Citations

Abstract Background: Fibroblast activation protein (FAP) is a membrane-bound protease that is highly expressed on the surface of cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) present in the tumor microenvironment of most epithelial cancers. With limited expression observed in normal tissues, FAP is a promising therapeutic and imaging target for delivery of radionuclides to cancer tissues. FAP-2286, a low-molecular-weight cyclic peptide that potently and selectively binds to FAP, is attached to a linker and tetraazacyclododecane tetraacetic acid (DOTA) cage that can be used to conjugate radionuclides such as lutetium-177 (177Lu) or gallium-68 (68Ga) for therapeutic or imaging applications, respectively. 177Lu-FAP-2286 has demonstrated antitumor activity in preclinical studies. The LuMIERE study (NCT04939610) is the first phase 1/2 clinical trial of an FAP-targeted radionuclide therapy evaluating 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with FAP-expressing solid tumors that are identified with the imaging agent 68Ga-FAP-2286. Methods: Eligible adult patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors and measurable disease (per RECIST v1.1) will be selected for treatment with 177Lu-FAP-2286 on the basis of FAP expression using 68Ga-FAP-2286. In phase 1, tumors must be refractory to or have progressed following prior treatment, with no satisfactory alternative treatment options. Phase 1 includes dose escalation of 177Lu-FAP-2286, starting at 3.7 GBq to a maximum of 9.25 GBq. Patients may receive up to 6 cycles of 177Lu-FAP-2286 administered on day 1 of each 6-week cycle. Three to 12 patients will be treated at each dose level in the dose-escalation portion. Tolerability will be assessed across multiple doses for determination of a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), which may be further evaluated in a phase 1 dose-expansion portion. FDG-PET/CT scans will be collected prior to treatment, and patients will be imaged by planar and SPECT/CT scans at multiple time points to calculate organ and tumor dosimetry to determine absorbed radiation dose. Disease status will be assessed per RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. The primary objective of phase 1 is to evaluate the safety of 177Lu-FAP-2286 and determine the RP2D. Secondary objectives include the assessment of radiation dosimetry, pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of 177Lu-FAP-2286 and the evaluation of safety and tumor uptake of 68Ga-FAP-2286. Phase 2 will evaluate the efficacy, safety, and dosimetry of 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with select FAP-expressing solid tumors. Citation Format: Jonathan McConathy, Mallika Dhawan, Ajit H. Goenka, Emerson A. Lim, Yusuf Menda, Beth Chasen, Moh'd Khushman, Akiva Mintz, Yousef Zakharia, John J. Sunderland, Owen Bowles, Jim Xiao, Andrew D. Simmons, Kenton Wride, Aaron Enke, Thomas A. Hope. LuMIERE: A phase 1/2 study investigating safety, pharmacokinetics, dosimetry, and preliminary antitumor activity of 177Lu-FAP-2286 in patients with advanced or metastatic solid tumors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2022; 2022 Apr 8-13. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(12_Suppl):Abstract nr CT251.

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the association between radiation exposure of heart substructures and the incidence of major coronary events (MCEs) in patients with esophageal cancer (ESOC) undergoing chemoradiation therapy. We studied radiation dosimetric determinants of MCE risk and measured their impact on patient prognosis using a cohort of ESOC patients treated at a single institution. Methods: Between March 2005 and October 2015, 355 ESOC patients treated with concurrent chemoradiotherapy were identified from a prospectively maintained and institutional-regulatory-board-approved clinical database. Dose-distribution parameters of the whole heart, the atria, the ventricles, the left main coronary artery, and three main coronary arteries were extracted for analysis. Results: Within a median follow-up time of 67 months, 14 patients experienced MCEs at a median of 16 months. The incidence of MCEs was significantly associated with the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy) (p = 0.048). Patients receiving LAD V30Gy ≥ 10% of volume experienced a higher incidence of MCEs versus the LAD V30Gy < 10% group (p = 0.044). The relative rate of death increased with the left main coronary artery (LMA) mean dose (Gy) (p = 0.002). Furthermore, a mutual promotion effect of hyperlipidemia and RT on MCEs was observed. Conclusion: Radiation dose to coronary substructures is associated with MCEs and overall survival in patients with ESOC. In this study, the doses to these substructures appeared to be better predictors of toxicity outcomes than mean heart dose (MHD) or whole-heart V30Gy. These findings have implications for reducing coronary events through radiation therapy planning.

