Citations

ImportanceCytokine storm due to COVID-19 can cause high morbidity and mortality and may be more common in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy (IO) due to immune system activation.ObjectiveTo determine the association of baseline immunosuppression and/or IO-based therapies with COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included 12 046 patients reported to the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) registry from March 2020 to May 2022. The CCC19 registry is a centralized international multi-institutional registry of patients with COVID-19 with a current or past diagnosis of cancer. Records analyzed included patients with active or previous cancer who had a laboratory-confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2 by polymerase chain reaction and/or serologic findings.ExposuresImmunosuppression due to therapy; systemic anticancer therapy (IO or non-IO).Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was a 5-level ordinal scale of COVID-19 severity: no complications; hospitalized without requiring oxygen; hospitalized and required oxygen; intensive care unit admission and/or mechanical ventilation; death. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of cytokine storm.ResultsThe median age of the entire cohort was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 54-74) years and 6359 patients were female (52.8%) and 6598 (54.8%) were non-Hispanic White. A total of 599 (5.0%) patients received IO, whereas 4327 (35.9%) received non-IO systemic anticancer therapies, and 7120 (59.1%) did not receive any antineoplastic regimen within 3 months prior to COVID-19 diagnosis. Although no difference in COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm was found in the IO group compared with the untreated group in the total cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.80; 95% CI, 0.56-1.13, and aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.41-1.93, respectively), patients with baseline immunosuppression treated with IO (vs untreated) had worse COVID-19 severity and cytokine storm (aOR, 3.33; 95% CI, 1.38-8.01, and aOR, 4.41; 95% CI, 1.71-11.38, respectively). Patients with immunosuppression receiving non-IO therapies (vs untreated) also had worse COVID-19 severity (aOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.36-2.35) and cytokine storm (aOR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.42-3.79).Conclusions and RelevanceThis cohort study found that in patients with cancer and COVID-19, administration of systemic anticancer therapies, especially IO, in the context of baseline immunosuppression was associated with severe clinical outcomes and the development of cytokine storm.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04354701

Abstract Exposure of biological systems to acute or chronic insults triggers a host of molecular and physiological responses to either tolerate, adapt, or fully restore homeostasis; these responses constitute the hallmarks of resilience. Given the many facets, dimensions, and discipline‐specific focus, gaining a shared understanding of “resilience” has been identified as a priority for supporting advances in cardiovascular health. This report is based on the working definition: “ Resilience is the ability of living systems to successfully maintain or return to homeostasis in response to physical, molecular, individual, social, societal, or environmental stressors or challenges ,” developed after considering many factors contributing to cardiovascular resilience through deliberations of multidisciplinary experts convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute during a workshop entitled: “ Enhancing Resilience for Cardiovascular Health and Wellness.” Some of the main emerging themes that support the possibility of enhancing resilience for cardiovascular health include optimal energy management and substrate diversity, a robust immune system that safeguards tissue homeostasis, and social and community support. The report also highlights existing research challenges, along with immediate and long‐term opportunities for resilience research. Certain immediate opportunities identified are based on leveraging existing high‐dimensional data from longitudinal clinical studies to identify vascular resilience measures, create a ‘resilience index,’ and adopt a life‐course approach. Long‐term opportunities include developing quantitative cell/organ/system/community models to identify resilience factors and mechanisms at these various levels, designing experimental and clinical interventions that specifically assess resilience, adopting global sharing of resilience‐related data, and cross‐domain training of next‐generation researchers in this field.

Aims Spinal anaesthesia has seen increased use in contemporary primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). However, controversy exists about the benefits of spinal in comparison to general anaesthesia in primary TKAs. This study aimed to investigate the pain control, length of stay (LOS), and complications associated with spinal versus general anaesthesia in primary TKAs from a single, high-volume academic centre. Methods We retrospectively identified 17,690 primary TKAs (13,297 patients) from 2001 to 2016 using our institutional total joint registry, where 52% had general anaesthesia and 48% had spinal anaesthesia. Baseline characteristics were similar between cohorts with a mean age of 68 years (SD 10), 58% female (n = 7,669), and mean BMI of 32 kg/m2 (SD 7). Pain was evaluated using oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) and numerical pain rating scale (NPRS) data. Complications including 30- and 90-day readmissions were studied. Data were analyzed using an inverse probability of treatment weighted model based on propensity score that included many patient and surgical factors. Mean follow-up was seven years (2 to 18). Results Patients treated with spinal anaesthesia required fewer postoperative OMEs (p < 0.001) and had lower NPRS scores (p < 0.001). Spinal anaesthesia also had fewer cases of altered mental status (AMS; odds ratio (OR) 1.3; p = 0.044), as well as 30-day (OR 1.4; p < 0.001) and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.5; p < 0.001). General anaesthesia was associated with increased risk of any revision (OR 1.2; p = 0.021) and any reoperation (1.3; p < 0.001). Conclusion In the largest single institutional report to date, we found that spinal anaesthesia was associated with significantly lower OME use, lower risk of AMS, and lower overall 30- and 90-day readmissions following primary TKAs. Additionally, spinal anaesthesia was associated with reduced risk of any revision and any reoperation after accounting for numerous patient and operative factors. When possible and safe, spinal anaesthesia should be considered in primary TKAs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1209–1214.

