Citations

AbstractBackgroundReproductive factors have been shown to be differentially associated with risk of estrogen receptor (ER)-positive and ER-negative breast cancer. However, their associations with intrinsic-like subtypes are less clear.MethodsAnalyses included up to 23 353 cases and 71 072 controls pooled from 31 population-based case-control or cohort studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium across 16 countries on 4 continents. Polytomous logistic regression was used to estimate the association between reproductive factors and risk of breast cancer by intrinsic-like subtypes (luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, HER2-enriched–like, and triple-negative breast cancer) and by invasiveness. All statistical tests were 2-sided.ResultsCompared with nulliparous women, parous women had a lower risk of luminal A-like, luminal B-like, luminal B-HER2–like, and HER2-enriched–like disease. This association was apparent only after approximately 10 years since last birth and became stronger with increasing time (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.49 to 0.71; and OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.28 to 0.46 for multiparous women with luminal A-like tumors 20 to less than 25 years after last birth and 45 to less than 50 years after last birth, respectively). In contrast, parous women had a higher risk of triple-negative breast cancer right after their last birth (for multiparous women: OR = 3.12, 95% CI = 2.02 to 4.83) that was attenuated with time but persisted for decades (OR = 1.03, 95% CI = 0.79 to 1.34, for multiparous women 25 to less than 30 years after last birth). Older age at first birth (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) and breastfeeding (Pheterogeneity < .001 for triple-negative compared with luminal A-like breast cancer) were associated with lower risk of triple-negative breast cancer but not with other disease subtypes. Younger age at menarche was associated with higher risk of all subtypes; older age at menopause was associated with higher risk of luminal A-like but not triple-negative breast cancer. Associations for in situ tumors were similar to luminal A-like.ConclusionsThis large and comprehensive study demonstrates a distinct reproductive risk factor profile for triple-negative breast cancer compared with other subtypes, with implications for the understanding of disease etiology and risk prediction.

e16168 Background: Several fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitors have been recently approved or are in development for the treatment of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) with FGFR2 fusions/rearrangements (f/r), such as the ATP-competitive inhibitors pemigatinib and infigratinib (FDA-approved in 2020/2021) and the covalent inhibitor futibatinib, which has shown efficacy in a pivotal phase 2 trial. To inform future evaluations of the impact of these agents in clinical practice, and understand other existing gaps in care, we investigated the characteristics and clinical management of patients with CCA and FGFR2 f/r prior to 2021. Methods: This real-world, retrospective cohort study used de-identified, patient-level electronic health records data from Cancer Treatment Centers of America (CTCA) to identify adults with a diagnosis of advanced intrahepatic CCA (iCCA) who received genomic testing between 2013-2021. Clinical/demographic characteristics, time to genomic testing, treatment patterns, and outcomes of patients with and without FGFR2 f/r were described. Results: 23 patients with FGFR2 f/r and 88 with FGFR wild-type (wt) iCCA were identified. Compared to FGFR wt, FGFR2 f/r had a higher proportion of female (65.2 vs 45.5%) and Black (39.1 vs 18.2%) patients (Table). Mean age at diagnosis was ̃60 y and >60% were diagnosed with stage 4 disease in both cohorts; 91.3% of f/r and 78.4% of wt patients had an ECOG PS 0/1. Median time from diagnosis to genomic testing was ̃5 mo; upon entry to CTCA, median time to testing was <2 mo. 17/23 patients in the f/r cohort had FGFR2 fusions (4 BICC1, 13 other). Three FGFR2 f/r patients received an FGFR inhibitor (pemigatinib) as next treatment after testing in 2020. A trend towards longer median overall survival in the f/r vs wt group (24.5 vs 17.8 mo), and a correlation of survival with ECOG PS were observed. Conclusions: This analysis provides insight into the real-world characteristics, clinical management and outcomes among patients with iCCA and FGFR2 f/r, predominantly prior to the introduction of FGFR inhibitors, providing a baseline for further study as the treatment landscape evolves. Of note, the time lag between diagnosis and genomic testing before entry to CTCA underlines the need for earlier testing to guide optimal therapy in clinical practice. [Table: see text]

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified more than 200 susceptibility loci for breast cancer, but these variants explain less than a fifth of the disease risk. Although gene–environment interactions have been proposed to account for some of the remaining heritability, few studies have empirically assessed this. We obtained genotype and risk factor data from 46,060 cases and 47,929 controls of European ancestry from population-based studies within the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). We built gene expression prediction models for 4,864 genes with a significant (P &lt; 0.01) heritable component using the transcriptome and genotype data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We leveraged predicted gene expression information to investigate the interactions between gene-centric genetic variation and 14 established risk factors in association with breast cancer risk, using a mixed-effects score test. After adjusting for number of tests using Bonferroni correction, no interaction remained statistically significant. The strongest interaction observed was between the predicted expression of the C13orf45 gene and age at first full-term pregnancy (PGXE = 4.44 × 10−6). In this transcriptome-informed genome-wide gene–environment interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for the role of gene expression in modifying the associations between established risk factors and breast cancer risk. Our study suggests a limited role of gene–environment interactions in breast cancer risk.

