Citations

ObjectiveThe aim of this systemic review is to compare different treatments for patients with granulomatosis with polyangiitis (GPA) and microscopic polyangiitis (MPA) to inform evidence‐based recommendations for the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Vasculitis Foundation (VF) Vasculitis Management Guidelines.MethodsA systemic review was conducted by searching articles in English using OVID Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Articles were screened for suitability in addressing PICO questions, with studies presenting the highest level of evidence given preference.ResultsA total of 729 full‐text articles addressing GPA and MPA PICO questions were reviewed. For remission induction, rituximab was shown to be noninferior to cyclophosphamide (CYC) (odds ratio [OR]: 1.55, moderate certainty of evidence). The addition of plasma exchange to induction therapy in severe disease did not improve the composite end point of death or end stage renal disease (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.86 [95% confidence interval CI: 0.65, 1.13], moderate certainty of evidence). In nonsevere disease, methotrexate was noninferior to CYC for induction of remission (remission at 6 months of 90% vs. 94%). For maintenance of remission, methotrexate and azathioprine showed no difference in the risk of relapse over a mean follow‐up of 29 months (HR: 0.92, [95% CI: 0.52, 1.65]low certainty of evidence). As maintenance therapy, rituximab was superior to a tapering azathioprine strategy in major relapse‐free survival at 28 months (HR: 6.61, [95% CI: 1.56, 27.96], moderate certainty of evidence). In two randomized trials, longer‐term azathioprine maintenance therapy (>24 months) is associated with fewer relapses without an increase in adverse events.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and toxicities of different treatment options for GPA and MPA.

Abstract Background: I-SPY 2 is a multicenter, phase 2 trial using response-adaptive randomization within molecular subtypes defined by receptor status and MammaPrint (MP) risk to evaluate novel agents as neoadjuvant therapy for women with high-risk stage II/III breast cancer. The primary endpoint is pathologic complete response (pCR, ypT0/Tis ypN0). SGN-LIV1A is an investigational antibody drug conjugate consisting of an antibody to LIV1A, a zinc transporter highly prevalent in breast cancer, and a highly potent microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin E. Retrospective IHC analysis of LIV1A expression levels amongst tumor samples from 100 previous ISPY-2 patients showed 88% of breast tumor samples with moderate to high expression of LIV1A (Yau, C. et al SABCS 2018).Methods: Women with tumors ≥ 2.5cm were eligible for screening. Only HER2 negative (HER2-) patients were eligible for this treatment, hormone-receptor positive (HR+) patients had to have MP high molecular profile. Treatment included SGN-LIV1A 2.5 mg/kg (max dose 250 mg) every 3 weeks x 4, followed by doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide (AC) every 2-3 weeks x 4. The control arm was weekly paclitaxel x 12 followed by AC every 2-3 weeks x 4. All patients undergo serial MR imaging where response at 3 & 12 weeks combined with accumulating pCR data are used to estimate, and continuously update, predicted pCR rate for the trial arm. Analysis set was modified intention to treat with patients who switched to non-protocol therapy counted as non-pCR and not as their pCR status at time of surgery. The goal is to identify/graduate regimens with ≥85% Bayesian predictive probability of success (i.e. demonstrating superiority to control) in a future 300-patient phase 3 neoadjuvant trial with a pCR endpoint within signatures defined by HR & HER2 status & MP result. This investigational arm was eligible for graduation in 3 of 10 pre-defined signatures: HER2-, HR+HER2- and HR-HER2-. Regimens may also leave the trial for futility (< 10% probability of success), maximum sample size accrual (10% < probability of success <85%), maximum