Citations

AbstractElevated blood levels of C‐reactive protein (CRP) have been linked to colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. We evaluated genetic variants associated with CRP levels and their interactions with sex and lifestyle factors in association with CRC‐specific mortality. Our study included 16 142 CRC cases from the International Survival Analysis in Colorectal Cancer Consortium. We identified 618 common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with CRP levels from the NHGRI‐EBI GWAS Catalog. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between SNPs and CRC‐specific mortality adjusting for age, sex, genotyping platform/study and principal components. We investigated their interactions with sex and lifestyle factors using likelihood ratio tests. Of 5472 (33.9%) deaths accrued over up to 10 years of follow‐up, 3547 (64.8%) were due to CRC. No variants were associated with CRC‐specific mortality after multiple comparison correction. We observed strong evidence of interaction between variant rs1933736 at FRK gene and sex in relation to CRC‐specific mortality (corrected Pinteraction = .0004); women had higher CRC‐specific mortality associated with the minor allele (HR = 1.11, 95% CI = 1.04‐1.19) whereas an inverse association was observed for men (HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.82‐0.94). There was no evidence of interactions between CRP‐associated SNPs and alcohol, obesity or smoking. Our study observed a significant interaction between sex and a CRP‐associated variant in relation to CRC‐specific mortality. Future replication of this association and functional annotation of the variant are needed.

Background: The use of evidence-based therapies to treat cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors in patients with AF in outpatient clinical practice has not been well characterized. Methods: Using a large, community-based registry of patients with AF in the United States, the prevalence of cardiovascular comorbidities and corresponding use of evidence-based therapies were determined. Results: Among 9,589 enrolled patients with AF, the median age was 75 years; 57.8% were male; 10.7% were non-white; 69.9% had Medicare or Medicaid; 31.8% had coronary heart disease, 32.2% had heart failure, 13.0% had peripheral vascular disease, and 29.5% had diabetes mellitus. Among eligible patients, 62.8% of 3,612 were prescribed an antiplatelet agent, 72.1% of 4,674 were prescribed a β-blocker, 59.7% of 5,121 were prescribed an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, 15.7% of 624 were prescribed an aldosterone antagonist, 70.1% of 6,914 were prescribed a statin, 94.7% of 8,329 were prescribed an antihypertensive, 58.3% of 504 had an ICD, and 44.5% of 9,589 received all indicated evidence-based therapies ( Table ). Conclusion: Cardiovascular comorbidities and risk factors in patients with AF are often inadequately treated with evidence-based therapies in the outpatient practice setting, underscoring opportunities to improve care for patients with AF.

Abstract Aims This study aimed to describe haemodynamic features of patients with advanced heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) as defined by the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Methods and results We used pooled data from two dedicated HFpEF studies with invasive exercise haemodynamic protocols, the REDUCE LAP-HF (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients with Heart Failure) trial and the REDUCE LAP-HF I trial, and categorized patients according to advanced heart failure (AdHF) criteria. The well-characterized HFpEF patients were considered advanced if they had persistent New York Heart Association classification of III–IV and heart failure (HF) hospitalization < 12 months and a 6 min walk test distance < 300 m. Twenty-four (22%) out of 108 patients met the AdHF criteria. On evaluation, clinical characteristics and resting haemodynamics were not different in the two groups. Patients with AdHF had lower work capacity compared with non-advanced patients (35 ± 16 vs. 45 ± 18 W, P = 0.021). Workload-corrected pulmonary capillary wedge pressure normalized to body weight (PCWL) was higher in AdHF patients compared with non-advanced (112 ± 55 vs. 86 ± 49 mmHg/W/kg, P = 0.04). Further, AdHF patients had a smaller increase in cardiac index during exercise (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 1.6 ± 0.9 L/min/m2, P = 0.028). Conclusions A significantly higher PCWL and lower cardiac index reserve during exercise were observed in AdHF patients compared with non-advanced. These differences were not apparent at rest. Therapies targeting the haemodynamic compromise associated with advanced HFpEF are needed.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable form of cancer, and current treatment regimens are focused on improving treatment efficacy while decreasing the risk of late effects of treatment. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for pediatric HL provide recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of classic HL, including principles of pathology, imaging, staging, systemic therapy, and radiation therapy. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of pediatric classic HL in the upfront and relapsed/refractory settings.

