Citations

Abstract Context The role of cytoreduction of adrenocortical carcinoma (ACC) remains poorly understood. Objective To analyze the impact of cytoreductive surgery of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic ACC. Design and Setting We performed a multicentric, retrospective paired cohort study comparing the overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic ACC who were treated either with cytoreductive surgery (CR group) or without cytoreductive surgery (no-CR group) of the primary tumor. Data were retrieved from 9 referral centers in the American-Australian-Asian Adrenal Alliance collaborative research group. Patients Patients aged ≥18 years with metastatic ACC at initial presentation who were treated between January 1, 1995, and May 31, 2019. Intervention Performance (or not) of cytoreductive surgery of the primary tumor. Main outcome and measures A propensity score match was done using age and the number of organs with metastasis (≤2 or >2). The main outcome was OS, determined from the date of diagnosis until death or until last follow-up for living patients. Results Of 339 patients pooled, 239 were paired and included: 128 in the CR group and 111 in the no-CR group. The mean follow-up was 67 months. Patients in the no-CR group had greater risk of death than did patients in the CR group (hazard ratio [HR] = 3.18; 95% CI, 2.34-4.32). Independent predictors of survival included age (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.00-1.03), hormone excess (HR = 2.56; 95% CI, 1.66-3.92), and local metastasis therapy (HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.47-0.65). Conclusion Cytoreductive surgery of the primary tumor in patients with metastatic ACC is associated with prolonged survival.

Abstract Background: Several targeted therapies have been recently approved as treatment options for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), however, complete remissions (CR) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients remain low. Due to suboptimal responses to standard therapies, most of these patients do not receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). In addition, AML patients ≥55 years have poor tolerance and high morbidity from a myeloablative HCT. The SIERRA trial (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) has been investigating the use of Iomab-B, an 131I-labeled anti-CD45 monoclonal antibody, to reduce relapse in patients with active, R/R AML who receive HCT as compared to Conventional Care (CC) therapies. With the recent approval of various targeted therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors (e.g., venetoclax), FLT-3 inhibitors (e.g., midostaurin and gilteritinib) and IDH inhibitors (e.g., ivosidenib), the protocol was amended to include patients refractory to these therapies. We are reporting on the success rate of engraftment and tolerability of Iomab-B among the CC patients who cross-over to receive Iomab-B and HCT after failing these agents. Methods: Approximately 150 older patients with R/R AML are to be randomized (1:1) to receive Iomab-B followed by fludarabine, total body irradiation (2 Gy) and allogeneic HCT, or to conventional care (CC). CC patients receive physician's choice of therapy, including targeted therapies, and may proceed to standard of care allogeneic HCT if they achieve CR. CC patients not achieving CR may cross over to Iomab-B-based HCT. Results: Available data for 136 patients (>90% of target enrollment; median age 65) demonstrated they had a median of 3 (range: 1-7) prior lines of AML therapies. Median marrow blast at time of study entry was 25%. Prior to enrollment, 85 (63%) patients received targeted therapies, including BCL-2 inhibitors (62%), FLT-3 inhibitors (18%), IDH inhibitors (7%) and others (13%; e.g., gemtuzumab ozogamicin). Among the 50 evaluable patients in the Iomab-B group that received HCT, all successfully engrafted after a median radiation dose delivered to marrow of 14.7 Gy (range: 4.6 - 44.6) with a median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment of 14.5 (range: 9-28) and 18 (range: 4-58) days, respectively. Of 63 patients randomized to the CC arm and with data available, 11 (17%) achieved CR and proceeded to standard of care HCT without Iomab-B while 52 (83%) did not respond to CC therapy. Twenty-seven of 63 (43%) CC patients received targeted therapy, of whom 21 received venetoclax with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or low-dose Cytarabine (LDAC). Seven of the 27 (26%) CC patients remission after targeted therapy and received standard of care HCT. Of the 20 patients who did not respond to targeted therapies, 11 (55%) crossed-over and received Iomab-B/HCT with a median radiation dose delivered to marrow of 18 Gy (range: 12.6 - 22.6). Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 12 (range: 10-27) and 20 (range: 15-38) days, respectively. Safety data are available for 103 transplanted patients in both groups and are presented in table. The incidence of Grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia (FN) was 37% vs 55%, sepsis 5% vs 30%, and mucositis 10% vs 20% in the Iomab-B group compared to all transplanted patients in the CC group. In patients who received targeted therapy and HCT (crossover or standard HCT), incidences of FN, sepsis and mucositis were 39%, 28% and 22%, respectively. Conclusion: SIERRA trial patients not achieving CR with recently approved targeted therapies who then crossed-over to receive HCT with Iomab-B successfully engrafted. Time to engraftment was similar to those who were randomized to receive Iomab-B and HCT. Available data suggest incidences of sepsis and mucositis are lower in the Iomab-B group. (www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov NCT02665065) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceutical Inc.: Research Funding. Nath: Actinium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Litzow: Amgen: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding. Koshy: Astellas; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Speakers Bureau. Stiff: Seagen: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Abhyankar: Incyte/Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hari: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chen: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium. Sabloff: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TaiHo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jaxx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ROCHE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orozco: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Research Funding. Foran: abbvie: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; bms: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Jamieson: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium. Magalhaes-Silverman: Actinium Pharmaceuticals; Incyte; Marker Therapeutics: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Research Funding. Schuster: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys Ag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Intellisphere: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Incorporated: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; AlloVir: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau. Law: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Levy: Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,Janssen.: Consultancy. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giralt: PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SANOFI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELGENE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JAZZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JENSENN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinnum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berger: Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment. Spross: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Desai: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Reddy: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pagel: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy.