time in trial (2 years) or for safety as recommended by the independent DSMB. Results: Sixty patients were randomized and evaluable to SGN-LIV1A. The study arm was stopped due to reaching the predetermined time limit for patient accrual of 2 yrs. Final estimated pCR rates are below. The estimated pCR rates were similar between the SGN-LIV1A and control arms for any tumor subtype. Preliminary safety events for SGN-LIV1A include increased rates of transaminitis and hyperglycemia and reduced rates of peripheral neuropathy compared to control. One patient was removed from the analysis as she was determined to have angiosarcoma of the breast. Notably, this patient had a dramatic early response and subsequent pCR to SGN-LIV1A treatment. Conclusion: The value of I-SPY 2 is to give insight about the performance of an investigational agent’s likelihood of achieving pCR. SGN-LIV1A delivered every 3 weeks was comparable to paclitaxel for the primary endpoint of pCR in I-SPY2 and may have a similar side effect profile, however, with less peripheral neuropathy. Clinical trials evaluating weekly dosing of SGN-LIV1A are ongoing. A trial of SGN-LIV1A in the treatment of angiosarcoma is under consideration at this time. Final Estimated pCR Rates and Predictive ProbabilitiesEstimated pCR rate(95% prob interval)SignatureSGN-LIV1AControlProbability SGNLIV1A Superior to ControlPredictive Probability of Success in Phase 3HER2-0.16 (0.08-0.24) N= 600.20 (0.16-0.25) N= 3270.180.02HR-/HER2-0.25 (0.12-0.37) N=360.28 (0.21-0.35) N=1460.310.06HR+/HER2-0.09 (0-0.18) N=240.14 (0.09-0.19) N=1810.150.03 Citation Format: Heather Beckwith, Richard Schwab, Christina Yau, Erica Stringer-Reasor, Shi Wei, A. Jo Chien, Kathy S Albain, Kevin Kalinsky, Anne Wallace, Anthony Elias, Douglas Yee, Amy S Clark, Judy C Boughey, Heather Han, Rita Nanda, Claudine Isaacs, Zahi Mitri, Julie E Lang, Alexandra Thomas, Tara Sanft, Angela DeMichele, Jane Perlmutter, Hope S Rugo, Nola M Hylton, W. Fraser Symmans, Michelle E Melisko, Laura J van't Veer, I-SPY 2 Consortium, Amy Wilson, Smita M Asare, Ashish Sanil, Donald A Berry, Laura J Esserman. Evaluation of SGN-LIV1a followed by AC in high-risk HER2 negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the I-SPY 2 TRIAL [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Virtual Symposium; 2020 Dec 8-11; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PD1-10.

Precis: Although this sample with glaucoma had preserved central vision, they presented worse reading performance compared with similarly aged controls. Objective: To determine whether patients with glaucoma with preserved central vision have impaired reading performance compared with healthy controls. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 35 patients with glaucoma and 32 similarly aged controls with visual acuity better than 0.4 logMAR in both eyes. Each participant had a detailed ophthalmological examination followed by a 5-chart reading performance test using a Portuguese version of the Minnesota Low Vision Reading Test (MNREAD). Correlation between reading performance (reading speed) and ocular parameters was investigated. Results: Participants had an average age of 63.0±12.6 years. In the glaucoma group, mean deviation in the better and worse eyes was −6.29±6.36 and −11.08±0.23 dB, respectively. There was no significant difference in age, sex, rage, education, visual acuity, or systemic comorbidities between groups. Participants with glaucoma had significantly slower reading speeds, with an average of 83.2±25.12 compared with 102.29±29.57 words per minute in controls (P=0.006). Reading speed was slower for all 5 charts. Odds of glaucoma increased by 1.29 (95% confidence interval, 1.07-1.56; P=0.009) for each 10 words per minute decrease in average reading speed, with this relationship maintained after accounting for age, schooling, and visual acuity. Conclusions: Patients with mild to moderate glaucoma had worse reading performance compared with similarly aged controls, despite both having preserved central vision.

