Citations

ABSTRACTPharmacogenetics is a promising strategy to facilitate individualized care for patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). Research is ongoing to identify the optimal genetic markers for predicting outcomes to antidepressant therapies. The primary aim of this systematic review was to summarize antidepressant pharmacogenetic studies to enhance understanding of the genes, variants, datatypes/methodologies, and outcomes investigated in the context of MDD. The secondary aim was to identify clinical genetic panels indicated for antidepressant prescribing and summarize their genes and variants. Screening of N = 5793 articles yielded N = 390 for inclusion, largely comprising adult (≥ 18 years) populations. Top‐studied variants identified in the search were discussed and compared with those represented on the N = 34 clinical genetic panels that were identified. Summarization of articles revealed sources of heterogeneity across studies and low rates of replicability of pharmacogenetic associations. Heterogeneity was present in outcome definitions, treatment regimens, and differential inclusion of mediating variables in analyses. Efficacy outcomes (i.e., response, remission) were studied at greater frequency than adverse‐event outcomes. Studies that used advanced analytical approaches, such as machine learning, to integrate variants with complimentary biological datatypes were fewer in number but achieved higher rates of significant associations with treatment outcomes than candidate variant approaches. As large biological datasets become more prevalent, machine learning will be an increasingly valuable tool for parsing the complexity of antidepressant response. This review provides valuable context and considerations surrounding pharmacogenetic associations in MDD which will help inform future research and translation efforts for guiding antidepressant care.

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

LBA1 Background: Standard adjuvant chemotherapy of stage III colon cancer consists of a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin. In patients (pts) with stage III colon cancer and deficient mismatch repair (dMMR), the benefit of an immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with adjuvant chemotherapy is unknown. The phase III ATOMIC trial (NCT02912559) was conducted to determine whether atezolizumab (atezo), an anti-PD-L1 antibody, can improve pt outcomes when added to adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) in pts with stage III dMMR tumors. Methods: We conducted an NCI-sponsored, multicenter and randomized phase III trial in pts with surgically resected stage III dMMR colon adenocarcinoma (any T, N 1,2 M 0 ). Pts, age > 12 years (yr), were accrued at NCTN sites and the German AIO. Tumor dMMR was determined by local immunohistochemistry and centrally verified. Pts were randomized 1:1 to mFOLFOX6 plus atezo (840 mg IV q2 weeks) for 12 cycles (6 months)[mo] followed by atezo monotherapy for 13 cycles (12 mo total) versus mFOLFOX6 alone for 12 cycles. Randomization stratification factors were N-stage (N 1 /N 1c vs N 2 ), T-stage (T 1 -T 3 vs T 4 ) and site (proximal vs distal). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival and adverse event (AE) profile (CTCAE, PRO-CTCAE). Primary efficacy analysis was done in the intent-to-treat population; DFS was compared by arm (stratified log-rank test). Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a stratified Cox model; 3-yr DFS was determined by Kaplan-Meier method. Among 700 pts., 165 DFS events with two interim analyses (50% , 75% of events) yielded 90% power to detect HR 0.6 (3-yr DFS 75% vs. 84.2%) assuming exponential survival and 1-sided alpha (0.025). Results: From 9/2017 to 1/2023, 712 pts were randomized (1 pediatric) to either atezo plus mFOLFOX6 (n= 355; atezo arm) or mFOLFOX6 (n= 357). Median pt age was 64 yr. 55.1% were female. Among tumors, 83.8% were proximal, 46.1% were clinical low risk (T 1-3 N 1 ) and 53.9% high risk (T 4 and/or N 2 ). At the second interim analysis, median pt follow-up was 37.2 mo (interquartile range, 24.2 to 55.5) and 124 DFS events were observed. Three-year DFS was 86.4 % (95% CI, 81.8 to 89.9) in the atezo arm and 76.6 % (95% CI, 71.3 to 81.0) in the mFOLFOX6 arm (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.72). Stratified log-rank p-value was <0.0001, crossing the pre-specified efficacy boundary of 0.009. Efficacy for the atezo arm was consistent across subgroups, including pts >70 yr and low- and high-risk groups. Treatment-related > grade 3 AEs occurred in 71.7 % of pts in the atezo arm vs 62.1 % in the mFOLFOX6 arm. Conclusion: The addition of atezolizumab to mFOLFOX6 significantly improved DFS and should be considered the new adjuvant standard of care for patients with dMMR stage III colon cancer. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24CA196171; Genentech, a member of the Roche group; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02912559 .