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is a highly malignant type of adult brain tumor with a poor prognosis. Temozolomide (TMZ), a DNA alkylating agent, has been widely used as an effective first-line chemotherapeutic agent for the treatment of GBM patients. The efficacy of TMZ in GBM depends on the absence of the DNA repair protein MGMT which reverses the DNA damage induced by TMZ. The MGMT promoter is hypermethylated in about 45% of GBMs, resulting in lack of MGMT expression and increased responsiveness to TMZ. TMZ is less effective in MGMT unmethylated GBMs. We propose that EGFR inhibition downregulates MGMT and sensitizes glioma cells to TMZ and a combination of pretreatment with erlotinib followed by TMZ could be a useful therapeutic approach in MGMT expressing GBMs. As our experimental model, we used multiple MGMT unmethylated lines from the Mayo Clinic patient derived xenografts (PDXs) panel. Our data demonstrate that exposure of cells to erlotinib for 48h results in downregulation of MGMT at the mRNA and protein level. Additionally, EGFR inhibition activates the AP-1 transcription factor, and overexpression of AP-1 components Fos and Jun results in decreased MGMT expression in TMZ resistant PDXs, suggesting that AP-1 acts as a transcriptional repressor of MGMT. We further identified that the mice implanted with TMZ resistant PDXs pretreated with afatinib followed by TMZ treatment survived longer compared to those treated with TMZ alone. Thus, the use of EGFR inhibition may enhance the sensitivity of MGMT unmethylated GBMs to TMZ.

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.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.

Background The past two decades have witnessed a surge in the use of cervical spine joint procedures including joint injections, nerve blocks and radiofrequency ablation to treat chronic neck pain, yet many aspects of the procedures remain controversial. Methods In August 2020, the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the American Academy of Pain Medicine approved and charged the Cervical Joint Working Group to develop neck pain guidelines. Eighteen stakeholder societies were identified, and formal request-for-participation and member nomination letters were sent to those organizations. Participating entities selected panel members and an ad hoc steering committee selected preliminary questions, which were then revised by the full committee. Each question was assigned to a module composed of 4–5 members, who worked with the Subcommittee Lead and the Committee Chairs on preliminary versions, which were sent to the full committee after revisions. We used a modified Delphi method whereby the questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was reached. Before commencing, it was agreed that a recommendation would be noted with >50% agreement among committee members, but a consensus recommendation would require ≥75% agreement. Results Twenty questions were selected, with 100% consensus achieved in committee on 17 topics. Among participating organizations, 14 of 15 that voted approved or supported the guidelines en bloc, with 14 questions being approved with no dissensions or abstentions. Specific questions addressed included the value of clinical presentation and imaging in selecting patients for procedures, whether conservative treatment should be used before injections, whether imaging is necessary for blocks, diagnostic and prognostic value of medial branch blocks and intra-articular joint injections, the effects of sedation and injectate volume on validity, whether facet blocks have therapeutic value, what the ideal cut-off value is for designating a block as positive, how many blocks should be performed before radiofrequency ablation, the orientation of electrodes, whether larger lesions translate into higher success rates, whether stimulation should be used before radiofrequency ablation, how best to mitigate complication risks, if different standards should be applied to clinical practice and trials, and the indications for repeating radiofrequency ablation. Conclusions Cervical medial branch radiofrequency ablation may provide benefit to well-selected individuals, with medial branch blocks being more predictive than intra-articular injections. More stringent selection criteria are likely to improve denervation outcomes, but at the expense of false-negatives (ie, lower overall success rate). Clinical trials should be tailored based on objectives, and selection criteria for some may be more stringent than what is ideal in clinical practice.

