Citations

Significance Statement Why are there so few biomarkers accepted by health authorities and implemented in clinical practice, despite the high and growing number of biomaker studies in medical research ? In this meta-epidemiological study, including 804 studies that were critically appraised by expert reviewers, the authors have identified all prognostic kidney transplant biomarkers and showed overall suboptimal study designs, methods, results, interpretation, reproducible research standards, and transparency. The authors also demonstrated for the first time that the limited number of studies challenged the added value of their candidate biomarkers against standard-of-care routine patient monitoring parameters. Most biomarker studies tended to be single-center, retrospective studies with a small number of patients and clinical events. Less than 5% of the studies performed an external validation. The authors also showed the poor transparency reporting and identified a data beautification phenomenon. These findings suggest that there is much wasted research effort in transplant biomarker medical research and highlight the need to produce more rigorous studies so that more biomarkers may be validated and successfully implemented in clinical practice. Background Despite the increasing number of biomarker studies published in the transplant literature over the past 20 years, demonstrations of their clinical benefit and their implementation in routine clinical practice are lacking. We hypothesized that suboptimal design, data, methodology, and reporting might contribute to this phenomenon. Methods We formed a consortium of experts in systematic reviews, nephrologists, methodologists, and epidemiologists. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library between January 1, 2005, and November 12, 2022 (PROSPERO ID: CRD42020154747). All English language, original studies investigating the association between a biomarker and kidney allograft outcome were included. The final set of publications was assessed by expert reviewers. After data collection, two independent reviewers randomly evaluated the inconsistencies for 30% of the references for each reviewer. If more than 5% of inconsistencies were observed for one given reviewer, a re-evaluation was conducted for all the references of the reviewer. The biomarkers were categorized according to their type and the biological milieu from which they were measured. The study characteristics related to the design, methods, results, and their interpretation were assessed, as well as reproducible research practices and transparency indicators. Results A total of 7372 publications were screened and 804 studies met the inclusion criteria. A total of 1143 biomarkers were assessed among the included studies from blood ( n =821, 71.8%), intragraft ( n =169, 14.8%), or urine ( n =81, 7.1%) compartments. The number of studies significantly increased, with a median, yearly number of 31.5 studies (interquartile range [IQR], 23.8–35.5) between 2005 and 2012 and 57.5 (IQR, 53.3–59.8) between 2013 and 2022 ( P < 0.001). A total of 655 studies (81.5%) were retrospective, while 595 (74.0%) used data from a single center. The median number of patients included was 232 (IQR, 96–629) with a median follow-up post-transplant of 4.8 years (IQR, 3.0–6.2). Only 4.7% of studies were externally validated. A total of 346 studies (43.0%) did not adjust their biomarker for key prognostic factors, while only 3.1% of studies adjusted the biomarker for standard-of-care patient monitoring factors. Data sharing, code sharing, and registration occurred in 8.8%, 1.1%, and 4.6% of studies, respectively. A total of 158 studies (20.0%) emphasized the clinical relevance of the biomarker, despite the reported nonsignificant association of the biomarker with the outcome measure. A total of 288 studies assessed rejection as an outcome. We showed that these rejection studies shared the same characteristics as other studies. Conclusions Biomarker studies in kidney transplantation lack validation, rigorous design and methodology, accurate interpretation, and transparency. Higher standards are needed in biomarker research to prove the clinical utility and support clinical use.