Abstract Background Primary bone diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a variant of extranodal non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) that is relatively rare, accounting for 3-15% of extranodal NHL and less than 1% of all NHL. Patients often present with pain and swelling or pathologic fracture of the affected area of the skeleton, and B symptoms are often less prevalent. Many cases are limited stage at presentation. Patients are usually treated with rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) or similar induction therapy. Based on older studies showing improved outcomes associated with the addition of radiation (many completed prior to the rituximab era), patients often still receive combined-modality therapy today. However, it remains unknown whether consolidative radiation therapy (RT) confers additional benefit following rituximab-based chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) induction. We sought to address this question in a multicenter retrospective study. Methods We conducted a retrospective analysis of outcomes in a modern cohort of patients who underwent treatment for primary bone DLBCL using chemotherapy regimens in the rituximab era either with or without consolidative RT. Data was collected from 13 academic medical centers in the U.S., with patients treated between 2005 and 2019. Patients were identified using each institution's hematologic malignancy registries. Analysis was limited to patients with primary bone DLBCL, with stage I-II disease (primary site +/- locoregional lymph nodes) that could be encompassed in a radiation field. Patients who received CIT alone or CIT followed by RT were included. Treatment selection was at the treating physician's discretion. Electronic medical records were reviewed for: demographics, chemotherapy regimens, radiation treatments, and PET scan data. Local IRB approval was obtained at sites. All data was distributed in a de-identified fashion. The primary outcomes were overall survival (OS), and relapse-free survival (RFS). Secondary outcomes included: response after induction CIT induction and the need for additional therapies. Chi-square test analysis was used to compare categorical variables and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for continuous and ordinal measures. Survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups via the log-rank test. Multi-variable analysis (MVA) for OS and RFS was performed using RT vs no RT, PET status post CIT (negative vs positive) and rituximab in induction (Y/N) as variables. Results A total of 127 patients were included: 91 who received CIT and radiation (RT group), and 36 who received CIT alone (no RT group). The median age of patients at diagnosis in the RT group and no RT group was 58.5 and 57.0, respectively. For CIT, the majority of patients received R-CHOP (84%). Despite focusing on 2005-2019, a small percentage of patients (5 - 14%) in each group (RT and no RT) did not receive rituximab with their induction therapy. The OS at 10 years was 74.5% in the RT group and 86.5% in the no RT group (p = 0.29). The RFS at 10 years was 70.9% in the RT group and 78.2% in the no RT group (p = 0.85). Among the 91 patients who received RT, 67 (77.0%) received a dose of 36 Gy or higher. There was no difference in OS (p = 0.63) or RFS (p = 0.90) in patients who received > 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy of radiation. On MVA for OS, RT was not associated with improved OS, although rituximab as part of induction was (p = 0.048). On MVA for RFS, neither RT nor rituximab were associated with improved RFS. For rituximab the trend was in the direction of rituximab benefit (p = 0.11). Conclusion Our results demonstrate that, in the rituximab era, patients with limited stage primary bone DLBCL have excellent outcomes overall. In this study, neither RFS or OS appeared to be improved with the addition of consolidative RT. Rituximab, however, was associated with improved OS on MVA. Outcomes do not appear to differ based on the dose of RT (> 36 Gy vs < 36 Gy). Our data suggests that RT may have less benefit for primary bone DLBCL in the rituximab era, although it is possible that a subset of patients may benefit from consolidative radiation therapy. A larger data set would likely be needed to evaluate this. We plan to present data regarding PET responses at the meeting. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Lunning: Acrotech: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol Myers Squibb Co.: Consultancy; Spectrum: Consultancy; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Cashen: Secura Bio, ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy. Bartlett: Autolus: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seagen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Caimi: XaTek: Patents & Royalties: Royalties from patents (wife); Amgen Therapeutics.: Consultancy; ADC Theraputics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Kite Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Rodgers: MJH Lifesciences: Consultancy. Barr: Morphosys: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Abbvie/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Epperla: Verastem: Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Other: Ad Board; Genzyme: Honoraria. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Karmali: BMS/Celgene/Juno: Consultancy, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Janssen/Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; EUSA: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Portell: Acerta/AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Aptitude Health: Honoraria; Morphosys: Honoraria; Targeted Oncology: Honoraria; SeaGen: Research Funding; BeiGene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Kite: Honoraria, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; VelosBio: Research Funding. Fenske: Pharmacyclics: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Servier Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; MorphoSys: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy; KaryoPharm: Consultancy; CSL Therapeutics: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Biogen: Consultancy; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Kite (Gilead): Speakers Bureau; Beigene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy.

