Citations

Objective Activin A, an inflammatory mediator implicated in cellular senescence-induced adipose tissue dysfunction and profibrotic kidney injury, may become a new target for the treatment of diabetic kidney disease (DKD) and chronic kidney diseases. We tested the hypothesis that human DKD-related injury leads to upregulation of activin A in blood and urine and in a human kidney cell model. We further hypothesized that circulating activin A parallels kidney injury markers in DKD. Research design and methods In two adult diabetes cohorts and controls (Minnesota, USA; Galway, Ireland), the relationships between plasma (or urine) activin A, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and DKD injury biomarkers were tested with logistic regression and correlation coefficients. Activin A, inflammatory, epithelial-mesenchymal-transition (EMT) and senescence markers were assayed in human kidney (HK-2) cells incubated in high glucose plus transforming growth factor-β1 or albumin. Results Plasma activin A levels were elevated in diabetes (n=206) compared with controls (n=76; 418.1 vs 259.3 pg/mL; p<0.001) and correlated inversely with eGFR (r s =−0.61; p<0.001; diabetes). After eGFR adjustment, only albuminuria (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.09) and tumor necrosis factor receptor-1 (OR 6.40, 95% CI 1.08 to 38.00) associated with the highest activin tertile. Albuminuria also related to urinary activin (r s =0.65; p<0.001). Following in vitro HK-2 injury, activin, inflammatory, EMT genes and supernatant activin levels were increased. Conclusions Circulating activin A is increased in human DKD and correlates with reduced kidney function and kidney injury markers. DKD-injured human renal tubule cells develop a profibrotic and inflammatory phenotype with activin A upregulation. These findings underscore the role of inflammation and provide a basis for further exploration of activin A as a diagnostic marker and therapeutic target in DKD.

Abstract Purpose: Preclinical data demonstrating androgen receptor (AR)–positive (AR+) triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) cells are sensitive to AR antagonists, and PI3K inhibition catalyzed an investigator-initiated, multi-institutional phase Ib/II study TBCRC032. The trial investigated the safety and efficacy of the AR-antagonist enzalutamide alone or in combination with the PI3K inhibitor taselisib in patients with metastatic AR+ (≥10%) breast cancer. Patients and Methods: Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER+) or TNBC] with AR+ breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks. Results: The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants. Conclusions: The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR+ tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists.

Abstract Background While quantitation methods for small-molecule and tryptic peptide bottom-up mass spectrometry (MS) have been well defined, quantitation methods for top-down or middle-up MS approaches have not been as well defined. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (t-mAbs) are a group of proteins that can be used to both demonstrate the advantages of top-down or middle-up detection methods over classic tryptic peptide bottom-up along with the growing need for robust quantitation strategies/software for these top-down or middle-up methods. Bottom-up proteolytic digest methods for the t-mAbs tend to suffer from challenges such as limited peptide selection due to potential interference from the polyclonal immunoglobulin background, complicated workflows, and inadequate sensitivity and specificity without laborious purification steps, and therefore have prompted the search for new detection and quantitation methods. Time-of-flight along with Orbitrap MS have recently evolved from the research and/or pharmaceutical setting into the clinical laboratory. With their superior mass measurement accuracy, resolution and scanning speeds, these are ideal platforms for top-down or middle-up characterization and quantitation. Methods We demonstrate a validated, robust, middle-up protein subunit detection and quantitation method for the IgG1 t-mAb, vedolizumab (VEDO), which takes advantage of the high resolution of the Orbitrap MS detection and quantitation software to increase specificity. Results Validated performance characteristics met pre-defined acceptance criteria with simple workflows and rapid turnaround times: characteristics necessary for implementation into a high-volume clinical MS laboratory. Conclusions While the extraction method can easily be used with other IgG1 t-mAbs, the detection and quantitation method may become an option for measurement of other proteins.

