Citations

TPS3648 Background: Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) metabolizes tryptophan along the kynurenine pathway and is recognized as a potent suppressor of tumor reactive immunity. Epacadostat is an orally active, potent and selective inhibitor of IDO1. In preclinical studies, IDO1 was found to promote resistance to radiation in rectal cancer, irrespective of microsatellite instability (MSI) status. IDO1 inhibition with epacadostat improved tumor radiosensitivity by relieving immune suppression and augmenting radiation-induced apoptosis while protecting the normal intestine from radiation damage. In a phase 1 trial, 17 patients were enrolled from 4/2019 to 8/2023. Epacadostat in combination with short-course radiation therapy (SCRT) and CAPOX was well-tolerated and the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of epacadostat was determined to be 400 mg BID. An NCI supported Phase 2 trial is ongoing to further evaluate the promising disease responses reported in the dose escalation phase. Methods: This phase 2 multicenter, open-label trial includes treatment and biomarker cohorts. In the treatment cohort, epacadostat at 400 mg BID will be administered concurrently with SCRT followed by epacadostat monotherapy until 1 day prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, followed by standard-of-care (SOC) neoadjuvant chemotherapy and, ultimately, surgical resection or non-operative management (NOM). Biomarker cohort enrollment will commence at completion of treatment cohort accrual. Enrolled patients will be treated with SOC SCRT followed by SOC neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical resection or NOM. Eligible patients must be a treatment-naïve, newly diagnosed, pathologically confirmed, locally advanced rectal cancer (defined by 8 th edition AJCC stage 2 or 3, or stage 1 not eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery) with plans to proceed with neoadjuvant SCRT and chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) score. Secondary endpoints are pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, complete clinical response (cCR) rate and progression-free survival (PFS). Exploratory endpoints are pharmacodynamics, PDX and organoid generation, identification of molecular predictors of response and resistance, correlation of radiographic and pathologic response and effect of treatment on patient quality of life. We aim to enroll 27 patients in the treatment cohort and 10 in the biomarker cohort. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03516708 .

Atopic dermatitis affects 20% to 25% of children and has significant impact on quality of life of patients and families. Recent studies of the pathogenesis of AD highlight the interplay between a defective skin barrier, immune dysfunction, and the cutaneous microbiome. Standard of care for AD treatment includes topical corticosteroids for active disease and moisturization to repair the barrier defect. Emerging treatments include dupilumab and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors. Reduction of triggers and proactive treatment with topical corticosteroids and/or topical calcineurin inhibitors can reduce flares. Treatment plans should be clear and as simple as possible to maximize adherence.

Abstract Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) with aromatase inhibitors (AI) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) is standard for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. However, many premenopausal women are intolerant of AI + OFS, leaving tamoxifen (with or without OFS) as their only option. Extensive studies have demonstrated that premenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant ET whose tumors exhibit Ki-67 ≤ 10% following 4 weeks of therapy (defined as endocrine sensitive disease (ESD)) achieve 5-year distant disease-free survival > 96%. Problematically, only 41% of patients reach this ESD threshold with tamoxifen compared to 78% with AI+OFS (Nitz JCO 2022). (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that inhibits ERα at plasma concentrations of 3-5 ng/ml and dually targets PKCβ1, a suspected oncogene in breast tumors, at concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml. We therefore developed the EVANGELINE study (NCT05607004) is an open label, randomized neoadjuvant phase II study that includes a pharmacokinetic (PK) Run-in, aiming to evaluate whether ENDX +/- goserelin is non-inferior to exemestane plus goserelin with respect to ESD rate. Following the completed PK run-in portion of the study, where 40mg/day or 80mg/day ENDX were assessed, the 40 mg/day dose was selected for further evaluation in the second part of the trial. The second part is comprised of a randomized treatment cohort, for patients with a Ki-67% >10% at preregistration randomized to either 40mg (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin or exemestane + goserelin neoadjuvant treatment and a Single Arm Treatment Cohort for patients who have a Ki-67 ≤ 10% at pre-registration assigned to 40mg/day (Z)-endoxifen monotherapy neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: To investigate ENDX further in premenopausal women, a multicenter study in the United States, was designed(EVANGELINE; NCT05607004). This phase 2, open-label, randomized, neoadjuvant trial includes a PK run-in phase designed to assess whether the 4-week ESD rate with (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin is non-inferior to that of exemestane + goserelin in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- breast cancer with diagnostic Ki67 > 10%. Additionally, a single arm Phase 2, open-label neoadjuvant Cohort was designed to assess the 4-week ESD rate with ENDX monotherapy in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- BC with diagnostic Ki67 ≤10%. Subjects will undergo neoadjuvant treatment for six months before receiving surgical treatment in the involved breast. This study will additionally assess safety, tolerability, response rates, surgical outcomes, and monitor disease progression. Comprehensive biomarker evaluations will be conducted using paired tumor biopsies and blood samples collected at baseline and week four, as well as 6 month surgical specimens. Enrollment in the PK run-in phase (n-22) was completed in Fall 2024 with the second portion of the trial slated to begin early in 2025. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Vera J. Suman, Claudia Lopez, Hayley Erickson, Lonnissa Nguyen, Sandra S. Hammer, Lida Mina, Pooja Advani, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Felipe Batalini, Daniel Flora, Jason M. Jones, Nusayba A. Bagegni, Katie N. Hunt, Mara Piltin, Amy Degnim, James N. Ingle, Judy C. Boughey, Sarah A. Buhrow, Joel M. Reid, Matthew Schellenberg, John R. Hawse, Steven C. Quay. A randomized phase 2 non-inferiority trial of (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin and exemestane + goserelin as neoadjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer (EVANGELINE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT237.

