Citations

AbstractBackgroundCurrent approaches in tracking Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) and individualizing patient management are incompletely defined.MethodsWe recruited 468 subjects with CDI at Mayo Clinic Rochester between May and December 2016 and performed whole-genome sequencing (WGS) on C. difficile isolates from 397. WGS was also performed on isolates from a subset of the subjects at the time of a recurrence of infection. The sequence data were analyzed by determining core genome multilocus sequence type (cgMLST), with isolates grouped by allelic differences and the predicted ribotype.ResultsThere were no correlations between C. difficile isolates based either on cgMLST or ribotype groupings and CDI outcome. An epidemiologic assessment of hospitalized subjects harboring C. difficile isolates with ≤2 allelic differences, based on standard infection prevention and control assessment, revealed no evidence of person-to-person transmission. Interestingly, community-acquired CDI subjects in 40% of groups with ≤2 allelic differences resided within the same zip code. Among 18 subjects clinically classified as having recurrent CDI, WGS revealed 14 with initial and subsequent isolates differing by ≤2 allelic differences, suggesting a relapse of infection with the same initial strain, and 4 with isolates differing by >50 allelic differences, suggesting reinfection. Among the 5 subjects classified as having a reinfection based on the timing of recurrence, 3 had isolates with ≤2 allelic differences between them, suggesting a relapse, and 2 had isolates differing by >50 allelic differences, suggesting reinfection.ConclusionsOur findings point to potential transmission of C. difficile in the community. WGS better differentiates relapse from reinfection than do definitions based on the timing of recurrence.