PURPOSE To report the results of the multicenter, open-label IRAKLIA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05405166 ) of isatuximab subcutaneous (SC) versus intravenous (IV), plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone, in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (MM), to our knowledge, the first phase III MM trial using an on-body injector (OBI). METHODS Patients with ≥1 prior line of therapy were randomly assigned 1:1 to Isa OBI (1,400 mg) or IV (10 mg/kg) once weekly in cycle (C)1 and then every 2 weeks, plus pomalidomide (4 mg once daily, day [D]1-21) and dexamethasone (40 mg once weekly [age ≥75: 20 mg]) and treated until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient request. Coprimary end points were overall response rate (ORR; noninferiority margin, 0.839) and Isa C trough (C6D1 predose; noninferiority margin, 0.8). Noninferiority of OBI versus IV was demonstrated if both coprimary end points achieved noninferiority. RESULTS IRAKLIA randomly assigned 531 patients (OBI, n=263; IV, n=268). After 12-month median follow-up, the ORR was 71.1% (OBI) and 70.5% (IV; relative risk, 1.008 [95% CI, 0.903 to 1.126]; lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin). The mean (standard deviation) C6D1 C trough was 499 (259) μg/mL (OBI) and 340 (169) μg/mL (IV). The C trough geometric mean ratio (90% CI) was 1.532 (1.316 to 1.784); lower CI exceeded noninferiority margin. Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event incidences were 81.7% (OBI) and 76.1% (IV); infusion reaction incidences were 1.5% and 25.0%. Injection site reactions occurred in 0.4% of OBI injections (all grade 1-2); 99.9% of injections completed without interruption. CONCLUSION IRAKLIA demonstrated efficacy and pharmacokinetic noninferiority between Isa OBI and IV. No unexpected safety signal was observed, with excellent local tolerability of Isa OBI. Efficacy and safety were comparable with Isa IV in ICARIA-MM, except the lower OBI infusion reaction rate. These results support potential use of the OBI, designed to improve practice efficiency.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

Abstract Background In two 12‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials (RCTs) in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), topiramate significantly reduced heavy drinking days (HDDs), and alcohol‐related problems. In a secondary analysis of those findings, we examined four broad measures of genetic risk—polygenic scores (PGS)—of problematic alcohol use (PAU), drinks per week (DPW), and time to relapse to any drinking (TR) and heavy drinking (THR) as moderators of topiramate's effect on HDDs and alcohol‐related problems. Methods We analyzed data from 285 individuals with AUD (65.6% male) of European‐like ancestry, who were treated with either topiramate (49.1%) or placebo (50.9%). All patients underwent genome‐wide array genotyping, and PGS were calculated using summary statistics from genome‐wide association studies of PAU, DPW, and TR and THR (two time‐to‐event outcomes among patients treated in AUD pharmacotherapy trials). We hypothesized an interaction effect in which greater genetic risk—particularly for PAU—would be associated with a greater therapeutic response to topiramate than placebo. Results As shown previously, topiramate significantly reduced both HDDs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, p < 0.001) and Short Index of Problems (SIP) scores ( b = −3.04, p < 0.001) more than placebo. There were nonsignificant associations of higher PGS with more HDDs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.98–1.41, p = 0.091) and a greater reduction in HDDs in the topiramate group (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.62–1.03, p = 0.089). There were also significant interaction effects with treatment on SIP score by PGS for PAU ( b = −1.64, SE = 0.78, p = 0.033), TR ( b = −2.16, SE = 0.72, p = 0.003), and TRH ( b = −2.17, SE = 0.72, p = 0.003). Conclusions These findings provide proof of principle for the use of alcohol‐related PGS as moderators of the effects of topiramate for treating AUD. Larger RCTs of topiramate are needed to provide adequate statistical power to validate this pharmacogenetic approach to precision AUD treatment.

