Citations

Inflammatory conditions play part in the progression of malignancies, and markers signifying growth of these factors can indicate prognosis. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte (NLR) is used as a marker of subclinical inflammation that may become an integral part of workup to indicate prognosis and associated pathology. This study aims to explore the association of NLR ratio with clinical characteristics, radiological assessment and staging, histopathology, and disease outcomes of breast cancer. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a tertiary care center to include breast cancer patients that were diagnosed between January 2001 and December 2020. Data including tumor size, lymph nodes, metastasis, histological grading, ER/PR/HER2-neu status, molecular subtypes, clinical staging); nodal findings (sentinel and axillary); pathology from frozen section; and disease outcomes were assessed. Multivariable regression and Kaplan–Meier survival curves were employed to indicate the association of NLR with breast cancer features and disease-free survival. A total of 2050 patients had a median age of 50 years, median NLR levels of 2.14, most common pathology ductal followed by lobular, and most common site of metastasis being lungs followed by bones. Disease-free rate was 7.6%, and a recurrence rate of 1.8%, while 1.6% deaths were reported. NLR was found associated with age, treatment outcomes, tumor size, lymph nodes, metastasis and clinical staging. Other positive correlations were with Ki67 proliferation index, molecular subtypes, and tumor size on frozen section (at transverse and craniocaudal dimensions). Negative correlations were seen with estrogen and progesterone receptors. However, NLR was not found predictable of disease-free survival (P = .160). Significant predictors of disease-free survival were histological grading, ER, PR status, molecular subtype, and Ki67 proliferation index. NLR being a readily available marker has shown novel findings in its association with tumor staging, disease outcomes and characteristics of breast malignancy.

AbstractIntroductionIn evaluating malignant pleural fluid cytology, metastatic adenocarcinomas and mesotheliomas are often differential diagnoses. GATA binding protein 3 (GATA3) has historically been used to confirm metastatic breast carcinomas; however, GATA3 has low specificity if mesothelioma is included in differential diagnoses. Trichorhinophalangeal syndrome type 1 (TRPS1) protein is expressed in all types of breast carcinomas, with reported high specificity and sensitivity. We investigated the performance of TRPS1 immunohistochemistry (IHC) and compared it to GATA3 in pleural fluids diagnosed with metastatic breast carcinoma and mesothelioma.MethodsThirty‐six consecutive ThinPrep pleural fluids and 4 pleural fine needle aspirations (FNAs) with diagnoses of metastatic breast carcinoma (21) and mesothelioma (19) were retrieved, and IHC with TRPS1 and GATA3 was performed on all. Immunoreactivity scores for TRPS1 were calculated by multiplying percentage of immunoreactive cells by staining intensity. Immunoreactivity scores were negative if 0 or 1, low positive if 2, intermediate positive if 3 or 4, or high positive if 6 or 9. Nuclear immunoreactivity of ≥10% with at least moderate intensity was judged GATA3 positive.ResultsGATA3 showed immunoreactivity in all metastatic breast carcinomas and 84% of mesotheliomas. TRPS1 was immunoreactive in all breast carcinoma cases (18 with a score of 9 and 3 with a score of 6). TRPS1 showed low positivity in 5% of mesothelioma cases with all other cases being negative.ConclusionWhen cytomorphologic differential diagnoses of mesothelioma exist, TRPS1 is a more specific marker than GATA3 for confirmation of metastatic breast carcinoma in pleural fluid cytology.

Introduction D-dimer levels, which originate from the lysis of cross-linked fibrin, are serially measured during coronavirus disease 2019 illness to rule out hypercoagulability as well as a septic marker. Methods This multicenter retrospective study was carried out in two tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan. The study included adult patients admitted with a laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 infection, with at least one measured d-dimer within 24 h following admission. Discharged patients were compared with the mortality group for survival analysis. Results The study population of 813 patients had 68.5% males, with a median age of 57.0 years and 14.0 days of illness. The largest d-dimer elevation was between 0.51–2.00 mcg/ml (tertile 2) observed in 332 patients (40.8%), followed by 236 patients (29.2%) having values greater than 5.00 mcg/ml (tertile 4). Within 45 days of hospital stay, 230 patients (28.3%) died, with the majority in the ICU (53.9%). On multivariable logistic regression between d-dimer and mortality, the unadjusted (Model 1) had a higher d-dimer category (tertile 3 and tertile 4) associated with a higher risk of death (OR: 2.15; 95% CI: 1.02–4.54, P=0.044) and (OR: 4.74; 95% CI: 2.38–9.46, P<0.001). Adjustment for age, sex, and BMI (Model 2) yields only tertile 4 being significant (OR: 4.27; 95% CI: 2.06–8.86, P<0.001). Conclusion: Higher d-dimer levels were independently associated with a high risk of mortality. The added value of d-dimer in risk stratifying patients for mortality was not affected by invasive ventilation, ICU stays, length of hospital stays, or comorbidities.