Introduction: Anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are highly active in relapsed/refractory classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL), but most patients (pts) will still relapse. Given this, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) remains an important option for pts after PD-1 blockade, as it offers the possibility of cure. Prior reports have suggested that alloHSCT after PD-1 mAbs may be associated with severe immune-related complications including acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), veno-occlusive disease (VOD) and cytokine release/febrile non-infectious syndrome (CRS). Prior studies of alloHSCT after PD-1 blockade in cHL have been limited by the small number of pts and short follow-up, preventing an accurate assessment of long-term outcomes and complications, risk factors for early toxicity, and the impact of transplant strategies such as choice of GVHD prophylaxis. We therefore assembled a large retrospective international cohort of cHL pts who underwent alloHSCT after PD-(L)1 blockade to better answer these questions, including an assessment of the impact of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy) on efficacy and toxicity. Methods: Medical records and databases were reviewed at 26 European and United States transplant centers to identify pts with cHL who underwent an alloHSCT any time after receiving a PD-1 or PD-L1 mAb. Response assessment was performed by local investigators according to Lugano 2014 criteria. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cumulative incidence (CumInc) of relapse (CIR), non-relapse mortality (NRM), acute (a) and chronic (c) GVHD were estimated, as was the association between baseline variables and these outcomes. Results: Between 2014 and 2019, 150 pts were identified who underwent alloHSCT after a median of 10 (range, 1-74) doses of nivolumab (n=118), pembrolizumab (n=31), or avelumab (n=1). The median age was 31 (range 17-68) and pts had received a median of 4 (range, 2-11) lines of therapy prior to PD-(L)1 blockade. 138 pts (92%) had failed BV and 111 (74%) autologous HSCT. The best overall response to PD-(L)1 mAbs was CR for 62 pts (41%), PR for 55 (37%), SD for 17 (11%), PD for 15 (10%) and unknown for 1 (1%). Median time from last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb to alloHSCT was 80 days (range, 17-756) with 70 pts (47%) receiving intervening systemic therapy. At alloHSCT, 90 pts were in CR (60%), 45 in PR (30%), 5 in SD (3%), and 10 in PD (7%). Donors were haploidentical (n=71, 47%), matched sibling (n=29, 19%), matched unrelated (n=39, 26%), mismatched unrelated (n=7, 5%), cord blood (n=2, 1%), or unknown (n=2, 1%). Stem cell source was bone marrow (n=38, 25%), peripheral blood (n=110, 73%), or cord blood (n=2, 1%). GVHD prophylaxis included PTCy in 88 pts (59%) (69/71 (97%) with haploidentical donors; 19/79 (24%) with other donors). With a median post-alloHSCT follow-up for survivors of 23.8 months (range, 1-67), the 2y OS and PFS were 79% (95CI 71-86%) and 65% (95CI 55-73%), respectively, while the 2y CumIncs of relapse and NRM were 21% (95CI 13-29%) and 14%, (95CI, 8-22%), respectively (Fig. 1A-B). 27 pts have died, 3 due to disease and 24 to NRM, including aGVHD (n=7) and VOD (n=2). Veno-occlusive disease (VOD) occurred in 5 pts (day 100 CumInc 4%) and 29 pts (19%) developed CRS (grade 1 n=16; grade 2 n=7; grade 3 n=4; grade 4 n=2). The 6-month CumIncs of grade 2-4, grade 3-4 and grade 4 aGVHD were 39%, 16% and 8%, respectively. Hyperacute GVHD (onset ≤ 14 days after alloHSCT) occurred in 4% of pts and was fatal in 2 pts. The 2y CumInc of cGVHD was 45%. Neither receipt of > 10 doses (median) of anti-PD-(L)1 mAb nor undergoing alloHSCT ≤80 days (median) after last dose of PD-(L)1 mAb were associated with PFS or OS. However, pts with a shorter time to transplant (≤80 days) appeared to have a higher risk of severe (grade 3-4) aGVHD (6m CumInc 24% vs 9%, p=0.006). Recipients of PTCy in this cohort had lower 2y CumIncs of cGVHD (34% vs 58%, p=0.01) and relapse (12% vs 31%, p=0.02), superior 2y PFS (76% vs 54%, p=0.015), and similar rates of severe aGVHD (15% vs 18%, p=0.5), 2y NRM (12% vs 16%, p=0.5), and 2y OS (82% vs 78%, p=0.6). Conclusions: With extended follow-up of a large international cohort, our results argue that alloSCT performed after PD-(L)1 mAbs is a feasible strategy associated with an excellent PFS and a very low CIR for this disease. The use of PT-Cy appears to be associated with improved outcomes and may at present represent the optimal transplant strategy in this pt population. Figure Disclosures Corradini: kite: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Servier: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; KiowaKirin: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Daiichi Sankyo: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria. Ho:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Omeros Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Jaglowski:Kite: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: advisory board, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy, Other: advisory board; Unum Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding. Herrera:Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Blaise:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; Pierre Fabre medicaments: Honoraria; Molmed: Consultancy, Honoraria. Hamadani:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Medimmune: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy. Ansell:LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Affimed: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Mayo Clinic Rochester: Employment; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Nieto:Astra-Zeneca: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy; Affimed: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding. Feldman:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Portola Pharma: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. McGuirk:ArticulateScience LLC: Other: Assistance with manuscript preparation; Bellicum Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Pluristem Ltd: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Fresenius Biotech: Research Funding. Mohty:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stamatoulas Bastard:Celgene: Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy. Houot:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Merck Sharp Dohme: Honoraria. Manson:Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria. Orvain:Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Other: Travel & accommodations; Pfizer: Other: Travel & accommodations. Bouabdallah:Roche: 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, Speakers Bureau. Frigault:Novartis: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Honoraria; Nkarta: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Juno/Celgene: Consultancy; Foundation Medicine: Consultancy; Xenetic: Consultancy. Chen:Takeda: Consultancy; Kiadis: Consultancy; Magenta: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy. Lynch:T.G. Therapeutics: Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals S.A: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Johnson Graffe Keay Moniz & Wick LLP: Consultancy. Smith:AstraZeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma BV: Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb (spouse): Research Funding; Denovo Biopharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Ignyta (spouse): Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Research Funding; Ayala (spouse): Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Byrne:Karyopharm: Research Funding. Cohen:Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding. Svoboda:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Santoro:Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Speakers Bureau; Arqule: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Speakers Bureau; Abb-Vie: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy; Lilly: Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Speakers Bureau; Eisai: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Armand:Sigma Tau: Research Funding; Otsuka: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tensha: Research Funding; Affimed: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Adaptive: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Infinity: Consultancy; Genentech: Research Funding. Zinzani:Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; Eusapharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Carlo-Stella:Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations; Genenta Science srl: Consultancy; Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: Travel, accommodations, Research Funding; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Honoraria; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria; MSD: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; Janssen: Other: Travel, accommodations; Takeda: Other: Travel, accommodations.

102 Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory mCRC; it is unknown if the addition of bevacizumab would improve outcomes. We studied the efficacy and safety of CBI compared with CI in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype, irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, pts with RAS wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy who failed at least 1 irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimen and received bevacizumab in at least 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose), cetuximab 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg vs CI every 2 wks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models stratified by number of prior lines of therapy and bevacizumab receipt in immediate prior line were performed. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). The study was closed early in January 2018 for reasons related to accrual and funding after enrollment of 36 out of a planned 60 pts. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2017, 36 pts were randomized (19 to CBI, 17 to CI). 34 pts (94%) were treated with 2 or more prior chemotherapy regimens. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 vs 5.5 mo for CBI and CI arms, respectively (log-rank P =0.76; multivariable HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 vs 10.2 mo for CBI and CI (log-rank P= 0.04; multivariable HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 37% for CBI vs 12% for CI ( P =0.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of pts receiving CBI vs 35% for CI ( P =0.46). Conclusions: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there were non-significant increases in PFS and ORR and a statistically significant 9.5 mo increase in median OS in favor of CBI compared to CI. Further investigation of CBI for treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02292758.

