Citations

Abstract Purpose: Genomic alterations in DNA damage repair (DDR) genes other than BRCA may confer synthetic lethality with PARP inhibition in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). To test this hypothesis, the phase II TRITON2 study of rucaparib included patients with mCRPC and deleterious non-BRCA DDR gene alterations. Patients and Methods: TRITON2 enrolled patients who had progressed on one or two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Key endpoints were investigator-assessed radiographic response per modified RECIST/PCWG3 and PSA response (≥50% decrease from baseline). Results: TRITON2 enrolled 78 patients with a non-BRCA DDR gene alteration [ATM (n = 49), CDK12 (n = 15), CHEK2 (n = 12), and other DDR genes (n = 14)]. Among patients evaluable for each endpoint, radiographic and PSA responses were observed in a limited number of patients with an alteration in ATM [2/19 (10.5%) and 2/49 (4.1%), respectively], CDK12 [0/10 (0%) and 1/15 (6.7%), respectively], or CHEK2 [1/9 (11.1%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively], including no radiographic or PSA responses in 11 patients with confirmed biallelic ATM loss or 11 patients with ATM germline mutations. Responses were observed in patients with alterations in the DDR genes PALB2, FANCA, BRIP1, and RAD51B. Conclusions: In this prospective, genomics-driven study of rucaparib in mCRPC, we found limited radiographic/PSA responses to PARP inhibition in men with alterations in ATM, CDK12, or CHEK2. However, patients with alterations in other DDR-associated genes (e.g., PALB2) may benefit from PARP inhibition. See related commentary by Sokolova et al., p. 2439

178 Background: The phase 2 TRITON2 study (NCT02952534) is evaluating the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in pts with mCRPC and a deleterious germline or somatic alteration in BRCA ( BRCA pts) or 1 of 13 other DNA damage repair (DDR) genes. Methods: Eligible pts had progressed on 1–2 lines of androgen receptor-directed therapy and 1 taxane-based chemotherapy. Deleterious DDR gene alterations were identified from central testing of plasma and/or tissue samples by Foundation Medicine or from local testing. Results: As of Jul 2, 2019 (visit cutoff), 98 BRCA pts had received rucaparib; median (range) duration of follow-up was 13.0 (4.1–25.8) mo. Confirmed objective response rate (ORR) in BRCA pts (with investigator-assessed measurable disease) and PSA response rates (in pts with and without measurable disease) are shown in the Table. A biallelic alteration was observed in 81.4% (35/43) of BRCA pts for whom zygosity could be determined, and pts with homozygous BRCA loss (20.4%; 20/98) demonstrated high ORR (66.7% [95% CI, 38.4-88.2]; 10/15) and PSA response rates (75.0% [95% CI, 50.9-91.3]; 15/20). The safety profile in BRCA pts was consistent with the overall TRITON2 pt population. Conclusions: Results from TRITON2 showed antitumor activity with rucaparib in pts with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration. Responses were observed in patients with germline or somatic alterations in BRCA1 or BRCA2. The activity of rucaparib in these and additional genomic subgroups (e.g., based on zygosity, plasma genomic testing, or co-occurring alterations) will be reported. Clinical trial information: NCT02952534. [Table: see text]

Objective To determine whether echocardiography-derived left ventricular filling pressure influences survival in patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods We retrospectively reviewed 1383 consecutive patients with severe AS, normal ejection fraction and interpretable filling pressure undergoing AVR. Left ventricular filling pressure was determined according to current guidelines using mitral inflow, mitral annular tissue Doppler, estimated right ventricular systolic pressure and left atrial volume index. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the influence of various parameters on mortality. Results Age was 75±10 years and 552 (40%) were female. Left ventricular filling pressure was normal in 325 (23%), indeterminate in 463 (33%) and increased in 595 (43%). Mean follow-up was 7.3±3.7 years, and mortality was 1.2%, 4.2% and 18.9% at 30 days and 1 and 5 years, respectively. Compared with patients with normal filling pressure, patients with increased filling pressure were older (78±9 vs 70±12, p<0.001), more often female (45% vs 35%, p=0.002) and were more likely to have New York Heart Association class III–IV symptoms (35% vs 24%, p=0.004), coronary artery disease (55% vs 42%, p<0.001) and concentric left ventricular hypertrophy (63% vs 37%, p<0.001). After correction for other factors, increased left ventricular filling pressure remained an independent predictor of mortality after successful AVR (adjusted HR 1.45 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.81), p=0.005). Conclusions Preoperative increased left ventricular filling pressure is common in patients with AS undergoing AVR and has important prognostic implications, regardless of symptom status. Future prospective studies should consider whether patients with increased filling pressure would benefit from earlier operation.

