Citations

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

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.

OBJECTIVE Radiation-induced meningiomas (RIMs) are associated with aggressive clinical behavior. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is sometimes considered for selected RIMs. The authors investigated the effectiveness and safety of SRS for the management of RIMs. METHODS From 12 institutions participating in the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation, the authors pooled patients who had prior cranial irradiation and were subsequently clinically diagnosed with WHO grade I meningiomas that were managed with SRS. RESULTS Fifty-two patients underwent 60 SRS procedures for histologically confirmed or radiologically suspected WHO grade I RIMs. The median ages at initial cranial radiation therapy and SRS for RIM were 5.5 years and 39 years, respectively. The most common reasons for cranial radiation therapy were leukemia (21%) and medulloblastoma (17%). There were 39 multiple RIMs (35%), the mean target volume was 8.61 ± 7.80 cm 3 , and the median prescription dose was 14 Gy. The median imaging follow-up duration was 48 months (range 4–195 months). RIM progressed in 9 patients (17%) at a median duration of 30 months (range 3–45 months) after SRS. Progression-free survival at 5 years post-SRS was 83%. Treatment volume ≥ 5 cm 3 predicted progression (HR 8.226, 95% CI 1.028–65.857, p = 0.047). Seven patients (14%) developed new neurological symptoms or experienced SRS-related complications or T2 signal change from 1 to 72 months after SRS. CONCLUSIONS SRS is associated with durable local control of RIMs in the majority of patients and has an acceptable safety profile. SRS can be considered for patients and tumors that are deemed suboptimal, poor surgical candidates, and those whose tumor again progresses after removal.

Study Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospective registry. Objective. We utilized the Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) registry to investigate the “July Effect” at QOD spondylolisthesis module sites with residency trainees. Summary of Background Data. There is a paucity of investigation on the long-term outcomes following surgeries involving new trainees utilizing high-quality, prospectively collected data. Methods. This was an analysis of 608 patients who underwent single-segment surgery for grade 1 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis at 12 high-enrolling sites. Surgeries were classified as occurring in July or not in July (non-July). Outcomes collected included estimated blood loss, length of stay, operative time, discharge disposition, complications, reoperation and readmission rates, and patient-reported outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI], Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] Back Pain, NRS Leg Pain, EuroQol-5D [EQ-5D] and the North American Spine Society [NASS] Satisfaction Questionnaire). Propensity score-matched analyses were utilized to compare postoperative outcomes and complication rates between the July and non-July groups. Results. Three hundred seventy-one surgeries occurred at centers with a residency training program with 21 (5.7%) taking place in July. In propensity score-matched analyses, July surgeries were associated with longer operative times ( average treatment effect = 22.4 minutes longer, 95% confidence interval 0.9–449.0, P = 0.041). Otherwise, July surgeries were not associated with significantly different outcomes for the remaining perioperative parameters (estimated blood loss, length of stay, discharge disposition, postoperative complications), overall reoperation rates, 3-month readmission rates, and 24-month ODI, NRS back pain, NRS leg pain, EQ-5D, and NASS satisfaction score (P > 0.05, all comparisons). Conclusion. Although July surgeries were associated with longer operative times, there were no associations with other clinical outcomes compared to non-July surgeries following lumbar spondylolisthesis surgery. These findings may be due to the increased attending supervision and intraoperative education during the beginning of the academic year. There is no evidence that the influx of new trainees in July significantly affects long-term patient-centered outcomes. Level of Evidence: 3

