Citations

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) provide recommendations for the treatment of patients with NSCLC, including diagnosis, primary disease management, surveillance for relapse, and subsequent treatment. The panel has updated the list of recommended targeted therapies based on recent FDA approvals and clinical data. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for NSCLC focuses on treatment recommendations for advanced or metastatic NSCLC with actionable molecular biomarkers.

Abstract Purpose: Antibody-drug conjugates (ADC) are targeted therapies with robust efficacy in solid cancers, and there is intense interest in using EGFR-specific ADCs to target EGFR-amplified glioblastoma (GBM). Given GBM’s molecular heterogeneity, the bystander activity of ADCs may be important for determining treatment efficacy. In this study, the activity and toxicity of two EGFR-targeted ADCs with similar auristatin toxins, Losatuxizumab vedotin (ABBV-221) and Depatuxizumab mafodotin (Depatux-M), were compared in GBM patient-derived xenografts (PDX) and normal murine brain following direct infusion by convection-enhanced delivery (CED). Experimental Design: EGFRviii-amplified and non-amplified GBM PDXs were used to determine in vitro cytotoxicity, in vivo efficacy, and bystander activities of ABBV-221 and Depatux-M. Nontumor-bearing mice were used to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and toxicity of ADCs using LC-MS/MS and immunohistochemistry. Results: CED improved intracranial efficacy of Depatux-M and ABBV-221 in three EGFRviii-amplified GBM PDX models (Median survival: 125 to >300 days vs. 20–49 days with isotype control AB095). Both ADCs had comparable in vitro and in vivo efficacy. However, neuronal toxicity and CD68+ microglia/macrophage infiltration were significantly higher in brains infused with ABBV-221 with the cell-permeable monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), compared with Depatux-M with the cell-impermeant monomethyl auristatin F. CED infusion of ABBV-221 into the brain or incubation of ABBV-221 with normal brain homogenate resulted in a significant release of MMAE, consistent with linker instability in the brain microenvironment. Conclusions: EGFR-targeting ADCs are promising therapeutic options for GBM when delivered intratumorally by CED. However, the linker and payload for the ADC must be carefully considered to maximize the therapeutic window.

AbstractBackgroundDespite the overall safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccinations, rare cases of systemic autoimmune diseases (SAIDs) have been reported post‐vaccination. This study used a global survey to analyze SAIDs in susceptible individuals' post‐vaccination.MethodsA cross‐sectional study was conducted among participants with self‐reported new‐onset SAIDs using the COVID‐19 Vaccination in Autoimmune Diseases (COVAD) 2 study dataset—a validated, patient‐reported e‐survey—to analyze the long‐term safety of COVID‐19 vaccines. Baseline characteristics of patients with new‐onset SAIDs and vaccinated healthy controls (HCs) were compared after propensity score matching based on age and sex in a 1:4 ratio.ResultsOf 16 750 individuals, 74 (median age 52 years, 79.9% females, and 76.7% Caucasians) had new‐onset SAID post‐vaccination, mainly idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) (n = 23, 31.51%), arthritis (n = 15; 20.53%), and polymyalgia rheumatica (PMR) (n = 12, 16.40%). Higher odds of new‐onset SAIDs were noted among Caucasians (OR = 5.3; 95% CI = 2.9–9.7; p < .001) and Moderna vaccine recipients (OR = 2.7; 95% CI = 1.3–5.3; p = .004). New‐onset SAIDs were associated with AID multimorbidity (OR = 1.4; 95% CI = 1.1–1.7; p < .001), mental health disorders (OR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.3–1.9; p < .001), and mixed race (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.2–4.2; p = .010), where those aged >60 years (OR = 0.6; 95% CI = 0.4–0.8; p = .007) and from high/medium human development index (HDI) countries (compared to very high HDI) reported fewer events than HCs.ConclusionThis study reports a low occurrence of new‐onset SAIDs following COVID‐19 vaccination, primarily IIMs, PMR, and inflammatory arthritis. Identified risk factors included pre‐existing AID multimorbidity, mental health diseases, and mixed race. Revaccination was well tolerated by most patients; therefore, we recommend continuing COVID‐19 vaccination in the general population. However, long‐term studies are needed to understand the autoimmune phenomena arising post‐vaccination.