Background: Here we describe an online network of patients with cancer, clinicians and researchers, layered on top of a comprehensive real world database of treatments and outcomes, continuously updated in near real time, and initially focused on multiple myeloma. Methods: Patients with multiple myeloma register at www.all4cure.com and sign HIPAA release forms to provide access to all of their medical records from all of the institutions from which they have received care. From the medical records, a structured dataset of treatments and lab results is extracted by a myeloma-dedicated team for display on each patient's de-identified, personalized dashboard. A discussion panel allows more than 1200 participating patients, clinicians and researchers to post comments or questions regarding each patient's specific circumstances. For each patient, lines of therapy and responses are determined according to IMWG and published criteria (Blood [2015] 126: 921-922). Here we report initial results from the treatments and responses among patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. Results: A total of 493 patients includes 26 with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS), 51 with smoldering myeloma, 408 with multiple myeloma, and 8 with primary plasma cell leukemia. Among patients with multiple myeloma, 42 (10.3%) had antecedent MGUS and/or smoldering myeloma. The average age is 65.6 (+/- 9.7). 50.9% are male and 49.1% are female. 42 states in the U.S. and 8 other countries are represented. Two patients with multiple myeloma had not started treatment by the time of this report. The remaining 414 patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received 1 to 16 lines of therapy. Among the 414 patients that received at least one line of therapy, a remarkable 89 distinct first line therapies were administered. The most common first line therapies were lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=92), cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, dexamethasone (n=50), lenalidomide, bortezomib, dexamethasone + autologous stem cell transplant + lenalidomide maintenance (n=41), lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=29), and bortezomib and dexamethasone (n=22). 62 patients received a first line therapy that was not received by any other patient in our database. This variation was attributable to participation in clinical trials, variation in the availability of drugs over time and different geographic locations, and the very large number of distinct combinations associated with multi-agent regimens. Seventy six percent of patients with multiple myeloma or plasma cell leukemia received a second line of therapy, 52% received a third line of therapy, 34% received a fourth line of therapy, 23% received a fifth line of therapy, and 18% received a sixth line of therapy. We observed a trend toward a decline in favorable responses with successive lines of therapy (Table 1) consistent with previous reports, with a correlation coefficient between the line of therapy and overall response rate of -0.74. Among the 76 patients who received 6 or more lines of therapy (247 lines of therapy in total), only 7 achieved stringent complete responses (sCRs), of which 5 were associated with a CAR-T therapy. Table 1 also shows a trend toward more rapid changes in treatment associated with later lines of therapy. 57 of 493 patients (12%) are deceased. Conclusions: Our findings reveal remarkable variation in the treatment of myeloma and provide a potentially valuable resource of up to date and current clinical features, prognosis, treatments, side effects, and outcomes of patients with myeloma in the real world. Table 1. Summary of lines of therapy and outcomes across 414 patients with multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukemia. The percentages of patients achieving sCR, ≥ PR (overall response rate - ORR), and ≥MR (clinical benefit rate - CBR) are shown for each line of therapy. Also depicted is the interval mortality and the mean and median number of days between the beginning of a line therapy and the beginning of the next line of therapy. Table Disclosures Richter: Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy; X4 pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive biotechnologies: Consultancy; Secura bio: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy. Chhun:All4Cure: Current Employment. Zheng:All4Cure: Current Employment. Piboonvaranggoon:All4Cure: Current Employment. Mallick:All4Cure: Current Employment. Wren:All4Cure: Current Employment. Nam:All4Cure: Current Employment. Lopez Barquilla:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Blau:All4Cure: Current equity holder in private company. Cowan:Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Cellectar: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Bensinger:BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Regeneron: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kumar:Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Genecentrix: Consultancy; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; MedImmune: Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Cellectar: Other; Sanofi: Research Funding; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. Anderson:Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.: Other: Scientific Founder of Oncopep and C4 Therapeutics.; Bristol Myers Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi-Aventis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millenium-Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Blau:All4Cure: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company.

Introduction Immune-mediated hematologic disorders are relatively rare but potentially life-threatening immune-related adverse events (irAE) with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy (Shiuan, Beckermann et al 2017). The management strategy often relies on systemic corticosteroids and other immunosuppressant agents in steroid-refractory cases (Brahmer, Lacchetti et al 2018). We hereby describe our institution's experience in diagnosing and managing immune-related hematologic adverse events (ir-h-AE). Methods We retrospectively searched the electronic health record for all ir-h-AE diagnosed by treating providers and confirmed by study authors between 2015 and 2020. The search included patients on ICI and the following conditions: immune-related neutropenia (IRN), autoimmune hemolytic anemia (AIHA), cold agglutinin disease (CAD), immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), immune-related pancytopenia, aplastic anemia (AA), and pure red cell aplasia (PRCA). For AIHA, PRCA, and CAD, partial response (PR) was defined as hemoglobin greater than 10 g/dL but < 12 g/dL and 2 g/dL above the nadir without blood product transfusion. Complete response (CR) was defined as hemoglobin of ≥ 12 g/dL and 2 g/dL above the nadir without blood product transfusion (Peñalver, Alvarez-Larrán et al. 2010). For ITP, CR was defined as platelet count ≥ 100 × 109/L and absence of bleeding. PR was defined as platelet count ≥ 30 × 109/L and ≥ two-fold increase from the baseline count and absence of bleeding (Gómez-Almaguer, Tarín-Arzaga et al. 2013). For IRN, CR was defined as absolute neutrophil count (ANC) ≥ 1500/ mm3 on 2 consecutive measurements separated by 7 days; PR was defined as ANC ≥ 500/ mm3 sustained over 7 days. JMP® 14.1 was used for data analysis. Results Seventeen patients were identified, 9 (52.9%) of whom were female (table 1). Median age was 68 years (range 26-78). The most common pre-existing malignancies were melanoma (6 patients, 35.3%), non-small cell lung cancer (4 patients, 23.5%), and gastrointestinal cancer (3 patients, 17.6%). The ir-h-AE included 7 patients (41.2%) with warm AIHA, 4 (23.5%) with ITP (1 had immune-related pancytopenia that resolved with ITP persisting), 3 (17.6%) with IRN, 1 with AA, 1 with CAD, and 1 with PRCA and mild ITP. All patients had received an ICI dose within 60 days of diagnosis (range 3-52 days, median 18 days). Only 1 patient had a concomitant chronic autoimmune disorder (antinuclear antibody-positive arthritis). Four patients (23.5%) were receiving chemotherapy. Sixteen patients (94.1%) required treatment and received corticosteroids. Eight out of 15 evaluable patients (53.3%) responded to corticosteroids only. Another 4 responders (26.7%) required additional therapies including intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) (4, 23.5%) and/or rituximab (4, 23.5%). Overall response rate was 71.4% for AIHA and 100% for IRN. ITP was likely underrepresented in our cohort, and the response rate of 66.7% is likely lower than the response rate in clinical practice. This could be related to the fact that many mild thrombocytopenia cases are not further evaluated in clinical practice. None of our patients died from the sequelae of an ir-h-AE. Two patients (11.8%) died within 30 days of ir-h-AE diagnosis (disseminated intravascular coagulation likely due to the underlying malignancy and sepsis from bacterial pneumonia). At the time of ir-h-AE diagnosis, the malignancy was showing evidence of response in 9 patients (52.9%), progression in 6 patients (35.3%), and stability in 2 patients (11.8%). ICI therapy was permanently discontinued in 9 patients (52.9%) and temporarily held in 6 patients (35.3%). Three of the 5 patients (60%), who were rechallenged with ICI therapy, had recurrence of the same ir-h-AE (AIHA) with adequate response to therapy. Non-hematologic irAE (7 patients, 41.2%) included 3 patients with hepatitis, 2 with thyroiditis, 2 with pneumonitis, 1 with colitis, and 1 with dermatitis. Conclusion Our clinical experience with ir-h-AE highlights the importance of exercising vigilance in assessing the hematologic parameters of patients receiving ICI therapy. While relatively rare, ir-h-AE may impact the clinical course of patients with cancer and their eligibility for therapies that have the potential of offering durable control of the underlying malignancy. ir-h-AE respond to classical therapies including corticosteroids, IVIG, and rituximab. Disclosures Block: Merck: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Marker Therapeutics: Research Funding; Transgene: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding. Kottschade:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Introduction: The NHLBI National MDS Study (NCT02775383) is a prospective cohort study conducted at 92 community hospitals and 29 academic centers. It enrolls patients undergoing work up for suspected MDS to understand the genetic, epigenetic, and biological factors associated with the initiation and progression of the disease. Previously untreated, cytopenic participants undergo both local and centralized pathology review and are assigned a diagnosis, including MDS, MDS/MPN, AML with blasts < 30%, and "Other". Emerging data suggests that