Background. Surgical-site infections (SSIs) are common in liver transplant recipients. The optimal SSI antimicrobial prophylaxis agent and duration are not established. We aimed to explore risk factors for SSIs after transplant, with a particular interest in the impact of perioperative antibiotic regimen on the development of SSIs. Methods. Retrospective study of adults undergoing liver transplant across 3 transplant programs between January 1, 2020, and June 01, 2021. Results. Of 557 patients included in the study, 32 (5.7%) were infected or colonized with a multidrug-resistant organism (MDRO) within 1 y before liver transplant. Narrow-spectrum SSI prophylaxis with ceftriaxone or cefazolin alone was administered in 488 of 577 patients (87.6%); the remaining 69 patients (12.4%) received broad-spectrum prophylaxis with vancomycin and aztreonam (n = 40), piperacillin–tazobactam (n = 11), carbapenems (n = 8), ceftriaxone and another antibiotic (n = 7), and others. Patients with pretransplant MDRO were more likely to receive broad-spectrum coverage than those without pretransplant MDROs (28.1% versus 11.4%, P = 0.005). SSIs were identified in 40 patients (7.2%); 25 (62.5%) were organ–space infections, 3 (7.5%) were deep incisional infections, and 12 (30.0%) were superficial incisional infections. The median time from liver transplant to SSIs was 14 d (interquartile range, 10–20.2). MDROs were identified in 12 SSIs (30%). Multivariable analysis revealed no significant association between antimicrobial spectrum and risk of SSIs (P = 0.5), whereas surgical leak (P<0.001) and reoperation (P = 0.017) were independently associated with increased risk of SSIs. SSIs were not significantly associated with composite risk of death or liver allograft failure. Conclusions. The spectrum of antimicrobial prophylaxis did not impact the development of SSIs in liver transplant recipients.

Background: The use of CAR-T cell therapy has transformed treatment paradigms in B-cell malignancies. Ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) was approved for use in RRMM after four or more prior lines of therapy in 2022. While the pivotal studies exclusively treated patients in an inpatient setting, robust infrastructure planning at some centers across US has fostered outpatient administration of the commercially available product. Outpatient administration of CAR-T is more desirable due to superior financial sustainability, lower healthcare resource utilization, and greater patient autonomy during the treatment. Hence, we conducted a qualitative study to evaluate clinical and administrative perspectives and trends in outpatient administration of commercialized cilta-cel with an aim to understand best practices from certified CAR-T centers in the USA. Methods: A targeted literature review was conducted to better understand current practices around outpatient administration of CAR-T, and inform the development of primary research materials for designing subsequent interviews. Next, two 60-minute exploratory interviews were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=5) from two certified cilta-cel centers, each with significant volume of outpatient administration of cilta-cel. Following the qualitative analysis of interviews, two 90-minute panels were conducted with multi-stakeholder participants (n=14) from six certified cilta-cel centers, including centers from exploratory interviews, focusing on clinical and administrative topics across the patient journey. Results: Each center in the study treated approximately 15-30 patients with cilta-cel in the outpatient setting. Using Likert scales, participants from all centers ranked space/capacity as the most important factor in decision-making process for outpatient cilta-cel administration, and ranked reimbursement incentives as a highly (67% of participants) or a moderately (33%) important factor. All participants agreed that having a dedicated outpatient infrastructure (dedicated space such as bed availability and internal processes including standard operating procedures (SOPs)), 24/7 support, outpatient bone marrow transplant (BMT) or cell therapy experience, and robust multidisciplinary teams were key to setting-up successful outpatient centers for cilta-cel therapy. The participants agreed that cilta-cel can be administered safely in an outpatient setting due to generally predictable, delayed onset of potential AEs, except in patients with significant comorbidities or organ dysfunction. Participants also considered caregiver support and lodging availability as factors of importance for outpatient administration. Institutionally established AE monitoring protocols are critical for safe use of cilta-cel in an outpatient setting. Over 50% of the centers interviewed have recently started to administer tocilizumab to treat mild grade 1 cytokine release syndrome (CRS) in an outpatient setting. Based on the findings across the phases of research, the patient journey for outpatient administration of cilta-cel was updated (Figure 1). While patients may be admitted for toxicity events, 100% of centers interviewed had 