Citations

Radiopharmaceuticals are rapidly developing as a field, with the successful use of targeted beta emitters in neuroendocrine tumors and prostate cancer serving as catalysts. Targeted alpha emitters are in current development for several potential oncologic indications. Herein, we review the three most prevalently studied conjugated/chelated alpha emitters (225actinium, 212lead, and 211astatine) and focus on contemporary clinical trials in an effort to more fully appreciate the breadth of the current evaluation. Phase I trials targeting multiple diseases are now underway, and at least one phase III trial (in selected neuroendocrine cancers) is currently in the initial stages of recruitment. Combination trials are now also emerging as alpha emitters are integrated with other therapies in an effort to create solutions for those with advanced cancers. Despite the promise of targeted alpha therapies, many challenges remain. These challenges include the development of reliable supply chains, the need for a better understanding of the relationships between administered dose and absorbed dose in both tissue and tumor and how that predicts outcomes, and the incomplete understanding of potential long-term deleterious effects of the alpha emitters. Progress on multiple fronts is necessary to bring the potential of targeted alpha therapies into the clinic.

PURPOSE Uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS) is an aggressive subtype of soft-tissue sarcoma with frequent metastatic relapse after curative surgery. Chemotherapy provides limited benefit for advanced disease. Multiomics profiling studies have identified homologous recombination deficiency in uLMS. In preclinical studies where olaparib and temozolomide provided modest activity, the combination was highly effective for inhibiting uLMS tumor growth. PATIENTS AND METHODS NCI Protocol 10250 is a single-arm, open-label, multicenter, phase II study evaluating olaparib and temozolomide in advanced uLMS. Patients with progression on ≥1 prior line received temozolomide 75 mg/m2 orally once daily with olaparib 200 mg orally twice a day both on days 1-7 in 21-day cycles. The primary end point was the best objective response rate (ORR) within 6 months. A one-stage binomial design was used. If ≥5 of 22 responded, the treatment would be considered promising (93% power; α = .06). All patients underwent paired biopsies that were evaluated with whole-exome sequencing (WES)/RNAseq and a RAD51 foci formation assay. RESULTS Twenty-two patients were evaluable. The median age was 55 years, and 59% had received three or more prior lines. Best ORR within 6 months was 23% (5 of 22). The overall ORR was 27% (6 of 22). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.4 months to not estimable). Hematologic toxicity was common (grade 3/4 neutropenia: 75%; thrombocytopenia: 32%) but manageable with dose modification. Five of 16 (31%) of tumors contained a deleterious homologous recombination gene alteration by WES, and 9 of 18 (50%) were homologous recombination-deficient by the RAD51 assay. In an exploratory analysis, mPFS was prolonged for patients with homologous recombination-deficient versus homologous recombination-proficient tumors (11.2 v 5.4 months, P = .05) by RAD51. CONCLUSION Olaparib and temozolomide met the prespecified primary end point and provided meaningful clinical benefit in patients with advanced, pretreated uLMS.

PURPOSE Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is largely considered a nonimmunogenic malignancy; however, approximately 1%, of patients may have tumors with deficient mismatch repair, high microsatellite instability, or high tumor mutational burden (TMB ≥10 mutations/Mb), which may be predictive of response to immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. We sought to analyze outcomes of patients with high-TMB and pathogenic genomic alterations observed in this population. METHODS This study included patients with PDAC who underwent comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) at Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA). Clinical data were obtained from a US-wide real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database. We report genomic alterations in those with high and low TMB, and compare outcomes on the basis of receipt of single-agent ICI or therapy regimens not containing ICI. RESULTS We evaluated 21,932 patients with PDAC who had tissue CGP data available, including 21,639 (98.7%) with low-TMB and 293 (1.3%) with high-TMB. Among patients with high-TMB, a greater number of alterations were observed in BRCA2, BRAF, PALB2, and genes of the mismatch repair pathway, whereas fewer alterations were observed in KRAS. Among patients who received an ICI (n = 51), those with high-TMB had more favorable median overall survival when compared with the low-TMB subset (25.7 v 5.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.91; P = .034). CONCLUSION Longer survival was observed in patients with high-TMB receiving ICI compared with those with low-TMB. This supports the role of high-TMB as a predictive biomarker for efficacy of ICI therapy in PDAC. Additionally, we report higher rates of BRAF and BRCA2 mutations and lower rates of KRAS mutation among patients with PDAC and high-TMB, which to our knowledge, is a novel finding.

Summary: Although robotic surgery has been routinely established in other surgical disciplines, robotic technologies have been less readily adopted in plastic surgery. Despite a strong demand for innovation and cutting-edge technology in plastic surgery, most reconstructive procedures, including microsurgery, have continued to necessitate an open approach. Recent advances in robotics and artificial intelligence, however, are gaining momentum and have shown significant promise to improve patient care in plastic surgery. These next-generation surgical robots have the potential to enable surgeons to perform complex procedures with greater precision, flexibility, and control than previously possible with conventional techniques. Successful integration of robotic technologies into clinical practice in plastic surgery requires achieving key milestones, including implementing appropriate surgical education and garnering patient trust.

Background: The bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) exhibits abnormal geometry and transvalvular flow and is susceptible to calcification with subsequent cardioembolic stroke from calcific embolic material. However, the description of embolic ischemic strokes in patients with BAV is limited to case reports. Methods: Consecutive patients from 1975-2015 with BAV (n=5401) at our institution were retrospectively identified. Patients with ischemic stroke before aortic valve replacement (AVR) were analyzed, and the stroke was characterized. Patients were grouped according to stroke etiology: calcific embolism from a BAV (BAV stroke); large artery atherosclerotic or lacunar stroke (LA stroke); and non-BAV, non-large artery embolic stroke (nLA stroke). Results: There were 83/5401 (1.5%) patients with ischemic stroke. Mean age was 54 ± 12 years and 28% were female. Stroke etiology was BAV stroke in 26/83 (31%), LA stroke in 23/83 (28%), nLA stroke in 30/83 (36%), and other in 4/83 (5%). Stroke was embolic in 72/83 (87%), as shown in Figure 1. CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score was not different in patients with BAV stroke (1.4 ± 1.2) versus nLA stroke (1.8 ± 1.2, p=0.188) but was higher in LA stroke (2.3 ± 1.2, p=0.005 vs. BAV stroke). Recurrent stroke occurred in 41% overall (50% BAV stroke vs. 30% LA stroke vs. 47% nLA stroke, both p=NS vs. BAV stroke). BAV stroke was more commonly located in the retinal circulation (39% BAV stroke vs. 13% LA stroke [p=0.044] vs. 0% nLA stroke [p=0.002]). Patients with BAV and LA stroke were more likely to have moderate-to-severe aortic stenosis and undergo AVR sooner after stroke compared to patients with nLA stroke. Conclusions: Stroke is an important complication in patients with BAV. The most common type of stroke in BAV is embolic. Greater than one-third of embolic stroke resulted from embolism from a calcific aortic valve. Patients with BAV stroke commonly have a history of recurrent cerebral ischemic events, severe valvular disease, and proceed to AVR soon after stroke.

Introduction: Deep-learning artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can identify hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) from the electrocardiogram (ECG). Preliminary data indicate that AI-ECG may also track treatment response in HCM patients (pts) receiving mavacamten (Mava). In this placebo-controlled analysis, we investigated the performance of AI-ECG in HCM detection and its changes during Mava treatment compared to placebo in the phase 3, EXPLORER-HCM trial. Methods: Pts with non-paced ECGs enrolled in EXPLORER-HCM, evaluating Mava over 30 weeks of treatment, were included. All pts had a 12-lead ECG pre-treatment, at each study visit, and 8 weeks after treatment end. Two independently developed AI-ECG convolutional neural network algorithms from the Mayo Clinic and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) were applied to all ECGs suitable for analysis. Serial AI-ECG-predicted scores, which correlate with HCM likelihood (range 0-1), were examined between Mava and placebo groups. Results: A total of 101 Mava and 110 placebo pts were included (mean age 58.6, female 40%). At baseline, the mean Mayo and UCSF AI-ECG scores for HCM were 0.82 and 0.65, with 94% and 88% of pts exceeding the respective diagnostic thresholds of 0.11 (Mayo) and 0.4 (UCSF). During 30 weeks of follow-up in the Mava group, the algorithms showed a mean AI-ECG score reduction of 0.32 (Mayo) and 0.17 (UCSF) in all pts between start and end of treatment. In comparison, AI-ECG scores decreased by 0.05 (Mayo) and increased by 0.02 (UCSF) in the placebo group (Mava vs placebo, t-test p-values <0.001 for both algorithms; Figure ) Conclusion: In the EXPLORER-HCM trial population, two independent deep-learning AI-ECG algorithms correctly identified most HCM pts and demonstrated significant reductions in predicted HCM scores after treatment with Mava when compared to placebo. This relative normalization of the ECG suggests disease-modifying properties of Mava, deserving further investigation.

Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers, including esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, gastric, duodenal and distal small bowel, biliary tract, pancreatic, colon, rectal, and anal cancer, comprise a heterogeneous group of malignancies that impose a significant global burden. Immunotherapy has transformed the treatment landscape for several GI cancers, offering some patients durable responses and prolonged survival. Specifically, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) directed against programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), either as monotherapies or in combination regimens, have gained tissue site-specific regulatory approvals for the treatment of metastatic disease and in the resectable setting. Indications for ICIs in GI cancer, however, have differing biomarker and histology requirements depending on the anatomic site of origin. Furthermore, ICIs are associated with unique toxicity profiles compared with other systemic treatments that have long been the mainstay for GI cancer, such as chemotherapy. With the goal of improving patient care by providing guidance to the oncology community, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a panel of experts to develop this clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of GI cancer. Drawing from published data and clinical experience, the expert panel developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for healthcare professionals using ICIs to treat GI cancers, with topics including biomarker testing, therapy selection, and patient education and quality of life considerations, among others.

5512 Background: The multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 NCI-9944 study (NCT02595892) demonstrated that addition of ATR inhibitor (ATRi) berzosertib to gemcitabine increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared to gemcitabine alone (HR = 0.57, one-sided log-rank p = 0.044, which met the one-sided significance level of 0.1 used for sample size calculation). Final overall survival (OS) and corresponding biomarker analyses are reported here. Methods: Patients (pts) with platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer and unlimited previous lines of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-sensitive setting but no more than one line of cytotoxic therapy in the platinum-resistant setting, were randomized 1:1 to gemcitabine/berzosertib versus gemcitabine alone. Randomization was stratified based on platinum free interval (PFI), PFI≤3 months versus > 3 months. Crossover from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib was allowed upon disease progression by RECIST 1.1. OS was a secondary endpoint while preplanned exploratory correlative studies included assessment of DNA repair pathways and replication stress (RS) alterations by targeted gene sequencing and/or immunohistochemistry (IHC). Results: Seventy pts were randomly assigned to treatment with gemcitabine/berzosertib (34 pts) or gemcitabine alone (36 pts); 15 pts crossed over from gemcitabine to gemcitabine/berzosertib. At the final OS analysis (92.9% maturity), median follow-up was 53.2 weeks in the gemcitabine/berzosertib and 43 weeks in the gemcitabine alone groups. Median OS in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 59.4 weeks in the gemcitabine/berzosertib group versus 43.0 weeks in the gemcitabine alone group (HR 0.79, 90% CI 0.52-1.2, one-sided p = 0.18). However, when patients who crossed over to gemcitabine/berzosertib were excluded from analysis, a significant OS benefit was observed with gemcitabine/berzosertib (HR 0.60, 90%CI 0.37−0.97); HR was 0.26 (90% CI 0.1−0.7) in pts with PFI≤3 months and 0.89 (90%CI 0.50−1.59) in pts with PFI > 3 months. Furthermore, significant OS benefit was observed in pts with RS-low tumors (HR 0.39, 90%CI 0.17−0.91, defined as tumors harboring no genomic RS alterations related to loss of RB pathway regulation and/or oncogene-induced RS) but not in pts with RS-high tumors (HR 0.74, 90%CI 0.35−1.56). Additional targeted gene sequencing and IHC analyses as well as analyses adjusting for patient crossover will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: In the ITT population, gemcitabine/berzosertib did not significantly improve OS versus gemcitabine alone. Pts with PFI≤3 months and pts with RS-low tumors may derive a survival advantage from addition of berzosertib to gemcitabine in the platinum-resistant setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02595892 .

e17057 Background: Results from the VISION trial (NCT03511664) led to the approval of lutetium-177 (177Lu)–PSMA-617 for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This trial excluded patients with baseline cytopenias, thus safety in this frequently encountered patient population is unknown. We aimed to use real-world data to describe the tolerability of radioligand therapy in those with poorer bone marrow reserve. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients, who received a first dose of 177Lu–PSMA-617 at Mayo Clinic in the interval of April 26, 2022, to December 1, 2022. Patients were categorized as having poor marrow reserve on the basis of pre-treatment hematologic parameters, including: (1) an anemia cohort with hemoglobin (Hg) less than 9 g/dL, (2) a thrombocytopenia cohort with platelets (Plt) less than 100 x 109/L, (3) a leukopenia cohort with white blood cell count (WBC) less than 2.5 x 109/L, and (4) a multiple cytopenia cohort. These were exclusionary parameters from the VISION trial. Longitudinal laboratory data and clinical outcomes were collected and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: At data cutoff, 185 patients had received one or more doses of 177Lu, including 26 (14%) with at least one baseline cytopenia prior to their first cycle of treatment. In total, there were 19 (73%) patients with anemia, 3 (12%) with thrombocytopenia, 2 (8%) with leukopenia, and 2 (8%) with multiple cytopenias at baseline. The median number of cycles received thus far is 3, including 14 (54%) who are still receiving therapy and 12 (46%) who have permanently discontinued treatment. Median longitudinal changes in blood counts for the anemia cohort are presented in Table 1. Reasons for treatment discontinuation include: toxicity (n = 2), disease progression (n = 5), death (n = 4), or other (n = 1). Dose reductions or treatment delays for worsening myelosuppression were utilized in 3 (12%) and 5 (19%) patients, respectively. Transfusions of packed red blood cells or platelets were required for 16 (62%) patients. A total of 6 (23%) received care in the emergency department or were hospitalized. Conclusions: Treatment discontinuation for toxicity was rare among men with mCRPC and baseline cytopenias, while receiving 177Lu; however, these patients have an overall poor prognosis. [Table: see text]

4146 Background: Currently, ICI therapy is recommended for patients with metastatic PDAC whose tumors exhibit dMMR, MSI-H, or high TMB (≥10 mutations/Mb). However, due to the low prevalence of high TMB in PDAC (~1%), few studies have evaluated the role of ICI therapy in this subpopulation. This study aimed to compare GA between PDAC patients with high TMB and low TMB ( < 10 mutations/Mb) and to evaluate the effectiveness of ICIs in real-world PDAC patients by TMB status. Methods: This study included PDAC patients who underwent genomic testing using Foundation Medicine tissue comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) assays. GA were compared between tissue specimens with high and low TMB by chi-squared, adjusted for multiple comparisons. Patient clinical data was obtained by the US-wide de-identified Flatiron Health and Foundation Medicine real-world clinicogenomic pancreatic database (CGDB), originated from ~280 US cancer clinics between 01/2011 and 09/2022. Real-world overall survival (OS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) were compared between patients receiving an ICI (high TMB versus low TMB) and between patients with high TMB (ICI versus other therapies) by Cox models. Results: We included 21,932 patients with PDAC with tissue CGP data available; 98.7% with low TMB and 1.3% with high TMB. Among actionable alterations, patients with high TMB had higher prevalence of mutations in BRCA2 (p < 0.0001), BRAF (p < 0.0001), PALB2 (p < 0.0001), and genes of the mismatch repair pathway ( MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, and PMS2, p < 0.0001), but lower prevalence of KRAS mutations (p < 0.0001). The most common KRAS mutation in both groups of patients was G12D. In CGDB, 51 patients received an ICI (10 with high TMB and 41 with low TMB) and 17 patients with high TMB received other therapies. Among patients receiving an ICI, those with high TMB had more favorable median OS compared to those with low TMB (25.7 versus 5.2 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 - 0.76, p = 0.01) and median TTD (20.7 versus 3.0 months, HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.13 - 0.82, p = 0.02). Among patients with high TMB, those receiving an ICI had more favorable OS compared to those receiving other therapies (25.7 versus 6.6 months, HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10-0.96, p = 0.043), nominally favoring ICI use in this small cohort (n = 10 versus 17). Conclusions: There is no randomized clinical trial evaluating ICI versus other therapies in PDAC. To our knowledge, this is the largest cohort to date comparing ICI effectiveness in PDAC. We observed more favorable OS among PDAC patients with high TMB receiving ICI versus those with low TMB who received an ICI and more favorable to those with high TMB receiving other therapies. This study supports the FDA-approved use of ICIs in patients with PDAC and high TMB and demonstrates the importance of TMB assessment for patients with PDAC.