Citations

Background: Brain metastases (BM) from differentiated thyroid cancer are rare. Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is commonly used for the treatment of BMs; however, the experience with SRS for thyroid cancer BMs remains limited. The goal of this international, multi-centered study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SRS for thyroid cancer BMs. Methods: From 10 institutions participating in the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation, we pooled patients with established papillary or follicular thyroid cancer diagnosis who underwent SRS for histologically confirmed or radiologically suspected BMs. We investigated patient overall survival (OS), local tumor control, and adverse radiation events (AREs). Results: We studied 42 (52% men) patients who underwent SRS for 122 papillary (83%) or follicular (17%) thyroid cancer BMs. The mean age at SRS was 59.86 ± 12.69 years. The mean latency from thyroid cancer diagnosis to SRS for BMs was 89.05 ± 105.49 months. The median number of BMs per patient was 2 (range: 1–10 BMs). The median SRS treatment volume was 0.79 cm 3 (range: 0.003–38.18 cm 3 ), and the median SRS prescription dose was 20 Gy (range: 8–24 Gy). The median survival after SRS for BMs was 14 months (range: 3–58 months). The OS was significantly shorter in patients harboring ≥2 BMs, when compared with patients with one BM (Log-rank = 5.452, p = 0.02). Two or more BMs (odds ratio [OR] = 3.688; confidence interval [CI]: 1.143–11.904; p = 0.03) and lower Karnofsky performance score at the time of SRS (OR = 0.807; CI: 0.689–0.945; p = 0.008) were associated with shorter OS. During post-SRS imaging follow-up of 25.21 ± 30.49 months, local failure (progression and/or radiation necrosis) of BMs treated with SRS was documented in five (4%) BMs at 7.2 ± 7.3 months after the SRS. At the last imaging follow-up, the majority of patients with available imaging data had stable intracranial disease (33%) or achieved complete (26%) or partial (24%) response. There were no clinical AREs. Post-SRS peritumoral T2/fluid attenuated inversion recovery signal hyperintensity was noted in 7% BMs. Conclusion: The SRS allows durable local control of papillary and follicular thyroid cancer BMs in the vast majority of patients. Higher number of BMs and worse functional status at the time of SRS are associated with shorter OS in patients with thyroid cancer BMs. The SRS is safe and is associated with a low risk of AREs.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disorders affect up to 25% of the general population and are associated with increased risk of adverse perioperative events. The key sleep medicine topics that are most important for the practice of anesthesiology have not been well-defined. The objective of this study was to determine the high-priority sleep medicine topics that should be included in the education of anesthesia residents based on the insight of experts in the fields of anesthesia and sleep medicine. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional survey of experts in the fields of sleep medicine and anesthesia based on the Delphi technique to establish consensus on the sleep medicine topics that should be incorporated into anesthesia residency curricula. Consensus for inclusion of a topic was defined as >80% of all experts selecting “agree” or “strongly agree” on a 5-point Likert scale. Responses to the survey questions were analyzed with descriptive statistical methods and presented as percentages or weighted mean values with standard deviations (SD) for Likert scale data. RESULTS: The topics that were found to have 100% agreement among experts were the influence of opioids and anesthetics on control of breathing and upper airway obstruction; potential interactions of wake-promoting/hypnotic medications with anesthetic agents; effects of sleep and anesthesia on upper airway patency; and anesthetic management of sleep apnea. Less than 80% agreement was found for topics on the anesthetic implications of other sleep disorders and future pathways in sleep medicine and anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: We identify key topics of sleep medicine that can be included in the future design of anesthesia residency training curricula.

Objectives: Topical vasoconstrictors and intravenous tranexamic acid (IV TXA) are safe and efficacious to decrease bleeding and improve the surgical field during endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS). The purpose of this study was to investigate practice patterns, awareness of clinical evidence, and comfort levels among anesthesia providers regarding these hemostatic agents for ESS. Methods: A total of 767 attending anesthesiologists, residents, and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) at 5 United States academic centers were invited to participate in a survey regarding their experience with IV TXA and 3 topical vasoconstrictor medications (oxymetazoline, epinephrine, and cocaine) during ESS. Results: 330 (47%) anesthesia providers responded to the electronic survey. 113 (97%) residents, 92 (83%) CRNAs, and 52 (68%) attendings managed 5 or fewer ESS cases per month. Two-thirds of providers had not reviewed efficacy or safety literature for these hemostatic agents. Oxymetazoline was perceived safest, followed by epinephrine, IV TXA, and cocaine. Respondents considered potential side effects over surgical field visibility when selecting agents. The majority of providers had no formal training on these agents for ESS, but indicated interest in educational opportunities. Conclusion: Many anesthesia providers are unfamiliar with safety and efficacy literature regarding agents used to improve hemostasis for ESS, highlighting a need for development of relevant educational resources. Rhinologic surgeons have an opportunity to communicate with anesthesia colleagues on the use of hemostatic agents to improve the surgical field during ESS.

AbstractBackgroundThe management of achalasia has improved due to diagnostic and therapeutic innovations. However, variability in care delivery remains and no established measures defining quality of care for this population exist. We aimed to use formal methodology to establish quality indicators for achalasia patients.MethodsQuality indicator concepts were identified from the literature, consensus guidelines and clinical experts. Using RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method, experts in achalasia independently ranked proposed concepts in a two‐round modified Delphi process based on 1) importance, 2) scientific acceptability, 3) usability, and 4) feasibility. Highly valid measures required strict agreement (≧ 80% of panelists) in the range of 7–9 for across all four categories.Key ResultsThere were 17 experts who rated 26 proposed quality indicator topics. In round one, 2 (8%) quality measures were rated valid. In round two, 19 measures were modified based on panel suggestions, and experts rated 10 (53%) of these measures as valid, resulting in a total of 12 quality indicators. Two measures pertained to patient education and five to diagnosis, including discussing treatment options with risk and benefits and using the most recent version of the Chicago Classification to define achalasia phenotypes, respectively. Other indicators pertained to treatment options, such as the use of botulinum toxin for those not considered surgical candidates and management of reflux following achalasia treatment.Conclusions & InferencesUsing a robust methodology, achalasia quality indicators were identified, which can form the basis for establishing quality gaps and generating fully specified quality measures.

Abstract Aims Acute pulmonary disorders are known physical triggers of takotsubo syndrome (TTS). This study aimed to investigate prevalence of acute pulmonary triggers in patients with TTS and their impact on outcomes. Methods and results Patients with TTS were enrolled from the International Takotsubo Registry and screened for triggering factors and comorbidities. Patients were categorized into three groups (acute pulmonary trigger, chronic lung disease, and no lung disease) to compare clinical characteristics and outcomes. Of the 1670 included patients with TTS, 123 (7%) were identified with an acute pulmonary trigger, and 194 (12%) had a known history of chronic lung disease. The incidence of cardiogenic shock was highest in patients with an acute pulmonary trigger compared with those with chronic lung disease or without lung disease (17% vs. 10% vs. 9%, P = 0.017). In-hospital mortality was also higher in patients with an acute pulmonary trigger than in the other two groups, although not significantly (5.7% vs. 1.5% vs. 4.2%, P = 0.13). Survival analysis demonstrated that patients with an acute pulmonary trigger had the worst long-term outcome (P = 0.002). The presence of an acute pulmonary trigger was independently associated with worse long-term mortality (hazard ratio 2.12, 95% confidence interval 1.33–3.38; P = 0.002). Conclusions The present study demonstrates that TTS is related to acute pulmonary triggers in 7% of all TTS patients, which accounts for 21% of patients with physical triggers. The presence of acute pulmonary trigger is associated with a severe in-hospital course and a worse long-term outcome.

Background Panobinostat (Pano), a pan-histone deacetylase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of relapsed or relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone (FVd) in patients who have received ≥2 prior lines of therapy, including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The pivotal phase 3 PANORAMA 1 trial, which used intravenous (i.v.) bortezomib, demonstrated significant progression-free survival benefit with FVd compared with placebo-Vd; however, adverse events (AEs) were also more frequent (San-Miguel J. et al., Lancet Oncol. 2014). The randomized phase 2 PANORAMA 3 study was conducted to optimize FVd by comparing three regimens with varying dose and schedule of Pano and by incorporating subcutaneous (s.c.) bortezomib. Methods PANORAMA 3 (NCT02654990) was a randomized, open-label, international, multicenter phase 2 study conducted in compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Eligible patients were ≥18 years old with 1‒4 prior lines of therapy, including an IMiD. Patients refractory to bortezomib were excluded. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to Pano 20 mg three times weekly (TIW; the currently approved dosing regimen; Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), Pano 20 mg twice weekly (BIW; Days 1, 4, 8, 11), or Pano 10 mg TIW (Days 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12), all administered in 21-day cycles. Randomization was stratified by number of prior treatment lines (1 vs 2 vs 3 or 4) and by age at screening (≤75 vs >75 years). For Cycles 1-4, all patients ≤75 years old received s.c. bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 BIW (Days 1, 4, 8, 11) and oral dexamethasone 20 mg (Days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12). Patients aged ≤75 years from Cycle 5 onwards, and patients >75 years for all cycles, received bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 weekly (Days 1 and 8) and dexamethasone 20 mg on Days 1, 2, 8, and 9. Patients were treated until progressive disease or death, or until discontinuation due to toxicity or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR; IMWG 2011 criteria) after up to 8 treatment cycles by Independent Review Committee assessment. Secondary endpoints included best response, time to response (TTR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. Results In total, 248 patients were randomized (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=82; 20 mg BIW, N=83; 10 mg TIW, N=83) and 241 patients received treatment (Pano: 20 mg TIW, N=79; 20 mg BIW, N=82; 10 mg TIW, N=80). Mean (SD) age was 65 (9) years; 55% of patients were male. Overall, patients had a median (range) time since diagnosis of 49 months (7‒242) and a median (range) of 2 (1-4) prior lines of therapy; 17% and 2% of patients were refractory to lenalidomide and pomalidomide, respectively. In total, 68% of patients had relapsed and 32% had relapsed/refractory disease. High-risk molecular findings were present in 15% of patients, with either del(17p) or t (4;14) at screening by fluorescence in situ hybridization. For the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, median (range) number of treatment cycles completed was 9 (1; 50), 8 (1; 40) and 7 (1; 39); ORR (95% CI) after up to 8 treatment cycles was 62% (51; 73), 65% (54; 75), and 51% (39; 62); median TTR was 1, 2, and 3 months, with a median (95% CI) DOR of 22 (14, not estimable), 12 (9, 21), and 11 (6, 14.5) months. Best responses are presented in Table 1. In the Pano 20 mg TIW, 20 mg BIW, and 10 mg TIW arms, respectively, treatment-related AEs Grade ≥3 were reported in 78%, 72%, and 54% of patients; serious AEs were reported in 54%, 48%, and 44% of patients; and discontinuations due to AEs occurred in 29.5%, 28%, and 15% of patients, respectively. Most common treatment-emergent AEs (≥20% patients) are presented in Table 2. Grade ≥3 diarrhea occurred in 11.5%, 10%, and 5% of patients, respectively. There were 14 (6%) on-treatment deaths during the study (20 mg TIW, n=5; 20 mg BIW, n=3; 10 mg TIW, n=6), with none causally related to therapy and with 12 of 14 directly attributable to progressive disease. Conclusion In patients with RRMM, the 20 mg TIW and 20 mg BIW dosing regimens provided favorable outcomes, with most durable and deepest responses observed in the 20 mg TIW arm. The rate of AEs, including diarrhea, with Pano 20 mg TIW was lower than those observed with the same dosing regimen in PANORAMA 1, suggesting s.c. administration of bortezomib improves tolerability compared with i.v. administration. Moreover, all three regimens of FVd proved generally manageable; Pano 20 mg TIW had greatest efficacy, while 10mg TIW proved best tolerated. Disclosures Schjesvold: Celgene, Amgen, Janssen, Oncopeptides: Research Funding; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, Takeda: Consultancy; Amgen, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Oncopeptides, Sanofi, SkyliteDX, Takeda: Honoraria. Dimopoulos:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Personal fees. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy. Spicka:Celgene, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Takeda, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Hajek:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; PharmaMar: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy. Wróbel:Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda, Celgene, Janssen, Amgen, AbbVie, Teva, Sandoz: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sureda Balari:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Merck Sharpe and Dohme: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria. Beksac:Janssen&janssen: 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, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Deva: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Goncalves:Janssen, Takeda, Amgen, Bayer, Novartis, Merck, Bayer, Celgene, GSK, BMS: Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bladé Creixenti:Celgene: Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Chari:Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Antengene: Consultancy; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Secura Bio: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnology: Honoraria; Array BioPharma: Honoraria; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Glaxo Smith Kline: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; The Binding Site: Honoraria. Lonial:JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria. Spencer:Haemalogix: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Secura Bio: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pharmamar: Other; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; TheraMyc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support; BMS: Honoraria, Other: Grant/Research Support, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Other: Grant/Research Support; Takeda: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Antegene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Maison-Blanche:Chiesi Pharmaceutical, Sanofi, Novartis: Honoraria. Moreau:Novartis: Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene/Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria. Richardson:Celgene/BMS, Oncopeptides, Takeda, Karyopharm: Research Funding. San-Miguel:Amgen, BMS, Celgene, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Takeda, Sanofi, Roche, Abbvie, GlaxoSmithKline and Karyopharm: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Chimeric antigen receptor T (CART) cells are engineered with an artificial receptor which redirects T cells to recognize cancer cells expressing a particular surface antigen. CART cell therapy has been astonishingly successful at eradicating certain B cell malignancies, but relapse is common, and efficacy is lacking in many cancers. Gene editing of CART cells is being investigated to enhance efficacy and safety and to develop off-the-shelf products. Currently, genome engineering tools used to modify CART cells include zinc finger nucleases, transposons, TALENs, and CRISPR-Cas9. CRISPR-Cas9 uses a trans-activating (tracrRNA): CRISPR RNA (crRNA) duplex to trigger imprecise DNA repair through targeted double stranded breaks, causing indels and often resulting in loss of protein function. Gene-edited CART cells have entered the clinic to provide an allogeneic cell source (TALEN TCRα knockout), safer treatment (CRISPR-Cas9 GM-CSF knockout), and resistance to exhaustion (CRISPR-Cas9 PD-1 knockout). CRISPR-Cas9 PD-1 knockout (PD-1k/o) CART cells were well-tolerated in a first-in-human clinical trial. However, clinically tested CRISPR-Cas9-edited CART cells showed only modest loss of function (~25%) of PD-1 upon infusion. Additionally, off-target editing has been observed in the clinic and remains a concern. We hypothesized that using next-generation CRISPR-Cas12a systems will result in enhanced editing efficiency and precision. CRISPR-Cas12a has a smaller protein component than CRISPR-Cas9, uses a single crRNA without a tracrRNA for simplified delivery and leaves staggered 5' overhangs. These properties, along with lower intrinsic off-target activity than Cas9, render Cas12a a powerful gene editing tool. First, we compared the knockout efficiency of Cas9 and Cas12a in three therapeutically relevant genetic targets in T cells by delivering ribonucleoprotein complexes containing the crRNA and Cas protein of interest. We showed that Cas12a more effectively knocked out CD3, GM-CSF, and PD-1 expression compared to Cas9 (Figure 1A), demonstrating the potential of Cas12a in further genetically editing T cell therapies. We then used electroporation with Cas9 and Cas12a to generate PD-1k/o in lentivirally transduced CD19-targeted CART (CART19) cells with the aim of making exhaustion-resistant CART19 cells through CRISPR gene editing. CART19 and PD-1k/o CART19 cells were repeatedly stimulated with CD19+ NALM6 target cells for one week, and exhaustion marker expression was measured over time with flow cytometry. The expression of CTLA4, TIM3, and LAG3 were similar between CART19 groups, but PD-1 expression was lower in Cas9 PD-1k/o CART19 cells and almost completely eradicated in Cas12a PD-1k/o CART19 cells compared to wildtype or mock shocked CART19 cells (Figure 1B). We then compared the functionality of wildtype, mock shocked, and Cas9 or Cas12a PD-1k/o CART19 cells in vitro to ensure that neither the electroporation process nor PD-1 knockout impaired CART19 cell antitumor activity. Over a range of effector-to-target ratios and with repeated stimulation with target cells, cytotoxicity was comparable across all CART19 cell groups (Figure 1C). All CART19 cell groups demonstrated robust proliferation in response to both nonspecific and antigen-specific stimulation and over one week of repeated antigen stimulation with NALM6 target cells (Figure 1D). We also confirmed that all CART19 cell groups demonstrated strong degranulation and cytokine production in response to nonspecific and antigen-specific stimulation, regardless of electroporation or PD-1 knockout (Figure 1E). In summary, our data demonstrate that Cas12a can be used as a gene editing tool to efficiently knock out therapeutically relevant genes in CART19 cell therapy. Additionally, Cas12a demonstrated improved knockout efficiency over Cas9 in three different genomic targets. PD-1 knockout via Cas9 or Cas12a reduced PD-1 expression on the CART19 cell surface, and PD-1 expression was almost completely ablated with Cas12a gene editing. Electroporation and PD-1 knockout did not impact the effector functions of the CART19 cells, including cytotoxicity, degranulation, cytokine secretion, or proliferation. In vivo studies assessing the antitumor efficacy and CART19 cell persistence are ongoing. Overall, Cas12a is a promising, efficient method of gene knockout to enhance the safety and efficacy of CART cells. Disclosures Sakemura: Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Cox:Humanigen: Patents & Royalties. Kenderian:MorphoSys: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Torque: Consultancy; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Lentigen: Research Funding.