Kusne, Yael

AbstractBackgroundThere is a knowledge gap regarding lobar versus sublobar resection for atypical carcinoid (AC) of the lung. As such, the authors sought to understand and analyze the outcomes of sublobar resection versus lobectomy in this patient population.MethodsA retrospective analysis using the National Cancer Database was performed to compare overall survival (OS) between patients treated with lobectomy and patients treated with sublobar resection for AC of the lung between the years 2004 and 2016. Patient characteristics were compared with χ2 tests. The Kaplan–Meier method was used to estimate OS distributions, and the log‐rank test was used to compare distributions by treatment strategy. A multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess associations between the treatment strategy and OS. A propensity score matching method was also implemented to further eliminate treatment selection bias in the study sample.ResultsThe database identified 669 patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 lung ACs that were surgically resected. Unadjusted Kaplan–Meier survival curves did not demonstrate an OS difference between lobectomy and sublobar resection (p = .094). After propensity score matching, curves demonstrated a numerical improvement in OS with lobectomy; however, it was not statistically significant (p = .5). In a subgroup analysis, lobectomy and node‐negative disease were associated with the best OS, whereas sublobar resection and node‐positive disease were associated with the worst OS (p < .0001). Nodal involvement was associated with worse survival, regardless of surgical treatment (p < .0001).ConclusionsIn patients with T1–T4 and N0–N3 ACs of the lung, lobectomy was not associated with an improvement in OS in comparison with sublobar resection.

Abstract Minimal residual disease (MRD) assays allow response assessment in patients with multiple myeloma (MM), and negativity is associated with improved survival outcomes. The role of highly sensitive next generation sequencing (NGS) MRD in combination with functional imaging remains to be validated. We performed a retrospective analysis on MM patients who underwent frontline autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). Patients were evaluated at day 100 post-ASCT with NGS MRD and positron emission tomography (PET-CT). Patients with ≥ 2 MRD measurements were included in a secondary analysis for sequential measurements. 186 patients were included in the analysis. At day 100, 45 (24.2%) patients achieved MRD negativity at a sensitivity threshold of 10− 6. MRD negativity was the most predictive factor for longer time to next treatment (TTNT). Negativity rates did not differ according to MM subtype, R-ISS Stage nor cytogenetic risk. PET-CT and MRD positivity had poor agreement. Patients with sustained MRD negativity had longer TTNT, regardless of baseline risk characteristics. Our results show that the “real world” ability to measure deeper and sustainable responses distinguishes a subpopulation of patients with better outcomes. Achieving MRD negativity was the strongest prognostic marker and could help guide therapy-related decisions and serve as a response marker for clinical trials.

