Citations

ObjectiveWe provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease.MethodsWe developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation.ResultsFifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs.ConclusionThis clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

Objective We provide evidence‐based recommendations regarding screening for interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the monitoring for ILD progression in people with systemic autoimmune rheumatic diseases (SARDs), specifically rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, mixed connective tissue disease, and Sjögren disease. Methods We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes questions related to screening and monitoring for ILD in patients with SARDs. A systematic literature review was performed, and the available evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. A Voting Panel of interdisciplinary clinician experts and patients achieved consensus on the direction and strength of each recommendation. Results Fifteen recommendations were developed. For screening people with these SARDs at risk for ILD, we conditionally recommend pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and high‐resolution computed tomography of the chest (HRCT chest); conditionally recommend against screening with 6‐minute walk test distance (6MWD), chest radiography, ambulatory desaturation testing, or bronchoscopy; and strongly recommend against screening with surgical lung biopsy. We conditionally recommend monitoring ILD with PFTs, HRCT chest, and ambulatory desaturation testing and conditionally recommend against monitoring with 6MWD, chest radiography, or bronchoscopy. We provide guidance on ILD risk factors and suggestions on frequency of testing to evaluate for the development of ILD in people with SARDs. Conclusion This clinical practice guideline presents the first recommendations endorsed by the American College of Rheumatology and American College of Chest Physicians for the screening and monitoring of ILD in people with SARDs.

TPS4196 Background: Advanced BTC patients have poor prognosis. Up to 40% of BTCs have KRAS mutations and are associated with worse overall survival (OS). With a median OS of 7.7 months in KRAS wild-type compared to 1.7 months in KRAS mutated disease, these alterations are independent poor prognostic factors in BTC. Gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) with or without immunotherapy are often used as 1st-line therapies. However, there is a lack of data on best 2nd-line regimens. mFOLFOX6 (5-fluorouracil [5-FU], leucovorin [LV], oxaliplatin) or liposomal irinotecan+5-FU+LV are options when no biomarkers are found (e.g., MSI-H, BRAFV600E, FGFR-fusions, IDH1-mutation, HER2-overexpression). Prior studies do not demonstrate benefit with MEK inhibitors (MEKi), but none of the studies had biomarker selection. Pre-clinical studies in BTC cell lines suggest synergy between MEKi and 5-FU. Thymidylate synthase (TS )levels induced by 5-FU are downregulated by addition of binimetinib. Early clinical studies show safety and tolerance of this combination. In this study, we will evaluate if the combination of mFOLFOX6+binimetinib improves OS for patients with BTC and MAPK mutations compared to mFOLFOX6 alone in 2nd-line therapy. Methods: EAY191-A6 is a treatment study arm of the NCI ComboMATCH master registration trial EAY191. The A6 trial has a randomized phase II design, enrolling a maximum of 66 patients. Patients with any MAPK pathway mutations except those with available therapies will be eligible. Patient must first enroll to the EAY191 master trial. Local molecular results may be used for enrollment. Submission of tissue at baseline is mandatory. Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to mFOLFOX6 vs mFOLFOX6 + binimetinib (45 mg oral twice a day every 14 days). Stratification factors include location and stage of disease. Primary efficacy analysis will compare OS in the intent-to-treat population. If the observed hazard ratio (HR) of experimental arm vs standard of care is < 0.545 (corresponding to an observed increase in OS by 5 months or longer), experimental treatment will be considered superior. An interim futility analysis at 50% of expected events will be conducted. If the observed HR is ≥ 1, experimental treatment will not be considered superior, and accrual maybe suspended. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, objective response rate, duration of response, disease control rate and toxicity of treatments. Exploratory objectives include prognostic modeling, correlations of genomic alterations with response or resistance and use of machine learning for outcome prediction. This study is active and open to accrual. Clinical trial information: NCT05564403 .

