared to the general population, BC survivors had significantly increased risks of low birth weight (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.31-1.73), small for gestational age (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01-1.33), preterm delivery (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.11-1.88) and caesarean section (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25). No significant increased risk of congenital abnormalities (OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.89-2.98) or other pregnancy or delivery complications (spontaneous or induced abortion, gestosis, antepartum or postpartum hemorrhage) was observed. Prior chemotherapy exposure or short pregnancy interval (defined as &lt;2 or &lt;5 years after BC diagnosis) were not associated with additional increased risk of complications. Pregnancy after BC was not associated with a negative impact on patients’ outcomes. Compared to BC patients without subsequent pregnancy, those with pregnancy after BC had better OS (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.46-0.67) and DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56-0.94). Similar results were observed in the studies correcting for the potential “healthy mother effect” (OS: HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.42-0.65; DFS: HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96). No detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after BC was observed in patients with hormone-receptor positive disease (DFS: HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.73-1.66), while better outcomes were observed for those with hormone-receptor negative disease (DFS: HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.55-0.95). The safety of pregnancy after BC was observed irrespective of BRCA status, nodal status, previous chemotherapy exposure, pregnancy interval and pregnancy outcomes. Conclusions: This large meta-analysis provides solid evidence on the safety of pregnancy after prior BC diagnosis. The increased risk of fetal and obstetrical complications (but not of congenital abnormalities) calls for ensuring a closer monitoring of these pregnancies. The significantly reduced chances of conceiving as compared to the general population and other cancer patients should raise further awareness on the need to improve the oncofertility counseling of young BC patients wishing to complete their family planning following anticancer treatment completion. Citation Format: Eva Blondeaux, Marta Perachino, Marco Bruzzone, Richard A. Anderson, Evandro De Azambuja, Philip D. Poorvu, Hee Jeong Kim, Cynthia Villarreal-Garza, Barbara Pistilli, Ines Vaz-Luis, Cristina Saura, Kathryn J. Ruddy, Maria Alice Franzoi, Chiara Sertoli, Marcello Ceppi, Hatem A. Azim, Jr., Frederic Amant, Isabelle Demeestere, Lucia Del Mastro, Ann H. Partridge, Olivia Pagani, Fedro A. Peccatori, Matteo Lambertini. Chances of pregnancy after breast cancer, reproductive and disease outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS3-09.

Background: Arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy (ACM) is an inherited cardiac disease characterized by fibrofatty replacement of the right and left ventricle, often causing ventricular dysfunction and life-threatening arrhythmias. Variants in desmosomal genes account for up to 60% of cases. Our objective was to establish the prevalence and clinical features of ACM stemming from pathogenic variants in the nondesmosomal cadherin 2 (CDH2), a novel genetic substrate of ACM. Methods: A cohort of 500 unrelated patients with a definite diagnosis of ACM and no disease-causing variants in the main ACM genes was assembled. Genetic screening of CDH2 was performed through next-generation or Sanger sequencing. Whenever possible, cascade screening was initiated in the families of CDH2 -positive probands, and clinical evaluation was performed. Results: Genetic screening of CDH2 led to the identification of 7 rare variants: 5, identified in 6 probands, were classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic. The previously established p.D407N pathogenic variant was detected in 2 additional probands. Probands and family members with pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in CDH2 were clinically evaluated, and along with previously published cases, altogether contributed to the identification of gene-specific features (13 cases from this cohort and 11 previously published, for a total of 9 probands and 15 family members). Ventricular arrhythmic events occurred in most CDH2 -positive subjects (20/24, 83%), while the occurrence of heart failure was rare (2/24, 8.3%). Among probands, sustained ventricular tachycardia and sudden cardiac death occurred in 5/9 (56%). Conclusions: In this worldwide cohort of previously genotype-negative ACM patients, the prevalence of probands with CDH2 pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants was 1.2% (6/500). Our data show that this cohort of CDH2 -ACM patients has a high incidence of ventricular arrhythmias, while evolution toward heart failure is rare.

