Citations

Abstract Introduction Chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with dyssynchrony, leading to increased mortality. However, there have been discrepancies in previous reports in the effect of RVP levels. Objective To sub-stratify mortality risk by age for different RVP level groups within a large real-world ICD cohort. Methods Optum® de-identified electronic health records were linked to the Medtronic Carelink data to identify dual chamber ICD recipients (2007–2017). RVP level was based on median daily pacing during the first 90 days post-implant and categorized either into groups with a cutoff of 40%, or with groups of 0–9%, 10–19%, 20–29%, 30–39%, 40–49%, and 50–100%. The endpoint was death more than 90 days post-implant. Kaplan-Meier survival curves, log-rank tests, and Cox regression were used to analyze the relationship between RVP and risk of death. Results Among 14,832 ICD patients (median age 67; 74.0% male), there were 2,602 deaths within 10 years after implant. In unadjusted comparisons, high RVP (>40%) increased the risk of death relative to low RVP (≤40%) (p<0.001). This effect remained significant in older cohort (≥67 years old at implant) (p<0.001), but not in younger cohort (<67 years old) (p=0.955) (Figure). After controlling for age, gender, pacing mode, MI, SCA, HF hospitalization, diabetes, and renal dysfunction, similar or increased risk was associated with higher pacing groups relative to the 0–9% pacing group in the older cohort, but not in the younger cohort. Conclusions Our data from a large contemporaneous real-world source suggests that older age or characteristics associated with age make patients more sensitive to chronic RVP effects. These results help reconcile differences observed in prior studies. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic, Inc.

Abstract Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is confined to the brain, eyes, and cerebrospinal fluid without evidence of systemic spread. Rarely, PCNSL occurs in the context of immunosuppression (eg, posttransplant lymphoproliferative disorders or HIV [AIDS-related PCNSL]). These cases are poorly characterized, have dismal outcome, and are typically Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-associated (ie, tissue-positive). We used targeted sequencing and digital multiplex gene expression to compare the genetic landscape and tumor microenvironment (TME) of 91 PCNSL tissues all with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma histology. Forty-seven were EBV tissue-negative: 45 EBV− HIV− PCNSL and 2 EBV− HIV+ PCNSL; and 44 were EBV tissue-positive: 23 EBV+ HIV+ PCNSL and 21 EBV+ HIV− PCNSL. As with prior studies, EBV− HIV− PCNSL had frequent MYD88, CD79B, and PIM1 mutations, and enrichment for the activated B-cell (ABC) cell-of-origin subtype. In contrast, these mutations were absent in all EBV tissue-positive cases and ABC frequency was low. Furthermore, copy number loss in HLA class I/II and antigen-presenting/processing genes were rarely observed, indicating retained antigen presentation. To counter this, EBV+ HIV− PCNSL had a tolerogenic TME with elevated macrophage and immune-checkpoint gene expression, whereas AIDS-related PCNSL had low CD4 gene counts. EBV-associated PCNSL in the immunosuppressed is immunobiologically distinct from EBV− HIV− PCNSL, and, despite expressing an immunogenic virus, retains the ability to present EBV antigens. Results provide a framework for targeted treatment.

Malignant melanoma of the lacrimal sac is an exceptionally rare tumor with a poor prognosis. We report two cases of malignant melanoma of the lacrimal sac: a 73 year-old female treated with primary surgical resection and a 75 year-old male treated with surgical resection, adjuvant proton beam radiotherapy, and adjuvant immunotherapy. We discuss the role of post-operative proton beam therapy and recent advancements in immunotherapy. These cases highlight the importance of early diagnosis and multi-modality treatment in this aggressive malignancy.

Abstract Purpose: Intratumoral immunosuppression mediated by myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) and tumor-associated macrophages (TAM) represents a potential mechanism of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) resistance in solid tumors. By promoting TAM and MDSC infiltration, IL1β may drive adaptive and innate immune resistance in renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and in other tumor types. Experimental Design: Using the RENCA model of RCC, we evaluated clinically relevant combinations of anti-IL1β plus either anti-PD-1 or the multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), cabozantinib. We performed comprehensive immune profiling of established RENCA tumors via multiparameter flow cytometry, tumor cytokine profiling, and single-cell RNA sequencing (RNA-seq). Similar analyses were extended to the MC38 tumor model. Results: Analyses via multiparameter flow cytometry, tumor cytokine profiling, and single-cell RNA-seq showed that anti-IL1β reduces infiltration of polymorphonuclear MDSCs and TAMs. Combination treatment with anti-IL1β plus anti-PD-1 or cabozantinib showed increased antitumor activity that was associated with decreases in immunosuppressive MDSCs and increases in M1-like TAMs. Conclusions: Single-cell RNA-seq analyses show that IL1β blockade and ICI or TKI remodel the myeloid compartment through nonredundant, relatively T-cell–independent mechanisms. IL1β is an upstream mediator of adaptive myeloid resistance and represents a potential target for kidney cancer immunotherapy.

