Citations

BACKGROUNDA prior practice survey revealed variations in the management of patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) and stressed the need for comprehensive guidelines. Here we discuss: 1) common indications for red blood cell exchange (RCE), 2) options for access, 3) how to prepare the red blood cells (RBCs) to be used for RCE, 4) target hemoglobin (Hb) and/or hematocrit (Hct) and HbS level, 5) RBC depletion/RCE, and 6) some complications that may ensue.STUDY DESIGN AND METHODSFifteen physicians actively practicing apheresis from 14 institutions representing different areas within the United States discussed how they manage RCE for patients with SCD.RESULTSSimple transfusion is recommended to treat symptomatic anemia with Hb level of less than 9 g/dL. RCE is indicated to prevent or treat complications arising from the presence of HbS. The most important goals are reduction of HbS while also preventing hyperviscosity. The usual goals are a target HbS level of not more than 30% and Hct level of less than 30%.CONCLUSIONAlthough a consensus as to protocol details may not be possible, there are areas of agreement in the management of these patients, for example, that it is optimal to avoid hyperviscosity and iron overload, that a target Hb S level in the range of 30% is generally desirable, and that RCE as an acute treatment for pain crisis in the absence of other acute or chronic conditions is ordinarily discouraged.

BackgroundPreoperative prediction of tumor recurrence is important in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).PurposeTo investigate whether tumor stiffness derived by magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) could predict early recurrence of HCC after hepatic resection.Study TypeRetrospective.PopulationIn all, 99 patients with pathologically confirmed HCCs after surgical resection.Field Strength/Sequence3.0T; preoperative MRE with 60‐Hz mechanical vibrations using an active acoustic driver.AssessmentRegions of interest (ROIs) were manually drawn in the tumors to measure mean tumor stiffness. Surgical specimens were reviewed for histological grade, capsule, vascular invasion, and surgical margins. The early recurrence of HCC was defined as that occurring within 2 years after resection.Statistical TestsCox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate risk factors associated with the time to early recurrence.ResultsHCCs with recurrence had higher tumor stiffness, higher rate of advanced T stage, vascular invasion, lower rate of capsule formation, larger tumor size, higher aspartate aminotransferase (AST), and hepatitis B virus (HBV)‐DNA level and aspartate aminotransferase / alanine aminotransferase ratio (P = 0.031, 0.007, 0.01, <0.001, 0.015, 0.034, 0.01, and 0.014, respectively) than HCCs without recurrence. Vascular invasion (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.922; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.079, 7.914], P = 0.035) and mean tumor stiffness (HR = 1.163; 95% CI: [1.055, 1.282], P = 0.002) were risk factors associated with early recurrence. Each 1‐kPa increase in tumor stiffness was associated with a 16.3% increase in the risk for tumor recurrence.Data ConclusionThe mean stiffness of HCCs may be a useful, noninvasive, quantitative biomarker for the prediction of early HCC recurrence after hepatic resection.Level of Evidence: 4Technical Efficacy: Stage 5J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:719–730.

4073 Background: Durvalumab and tremelimumab, investigational monoclonal antibodies against PD-L1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoints, respectively, have shown efficacy in monotherapy and offer promise in combination for patients (pts) with HCC. This is a phase I/II, open-label, randomized study of durvalumab combined with tremelimumab in unresectable HCC. Methods: Phase I part of this study is a safety run-in cohort treated at the recommended phase II doses of the durvalumab/tremelimumab combination (20 and 1 mg/kg IV Q4W respectively for 4 doses followed by 20 mg/kg Q4W durvalumab alone) in pts with unresectable HCC with or without concomitant HBV or HCV infection who progress on, are intolerant to, or have refused sorafenib therapy. Secondary objectives include evaluation of antitumor activity. Here we present results of a preplanned analysis from the completed phase I part of the study. Results: As of 10 January 2017, 40 pts have been enrolled (11 HBV+, 9 HCV+, 20 uninfected). 30% had no prior systemic therapy; 93% were Child Pugh Class A. 24 (60%) had ≥1 treatment-related AE; 20% had ≥1 grade ≥3 related AE. Most common (≥15%) treatment-related AEs: fatigue (20%), increased ALT (18%), pruritus (18%), and increased AST (15%). Most common grade ≥3 related AE was asymptomatic increased AST (10%). 24 pts have discontinued treatment: 3 due to treatment-related AEs (grade 3 pneumonitis, grade 3 colitis/diarrhea, asymptomatic grade 4 elevated AST and ALT), 16 due to progressive disease, 4 due to death unrelated to treatment (cardiac arrest, variceal bleed, progressive disease, probable HCC rupture), and 1 other (pt entered hospice care). 40 pts were evaluable for response at ≥16 weeks follow-up. Conclusions: No unexpected safety signals with durvalumab and tremelimumab were seen in this unresectable HCC population. Clinical activity observed predominantly in uninfected pts though interpretation limited by small subsets. Enrollment to the phase II portion of the study is ongoing. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348. [Table: see text]