Abstract Multiple myeloma (MM) is an incurable form of plasma cell cancer in which primary and secondary chromosomal translocations routinely juxtapose oncogenes to plasma cell-specific super-enhancers. Coincidentally, drugs which target super-enhancers have had success clinically. For example, immunomodulatory imide drugs (IMiDs) degrade super-enhancer-binding pioneer factors IKAROS and AIOLOS, while glucocorticoids (Dexamethasone) and proteasome inhibitors (Bortezomib) have the ability to transrepress or block the processing of super-enhancer-forming NF-κB proteins, respectively. Currently, alternative enhancer-targeting drugs are also in clinical development, like p300 inhibitors which target the acetyl-binding bromodomains and/or histone acetyl transferase activity of the chromatin-regulating coactivator homologs CBP and EP300. Despite showing therapeutic promise, our understanding of how these drugs function, alone or together, remains incomplete. Case in point, we find that IMiD-induced degradation of its target proteins IKAROS and AIOLOS does not guarantee a therapeutic response in vitro, and patients successfully treated with IMiDs eventually relapse; meanwhile, coactivator-targeting therapies like p300 inhibitors are often too toxic in vivo, and lack a therapeutic window. To improve the outcomes of MM patients we need to understand the heterogeneous genetics and transcription-factor milieus of the myeloma enhancer landscape, as well as how to increase the precision of enhancer-disrupting drugs. To accomplish this, our lab utilizes more than 60 human myeloma cell lines that have been extensively characterized at the genetic, proteomic, and drug-therapeutic-response levels. Additionally, we have generated a highly-predictive immunocompetent mouse model (Vk*MYC hCRBN+) that develops human-like MM and is sensitive to both IMiDs and a new class of therapeutics termed "degronimids" (normal mice do not respond to IMiDs or degronimids). Our central hypothesis is that combining a broad coactivator-targeting drug (e.g., the p300 inhibitor GNE-781), with a MM-specific transcription factor-targeting drug (e.g., IMiDs) restricts toxicities to myeloma cells and thus improves the therapeutic window. Currently, we are testing a variety of coactivator-targeting compounds alongside traditional IMiD therapies and other preclinical transcription factor-targeting drugs both in vivo and in vitro. We show that Vk*MYC hCRBN+ mice are exquisitely sensitive to GNE-781, requiring one fourth of the dose needed to treat other cancers and therefore avoiding the neutropenia and thrombocytopenia seen at higher doses. Second, we show that although IMiDs and GNE-781 induce an effective but transient response in vivo as single agents, the combination of the two drugs proved curative, with a progressive deepening of the anti-tumor response occurring even after therapy is discontinued. Ongoing experiments aim to determine how this drug combination, and other coactivator + transcription factor-targeting combinations, permanently disrupt myeloma-specific super-enhancers. Disclosures Neri: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Bahlis: Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy. Boise: AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie/Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Chesi: Abcuro: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pi Therapeutics: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma; Pfizer: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties: human CRBN transgenic mouse; Palleon Pharmaceuticals: Patents & Royalties: Genetically engineered mouse model of myeloma.

Abstract Background: Treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) commonly encompasses combination of drugs within the three drug classes including proteasome inhibitors (PIs), immunomodulators and (IMiDs), and monoclonal antibodies, both for newly diagnosed and relapsed disease. With increasing appreciation of disease heterogeneity based on underlying genetic abnormality, and demonstration of efficacy of venetoclax in patients with t(11;14) MM, the outcomes with commonly used MM regimens among the different cytogenetic subgroups are of great interest. Venetoclax, a BCL-2 inhibitor, is being studied in t(11;14) positive MM patients who have received at least two prior lines of treatment (NCT03539744; CANOVA). However, outcomes in previously treated t(11;14) MM patients using standard of care approaches in the real-world setting is limited. Patients and methods: This non-interventional, retrospective observational cohort study included patients with t(11;14) MM from the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) retrospective study of t(11;14) MM. From the overall cohort, patients with t(11;14) MM receiving pomalidomide + dexamethasone (PomDex) in ≥3 rd line were selected, similar to those being enrolled in the ongoing CANOVA trial. Patients were also required to have prior exposure to lenalidomide and a PI without a history of transplant within 16 weeks prior to PomDex initiation. Patients enrolled in a clinical trial were excluded. Overall best response, time to next therapy (TTNT) as a surrogate measure for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed after initiation of PomDex. All analyses were descriptive in nature and were conducted using SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Results: Fifty-two patients who met the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Median age was 63 years, 60% were male. Patients had a median of 3 prior lines at start of PomDex, at a median of 4.3 years from diagnosis; 52% had a prior transplant. A PR or better was observed in 34% of patients with PomDex. The median TTNT for this cohort was 6.1 months and median OS was 19.2 months. Conclusion: This retrospective study of non-trial patients with t(11;14) MM provides a benchmark for newer therapies in this patient population for comparison with both venetoclax dexamethasone in the ongoing CANOVA study as well as combinations using the pomalidomide backbone. Disclosures Karve: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Kumar: Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Gonzalez De La Calle: Celgene-BMS, Janssen, Amgen: Honoraria. Mangiacavalli: GSK: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria. Kastritis: Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genesis Pharma: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Esteves: AbbVie: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy. Delforge: Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Yee: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Adaptive: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy. Arriola: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Ross: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company. Manthena: AbbVie: Current Employment, Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Durie: Amgen, Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: fees from non-CME/CE services .