Background: Somatic mutations in the IDH genes are common in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Mutations occur at active site arginine residues in IDH1 (R132) and IDH2 (R140, R172). IDH inhibitors, ivosidenib (IDH1) and enasidenib (IDH2), have shown improved clinical outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory IDH-mutant AML and are approved for use in this setting, while investigations in combination with chemotherapy are underway in de novo AML. The prognostic significance of IDH mutations remains controversial. We hypothesize that refining our understanding of IDH-mutated AML will contribute to risk-adapted treatment strategies, including optimal use of IDH-targeted agents. The objective of our study was to identify characteristics that affect outcome in de novo IDH-mutated AML across the age spectrum utilizing a large cohort of patients enrolled on several pediatric and adult trials. Methods: The total cohort (N=3588) included patients age <1 month - 88 years. Pediatric and young adult (YA) patients were treated on recent CCG/COG AML trials (CCG2961, COG 03P1, 0531, 1031, N=2231) and YA/adult patients were treated on SWOG S0106 (N=396), ECOG E1900 AML trials (N=398), Beat AML (N=363), or included in the TCGA biology study (N=200; outcomes not evaluated for this group). Patients were analyzed according to three defined age groups: "younger" 0-29 years of age (N=2401), "intermediate" 30-59 years of age (N=819) and "older" 60 years of age and above (N=319). Data regarding clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes were collected and evaluated according to the standard practices of each cooperative or research groups for the respective studies. Mutational profiling was performed by targeted sequencing for patient samples from COG trials, Beat-AML, ECOG, and SWOG; whole-genome or whole-exome sequencing for the TCGA cohort. Prevalence of IDH mutations, co-occurring mutations, and outcomes (5-year event-free survival [EFS]) were analyzed across the defined age groups. Results: The prevalence of IDH mutations among the entire cohort was 8.6% (N=276). Analysis according to mutation type demonstrated that IDH2 mutations comprised 57% (N=158) and IDH1 mutations 43% (N=118). The prevalence of IDH mutations was strongly correlated with increased age (Fig 1A); according to the age-defined cohorts was 4.0% (N=82) in younger, 15.2% (N=126) in intermediate, and 20.3% (N=65) in older patients (p<0.001). The co-occurring mutational profile demonstrated that IDH mutations commonly co-occurred with NPM1,DNMT3A, and FLT3-ITD mutations (Fig 1B). Among IDH-mutant patients, 48% (N=132) harbored dual mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut); 11.6% (N=32) triple mutations (IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut), the latter particularly prevalent in intermediate-aged adults (N=27/32, 85%). Analysis of the cohort with outcome data (N=2824) demonstrated that IDHmut and IDH-WT patients experienced similar EFS of 39% vs. 40%, respectively (p=0.723). Given the favorable prognostic significance of NPM1, we subsequently analyzed outcomes of this dual mutant group and found that NPM1 mutations retained favorable prognostic impact in the context of IDH mutant patients (Fig 2A). Notably, this effect was age-dependent, as those with IDHmut/NPM1mut had a favorable EFS compared to IDHmut/NPM1-WT for younger (76% vs. 24%, p<0.001) and intermediate patients (43% vs. 15%, p=0.001, Fig 2B) but this favorable effect was lost in older patients (29% vs. 34%, p=0.456, Fig 2C). Among intermediate age patients, outcome was further stratified by DNMT3A status, and IDHmut/NPM1mut/DNMT3Amut patients experienced an inferior EFS of 25% vs. 57% in IDHmut/NPMmut (p=0.003, Fig 2D). Conclusion: Analysis of this large patient cohort provides the most comprehensive description of IDH mutations in AML across the age spectrum. We confirm age-associated prevalence of IDH mutations and frequent co-occurrence with NPM1 mutation in all ages and in further combination with DNMT3A mutation in intermediate-aged adults. We definitively demonstrate that IDH mutation status is not an independent prognostic determinant of outcome in any age group. Co-occurrence of NPM1 and IDH mutations favorably impacts outcome in patients < 60 years of age with AML, particularly in the absence of DNMT3A mutation. Our data support that IDH inhibitors may be of particular interest in older adults and in patients <60 according to co-occurring NPM1 and DNMT3A mutations. Disclosures Othus: Marck: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Radich:Jazz: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy. Abdel-Wahab:Merck: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Envisagenics Inc.: Current equity holder in private company; H3 Biomedicine Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Tallman:UpToDate: Patents & Royalties; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; BioSight: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Glycomimetics: Research Funding; Rafael: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Bioline rx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Daiichi-Sankyo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KAHR: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Delta Fly Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncolyze: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jazz Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellerant: Research Funding; Orsenix: Research Funding. Atallah:Jazz: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation: Consultancy. Luger:Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Pfizer: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria; Acceleron: Honoraria; Agios: Honoraria; Loxo Oncology: Honoraria; Onconova: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Hoffman La Roche: Research Funding. Levine:Novartis: Consultancy; Loxo: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morphosys: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Prelude Therapeutics: Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria; Lilly: Consultancy, Honoraria; Qiagen: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imago: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; C4 Therapeutics: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Isoplexis: Current equity holder in private company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Cooper:Celgene: Other: Spouse was an employee of Celgene (through August 2019).

