Citations

8509 Background: Venetoclax (Ven) is a selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor. In the Phase 3 BELLINI trial, addition of Ven to bortezomib (B) + dexamethasone (d) significantly improved response rates and progression-free survival (PFS) vs placebo (Pbo) and showed significant efficacy in patients (pts) with either t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression. Here we present updated safety and efficacy data from the prespecified second interim overall survival (OS) analysis. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind study (NCT02755597), pts with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with 1-3 prior lines of therapy were randomized 2:1 to Ven (800 mg) or Pbo in combination with B (1.3 mg/m2) and d (20 mg). The primary endpoint was PFS; key secondary endpoints included overall response and overall survival (OS). Results: 291 pts were randomized; 194 to Ven, 97 to Pbo. Pt characteristics were well balanced among arms. In the Ven arm, median age was 66, 17% had high-risk cytogenetics, 11% had t(11;14), and 34% had BCL2high gene expression. As of 13 Sept 2019, 59 pts were still on study, 45 (23%) Ven vs 14 (14%) Pbo. At a median follow-up of 28.6 months, there were 64 (33%) deaths in the Ven arm vs 24 (25%) in Pbo. At the initial data cutoff (26 Nov 2018), PFS HR was 0.63 (0.44,0.90) and OS HR was 2.03 (1.04,3.95). Table shows updated PFS and OS. Most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with Ven were diarrhea (59%), nausea (37%), and constipation (35%). Most common grade 3/4 AEs (Ven/Pbo) were neutropenia (21%/8%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), anemia (16%/15%), diarrhea (15%/12%), and pneumonia (18%/13%). Serious AEs occurred in 54% Ven and 52% Pbo pts. 24% discontinued Ven due to AEs vs 12% Pbo. There were 14 treatment-emergent deaths in the Ven arm and 1 in Pbo. Conclusions: The addition of Ven to Bd significantly improves PFS but resulted in increased mortality vs Pbo in the total population. Greatest PFS improvement with Ven was observed in pts with t(11;14) or BCL2high gene expression, where Ven shows a favorable benefit-risk profile. The study continues for final OS analysis. Clinical trial information: NCT02755597 . [Table: see text]

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 >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: Venetoclax (Ven) is a highly selective, potent, oral BCL-2 inhibitor that induces apoptosis in multiple myeloma (MM) cells and has shown synergistic activity with the proteasome inhibitor (PI) bortezomib (B) and dexamethasone (d). Ven ± d had encouraging clinical efficacy in both t(11;14) MM and in pts irrespective of genetic background when administered with B, with a tolerable safety profile in Phase 1 studies. Here, we provide updated efficacy and safety of Ven vs placebo (Pbo) + Bd in pts with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM, including subgroup analyses, in the BELLINI study. Methods: BELLINI (NCT02755597) was a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter 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. Cycles 1-8 were 21-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 4, 8, 11 + d 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12. Cycles 9+ were 35-day with B 1.3 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22 + d 20 mg Day 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent review committee (IRC). Results: A total of 291 pts were randomized, 194 to the Ven arm and 97 to the Pbo arm. Median age was 66 (range, 36 - 87); 53% had ISS II/III disease; 54% received 2 or 3 prior lines of therapy; 59% had prior stem cell transplant; 70% had prior PI, 68% had prior immunomodulatory drug, 41% had both. Among pts with evaluable results, 18% had high-risk cytogenetics, 13% had MM positive for t(11;14), and 79% had high levels of BCL-2 protein by immunohistochemistry (IHC). In the primary endpoint analysis per IRC, the median PFS was 22.4 months (m) in Ven vs 11.5 m in Pbo (HR=0.630, p=0.01), with a median follow-up of 18.7 m (as of 26 Nov 2018). As of updated analysis based on a data cut-off of 18 March 2019, the median PFS (per investigator [INV]) was 22.9 m in Ven vs 11.4 m in Pbo (HR=0.587, p=0.001; Table 1), with a median follow-up of 22.7 m. Per INV, higher overall response (ORR, 84% vs 70%, p=0.009) and very good partial or better response (≥VGPR, 61% vs 40%, p<0.001; Table 2) rates were observed in Ven vs Pbo. Minimal residual disease negativity rate (by next-generation sequencing) was also higher in the Ven arm vs Pbo (MRD- [10-5], 13% vs 1%). Median duration of response was 23.4 m for Ven and 12.8 m for Pbo. In the overall population, median overall survival (OS) was not reached in either arm but continued to favor Pbo (HR 1.474, 95% CI=0.870-2.498). A total of 70 deaths have been reported, 51 (26%) in the Ven arm and 19 (20%) in the Pbo arm. In the safety population (N=289), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; Ven/Pbo) were diarrhea (59%/48%), nausea (37%/22%), constipation (35%/31%), and fatigue (31%/32%). The most common Grade 3/4 TEAEs were neutropenia (18%/8%), pneumonia (17%/12%), anemia (16%/15%), thrombocytopenia (15%/30%), and diarrhea (15%/12%); 23%/12% discontinued Ven due to a TEAE. The rates of serious AEs (51%/51%) and serious infections (30%/28%) were comparable between arms. There were 69 deaths in the safety population: in the Ven arm, 14 were treatment-emergent (TE; treatment start to 30 days after discontinuation) and 36 were non-TE (>30 days after treatment discontinuation); in the Pbo arm, 1 was TE and 18 were non-TE. In the t(11;14) subgroup, median PFS has not been reached for pts receiving Ven, but was 9.3 m for Pbo (HR=0.095; per INV). In the t(11;14)-negative (neg) subgroup, median PFS was 22.4 m and 10.7 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=0.627; per INV). Median OS has not been reached in either arm for the t(11;14) and t(11;14)-neg subgroups, although the HR favored Ven in t(11;14) pts, and Pbo in t(11;14)-neg pts. Analyses indicate that low BCL-2 expression by IHC and high-risk cytogenetics (defined as t(4;14, t(14;16), or del(17p)) were associated with decreased PFS and OS in the Ven arm (Table 1). In the high-risk cytogenetics pts, median PFS was 11.4 m in both arms (HR=0.99), and median OS has not been reached in either arm but favors Pbo (HR=10.6). In the subgroup with low BCL-2 expression by IHC, median PFS was 11.7 m and 17.0 m for Ven and Pbo, respectively (HR=1.42), and median OS was 21.3 m in the Ven arm and not reached in Pbo (HR=4.58). Conclusions: Updated analysis of BELLINI continue to reflect a favorable benefit-risk profile in t(11;14) pts, with meaningful clinical responses and improvement in PFS, as well as a positive trend in OS in this subgroup when treated with Ven + Bd. Disclosures Moreau: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria. Harrison:Janssen Cilag: 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; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: investigator on studies, Research Funding; Novartis: 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:sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; 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; janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: travel accommodations, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; bms: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; novartis: Honoraria. De La Rubia:Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; AMGEN: Consultancy; AbbVie: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Gasparetto:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, accommodations, or other expenses paid or reimbursed ; Janssen: 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; Amgen: 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; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; 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; Amgen: 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; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Salwender:Amgen: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; Celgene: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations; AbbVie: Honoraria; Janssen Cilag: Honoraria, Other: Travel or accommodations. Suzuki:Ono: Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Gay:Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: 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; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala:Takeda: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding. Punnoose:Genentech, Inc.: Employment; Roche: Other: Stock/stock options. Hong:Genentech Inc.: Employment, Equity Ownership; Roche: Equity Ownership. Sood:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Jalaluddin:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ross:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Ward:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Maciag:AbbVie: Employment, Other: Stock/stock options. Kumar:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Takeda: 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.