Background Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, small molecule inhibitor of anti-apoptosis protein Bcl-2 that has antitumoral activity against multiple myeloma (MM), notably those with translocation t(11;14). Dexamethasone (d) has shown to enhance the expression of BCL-2 and pro-apoptotic protein Bim, shifting its binding towards Bcl-2 and sensitizing MM cells to Ven. This Phase 1/2 open-label trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy of the combination of Ven+d as a therapeutic approach to improve clinical outcomes in patients with t(11;14) Relapsed/Refractory (R/R) MM. Methods This ongoing study (NCT01794520) has 2 distinct phases. Phase 1 (P1) consisted of separate dose escalation, safety expansion, and Ven+d combination cohorts. The phase 2 (P2) portion is an expansion cohort of Ven+d to further evaluate its efficacy. The safety and efficacy of the Ven+d cohorts from P1 and P2 are reported here. Eligible patients (pts) were adults with t(11;14) R/R MM ≥18 years of age. Key eligibility criteria for the Ven+d cohort in P1 included prior treatment with a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMID), and an ECOG score ≤1. In P2, eligibility included an ECOG score ≤2, disease progression on or within 60 days from the last dose on previous treatment and having received at least two lines of therapy with a PI, IMID, daratumumab, and glucocorticoids. Additional inclusion criteria for both phases included measurable disease and adequate bone marrow function in all pts, and the presence of t(11;14) determined by fluorescence in-situ hybridization. In both phases, pts received oral Ven 800 mg/day + oral d 40 mg (20 mg for pts ≥75 years of age) on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 21-day cycle. In P1, preliminary efficacy was assessed as the overall response rate (ORR), time to progression (TTP), progression free survival (PFS), and duration of response (DOR) of Ven+d based on the 2011 International Uniform Response Criteria for MM. Efficacy in P2 further evaluated ORR, very good partial response (VGPR) or better, PFS, DOR, TTP, and overall survival (OS) using 2016 IMWG response criteria. Results In P1, as of 15thApril, 2019, 20 pts were enrolled (17 [85%] male; median age, 63 years [range, 46-77]). The median number of prior therapies received was 2.5 (range: 1-7). Nineteen pts (95%) discontinued the study (18 due to progressive disease and 1 underwent transplant). The treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) are summarized in the Table. Most frequent TEAEs were insomnia (45%), hypophosphatemia (40%), hyperglycemia (35%), diarrhea (35%), and thrombocytopenia (30%). Predominant Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs included neutropenia (21%), lymphopenia (29%), and hypophosphatemia (20%). The most common serious TEAE was tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) (10%). No deaths were reported in the treatment-emergent period. ORR was achieved by 13 (65%) and ≥VGPR was achieved by 6 (30%) pts respectively. Partial response (PR) was observed in 7 (35%) pts and stable disease (SD) in 4 (20%) pts. Median time to first response was 1.4 mos (95% CI: 0.7, 2.8). The DOR was 13.1 mos (95% CI: 10.9, 21.9). Median PFS and TTP were both 12.4 mos (95% CI 3.6, 20.9). In P2, as of March 18, 2019, 31 pts were enrolled (18 [58%] male; median age, 65 years [range, 48-80]). The median number of prior therapies received were 5 (range: 1-9). Eight (26%) pts discontinued the study (6 deaths, 1 withdrew consent, 1 due to physician's decision). The most frequent TEAEs reported were diarrhea (32%), nausea (26%) and lymphopenia (32%). The most frequent Grade 3 or 4 TEAEs were lymphopenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (11%), and hypertension (10%). Most common serious TEAE was sepsis (10%). Six (19%) deaths were reported (5 due to progressive disease and 1 due to adverse event). In the intention to treat population, the median TTR was 0.7 mos (range: 0.6-1.5). ORR was achieved by 14 (45%) and &gt;VGPR was observed in 8 (26%) pts. PR was observed in 6 (13%) pts and SD in 8 (26%) pts. Median PFS, DOR, and OS were not reached at the time of data analysis. The 9-mo estimates for PFS, DOR, and OS were 57% (95% CI: 19% 82%), 66% (95% CI: 16%, 91%), and 71% (95% CI: 44%, 87%) respectively. Conclusion In both phases of this study, Ven+d was efficacious and demonstrated tolerable safety in pts with t(11;14) R/R MM. These results support further investigation of Ven combinations in this pt population. This combination is also being investigated in the ongoing Phase 3 trial M13-494 (CANOVA) in t(11;14) positive R/R MM. Disclosures Kaufman: Takeda: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy; Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University: Employment; Amgen: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Schjesvold:Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; MSD: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SkyliteDX: Honoraria. Moreau:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Facon:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Boise:Genentech Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding. Alzate:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Macartney:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Pesko:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Salem:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Pauff:AbbVie Inc: Employment, Other: may own stock or stock options. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment in multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Background: Overexpression of the anti-apoptotic BCL-2 protein promotes multiple myeloma (MM) cell survival. Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis and has shown synergistic activity with bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Phase 1 studies in relapsed/refractory (RR) MM demonstrated encouraging clinical efficacy of Ven + d in t(11;14) MM and in a broader patient (pt) population in combination with Bd. Recent results from the Phase 3 BELLINI study of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with RRMM demonstrated that pts treated with Ven + Bd had improved clinical response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs Pbo, although the overall survival (OS) result was in favor of Pbo. Subgroup analyses showed different efficacy and survival outcomes based on tumor cytogenetics and BCL-2 expression. Results of pre-specified subgroup analyses and additional retrospective correlative biomarker analyses in the Phase 3 BELLINI study are described herein. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a randomized, double-blind, multicenter Phase 3 study of Ven or Pbo + Bd in pts with RRMM who received 1-3 prior therapies and were either sensitive or naïve to PIs. Pts were randomized 2:1 to receive Ven 800 mg/day or Pbo + Bd. The following biomarker analyses were performed by central laboratory assessments of pre-treatment tumor samples: BCL-2 protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis of bone marrow (BM) core biopsies; BCL2 gene expression by quantitative PCR (qPCR) and cytogenetic abnormalities by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis of CD138-enriched BM mononuclear cells. Correlation between BCL-2 (protein and gene) expression, cytogenetics, and outcomes were examined by Kruskal-Wallis tests and by hazard ratio (HR) using the Cox proportional hazard model. Results: As of the data cut-off of 18 Mar 2019, 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Out of the 291 pts randomized, 177 pts (61%) were evaluable by IHC, 257 pts (88%) by qPCR, and 262 pts (90%) by FISH. A broad range of BCL2 gene expression was observed (median 2-DCt: 0.212 [range: 0-5.21]), which strongly correlated with protein expression (median 2-DCt 0.115 in BCL-2 IHC Low vs 0.277 in BCL-2 IHC High, p=0.0021). t(11;14) MM had the highest levels of BCL-2 expression (23/23 BCL-2 High by IHC; median 2-DCt 0.406 vs 0.212 in t(11;14) negative, p=0.0132), however high BCL-2 expression was not limited to the t(11;14) subgroup. Univariate analyses showed higher BCL2 expression in pt tumor samples with del(13q) (median 2-DCt 0.333 vs 0.159 in pts without del(13q), p=0.0008) and gain(1q) (median 2-DCt 0. 295 vs 0.180 in pts without gain(1q), p=0.0059). Bootstrapping and aggregating thresholds from trees (BATTing) was used retrospectively to identify an estimated threshold value for BCL2 expression (2-DCt ≥0.323) that could provide optimum selection of pts with maximum improvement in PFS when treated with Ven+Bd. Biomarker subgroups with the greatest PFS improvement were t(11;14) (HR=0.10; 95% CI: 0.02-0.46, p=0.003) and High BCL2 by qPCR (HR=0.26; 95% CI: 0.13-0.51, p&lt;0.001; Table 1). Since the t(11;14) and High BCL2 patient populations do not completely overlap (20% of High BCL2 pts were t(11;14) and 54% of t(11;14) were High BCL2), a combined subgroup analysis was performed. For pts with t(11;14) or High BCL2, the median PFS was not reached in the Ven arm vs 9.9 mo in Pbo (HR=0.26, 95% CI: 0.14-0.48, p&lt;0.001; Table 1). Higher overall response (ORR, 88% vs 70%), very good partial response or better (≥VGPR, 73% vs 33%), and complete response or better (≥CR, 42% vs 3%) rates were observed in the Ven vs Pbo arm (Table 2). Minimal residual disease negativity (MRD-, 10-5) rate was also higher for t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts in the Ven vs Pbo arm (19% vs 0%). Median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but was similar between treatment arms for the combined group with t(11;14) or High BCL2 pts (HR=0.92, 95% CI=0.39-2.16, p=0.85). In contrast, in the t(11;14) negative and Low BCL2 pts, OS favored Pbo (HR=3.13, 95% CI=1.2-8.13, p=0.019; Table 1). Conclusions: Adding Ven to Bd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with RRMM harboring either t(11;14) or tumor cells expressing high levels of BCL2. The benefit-risk profile appears to be favorable in these subsets of pts and additional studies to gain further safety and efficacy information are warranted. Disclosures Harrison: GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Cavo:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria; takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. De La Rubia:AMGEN: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy. Popat:Celgene Corporation: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; Janssen: Honoraria, Other: travel support to meetings; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses. Gasparetto:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed . Hungria:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Moreau:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Specialised Therapeutics Australia: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen Oncology: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. O'Dwyer:Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; GlycoMimetics Inc: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Onkimmune: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Garg:Janssen: Honoraria; Novartis, Janssen: Research Funding; Janssen, Takeda, Novartis: Other: Travel expenses. Punnoose:Roche: Other: Stock/stock options; Genentech, Inc.: Employment. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jia:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Yang:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Sun:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding. OffLabel Disclosure: Venetoclax is a BCL-2 inhibitor that is FDA-approved in some indications. This presentation will focus on venetoclax for treatment of multiple myeloma, which is not an approved indication.

Abstract BACKGROUND Aneurysm recurrence after coiling has been associated with aneurysm growth, (re)hemorrhage, and a greater need for follow-up. The second-generation HydroCoil Embolic System (HES; MicroVention, Inc) consists of a platinum core with integrated hydrogel and was developed to reduce recurrence through enhancing packing density and healing within the aneurysm. OBJECTIVE To compare recurrence between the second-generation HES and bare platinum coil (BPC) in the new-generation Hydrogel Endovascular Aneurysm Treatment Trial (HEAT). METHODS HEAT is a randomized, controlled trial that enrolled subjects with ruptured or unruptured 3- to 14-mm intracranial aneurysms amenable to coiling. The primary endpoint was aneurysm recurrence using the Raymond-Roy scale. Secondary endpoints included minor and major recurrence, packing density, adverse events related to the procedure and/or device, mortality, initial complete occlusion, aneurysm retreatment, hemorrhage from target aneurysm during follow-up, aneurysm occlusion stability, and clinical outcome at final follow-up. RESULTS A total of 600 patients were randomized (HES, n = 297 and BPC, n = 303), including 28% with ruptured aneurysms. Recurrence occurred in 11 (4.4%) subjects in the HES arm and 44 (15.4%) subjects in the BPC arm ( P = .002). While the initial occlusion rate was higher with BPC, the packing density and both major and minor recurrence rates were in favor of HES. Secondary endpoints including adverse events, retreatment, hemorrhage, mortality, and clinical outcome did not differ between arms. CONCLUSION Coiling of small-to-medium aneurysms with second-generation HES resulted in less recurrence when compared to BPC, without increased harm. These data further support the use of the second-generation HES for the embolization of intracranial aneurysms. Video Abstract

Background: Cosmetic treatment of the forehead using neuromodulators is challenging. To avoid adverse events, the underlying anatomy has to be understood and thoughtfully targeted. Clinical observations indicate that eyebrow ptosis can be avoided if neuromodulators are injected in the upper forehead, despite the frontalis muscle being the primary elevator. Methods: Twenty-seven healthy volunteers (11 men and 16 women) with a mean age of 37.5 ± 13.7 years (range, 22 to 73 years) and of diverse ethnicity (14 Caucasians, four African Americans, three Asians, and six of Middle Eastern descent) were enrolled. Skin displacement vector analyses were conducted on maximal frontalis muscle contraction to calculate magnitude and direction of forehead skin movement. Results: In 100 percent of investigated volunteers, a bidirectional movement of the forehead skin was observed: the skin of the lower forehead moved cranially, whereas the skin of the upper forehead moved caudally. Both movements converged at a horizontal forehead line termed the line of convergence, or C-line. The position of the C-line relative to the total height of the forehead was 60.9 ± 10.2 percent in men and 60.6 ± 9.6 percent in women (p = 0.941). Independent of sex, the C-line was located at the second horizontal forehead line when counting from superior to inferior (men, n = 2; women, n = 2). No difference across ethnicities was detected. Conclusions: The identification of the C-line may potentially guide practitioners toward more predictable outcomes for forehead neuromodulator injections. Injections above the C-line could mitigate the risk of neuromodulator-induced brow ptosis.