Introduction: Daratumumab (DARA) is a human IgGκ monoclonal antibody targeting CD38 with a direct on-tumor and immunomodulatory mechanism of action, and has been approved across lines of therapy for the treatment of multiple myeloma. The addition of DARA to standard-of-care (SoC) regimens, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (D-Rd) and bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone (D-VMP), in the phase 3 MAIA and ALCYONE clinical studies reduced the risk of disease progression or death by ≥44%, nearly doubled the rate of complete response (CR) or better, and induced a >3-fold increase in MRD-negativity rates (10-5 sensitivity threshold) vs SoC alone in pts with TIE NDMM. In both MAIA and ALCYONE, MRD negativity was associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS), irrespective of trial treatments. MRD negativity provides an index of deep clinical response and may be a more robust evaluation of disease control if sustained over time. Here, we evaluate MRD negativity, including sustained MRD negativity, in pts with TIE NDMM from MAIA and ALCYONE and its association with PFS with longer follow-up. Methods: Pts with NDMM ineligible for high-dose chemotherapy with stem cell transplantation due to age (≥65 years) or unacceptable coexisting conditions in MAIA and ALCYONE were randomized (1:1) to SoC ± DARA. Pts in MAIA received 28-day cycles of Rd (R: 25 mg PO on Days 1-21; d: 40 mg PO QW) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycles 1-2, Q2W for Cycles 3-6, and Q4W thereafter). ALCYONE pts received up to nine 6-week cycles of VMP (V: 1.3 mg/m2 SC twice weekly during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycle 1 and QW during Weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5 of Cycles 2-9; M: 9 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9; and P: 60 mg/m2 PO on Days 1-4 of Cycles 1-9) ± DARA (16 mg/kg IV QW for Cycle 1, Q3W for Cycles 2-9, and Q4W for Cycles 10+). Study treatments continued until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. MRD was assessed in MAIA and ALCYONE in all pts who achieved a CR or stringent CR. For ≥CR pts, additional MRD assessments occurred at 12, 18, 24, and 30 months after the first dose in ALCYONE and at 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 48, and 60 months in MAIA. MRD was assessed via next-generation sequencing using the clonoSEQ® assay (v.2.0; Adaptive Biotechnologies, Seattle, WA) at the 10-5 sensitivity threshold. Sustained MRD negativity was defined as the maintenance of MRD negativity confirmed ≥6 or ≥12 months apart with no MRD positive test in between and was evaluated in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Results: A total of 737 (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) pts in MAIA and 706 (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) pts in ALCYONE were randomized; median duration of follow-up was 36.4 months in MAIA and 40.1 months in ALCYONE. In both studies, DARA-based therapy improved MRD negativity vs SoC in the ITT population (D-Rd, 28.8% vs Rd, 9.2%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 28.3% vs VMP, 7.0%, P<0.0001). MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs MRD-positive pts in the ITT population, regardless of treatment arm. In a pooled analysis of pts from DARA (D-Rd/D-VMP) and SoC (Rd/VMP) treatment groups, MRD-negative pts had improved PFS vs pts who were MRD positive, irrespective of treatment arm. In general, baseline characteristics were comparable among pts in DARA and control treatment groups with sustained MRD negativity. A higher proportion of pts in the ITT populations of MAIA (D-Rd, n=368; Rd, n=369) and ALCYONE (D-VMP, n=350; VMP, n=356) achieved sustained MRD negativity with DARA-based therapy vs SoC for ≥6-months (D-Rd, 14.9% vs Rd, 4.3%, P<0.0001; D-VMP, 15.7% vs VMP, 4.5%, P<0.0001) and ≥12-months (D-Rd, 10.9% vs Rd, 2.4%; P<0.0001; D-VMP, 14.0% vs VMP, 2.8%, P<0.0001). PFS was prolonged in pts with sustained MRD negativity for ≥6-months and ≥12-months vs pts without sustained MRD negativity in the pooled ITT populations, regardless of treatment arm (Figure). Conclusions: DARA-based combination regimens induce higher rates of MRD-negativity and sustained MRD negativity in pts with TIE NDMM, which are associated with deep responses and improved PFS. Disclosures San-Miguel: Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Avet-Loiseau:Celgene and Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi, and Janssen;: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Paiva:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; SkylineDx: Consultancy; Kite: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive: Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Kumar:Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Cellectar: Other; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Beigene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Facon:Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Roche, Karyopharm, Oncopeptides, BMS, Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Mateos:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Consultancy; Pharmamar: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; EDOMundipharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Touzeau:Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jakubowiak:AbbVie, Amgen, BMS/Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Adaptive, Juno: Consultancy, Honoraria. Usmani:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Other; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; BMS, Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Array Biopharma: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; SkylineDX: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Speaking Fees, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cook:Karyopharm: Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Takeda, Roche, Sanofi: Honoraria. Cavo:BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel accomodations, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Quach:GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline, Karyopharm, Amgen, Celgene, Janssen Cilag: Honoraria; Amgen, Celgene, karyopharm, GSK, Janssen Cilag, Sanofi.