Abstract Background Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of neuromas has emerged as a potential treatment option for refractory neuroma‐associated postamputation pain (PAP). Objective To evaluate the feasibility of using internally cooled radiofrequency ablation (C‐RFA) for treating neuroma‐associated PAP. Design Prospective single‐arm pilot study. Setting Tertiary academic medical center. Participants Eight participants with neuroma‐associated PAP (mean age 56.5 [ interquartile range, 50.5–68.5] years; mean body mass index 30.2 [ interquartile range, 26.3–34.8] kg/m 2 ). Intervention Participants were recruited and treated with C‐RFA between 2019 and 2023. Main Outcome Measures Pain and functional outcomes were assessed at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after C‐RFA using Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (GARS), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and Medication Quantification Scale III (MQS‐III). Responder definitions for each outcome measure were ≥50% NRS reduction, ≥30% GARS improvement, ≥6 on PGIC, and ≥6.8‐point MQS‐III reduction. Results NRS responder rates at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.0%–59.1%), 50.0% (95% CI, 21.5%–78.5%), 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%), and 50.0% (95% CI, 21.5%–78.5%), respectively. Responder rates for GARS were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.1%–59.1%) at 1 month and 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 3, 6, and 12 months. The proportion of PGIC responders was 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%) at 1 and 3 months and 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 6 and 12 months. MQS‐III responder rates were 25.0% (95% CI, 7.1%–59.1%) at 1 month, 12.5% (95% CI, 2.2%–47.1%) at 3 months, and 37.5% (95% CI, 13.7%–69.4%) at 6 and 12 months. There were no complications associated with the C‐RFA procedure. Conclusions These findings indicate the feasibility of neuroma C‐RFA as a treatment for refractory neuroma‐associated PAP but also suggest that further patient selection and C‐RFA technique optimization are warranted before investigating this treatment paradigm in a larger prospective study.

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and resource use of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated with first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) at five United States (US) institutions: the Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: Treating oncologists extracted data from medical charts of patients with uHCC who were treated with A+B after 1 January 2019. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method for the overall cohort and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0–1, Child–Pugh [CP] class A, albumin–bilirubin grade 1–2). Results: Of the 300 patients in the overall cohort (median age of 68 years; 12% ECOG PS ≥ 2; 73% CP A; 26% CP B; median follow-up of 8.7 months), the median rwPFS was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8, 8.4) months, and the median OS was 14.4 (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) months. In the trial-like subgroup (n = 194), the median rwPFS was 8.8 (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1) months and the median OS was 19.5 (95% CI: 14.6, 24.7) months. A significantly lower proportion of patients with CP A compared with CP B (39.7% vs. 73.4%) experienced hospitalization within one year of A+B initiation, whereas hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events were similar. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world effectiveness of 1L A+B in a diverse US patient cohort, with results from trial-like patients supporting the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice.

10035 Background: Ewing sarcoma (EwS) is a rare malignancy of children, adolescents and young adults for which outcomes have progressively improved through intensification of conventional chemotherapy, including interval compression of cycles. Prior cooperative group reports of relapsed EwS included patients treated less intensively and with fewer treatment options at relapse. Here, we report overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors post-first recurrence in patients with EwS treated with frontline interval-compressed chemotherapy. Methods: We included patients treated on the last three phase 3 COG EwS studies treated with interval compressed chemotherapy, which accrued from 2001-2019. Patients with initially localized disease (L-EwS) were treated on AEWS0031 arm B and AEWS1031. Patients with initially metastatic disease (M-EwS) were treated on AEWS1221. The primary outcome was OS from first relapse. Demographic and clinical data from original diagnosis and from relapse were analyzed as potential prognostic factors. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed and groups compared with log-rank tests. Results: 366 patients experienced disease recurrence as first event and were included in this analysis (AEWS0031 arm B, n = 69, AEWS1031, n = 115, for a total of 184 with L-EwS; AEWS1221, n = 182, all with M-EwS). Median age at relapse was 16 years. Median time from initial enrollment to first relapse was 1.52 years and was shorter for patients with M-EwS (Kruskall-Wallis, p < 0.001). First relapses were isolated local, isolated distant, and combined in 24%, 70%, and 6.4% of patients, respectively. Metastatic stage at initial diagnosis was associated with increased risk of post-first recurrence OS event (p < 0.0001). Two-year OS post-first recurrence (OS 2y ) was 25.6% for patients with M-EwS and 48.5% for patients with L-EwS. Time to first recurrence was also a predictor of post-recurrence survival (p < 0.0001): patients with initial L-EwS and relapse < 2 years from diagnosis had OS 2y of 31.4% vs. 70.8% for later relapses. Patients with initial M-EwS and relapse < 2 years from diagnosis had OS 2y of 18.9% vs. 71.2%. Patients with combined relapses had higher risk of post-relapse death compared to other patterns of failure (p = 0.003), an effect that was largely driven by the one seen in patients with initial L-EwS. Conclusions: Overall survival of patients with first recurrent EwS after having received modern era therapy with interval compressed chemotherapy on recent COG trials remains poor, particularly for M-EwS, early relapse and combined relapses. These data will inform the design of trials for this relapsed population and provide critical data to help counsel patients about goals of care at first relapse.