Importance Neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) has been associated with pathologic complete response (pCR) in up to 60% of breast cancers (BCs). The findings of this trial question the necessity of surgery. Objective To report preplanned 5-year efficacy outcomes evaluating radiotherapy alone without breast surgery in patients selected with image-guided vacuum assisted biopsy (VAB). Design, Setting, and Participants This single-arm, prospective, phase 2 nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted at 7 US medical centers and included women 40 years or older with cT1-2N0-1M0 ERBB2 -positive (formerly HER2 -positive) or triple-negative invasive BC who showed residual breast lesions after NST of less than 2 cm on imaging. Enrollment was from March 6, 2017, to November 9, 2021. Data analysis was from October to December 2024. Intervention Image-guided VAB of the tumor bed (9G with a minimum of 12 cores) was performed after standard NST. Patients with clinically node-negative disease at diagnosis and no residual cancer in the breast on post-NST VAB underwent whole-breast radiotherapy with a boost without breast or axillary surgery. Patients with initial documented nodal disease and a breast pCR on VAB underwent targeted axillary dissection, while those with residual cancer when undergoing VAB had standard breast and axillary surgery. Patients were monitored with physical examinations and mammography every 6 months. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. Results Fifty patients (median [IQR] age, 62 [55-77] years) were enrolled and underwent post-NST VAB. Twenty-nine (58%) and 21 (42%) patients had ERBB2 -positive and triple-negative invasive BC, respectively. Breast pCR on VAB was identified in 31 patients (62%; 95% CI, 47.2%-75.34%), and axillary pCR was identified among all 8 patients with initial nodal metastases and breast pCR on VAB who underwent targeted axillary dissection. At a median follow-up of 55.4 (IQR, 44.0-63.5) months, the ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence rate was 0%, and disease-free and overall survival rates were 100% for patients without breast surgery. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this nonrandomized clinical trial that reported preplanned 5-year outcomes suggest that omission of breast surgery in select patients after NST may be feasible, with no recurrences seen. More confirmatory studies are necessary before this new approach alters surgical practice. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02945579

AbstractMetabolic syndrome (MetS) is a prevalent comorbidity in patients with chronic pain conditions. Emerging evidence suggests that the relationship between MetS and chronic pain is bidirectional. This interplay involves complex mechanisms, including proinflammatory mediators in nociceptive modulation and pain‐induced lifestyle changes affecting metabolic function. This scoping review examines the association between MetS and chronic pain. We conducted a scoping review, including 28 studies. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We included observational studies (cross‐sectional, case–control, and cohort studies) from the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus. We identified studies on migraine (n = 9), spinal pain (n = 8), general chronic pain (n = 4), fibromyalgia syndrome (n = 3), carpal tunnel syndrome (n = 1), osteoarthritis (n = 1), shoulder pain (n = 1), and neuropathic pain (n = 1). Most studies used a cross‐sectional design and standard criteria to define MetS, with some exceptions. Individuals with MetS and spinal pain, fibromyalgia, or general chronic pain showed higher pain scores and increased functional limitations. MetS was common in patients with migraine, but its effect on pain severity was inconclusive. The relationship between MetS and other pain conditions requires further investigation to clarify the association and potential mechanisms. MetS is prevalent in patients with chronic pain and is associated with worse pain and functional outcomes. Health care providers should acknowledge the wide spectrum of MetS beyond obesity. This understanding may help identify those at risk for more severe chronic pain.