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen, sanofi, celgene, Karyopharm, GSK: Research Funding. Ukropec:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Ramaswami:Janssen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Pei:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:Janssen: Current Employment. Krevvata:Janssen: Current Employment. DeAngelis:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Heuck:Christoph Heuck: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Van Rampelbergh:Janssen: Current Employment. Kudva:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center: Other: non-paid consultancy. Kobos:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Qi:Janssen: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Johnson and Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Bahlis:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene and Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Background: With the incorporation of positron emission tomography (PET) imaging as part of the standard staging evaluation of follicular lymphoma (FL), it is generally recommended to obtain the diagnostic biopsy from a lesion with the highest standardized uptake value (SUV) to rule out de novo histologic transformation (HT). In some cases such an approach might be impractical, while in other cases a biopsy from a diseased area with a high SUV may still demonstrate an indolent histology. To date, there is no data to guide treatment choices in patients (pts) with FL with high SUVmax but with no documented evidence of HT. Specifically, it remains unclear whether anthracycline-containing regimens, such as R-CHOP, provide a better outcome than R-Bendamustine (BR). Furthermore, it is unknown whether rituximab (R) maintenance is beneficial in this setting. Therefore, we aimed to compare the efficacy of R-CHOP vs BR in newly diagnosed FL pts with high SUVmax at baseline PET and to clarify the role of maintenance. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified 261 consecutive pts with newly diagnosed biopsy-proven FL1-3A and a SUVmax≥13 on baseline PET, who were treated with frontline R-CHOP (n=183) or BR (n=78) at 7 US cancer centers based on the physician's choice. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated from starting treatment until progression, relapse or death. Cut-offs of SUVmax ≥13≤18 and SUVmax>18 were used for sub-analysis (Haematologica;2020;105:1907-1913). Results: Median age was 59 years. The baseline characteristics of the two groups differed significantly for a younger age (58 vs 62 years, p=0.009), a higher rate of B-symptoms (26% vs 10%, p=0.005) and baseline SUVmax>18 (49% vs 36%, p=0.04) in the R-CHOP group. A diagnostic biopsy was obtained from the site at the highest SUV in 129 (71%) and 43 (55%) pts, respectively (p=0.01). These suggest a potential selection of R-CHOP in pts with adverse features. At the end of therapy (EoT), R-CHOP treated pts achieved higher PET-CT complete response rates (CR 82% vs 69%, p=0.02). This superiority held in pts with diagnostic biopsy at the highest SUV site (CR 83% vs 67%, p=0.03), but not in the others (CR 80% vs 71%, p=0.37). Progression occurred at EoT in 11 and 14 pts receiving R-CHOP and BR (6% vs 18%, p=0.02), with a higher rate of HT in the BR group (13% vs 4%, p=0.006). After a median follow-up of 76 months (range, 4-208 months), there was no significant difference in PFS between R-CHOP and BR treated pts (hazard ratio [HR] 1.22, p=0.34). PFS was strongly associated with FLIPI 2 (HR 2.32, p=0.01) and 3-5 (HR 2.69, p=0.003) in the univariate as well as in the multivariate analysis (FLIPI 2 HR 2.19, p=0.02; FLIPI 3-5 HR 2.51, p=0.01). There was a trend toward overall survival (OS) benefit in the R-CHOP group (Fig.1A). In the univariate analysis for OS, BR regimen (HR 2.12, p=0.03), age >60 (HR 2.54, p=0.006), FLIPI 3-5 (HR 5.13, p=0.03) and biopsy at the highest SUV site (HR 0.44, p=0.01) were prognostic, however none of those remained significant in the multivariate analysis (BR regimen HR 1.84, p=0.09; age >60 HR 1.92, p=0.08; FLIPI 3-5 HR 3.11, p=0.14; biopsy at the highest SUV site HR 0.60, p=0.13; SUVmax>18 HR 1.87, p=0.055). Among pts with EoT response after R-CHOP or BR (n=170 and n=64, respectively), one third in each group (36% vs 41%, respectively) received R-maintenance for a median of 8 administrations (range, 2-12). A significant PFS advantage (landmark analysis) was observed with R-maintenance (Fig.1B; HR 0.53, p=0.02); however, this did not translate in survival benefit (HR 0.67, p=0.49). In a multivariable model, R-maintenance (HR 0.53, p=0.02), FLIPI 2 (HR 2.47, p=0.03) and 3-5 (HR 2.79, p=0.01) remained independent prognosticators of PFS, while no parameters significantly affected OS. The 2-year HT rate (10% vs 17%) and cumulative incidence did not statistically differ between R-CHOP and BR groups (Fig.1C, p=0.159). Early progression (POD24) occurred in 43 and 22 pts who received R-CHOP and BR, respectively (24% vs 28%) and resulted in a significantly higher risk of death (HR 4.12, p=0.006). Conclusion: In newly diagnosed FL pts with SUVmax≥13 at baseline PET, R-CHOP was more effective in achieving CR and reducing the risk of early HT compared with BR, and it was associated with a trend toward survival advantage. Rituximab maintenance significantly prolonged PFS. A prospective evaluation with a larger population will be needed to confirm our findings. Disclosures Joffe: Epizyme: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ruella:Abclon, BMS, NanoString: Consultancy; Abclon: Consultancy, Research Funding; UPenn/Novartis: Patents & Royalties. Svoboda:Adaptive: Consultancy; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Imbrium: Consultancy; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG: Research Funding; Genmab: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy. Witzig:Immune Design: Research Funding; Spectrum: Consultancy; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; MorphSys: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Smith:TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Research Funding; FortySeven: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support, Research Funding. Armand:Affimed: Consultancy, Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; IGM: Research Funding; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding; Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; Tensha: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Merck & Co., Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Nastoupil:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Gilead/KITE: Honoraria; Gamida Cell: Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karus Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bayer: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ansell:Takeda: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding. Zelenetz:Novartis: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Roche: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; BeiGene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy; Sandoz: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding. Younes:BioPath, Xynomic, Epizyme, and F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy; Janssen, Curis, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Syndax Pharmaceuticals, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Curis (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Novartis (Inst): Research Funding; Janssen, AbbVie, Merck, Curis, Epizyme, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda Millennium: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; MSKCC: Ended employment in the past 24 months.

