Citations

Objectives/HypothesisCreate a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy.Study DesignBlinded, modified, Delphi consensus process.MethodsUsing the REDCap database, a list of 31 potential items was circulated to 65 expert surgeons who perform pediatric tracheotomy. In the first round, items were rated as “keep” or “remove,” and comments were incorporated. In the second round, experts were asked to rate the importance of each item on a seven‐point Likert scale. Consensus criteria were determined a priori with a goal of 7 to 25 final items.ResultsThe first round achieved a response rate of 39/65 (60.0%), and returned questionnaires were 99.5% complete. All items were rated as “keep,” and 137 comments were incorporated. In the second round, 30 task‐specific and seven previously validated global rating items were distributed, and the response rate was 44/65 (67.7%), with returned questionnaires being 99.3% complete. Of the Task‐Specific Items, 13 reached consensus, 10 were near consensus, and 7 did not achieve consensus. For the 7 previously validated global rating items, 5 reached consensus and two were near consensus.ConclusionsIt is feasible to reach consensus on the important steps involved in pediatric tracheotomy using a modified Delphi consensus process. These items can now be considered to create a competency‐based assessment tool for pediatric tracheotomy. Such a tool will hopefully allow trainees to focus on the important aspects of this procedure and help teaching programs standardize how they evaluate trainees during this procedure.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 130:2700–2707, 2020

Nocardia species are found worldwide and are opportunistic pathogens of both immunocompromised and immunocompetent hosts. Recent updates to the taxonomy of this genus have indicated that there are more than 90 recognized species of Nocardia with 54 species reported to be clinically relevant.

AbstractBackgroundProstate‐specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is a well‐established therapeutic and diagnostic target overexpressed in both primary and metastatic prostate cancers. PSMA antibody‐drug conjugate (PSMA ADC) is a fully human immunoglobulin G1 anti‐PSMA monoclonal antibody conjugated to monomethylauristatin E, which binds to PSMA‐positive cells and induces cytotoxicity. In a phase 1 study, PSMA ADC was well tolerated and demonstrated activity as measured by reductions in serum prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) and circulating tumor cells (CTCs). To further assess PSMA ADC, we conducted a phase 2 trial in metastatic castration‐resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) subjects who progressed following abiraterone/enzalutamide (abi/enz) therapy.MethodsA total of 119 (84 chemotherapy‐experienced and 35 chemotherapy‐naïve) subjects were administered PSMA ADC 2.5 or 2.3 mg/kg IV q3w for up to eight cycles. Antitumor activity (best percentage declines in PSA and CTCs from baseline and tumor responses through radiological imaging), exploratory biomarkers, and safety (monitoring of adverse events [AEs], clinical laboratory tests, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status) were assessed.ResultsPSA declines ≥50% occurred in 14% of all treated (n = 113) and 21% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects (n = 34). CTC declines ≥50% were seen in 78% of all treated (n = 77; number of subjects with ≥5 CTCs at baseline and a posttreatment result) and 89% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects (n = 19); 47% of all treated and 53% of chemotherapy‐naïve subjects had a transition from ≥5 to less than 5 CTCs/7.5 mL blood at some point during the study. PSA and CTC reductions were associated with high PSMA expression (CTCs or tumor tissue) and low neuroendocrine serum markers. In the chemotherapy‐experienced group, the best overall radiologic response to PSMA ADC treatment was stable disease in 51 (60.7%) subjects; 5.7% of subjects in the chemotherapy‐naïve group had partial responses. The most common treatment‐related AEs ≥Common Terminology Criteria for AE (CTCAE) grade 3 were neutropenia, fatigue, electrolyte imbalance, anemia, and neuropathy. The most common serious AEs were dehydration, hyponatremia, febrile neutropenia, and constipation. Two subjects who received 2.5 mg/kg died of sepsis.ConclusionsPSMA ADC demonstrated some activity with respect to PSA declines, CTC conversions/reductions, and radiologic assessments in abi/enz treated mCRPC subjects. Clinically significant treatment‐related AEs included neutropenia and neuropathy.