ABSTRACTCell‐based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell‐based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web‐based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell‐based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell‐based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell‐based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state‐of‐the art in cell‐based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell‐based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 38:485–502, 2020

Background: The efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been well established. However, there have been limited data for revision TKAs. The primary aim was to assess the impact of intravenous TXA on transfusion rates and symptomatic venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) in a large revision TKA cohort with or without intravenous TXA utilization. Methods: A retrospective review of revision TKAs performed from 2005 to 2014 was performed, identifying 2,951 procedures (2,219 patients), in which TXA was utilized in 1,144 procedures (39%). The mean age was 65 years with 52% female patients in the TXA revision group and 67 years with 52% female patients in the non-TXA revision group. Transfusion rates and symptomatic VTEs were the primary outcomes assessed. Comparisons were performed between cohorts, utilizing a unique propensity model to mitigate bias, on the basis of TXA use and subsequently for aseptic or septic revision etiology. Results: Significant reductions in transfusion rates with use of TXA were identified in revision TKAs overall (13% compared with 39%; p < 0.001 [adjusted relative risk, 1.7]), including revisions for both aseptic etiology (6% with TXA compared with 28% without TXA; p < 0.001) and septic etiology (31% with TXA compared with 54% without TXA; p < 0.001). The risk of a postoperative symptomatic VTE was not significantly different (adjusted p = 0.63) with use of TXA at 11 events (1.0%) compared with 24 events (1.3%) in the non-TXA group). Conclusions: Intravenous TXA significantly reduced transfusion rates in revision TKAs by approximately twofold, including cohorts revised for aseptic and septic etiologies. There was a very low rate of VTEs (1.2%) with no significant difference in the number of VTEs between groups after adjusting risk utilizing propensity modeling. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Abstract Background Transcatheter edge-to-edge mitral valve repair (TMVR; MitraClip, Abbott Vascular) is clinically approved for treatment of severe, symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR) in high or prohibitive surgical risk patients. Iatrogenic mitral stenosis is a known complication of TMVR, but determinants of increased post-procedure mean diastolic gradient are not well defined. Purpose We aimed to investigate the determinants of increased mitral mean diastolic gradient after TMVR. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 59 patients. 2D and 3D TEE data sets acquired before and immediately after procedure were analyzed. 4D Cardio-View and 4D MV-Assessment (TomTec, Germany) were used for the analysis of the 3D volume data set. Quantitative mitral valve analysis was done at the end of systole. Increased mitral mean diastolic gradient after TMVR was correlated with pre-procedure 2D and 3D echocardiographic data. Results 34 patients had primary MR, 25 patients had mixed/secondary MR. Baseline mean mitral diastolic gradient was 2.0 ± 0.9mmHg and increased to 3.9 ± 1.8mmHg post-TMVR and the mean 3D planimetric mitral valve area decreased from 5.3 ± 1.5cm2 to 2.6 ± 1.0cm2. Implantation of multiple clips was performed less frequently in patients with smaller baseline mitral valve area; 8% vs 47% in the lowest quartile vs all others (p = 0.006). 12(20%) of patients had a mean diastolic gradient &gt;5mmHg post-TMVR and 15(25%) of patients had a post-TMVR mitral valve area &lt;2.0 cm2. There was no significant difference in post-procedure heart rate between patients with mean diastolic gradient ≤5mmHg vs &gt;5mmHg (p = 0.08). Patient characteristics according to post-TMVR mean diastolic gradient are shown in the Table. Post-TMVR mean diastolic gradient &gt;5mmHg was more common in patients with increased pre-procedure mean diastolic gradient(p = 0.006), post-TMVR mitral valve area &lt;2.0 cm2(40% vs 14%, p = 0.03), and ≥moderate residual mitral regurgitation(38% vs 11%, p = 0.02). Post-TMVR mitral valve area &lt;2.0cm2 was present in 50% vs 19% of patients with vs without a mean gradient &gt;5mmHg(p = 0.04). Conclusions Elevated post-TMVR mean diastolic gradient is multifactorial and related to mitral stenosis, but residual mitral regurgitation also appears to be an important contributor to increased gradients in some patients. Larger cohorts are likely needed to assess the concurrent impact of mitral annular calcification, leaflet calcification, and other variables on post-TMVR mean gradient. Abstract P1798 Figure. 2D and 3D Echocardiographic Parameters