Abstract Objective This post hoc analysis in patients medically diagnosed with chronic migraine (CM) and medication‐overuse headache (MOH) evaluated reductions in the use of acute headache medication (AHM) and sustained changes in the diagnostic status of CM and MOH following eptinezumab treatment in the PROMISE‐2 study. Background Eptinezumab, a monoclonal antibody that inhibits calcitonin gene‐related peptide, is approved in the United States for the preventive treatment of migraine. A previous analysis showed that eptinezumab reduced monthly migraine days and was well tolerated in the subgroup of PROMISE‐2 patients diagnosed with both CM and MOH. Methods The phase 3, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled PROMISE‐2 study (NCT02974153) randomized adults with CM to eptinezumab 100 mg, 300 mg, or placebo (administered intravenously every 12 weeks for up to two doses). MOH was prospectively diagnosed at screening by trained physicians based on 3 months of medication history and International Classification of Headache Disorders‐3β criteria. This post hoc analysis evaluated changes in total and class‐specific days of AHM usage, the percentage of patients using AHM at or above MOH diagnostic thresholds, and the percentage of patients experiencing monthly headache and migraine day frequency below diagnostic thresholds for MOH and/or CM. Results In PROMISE‐2, 431/1072 (40.2%) patients with CM were diagnosed with MOH (eptinezumab 100 mg, n = 139; 300 mg, n = 147; placebo, n = 145) and were included in this analysis. Total monthly AHM use decreased from 20.6 days/month at baseline to 10.6 days/month over 24 weeks of treatment (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 100 mg, from 20.7 to 10.5 days/month (49% decrease) with eptinezumab 300 mg, and from 19.8 to 14.0 days/month (29% decrease) with placebo. Numerically greater decreases from baseline with eptinezumab were also observed for individual drug classes. In each study month, the percentages of patients who were below MOH thresholds were numerically higher for both eptinezumab doses compared with placebo, as were the percentages of patients experiencing headache and migraine frequency below CM thresholds. Of patients with available data across the entire treatment period, 29.0% (58/200) of patients treated with eptinezumab stopped meeting and remained below diagnostic thresholds for both CM and MOH during Weeks 1–24, as well as 6.3% (6/96) of patients who received placebo. Conclusions Across 24 weeks of treatment, eptinezumab reduced AHM use in patients diagnosed with CM and MOH. More than one‐fourth (29%) of patients treated with eptinezumab did not meet the diagnostic thresholds for either CM or MOH for the entire treatment period.

Abstract Introduction Amyloid beta (Aβ), tau, and neurodegeneration jointly with the Alzheimer's disease (AD) risk factors affect the severity of clinical symptoms and disease progression. Methods Within 248 Aβ‐positive elderly with and without cognitive impairment and dementia, partial least squares structural equation pathway modeling was used to assess the direct and indirect effects of imaging biomarkers (global Aβ‐positron emission tomography [PET] uptake, regional tau‐PET uptake, and regional magnetic resonance imaging–based atrophy) and risk‐factors (age, sex, education, apolipoprotein E [ APOE ], and white‐matter lesions) on cross‐sectional cognitive impairment and longitudinal cognitive decline. Results Sixteen percent of variance in cross‐sectional cognitive impairment was accounted for by Aβ, 46% to 47% by tau, and 25% to 29% by atrophy, although 53% to 58% of total variance in cognitive impairment was explained by incorporating mediated and direct effects of AD risk factors. The Aβ–tau–atrophy pathway accounted for 50% to 56% of variance in longitudinal cognitive decline while Aβ, tau, and atrophy independently explained 16%, 46% to 47%, and 25% to 29% of the variance, respectively. Discussion These findings emphasize that treatments that remove Aβ and completely stop downstream effects on tau and neurodegeneration would only be partially effective in slowing of cognitive decline or reversing cognitive impairment.