AbstractHyaline molds, widely distributed in nature, are an important and increasing cause of invasive fungal infections in humans, likely due to an expanding population of immunosuppressed hosts, increases in antifungal resistance, and improvements in laboratory diagnostics. Sinopulmonary disease and disseminated infection are common manifestations in neutropenic patients and transplant recipients, whereas, catheter-related and localized soft tissue infections predominate in immunocompetent hosts. These organisms are not reliably differentiated based on their morphology in tissue; rather, efforts should be made to establish a microbiologic diagnosis via culture or molecular-based methods to guide antifungal management and inform prognosis. Herein, we review the epidemiology, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and management of these opportunistic pathogens known to cause hyalohyphomycoses: Scedosporium spp., Lomentospora prolificans, Fusarium spp., Scopulariopsis spp., Arthrographis kalrae, Trichoderma spp., Acremonium spp., Paecilomyces variotii, Purpureocillium lilacinum, and Penicillium species.

Purpose: NRG/RTOG 0848 was designed to determine whether adjuvant radiation with fluoropyrimidine sensitization improved survival following gemcitabine-based adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with resected pancreatic head adenocarcinoma. In step 1 of this protocol, patients were randomized to adjuvant gemcitabine versus the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib. This manuscript reports the final analysis of these step 1 data. Methods: Eligibility—within 10 weeks of curative intent pancreaticoduodenectomy with postoperative CA19-9<180. Gemcitabine arm—6 cycles of gemcitabine. Gemcitabine+erlotinib arm—gemcitabine and erlotinib 100 mg/d. Two hundred deaths provided 90% power (1-sided α=0.15) to detect the hypothesized OS signal (hazard ratio=0.72) in favor of the arm 2. Results: From November 17, 2009 to February 28, 2014, 163 patients were randomized and evaluable for arm 1 and 159 for arm 2. Median age was 63 (39 to 86) years. CA19-9 ≤90 in 93%. Arm 1: 32 patients (20%) grade 4 and 2 (1%) grade 5 adverse events; arm 2, 27 (17%) grade 4 and 3 (2%) grade 5. GI adverse events, arm 1: 22% grade ≥3 and arm 2: 28%, ( P =0.22). The median follow-up (surviving patients) was 42.5 months (min-max: <1 to 75). With 203 deaths, the median and 3-year OS (95% confidence interval) are 29.9 months (21.7, 33.4) and 39% (30, 45) for arm 1 and 28.1 months (20.7, 30.9) and 39% (31, 47) for arm 2 (log-rank P =0.62). Hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) comparing OS of arm 2 to arm 1 is 1.04 (0.79, 1.38). Conclusions: The addition of adjuvant erlotinib to gemcitabine did not provide a signal for increased OS in this trial.

OBJECTIVE Assess the efficacy of inControl AP, a mobile closed-loop control (CLC) system. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS This protocol, NCT02985866, is a 3-month parallel-group, multicenter, randomized unblinded trial designed to compare mobile CLC with sensor-augmented pump (SAP) therapy. Eligibility criteria were type 1 diabetes for at least 1 year, use of insulin pumps for at least 6 months, age ≥14 years, and baseline HbA1c &lt;10.5% (91 mmol/mol). The study was designed to assess two coprimary outcomes: superiority of CLC over SAP in continuous glucose monitor (CGM)–measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L. RESULTS Between November 2017 and May 2018, 127 participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to CLC (n = 65) versus SAP (n = 62); 125 participants completed the study. CGM time below 3.9 mmol/L was 5.0% at baseline and 2.4% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 4.7% and 4.0%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −1.7% [95% CI −2.4, −1.0]; P &lt; 0.0001 for superiority). CGM time above 10 mmol/L was 40% at baseline and 34% during follow-up in the CLC group vs. 43% and 39%, respectively, in the SAP group (mean difference −3.0% [95% CI −6.1, 0.1]; P &lt; 0.0001 for noninferiority). One severe hypoglycemic event occurred in the CLC group, which was unrelated to the study device. CONCLUSIONS In meeting its coprimary end points, superiority of CLC over SAP in CGM-measured time below 3.9 mmol/L and noninferiority in CGM-measured time above 10 mmol/L, the study has demonstrated that mobile CLC is feasible and could offer certain usability advantages over embedded systems, provided the connectivity between system components is stable.