Introduction/Objectives: Despite U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society endorsement of primary HPV screening, limited published data shows low uptake. Primary Aim: Assess cervical cancer screening rates over time, particularly primary HPV test uptake, among patients in a midwestern practice. Secondary Aim: Evaluate associations between sociodemographics and screening adherence. Methods: Cross-sectional study. Qualifying subjects and type of screening test used were identified by applying ICD-9, ICD-10, lab test, and CPT codes to the Unified Data Platform. Sociodemographics were found through the electronic health record. Results: Primary HPV uptake represented <1% of annual screening from 1/2017 to 1/2022. On 1/1/2022, only 55% of 21 to 29 year old and 63% of 30 to 65 year old were up to date with screening among the studied population. For 21 to 29 year old, compared with White women, Black women were 28% less likely to be screened [RR = 0.72 (0.66-0.79)]. Compared with never-smokers, current smokers were 9% less likely to be screened [RR = 0.91 (0.87-0.96)], past smokers were 14% more likely [RR = 1.14 (1.09-1.2)]. Among 30 to 65 year old, compared with White women, Black women were 14% less likely to be screened [RR = 0.86 (0.81-0.9)]. Compared with never-smokers, current smokers were 21% less likely to be screened [RR = 0.79 (0.77-0.81)], past smokers were 6% less likely [RR = 0.94 (0.92-0.95)]. Jointly considering race, ethnicity, smoking status, Charlson score, and rurality, findings were similar for 21 to 29 year old; Black women were screened less than White women [RR = 0.73 (0.67-0.79)]; current smokers [RR = 0.9 (0.85-0.94)] and past smokers [RR = 1.12 (1.06-1.17)] were screened less than never smokers. For 30 to 65 year old, Black women were screened less than White women [RR = 0.83 (0.79-0.88)]; current smokers [RR = 0.8 (0.78-0.81)] and past smokers [RR = 0.95 (0.93-0.96)] were screened less than never smokers. Conclusions: Screening rates remained below the Healthy People 2030 goal of 79.2% over time, particularly for younger Black women and current smokers, with minimal use of primary HPV screening.

AbstractBackgroundThe pandemic presented unique challenges for individuals with autoimmune and rheumatic diseases (AIRDs) due to their underlying condition, the effects of immunosuppressive treatments, and increased vaccine hesitancy.ObjectivesThe COVID‐19 vaccination in autoimmune diseases (COVAD) study, a series of ongoing, patient self‐reported surveys were conceived with the vision of being a unique tool to gather patient perspectives on AIRDs. It involved a multinational, multicenter collaborative effort amidst a global lockdown.MethodsLeveraging social media as a research tool, COVAD collected data using validated patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). The study, comprising a core team, steering committee, and global collaborators, facilitated data collection and analysis. A pilot‐tested, validated survey, featuring questions regarding COVID‐19 infection, vaccination and outcomes, patient demographics, and PROs was circulated to patients with AIRDs and healthy controls (HCs).DiscussionWe present the challenges encountered during this international collaborative project, including coordination, data management, funding constraints, language barriers, and authorship concerns, while highlighting the measures taken to address them.ConclusionCollaborative virtual models offer a dynamic new frontier in medical research and are vital to studying rare diseases. The COVAD study demonstrates the potential of online platforms for conducting large‐scale, patient‐focused research and underscores the importance of integrating patient perspective into clinical care. Care of patients is our central motivation, and it is essential to recognize their voices as equal stakeholders and valued partners in the study of the conditions that affect them.