Citations

AbstractBackgroundMalnutrition is underrecognized and underdiagnosed, despite high prevalence rates and associated poor clinical outcomes. The involvement of clinical nutrition experts, especially physicians, in the care of high‐risk patients with malnutrition remains low despite evidence demonstrating lower complication rates with nutrition support team (NST) management. To facilitate solutions, a survey was designed to elucidate the nature of NSTs and physician involvement and identify needs for novel nutrition support care models.MethodsThis survey assessed demographics of NSTs, factors contributing to the success of NSTs, elements of nutrition education, and other barriers to professional growth.ResultsOf 255 respondents, 235 complete surveys were analyzed. The geographic distribution of respondents correlated with population concentrations of the United States (r = 90.8%, p < .0001). Most responding physicians (46/57; 80.7%) reported being a member of NSTs, compared with 56.5% (88/156) of dietitians. Of those not practicing in NSTs (N = 81/235, 34.4%), 12.3% (10/81) reported an NST was previously present at their institution but had been disbanded. Regarding NSTs, financial concerns were common (115/235; 48.9%), followed by leadership (72/235; 30.6%), and healthcare professional (HCP) interest (55/235; 23.4%). A majority (173/235; 73.6%) of all respondents wanted additional training in nutrition but reported insufficient protected time, ability to travel, or support from administrators or other HCPs.ConclusionCore actions resulting from this survey focused on formalizing physician roles, increasing interdisciplinary nutrition support expertise, utilizing cost‐effective screening for malnutrition, and implementing intervention protocols. Additional actions included increasing funding for clinical practice, education, and research, all within an expanded portfolio of pragmatic nutrition support care models.

AbstractBackgroundThe incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) among individuals aged younger than 50 years has been increasing. As screening guidelines lower the recommended age of screening initiation, concerns including the burden on screening capacity and costs have been recognized, suggesting that an individualized approach may be warranted. We developed risk prediction models for early-onset CRC that incorporate an environmental risk score (ERS), including 16 lifestyle and environmental factors, and a polygenic risk score (PRS) of 141 variants.MethodsRelying on risk score weights for ERS and PRS derived from studies of CRC at all ages, we evaluated risks for early-onset CRC in 3486 cases and 3890 controls aged younger than 50 years. Relative and absolute risks for early-onset CRC were assessed according to values of the ERS and PRS. The discriminatory performance of these scores was estimated using the covariate-adjusted area under the receiver operating characteristic curve.ResultsIncreasing values of ERS and PRS were associated with increasing relative risks for early-onset CRC (odds ratio per SD of ERS = 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08 to 1.20; odds ratio per SD of PRS = 1.59, 95% CI = 1.51 to 1.68), both contributing to case-control discrimination (area under the curve = 0.631, 95% CI = 0.615 to 0.647). Based on absolute risks, we can expect 26 excess cases per 10 000 men and 21 per 10 000 women among those scoring at the 90th percentile for both risk scores.ConclusionsPersonal risk scores have the potential to identify individuals at differential relative and absolute risk for early-onset CRC. Improved discrimination may aid in targeted CRC screening of younger, high-risk individuals, potentially improving outcomes.

The NCCN Guidelines for Breast Cancer include up-to-date guidelines for clinical management of patients with carcinoma in situ, invasive breast cancer, Paget disease, phyllodes tumor, inflammatory breast cancer, male breast cancer, and breast cancer during pregnancy. These guidelines are developed by a multidisciplinary panel of representatives from NCCN Member Institutions with breast cancer–focused expertise in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, pathology, reconstructive surgery, and patient advocacy. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on the most recent updates to recommendations for adjuvant systemic therapy in patients with nonmetastatic, early-stage, hormone receptor–positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor’s complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) is a highly curable form of cancer, and current treatment regimens are focused on improving treatment efficacy while decreasing the risk of late effects of treatment. The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for pediatric HL provide recommendations on the workup, diagnostic evaluation, and treatment of classic HL, including principles of pathology, imaging, staging, systemic therapy, and radiation therapy. This portion of the NCCN Guidelines focuses on the management of pediatric classic HL in the upfront and relapsed/refractory settings.