ABSTRACT Background Medication shortages prevent patients from receiving optimal care. Despite the frequency with which medical trainees care for inpatients, no assessment of their experiences in medication shortage management has been performed. Objective We evaluated trainees' experiences managing medication shortages. Methods We performed a cross-sectional survey of trainees postgraduate year 2 (PGY-2) and above in medicine, anesthesiology, and emergency medicine departments at 2 academic centers in 2018–2019. Categorical and ordinal assessments evaluated shortage awareness, substitution availability, pharmacy and therapeutics committee-based restrictions, communication, and education. Regressions were performed to determine effect of PGY, department, and institution on responses. Results A total of 168 of 273 subjects completed the survey (62% response rate). Most (95%, 159 of 168) reported managing medication shortages during training; 51% (86 of 168) described managing clinically relevant shortages daily or weekly. Seventy-seven percent (129 of 168) noted equivalent alternatives were unavailable at least one-quarter of the time, and 43% (72 of 168) reported clinically necessary medications were restricted at least weekly. Fifty-four percent (89 of 168) and 64% (106 of 167) of respondents discussed clinically relevant shortages with supervising physicians or patients “some of the time” or less, respectively. Most respondents (90%, 151 of 168) reported they would benefit from shortage management training, but few (13%, 21 of 168) reported prior training. Conclusions Although trainees reported frequent involvement in clinically impactful shortage management, medication shortage communication between trainees and supervising physicians or patients appears sporadic. Medication shortage management training is uncommon but perceived as beneficial.

Abstract Delayed terminal duct lobular unit (TDLU) involution is associated with elevated mammographic breast density (MD). Both are independent breast cancer risk factors among women with benign breast disease (BBD). Prior digital analyses of normal breast tissues revealed that epithelial nuclear density (END) and TDLU involution are inversely correlated. Accordingly, we examined associations of END, TDLU involution, and MD in BBD clinical biopsies. This study included digitized images of 262 representative image-guided hematoxylin and eosin–stained biopsies from 224 women diagnosed with BBD, enrolled within the cross-sectional BREAST-Stamp project that were visually assessed for TDLU involution (TDLU count/100 mm2, median TDLU span and median acini count per TDLU). A digital algorithm estimated nuclei count per unit epithelial area, or END. Single X-ray absorptiometry of prebiopsy ipsilateral craniocaudal digital mammograms measured global and localized MD surrounding the biopsy region. Adjusted ordinal logistic regression models assessed relationships between tertiles of TDLU and END measures. Analysis of covariance examined mean differences in MD across END tertiles. TDLU measures were positively associated with increasing END tertiles [TDLU count/100 mm2, ORT3vsT1: 3.42, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.87–6.28; acini count/TDLUT3vsT1, OR: 2.40, 95% CI, 1.39–4.15]. END was significantly associated with localized, but not, global MD. Relationships were most apparent among patients with nonproliferative BBD. These findings suggest that quantitative END reflects different but complementary information to the histologic information captured by visual TDLU and radiologic MD measures and merits continued evaluation in assessing cellularity of breast parenchyma to understand the etiology of BBD.

Abstract Panobinostat (PBST) is a histone deacetylase inhibitor with biologic rationale in the treatment of gliomas harboring H3 K27M mutation. METHODS We performed a retrospective medical record review of adult patients with H3 K27M mutant diffuse midline glioma treated with PBST at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). RESULTS Four patients were identified with a mean age 40 years (range 22–62 years). Tumor location was: spinal cord (thoracic n=1, cervical n=1), brainstem (n=1), and thalamus (n=1).Two patients underwent biopsy alone while two underwent a partial resection. Three patients were treated with radiation (36–54 Gy) immediately prior to PBST monotherapy, and one patient was treated with PBST monotherapy without preceding radiation. All patients were otherwise chemotherapy naïve and did not receive any concurrent chemotherapy with PBST. PBST was dosed at either 10 mg (n=1) or 20mg (n=3) administered on days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10 and 12 of 21 day cycles. The mean duration of PBST therapy was 5 months (range 2–11 months). PBST was well tolerated overall. One patient experienced an objective response per RANO criteria. Two patients continue on therapy (5 cycles, 12 cycles) with stable disease. One patient rapidly progressed after 2 cycles of PBST therapy. In contrast with the patients who derived benefit from PBST, this patient was younger (22) and had multifocal disease with leptomeningeal involvement at treatment onset. The average progression free survival post PBST initiation was 8 months. CONCLUSION This single institution case series shows promise that PBST may have therapeutic benefit in adult patients with H3 K27M mutant diffuse midline glioma.