A workplace that is a conduit for positive emotions can be important to employees retention and can contribute optimal levels of productivity. Validated tools for examining emotions are primarily subjective and retrospective in nature. Recent advances in technology have led to more novel and passive ways of measuring emotions. Wearable sensors, such as electroencephalogram (EEG), are being explored to assess cognitive and physical burdens objectively and in real-time. Therefore, there exists a need to investigate and validate the use of EEG to examine emotions objectively and in real-time. In this paper, we conducted a scoping review of EEG to measure positive emotions and/or indicators of joy in the workplace. Our review results in 22 articles that employ EEG to study joy in occupational settings. Three major themes identified in the analysis include (1) EEG for symptoms detection and outcomes, (2) Populations studied using EEG, and (3) EEG electrode systems.

Introduction: Lenalidomide is increasingly used for the treatment of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. However, most patients experience relapse during treatment or after prolonged exposure to lenalidomide, therefore, there is an emerging unmet need for new, highly efficacious lenalidomide-sparing regimens at relapse. CANDOR is an ongoing phase 3 randomized clinical trial (RCT) that compares the lenalidomide-free KdD regimen with carfilzomib 56mg/m2 twice-weekly with dexamethasone (Kd) in patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Based on the primary analysis, KdD was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of progression or death compared to Kd (HR: 0.63, p=0.001).(Dimopoulos et al. 2020 Lancet) Besides the trial-based comparator Kd, DVd is considered as an additional relevant comparator. DVd is the most similar lenalidomide-free triplet regimen comprising a proteasome inhibitor, daratumumab, and dexamethasone. DVd was assessed in the phase 3 CASTOR RCT and demonstrated superior PFS versus 8 cycles (24 weeks) of bortezomib in combination with dexamethasone (Vd) (HR: 0.31, p&lt;0.001).(Weisel et al. 2019 ASH) In the absence of a direct head-to-head trial comparing these treatments and an assessment suggesting that network meta-analysis is not feasible, matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) were used (Signorovitch et al. 2010) to assess the efficacy of KdD relative to DVd. MAIC leverages all available data and compares outcomes across balanced populations. Method: Baseline characteristics and PFS data from the CANDOR and CASTOR trials were used in the analyses. Outcomes were compared in three steps. First, after aligning patient selection criteria of both trials, KdD patients in CANDOR were matched to the average characteristics of DVd patients in CASTOR using matching-adjusted indirect treatment comparisons methodology. The matching variables reflected tumor stage, disease burden, and treatment history, and were generally consistent with validated prognostic markers used in stratifying patients into different risk groups. Second, the published Kaplan-Meier PFS curves for DVd were digitized to generate virtual patient-level data that reconstructed the curves. Third, Cox regression models were fitted to the matched CANDOR data and the reconstructed virtual patient-level CASTOR data to estimate the efficacy of KdD versus DVd. The outcome measure was the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS. Outcomes were also compared for the first 24 weeks and for the period beyond 24 weeks to assess the impact of stopping Vd in DVd after 24 weeks on the HRs. Scenario and subgroup analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of results. Results: KdD patients in the CANDOR trial who were proteasome inhibitor-refractory (n=102) were removed from the data so that the KdD population was aligned with that of DVd in the CASTOR trial. Following the matching procedure, the effective sample size for KdD reduced to 82. In matched populations, PFS at 12 months was 73.1% for KdD and 59.9% for DVd. The MAIC results showed that treatment with KdD decreases the risk of progression or death versus DVd, with an overall HR of 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45-0.82). The time-dependent analysis demonstrated similar PFS for the two treatments for the first 24 weeks and a larger benefit for KdD over DVd after 24 weeks. Similar results were obtained in scenario analyses; in bortezomib-exposed patients the overall HR was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.33-0.64). Conclusions: After adjusting for cross-trial differences, KdD was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of progression or death compared with DVd. Although based on an approach in agreement with methods guide, the results are associated with inherent limitations due to the decreased sample size for KdD, and due to known (longer follow-up for DVd, different duration of proteasome inhibition) or unobserved differences in the trials (potential unobserved heterogeneity in patient characteristics). A comparison of overall survival was not considered due to immature data in CANDOR. The results are in line with those of the head-to-head ENDEAVOR trial that directly compared carfilzomib with bortezomib (HR for PFS for Kd vs Vd 0.53; 95% CI: 0.44-0.65) supporting the clinical validity of this study. The present analysis suggests that KdD improves outcomes compared with DVd in patients with RRMM and may provide a rationale for a preferential treatment. Disclosures Weisel: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Adaptive: Consultancy, Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria. Nooka:Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Spectrum Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm Therapeutics, Adaptive technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal Fees: Travel/accomodations/expenses, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Adaptive Technologies: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Terpos:Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis pharma SA: Honoraria, Other: travel expenses , Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel expenses , Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Spencer:AbbVie, Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Sanofi, SecuraBio, Specialised Therapeutics Australia, Servier and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Haemalogix, Janssen, Servier and Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene, Janssen and Takeda: Speakers Bureau. Goldschmidt:Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD): Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Johns Hopkins University: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Dietmar-Hopp-Foundation: Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:; Molecular Partners: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Chugai: Honoraria, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Grants and/or provision of Investigational Medicinal Product:, Research Funding; University Hospital Heidelberg, Internal Medicine V and National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Heidelberg, Germany: Current Employment; GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): Honoraria; Incyte: Research Funding; Mundipharma GmbH: Research Funding. Majer:Amgen (Europe) GmbH: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. DeCosta:Amgen Ltd: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Medhekar:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Yusuf:Amgen Inc.: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar:Karyopharm: Consultancy; Takeda: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Novartis: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Carsgen: Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Dr. Reddy's Laboratories: Honoraria; Genentech/Roche: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; Janssen Oncology: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy, Other: Independent Review Committee; IRC member; Cellectar: Other; Celgene/BMS: Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments; Genecentrix: Consultancy; MedImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Other: Research funding for clinical trials to the institution, Consulting/Advisory Board participation with no personal payments, Research Funding; Tenebio: Other, Research Funding.