Abstract Introduction DLBCL is the most common lymphoid neoplasm in adults (Swerdlow 2016). While durable CRs are achieved in approximately 70% of patients (pts) with frontline RCHOP therapy (Pfreundschuh 2008), pts with high-risk features often experience disease resistance or relapse. In Part 1 of an ongoing study, pts with high-intermediate or high risk DLBCL by international prognostic index (IPI) scores, regardless of CD30 expression by IHC, were treated with 1.2 or 1.8 mg/kg brentuximab vedotin (BV) combined with RCHOP. After 3 of the first 10 pts treated at 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHOP developed Grade 3 peripheral neuropathy (per Standardized MedDRA Query [SMQ]), all pts enrolled subsequently received treatment with 1.2 mg/kg BV+RCHOP. Following completion of enrollment in Part 1, the protocol was amended to enroll a non-randomized portion of the study (Part 2) evaluating the safety and efficacy of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (Yasenchak 2015), followed by an open-label, randomized portion comparing BV+RCHP to RCHOP (Part 3). Initial results from Part 2 and updated results from Part 1 are reported here. Methods For Part 2 of the study, pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate and high-risk DLBCL were treated with up to 6 cycles of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP (NCT01925612). Key inclusion criteria were CD30 expression by IHC performed by a local pathology lab and standard IPI scores of 3-5 or age-adjusted IPI (aaIPI) scores of 2-3 (high-intermediate/high risk). CD30 expression was confirmed by a central pathology lab, although CD30 expression by local pathology lab was required for eligibility. Disease response was evaluated with PET/CT per Cheson 2007. Results At the time of analysis for this ongoing study, 11 pts in Part 2 were treated with BV+RCHP (7 male, 4 female; 22-78 yrs). Of these pts, 9 had high-intermediate risk (IPI 3, aaIPI 2) and 2 had high risk disease (IPI 4-5, aaIPI 3), 6 had Stage IV disease, and 6 had an ECOG score of 2. At the end of treatment, the overall response rate was 91% (9 CR, 1 PR); 1 pt had PD after Cycle 4. The most frequent (>20%) treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) were alopecia and nausea (73% each); fatigue (64%); constipation and peripheral sensory neuropathy (55% each); neutropenia and throat irritation (36% each); and chills, diarrhea, headache, and stomatitis (27% each). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 8 pts and 5 pts had serious AEs, which included febrile neutropenia, bacteremia, nausea, pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, and vomiting. Peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred in 6 pts and all were Grade 1 or 2 events; no peripheral motor neuropathy AEs were reported. No AEs were fatal or led to discontinuation. One pt discontinued treatment after Cycle 4 due to disease progression. For the first 51 pts in Part 1, the progression-free survival (PFS) at 18 months for pts with CD30 expression (25 pts) or without detectable CD30 expression (24 pts) by IHC was 79% (95% CI: 57%, 91%) versus 58% (95% CI: 36%, 75%), respectively. Overall survival for pts was 92% (95% CI: 71%, 98%) versus 71% (95% CI: 48%, 85%), respectively. Ten pts had pre-existing peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) at study entry. Treatment-emergent peripheral neuropathy (per SMQ) was observed in 75% of pts (38/51) who received BV+RCHOP; 55% of these pts (21/38) had resolution of all or some peripheral neuropathy events. Conclusions 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP is active as frontline treatment in CD30-expressing, high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL. When combined with RCHP, 1.8 mg/kg BV appears to be well-tolerated. The PFS and OS for pts with CD30-expression who received BV+RCHOP appear promising. The study is currently ongoing in pts with CD30-expressing high-intermediate/high risk DLBCL to assess the safety and activity of 1.8 mg/kg BV+RCHP versus standard RCHOP. Disclosures Halwani: Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Other: Travel Expenses, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Amgen: Research Funding. Yasenchak:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Farber:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Burke:Pfizer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Other: Travel Expenses; Millenium: Consultancy. Fayad:Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Holkova:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Knapp:Insys Therapeutics, Inc.: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding. Kolibaba:Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; janssen: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Patel-Donnelly:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Yimer:Ariad Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Biotheranostics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Equity Ownership; Kite Pharma: Equity Ownership; Clovis Oncology: Equity Ownership; Juno Therpeutics: Equity Ownership; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Smith:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Levy:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Speakers Bureau; Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Co.: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Research Funding. Seetharam:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Belada:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Brooks:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Kingsley:Gilead: Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Equity Ownership. Wagner-Johnston:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ruffner:Forma Therapeutics: Consultancy; Sydnax: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership; Array Biopharma: Employment; Medivation: Employment. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy.