Abstract Activated B cell (ABC) type diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL), double hit lymphoma (DHL) and double expressor lymphoma (DEL) have poor outcomes to frontline R‐CHOP but impact of these molecular features on outcomes of relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease is not well‐characterized. We evaluated the association of diagnostic cell of origin (COO), double hit and double expressor status with overall survival after first relapse in DLBCL patients who were enrolled into the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort. COO was available from immunohistochemistry (IHC) using Hans criteria or gene expression profiling (GEP) (Nanostring) on the diagnostic FFPE biopsy. Of 373 pts with R/R DLBCL, 278 had COO by IHC: 152 were GCB, 107 were non‐GCB. One hundred and fourty had COO by GEP: 44 were ABC, 65 were GCB and 13 were unclassifiable. Nineteen out of 163 (12%) were DHL; 30 out of 135 (22%) had DEL. COO, either by IHC (2 years OS GCB: 45% [CI 95 : 38–54] vs. non‐GCB: 44% [CI 95 :36–55], p > 0.05) or GEP (2 years OS ABC: 42% [CI 95 : 29–59] vs. GCB: 40% [CI 95 : 30–54], p > 0.05), was not associated with difference in OS. DHL (2 years OS 16 [CI 95 :6–45] vs. 45% [CI 95 : 34–59], p < 0.01) and DEL (2 years OS 33% [CI 95 : 20–56], vs. 50% [CI 95 : 41–60], p < 0.05) had lower OS than non‐DHL and non‐DEL/non‐DHL counterparts, respectively. COO by IHC or GEP was not associated with OS in R/R DLBCL while DHL and DEL were adverse prognostic markers in DLBCL at first relapse.

AbstractIntroductionWe evaluated whether better cardiovascular health at midlife and improvement of cardiovascular health within midlife were associated with dementia risk.MethodsTwo longitudinal population‐based studies were used: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC) (n = 11,460/visits at ages 54 and 60), and Age, Gene/Environment Susceptibility (AGES)‐Reykjavik (n = 3907/visit at age 51). A cardiovascular health score (range 0–12/0–14, depending on diet availability) including six/seven items was calculated at each visit, with weight assigned to each item as poor (0), intermediate (1), or ideal (2). Cardiovascular health was defined as low (score 0–4/0–5), intermediate (5–7/6–9), or high (8–12/10–14). Incident dementia was ascertained through linkage to health records and with neuropsychological examinations.ResultsMidlife high compared to low cardiovascular health (hazard ratios [HRs]: for ARIC: 0.60 [95% confidence interval: 0.52, 0.69]); for AGES‐Reykjavik: 0.83 [0.66, 0.99] and improvement of cardiovascular health score within midlife (HR per one‐point increase: ARIC: 0.94 [0.92, 0.96]) were associated with lower dementia risk.DiscussionBetter cardiovascular health at midlife and improvement of cardiovascular health within midlife are associated with lower dementia risk.Highlights Cardiovascular health and dementia were studied in two large cohort studies. Better cardiovascular health at midlife relates to lower dementia risk. Improvement of cardiovascular health within midlife relates to lower dementia risk. Promotion of cardiovascular health at midlife can help to reduce dementia risk.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a life-threatening vascular event with environmental and genetic determinants. Recent VTE genome-wide association studies (GWAS) meta-analyses involved nearly 30 000 VTE cases and identified up to 40 genetic loci associated with VTE risk, including loci not previously suspected to play a role in hemostasis. The aim of our research was to expand discovery of new genetic loci associated with VTE by using cross-ancestry genomic resources. Methods: We present new cross-ancestry meta-analyzed GWAS results involving up to 81 669 VTE cases from 30 studies, with replication of novel loci in independent populations and loci characterization through in silico genomic interrogations. Results: In our genetic discovery effort that included 55 330 participants with VTE (47 822 European, 6320 African, and 1188 Hispanic ancestry), we identified 48 novel associations, of which 34 were replicated after correction for multiple testing. In our combined discovery-replication analysis (81 669 VTE participants) and ancestry-stratified meta-analyses (European, African, and Hispanic), we identified another 44 novel associations, which are new candidate VTE-associated loci requiring replication. In total, across all GWAS meta-analyses, we identified 135 independent genomic loci significantly associated with VTE risk. A genetic risk score of the significantly associated loci in Europeans identified a 6-fold increase in risk for those in the top 1% of scores compared with those with average scores. We also identified 31 novel transcript associations in transcriptome-wide association studies and 8 novel candidate genes with protein quantitative-trait locus Mendelian randomization analyses. In silico interrogations of hemostasis and hematology traits and a large phenome-wide association analysis of the 135 GWAS loci provided insights to biological pathways contributing to VTE, with some loci contributing to VTE through well-characterized coagulation pathways and others providing new data on the role of hematology traits, particularly platelet function. Many of the replicated loci are outside of known or currently hypothesized pathways to thrombosis. Conclusions: Our cross-ancestry GWAS meta-analyses identified new loci associated with VTE. These findings highlight new pathways to thrombosis and provide novel molecules that may be useful in the development of improved antithrombosis treatments.