Background Eculizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting C5, is an effective treatment for complement-mediated thrombotic microangiopathy (CM-TMA), also known as atypical hemolytic uremic syndrome. Although lifelong therapy has been suggested, the optimal treatment schedule is unknown, while eculizumab discontinuation does not universally lead to relapse. Data evaluating risk factors associated with an increased risk of CM-TMA recurrence following eculizumab withdrawal are scarce. Prior to the eculizumab era, complement genetic studies have been used to assess morbidity and mortality in patients with CM-TMA. Our aim was to assess the impact of complement gene variants on CM-TMA relapse rate (RR) after eculizumab discontinuation. Methods Search protocols were developed for the Ovid and PubMed databases to identify existing reports on CM-TMA and eculizumab withdrawal published before February 1st 2020. Cases were cross-referenced to eliminate duplicates. Inclusion criteria included patients diagnosed with CM-TMA who had undergone eculizumab discontinuation. Reasons for exclusion were patients with no follow-up after eculizumab withdrawal and patients lacking complement gene testing. Patients undergoing eculizumab dose extension, but not discontinuation, were not included. Results Fifteen studies including 557 individuals were retrieved. Of these, 363 (65.2%) were excluded as outlined in Figure 1 and 194 cases were included in the final analysis with a global RR of 28.9% (n=56). Distribution based on gene impacted and variant type are presented in Table 1. RR was highest among patients with CFH variants (52.5% to 60%) -particularly if involving exon 22 or nonsense mutations-, MCP/CD46 variants (38.9% to 45%) -particularly if affecting splice regions-, and cases with multiple concomitant variants (57.1%) -particularly those including CFH or a CFH-CFHR1 Hybrid (Table 2). Patients with relapse were more likely to have the presence of a complement variant (p&lt;0.001), history of previously resolved CM-TMA events (p=0.022), younger age (mean age 22.4 years for patients with relapse vs. 32.33 years for patients without relapse; p=0.002) and, within those with detected variants, multiple vs. single variants (p=0.002) and CFH-inclusive variants (p=0.003). On univariate analysis, complement gene variants (OR 4.217 95%CI 1.97-9.026; p&lt;0.001), age &lt;30 years (OR 2.346 95%CI 1.159-4.749; p=0.018), and presence of multiple variants (OR 2.06 95%CI 1.172-3.621; p=0.012) or CFH-inclusive variants (OR 3.111 95%CI 1.443-6.71; p=0.004) were associated with increased odds of CM-TMA relapse, while no prior history of additional CM-TMA events was the only factor associated with lower RR (OR 0.327 95%CI 0.123-0.87; p=0.025). Presence of complement variants (OR 4.48 95%CI 1.132-17.724; p=0.033) and CFH-inclusive variants (OR 3.045 95%CI 1.136-8.159; p=0.027) were independently associated with increased RR on multivariate analysis (Table 3). Conclusion Relapse after eculizumab discontinuation is rare in cases with no genetic variants identified but can increase to more than 80% in high-risk subgroups. Complement genetic testing is not required for CM-TMA diagnosis or for initiation of complement inhibiting therapy; however, our results demonstrate the value of complement genetic testing when stratifying risk of patients for consideration of eculizumab discontinuation. Disclosures Sridharan: Alexion: Honoraria.

Background: ENA is an oral, selective inhibitor of IDH2 approved for the treatment (Tx) of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory IDH2 mutated (IDH2m) AML. Here we report the results of a Phase 2 expansion and Phase 1b of the Beat AML Master Trial Phase 2/1b sub-study to assess the efficacy of Tx of newly diagnosed (ND) IDH2m AML pts ≥ 60 years of age with ENA monotherapy (ENAm) and subsequent response-driven addition of AZA Tx. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03013998). Methods: The study initiated with a 3-outcome, 2-stage Phase 2 design, which enrolled patients on ENAm for up to 5 cycles. Pts without CR/CRi after 5 cycles of ENAm, or progression/intolerance prior to this time, were transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA (Figure 1). Key eligibility included ND IDH2m AML pts with age ≥ 60 years and ECOG performance status 0-2. Pts received ENAm 100 mg/day in continuous 28-day cycles and ENA + AZA (75 mg/m2 days 1-7 every 28 days) for Phase 1b. Response was assessed using 2017 ELN AML criteria. The primary endpoint was CR/CRi rate. The 2-stage design required 24 pts and tested the null hypothesis (H0) that CR/CRi rate equaled 20% vs 50% and then expanded to test a revised H0 of 30% vs 50% in 60 pts (conditional alpha=0.025, power=77%). Expansion also allowed further assessment of safety of this treatment regimen. Results: At data cut off (06/18/2020), 60 pts enrolled, received ENAm, and were evaluable for the primary endpoint. Median age was 75 years and 52% were female (Table 1). Median time on ENAm was 4.7 months (mos). At data cut off, 12 pts were still on ENAm Tx. Most common reasons for discontinuing ENAm were Tx failure (defined as no response to treatment) (23 or 38%), disease progression (loss of response to treatment) (7 or 12%) and adverse events (AEs; 6 or 10%). Five pts (8%) went to transplant. CR/CRi was achieved in 28 pts (47%; adjusted 95% CI 28-59, unadjusted exact 95% CI 34-60) (Table 2). Responses were higher (p=0.04) among the 44 pts with IDH2 R140 (55%) as compared to the 16 with IDH2 R172 mutation (25%) further supporting distinct biology between these subsets. After a median follow up of 14.6 mos, the median overall survival (mOS) was 24.4 mos (95% CI 10.6-not reached). The median duration of response was not reached with 12 mos estimation of 57% (95% CI 34-75). Overall, 20 ENA-related serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 15 pts, the most common was differentiation syndrome (12 or 20%) and 1 had ENA-related SAE of tumor lysis syndrome (1.7%). One pt had ENA-related Grade 5 AE (renal failure/death). Most common AEs