Citations

This consensus by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Inflammatory Bowel Disease Disease Focused Panel provides an updated imaging-based definition of small bowel Crohn disease stricture for CT and MR enterography.

PURPOSE Stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) as opposed to whole-brain radiation (WBRT) represents the standard of care for patients with a limited number of brain metastases given the relatively favorable toxicity profile associated with stereotactic treatment. However, in patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC), WBRT remains standard because of a lack of prospective data supporting SRS/SRT and concerns related to intracranial progression and neurologic death when WBRT is omitted. We conducted a single-arm, multicenter, phase II trial of SRS/SRT in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases to assess neurologic death rates relative to historical controls managed with WBRT (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03391362 ). METHODS Patients were eligible if they had SCLC or an extrathoracic small cell primary and 1-10 brain metastases. Previous brain-directed radiation including prophylactic cranial irradiation was not permitted. Neurologic death was defined as marked, progressive, radiographic brain progression accompanied by corresponding neurologic symptomatology without systemic disease progression or systemic symptoms of a life-threatening nature. Close imaging-based surveillance of the brain post-SRS/SRT was used. RESULTS Between February 2018 and April 2023, 100 patients were enrolled. The median number of brain metastases was 2 (IQR, 1-4; range, 1-10). The median overall survival was 10.2 months; only 22% of patients required salvage WBRT. In total, 20 neurologic deaths were observed, relative to 64 non-neurologic deaths. The neurologic death rate at 1 year was 11.0% (95% CI, 5.8 to 18.1); the historical rate in patients managed with WBRT was 17.5%. CONCLUSION Our prospective, multi-institutional study demonstrated low rates of neurologic death when SRS/SRT as opposed to WBRT is used in patients with SCLC and 1-10 brain metastases who are surveilled closely post-treatment, supporting the utility of stereotactic approaches in this population.

AbstractThe Enhanced EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial is a pragmatic trial testing a collaborative care approach for managing common cancer symptoms. There were challenges in identifying cancer site and metastatic status.This study compares three different approaches to determine cancer site and six strategies for identifying the presence of metastasis using EHR and cancer registry data.The E2C2 cohort included 50,559 patients seen in the medical oncology clinics of a large health system. SPPADE symptoms were assessed with 0 to 10 numeric rating scales (NRS). A multistep process was used to develop three approaches for representing cancer site: the single most prevalent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code, the two most prevalent codes, and any diagnostic code. Six approaches for identifying metastatic disease were compared: ICD-10 codes, natural language processing (NLP), cancer registry, medications typically prescribed for incurable disease, treatment plan, and evaluation for phase 1 trials.The approach counting the two most prevalent ICD-10 cancer site diagnoses per patient detected a median of 92% of the cases identified by counting all cancer site diagnoses, whereas the approach counting only the single most prevalent cancer site diagnosis identified a median of 65%. However, agreement among the three approaches was very good (kappa > 0.80) for most cancer sites. ICD and NLP methods could be applied to the entire cohort and had the highest agreement (kappa = 0.53) for identifying metastasis. Cancer registry data was available for less than half of the patients.Identification of cancer site and metastatic disease using EHR data was feasible in this large and diverse cohort of patients with common cancer symptoms. The methods were pragmatic and may be acceptable for covariates, but likely require refinement for key dependent and independent variables.

INTRODUCTION Gastroesophageal reflux is common in respiratory disease, but the interplay between gastrointestinal mechanisms that expose individuals to reflux and potentially aspiration, and lung mechanics and function remain incompletely understood. Our aim was to investigate this in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and non-idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) interstitial lung disease (non-IPF ILD), and compare with our published findings in IPF. METHODS Fifty-seven patients with COPD (aged: 34–75 years) and 64 with non-IPF ILD (22–75 years) who underwent high-resolution impedance manometry and 24-hour pH impedance together with pulmonary function assessment were compared with 35 IPF patients (51–84 years). RESULTS COPD patients were less likely to exhibit ineffective esophageal motility (IEM) and/or absent contractility ( P = 0.009; P = 0.028), and tended to exhibit esophagogastric junction outflow obstruction (EGJOO) and/or hypercontractility ( P = 0.09, P = 0.14) than IPF and non-IPF ILD patients. Notably, integrated relaxation pressure correlated with esophageal length index (ELI) ( P = 0.048) and inspiratory LESP ( P = 0.003), with latter 2 correlating with each other ( P < 0.001). EGJOO patients tended to have fewer proximal reflux events and reduced pulmonary function, with the latter inversely correlating with ELI ( P < 0.05). Non-IPF ILD patients were less likely to exhibit EGJOO than COPD patients ( P = 0.27), and less likely to exhibit IEM ( P = 0.07) than IPF patients. However, those with IEM or EGJOO exhibited greater proportions of reflux events reaching the proximal esophagus than those with normal motility ( P < 0.03), which in contrast to IPF, seemed not to associate with worse pulmonary function. DISCUSSION Associations between esophageal motility, and lung mechanics and function, and consequently reflux, are very disease-specific.