Objective: This study is a comprehensive review of the clinical pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, and clinical applicability of amivantamab-vmjw for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 insertion (exon20ins) mutation. Data Synthesis: The literature search to identify clinical trials returned only the CHRYSALIS phase 1 study. In a phase I trial, amivantamab-vmjw was associated with an overall response rate (ORR) of 40% (95% CI, 29–51) in the EGFR exon20ins NSCLC patient population (n = 81) after platinum-based chemotherapy. There were 3 complete responses (CRs) and 29 partial responses (PRs). The median duration of response (DOR) was 11.1 months (95% CI, 6.9—not reached; NR). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.5–10.9), and overall survival (OS) was 22.8 months (95% CI, 14.6—NR). Application to Clinical Practice: This review summarizes the pharmacology, clinical evidence, and use of amivantamab-vmjw for patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC with EGFR exon20ins mutation. Conclusion: The FDA approval of amivantamab-vmjw, the first bispecific antibody to target the exon20ins mutation, represents an important advancement in the treatment of patients with NSCLC with limited effective treatment options. The initial findings of the CHRYSALIS trial demonstrate an overall tumor response benefit with an acceptable safety profile.

AbstractBackground and ObjectivesSince publishing successful clinical trial results of mRNA coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines in December 2020, multiple reports have arisen about cardiovascular complications following the mRNA vaccination. This study provides an in‐depth account of various cardiovascular adverse events reported after the mRNA vaccines' first or second dose including pericarditis/myopericarditis, myocarditis, hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, stroke, myocardial infarction/STEMI, intracranial hemorrhage, thrombosis (deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis, arterial or venous thrombotic events, portal vein thrombosis, coronary thrombosis, microvascular small bowel thrombosis), and pulmonary embolism.MethodsA systematic review of original studies reporting confirmed cardiovascular manifestations post‐mRNA COVID‐19 vaccination was performed. Following the PRISMA guidelines, electronic databases (PubMed, PMC NCBI, and Cochrane Library) were searched until January 2022. Baseline characteristics of patients and disease outcomes were extracted from relevant studies.ResultsA total of 81 articles analyzed confirmed cardiovascular complications post‐COVID‐19 mRNA vaccines in 17,636 individuals and reported 284 deaths with any mRNA vaccine. Of 17,636 cardiovascular events with any mRNA vaccine, 17,192 were observed with the BNT162b2 (Pfizer−BioNTech) vaccine, 444 events with mRNA‐1273 (Moderna). Thrombosis was frequently reported with any mRNA vaccine (n = 13,936), followed by stroke (n = 758), myocarditis (n = 511), myocardial infarction (n = 377), pulmonary embolism (n = 301), and arrhythmia (n = 254). Stratifying the results by vaccine type showed that thrombosis (80.8%) was common in the BNT162b2 cohort, while stroke (39.9%) was common with mRNA‐1273 for any dose. The time between the vaccination dosage and the first symptom onset averaged 5.6 and 4.8 days with the mRNA‐1273 vaccine and BNT162b2, respectively. The mRNA‐1273 cohort reported 56 deaths compared to the 228 with BNT162b2, while the rest were discharged or transferred to the ICU.ConclusionAvailable literature includes more studies with the BNT162b2 vaccine than mRNA‐1273. Future studies must report mortality and adverse cardiovascular events by vaccine types.