Background: B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) is widely expressed on normal plasma cells and malignant plasma cells in multiple myeloma (MM). MEDI2228 is an antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) that targets the extracellular domain of human BCMA with preferential binding to membrane-bound versus circulating soluble BCMA. The ADC is comprised of a fully human antibody to BCMA, site- specifically conjugated to a DNA cross-linking pyrrolobenzodiazepine (PBD) dimer via a protease-cleavable linker. After cell surface binding to BCMA, MEDI2228 is internalized and cleaved in the lysosomal compartment, releasing the active PBD, which cross-links DNA and leads to apoptotic cell death. We report the results from a phase 1, first-in-human, open-label, dose-escalation and expansion trial (NCT03489525) that evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and clinical activity of MEDI2228 in patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory MM (R/R MM). Methods: Eligible pts were ≥18 years old with confirmed R/R MM as defined by International Myeloma Working Group consensus criteria, had measurable disease, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤1. Pts had to have progressed after treatment with three classes of standard-of-care anti-myeloma drugs, including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Dose escalation was based on an accelerated titration design, with an mTPI-2 algorithm. During dose escalation, MEDI2228 was administered in sequentially ascending dose levels (0.0125, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks (Q3W). Due to dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), the dose was de-escalated from 0.2 mg/kg to an intermediate dose level of 0.14 mg/kg. The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included assessment of preliminary efficacy, PK, and immunogenicity. Results: As of May 15, 2020, 82 pts received MEDI2228 during dose escalation and expansion. All pts had received prior therapy with an IMiD, PI, and mAb: lenalidomide, 76 (94%); pomalidomide, 68 (84%); bortezomib, 77 (95%); carfilzomib, 64 (79%); and daratumumab, 71 (87%). Pts received between 2-11 lines of prior regimens. At 0.2 mg/kg, 2 pts experienced DLTs (grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia) without bleeding; no DLTs were reported for other dose levels. The maximum tolerated dose was 0.14 mg/kg Q3W. Treatment-related adverse events (TEAEs) occurring in ≥20% of pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort were photophobia (53.7%), thrombocytopenia (31.7%), rash (29.3%), increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (24.4%), dry eye (19.5%), and pleural effusion (19.5%). No reports of keratopathy or visual acuity loss were observed in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort. The TEAE profiles at lower-dose levels were similar but with lower incidences compared with the 0.14 mg/kg level. Efficacy was demonstrated at all dose levels (dose, objective response rate [ORR], [n]): 0.0125 mg/kg, 33.3% [1/3]; 0.025 mg/kg, 16.7% [1/6]; 0.05 mg/kg, 33.3% [3/9]; 0.10 mg/kg, 27.8% [5/18]; 0.14 mg/kg, 61.0% [25/41]; 0.2 mg/kg, 40.0%, [2/5]. In the 0.14 mg/kg cohort, ORR was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 44.5%, 75.8%); there were 10 (24.4%) very good partial responses (VGPRs), 15 (36.6%) partial responses, and 3 (7.3%) minimal responses. Four of the VGPR pts were immunofixation negative. Most (90.2%) pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort had received prior daratumumab. Median duration of response (DOR) in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort was not reached. MEDI2228 exhibited linear PK at doses of ≥0.05 mg/kg Q3W that was minimally impacted by circulating levels of soluble BCMA at baseline. There was no difference in BCMA expression by IHC in the bone marrow of responders compared with nonresponders. Thirty-six pts in the 0.14 mg/kg cohort discontinued treatment due to adverse events (n=24), progressive disease (n=8), patient decision (n=2), investigator decision (n=1), or death (n=1). Conclusion: MEDI2228 is a BCMA-targeted ADC that demonstrated clinical efficacy at all dose levels explored. MEDI2228 0.14 mg/kg Q3W had a manageable safety profile and an ORR of 61% in a heavily pretreated population with myeloma that is R/R post PI, IMiD, and mAb therapies. Disclosures Kumar: Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Cellectar: Other; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Bhutani:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Other: Clinical trial funding to institute, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; MedImmune: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Prothena: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute; Janssen: Other: Clinical Trial Funding to Institute. Spencer:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmamar: Other. Ailawadhi:Cellectar: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Phosplatin: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding. Kalff:Amgen: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; CSL: Honoraria. Pore:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Gibson:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Other: Paid as a clinical scientist contractor. Wang:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Cheng:Astrazeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Williams:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kinneer:AstraZeneca: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Personal fees; BCMA Monoclonal Antibody-Drug Conjugate: Patents & Royalties: Pending. Zonder:Intellia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Alnylam: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Oncopeptide: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees; Prothena: Consultancy; Caelum: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding. Larsen:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee:Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Oncopeptide: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding. Dimopoulos:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau.