24-hour coverage and bed availability for these patients if needed. Conclusions: Overall, this study further supports the notion that centers can safely administer cilta-cel in an outpatient setting, if appropriate infrastructure is in place. Additional best practices for new outpatient sites include adequate infrastructure, SOPs, a well-trained and multidisciplinary team, and education of patients and caregivers (Table 1). Outpatient management and earlier intervention for low-grade AEs is currently evolving, with more real-world research required. Continued expert sharing of best practices can aid centers in implementing outpatient administration of CAR-T therapies. Funding: This analysis was supported by Janssen Research & Development, LLC and Legend Biotech USA, Inc

Background:Richter transformation (RT) occurs in up to 10% of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), typically presents as an aggressive diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and is associated with poor survival. RT has no approved standard therapy; and clinical trial enrollment is the preferred first line of therapy. Pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi, that inhibits both wildtype and C481-mutant BTK with equal low nM potency, has favorable oral pharmacology that enables continuous BTK inhibition throughout the dosing interval. Pirtobrutinib demonstrated durable overall response rates (ORR) and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with poor-prognosis B-cell malignancies regardless of prior therapy. Here we provide updated safety and efficacy of pirtobrutinib in RT pts from the phase 1/2 BRUIN trial (NCT03740529). Methods: Pts with previously treated, histologically confirmed RT were eligible in the global, multicenter, phase 1/2 BRUIN study. Pts with untreated RT became eligible after Amendment 10. All but one patient received the recommended phase 2 dose of 200 mg daily. Key endpoints included investigator-assessed ORR, DoR per Lugano 2014 criteria, OS, and safety. A data cut of 05 May 2023 was utilized. To assess clonal relationship, IGH rearrangement studies were done on tissue biopsies with RT involvement, and baseline blood or bone marrow (BM) samples with CLL involvement. Results: Among all pts with RT (N=82) the median age was 67 (range, 26-95) and the median total number of lines of prior systemic therapy was 4 (range, 0-13). Pts with prior treatment had a median of 2 CLL-directed therapies and 2 RT-directed therapies. Eight pts did not have a previous line of RT-directed therapy, and 1 patient received neither RT- nor CLL-directed therapy. Common prior RT- and CLL-directed therapies (RT, CLL) included: chemotherapy (76%, 52%), cBTKi (34%, 62%), anti-CD20 antibody (78%, 66%), BCL2i (38%, 49%), stem cell transplant (SCT; 6%, 7%), and CAR-T (11%, 4%). Of 29 pts with bone marrow screening, 41.4% had CLL alone present in BM, 13.8% had DLBCL present and 24.1% had both CLL and DLBCL present. For 39 pts with available PET data, the median SUVmax was 19.1 (range, 2.6-41.2). For all 82 pts, the ORR was 50.0% (95% CI, 38.7-61.3) including complete (13.4%, n=11) and partial (36.6%, n=30) responses. For 61 pts who received prior cBTKi therapy, the ORR was 45.9% (95% CI 33.1-59.2). Among 28 pts with an RT-directed cBTKi and 51 pts with prior CLL-directed cBTKi, the ORR was 42.9% (95% CI, 24.5-62.8) and 43.1% (95% CI, 29.3-57.8), respectively. In 50 pts who discontinued prior cBTKi due to disease progression, the ORR was 42.0% (95% CI, 28.2-56.8). At median follow-up time of 9.7 months, the median DoR for all 82 RT pts was 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.1-19.1) and the estimated rate at 12 months was 45.9% (95% CI, 28.3-61.8). The median time on treatment for the 41pts who responded to treatment was 8.3 months. Eight pts stopped pirtobrutinib to pursue curative-intent allogeneic SCT and DoR was censored at the last preceding disease assessment. At a median survival follow-up of 18.3 months, the median OS for the entire RT cohort was 12.5 months (95% CI, 6.9-20.5). At 18 months, the OS rate was 44.3% (95% CI, 32.5-55.4). Frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) in the RT cohort (n=82) were neutropenia/decreased neutrophil count (29.3%, n=24), fatigue (24.4%, n=20) and diarrhea, dyspnea, thrombocytopenia, and pyrexia (18.3% each, n=15). Common grade ≥3 TEAEs were neutropenia/decreased neutrophil count (23.2%, n=19), thrombocytopenia (11.0%, n=9), plus anemia and sepsis (9.8% each, n=8). Any grade hypertension (3.7%, n=3) or atrial fibrillation (1.2%, n=1) were infrequent. Three pts (3.7%) had treatment-related AEs leading to dose reductions, but no pt had a treatment-related AE leading to pirtobrutinib discontinuation. Analyses of clonality will be presented. Conclusions: Continued follow-up from BRUIN demonstrates encouraging response and OS in pts with RT. Pirtobrutinib remains well-tolerated with low rates of discontinuation and manageable safety profile. While RT remains a challenging diagnosis, pirtobrutinib represents a potential treatment option that warrants further investigation.