Abstract Background: SG was approved in 2020 for the treatment of metastatic triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event in the ASCENT trial was neutropenia (51.2%) with a 6% incidence of febrile neutropenia. 1 Package insert recommendations do not endorse primary prophylactic growth factor support, rather only initiating if severe neutropenia occurs on treatment.2 Objective: This study retrospectively reviewed the utilization of growth factor support in patients (pts) with metastatic TNBC initiated on SG at each Mayo Clinic Enterprise site. Methods: We performed a multi-center, retrospective review of all pts with TNBC who received SG from January 2021 to December 2021 at Mayo Clinic sites in Minnesota, Florida, Arizona, and its community-based health system network. Data collected included history of neutropenia with previous cycles of SG resulting in a treatment delay, number of cycles, grade of neutropenia and cycle/day of treatment plan when growth factor added. Pts who received only one dose of SG were excluded. The Fisher’s exact test was utilized to compare the difference in the use of primary prophylaxis between sites. Results: 67 pts received at least two doses of SG. Within this cohort, 42 pts (63%) received growth factor support during treatment with SG. Growth factor support was most often added during the first two cycles (59.5%). A total of 12 patients initiated growth factor with no history of delays related to neutropenia and without neutropenia at the time of administration. Eleven of these pts had growth factor support added on Cycle 1 as primary prophylaxis. Primary prophylaxis was most common at Mayo Clinic – Rochester compared to the other sites (Table 1), however there was not a statistically significant difference (p=0.27). There were 26 pts (39%) with a treatment delay due to neutropenia while receiving SG, of which 21 (81%) were managed with the addition of growth factor (13 pegfilgrastim, 8 filgrastim). The median number of cycles for all pts was 5 (range: 1-25). Pts who received growth factor were treated with a median of 5 cycles (range: 1-25) and pts who did not receive growth factor were treated with a median of 4 cycles (range: 1-19) (p=0.10). Conclusions: We observed wide variability in the use of prophylactic growth factor between Mayo Clinic sites with SG. The optimal practice of growth factor use with SG warrants further exploration. References: 1. Bardia A, Hurvitz SA, Tolaney SM, et al. Sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2021;384(16):1529-1541 2. Immunomedics, Inc. Trodelvy (sacituzumab govitecan-hziy) [package insert]. Foster City, CA: Gilead Sciences; 2020. Table 1: Grade of neutropenia for patients receiving SG when growth factor initiated Citation Format: Kaylee Clark, Jamie L. Carroll, Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia, Brenda Ernst, Farah Raheem, Ashley Heil, Beth Boyer, Kristin Mara, Matthew P. Goetz, Roberto A. Leon-Ferre, Karthik V. Giridhar, Jodi Taraba. Mayo Clinic Enterprise patterns of growth-factor utilization for sacituzumab govitecan (SG)-induced neutropenia among patients with metastatic triple negative breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-07-56.

AbstractBackgroundHospital medicine (HM) has a well‐described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages.ObjectiveExamine how COVID‐19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsBibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US‐based physician first and last authors of COVID‐19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM‐specific journals.Main Outcome and MeasuresWe characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM‐specific journals.ResultsDuring the study period, 853 manuscripts with US‐based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US‐based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women.ConclusionsAcross COVID‐19‐related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high‐impact general medical journals. HM‐specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

AbstractContextHypercalcemia is a common complication of malignancy that is associated with high morbidity and mortality.ObjectiveTo support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of hypercalcemia of malignancy in adults.MethodsWe searched multiple databases for studies that addressed 8 clinical questions prioritized by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Quantitative and qualitative synthesis was performed. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess certainty of evidence.ResultsWe reviewed 1949 citations, from which we included 21 studies. The risk of bias for most of the included studies was moderate. A higher proportion of patients who received bisphosphonate achieved resolution of hypercalcemia when compared to placebo. The incidence rate of adverse events was significantly higher in the bisphosphonate group. Comparing denosumab to bisphosphonate, there was no significant difference in the rate of patients who achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Two-thirds of patients with refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy who received denosumab following bisphosphonate therapy achieved resolution of hypercalcemia. Addition of calcitonin to bisphosphonate therapy did not affect the resolution of hypercalcemia, time to normocalcemia, or hypocalcemia. Only indirect evidence was available to address questions on the management of hypercalcemia in tumors associated with high calcitriol levels, refractory/recurrent hypercalcemia of malignancy following the use of bisphosphonates, and the use of calcimimetics in the treatment of hypercalcemia associated with parathyroid carcinoma. The certainty of the evidence to address all 8 clinical questions was low to very low.ConclusionThe evidence summarized in this systematic review addresses the benefits and harms of treatments of hypercalcemia of malignancy. Additional information about patients’ values and preferences, and other important decisional and contextual factors is needed to facilitate the development of clinical recommendations.