Abstract Background: Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM) has been shown to improve survival compared to conventional chemotherapy alone. However, the ability to perform ASCT relies, in part, on collecting a sufficient number (#) of CD34+ hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs), typically from peripheral blood. The ideal HSC mobilization regimen would enable collection of optimal #s of HSCs (5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) within the minimum # of apheresis sessions possible. Yet, despite currently available G-CSF (G) based mobilization regimens and multiple apheresis days, many remain unable to collect optimal #s of HSCs. Motixafortide (M) is a novel CXCR4 inhibitor, with high affinity (IC 50 0.54-4.5 nM) and long receptor occupancy (&gt;48 hours). Methods: In this prospective, phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter trial, 122 patients were randomized (2:1) to receive either M+G or placebo (P)+G for HSC mobilization prior to ASCT for MM. All patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and 6-8, if needed). Patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg, subcutaneous injection) or P on day 4 (and 6, if needed). Apheresis began day 5, with the primary (PEP) and secondary (SEP) endpoints of collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 apheresis days or 1 day, respectively. Apheresis continued on days 6-8 if needed. Total CD34+ cells/kg were analyzed on site to determine if patients mobilized to the goal and all samples were subsequently sent for assessment by central laboratory. Patients that did not collect ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg by day 8 proceeded to rescue mobilization. The # of CD34+ cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice (minimum ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg). Analyses of the PEP/SEPs were performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Results: Demographics between the 2 treatment arms were similar. Mobilization with M+G resulted in 92.5% of patients collecting ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 2 apheresis days vs 26.2% with P+G (Odds Ratio (OR) 53.3, 95% CI 14.12-201.33, p&lt;0.0001). Furthermore, 88.8% of patients with M+G collected ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in 1 apheresis day vs 9.5% with P+G (OR 118.0, 95% CI 25.36-549.35, p&lt;0.0001); and 96.3% with M+G collected ≥2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg within 1 apheresis day vs 64.3% with P+G (OR 18.9, 95% CI 4.47-80.04, p&lt;0.0001). The PEP and SEPs were confirmed as statistically significant by central laboratory (all respective p-values &lt;0.0001). The median # of HSCs mobilized in 1 apheresis day with M+G was 10.80x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg vs 2.14x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G. The # of cells infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice. Median time to neutrophil engraftment was 12 days in both arms (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). Median time to platelet engraftment was 18 days (range: 17-19) with M+G and 17 days (range: 17-18) with P+G (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57). Graft durability at day 100 post-ASCT was 92.2% in the M+G arm and 91.9% in the P+G arm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.2-4.5, p=0.96). Overall, adverse events were reported in 98.8% (Grade 3/4: 68.8%) of patients with M+G vs 95.2% (Grade 3/4: 42.9%) with P+G, with cytopenias in the post-ASCT period prior to engraftment accounting for the majority of Grade 3/4 AEs in both arms, as expected. The most common AEs related to M included: local injection site reactions (any grade: 70.0%, Grade 3/4: 11.3%); and systemic reactions such as pruritis (33.8%), flushing (32.5%) and urticaria (12.5%). Additionally, mobilization with M+G resulted in a 10.5x increase in mean absolute # of CD34+CD45RA-CD123loCD38-CD90+CD49f+ primitive HSCs collected vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001). Multicolor FACS and scRNA sequencing of CD34+ HSCs from both arms will be reported in a separate ASH abstract. Conclusions: A single injection of M on top of G significantly increased the proportion of patients mobilizing ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg for ASCT (92.5%) vs G (26.2%) in up to 2 apheresis days (p&lt;0.0001), while enabling 88.8% to collect ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in just 1 apheresis (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1A). Despite the higher # of cells mobilized by M+G, the # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice with comparable engraftment kinetics and graft durability between the 2 arms. Finally, M+G mobilized 10.5x more immunophenotypically primitive CD34+ HSCs capable of durable multilineage hematopoietic engraftment vs P+G (p&lt;0.0001, Figure 1B). Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Bioline: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding. Illés: Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stiff: Incyte: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Seagen: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria. Sborov: Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; SkylineDx: Consultancy. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy. Holtick: Celgene: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Amgen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding; NexImmune: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Hardy: American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Gliko-Kabir: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Goldstein: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment. Kadosh: BioLineRx Ltd.: Current Employment.