Abstract Background: SARS-Cov-2 infections are associated with increased mortality and morbidity, largely due to inflammatory cascades and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential (CHIP) is defined by the presence and subsequent expansion of somatic, leukemia-associated driver mutations in apparently healthy individuals with normal blood counts. CHIP has been associated with increased inflammation, with cytokines such as IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a being elevated at baseline in affected individuals. We hypothesized that the presence of CHIP in patients with COVID-19 would result in excessive inflammation-related mortality and morbidity. Methods: We used the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 database to identify patients with COVID-19 on whom peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC) were available for research use (IRB approved). We carried out target-capture next generation sequencing for 220 CH related genes, by previously described methods (1000 x coverage, variant allele fraction/VAF detection limit &gt;0.5%; Kusne Y et al AJH 2021). CHIP was defined by the presence of a CH mutation with a VAF&gt;1% in an individual with normal baseline blood counts. Demographics, blood counts, and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokine levels- ELISA assay) at COVID-19 diagnosis and during follow-up (as clinically indicated) were collected. COVID-19 disease severity was classified based on the presence and severity of CRS, graded using the Penn Grading Scale (Porter et. al., 2018), and the WHO ordinal scale (WHO Blueprint, 2020). We used Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank sum test to compare categorical and continuous variables. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. We accounted for differences in age and sex using multivariable-adjusted proportional hazards regression models. Results: Seventy-two CHIP mutations were detected in 56 (25%) of the 227 patients with COVID-19 that had PBMC available; median age 69 years (range; 42-99 years), 61% male. Fifteen (26%) patients had 2 CHIP mutations, while 1 patient had 3 CHIP mutations. Common mutations encountered included DNMT3A (32%) , TET2 (19%) , SF3B1 (8%) , ASXL1 (6%) , MPL (5%) , and TP53 (5%; Figure 1A). COVID-19 patients with CHIP were older in age (median 69 vs 57 years; p&lt;0.0001) and had higher baseline MCP-1 (p=0.04) levels. However, there were no differences in sex, comorbidities, blood counts, IL1-b, IL6 and TNF-a levels between the two groups. The median follow-up for the entire cohort was 9 months. The relative change from baseline in blood counts and inflammatory markers (CRP and cytokines) during follow-up was similar in CHIP and non-CHIP patients, with the exception that COVID-19-onset neutropenia was more common in CHIP patients (8% vs 1%; p=0.017) compared to those without CHIP. At last follow up neutropenia had resolved in all patients. Both groups had comparable number of patients with CRS (61% CHIP vs 53% non-CHIP patients, p=0.354, Figure 1B), however, CHIP patients had more severe CRS (median Penn Grade 3 versus 2 in non-CHIP, p=0.018, Figure 1C). Based on the WHO ordinal scale, CHIP patients were more likely to experience hospitalization with severe disease and death (61% versus 45% in non-CHIP, p = 0.049). Moreover, COVID-19 CHIP patients experienced worse overall survival in comparison to patients without CHIP (median 13.1 months vs not reached, p&lt;0.001, Figure 1D). This association remained consistent after adjusting for age and sex at the time of COVID-19 diagnosis (HR 3.15, 95% 1.32 - 7.55, p = 0.010). At last follow-up, 22 deaths were documented: 13 (23%) in patients with CHIP and 9 (5%) in the non-CHIP group (p=0.02), with the primary cause for mortality being hypoxic respiratory failure (62% in CHIP vs 44% non-CHIP, p=0.04). Conclusions: In this study, we observe an age-independent impact of CHIP on COVID-19 associated inflammatory morbidity (CRS) and mortality (hypoxemic respiratory failure). We are currently carrying out detailed single cell (ssDNA, RNA and ATAC-seq) and proteomic studies (O-link PEA assays) to better elucidate this pathophysiology. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Patnaik: Kura Oncology: Research Funding; StemLine: Research Funding.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk for venous thromboembolic events. Thrombotic events contribute to the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 infection, and have prompted investigation into strategies for mitigating thrombosis risk in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection. Our team reviewed the charts of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 pneumonia at a tertiary hospital in metropolitan Phoenix Arizona between 2020-2021, to assess frequency and efficacy of utilizing a VTE prophylaxis algorithm designed to prevent thrombosis in patients infected with COVID-19. Methods: A total of 846 patients were retrospectively evaluated to determine if they were treated with guideline-appropriate anticoagulation while hospitalized with COVID-19, as well as if they developed venous or arterial thrombotic events, or major or minor bleeds. 317 patients were excluded for taking therapeutic anticoagulation prior to admission, or for having a COVID-19 diagnosis &gt;7 days after admission. Appropriate anticoagulation was determined by an institutionally designed COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm, based on platelet count, d-dimer, bleeding risk, and level of medical care required. Regimen options included: no anticoagulation, prophylactic enoxaparin (40 mg SQ daily) or heparin in the setting of kidney dysfunction, weight-based dosing of enoxaparin (40 mg SQ BID if BMI&gt;40), intermediate intensity enoxaparin without thrombus (30 mg BID if BMI&lt;40, or 40 mg BID if BMI&gt;40), and therapeutic anticoagulation (for example enoxaparin 1 mg/kg BID) with thrombus. Demographics: Demographic data and clinical characteristics were collected for 529 patients. Average age was 59 years old, and the majority were men (58.4%). Most patients were White (58.3%), followed by Hispanic (17.8%), or Native American (15.7%). Fewer patients had a normal BMI (21.3%; BMI 18.5 - 24.9) compared to those who were overweight (31.2%; BMI 25-29.9) or obese (43.1% BMI &gt; 30). Other comorbidities included Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes mellitus (N= 172, 32.5%), hypertension (N = 271, 51.2%), and hyperlipidemia (N = 176, 33.3%). Results: A total of 42 patients (8%), were diagnosed with a venous thrombosis during hospitalization. Patients admitted to the ICU were significantly more likely to have a thrombotic event of any type compared to non-ICU patients (21.6% to 5.7%; p &lt; 0.001). Specifically, critically ill patients had higher incidences of deep vein thrombosis (9.5% to 0.7%), pulmonary emboli (8.1% to 4.8%), and superficial thrombi (2.7% to 0.2%). Only 1.1% of patients (6/529) experienced any bleeding, of which 3 were classified as a major bleed. Discussion: Among patients hospitalized at our institution with COVID-19, the majority were anticoagulated appropriately according to the COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm. Overall incidence of thrombosis in the study population was 8%. A significantly higher percent of critically ill patients had thrombi, supporting reports of correlation between severity of illness and thrombosis risk. The two regimens of anticoagulation least adhered to were weight-based and intermediate-based dosing, likely reflecting a departure from the hospital's thromboprophylaxis regimens prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies are needed to characterize whether identifiable risk factors correlate with the incidence of thrombosis, and whether treatment with lower than recommended doses of anticoagulation, based on the COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis algorithm, were associated with thrombosis. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.