of any grade (in ≥20%) were nausea, anemia, and low potassium (Table 3). The 7-day/30-day/60-day deaths observed with ENAm were 2%/5%/11%, respectively. Phase 1b: Seventeen pts had inadequate response to ENAm and transferred to Phase 1b to receive ENA + AZA. Median time on Tx (including ENAm) was 6.2 mos and median time on Tx after pts started ENA + AZA was 2.1 mos (Table 2). Most common reasons for discontinuing ENA + AZA included Tx failure (5 or 29%), disease progression (2 or 12%), transplant, death and AEs (each 2 or 12%). CR/CRi was 41% (exact 95% CI 18-67). After a median follow up of 12.7 mos, the mOS from start of ENA + AZA combination Tx was 8.9 mos. Four ENA-related SAEs occurred in 3 pts on ENA + AZA Tx and the most common was differentiation syndrome (2 or 12.5%). One dose-limiting toxicity (Grade 3 nausea) related to both Txs was observed. Most common AEs (≥20%) of any grade were anemia, low albumin and vomiting (Table 3). One death occurred at day 13 of ENA + AZA. Conclusions: In newly diagnosed pts ≥60 years old with IDH2m AML, ENA had a low early death rate, high CR/CRi rate (47%, adjusted 95% CI 28-59), and yielded durable remissions. The most common unique toxicity with ENA was differentiation syndrome that occurred in 20% of patients. In pts who did not achieve CR/CRi with ENAm, a subset of patients achieved CR/CRi with addition of AZA. This combined approach of serial therapy with ENA monotherapy followed by AZA addition in pts with sub-optimal response resulted in a mOS exceeding 2 years for pts enrolled on study. Further focus on improving response among patients with IDH2 R172 mutations, identifying subsets of pts not responding to ENA monotherapy, and integrating new targeted agents into this treatment regimen are warranted. Figure 1 Disclosures Stein: Syndax: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy; Biotheryx: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; PTC Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Consultancy. Borate:Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: 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, Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-funded clinical trials; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Baer:Takeda: Other: Institutional research funding; AbbVie: Other: Institutional research funding; Astellas: Other: Institutional research funding; Forma: Other: Institutional research funding; Kite: Other: Institutional research funding; Oscotec: Other: Institutional research funding; Incyte: Other: Institutional research funding. Kovacsovics:Agios: Honoraria; Astella: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria. Schiller:Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding; Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Olin:Astellas: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Other: Site PI; Pfizer: Other: Site PI; Daiichi Sankyo: Other: Site PI; Genentech: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Foran:Trillium: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Lin:Trovagene: Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Prescient Therapeutics: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Bio-Path Holdings: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Aptevo: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Mateon Therapeutics: Research Funding; Ono Pharmaceutical: Research Funding; Jazz: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Genetech-Roche: Research Funding; Celyad: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Patel:DAVA Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy; France Foundation: Honoraria. Foster:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Druker:Leukemia & Lymphoma Society: Research Funding; Henry Stewart Talks: Patents & Royalties; Iterion Therapeutics (formerly Beta Cat Pharmaceuticals): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Vivid Biosciences: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GRAIL: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Patient True Talks: Consultancy; The RUNX1 Research Program: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Third Coast Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; VB Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millipore (formerly Upstate Biotechnology): Patents & Royalties; MolecularMD (acquired by ICON): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; McGraw Hill: Patents & Royalties; Merck & Co: Patents & Royalties; Cepheid: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dana-Farber Cancer Institute: Patents & Royalties; EnLiven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Aptose Therapeutics Inc. (formerly Lorus): Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ARIAD: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ALLCRON: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Aileron Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Research Funding; Oregon Health & Science University: Patents & Royalties. Byrd:Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Syndax: Research Funding; Vincera: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Janssen, Novartis, Gilead, TG Therapeutics: Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, Novartis, Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Research Funding; Kartos Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other; Janssen: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, Gilead, TG Therapeutics, BeiGene: Research Funding. Levine:Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Astellas: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria. Mims:Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kura Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Leukemia and Lymphoma Society: Other: Senior Medical Director for Beat AML Study; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; Syndax Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios: Consultancy; Novartis: Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Enasidenib is not approved for the treatment of newly diagnosed AML.