e16286 Background: GEP-NET is a rare disease with variable tumor biology. An indolent disease course with subtle symptoms renders timely diagnosis difficult; 2/3 of patients (pts) are diagnosed at locally advanced or metastasized stage. In clinical decision-making, disease-specific factors, patient (pt) age and long-term disease control must be balanced against the aggressiveness of therapies. NCCN, NANETS and ENETS guidelines recognize the diversity of mGEP-NET by recommending individualized treatment approaches. We aimed to describe treatment (Tx) utilization patterns in mGEP-NET. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using MarketScan® Commercial and Medicare Databases spanning 07/01/2017-01/31/2023. Eligible were GEP-NET pts with ≥1 inpatient or ≥2 outpatient claims, a subsequent new diagnosis of metastatic disease (index), no secondary malignancy, and follow-up time of ≥12 months (m) after index. Results: Of 16218 GEP-NET pts, 2002 (mean age 60y; 50% female) met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up time after index was 17m, with 49%, 27% and 15% followed up for ≥12, 24 and 36m, resp. Medical history (12m baseline before index) included mean Charlson Comorbidity Index of 2.62, with hypertension (HTN), type 2 diabetes (T2DM), chronic liver disease (CLD), asthma/COPD, cardiovascular disease (CVD), and chronic kidney disease (CKD) present in 56, 26, 22, 18, 17 and 10% of pts, resp.; 5% had carcinoid syndrome. In total, 949 pts (47.4%) received first-line (1L) systemic Tx: somatostatin analogs (SSA; 61.6%) of either very short or long duration (median 116d vs 775d), chemotherapy (38.8%), targeted therapies (3.4%) and PRRT (0.5%). Relative to NCCN cancer surveillance guidelines, 49.5% received more and 36.8% received fewer than 4 scans in the first year of treatment. Conversely, 1053 (52.6%) did not receive any 1L systemic Tx. With the exception of CLD, pts with vs without 1L Tx had similar proportions of medical conditions during the 12m baseline and during follow-up (HTN 72.4 vs 66.5%; T2DM 34.0 vs 30.3%; asthma/COPD 16.5 vs 19.3%; CVD 27.3 vs 36.9%; CKD 18.9 vs 17.9%; however, CLD 54.0 vs 36.7%). See Table comparing both cohorts on insurance, treatments, and health care utilization during follow-up. Conclusions: This claims analysis reveals treatment differences among mGEP-NET pts that cannot be explained by the parameters assessed herein. Further research should investigate factors influencing diagnosis and treatment decision-making, applying also pt-level health record data; and analyze economic barriers to diagnosis and treatment. [Table: see text]

ImportanceSince 2021, American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation standards require providing a survivorship program for patients with adult-onset cancer treated with curative intent. Since more than 70% of all patients with cancer in the US are treated at CoC-accredited facilities, this presents an opportunity for a landscape analysis of survivorship care availability.ObjectiveTo determine the prevalence, types, and outcomes of cancer survivorship services at CoC-accredited facilities.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis survey study used an anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey conducted from May 4 to 25, 2023. Participants were CoC-accredited facilities in the US representing diverse CoC program categories, institutional characteristics, geographic regions, and practice types. Department of Veterans Affairs cancer programs were excluded due to data usage restrictions. Data were analyzed from July to October 2023.ExposureCoC Survivorship Standard 4.8 was released in October 2019 and programs were expected to adhere to the Standard beginning January 1, 2021.Main Outcomes and MeasuresQuestions included self-reported survivorship program characteristics, availability of services aligned to CoC Survivorship Standard 4.8, and perceived program impacts. Response frequencies and proportions were determined in aggregate and by CoC program category.ResultsThere were 1400 eligible programs, and 384 programs participated (27.4% response rate). All regions and eligible program categories were represented, and most had analytic caseloads of 500 to 4999 patients in 2021. Most survivorship program personnel included nurses (334 programs [87.0%]) and social workers (278 programs [72.4%]), while physical (180 programs [46.9%]) and occupational (87 programs [22.7%]) therapists were less common. Services most endorsed as available for all survivors were screening for new cancers (330 programs [87.5%]), nutritional counseling (325 programs [85.3%]), and referrals to specialists (320 programs [84.7%]), while treatment summaries (242 programs [64.7%]), and survivorship care plans (173 programs [43.0%]), sexual health (217 programs [57.3%]), and fertility (214 programs [56.9%]) were less common. Survivorship services were usually delivered by cancer treatment teams (243 programs [63.3%]) rather than specialized survivorship clinics (120 programs [31.3%]). For resources needed, additional advanced practice clinicians with dedicated survivorship effort (205 programs [53.4%]) and electronic health record enhancements (185 programs [48.2%]) were most endorsed. Lack of referrals and low patient awareness were endorsed as the primary barriers. A total of 335 programs (87.2%) agreed that Survivorship Standard 4.8 helped advance their programs.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings of this survey study of CoC-accredited programs establish a benchmark for survivorship care delivery in the US, identify gaps in specific services and opportunities for intervention, contribute to longitudinal reevaluation for tracking progress nationally, and suggest the value of survivorship care standards.

Pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP) is a rare inflammatory skin disease with a poorly understood pathogenesis. Through a molecularly driven precision medicine approach and an extensive mechanistic pathway analysis in PRP skin samples, compared to psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, healed PRP, and healthy controls, we identified IL-1β as a key mediator, orchestrating an NF-κB–mediated IL-1β–CCL20 axis, including activation of CARD14 and NOD2. Treatment of three patients with the IL-1 antagonists anakinra and canakinumab resulted in rapid clinical improvement and reversal of the PRP-associated molecular signature with a 50% improvement in skin lesions after 2 to 3 weeks. This transcriptional signature was consistent with in vitro stimulation of keratinocytes with IL-1β. With the central role of IL-1β underscoring its potential as a therapeutic target, our findings propose a redefinition of PRP as an autoinflammatory keratinization disorder. Further clinical trials are needed to validate the efficacy of IL-1β antagonists in PRP.

ABSTRACTIntroductionThe decision to become a living donor requires consideration of a complex, interactive array of factors that could be targeted for clinical, policy, and educational interventions. Our objective was to assess how financial barriers interact with motivators, other barriers, and facilitators during this process.MethodsData were obtained from a public survey assessing motivators, barriers, and facilitators of living donation. We used multivariable logistic regression and consensus k‐means clustering to assess interactions between financial concerns and other considerations in the decision‐making process.ResultsAmong 1592 respondents, the average age was 43; 74% were female and 14% and 6% identified as Hispanic and Black, respectively. Among employed respondents (72%), 40% indicated that they would not be able to donate without lost wage reimbursement. Stronger agreement with worries about expenses and dependent care challenges was associated with not being able to donate without lost wage reimbursement (OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.0–1.3; OR = 1.2, 95% CI = 1.1–1.3, respectively). Four respondent clusters were identified. Cluster 1 had strong motivators and facilitators with minimal barriers. Cluster 2 had barriers related to health concerns, nervousness, and dependent care. Clusters 3 and 4 had financial barriers. Cluster 3 also had anxiety related to surgery and dependent care.ConclusionsFinancial barriers interact primarily with health and dependent care concerns when considering living organ donation. Targeted interventions to reduce financial barriers and improve provider communication regarding donation‐related risks are needed.

PURPOSE The National Cancer Institute-Children's Oncology Group (NCI-COG) Pediatric MATCH trial assigns patients age 1-21 years with refractory malignancies to phase II treatment arms of molecularly targeted therapies on the basis of genetic alterations detected in their tumor. Patients with activating alterations in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway were treated with ulixertinib, an extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)1/2 inhibitor. METHODS As there were no previous pediatric data, ulixertinib was initially tested in a dose escalation cohort to establish the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) before proceeding to the phase II cohort. Ulixertinib was administered at 260 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day (dose level 1 [DL1], n = 15) or 350 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day (DL2, n = 5). The primary end point was objective response rate; secondary end points included safety/tolerability and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS Twenty patients (median 12 years; range, 5-20) were treated, all evaluable for response. CNS tumors comprised 55% (11/20) of diagnoses, with high-grade glioma and low-grade glioma most common (n = 5 each). All CNS tumors except one harbored BRAF fusions or V600E mutations. Rhabdomyosarcoma (n = 5) was the most frequent non-CNS diagnosis. DL1 was declared the RP2D in the dose escalation cohort after dose-limiting toxicities in Cycle 1 occurred in 1/6 patients at DL1 and 2/5 patients at DL2, including fatigue, anorexia, rash, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, hypoalbuminemia, and hypernatremia. No objective responses were observed. Six-month PFS was 37% (95% CI, 17 to 58). Three patients with BRAF-altered CNS tumors achieved stable disease >6 months. CONCLUSION Ulixertinib, a novel targeted agent with no previous pediatric data, was successfully evaluated in a national precision medicine basket trial. The pediatric RP2D of ulixertinib is 260 mg/m2/dose orally twice a day. Limited single-agent efficacy was observed in a biomarker-selected cohort of refractory pediatric tumors.