Abstract In response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, the Cardio-Oncology and Imaging Councils of the American College of Cardiology offers recommendations to clinicians regarding the cardiovascular care of cardio-oncology patients in this expert consensus statement. Cardio-oncology patients—individuals with an active or prior cancer history and with or at risk of cardiovascular disease—are a rapidly growing population who are at increased risk of infection, and experiencing severe and/or lethal complications by COVID-19. Recommendations for optimizing screening and monitoring visits to detect cardiac dysfunction are discussed. In addition, judicious use of multimodality imaging and biomarkers are proposed to identify myocardial, valvular, vascular, and pericardial involvement in cancer patients. The difficulties of diagnosing the etiology of cardiovascular complications in patients with cancer and COVID-19 are outlined, along with weighing the advantages against risks of exposure, with the modification of existing cardiovascular treatments and cardiotoxicity surveillance in patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

AbstractBackgroundLarge cohort studies provide conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic value of early repolarization pattern (ERP) in the general population, complicated by the complex or heterogeneous definitions of ERP applied in different studies.HypothesisWe hypothesized that ERP was associated with increased cardiovascular risk with the definition of ERP recommended by the expert consensus statements.MethodsA total of 13673 middle‐aged subjects from the prospective, population‐based Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) study were included in this analysis. Cox models were used to estimate the hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for possible confounding factors. ERP was defined as ST‐segment elevation ≥0.1mV at the end of the QRS or J wave on the QRS downstroke in two or more contiguous leads.ResultsCompared with those without ERP, subjects with ERP had a significantly increased risk of developing sudden cardiac death (SCD) (HR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.08–2.04) and death from coronary heart disease (CHD) (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.10–1.92) after a median follow‐up of 20.1 years. ERP was significantly predictive of SCD in females, whites, younger people, and subjects with relatively low cardiovascular risk. ERP with ST‐segment elevation appeared to indicate poor cardiovascular outcomes. ERP was associated with an absolute risk increase of 93.3 additional SCDs per 100 000 person‐years.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that ERP was an independent predictor of SCD and CHD death in the middle‐aged biracial population.

Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has exacted an enormous toll on healthcare systems worldwide. The cytokine storm that follows pulmonary infection is causally linked to respiratory compromise and mortality in the majority of patients. The sparsity of viable treatment options for this viral infection and the sequelae of pulmonary complications have fueled the quest for new therapeutic considerations. One such option, the long-forgotten idea of using low-dose radiation therapy, has recently found renewed interest in many academic centers. We outline the scientific and logistical rationale for consideration of this option and the mechanistic underpinnings of any potential therapeutic value, particularly as viewed from an immunological perspective. We also discuss the preliminary and/or published results of prospective trials examining low-dose radiation therapy for COVID-19.