Abstract Approximately one‐third of patients diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma presenting with Stage IV disease do not survive past 5 years. We present updated efficacy and safety analyses in high‐risk patient subgroups, defined by Stage IV disease or International Prognostic Score (IPS) of 4–7, enrolled in the ECHELON‐1 study that compared brentuximab vedotin plus doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A + AVD) versus doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) as first‐line therapy after a median follow‐up of 37.1 months. Among patients treated with A + AVD ( n = 664) or ABVD ( n = 670), 64% had Stage IV disease and 26% had an IPS of 4–7. Patients with Stage IV disease treated with A + AVD showed consistent improvements in PFS at 3 years as assessed by investigator (hazard ratio [HR], 0.723; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.537–0.973; p = 0.032). Similar improvements were seen in the subgroup of patients with IPS of 4–7 (HR, 0.588; 95% CI, 0.386–0.894; p = 0.012). The most common adverse events (AEs) in A + AVD‐treated versus ABVD‐treated patients with Stage IV disease were peripheral neuropathy (67% vs. 40%) and neutropenia (71% vs. 55%); in patients with IPS of 4–7, the most common AEs were peripheral neuropathy (69% vs. 45%), neutropenia (66% vs. 55%), and febrile neutropenia (23% vs. 9%), respectively. Patients in high‐risk subgroups did not experience greater AE incidence or severity than patients in the total population. This updated analysis of ECHELON‐1 shows a favorable benefit‐risk balance in high‐risk patients.

PURPOSE This trial assessed the utility of applying tumor DNA sequencing to treatment selection for patients with advanced, refractory cancer and somatic mutations in one of four signaling pathways by comparing the efficacy of four study regimens that were either matched to the patient's aberrant pathway (experimental arm) or not matched to that pathway (control arm). MATERIALS AND METHODS Adult patients with an actionable mutation of interest were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive either (1) a study regimen identified to target the aberrant pathway found in their tumor (veliparib with temozolomide or adavosertib with carboplatin [DNA repair pathway], everolimus [PI3K pathway], or trametinib [RAS/RAF/MEK pathway]), or (2) one of the same four regimens, but chosen from among those not targeting that pathway. RESULTS Among 49 patients treated in the experimental arm, the objective response rate was 2% (95% CI, 0% to 10.9%). One of 20 patients (5%) in the experimental trametinib cohort had a partial response. There were no responses in the other cohorts. Although patients and physicians were blinded to the sequencing and random assignment results, a higher pretreatment dropout rate was observed in the control arm (22%) compared with the experimental arm (6%; P = .038), suggesting that some patients may have had prior tumor mutation profiling performed that led to a lack of participation in the control arm. CONCLUSION Further investigation, better annotation of predictive biomarkers, and the development of more effective agents are necessary to inform treatment decisions in an era of precision cancer medicine. Increasing prevalence of tumor mutation profiling and preference for targeted therapy make it difficult to use a randomized phase II design to evaluate targeted therapy efficacy in an advanced disease setting.

The NCCN Guidelines for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) provide recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of adults with AML based on clinical trials that have led to significant improvements in treatment, or have yielded new information regarding factors with prognostic importance, and are intended to aid physicians with clinical decision-making. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent select updates to the NCCN Guidelines, including familial genetic alterations in AML, postinduction or postremission treatment strategies in low-risk acute promyelocytic leukemia or favorable-risk AML, principles surrounding the use of venetoclax-based therapies, and considerations for patients who prefer not to receive blood transfusions during treatment.