Purpose: To describe an exceedingly rare presentation of vitreoretinal involvement of metastatic tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma and illustrate the utility of therapeutic and diagnostic epiretinal membrane biopsy. Methods: Case report. Results: A 57-year-old man presented with new vitreous opacities in the left eye. He had a history of tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma status postsurgical excision and was undergoing chemotherapy and radiation therapy. The patient underwent vitreous biopsy that revealed scant cellularity with concern for squamous neoplasia. Soon after, the patient developed a rapidly progressive epiretinal membrane. Membrane peel surgery with en-bloc removal of the epiretinal membrane was performed. Hematoxylin and eosin stain of the sample revealed multiple squamous eddies and mitotic figures, and cytokeratin AE1/AE3 marker was strongly positive, confirming the diagnosis of metastatic squamous cell carcinoma. Intravitreal melphalan injections were started in the left eye. The patient achieved anatomic and visual improvement. Conclusion: Intraocular squamous cell metastasis is rare, and diagnosis can be challenging. Despite initial inconclusive vitreous biopsy cytology in this case, an epiretinal membrane en-bloc sample was obtained, which confirmed involvement by the squamous cell carcinoma and prompted appropriate treatment.

Objectives: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. Liver transplant is a cornerstone in treating nonmetastatic disease, but a significant portion of patients miss the opportunity of upfront liver transplant given the long waiting time for donor organs. Herein, we compare the survival outcomes between upfront liver transplant, liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, and systemic therapy only. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between 2004 and 2017. After including only patients with clinical N0 stage who received either systemic therapy alone, liver transplant alone or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, we split the cohort into 3 groups: systemic therapy only (including intra-arterial chemotherapy eg, TACE) group, upfront liver transplant group and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy group. We evaluated overall survival (OS) among the three groups. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 29,691 patients with nonmetastatic HCC were included for analysis, of which 25,122 (84.6%) were treated with systemic therapy only, 2513 (8.5%) were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant, and 2056 (6.9%) were treated with upfront liver transplant without systemic therapy bridge. We found that patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant had a statistically significantly better OS compared to patients who were treated with systemic therapy only (mean OS was 101.9 mo and 98.2 vs. 39.4 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Whereas there was no significant difference in OS between patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant (mean OS was 101.9 vs. 98.2 months, P =0.187). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with worse OS were older age (HR: 1.011; 95% CI: 1.010-1.013; P <0.001), Male sex (HR: 1.048; 95% CI: 1.014-1.084; P =0.006), White compared with African American race (HR: 1.055; 95% CI: 1.012-1.099; P =0.011), no insurance status (HR: 1.155; 95% CI: 1.079-1.237; P <0.001), clinical T4 stage compared with T0 stage (HR: 1.366; 95% CI: 1.257-1.483, P <0.001), and systemic therapy alone compared with upfront liver transplant and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy (HR for upfront liver transplant and transplant with bridge systemic therapy vs. systemic therapy was 0.202; 95% CI: 0.184-0.223, and HR: 0.194, 95% CI: 0.178-0.212, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Conclusions: Patients with nonmetastatic HCC who were treated with upfront liver transplant or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy had statistically significant improvement in OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy only. While our study confirms the survival benefit of liver transplant among patients with nonmetastatic HCC, these results raise the importance of proceeding with liver transplant after intra-arterial and/or systemic treatments in patients who are not initially eligible for or missed the opportunity of upfront liver transplant.