Abstract Background: A recent exploratory subgroup analysis pooling data from over 1000 patients (pts) in MONARCH 2 (final analysis) and MONARCH 3 (interim analysis) demonstrated that pts with clinical characteristics that predict for worse outcome (e.g. liver metastases, progesterone receptor [PgR]-negative status, high-grade tumors) received the largest benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to endocrine therapy (ET). There is also interest in determining the extent to which abemaciclib improves progression-free survival (PFS) in pts with favorable prognostic factors (e.g. bone-only disease, long treatment-free interval [TFI]). Here we present an update of the subgroup analyses of the MONARCH 3 study using data from the preplanned final PFS analysis. Methods: Enrollment criteria and study designs were previously described (Sledge et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017; Goetz et al. J Clin Oncol. 2017). An exploratory pooled analysis was conducted using data from MONARCH 2 (NCT02107703) and the MONARCH 3 (NCT02246621) preplanned final PFS analysis to identify significant prognostic factors regardless of therapy received. Using the updated MONARCH 3 data, PFS and objective response rate (ORR) (in pts with measurable disease) were examined within the prognostic subgroups that had been previously identified as being statistically significant. Additionally, subpopulation treatment effect pattern plot (STEPP) methodology was used to evaluate the association between TFI following adjuvant ET and outcomes of NSAI alone or with abemaciclib. Results: Assessment of clinical factors from MONARCH 2 and MONARCH 3 (final PFS data) confirmed that the following factors remained significantly prognostic regardless of treatment received: bone-only disease, liver metastases, tumor grade, PgR status, and ECOG performance status. In MONARCH 3, prognosis was poor in pts with liver metastases, PgR-negative tumors, and high-grade tumors. While all subpopulations benefited from the addition of abemaciclib to ET regardless of prognosis, pts with these three poor prognostic factors received substantial benefit from abemaciclib, with PFS hazard ratios (HR) ranging from 0.4 to 0.5 and with differential improvement in ORR typically &gt;30%. Furthermore, STEPP analysis of TFI (on the MONARCH 3 pts who had received adjuvant ET) demonstrated that pts who had a shorter TFI had a worse prognosis and received relatively greater benefit from abemaciclib plus NSAI than did pts with a longer TFI. Patients with bone-only disease or a long TFI also received benefit from abemaciclib, but to a relatively lesser extent (HR ranging from approximately 0.6 to 0.8). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis of the preplanned final PFS data from MONARCH 3 confirms previous findings that pts with poor prognostic factors may receive relatively greater benefit from the addition of abemaciclib to ET. Citation Format: Joyce O'Shaughnessy, Matthew P. Goetz, George W. Sledge, Miguel Martin, Yong Lin, Tammy Forrester, Ian C. Smith, Angelo Di Leo, Stephen Johnston. The benefit of abemaciclib in prognostic subgroups: An update to the pooled analysis of MONARCH 2 and 3 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT099.

AbstractIntroductionThe outcomes of repeated cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) lead extraction have not been well studied. We sought to determine the indications, outcomes, and safety of repeated lead extraction procedures.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted using data from two medical centers, including 38 patients who had undergone two or more lead extraction procedures compared to 439 patients who had a single procedure. The electronic medical records and procedural databases were reviewed to determine the indications, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. The outcomes of the first procedure were compared to the outcomes of subsequent procedures.ResultsThe 5‐year cumulative probability of a repeated extraction procedure was 11% (95% confidence interval, 7%–15%). In 439 patients who underwent single lead extractions, 72% had device and lead related infections as the procedure indication compared to 39% for 38 patients who underwent repeated extraction (P < 0.001). The mean duration from device reimplant to repeated extraction procedures was 63 ± 48 months. Ninety‐eight percent of the leads were removed completely in repeated procedures, similar to the 95% success rate of the first procedure (P = 0.51). There was no significant difference in major complication rate in the first or repeated extractions (2.6% vs 5.2%, P = 0.79).ConclusionsRepeated transvenous lead extraction is not uncommon. It had a high success rate comparable to that of the initial procedure and was not associated with an increased incidence of adverse events.