Introduction: Over 500,000 bone grafting procedures are performed every year in the United States for neoplastic and traumatic lesions of the craniofacial skeleton, costing $585 million in medical care. Current bone grafting procedures are limited, and full-thickness critical-sized defects (CSDs) of the adult human skull thus pose a substantial reconstructive challenge for the craniofacial surgeon. Cell-based strategies have been shown to safely and efficaciously accelerate the rate of bone formation in CSDs in animals. The authors recently demonstrated that supraphysiological transplantation of macrophages seeded in pullalan–collagen composite hydrogels significantly accelerated wound healing in wild type and diabetic mice, an effect mediated in part by enhancing angiogenesis. In this study, the authors investigated the bone healing effects of macrophage transplantation into CSDs of mice. Methods: CD1 athymic nude mice (60 days of age) were anesthetized, and unilateral full-thickness critical-sized (4 mm in diameter) cranial defects were created in the right parietal bone, avoiding cranial sutures. Macrophages were isolated from FVB-L2G mice and seeded onto hydroxyapatite-poly (lactic-co-glycolic acid) (HA-PLGA) scaffolds (1.0 × 106 cells per CSD). Scaffolds were incubated for 24 hours before they were placed into the CSDs. Macrophage survival was assessed using three-dimensional in vivo imaging system (3D IVIS)/micro-CT. Micro-CT at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 8 weeks was performed to evaluate gross bone formation, which was quantified using Adobe Photoshop. Microscopic evidence of bone regeneration was assessed at 8 weeks by histology. Bone formation and macrophage survival were compared at each time point using independent samples t tests. Results: Transplantation of macrophages at supraphysiological concentration had no effect on the formation of bones in CSDs as assessed by either micro-CT data at any time point analyzed (all P > 0.05). These results were corroborated by histology. 3D IVIS/micro-CT demonstrated survival of macrophages through 8 weeks. Conclusion: Supraphysiologic delivery of macrophages to CSDs of mice had no effect on bone formation despite survival of transplanted macrophages through to 8 weeks posttransplantation. Further research into the physiological effects of macrophages on bone regeneration is needed to assess whether recapitulation of these conditions in macrophage-based therapy can promote the healing of large cranial defects.

Abstract In some cases, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) may be difficult to perform in patients with acute cholecystitis (AC) with severe inflammation and fibrosis. The Tokyo Guidelines 2018 (TG18) expand the indications for LC under difficult conditions for each level of severity of AC. As a result of expanding the indications for LC to treat AC, it is absolutely necessary to avoid any increase in bile duct injury (BDI), particularly vasculo‐biliary injury (VBI), which is known to occur at a certain rate in LC. Since the Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13), an attempt has been made to assess intraoperative findings as objective indicators of surgical difficulty; based on expert consensus on these difficulty indicators, bail‐out procedures (including conversion to open cholecystectomy) have been indicated for cases in which LC for AC is difficult to perform. A bail‐out procedure should be chosen if, when the Calot's triangle is appropriately retracted and used as a landmark, a critical view of safety (CVS) cannot be achieved because of the presence of nondissectable scarring or severe fibrosis. We propose standardized safe steps for LC to treat AC. To achieve a CVS, it is vital to dissect at a location above (on the ventral side of) the imaginary line connecting the base of the left medial section (Segment 4) and the roof of Rouvière's sulcus and to fulfill the three criteria of CVS before dividing any structures. Achieving a CVS prevents the misidentification of the cystic duct and the common bile duct, which are most commonly confused. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Management bundles that define items or procedures strongly recommended in clinical practice have been used in many guidelines in recent years. Application of these bundles facilitates the adaptation of guidelines and helps improve the prognosis of target diseases. In Tokyo Guidelines 2013 ( TG 13), we proposed management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Here, in Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18), we redefine the management bundles for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Critical parts of the bundles in TG 18 include the diagnostic process, severity assessment, transfer of patients if necessary, and therapeutic approach at each time point. Observance of these items and procedures should improve the prognosis of acute cholangitis and cholecystitis. Studies are now needed to evaluate the dissemination of these TG 18 bundles and their effectiveness. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract The Tokyo Guidelines 2013 (TG13) for acute cholangitis and cholecystitis were globally disseminated and various clinical studies about the management of acute cholecystitis were reported by many researchers and clinicians from all over the world. The 1 st edition of the Tokyo Guidelines 2007 ( TG 07) was revised in 2013. According to that revision, the TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis provided better specificity and higher diagnostic accuracy. Thorough our literature search about diagnostic criteria for acute cholecystitis, new and strong evidence that had been released from 2013 to 2017 was not found with serious and important issues about using TG 13 diagnostic criteria of acute cholecystitis. On the other hand, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis has been validated in numerous studies. As a result of these reviews, the TG 13 severity grading for acute cholecystitis was significantly associated with parameters including 30‐day overall mortality, length of hospital stay, conversion rates to open surgery, and medical costs. In terms of severity assessment, breakthrough and intensive literature for revising severity grading was not reported. Consequently, TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading were judged from numerous validation studies as useful indicators in clinical practice and adopted as TG 18/ TG 13 diagnostic criteria and severity grading of acute cholecystitis without any modification. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.

AbstractThe initial management of patients with suspected acute biliary infection starts with the measurement of vital signs to assess whether or not the situation is urgent. If the case is judged to be urgent, initial medical treatment should be started immediately including respiratory/circulatory management if required, without waiting for a definitive diagnosis. The patient's medical history is then taken; an abdominal examination is performed; blood tests, urinalysis, and diagnostic imaging are carried out; and a diagnosis is made using the diagnostic criteria for cholangitis/cholecystitis. Once the diagnosis has been confirmed, initial medical treatment should be started immediately, severity should be assessed according to the severity grading criteria for acute cholangitis/cholecystitis, and the patient's general status should be evaluated. For mild acute cholangitis, in most cases initial treatment including antibiotics is sufficient, and most patients do not require biliary drainage. However, biliary drainage should be considered if a patient does not respond to initial treatment. For moderate acute cholangitis, early endoscopic or percutaneous transhepatic biliary drainage is indicated. If the underlying etiology requires treatment, this should be provided after the patient's general condition has improved; endoscopic sphincterotomy and subsequent choledocholithotomy may be performed together with biliary drainage. For severe acute cholangitis, appropriate respiratory/circulatory management is required. Biliary drainage should be performed as soon as possible after the patient's general condition has been improved by initial treatment and respiratory/circulatory management. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47. Related clinical questions and references are also included.

Abstract Since the publication of the Tokyo Guidelines in 2007 and their revision in 2013, appropriate management for acute cholecystitis has been more clearly established. Since the last revision, several manuscripts, especially for alternative endoscopic techniques, have been reported; therefore, additional evaluation and refinement of the 2013 Guidelines is required. We describe a standard drainage method for surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis and the latest developed endoscopic gallbladder drainage techniques described in the updated Tokyo Guidelines 2018 ( TG 18). Our study confirmed that percutaneous transhepatic gallbladder drainage should be considered the first alternative to surgical intervention in surgically high‐risk patients with acute cholecystitis. Also, endoscopic transpapillary gallbladder drainage or endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage can be considered in high‐volume institutes by skilled endoscopists. In the endoscopic transpapillary approach, either endoscopic naso‐gallbladder drainage or gallbladder stenting can be considered for gallbladder drainage. We also introduce special techniques and the latest outcomes of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided gallbladder drainage studies. Free full articles and mobile app of TG18 are available at: http://www.jshbps.jp/modules/en/index.php?content_id=47 . Related clinical questions and references are also included.