Abstract Background: CD34+ hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell (HSPC) dose during hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) remains one of the most reliable clinical parameters to predict quality of engraftment. A minimum HSPC dose of 2-2.5x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg is considered necessary for reliable engraftment, while optimal doses of 5-6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg are associated with faster engraftment, as well as fewer transfusions, infections, and antibiotic days. CXCR4 inhibition significantly improves the number (#) of CD34+ HSPCs mobilized for HCT, when added to G-CSF (G). Motixafortide (M), a novel CXCR4 antagonist, is a potent mobilizer of HSPCs recently evaluated in the phase 3, double blind, placebo controlled, multicenter GENESIS Trial as a mobilizing agent prior to autologous HCT (ASCT) in multiple myeloma (MM). Methods: Patients received G (10 mcg/kg) on days 1-5 (and days 6-8, if needed). On day 4 (and day 6, if needed), patients received either M (1.25 mg/kg) or placebo (P). Apheresis began day 5, with up to 4 days of apheresis if needed. The primary and secondary endpoints were collection of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg in up to 2 days of apheresis or 1 day, respectively. The # of CD34+ cells/kg infused was determined independently by each investigator according to local practice, but a minimum of ³2x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was required. A post-hoc analysis was performed pooling data from both arms to evaluate time to platelet engraftment (TPE) (≥20x10 9/L without transfusions x7 days) and neutrophil engraftment (TNE) (ANC ≥0.5x10 9/L x3 days) based on total # of CD34+ cells/kg and # of specific CD34+ HSPC subsets infused. CD34+ HSPC immunophenotyping was performed via multicolor fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS). TPE/TNE was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards model. Results: 114 MM patients underwent apheresis, ASCT and were evaluable (M+G N=77; P+G N=37). M+G mobilization yielded a median of 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg collected in 1 apheresis vs 2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg with P+G (p&lt;0.0001). M+G also resulted in mobilization of higher #s of relevant CD34+ HSPC subsets vs P+G, including 5.6 fold more HSCs (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90+CD49f+) (p&lt;0.0001), 3.5 fold more multipotent progenitors (MPPs) and common myeloid progenitors (CMPs) (CD45RA-CD123loCD38+CD90-CD49f+) (p=0.0004) and 5.6 fold more granulocyte and macrophage progenitors (GMPs) (CD45RA+CD123loCD38+/-CD10-) (&lt;0.0001). The median # of infused HSPCs in both arms was &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (Table 1), with similar TPE of 17-18 days (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.59-1.34, p=0.57) and TNE of 12 days (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62-1.41, p=0.75). However, pooled analysis of all patients (N=114) revealed infusion of ³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg was associated with faster median TPE of 16 days vs 18 days with &lt;6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.96, p=0.03) (Figure 1A). Further analysis demonstrated an inverse correlation between increasing CD34+ cells/kg infused and TPE (Pearson r=-0.2789, p=0.0027). In addition, pooled analysis of 36 patients (M+G N=24; P+G N=12) using extended multicolor FACS revealed infusion of higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of combined CD34+ HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets was associated with faster TPE of 12 days vs 19 days with lower #s of these subsets (p=0.003) (Figure 2A). Furthermore, higher #s (&gt;75 th percentile) of GMPs was individually associated with faster TPE of 13 days vs 19 days with lower GMP cell doses (p=0.0116) (Figure 2C). TNE was not impacted by increasing doses of total CD34+ HSPCs or any specific CD34+ HSPC subset (all p&gt;0.05) (Figures 1B, 2B and 2D). Conclusions: M+G mobilization enabled significantly more CD34+ cells to be collected in 1 apheresis (median 10.8x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) vs P+G (2.3x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg), as well as 3.5-5.6 fold higher #s of HSCs, MPPs, CMPs and GMPs (all p-values &lt;0.0004). This high # of CD34+ cells/kg mobilized with M+G enables the potential infusion of ≥6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg and cryopreservation of cells for later use. A dose response was observed with significant correlation between faster TPE and infusion of higher #s of total CD34+ HSPC doses (³6x10 6 CD34+ cells/kg) and combined HSC, MPP, CMP and GMP subsets. Additionally, infusion of higher #s of CD34+ GMP subsets was independently associated with faster TPE, suggesting these more committed progenitors may play a critical role in early engraftment. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Crees: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Retting: BioLineRx Ltd.: Research Funding. Larson: TORL biotherapeutics: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; Abbvie, Bioline, BMS, Celgene, GSK, Janssen, Juno, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda: Research Funding. Illes: Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Janssen, Celgene, Novartis, Pfizer, Takeda, Roche: Consultancy. Stiff: CRISPR: Consultancy; Gamida-Cell, Atara, Amgen, Incyte, Takeda, Macrogenetics, Eisai: Research Funding. Sborov: SkylineDx: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pereira: Jazz Pharmaceutical: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mikala: Abbvie: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Krka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Holtick: Sanofi: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Qazilbash: Janssen: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Other: Advisory Board; Biolline: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Other: Advisory Board; NexImmune: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Angiocrine: Research Funding. Hardy: Kite/Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Gene Technologies, International: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; InCyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sorani: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Shemesh-Darvish: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment. Vainstein: BioLineRx LTD: Current Employment; Enlivex: Consultancy. Kadosh: StatExcellence: Current holder of individual stocks in a privately-held company; BioLineRx: Honoraria.