Citations

Aims Tranexamic acid (TXA) is proven to reduce blood loss following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but there are limited data on the impact of similar dosing regimens in revision TKA. The purpose of this multicentre randomized clinical trial was to determine the optimal regimen to maximize the blood-sparing properties of TXA in revision TKA. Patients and Methods From six-centres, 233 revision TKAs were randomized to one of four regimens: 1 g of intravenous (IV) TXA given prior to the skin incision, a double-dose regimen of 1 g IV TXA given both prior to skin incision and at time of wound closure, a combination of 1 g IV TXA given prior to skin incision and 1 g of intraoperative topical TXA, or three doses of 1950 mg oral TXA given two hours preoperatively, six hours postoperatively, and on the morning of postoperative day one. Randomization was performed based on the type of revision procedure to ensure equivalent distribution among groups. Power analysis determined that 40 patients per group were necessary to identify a 1 g/dl difference in the reduction of haemoglobin postoperatively between groups with an alpha of 0.05 and power of 0.80. Per-protocol analysis involved regression analysis and two one-sided t-tests for equivalence. Results In total, one patient withdrew, five did not undergo surgery, 16 were screening failures, and 25 did not receive the assigned treatment, leaving 186 patients for analysis. There was no significant difference in haemoglobin reduction among treatments (2.8 g/dl for single-dose IV TXA, 2.6 g/dl for double-dose IV TXA, 2.6 g/dl for combined IV/topical TXA, 2.9 g/dl for oral TXA; p = 0.38). Similarly, calculated blood loss (p = 0.65) and transfusion rates (p = 0.95) were not significantly different between groups. Equivalence testing assuming a 1 g/dl difference in haemoglobin change as clinically relevant showed that all possible pairings were statistically equivalent. Conclusion Despite the higher risk of blood loss in revision TKA, all TXA regimens tested had equivalent blood-sparing properties. Surgeons should consider using the lowest effective dose and least costly TXA regimen in revision TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(Supple 7):10–16

TPS4596 Background: First-line treatment of mRCC has rapidly changed to include IPI-NIVO or CABO, with clinical benefit of each based on the Checkmate 214 and CABOSUN trials. Combination immunotherapy with VEGF therapies have shown benefit in the JAVELIN 101 and KEYNOTE 426 trials over sunitinib. It is yet unclear which patients (pts) benefit most from combination immunotherapy-VEGF inhibitors, and the optimal sequence of drugs. Methods: In an adaptive, randomized, multicenter, phase 3 trial (Alliance A031704, PDIGREE), pts will start treatment with induction IPI 1mg/kg and NIVO 3mg/kg intravenously (IV) once every 3 weeks. Key inclusion criteria include clear cell mRCC, IMDC intermediate or poor risk, Karnofsky performance status >70, and no prior treatments for mRCC. Based on 3-month radiographic assessment (after completing IPI-NIVO combination), pts with complete responses (CR) will undergo maintenance NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks, pts with progression of disease (PD) will switch to CABO 60mg oral daily, and pts with non-CR/non-PD will be randomized to NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks versus NIVO 480mg IV every 4 weeks with CABO 40mg oral daily. Randomization will be stratified by IMDC risk criteria and presence of bone metastases. The primary endpoint of the study is overall survival (OS). We hypothesize that 3-year OS rate will improve to 70% for NIVO-CABO compared to 60% for NIVO alone; to achieve 85% power with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and exponential distribution, 696 patients will be randomized. Accounting for 30% patients with either CR or PD, and 5% dropout from toxicity, up to 1046 pts will be enrolled. Key secondary endpoints include PFS, 12-month CR rate, ORR based on RECIST 1.1 and irRECIST criteria, and toxicity profiles. Quality of life will be assessed based on the FKSI-19, PROMIS-fatigue, and EQ5D-5L questionnaires. Biomarkers associated with CR and association of IL-6 with treatment benefit will be assessed. Other tissue-based and plasma-based biomarkers are planned. Enrollment will begin this year. Support from UG1CA189823, U24CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03793166.