BACKGROUND: Axi-cel is an autologous anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy that is approved for treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma and is associated with high response rates and durable remissions. Recent data show that axi-cel is effective across various adverse prognostic features, namely cell of origin, disease bulkiness, and extranodal disease, among others. Hypoalbuminemia is a known adverse prognostic factor in lymphomas. It is unknown if axi-cel overcomes the adverse prognostic feature of hypoalbuminemia in R/R large B-cell or transformed follicular lymphoma. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated with axi-cel across three Mayo Clinic campuses (Rochester, Jacksonville, and Phoenix) from 06/01/2018 until 04/01/2019. The primary objective of this analysis was to assess the impact of hypoalbuminemia (defined at day 0, prior to infusion) on outcome after axi-cel therapy. RESULTS: A total of 50 (male=37, 74%) patients (pts), median age of 53 (26-67) years received axi-cel. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (2-8) (Table 1). Two pts had no available serum albumin levels at time of axi-cel infusion. Seven (15%) of 48 pts had serum albumin levels lower than 3.5 g/dL (median= 3.3 g/dL (range 2.6-3.4)) and the median follow up of survivors was 7.6 (1.9-14.3) months. The best overall response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 57% and 57%, respectively. One (14%) patient had stable disease and 2 (29%) had disease progression. The median overall survival (OS) for pts with hypoalbuminemia was not reached. On the other hand, 41 (85%) pts had a normal serum albumin level (median=4.0 (range 3.5-5.1) g/dL) and the median follow up for survivors was 6.3 months. The best objective response rate (ORR) and complete remission (CR) rates in these pts were 82% and 44%, respectively. The median OS for pts with normal serum albumin was 14 (95%CI=6.3-29.6) months. There was no significant difference at 6-months and 1-year OS between pts with hypoalbuminemia vs. those with normal baseline serum albumin levels [6-month=100% vs. 79%(95%CI=64-93%); 1-year (100% vs. 54% (95%CI=26-82%), p=0.17] (Figure 1). All grades cytokine release syndrome (CRS) was diagnosed in all 7 pts with hypoalbuminemia (100%) and in 38 of 41 (92%) pts without hypoalbuminemia. There was no difference in the median duration of CRS between pts with or without hypoalbuminemia [6 (range 1-11) days vs 5 (range 1-19) days, p=0.89]. Neurotoxicity (all grades) was observed in 5 (71%) pts with hypoalbuminemia compared 26 (63%) with normal albumin levels. There was no statistically significant difference in median duration of neurotoxicity between pts with hypoalbuminemia and those with normal baseline albumin levels [9 (range 1-10) days vs. 3 (range 0-25) days, p= 0.72]. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoalbuminemia does not have a significant impact on the outcomes of axi-cel therapy, including the incidence of CRS or neurotoxicity. These results need to be validated in a large collaborative multicenter study. Further investigation is needed to assess the prognostic impact of severe hypoalbuminemia (<3g/dL) on axi-cel therapy. Disclosures Ansell: Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Trillium: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Bennani:Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board. Paludo:Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Verily Life Sciences: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Tun:DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Mundi-pharma: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Introduction: Despite advances in treatment strategy, multiple myeloma (MM) remains a challenging, incurable disease as patients (pts) often relapse. Here we describe preclinical data of a novel cereblon (CRBN) E3 ligase modulatory compound (CELMoD), iberdomide (IBER; CC-220), as well as clinical and translational data from a current phase 1/2 clinical trial (NCT02773030). These data support a differentiated profile for IBER from immunomodulatory agents (IMiD agents), and development of IBER as a foundation of combination therapy for the treatment of relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM). Methods: Preclinical analyses were performed on pomalidomide (POM)-sensitive and acquired-resistant MM cell lines and peripheral blood mononuclear cells from healthy volunteers. Eligible pts enrolled on the clinical trial had RRMM and had received ≥ 2 prior regimens, containing at least an IMiD agent and proteasome inhibitor (PI), and had experienced disease progression within 60 days of last MM therapy. Escalating doses of IBER were given on Days 1-21, in combination with dexamethasone (DEX; 40 mg; 20 mg in pts aged > 75 years) on Days 1, 8, 15, and 22, of each 28-day cycle. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) data on CRBN, Ikaros, Aiolos, and ZFP91 expression was obtained from pt bone marrow specimens at screening and at Cycle 2, Day 15. Immune profiling was evaluated by flow cytometry of peripheral blood at Cycle 1, Day 1 and Cycle 2, Day 15. Primary objectives were to evaluate maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety, and preliminary efficacy. Results: Preclinically, IBER exhibited potent tumoricidal anti-MM and immunostimulatory activity. IBER was more potent than lenalidomide (LEN) or POM in overcoming the immunosuppressive activity of bortezomib (BORT), inducing a more than twofold increase in T cell proliferation in the presence of BORT. IBER also enhanced the antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity and complement-dependent cytotoxicity of daratumumab (DARA), leading to deeper responses than combinations with LEN or POM. Further differentiating from both LEN and POM, IBER showed activity alone and in combination with BORT or DARA in POM-resistant MM cell lines. As of June 28, 2019, 69 pts with RRMM had received IBER + DEX. Median age was 65 years (range 33-80), and median number of prior regimens was 5 (range 2-12). Prior therapies included autologous stem cell transplantation (80%), LEN (100%), POM (70%), PIs (100%), DARA (71%) and anti-BCMA (6%), including CAR T cells. Clinical activity was observed across all dose levels with an overall response rate (ORR) of 29%, clinical benefit rate of 45%, and disease control rate of 80%. ORR was 30%, 28% and 29% in IMiD agent-refractory, DARA-refractory and Quad-class (IMiD agents/PIs/steroids/CD-38 antibodies)-refractory pts, respectively. IBER + DEX showed a favorable safety profile, with grade 3-4 neutropenia, infections, and thrombocytopenia, occurring in 29%, 25%, and 12% of pts, respectively. To date, IBER doses range from 0.3 to 1.3 mg and the MTD/RP2D has not yet been reached. Pharmacodynamic immunophenotyping changes were dose-dependent. Treatment with IBER (at doses > 0.75mg) + DEX doubled the percentage of proliferating T cells and NK cells (P < 0.001 for each) and increased activated and effector memory CD8+ and CD4+ T cells by > 50% (P < 0.01 for each subset). Pharmacodynamic changes in pt bone marrow by quantitative IHC scoring showed significant degradation of substrates (Ikaros, P = 0.006; Aiolos, P < 0.001; ZFP91, P < 0.001) and downregulation of c-myc (P = 0.027), including in pts refractory to POM and with low CRBN expression. Conclusions: IBER + DEX has shown notable clinical activity and favorable tolerability in heavily pretreated pts with RRMM, including pts refractory to prior IMiD therapy. Preclinical and translational data suggest a differentiated profile of IBER from IMiD agents in regard to activity in POM-resistant models, potency in combination with BORT and DARA, and by inducing changes in CD4+ T cells that were not observed in pts treated with POM from prior studies. Taken together, these data support a differentiated profile for IBER from IMiD agents, and the clinical development of IBER as a foundation of combination therapy for the treatment of RRMM. This study is ongoing, and includes cohorts evaluating the combinations of IBER + DEX with DARA, BORT, and carfilzomib. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Lonial: Karyopharm: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy. Amatangelo:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings. Minnema:Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Jansen Cilag: Honoraria. Zonder:Alnylam: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, 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; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Intellia: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Caelum: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Larsen:Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Oriol Rocafiguera:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Rodriguez Otero:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS: Honoraria; Kite Pharma: Consultancy. Badros:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy. Siegel:Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Jagannath:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Merck & Co.: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Bringhen:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy. Gironella:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kaiser:Takeda, Janssen, Celgene, Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel Expenses; Abbvie, Celgene, Takeda, Janssen, Amgen, Abbvie, Karyopharm: Consultancy; Celgene, Janssen: Research Funding. Cook:Janssen, Takeda, Sanofi, Karyopharm, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squib, GlycoMimetics, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding. Gamberi:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sonneveld:SkylineDx: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Nguyen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Homan:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Bjorklund:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Wang:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Pierceall:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Bensmaine:Celgene Corporation: Employment, Equity Ownership. Thakurta:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Peluso:Celgene Corporation: Employment. Van De Donk:Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Background: Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T