Abstract PrimPol has been recently identified as a DNA damage tolerant polymerase that plays an important role in replication stress response. However, the regulatory mechanisms of PrimPol are not well defined. In this study, we identify that the deubiquitinase USP36 interferes with degradation of PrimPol to regulate the replication stress response. Mechanistically, USP36 is deubiquitinated following DNA replication stress, which in turn facilitates its upregulation and interaction with PrimPol. USP36 deubiquitinates K29-linked polyubiquitination of PrimPol and increases its protein stability. Depletion of USP36 results in replication stress-related defects and elevates cell sensitivity to DNA-damage agents, such as cisplatin and olaparib. Moreover, USP36 expression positively correlates with the level of PrimPol protein and poor prognosis in patient samples. These findings indicate that the regulation of PrimPol K29-linked ubiquitination by USP36 plays a critical role in DNA replication stress and chemotherapy response.

AbstractBackgroundLarge cohort studies provide conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic value of early repolarization pattern (ERP) in the general population, complicated by the complex or heterogeneous definitions of ERP applied in different studies.HypothesisWe hypothesized that ERP was associated with increased cardiovascular risk with the definition of ERP recommended by the expert consensus statements.MethodsA total of 13673 middle‐aged subjects from the prospective, population‐based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were included in this analysis. Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for possible confounding factors. ERP was defined as ST‐segment elevation ≥0.1mV at the end of the QRS or J wave on the QRS downstroke in two or more contiguous leads.ResultsCompared with those without ERP, subjects with ERP had a significantly increased risk of developing sudden cardiac death (SCD) (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.08–2.04) and death from coronary heart disease (CHD) (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10–1.92) after a median follow‐up of 20.1 years. ERP was significantly predictive of SCD in females, whites, younger people, and subjects with relatively low cardiovascular risk. ERP with ST‐segment elevation appeared to indicate poor cardiovascular outcomes. ERP was associated with an absolute risk increase of 93.3 additional SCDs per 100 000 person‐years.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ERP was an independent predictor of SCD and CHD death in the middle‐aged biracial population.

Abstract Extramedullary multiple myeloma (EMM) is a subset of multiple myeloma with a poor prognosis. We report a rare case with biopsy-proven concurrent liver and mesentery primary EMM at the time of initial staging after serologic diagnosis of multiple myeloma. 18F-FDG PET/CT is valuable in detection of EMM when the patient has no osseous lesions and a negative bone marrow biopsy.