Background and Aims Electronic health record (EHR)‐based research allows the capture of large amounts of data, which is necessary in NAFLD, where the risk of clinical liver outcomes is generally low. The lack of consensus on which International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes should be used as exposures and outcomes limits comparability and generalizability of results across studies. We aimed to establish consensus among a panel of experts on ICD codes that could become the reference standard and provide guidance around common methodological issues. Approach and Results Researchers with an interest in EHR‐based NAFLD research were invited to collectively define which administrative codes are most appropriate for documenting exposures and outcomes. We used a modified Delphi approach to reach consensus on several commonly encountered methodological challenges in the field. After two rounds of revision, a high level of agreement (>67%) was reached on all items considered. Full consensus was achieved on a comprehensive list of administrative codes to be considered for inclusion and exclusion criteria in defining exposures and outcomes in EHR‐based NAFLD research. We also provide suggestions on how to approach commonly encountered methodological issues and identify areas for future research. Conclusions This expert panel consensus statement can help harmonize and improve generalizability of EHR‐based NAFLD research.

OBJECTIVE Investigations of the combined effects of neoadjuvant Onyx embolization and stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) on brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) have not accounted for initial angioarchitectural features prior to neuroendovascular intervention. The aim of this retrospective, multicenter matched cohort study is to compare the outcomes of SRS with versus without upfront Onyx embolization for AVMs using de novo characteristics of the preembolized nidus. METHODS The International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized based on AVM treatment approach into Onyx embolization (OE) and SRS (OE+SRS) or SRS alone (SRS-only) cohorts and then propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was AVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiological and symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RICs), and cyst formation. Comparisons were analyzed using crude rates and cumulative probabilities adjusted for competing risk of death. RESULTS The matched OE+SRS and SRS-only cohorts each comprised 53 patients. Crude rates (37.7% vs 47.2% for the OE+SRS vs SRS-only cohorts, respectively; OR 0.679, p = 0.327) and cumulative probabilities at 3, 4, 5, and 6 years (33.7%, 44.1%, 57.5%, and 65.7% for the OE+SRS cohort vs 34.8%, 45.5%, 59.0%, and 67.1% for the SRS-only cohort, respectively; subhazard ratio 0.961, p = 0.896) of AVM obliteration were similar between the matched cohorts. The secondary outcomes of the matched cohorts were also similar. Asymptomatic and symptomatic embolization-related complication rates in the matched OE+SRS cohort were 18.9% and 9.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Pre-SRS AVM embolization with Onyx does not appear to negatively influence outcomes after SRS. These analyses, based on de novo nidal characteristics, thereby refute previous studies that found detrimental effects of Onyx embolization on SRS-induced AVM obliteration. However, given the risks incurred by nidal embolization using Onyx, this neoadjuvant intervention should be used judiciously in multimodal treatment strategies involving SRS for appropriately selected large-volume or angioarchitecturally high-risk AVMs.