Introduction: Nearly 50-60% of the patients withDiffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) can be cured by front line chemoimmunotherapy. Current risk stratification modalities include cell-of-origin (germinal center (GCB) or non-GCB (activated B-cell [ABC])) subtyping, use of the revised International Prognostic Index (R-IPI), Ki-67 proliferation index assessment, and cytogenetic aberration detection. However, a novel approach for molecular residual disease (MRD) detection and treatment monitoring is needed to improve patient outcomes. Methods: A personalized and tumor-informed multiplex PCR assay (Signatera™ bespoke mPCR NGS assay) was used for the detection and quantification of ctDNA in a prospective clinical cohort of patients with DLBCL. Serial ctDNA testing was performed at various time points collected at the treating physician's discretion, including pretreatment (baseline), during first-line therapy, during and post-salvage therapy, at the end of treatment, and during surveillance, up to the last clinical follow-up. ctDNA clearance was defined as change in ctDNA status (positive to negative) from the pre-treatment time point to the subsequent time point. Event-free survival (EFS) was defined as the time elapsed since the initial ctDNA clearance or PET imaging, for those without ctDNA clearance, during which the patient did not experience progression, death or treatment with salvage therapy. EFS was censored at the last date of followup if the patient was alive and without an event. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the elapsed time after primary treatment until death from any cause. Univariate and multivariable models were analyzed using Cox proportional models. Results: In this retrospective evaluation of commercial ctDNA testing in patients with stage I-IV DLBCL, a total of 50 patients (I:3, II:12, III: 4, and IV: 29;median age: 59 years) were analyzed. Patients were followed up for a median of 12.68 months (inter quartile range: 7.9-17.7 months). Of the 50 patients, 41 had pre-treatment (baseline) time points available and ctDNA was detected in 95% (39/41) of patients. Since the majority of the patients had stage IV disease, median ctDNA detection levels were observed to be high (overall median: 534 MTM/ml, range: 0-5957 MTM/ml; I median: 9.6 MTM/mL [range: 0.2-2822 MTM/mL], II median: 53 MTM/mL [range: 0.8-862 MTM/mL], III median: 368 [range: 2-940 MTM/mL], IV median: 1011 MTM/mL [range: 74-5958 MTM/mL]). Clearance of ctDNA at any point during first-line therapy was associated with improved outcomes (EFS, HR: 8.3, 95% CI: 2.56-27.0, p&lt;0.0001 and OS, HR: 15.2, 95% CI: 1.53-149, p=0.0021), compared to patients who remained ctDNA-positive. Furthermore, 48% (13/27) of patients were found to clear their ctDNA upon the completion of the first cycle of treatment. On comparing baseline ctDNA levels with other clinicopathological risk factors, high ctDNA levels were observed to be strongly correlated with higher R-IPI scores (0-2 vs. 3-5; p=0.0008) and higher stage (I-II vs. III-IV; p=0.0007). Additionally, multivariate analysis determined that ctDNA clearance significantly outperformed all other clinicopathologic risk factors associated with EFS (HR: 48.8, 95% CI:1.2-2005, p=0.04). Finally, ctDNA clearance predicted complete response (CR)/no evidence of disease (NED) on average 95 days (range: 0-14.7 months) ahead of PET imaging or biopsy. Conclusions: In this study utilizing a real-world cohort of patients with stage I-IV DLBCL, ctDNA clearance during first-line therapy was prognostic for EFS and OS and preceded clinical response. ctDNA testing in patients with DLBCL may enable personalized surveillance, intervention, and/or trial options, ultimately improving patient outcomes.