cell therapy is a promising cancer immunotherapy that is growing exponentially. The doubling time of medical knowledge in 2010 was 3.5 years, and the projection for 2020 is just 73 days. In the last five years, the number of PubMed publications on cancer applications of CAR T cells has tripled. Therefore, to remain updated in the field represents a challenge for patients, care providers and researchers. In this review we provide a focused summary of the currently ongoing clinical trials, with a comprehensive overview of advances in CAR T cell therapy, beyond CD19, emphasizing on antigenic targets, development phases, and leading sponsor pharmaceutical companies. Methods: We retrieved the available data from the national registry of clinical trials (clinicaltrials.gov) using the following keywords: "CAR T cell", "CAR T cell and cancer", "chimeric antigen receptor", "CAR T AND tumor antigen", 'CAR T cell antigens", "Tumor antigens targeted by CAR T cells", "engineered T cells", "modified T cell", "CAR T cells in Cancer", "CAR T cell therapy", "CAR T cell therapy AND Cancer" until December 31, 2018 and manually excluded the trials unrelated to CAR T-cell therapies on cancer, by reviewing the detailed information provided on the website as well as preliminary data published. Results: The analysis included 271 clinical trials posted on the clinicaltrials.gov website from the United States by the cut-off date. For efficacy analysis, we retrieved information from 52 trials, by NCT number on a PubMed search. The majority of CAR T clinical research is focused on hematological cancer (57%), followed by CNS 8%, GI 6%, Skin 5%, Genitourinary 4%, Breast 4%, Gynecologic 4%, Respiratory 3%, Sarcoma 2%, Mesothelioma 2% and others 5%. The most used target in CAR T cell therapy and the leaders in phase 3 trials are CD19 (42%) and BCMA (12%), followed by CD20, NY-ESO-1, Mesothelin, HER2, GD2, MAGE-A3 and CD30. An essential step in CAR T cell therapy development is the selection of the right antigen/target. Here, we provide an overview of the clinically relevant targets that are actively being using by clinical trials in the United States. For example, CD19 appears to be a leading target regarding CAR T cell therapy on cancer with 116 trials (42% of total CAR T cells trials) on going just in the United States with a significant increment in the previous years. Similarly, with BCMA is one of the targets with more phase 3 trials (Figure 1) with promising results on patients with Multiple Myeloma with and the objective response of 85%, CR 45%, and PFS of 11.8 months. Second-generation CARs with either CD28 or 4-1BB as costimulatory signaling domain are preferred, with 4-1BB being the most commonly chosen. Conclusions: Our findings show growing trends in the development of CAR T cell-based therapies, combination and possible retargeting therapies in the future for solid tumor and hematologic malignances; taking into account the amount of important information and the complexity of the database, we have developed this analysis to understand how to generate in the future a friendly platform for researchers and patients to have an detailed overview of the clinical trials in cellular therapies Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a median overall survival of 15 months with standard-of-care treatment. GBM patients sometimes present with a cystic component, which can be identified through magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Previous studies suggest that cysts occur in 7–22% of GBM patients and have reported mixed results regarding whether cystic GBM have a survival benefit compared to noncystic GBM. Using our large retrospective cohort of 493 first-diagnosis GBM patients, we aim to elucidate this link between cystic GBM and survival. Within this cohort, 88 patients had a significant cystic component at presentation as identified on MRI. Compared to noncystic GBM (n=405), cystic GBM patients had significantly better overall survival (15 vs 22 months median, log-rank, p=0.001) and were significantly younger at the time of presentation (t-test, p=0.002). However, within patients that received current standard-of-care treatment (n=184), cystic GBM (n=40) was not as beneficial for outcome (22 vs 25 months, log-rank, p=0.3). We also did not observe a significant survival benefit when comparing this standard-of-care cystic cohort to cystic GBM patients diagnosed before the standard was established (n=19, 25 vs 23 months, log-rank, p=0.3), but the analogous result for noncystic GBM patients gives a sizeable benefit, as expected (n=144, n=111, respectively, 22 vs 12 months, log-rank p < 0.0001). Together, these results on current standard-of-care may explain later studies that note no significant survival benefit for cystic GBM patients receiving current standard-of-care. We also report differences in the absolute and relative sizes of imaging abnormalities on MRI and in prognostic impact of cysts based on sex. We discuss current hypotheses for these observed differences, including the possibility that the presence of a cyst could be indicative of a less aggressive tumor.