AbstractThe purpose of this analysis was to develop and validate computable phenotypes for heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) using claims‐type measures using the Rochester Epidemiology Project. This retrospective study utilized an existing cohort of Olmsted County, Minnesota residents aged ≥ 20 years diagnosed with HF between 2007 and 2015. The gold standard definition of HFpEF included meeting the validated Framingham criteria for HF and having an LVEF ≥ 50%. Computable phenotypes of claims‐type data elements (including ICD‐9/ICD‐10 diagnostic codes and lab test codes) both individually and in combinations were assessed via sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with respect to the gold standard. In the Framingham‐validated cohort, 2,035 patients had HF; 1,172 (58%) had HFpEF. One in‐patient or two out‐patient diagnosis codes of ICD‐9 428.3X or ICD‐10 I50.3X had 46% sensitivity, 88% specificity, 84% PPV, and 54% NPV. The addition of a BNP/NT‐proBNP test code reduced sensitivity to 35% while increasing specificity to 91% (PPV = 84%, NPV = 51%). Broadening the diagnostic codes to ICD‐9 428.0, 428.3X, and 428.9/ICD‐10 I50.3X and I50.9 increased sensitivity at the expense of decreasing specificity (diagnostic code‐only model: 87% sensitivity, 8% specificity, 56% PPV, 30% NPV; diagnostic code and BNP lab code model: 61% sensitivity, 43% specificity, 60% PPV, 45% NPV). In an analysis conducted to mimic real‐world use of the computable phenotypes, any one in‐patient or out‐patient code of ICD‐9 428/ICD‐10 150 among the broader population (N = 3,755) resulted in lower PPV values compared with the Framingham cohort. However, one in‐patient or two out‐patient instances of ICD‐9 428.0, 428.9, or 428.3X/ICD‐10 150.3X or 150.9 brought the PPV values from the two cohorts closer together. While some misclassification remains, the computable phenotypes defined here may be used in claims databases to identify HFpEF patients and to gain a greater understanding of the characteristics of patients with HFpEF.

Abstract BACKGROUND Prior comparisons of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) treated using stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) with or without embolization were inherently flawed, due to differences in the pretreatment nidus volumes. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of embolization and SRS, vs SRS alone for AVMs using pre-embolization malformation features. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Patients were categorized into the embolization and SRS (E + SRS) or SRS alone (SRS-only) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores. Primary outcome was defined as AVM obliteration. Secondary outcomes were post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiologic and symptomatic radiation-induced changes (RIC), and cyst formation. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 101 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched E + SRS vs SRS-only cohorts (48.5% vs 54.5%; odds ratio = 0.788, P = .399). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were also similar between the E + SRS (33.0%, 46.4%, 56.2%, and 60.8%, respectively) and SRS-only (32.9%, 46.2%, 56.0%, and 60.6%, respectively) cohorts (subhazard ratio (SHR) = 1.005, P = .981). Cumulative probabilities of radiologic RIC at 3, 4, 5, and 6 yr were lower in the E + SRS (25.0%, 25.7%, 26.7%, and 26.7%, respectively) vs SRS-only (45.3%, 46.2%, 47.8%, and 47.8%, respectively) cohort (SHR = 0.478, P = .004). Symptomatic and asymptomatic embolization-related complication rates were 8.3% and 18.6%, respectively. Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, symptomatic RIC, and cyst formation were similar between the matched cohorts. CONCLUSION This study refutes the prevalent notion that AVM embolization negatively affects the likelihood of obliteration after SRS.