e15169 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer with deficient DNA mismatch repair (dMMR), anti-PD-1 antibody monotherapy produced high tumor response rates and extended progression-free survival compared to lack of benefit for cancers with proficient MMR. In an ongoing phase III randomized trial, we will determine if the addition of the anti-PD-L1 antibody, atezolizumab (Genentech), to adjuvant FOLFOX can improve patient disease-free survival (DFS) vs FOLFOX alone in patients with stage III colon cancers with dMMR. By blocking the PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, atezolizumab may activate T cells, thereby, restoring their ability to detect and attack tumor cells. Limited data suggest that FOLFOX may increase intratumoral cytotoxic CD8+ T cells that could serve as ‘immune priming'. Methods: Patients with curatively resected stage III colon carcinomas with evidence of dMMR are randomized to modified FOLFOX6 for 6 months (12 cycles) alone (control arm) or combined with atezolizumab (840 mg IV q2 wk) with continuation of the antibody as monotherapy for an additional 6 months (total duration of 12 months) [experimental arm]. Patients will be stratified by T, N stage and tumor sidedness. Local testing for MMR proteins is allowed. Atezolizumab must begin by/with cycle 2. One cycle of FOLFOX is allowed pre-registration. The targeted accrual goal of 700 patients and 165 disease-free survival (DFS) events will provide 90% power to detect an effect size expressed as hazard ratio of 0.6 for the primary endpoint of DFS at two-sided alpha of 0.05. Interim analyses are planned at 50% and 75% of events. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, treatment tolerability, and quality of life. Results: This study is being conducted by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, was approved by NCI CTEP and activated in 09/2017. The study is actively accruing and, as of 02/11/2019, 152 patients are enrolled. We are actively exploring an international collaboration. Conclusions: This is a current clinical trial in progress. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559.

SummarySelinexor, an oral Selective Inhibitor of Nuclear Export, targets Exportin 1 (XPO1, also termed CRM1). Non‐clinical studies support combining selinexor with proteasome inhibitors (PIs) and corticosteroids to overcome resistance in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). We conducted a phase I dose‐escalation trial of twice‐weekly selinexor in combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone (SKd) to determine maximum tolerated dose in patients with RRMM (N = 21), with an expansion cohort to assess activity in carfilzomib‐refractory disease and identify a recommended phase II dose (RP2D). During dose escalation, there was one dose‐limiting toxicity (cardiac failure). The RP2D of twice‐weekly SKd was selinexor 60 mg, carfilzomib 20/27 mg/m2 and dexamethasone 20 mg. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐emergent adverse events included thrombocytopenia (71%), anaemia (33%), lymphopenia (33%), neutropenia (33%) and infections (24%). Rates of ≥minimal response, ≥partial response and very good partial response were 71%, 48% and 14%, respectively; similar response outcomes were observed for dual‐class refractory (PI and immunomodulatory drug)/quad‐exposed (carfilzomib, bortezomib, lenalidomide and pomalidomide) patients (n = 17), and patients refractory to carfilzomib in last line of therapy (n = 13). Median progression‐free survival was 3·7 months, and overall survival was 22·4 months in the overall population. SKd was tolerable and re‐established disease control in RRMM patients, including carfilzomib‐refractory patients.Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02199665)

Background Despite a continued focus on improved cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality, survival remains low from in-hospital cardiac arrest. Advanced Resuscitation Training has been shown to improve survival to hospital discharge and survival with good neurological outcome following in-hospital cardiac arrest at its home institution. We sought to determine if Advanced Resuscitation Training implementation would improve patient outcomes and cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality at our institution. Methods This was a prospective, before–after study of adult in-hospital cardiac arrest victims who had cardiopulmonary resuscitation performed. During phase 1, standard institution cardiopulmonary resuscitation training was provided. During phase 2, providers received the same quantity of training, but with emphasis on Advanced Resuscitation Training principles. Primary outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, and neurologically favorable survival. Secondary outcomes were cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality parameters. Results A total of 156 adult in-hospital cardiac arrests occurred during the study period. Rates of return of spontaneous circulation improved from 58.1 to 86.3% with an adjusted odds ratios of 5.31 (95% CI: 2.23–14.35, P < 0.001). Survival to discharge increased from 26.7 to 41.2%, adjusted odds ratios 2.17 (95% CI: 1.02–4.67, P < 0.05). Survival with a good neurological outcome increased from 24.8 to 35.3%, but was not statistically significant. Target chest compression rate increased from 30.4% of patients in P1 to 65.6% in P2, adjusted odds ratios 4.27 (95% CI: 1.72–11.12, P = 0.002), and target depth increased from 23.2% in P1 to 46.9% in P2, adjusted odds ratios 2.92 (95% CI: 1.16–7.54, P = 0.024). Conclusions After Advanced Resuscitation Training implementation, there were significant improvements in cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and rates of return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge.