Citations

732 Background: Ampullary carcinoma (AC) is a rare malignancy arising from the ampulla of Vater which has a more favorable prognosis compared to other pancreatic malignancies. Current guidelines favor surgical resection followed by adjuvant therapy for average risk patients (pts), however the type of regimen as well as other perioperative treatment modalities are still being explored. The objective of this retrospective study aims to provide insight into the management of locoregional disease. Methods: Pathology records from Mayo Clinic (AZ, FL, MN) denoting AC between 2010 to 2024 were searched using Mayo Data Explorer and selected for retrospective review. Pt demographics, treatment courses, and next generation sequencing (NGS) data were collected. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS version 9.04. Results: A total of 137 pts (62% male, n = 85) were identified with median age 66 years old. Histologic subtypes were 54% pancreatobiliary (44/81), 40% intestinal (32/81), 6% mixed (5/81), with 56 pts unknown. Stages at diagnosis were 81% resectable (111/137), 11% locally advanced (15/137), and 8% metastatic (11/137). Nearly all (93%, n = 103/111) pts with localized disease had resection with a 97% R0 resection rate (100/103). Majority (68%, n = 75/111) of resectable pts had perioperative chemotherapy with 5-FU or gemcitabine-based regimens (24%, n = 18/75 neoadjuvant vs. 76%, n = 57/75 adjuvant). Perioperative chemoradiation was given in 17% (19/111) of pts. At median follow up of 30.5 months, recurrence rates were 40% (41/103), primarily to the liver (18/41). Median recurrence free survival (RFS) was 29.3 months (95% CI 24.7 – NE). Median overall survival (OS) has not been reached. The 5-year RFS and OS rates were 0.37 (95% CI 0.25 - 0.55) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.58 - 0.82), respectively. Univariate analysis showed no difference in OS with the addition of neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation. Somatic NGS testing showed pathogenic mutations in 90% of pts (63/70): 57% KRAS (36/63; 44% G12D, 19% G12V, 8% G12C, 8% G12D, 19% others); 13% homologous recombination (HR) (8/63); 6% ERRB2 /Her2 amplification (4/63), and 5% mismatch repair (MMR) (3/63). Conclusions: AC has a favorable prognosis in resectable pts. However, high recurrence rates indicate the need for better systemic therapies and improved selection of pts who would benefit from these treatments. Future research should focus on refining perioperative strategies to enhance outcomes and reduce recurrence.

PURPOSE Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) is a rare and aggressive form of pancreatic cancer that originates in the acinar cells of the exocrine pancreas. In this study, we aimed to investigate the clinical and molecular characteristics of patients with PACC at our institution. METHODS This was a retrospective study of patients with PACC seen at Mayo Clinic between 2002 and 2023. Baseline patient characteristics, tumor pathology, treatment strategies used, and survival outcomes were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier curves were estimated using newsurv macros in SAS. RESULTS The study included a total of 65 patients with PACC. The median age at diagnosis was 66 years. Almost half of the patients (48%) presented with resectable/borderline-resectable disease (n = 28). Five-year overall survival (OS) for resectable/borderline-resectable, locally advanced/unresectable, and metastatic disease were 72.0%, 21.6%, and 20.9%, respectively. Somatic and germline next-generation sequencing identified numerous potentially actionable targets including homologous recombination (43% somatic, 33% germline), RAF alterations (29% somatic), and mismatch repair (14% somatic). CONCLUSION Our findings underscore the heterogeneity and aggressive nature of PACC. Despite the improved prognosis for patients with resectable/borderline-resectable disease, OS remains poor, particularly for those with locally advanced or metastatic disease. The identification of actionable molecular targets in a significant proportion of patients highlights the potential for personalized therapeutic approaches. Future research should focus on tailored treatment strategies to exploit these molecular vulnerabilities, which may offer new options for improving outcomes in this rare malignancy.

Abstract Dementia caregivers are at heightened risk for developing mental and physical health problems. Interventions designed to protect caregiver health often create additional demands on time and energy (e.g., exercise programs). Technology-based interventions (e.g., remote monitoring) can be effective, scalable, and do not add greatly to caregiver burden. Through a collaboration with a local technology company, Care Daily, we conducted two randomized controlled trials to evaluate People Power Caregiver (PPCg), a system of sensors in the home connected to cloud-based AI that alerts caregivers about worrisome deviations from normal patterns (e.g., care-recipient’s falls, wandering). Across two studies (study 1: 9-month duration with professional installation of PPCg; study 2: 6-month duration with caregiver self-installing the PPCg using remote tech support), 284 caregivers were recruited; 261 completed initial study deployment (e.g., system installation); and 235 completed the entire study protocol. Use of PPCg was associated with (a) reduced caregiver anxiety in study 1; (b) greater protection from declines in sleep efficiency in studies 1 and 2. These findings underscore the promise of technology-based intervention to mitigate health problems in dementia caregivers. However, challenges and complexities in recruitment (e.g., remote consenting both caregivers and care recipients), retention (e.g., due to changes in home environment or caregiving status), system installation (e.g., working with caregivers with less experience using technology), data quality assurance (e.g., invalid sensor data) as well as our efforts to overcome these challenges have been instructive. Lessons learned from these studies can provide useful guidance for future large-scale, technology-based interventions for dementia caregivers.

Abstract In the United States, over 2 million individuals openly identify with a gender that differs from their sex assigned at birth. A cancer diagnosis is physically and psychologically taxing—and, in some, traumatic. However, for transgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) people, many of whom have experienced discrimination in myriad health care settings, the challenges may be even greater. These recommendations focus on how best to deliver quality cancer care to transgender men (individuals who identify as men but were assigned female sex at birth), transgender women (individuals who identify as women but were assigned male sex at birth), and people who identify somewhere beyond this gender spectrum as nonbinary or using other terms, based on the available, albeit sparse, literature. This review broaches: (1) the epidemiology of cancer in TGD individuals, including the incidence of cancer and cancer‐related mortality; (2) cancer center practices that are welcoming and affirming to TGD patients; (3) the need for awareness and intentionality in the spaces of diagnosis and treatment for cancer; (4) the inevitable conclusion that gender differences exist but much more needs to be learned about the impact of gender‐affirming therapy, consisting of gender‐affirming surgeries and gender‐affirming hormone therapy, on cancer therapy; and (5) the efficacy and perceived safety of antineoplastic therapy and gender‐affirming hormone therapy.

Background: Cemsidomide (formerly CFT7455) is a novel, rationally designed, highly potent Ikaros Family Zinc Finger Protein 1/3 (IKZF1/3) MonoDACTM cereblon-based degrader. Cemsidomide has demonstrated best-in-class activity in multiple myeloma (MM) preclinical models and has also been shown to stimulate immune activation, providing combination rationale for various novel and standard of care therapies in MM. Methods: CFT7455-1101(NCT04756726) is an open-label, phase 1/2, multi-center, first-in-human study evaluating safety, efficacy, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD) of cemsidomide in patients (pts) with MM and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma who have relapsed from and/or are refractory to standard of care options. Eligible MM pts must have received lenalidomide, pomalidomide, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody. The primary objective of the MM phase 1 portion of the study is to characterize the safety and tolerability of cemsidomide alone and in combination with dexamethasone (DEX) and to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and/or recommended doses for phase 2. Secondary objectives include assessments of antitumor activity according to the International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) response criteria, PK, and PD. Dose escalation is guided by a Bayesian logistic regression model with an initial cohort size of 3-6 pts and a provision for additional pts to be enrolled in expansion cohorts at doses deemed safe. We report initial results from our ongoing cemsidomide plus DEX dose escalation arm. Results: As of July 3rd, 2024, 32 pts have been treated with cemsidomide at various doses plus DEX (20 or 40 mg weekly) in the ongoing dose escalation portion of the study. The median age was 64 (range 40-82) and pts had received a median of 6 prior lines of therapy (range 3-17). 21/32 (66%) of pts received prior treatment with a CAR-T or a bispecific antibody. 9/32 (28%) of pts had high-risk disease at screening and 6/32 (19%) of pts had extramedullary disease. Cemsidomide doses explored in dose-escalation and expansion cohorts included 50 µg MWF (n=6), 37.5 µg QD (n=12), 62.5 µg QD (n=10), and 75 µg QD (n=4), all on a 14 day on/14 day off dosing schedule. Systemic exposure of cemsidomide increased dose proportionally. At all dose levels, cemsidomide produced expected degradation of IKZF1 and IKZF3. To date only one dose-limiting toxicity has been observed (one pt in the 62.5 µg QD cohort experienced Grade 4 neutropenia lasting >7 days). 59% of pts experienced a grade ≥3 TEAE. Grade 3-4 TEAEs occurring in ≥10% of patients included neutropenia (34%), anemia (28%), infections (19%), lymphopenia (16%), and thrombocytopenia (13%). No pts experienced grade 3/4 fatigue, nausea, or vomiting. 5 pts have had treatment-related SAEs and 3 pts had an AE resulting in treatment discontinuation. As of the July 25th, 2024 efficacy cutoff, IMWG responses have been observed at all dose levels. The overall response rate among the 32 pts treated in dose escalation and expansion cohorts is 22% (1 sCR, 1 VGPR, and 5 PRs) with an additional 5 pts achieving minimal response (MR) for a clinical benefit rate of 38% (MR or better). To date, 2/4 (50%) pts in the 75 µg cohort have had a PR with expansion at 75 µg ongoing. Conclusions: Initial results from this ongoing phase 1 trial of cemsidomide in combination with DEX demonstrate encouraging efficacy and tolerability as an all-oral therapy in a heavily pre-treated MM population, with the majority of pts having received a CAR-T or bispecific antibody. As anticipated in MM, grade 3-4 toxicities consist largely of myelosuppression, which has been manageable. Given a favorable emerging safety profile and promising anti-myeloma activity, cemsidomide is potentially well suited to combine with other modalities, including proteosome inhibitors, monoclonal antibodies, antibody drug-conjugates and bispecific antibodies. Dose escalation will continue until an MTD and/or the recommended phase 2 doses are identified. Updated data will be presented at the conference.

Background: Despite recent major advances, multiple myeloma (MM) remains incurable using therapies that are currently available to patients. There are no available/approved targeted therapies for MM that allow for individualized therapeutic approaches to the disease. Fifteen to 20% of newly diagnosed MM patients have a translocation of chromosomes 4 and 14 [t(4;14)]. This translocation puts transcription of the gene encoding Multiple Myeloma SET domain-containing protein (MMSET or NSD2), a histone 3 lysine 36 methyltransferase, under the control of the IgH super enhancer. The super enhancer drives the overexpression of MMSET resulting in an abnormal histone code that promotes myelomagenesis. Presence of t(4;14) is associated with poor clinical prognosis (Caro Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2021). KTX-1001 is a first-in-class, selective and potent small molecule inhibitor of MMSET, and is the first investigational drug that targets the t(4;14) MM patient population. Methods: This Phase 1, first-in-human open-label study (NCT05651932) is designed to assess the safety, tolerability, and initial clinical activity of KTX-1001 in relapsed/refractory MM (RRMM) and has two parts: dose escalation (Part A) and dose expansion (Part B). In Part B, only t(4;14)+ MM patients will be evaluated in single agent and combination expansion cohorts. Patients with RRMM who have received ≥3 prior lines of therapy, including a proteasome inhibitor (PI), immunomodulatory drug (IMiD), and anti-CD38 antibody are eligible for the dose escalation part. The primary objective of the study is to determine a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) and schedule of KTX-1001. Secondary and exploratory objectives include pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) evaluation of KTX-1001, and assessment of preliminary efficacy. KTX-1001 is administered orally until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient withdrawal from the study. A Safety Review Committee (SRC) reviews all data prior to each dose escalation decision and on a regular basis. Results: As of June 14, 2024, 17 patients (pts) have been treated with KTX-1001 in Part A across 6 dose levels (SRC reviewed). Dose Level 7 has been reached with no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs). Ten of these patients are t(4;14) positive. Patients have received a median of 5 prior lines of therapy (range: 3-17), including 7 pts with prior BCMA CAR-T, 6 pts with prior BCMA bispecific and/or ADC, 5 pts with prior non-BCMA bispecific, and 12 pts with prior transplant. Patient demographics include a median age of 68 years (range: 50-83), 10 male/ 7 female, 13 white, 2 black or African American, 2 as other identified race, and 3 Hispanic or Latino pts. Six pts remain on treatment. KTX-1001 shows excellent tolerability to date, with treatment emergent AEs (TEAEs) (CTCAEv5.0) predominantly of grade 1 and 2 severity. Most frequently observed TEAEs suspected to be related to KTX-1001 include fatigue (35%), diarrhea (24%), and constipation (24%), for which no grade 3 or 4 events have been observed. Frequency and/or severity of TEAEs have not increased with escalating doses nor treatment duration, and no patients have discontinued due to an AE. Two heavily pre-treated patients [one known to be t(4;14)+] have demonstrated long-lasting stable disease and clinical benefit at 10 and 7 months respectively. Both patients have been intra-patient dose escalated. For PK and PD data collected to date, drug exposure and steady-state concentration of KTX-1001 (at C1D15, when steady state concentration has been reached) appear to be dose-proportional. PD data indicate a dose-dependent decrease in the H3K36me2 mark on treatment versus baseline across dose levels 1 through 6, suggesting that the RP2D may be reached by year end. Updated results will be presented at the congress. Conclusions: Dose escalation of KTX-1001 is ongoing with an excellent tolerability profile to date and demonstration of on-target pharmacodynamics that will inform the determination of the RP2D(s). These PD data support the targeted mechanism of action of KTX-1001 to selectively inhibit MMSET and break the t(4;14) histone code. Given KTX-1001's promising safety profile, single-agent and combination expansion cohorts with standard-of-care MM agents/classes will begin in 2025 to further optimize doses and provide proof of concept in Part B of the Phase 1 study.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Introduction: Metabolic equivalents (METs), a measure of energy use during a specified exercise intensity, and volume of oxygen consumed (VO2) are key measurements in cardiopulmonary exercise tests (CPETs). METs are traditionally converted to VO2 via multiplying METs by 3.5 ml/kg/min when VO2 data is not available, due to the fact that the latter requires more-expensive, accurate measurements of volume of inspired and expired oxygen and CO2. However, it is unclear which populations have significant variation between peak METs and peak VO2. Research Question: In a general cardiology population, do older women have a weaker relationship between peak METs and peak VO2? Methods: We present a retrospective study analyzing the relationship of peak METs and peak VO2 achieved on a CPET. Patients presenting to the cardiology clinic who received a CPET from 2017-2022 were included. Patients with severe valvular dysfunction, congenital heart disease, prior coronary artery bypass grafting, or ejection fraction < 50% were removed to limit confounding. A Spearman correlation coefficient was calculated for the whole sample comparing peak METs and peak VO2. Subsequently, a subgroup of women age 65 or greater were compared to the general sample by a fisher’s z transformation. Results: 1907 patients were included. There was a strong positive correlation between peak VO2 and peak METs in the whole sample (r(1860) = 0.914), p<0,001), shown in Figure 1. Women age 65 or greater had a weaker correlation (r(190)=0.808, p<0.0001) compared to the those who were not (r(1668) = 0.915, p<0.0001; z = -5.656, p<0.001), shown in Figure 2. Conclusions: Peak METs and peak VO2 have an extremely strong positive correlation in a general cardiology population. However, these relationships weaken for women age 65 or greater. METs are an accurate, cost-effective proxy measurement of VO2 in a general population, however may lack reliability for certain demographics.

Abstract Encephalitis with antibodies to leucine-rich glioma-inactivated 1 (LGI1-Ab-E) is a common form of autoimmune encephalitis, presenting with seizures and neuropsychiatric changes, predominantly in older males. More than 90% of patients carry the human leukocyte antigen (HLA) class II allele, HLA-DRB1*07:01. However, this is also present in 25% of healthy controls. Therefore, we hypothesized the presence of additional genetic predispositions. In this genome-wide association study and meta-analysis, we studied a discovery cohort of 131 French LGI1-Ab-E and a validation cohort of 126 American, British and Irish LGI1-Ab-E patients, ancestry-matched to 2613 and 2538 European controls, respectively. Outside the known major HLA signal, we found two single nucleotide polymorphisms at genome-wide significance (P &lt; 5 × 10−8), implicating PTPRD, a protein tyrosine phosphatase, and LINC00670, a non-protein coding RNA gene. Meta-analysis defined four additional non-HLA loci, including the protein coding COBL gene. Polygenic risk scores with and without HLA variants proposed a contribution of non-HLA loci. In silico network analyses suggested LGI1 and PTPRD-mediated interactions via the established receptors of LGI1, ADAM22 and ADAM23. Our results identify new genetic loci in LGI1-Ab-E. These findings present opportunities for mechanistic studies and offer potential markers of susceptibility, prognostics and therapeutic responses.