ImportanceThe optimal radiotherapy technique for unresectable locally advanced non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is controversial, so evaluating long-term prospective outcomes of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is important.ObjectiveTo compare long-term prospective outcomes of patients receiving IMRT and 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) with concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel for locally advanced NSCLC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA secondary analysis of a prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial NRG Oncology–RTOG 0617 assessed 483 patients receiving chemoradiotherapy (3D-CRT vs IMRT) for locally advanced NSCLC based on stratification.Main Outcomes and MeasuresLong-term outcomes were analyzed, including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to local failure, development of second cancers, and severe grade 3 or higher adverse events (AEs) per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3. The percentage of an organ volume (V) receiving a specified amount of radiation in units of Gy is reported as V(radiation dose).ResultsOf 483 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [57-70] years; 194 [40.2%] female), 228 (47.2%) received IMRT, and 255 (52.8%) received 3D-CRT (median [IQR] follow-up, 5.2 [4.8-6.0] years). IMRT was associated with a 2-fold reduction in grade 3 or higher pneumonitis AEs compared with 3D-CRT (8 [3.5%] vs 21 [8.2%]; P = .03). On univariate analysis, heart V20, V40, and V60 were associated with worse OS (hazard ratios, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.04-1.09]; 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; 1.16 [95% CI, 1.09-1.24], respectively; all P &amp;lt; .001). IMRT significantly reduced heart V40 compared to 3D-CRT (16.5% vs 20.5%; P &amp;lt; .001). Heart V40 (&amp;lt;20%) had better OS than V40 (≥20%) (median [IQR], 2.5 [2.1-3.1] years vs 1.7 [1.5-2.0] years; P &amp;lt; .001). On multivariable analysis, heart V40 (≥20%), was associated with worse OS (hazard ratio, 1.34 [95% CI, 1.06-1.70]; P = .01), whereas lung V5 and age had no association with OS. Patients receiving IMRT and 3D-CRT had similar rates of developing secondary cancers (15 [6.6%] vs 14 [5.5%]) with long-term follow-up.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings support the standard use of IMRT for locally advanced NSCLC. IMRT should aim to minimize lung V20 and heart V20 to V60, rather than constraining low-dose radiation bath. Lung V5 and age were not associated with survival and should not be considered a contraindication for chemoradiotherapy.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00533949

PURPOSE Long-term outcomes of patients with stage I human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–positive breast cancer receiving adjuvant trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) remain undefined, and prognostic predictors represent an unmet need. METHODS In the ATEMPT phase II trial, patients with stage I centrally confirmed HER2-positive breast cancer were randomly assigned 3:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year or paclitaxel plus trastuzumab (TH). Coprimary objectives were to compare the incidence of clinically relevant toxicities between arms and to evaluate invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with T-DM1. Correlative analyses included the HER2DX genomic tool, multiomic evaluations of HER2 heterogeneity, and predictors of thrombocytopenia. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 5.8 years, 11 iDFS events were observed in the T-DM1 arm, consistent with a 5-year iDFS of 97.0% (95% CI, 95.2 to 98.7). At 5 years, the recurrence-free interval (RFI) was 98.3% (95% CI, 97.0 to 99.7), the overall survival was 97.8% (95% CI, 96.3 to 99.3), and the breast cancer-specific survival was 99.4% (95% CI, 98.6 to 100). Comparable iDFS was observed with T-DM1 irrespective of tumor size, hormone receptor status, centrally determined HER2 immunohistochemical score, and receipt of T-DM1 for more or less than 6 months. Although ATEMPT was not powered for this end point, the 5-year iDFS in the TH arm was 91.1%. Among patients with sufficient tissue for HER2DX testing (n = 187), 5-year outcomes significantly differed according to HER2DX risk score, with better RFI (98.1% v 81.8%, hazard ratio [HR], 0.10, P = .01) and iDFS (96.3% v 81.8%, HR, 0.20, P = .047) among patients with HER2DX low-risk versus high-risk tumors, respectively. CONCLUSION Adjuvant T-DM1 for 1 year leads to outstanding long-term outcomes for patients with stage I HER2-positive breast cancer. A high HER2DX risk score predicted a higher risk of recurrence in ATEMPT.