Abstract Background: Thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications are commonly encountered in uncontrolled essential thrombocythemia (ET). Both anagrelide and hydroxyurea (HU) have proven efficacious in cytoreduction as well as reducing these events and remain first line therapy for most high-risk ET patients. Independent of their role in risk-reduction, little is known about how these therapies impact patient symptomatology or quality of life. In this study, we compared the clinical and symptomatic profiles of ET patients receiving HU or anagrelide against patients with no previous experience with these agents. Methods: Data was assessed from a prospectively collected international database of ET patients in which demographics, disease features, and ET symptoms utilizing the myeloproliferative neoplasm symptom assessment form (MPN-SAF; Scherber et al, 2011). The MPN-SAF includes the patient's perceptions of common MPN-related symptoms and overall quality of life (QOL) on a 0 (absent) to 10 (worst imaginable) scale. Total symptom score (TSS) was computed based on symptom items using the published scoring algorithm on a 0 (all reported symptoms absent) to 100 (all reported symptoms worst imaginable) scale. ET risk scores were calculated using the IPSET scoring algorithm (Passamonti 2012). Thrombocytopenia was defined as a platelet count <100 x 10(9)/L, anemia was defined as hemoglobin<10 g/dL and leukopenia was defined as a white blood cell count <4.0 x 10(9)/L. Associations between the MPN-SAF individual symptoms were investigated using chi-square test for categorical data and ANOVA F-test for continuous variables. Results Hydroxyurea vs. HU Naive A total of 402 ET patients with active HU use were compared to 392 ET patients with no history of HU use. Patients using HU were older (63.5 years vs. 52.3 years, p<0.001) and had a greater concentration of both high risk (24.9% vs. 11.4%, p=0.001) and intermediate risk (53.9% vs 38.4%, p<0.001) patients. They also had a higher rate of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs 11.3%, p<0.001) and leukopenia (10.1% vs. 3.0%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between gender, a history of prior hemorrhage, red blood cell transfusion requirements, or the presence of anemia/thrombocytopenia. In comparing symptom profiles, no significant differences were noted between TSS or individual symptoms with the exception of slightly more severe cough in HU patients (1.5 vs. 1.1, p=0.02, Figure 1). Anagrelide vs. Anagrelide Naive A total of 49 ET patients with active anagrelide use were compared to 794 ET patients with no history of anagrelide use. Patients using anagrelide had a longer mean disease duration (8.1 years vs. 5.8 years) and were more anemic (9.1% vs. 1.2%, p<0.001). No differences were noted between age, gender, risk scores, the presence of leukopenia/thrombocytopenia, a history of prior thrombosis or hemorrhage complications or red blood cell transfusion requirements. Additionally, there were no significant differences between TSS or individual symptom items (Figure 1). HU vs. Anagrelide A total of 402 patients currently using HU were compared to 39 patients currently using anagrelide. Overall, HU users were slightly older (63.5 years vs. 55.1 years, p<0.001) with a greater population of patients meeting high risk criteria (24.9% vs. 2.8%, p=0.002) and having a history of prior thrombosis (29.8% vs. 12.8%, p=0.02). Patients receiving anagrelide had a slightly longer disease duration (8.2 years vs. 6.0 years, p=0.0446). In comparing symptom profiles, no differences were noted in TSS or individual symptom items between cohorts. Discussion In this retrospective analysis, it does not appear cytoreduction with either HU and/or anagrelide has a significant impact on ET symptom burden despite reducing vascular events. Importantly, the higher risk scores in HU patients did not translate directly into greater patient symptomatology supporting previous studies demonstrating a poor association between these two items. Prospective trials measuring ET symptom change, in the setting of randomized trials will better quantify impact of cytoreduction on symptom burden as well as quantify impact of newer agents such as interferon or jak inhibition. Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Figure 1. Symptom Comparisons Between HU, Anagrelide and Other Therapy Disclosures Kiladjian: Incyte Corporation: Consultancy; Novartis: Other: Travel grant; Research Funding paid to institution (Hôpital Saint-Louis et Université Paris Diderot); Novartis: Consultancy. Zweegman:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Harrison:Sanofi: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Cervantes:Sanofi-Aventis: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; CTI-Baxter: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Barbui:Novartis: Speakers Bureau. Etienne:ARIAD: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Congress Travel/Accomodations, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Roy:Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding. te Boekhorst:Novartis: Consultancy; CTI Biopharma: Consultancy. Vannucchi:Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Other: Research Funding paid to institution (University of Florence), Research Funding; Baxalta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:Novartis. Research- incyte, Gilead, cti, Genentech, promedior, NS Pharma: Consultancy.

Background: Unlike heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, there is no approved treatment for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, the predominant phenotype in women. Therefore, there is a greater heart failure therapeutic deficit in women compared with men. Methods: In a prespecified subgroup analysis, we examined outcomes according to sex in the PARAGON-HF trial (Prospective Comparison of ARNI With ARB Global Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction), which compared sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. The primary outcome was a composite of first and recurrent hospitalizations for heart failure and death from cardiovascular causes. We also report secondary efficacy and safety outcomes. Results: Overall, 2479 women (51.7%) and 2317 men (48.3%) were randomized. Women were older and had more obesity, less coronary disease, and lower estimated glomerular filtration rate and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro–B-type natriuretic peptide) levels than men. For the primary outcome, the rate ratio for sacubitril-valsartan versus valsartan was 0.73 (95% CI, 0.59–0.90) in women and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.84–1.25) in men ( P interaction = 0.017). The benefit from sacubitril-valsartan was attributable to reduction in heart failure hospitalization. The improvement in New York Heart Association class and renal function with sacubitril-valsartan was similar in women and men, whereas the improvement in Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire clinical summary score was less in women than in men. The difference in adverse events between sacubitril-valsartan and valsartan was similar in women and men. Conclusions: As compared with valsartan, sacubitril-valsartan seemed to reduce the risk of heart failure hospitalization more in women than in men. Whereas the possible sex-related modification of the effect of treatment has several potential explanations, the present study does not provide a definite mechanistic basis for this finding. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01920711.