Abstract PURPOSE Brain tumor related epilepsy (BTE) is a major co-morbidity in patients with glioma. It is difficult to determine whether the use of anti-epileptic drugs is necessary. We attempted to build a machine-learning model to predict the probability of seizure presentation (SP) with glioma. METHODS We trained a random forest classifier using the following variables: volumetric data of pre-treatment MR images (T1Gd and T2-FLAIR sequences), patient demographics (age; sex), and measurements of tumor proliferation (log(ρ)), invasiveness (log(D)) and their relative ratio (log(ρ/D)). Our cohort consisted of 221 patients total. Using an 80-20 ratio, we used 176 patients (76 SP, 100 nSP) for training and the remaining 45 patients (19 SP, 26 nSP) were used for testing. We also trained on male-only and female-only cohorts to evaluate any sex differences in prediction. For training, 108 males (53 SP, 55 nSP) were used and 28 for testing (14 SP, 14 nSP). We used 72 females (21 SP, 49 nSP) for training and 15 (7 SP, 8 nSP) for testing. We corrected for class imbalance in the female cohort before training. Using 10-fold cross-validation and a separate testing set, we measured performance by ROC curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of predictions (average of folds in cross validation). RESULTS The female model achieved the highest AUC (0.853) followed by the mixed model (0.726) and the male model (0.651). In the validation set, the accuracy/sensitivity/specificity of the three cohorts were as follows: mixed (0.726/0.696/0.750), female (0.853/0.830/0.875), and male (0.651/0.577/0.722). The performance of the testing set, in terms of accuracy/sensitivity/specificity were: mixed (0.733/0.74/0.73), female (0.8/0.57/1), and male (0.714/0.64/0.79). CONCLUSION We found a negative correlation between seizure probability and size and invasiveness of tumors. Our model shows promising performance on testing set data. Further cohort studies and training is warranted.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most aggressive primary brain tumor with a median survival of only 15 months with standard of care treatment. Lacunarity, a quantitative morphological measure of how shapes fill space, and fractal dimension, another morphological measure of the complexity of pixel arrangement, of segmented necrotic regions on gadolinium-enhanced T1 weighted (T1gd) MRI have previously been shown to distinguish both overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) in GBM (n = 95). In our larger patient cohort (n = 389), we sought to validate or refute previously published results connecting morphological metrics and patient survival. We identified pretreatment necrotic regions of our retrospective first-diagnosis GBM patient cohort using segmented T1gd MRI enhancing regions. We calculated lacunarity and fractal dimension across all T1gd MRI slices with enhancing tumor, and used the median lacunarity and fractal dimension values for our analysis. We find that a lacunarity threshold can significantly distinguish OS (14 months vs 19 months median, log-rank p = 0.015, n = 389) and a fractal dimension threshold can significantly distinguish PFS (8 months vs 11 months median, log-rank p = 0.015, n = 123). We believe that morphological metrics such as lacunarity and fractal dimension could play a role in standard-of-care prognostic considerations at tumor presentation. This link between morphological and survival metrics could be driven by underlying biological phenomena or microenvironmental factors that should be further explored.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary brain tumor in adults with a median overall survival (OS) of 15months. Despite advancements in treatments, prognosis is dismal and the prognostic significance of tumor location is not entirely understood. METHODOLOGY: In our study, we investigated sex-specific volumetric, tumor growth kinetics, and outcome differences among GBMs in various brain locations. Primary GBM patients with pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data (N=289, 173 males, 116 females) were selected from our brain tumor repository. Tumor abnormality was segmented on T1-weighted post-gadolinium contrast agent (T1Gd) MRIs. We utilized the Harvard-Oxford brain atlases to determine the location of GBMs. RESULTS Overall, our study found smaller tumors in the left hemisphere. This may be expected as left-hemispheric GBM symptoms could present earlier, leading to earlier diagnosis and treatment. However, when the cohort was split by sex, we found this observation significant for females only in the parietal lobe (p < 0.0001). Further, female GBMs demonstrated smaller necrotic volume in the left hemisphere (p = 0.030). Sex-specific differences in incidence were noted in the temporal and occipital lobes (2M:1F). Comparing tumor growth kinetics in different brain locations and hemispheres, females had significantly lower tumor proliferation rates in the left hemisphere (p = 0.009) and lower tumor proliferation rates in the left frontal lobe (p = 0.031). Controlling for treatment, patients with frontal lobe tumors had significantly longer OS compared to those with GBMs in the temporal lobe (p = 0.046, 312 days). Differences in growth velocities were noted between frontal and parietal lobe with frontal GBMs having lower velocities in comparison to parietal lobe GBMs. CONCLUSION Together, our results demonstrate that tumor growth and proliferation rates may vary based on location and sex. Additional research is needed to further explore the clinical significance of tumor location.