TPS1143 Background: Poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) have revolutionized the treatment of patients (pts) with germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA)-associated HER2-negative BC. However, resistance eventually occurs in almost all pts. Tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs), a key component of the BC tumor microenvironment, are highly immunosuppressive and associated with poor clinical outcomes. In preclinical immunocompetent models of BRCA-associated BC, PARP inhibition induces suppressive CSF-1R+ TAMs, contributing to resistance, so that combining anti-CSF-1R therapy with PARPi significantly enhances progression free survival (PFS) compared to PARPi monotherapy (190d vs 92d). Axatilimab (SNDX-6352; Ab969.g2), a humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting CSF-1R, reduces TAMs, potentially slowing tumor growth and enhancing anti-tumor immunity. In the Phase I SNDX-6352-0502 study for advanced solid tumors, axatilimab showed tolerability at the highest dose (6 mg/kg), with biomarker modulation observed at doses as low as 1 mg/kg. Axatilimab is FDA-approved for chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). Methods: AXALAP (NCT06488378) is a non-randomized open-label, proof-of-concept phase 1 study designed to evaluate axatilimab 1mg/kg or 3mg/kg every 2 weeks in combination with olaparib 300 mg twice daily in pts with somatic or germline BRCA1/2 - and PALB2 -associated HER2-negative metastatic BC. Patients must be PARPi naïve, or have not progressed on prior PARPi, and have received up to 2 prior lines of chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Pts will receive a two-week lead-in of olaparib monotherapy, followed by combined olaparib and axatilimab. Pts will undergo mandatory tumor biopsies pre-treatment, after the 2-week olaparib lead-in, and after 2 cycles of olaparib/axatilimab, with an optional biopsy at time-of-progression. Primary objectives are to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose and to assess the safety and tolerability of axatilimab and olaparib. Secondary objectives include assessment of changes in CSF-1R+ CD163+ macrophage levels after olaparib monotherapy and after 2 cycles of combination treatment at the MTD; to determine the objective response rate and the median PFS of the combination per RECIST 1.1 criteria. The MTD will be determined by Bayesian Optimal Interval (BOIN) design. Pts will be treated in cohorts of 3 with a maximum of 10 at each dose. If the MTD is identified as 3mg/kg, we will complete enrollment of 10 pts at 1 mg/kg to assess biological effectiveness and clinical efficacy of the lower dose. We expect to treat up to 20 pts, who will receive study treatment until development of unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Enrollment began on 5/2024 at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and the trial will also open at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Mayo Clinic-Rochester. Clinical trial information: NCT03604692 .

Abstract Colony stimulating factor-1 receptor (CSF1R) encodes for a tyrosine kinase receptor expressed on microglia. CSF1R related disorder is a devastating autosomal dominant leukoencephalopathy caused by CSF1R with variable penetrance in adults. It remains significantly underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed. We report a case of a 43-year-old woman with an insidious onset of neurocognitive decline, alien limb phenomenon, and personality changes over 1 year. In this report we will discuss the clinical approach, differential diagnosis, investigation, and available treatment options for CSF1R related disorder.

2011 Background: Radiation therapy forms the mainstay of management for patients with brain metastases. Published randomized trials have found improved quality of life with stereotactic radiation (SRS/SRT) over whole brain radiation (WBRT) in patients with ≤ 4 brain metastases; comparative trials in patients with >4 brain metastases are lacking. In addition, prior randomized trials have demonstrated the superiority of hippocampal avoidance WBRT (HA-WBRT) over traditional WBRT, but no study has compared SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT. Accordingly, we conducted a multicenter, phase 3 randomized trial comparing SRS/SRT to HA-WBRT in patients with 5-20 brain metastases. Methods: Eligible patients were age 18-80 with 5-20 brain metastases secondary to a solid primary other than small cell lung cancer, were naïve to prior brain-directed radiation, and lacked leptomeningeal disease. The primary endpoint was the average of patient-reported symptom severity and interference over the first six months post-baseline relative to baseline, using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory–Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) module, a validated instrument assessing 22 symptoms and 6 interference measures integral to quality of life, each scored 0-10 with higher scores indicating greater symptomatology/interference in function. The target effect size was a symptom severity of 0.70, corresponding to 50% of the observed difference between patients with a good (90-100) versus poor (≤80) Karnofsky performance status; with 80% power and a two-sided alpha of 0.05, 196 patients were required. Results: Between 4/2017-5/2024, 196 patients enrolled, 98 in each arm. The median number of brain metastases was 14 (IQR 11-18); 25% of patients underwent prior neurosurgical resection. Baseline mean MDASI-BT symptom severity scores were 2.2 (SRS/SRT arm) and 1.9 (HA-WBRT arm), p=0.20; respective interference scores were 3.5 and 3.2 (p=0.40). The average of weighted post-baseline severity and interference scores relative to baseline indicated lower symptomatology/inference in the SRS/SRT arm, meeting the primary endpoint of the study (difference between SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT: -1.06, p<0.001). Averaged post-baseline symptom severity scores minus baseline were -0.03 and 0.59 in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (difference -0.62, with lower symptom severity in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001); respective interference estimates were -0.62 and 0.89 (difference -1.50, with lower interference in the SRS/SRT arm, p<0.001). Median survival was 8.3 and 8.5 months in the SRS/SRT and HA-WBRT arms, respectively (p=0.30). Conclusions: This phase 3 randomized trial indicates that patients with 5-20 brain metastases experience fewer symptoms and less interference in function after SRS/SRT as opposed to HA-WBRT, without compromise of survival, supporting SRS/SRT as the standard of care in this population. Clinical trial information: NCT03075072 .