Abstract Background Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an antibody-drug conjugate directed against CD30, a receptor that engages the CD30 ligand expressed on immune cells in the tumor microenvironment, promoting tumor cell growth (Montanari 2014, Hansen 2014). Through disruption of the microtubule network, BV induces apoptotic cell death, and may initiate an antitumor immune response (i.e., immunogenic cell death) through the induction of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress (Gardai 2015). Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal PD-1 blocking antibody that prevents tumor immune evasion. Both agents have independent high single-agent response rates in patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and when used in combination, may exhibit mechanistic synergy. Given the demonstrated efficacy of both BV and nivolumab, together these agents could yield improved CR rates prior to ASCT in pts with R/R HL, and potentially better long-term outcomes. Methods A phase 1/2 study is ongoing to evaluate the safety and antitumor activity of BV administered in combination with nivolumab as first salvage therapy in pts with R/R classical HL after standard frontline chemotherapy (NCT02572167). Adult pts are treated in 21-day cycles for up to 4 cycles (12 weeks). Pts receive 1.8 mg/kg BV on Cycle 1 Day 1, and 3 mg/kg nivolumab on Cycle 1 Day 8. For cycles 2 through 4, BV and nivolumab are administered on Day 1 of each cycle at the same doses. After completion of the Cycle 4 response assessment, pts are eligible to undergo ASCT. Investigator assessment of lymphoma response and progression is per the Lugano Classification Revised Staging System for malignant lymphoma (Cheson 2014). Results Twenty-five pts (60% female) with a median age of 32 years (range, 18-69) have been enrolled to date. Sixty percent of pts have relapsed disease, 36% have primary refractory disease (failure to achieve CR with frontline therapy, or relapse within 3 months of completing frontline therapy), and 1 pt (4%) has unknown status. At the time of enrollment, 32% of pts presented with extranodal disease and 16% with bulky disease. At the time of the data extract, 23 pts had received treatment. An increased incidence of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) was observed at the start of combination treatment in Cycle 2 during the BV infusion leading to 1 dose delay. Premedication with corticosteroids (hydrocortisone 100 mg or equivalent) and antihistamines at Cycles 2-4 was instituted through a protocol amendment. Six pts have completed combination treatment, and all have achieved an objective response (ORR, 100%), with 3 of 6 achieving a complete metabolic response (CmR, 50%). All 6 pts have proceeded directly to ASCT. Median number of CD34+ cells collected was 12.9 x106 cells/kg (range, 5-26) in a mean number of 1.7 apheresis sessions (range, 1-2). Adverse events (AEs) for all pts are summarized prior to ASCT. Eighteen of the 23 treated pts (78%) experienced adverse events (AEs). Fifteen pts (65%) had AEs ≤ Grade 2 in severity and 3 pts (13%) experienced Grade 3 AEs. No pts experienced Grade 4 AEs pre-ASCT. Fatigue was the most common AE occurring in 35% of pts, followed by nausea (26%), rash (22%), dyspnea, myalgia, and pruritus (17% each). One pt experienced a treatment-related serious adverse event (SAE) of dehydration, hypercalcemia, and acute kidney injury. Immune-related adverse events (IrAEs) were experienced by 3 pts; 2 pts who experienced Grade 1 rash treated with topical steroids, and 1 pt who experienced Grade 1 hypothyroidism. No pts have discontinued treatment prematurely. In addition to Reed-Sternberg cells, CD30 is expressed on activated T cells. Preliminary biomarker data indicate a BV-induced decrease in the percentage of CD4+ T regulatory (Treg) cells at C1D8, with no decrease in proliferating CD8+ T cells, and no significant decrease observed in the percentage of CD4+ Th1 cells compared to baseline for 5 of 6 pts (83%). Nivolumab induced a robust expansion of T cells at C1D15. Conclusions Early data suggest the combination of BV and nivolumab is an active and well-tolerated salvage therapy in pts with R/R HL. While an elevated incidence of IRRs has been observed, toxicities with this regimen appear to be tolerable overall. The preliminary antitumor activity suggests this combination may be a promising option for R/R HL pts. Updated results will be shared at the time of presentation. Disclosures Herrera: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Bartlett:Gilead: Consultancy. Moskowitz:BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding. Feldman:Abbvie/Pharmacyclics/Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. LaCasce:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc.: Consultancy. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Celldex: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kato:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Employment. Fong:Seattle Genetics: Employment, Equity Ownership.