The trial-to-implant ratio for spinal cord stimulation (SCS) has long served as a cornerstone metric for optimizing patient selection and cost containment. Historically, screening trials played a pivotal role in identifying non-responders, thereby minimizing unnecessary permanent implantations. The utility of the trial paradigm is supported by Medicare data from 2009, which reported a trial-to-implant ratio of 42.5%. However, advancements in SCS technology have significantly transformed the neuromodulation landscape and have been associated with higher rates of trial success. By 2018, the Medicare data showed trial-to-implant ratios exceeding 63%, with randomized clinical trials from 2020 to 2021 reporting ratios exceeding 80%–90%. These significant increases in trial-to-implant ratios suggest that only a minority of SCS candidates do not undergo a subsequent permanent device implantation. As such, re-evaluation of the trial-to-implant paradigm, from the perspective of practicing pain physicians in the USA, in light of evolving clinical practices and economic pressures, is warranted. This discourse explores the benefits and limitations of the trial-to-implant ratio, emphasizing its role as a safeguard against overutilization and a tool for standardizing clinical practices but weighed against its shortcomings including a lack of alignment with long-term outcomes, underscore the need for alternative metrics that include per capita trial utilization and explant-to-implant ratios. European responses to similar questions have resulted in utilizing validated symptom screening tools and direct-to-implant pathways in lieu of a screening trial altogether as potential strategies to optimize SCS utilization while maintaining cost-effectiveness. As healthcare systems adapt to advancements in neuromodulation, a balanced perspective on trial-to-implant ratios and complementary metrics is essential to ensure equitable access, sustainable outcomes and evidence-based care for the future of SCS therapy.

Background Intra-articular corticosteroid (IACS) injection and peri-articular corticosteroid injection are commonly used to treat musculoskeletal conditions. Results vary by musculoskeletal region, but most studies report short-term benefit with mixed results on long-term relief. Publications showed adverse events from single corticosteroid injections. Recommended effective doses were lower than those currently used by clinicians. Methods Development of the practice guideline for joint injections was approved by the Board of Directors of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine and the participating societies. A Corticosteroid Safety Work Group coordinated the development of three guidelines: peripheral nerve blocks and trigger points; joints; and neuraxial, facet, and sacroiliac joint injections. The topics included safety of the technique in relation to landmark-guided, ultrasound-guided, or radiology-aided injections; effect of the addition of the corticosteroid on the efficacy of the injectate; and adverse events related to the injection. Experts on the topics were assigned to extensively review the literature and initially develop consensus statements and recommendations. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. A modified Delphi process was adhered to in arriving at a consensus. Results This guideline focuses on the safety and efficacy of corticosteroid joint injections for managing joint chronic pain in adults. The joints that were addressed included the shoulder, elbow, hand, wrist, hip, knee, and small joints of the hands and feet. All the statements and recommendations were approved by all participants and the Board of Directors of the participating societies after four rounds of discussion. There is little evidence to guide the selection of one corticosteroid over another. Ultrasound guidance increases the accuracy of injections and reduces procedural pain. A dose of 20 mg triamcinolone is as effective as 40 mg for both shoulder IACS and subacromial subdeltoid bursa corticosteroid injections. The commonly used dose for hip IACS is 40 mg triamcinolone or methylprednisolone. Triamcinolone 40 mg is as effective as 80 mg for knee IACS. Overall, IACS injections result in short-term pain relief from a few weeks to a few months. The adverse events include an increase in blood glucose, adrenal suppression, detrimental effect on cartilage lining the joint, reduction of bone mineral density, and postoperative joint infection. Conclusions In this practice guideline, we provided specific recommendations on the role of corticosteroids in joint, bursa, and peritendon injections for musculoskeletal pain.