Next Generation Sequencing (NGS), along with cytogenetics and clinical variables, may improve MDS diagnostic precision. Given that our study relies on central review (with additional tertiary pathology review used to adjudicate disagreements), we examined whether targeted gene sequencing data could be used to increase the agreement between local and central pathologic diagnosis of MDS vs. Other. Methods: Peripheral blood and bone marrow (BM) biopsy specimens from cytopenic patients, along with clinical history, CBC, and other results including karyotyping, FISH and pathology reports from local pathologists were reviewed by central pathologists. The updated 2016 WHO classifications were used to diagnose MDS. Targeted exon sequencing of 96 genes was performed using BM specimens. A subset of 648 individuals that were classified as MDS (n=212) or Other (n=436, including 90 CCUS and 89 individuals with other cancers) by pathology assessments were selected. A mean coverage of 1,317X was achieved and variants had a minimum variant allele frequency (VAF) of 2% (except FLT3). Variants for 596 subjects were manually reviewed to retain likely disease-causing variants to build a binary classifier (MDS vs. Other) using the maximum VAF per gene as input (Figure 1). Subjects diagnosed with MDS or Other by both central and local pathology were used for training, validation, and testing, and were considered "gold standard" (GS) cases (n=546). These subjects were split into 4 random groups with equal proportions of MDS cases. 75% of the GS cases were used to train and validate lasso-regularized logistic regression models using 3-fold cross validation. ROC curve analysis was carried out using the remaining 25% of GS cases (Test Set 1) on the best model to identify an optimal probability cut off point for classifying subjects as MDS. Model performance was then tested on 50 subjects for which the central and local pathology diagnosis disagreed (Test Set 2), as well as on 52 additional subjects irrespective of agreement (Test Set 3). Results : The best performing logistic regression model retained 7 genes as most informative in a discriminating diagnosis of MDS from Other based on their VAFs, in order of impact: TP53, SF3B1, U2AF1, ASXL1, TET2,STAG2, and SRSF2. We used this model to assign probabilities for each of the subjects in Test Set 1 and to estimate the performance using ROC analysis (Figure 1), resulting in a high area under the curve (AUC) of 0.89. We chose a probability cut-off of ≥0.17, being associated with a high percentage of correct classification of MDS with a sensitivity and specificity of 0.90 and 0.81, respectively. Among the cohort of 50 subjects with a discordant local and central pathology diagnosis (Test Set 2), the classifier accurately reassigned 37 subjects (accuracy = 74%) from the local to the central pathology. The blinded tertiary pathology reviewer agreed with central in all Test Set 2 cases. This included 24/34 MDS cases that had been labeled as Other by local pathology (positive predictive value [PPV]=0.89). 3/16 final pathology-classified Other cases were mis-classified as MDS by the local pathologist (negative predictive value [NPV] = 0.57). Next, we assessed the ability of the model to predict MDS vs. Other for 52 additional independent subjects using the third pathologist's diagnosis to break any ties (Test Set 3). The classifier correctly predicted 15/21 MDS cases (PPV=0.83) and misclassified 6/31 Others as MDS (NPV=0.82). The overall accuracy was 83%. Conclusions: We identified that VAFs for 7 genes can correctly re-classify subjects as either MDS or Other in 74% of cases that were misclassified between local and central pathology review. Further assessment on an independent cohort showed an accuracy of 83% of the model. Taken together, these data suggest that complementing pathology reviews with targeted sequencing of 7 genes could improve MDS diagnosis. Disclosures Lindsley: MedImmune: Research Funding; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Bejar:Aptose Biosciences: Current Employment; AbbVie/Genentech: Honoraria; Astex/Otsuka: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene/BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Honoraria; Forty-Seven/Gilead: Honoraria; Genoptix/NeoGenomics: Honoraria. DeZern:MEI: Consultancy; Astex: Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Foran:H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Xencor: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Servier: 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; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Komrokji:Acceleron: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Agios: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Jazz: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Geron: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria. Maciejewski:Alexion, BMS: Speakers Bureau; Novartis, Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria. Padron:Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding. Starczynowski:Captor Therapeutics: Consultancy; Tolero Therapeutics: Research Funding; Kurome Therapeutics: Consultancy, Current equity holder in private company, Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy.

