Citations

AbstractElevated blood levels of C‐reactive protein (CRP) have been linked to colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. We evaluated genetic variants associated with CRP levels and their interactions with sex and lifestyle factors in association with CRC‐specific mortality. Our study included 16 142 CRC cases from the International Survival Analysis in Colorectal Cancer Consortium. We identified 618 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CRP levels from the NHGRI‐EBI GWAS Catalog. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between SNPs and CRC‐specific mortality adjusting for age, sex, genotyping platform/study and principal components. We investigated their interactions with sex and lifestyle factors using likelihood ratio tests. Of 5472 (33.9%) deaths accrued over up to 10 years of follow‐up, 3547 (64.8%) were due to CRC. No variants were associated with CRC‐specific mortality after multiple comparison correction. We observed strong evidence of interaction between variant rs1933736 at FRK gene and sex in relation to CRC‐specific mortality (corrected Pinteraction = .0004); women had higher CRC‐specific mortality associated with the minor allele (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.04‐1.19) whereas an inverse association was observed for men (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82‐0.94). There was no evidence of interactions between CRP‐associated SNPs and alcohol, obesity or smoking. Our study observed a significant interaction between sex and a CRP‐associated variant in relation to CRC‐specific mortality. Future replication of this association and functional annotation of the variant are needed.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Background Acute changes in GFR can occur after initiation of interventions targeting progression of CKD. These acute changes complicate the interpretation of long-term treatment effects. Methods To assess the magnitude and consistency of acute effects in randomized clinical trials and explore factors that might affect them, we performed a meta-analysis of 53 randomized clinical trials for CKD progression, enrolling 56,413 participants with at least one estimated GFR measurement by 6 months after randomization. We defined acute treatment effects as the mean difference in GFR slope from baseline to 3 months between randomized groups. We performed univariable and multivariable metaregression to assess the effect of intervention type, disease state, baseline GFR, and albuminuria on the magnitude of acute effects. Results The mean acute effect across all studies was −0.21 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 (95% confidence interval, −0.63 to 0.22) over 3 months, with substantial heterogeneity across interventions (95% coverage interval across studies, −2.50 to +2.08 ml/min per 1.73 m 2 ). We observed negative average acute effects in renin angiotensin system blockade, BP lowering, and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor trials, and positive acute effects in trials of immunosuppressive agents. Larger negative acute effects were observed in trials with a higher mean baseline GFR. Conclusion The magnitude and consistency of acute GFR effects vary across different interventions, and are larger at higher baseline GFR. Understanding the nature and magnitude of acute effects can help inform the optimal design of randomized clinical trials evaluating disease progression in CKD.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is a rare B‐cell lymphoproliferative malignancy. Autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto‐HCT) is considered in a subset of WM patients with relapsed disease. While registry data has shown a benefit for auto‐HCT in relapsed WM, there is a paucity of data on outcomes of patients relapsing after auto‐HCT. Eligibility criteria included adult patients with relapsed/refractory WM who underwent auto‐HCT between 2007 and 2017. The primary endpoint was post‐relapse overall survival (PR‐OS). Secondary endpoints were to identify factors prognostic of PR‐OS. Of the 48 patients with WM who underwent auto‐HCT, 22 (46%) experienced relapse following auto‐HCT. Median PR‐OS of relapsed WM patients after auto‐HCT ( n = 22) was not reached (NR) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.5 months‐NR). Among patients who relapsed <1 year versus ≥1 year from auto‐HCT, the median PR‐OS was 18.4 months (95%CI: 0.8‐NR) months and NR (95%CI: 17.5‐NR), respectively ( p = 0.06). Of note, disease status at the time of transplant, CR/VGPR versus partial remission did not appear to impact PR‐OS. The median PR‐OS was significantly longer in patients who received ibrutinib in the post‐transplant setting compared to those who did not (NR vs. 18.4 months, 95%CI: 9.1‐NR, p = 0.02). On univariable analysis, the presence of complex karyotype (RR = 4.87, 95% CI = 1.22–19.53) and a higher number of prior lines of therapy (RR = 1.81, 95% CI = 1.23–2.67) were associated with a significantly higher risk of relapse. This is the only study to date that evaluated outcomes of WM patients who relapsed following auto‐HCT and provides a benchmark for future trials evaluating survival following auto‐HCT relapse.