AbstractGermline genetic testing for inherited cancer risk is increasingly being performed with multigene panel testing with MUTYH often included on colorectal cancer‐ and polyposis‐focused panels, as well as on broader pan‐cancer panels. With up to 1%–2% of the general population being monoallelic MUTYH carriers, pathogenic/likely pathogenic (P/LP) variants in MUTYH are one of the most common findings on multigene cancer panels. However, little is known about patient experience and understanding of monoallelic MUTYH P/LP variants, nor whether such findings influence medical management recommendations and familial communication, which this study aims to better understand. Monoallelic P/LP MUTYH carriers were recruited from the Prospective Registry of Multiplex Testing (PROMPT) and completed a cross‐sectional self‐report survey on sociodemographic characteristics, medical and family history, experiences with MUTYH genetic testing, genetics and MUTYH knowledge, perceived cancer risk, and familial communication. Of 115 eligible PROMPT participants, 49 (43%) completed the survey who were primarily female (94%), white (96%), had a history of cancer (61%), and a median age of 51.4 years. Most participants (61%) reported satisfaction with how their healthcare provider managed their genetic test result and care, and 65% of survey participants reported their provider recommended colonoscopy based on their genetic test results. Participants' responses also reflected variable levels of knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening recommendations for MUTYH carriers. The majority (98%) of participants shared their genetic test results with at least some of their relatives; however, only 13% of eligible relatives reportedly underwent cascade testing. Taken together, this study provides needed insight into the overall experiences of monoallelic MUTYH carriers and highlights numerous areas for improvement in clinician education, communication, and management of these individuals.

PURPOSE Diagnosis of Mismatch Repair Deficiency (MMRD) is crucial for tumor management and early detection in patients with the cancer predisposition syndrome constitutional mismatch repair deficiency (CMMRD). Current diagnostic tools are cumbersome and inconsistent both in childhood cancers and in determining germline MMRD. PATIENTS AND METHODS We developed and analyzed a functional Low-pass Genomic Instability Characterization (LOGIC) assay to detect MMRD. The diagnostic performance of LOGIC was compared with that of current established assays including tumor mutational burden, immunohistochemistry, and the microsatellite instability panel. LOGIC was then applied to various normal tissues of patients with CMMRD with comprehensive clinical data including age of cancer presentation. RESULTS Overall, LOGIC was 100% sensitive and specific in detecting MMRD in childhood cancers (N = 376). It was more sensitive than the microsatellite instability panel (14%, P = 4.3 × 10 −12 ), immunohistochemistry (86%, P = 4.6 × 10 −3 ), or tumor mutational burden (80%, P = 9.1 × 10 −4 ). LOGIC was able to distinguish CMMRD from other cancer predisposition syndromes using blood and saliva DNA ( P < .0001, n = 277). In normal cells, MMRDness scores differed between tissues (GI > blood > brain), increased over time in the same individual, and revealed genotype-phenotype associations within the mismatch repair genes. Importantly, increased MMRDness score was associated with younger age of first cancer presentation in individuals with CMMRD ( P = 2.2 × 10 −5 ). CONCLUSION LOGIC was a robust tool for the diagnosis of MMRD in multiple cancer types and in normal tissues. LOGIC may inform therapeutic cancer decisions, provide rapid diagnosis of germline MMRD, and support tailored surveillance for individuals with CMMRD.