BACKGROUND Intramedullary spinal cord tumors represent a minority of intradural tumors. Among intramedullary spinal cord tumors, hemangioblastomas are uncommon, and schwannomas are extremely rare. Collision tumors are histologically distinct tumors that are intermingled and growing together. OBSERVATIONS In this report, the authors describe a patient with a cervical intramedullary collision tumor involving a hemangioblastoma and schwannoma. To the authors’ knowledge, no prior spinal intramedullary collision tumor involving multiple neoplasms has been described. The patient’s presentation and management are described. LESSONS Clinicians should consider the possibility of collision tumors when evaluating intramedullary spinal cord tumors, especially when patient presentation and radiographic findings are atypical. When tumors with similar radiographic characteristics form collision tumors, distinction using preoperative imaging can be extremely challenging. In addition, surgical management of intramedullary collision tumors, like that for all intramedullary spinal cord tumors, should involve meticulous perioperative care and a methodical surgical technique. Maximal safe resection will depend upon histopathological diagnosis, anatomical location of the tumor, presence of distinct dissection planes, and stability of neuromonitoring. Finally, ongoing research on the genetics of intramedullary spinal cord tumors may identify underlying genetic links for intramedullary hemangioblastomas and schwannomas.

BACKGROUND Anterior lumbar fusion procedures have many benefits and continue to grow in popularity. The technique has many potential approach- and procedure-related complications. Symptomatic retroperitoneal fluid collections are uncommon but potentially serious complications after anterior lumbar procedures. Collection types include hematomas, urinomas, chyloperitoneum, cerebrospinal fluid collections, and deep infections. OBSERVATIONS The authors present an unusual case of a patient with persistent symptoms related to a retroperitoneal collection over a 5-year period following anterior lumbar fusion surgery. To the authors’ knowledge, no similar case with such extensive symptom duration has been described. The patient had an infected encapsulated fluid collection. The collection was presumed to be a postoperative lymphocele that was secondarily infected after serial percutaneous drainage procedures. LESSONS When retroperitoneal collections occur after anterior retroperitoneal approaches, clinical clues, such as timing of symptoms, hypotension, acute anemia, urinary tract infection, hydronephrosis, elevated serum creatinine and blood urea nitrogen, low-pressure headaches, anorexia, or systemic signs of infection, can help narrow the differential. Retroperitoneal collections may continue to be symptomatic many years after anterior lumbar surgery. The collections may become infected after serial percutaneous drainage or prolonged continuous drainage. Encapsulated, infected fluid collections typically require surgical debridement of the capsule and its contents.

ObjectiveTakayasu’s arteritis (TAK) is a granulomatous large‐vessel vasculitis primarily affecting the aorta and its proximal branches. TAK can be a difficult disease to diagnose and manage given the rarity of the disease as well as current limitations in biomarkers, imperfect imaging modalities, and few randomized controlled trials.MethodsIn developing the American College of Rheumatology/Vasculitis Foundation guideline for the management of TAK, we performed an extensive systematic literature review to guide our recommendations. We included RCTs first. When RCTs were not available, we included observational studies that reported on patient‐important outcomes for the intervention and comparison. When studies with comparative data were not available, we included case series that present patient‐important outcomes for either the intervention or the comparison.ResultsThree hundred forty‐seven articles were included for full review to answer 27 population, intervention, comparison, and outcome questions related to TAK. Ten studies were evaluated that addressed the use of glucocorticoids (GCs), non‐GC nonbiologic therapies, as well as biologics in treating TAK. A total of 33 studies, including 8 comparative studies, were included to determine the test accuracy of commonly available diagnostic tests for TAK.ConclusionThis comprehensive systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the benefits and harms of different treatment options and the accuracy of commonly used tests for the management of TAK.