Abstract Background The majority of human antimicrobial utilization occurs in the outpatient setting. Despite being mainly viral in etiology, upper respiratory tract infections (URIs) were the most common indication for outpatient antimicrobial prescriptions at our institution. Methods Through our electronic health record (EHR), we were able to determine our rate of antibiotic prescriptions for inappropriate URI diagnosis at our primary care practice sites. We selected staff volunteers from each our primary care practice sites to serve as stewardship champions. They were given training in stewardship best practices, and an URI stewardship toolkit which included viral URI prescription pad, EHR order panel, and patient education signage. They were tasked with providing education and feedback to their practice sites. We meet with them on a monthly basis to disseminate prescribing data and education. They also provided feedback from practice sites to the stewardship committee. Results Our decentralized model was put in place in November 2020. In the 6 months prior to the intervention, the average prescribing rate was 29.1%. In the 6 months after the intervention, the average prescribing rate decreased by 15% to 24.8%. During the intervention phase, there was an increase in number of non-COVID URIs diagnosed at our primary care sites. Temporal Trend in Inappropriate Antibiotics Prescribing Rates for Viral URIs Pre- and Post- Intervention Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rate for viral upper respiratory tract infections from May 2020 until May 2021. Intervention started in December 2021 (arrow). Pre-intervention average was 29.1%. Post-intervention age was 24.8% which is a 15% decline in prescribing rate. Viral Upper Respiratory Infections Visits The total number of visits for presumed viral upper respiratory infections to primary care sites from May 2020 until May 2021. The majority of COVID-19 precautions in the area expired at the end of March 2021. Conclusion We have been able to lower our inappropriate prescriptions for URIs utilizing a decentralized model of stewardship champions. This result was especially notable as the intervention phase corresponded with the end of COVID-19 precautions and an increase in non-COVID URIs diagnosed. The advantage of this approach includes an advocate embedded at each practice site who is familiar with the opportunities and challenges of the site, and a two-way flow of information from practice sites to the stewardship committee. This model provided additional benefit during the COVID-19 pandemic as the ability of centralized staff to travel to off campus clinic sites was curtailed. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Interest in anonymous nondirected living organ donation is increasing in the United States and a small number of transplantation centers are accumulating an experience regarding nondirected donation in living donor liver transplantation. Herein, we review current transplant policy, discuss emerging data, draw parallels from nondirected kidney donation, and examine relevant considerations in nondirected living liver donation. We aim to provide a consensus guidance to ensure safe evaluation and selection of nondirected living liver donors and a schema for just allocation of nondirected grafts.

Abstract Background: A recent study from the Acute Leukemia Working Party of EBMT demonstrated that outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) for adults with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) have improved significantly over time and that total body irradiation (TBI) should be considered as the preferable type of myeloablative conditioning (MAC). This study, however, did not compare outcomes of allo-HCT in patients with CNS involvement (CNS-pos) vs. those without CNS disease (CNS-neg). Study population: Here, we evaluate post allo-HCT outcomes of 547 patients (CNS-pos at initial presentation=96, CNS-neg=451) who underwent the procedure in first complete remission (CR1) between 2009 and 2019 at an EBMT participating transplant center. The distribution of ALL subtypes were as follows: CNS-pos (Ph-neg B ALL=28%, Ph-pos B ALL=27%, and T-cell ALL=45%) and for CNS-neg (Ph-neg B ALL=21%, Ph-pos B ALL=44%, and T-cell ALL=35%), p=0.01. The primary endpoint was leukemia-free survival (LFS). Results: The median follow up was not statistically different between the CNS-pos (78.7 months) and the CNS-neg group (67.2 months), p=0.58. Patients in the CNS-pos group were younger (median age 31.3 vs. 39.7 years, p=0.004), received the procedure more recently (median year 2012 vs. 2010, p=0.003), were less likely to have a Karnofsky score of equal or higher than 90 (70.8% vs. 81.9%, p=0.017), or to have received peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) (61.5% vs. 72.7%, p=0.028). The groups did not differ in regards to donor source (URD, 50% vs. 56.5%, p=0.24) or the intensity of the preparative regimen (MAC, 82.3% vs. 85.6%, p=0.41). In multivariate analysis, CNS-pos were associated with higher cumulative incidence of relapse (HR=1.58 (95%CI=1.06-2.35), P=0.025) and a trend for an inferior leukemia-free survival (LFS) (HR=1.38 (95%CI=0.99-1.92), p=0.057), but did not adversely impact overall survival (OS) (HR=1.28 (95%CI=0.89-1.85), p=0.18). A subgroup multivariate analysis limited to patients with CNS-pos showed that prescribing a TBI MAC regimen (vs. others) results in a lower cumulative incidence of relapse (HR=0.35 (95%CI=0.15-0.79), p=0.012) and better LFS (HR=0.43 (95%CI=0.22-0.83), p=0.01) and OS (HR=0.44 (95%CI=0.21-0.92), p=0.03). Use of PBSC (vs. BM) was also independently associated with better OS (HR=0.53 (95%CI=0.29-0.99), p=0.046). Conclusion: Notwithstanding the inherent limitations of registry data, particularly ascertaining the absence of CNS involvement in the CNS-neg group, our results show CNS involvement as an independent risk factor for relapse following allo-HCT. Our data support, nonetheless, the choice of a TBI-based MAC regimen in this group of patients but stresses the need for close monitoring of relapse after allo-HCT. Disclosures Labopin: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Bazarbachi: Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Hikma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mielke: Immunicum: Other: Data safety monitoring board; DNA Prime SA: Speakers Bureau; Gilead/KITE: Other: Travel support, Expert panel ; Miltenyi: Other: Data safety monitoring board; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Celgene/BMS: Speakers Bureau. Socie: Alexion: Research Funding. Huynh: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Yakoub-Agha: Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Giebel: Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Peric: Therakos, Servier, MSD, Astellas, Novartis, Abbvie, Pfizer: Honoraria. Mohty: Sanofi: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Astellas: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Honoraria.

Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease and deaths worldwide especially in low- and middle-income countries. Despite the availability of safe, well-tolerated, and cost-effective blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapies, <14% of adults with hypertension have BP controlled to a systolic/diastolic BP <140/90 mm Hg. We report new hypertension treatment guidelines, developed in accordance with the World Health Organization Handbook for Guideline Development. Overviews of reviews of the evidence were conducted and summary tables were developed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations approach. In these guidelines, the World Health Organization provides the most current and relevant evidence-based guidance for the pharmacological treatment of nonpregnant adults with hypertension. The recommendations pertain to adults with an accurate diagnosis of hypertension who have already received lifestyle modification counseling. The guidelines recommend BP threshold to initiate pharmacological therapy, BP treatment targets, intervals for follow-up visits, and best use of health care workers in the management of hypertension. The guidelines provide guidance for choice of monotherapy or dual therapy, treatment with single pill combination medications, and use of treatment algorithms for hypertension management. Strength of the recommendations was guided by the quality of the underlying evidence; the tradeoffs between desirable and undesirable effects; patient’s values, resource considerations and cost-effectiveness; health equity; acceptability, and feasibility consideration of different treatment options. The goal of the guideline is to facilitate standard approaches to pharmacological treatment and management of hypertension which, if widely implemented, will increase the hypertension control rate world-wide.

Breast cancer is a heterogenous disease with variability in tumor cells and in the surrounding tumor microenvironment (TME). Understanding the molecular diversity in breast cancer is critical for improving prediction of therapeutic response and prognostication. High-plex spatial profiling of tumors enables characterization of heterogeneity in the breast TME, which can holistically illuminate the biology of tumor growth, dissemination and, ultimately, response to therapy. The GeoMx Digital Spatial Profiler (DSP) enables researchers to spatially resolve and quantify proteins and RNA transcripts from tissue sections. The platform is compatible with both formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded and frozen tissues. RNA profiling was developed at the whole transcriptome level for human and mouse samples and protein profiling of 100-plex for human samples. Tissue can be optically segmented for analysis of regions of interest or cell populations to study biology-directed tissue characterization. The GeoMx Breast Cancer Consortium (GBCC) is composed of breast cancer researchers who are developing innovative approaches for spatial profiling to accelerate biomarker discovery. Here, the GBCC presents best practices for GeoMx profiling to promote the collection of high-quality data, optimization of data analysis and integration of datasets to advance collaboration and meta-analyses. Although the capabilities of the platform are presented in the context of breast cancer research, they can be generalized to a variety of other tumor types that are characterized by high heterogeneity.

Abstract Background: Use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is associated with increased risk for breast cancer. However, the relevant mechanisms and its interaction with genetic variants are not fully understood. Methods: We conducted a genome-wide interaction analysis between MHT use and genetic variants for breast cancer risk in 27,585 cases and 34,785 controls from 26 observational studies. All women were post-menopausal and of European ancestry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to test for multiplicative interactions between genetic variants and current MHT use. We considered interaction p-values<5x10-8 as genome-wide significant, and p-values<1x10-5 as suggestive. Linkage disequilibrium (LD)-based clumping was performed to identify independent candidate variants.Results: None of the 9.7 million genetic variants tested for interactions with MHT use reached genome-wide significance. Only 213 variants, representing 18 independent loci, had p-values<1x105. The strongest evidence was found for rs4674019 (p-value=2.27x10-7), which showed genome-wide significant interaction (p-value=3.8x10-8) with current MHT use when analysis was restricted to population-based studies only. Limiting the analyses to combined estrogen-progesterone MHT use only or to estrogen receptor (ER) positive cases did not identify any genome-wide significant evidence of interactions. Conclusions: In this large genome-wide SNP-MHT interaction study of breast cancer, we found no strong support for common genetic variants modifying the effect of MHT on breast cancer risk. These results suggest that common genetic variation has limited impact on the observed MHT–breast cancer risk association.