Citations

Introduction Survival prediction in glioblastoma remains challenging, and identification of robust imaging markers could help with this relevant clinical problem. We evaluated multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging–derived radiomics to assess prediction of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Methodology A retrospective, institutional review board–approved study was performed. There were 93 eligible patients, of which 55 underwent gross tumor resection and chemoradiation (GTR-CR). Overall survival and PFS were assessed in the entire cohort and the GTR-CR cohort using multiple machine learning pipelines. A model based on multiple clinical variables was also developed. Survival prediction was assessed using the radiomics-only, clinical-only, and the radiomics and clinical combined models. Results For all patients combined, the clinical feature–derived model outperformed the best radiomics model for both OS (C-index, 0.706 vs 0.597; P < 0.0001) and PFS prediction (C-index, 0.675 vs 0.588; P < 0.001). Within the GTR-CR cohort, the radiomics model showed nonstatistically improved performance over the clinical model for predicting OS (C-index, 0.638 vs 0.588; P = 0.4). However, the radiomics model outperformed the clinical feature model for predicting PFS in GTR-CR cohort (C-index, 0.641 vs 0.550; P = 0.004). Combined clinical and radiomics model did not yield superior prediction when compared with the best model in each case. Conclusions When considering all patients, regardless of therapy, the radiomics-derived prediction of OS and PFS is inferior to that from a model derived from clinical features alone. However, in patients with GTR-CR, radiomics-only model outperforms clinical feature–derived model for predicting PFS.

Objective Schwannomas are common nerve sheath tumors and may occur anywhere in the body. 4% of head and neck schwannomas occur in the sinonasal cavity, and fewer yet have an intracranial component, making these presentations extremely rare. Furthermore, schwannomas present with nonspecific imaging signs and can only be definitively differentiated via histopathologic review, leading to misdiagnosis as various nasal tumors. We aim to conduct a review of published literature on sinonasal schwannomas with and without intracranial extension and provide additional case representations. Methods A literature review was conducted using the PubMed Database with the terms “sinonasal schwannoma,” “intracranial,” “anterior skull base,” and “schwannoma.” Results were reviewed, and additional cases identified were referenced and included in the study. Inclusion criteria were any case with intracranial extension of the schwannoma. There were no exclusion criteria. Review data was compiled into Excel and used for data analysis and comparison. Additionally, a search was done within our institution to identify additional cases of sinonasal schwannoma. Results We identified 17 cases of sinonasal schwannoma with intracranial extension, five from our institution and twelve from literature. Analysis revealed: 8 females (47%), 9 males (53%), 9 patients presented with headaches (53%), 6 patients presented with anosmia (35%), 4 patients presented with nasal obstruction (24%), and 2 patients with no symptoms (12%). Mean age and median were 39.4 ± 10.1 and 40, respectively. For treatment, 4 patients underwent endoscopic resection (24%), 11 underwent craniotomy (65%), and data was unavailable for 2 patients. Post-treatment complications occurred in 6 patients, 5 had CSF leaks (29%) and 1 had a hematoma (6%). Conclusion We identified and discussed 17 cases of sinonasal schwannoma with intracranial extension. We hope our review provides insight for clinicians to maintain schwannoma as a potential differential when evaluating nasal and anterior skull base masses.

Abstract Purpose Spinal extradural arachnoid cysts (SEDAC) are thought to arise from leakage of CSF through a spinal dural defect. This study investigates the demographics and imaging spectrum of SEDACs at our academic institution and compares them with those reported in the literature. Material and Methods Fifty cases with documented MRI diagnosis of SEDAC, Nabors criteria type I meningeal cyst (MC), were identified from retrospective review of imaging records between 1999 to 2020. Patient demographics, presenting symptoms, cyst characteristics, and management outcomes studied. Statistical analysis to determine associations between maximum cyst size and presenting symptoms along with other imaging findings. Results In all 50 subjects, SEDACs were solitary (single) and sporadic (non-familial). The majority were incidental (62%), located posteriorly (92%) and laterally (80%) in the thoracic and thoracolumbar regions (34%, 30%). They were associated with mild mass effect upon the thecal sac (50%) and bone remodeling (92%). Among symptomatic SEDACs, back pain and radiculopathy were the most reported (68%). Larger cysts were located caudally in the spinal canal, and were associated with greater thecal mass effect, bone remodeling, and septations. Four out of six subjects who underwent surgical management had complete or partial remission. One had cyst recurrence. Conclusion In this largest series of SEDACs, most were discovered incidentally, stable over time, and located in the thoracic spine dorsal to the thecal sac. When symptomatic, back pain and radiculopathy were the most common presenting symptoms. Treatment with complete surgical excision may yield the best results for symptomatic lesions.

AbstractThe development of novel agents has transformed the treatment paradigm for multiple myeloma, with minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity now achievable across the entire disease spectrum. Bone marrow–based technologies to assess MRD, including approaches using next-generation flow and next-generation sequencing, have provided real-time clinical tools for the sensitive detection and monitoring of MRD in patients with multiple myeloma. Complementary liquid biopsy–based assays are now quickly progressing with some, such as mass spectrometry methods, being very close to clinical use, while others utilizing nucleic acid–based technologies are still developing and will prove important to further our understanding of the biology of MRD. On the regulatory front, multiple retrospective individual patient and clinical trial level meta-analyses have already shown and will continue to assess the potential of MRD as a surrogate for patient outcome. Given all this progress, it is not surprising that a number of clinicians are now considering using MRD to inform real-world clinical care of patients across the spectrum from smoldering myeloma to relapsed refractory multiple myeloma, with each disease setting presenting key challenges and questions that will need to be addressed through clinical trials. The pace of advances in targeted and immune therapies in multiple myeloma is unprecedented, and novel MRD-driven biomarker strategies are essential to accelerate innovative clinical trials leading to regulatory approval of novel treatments and continued improvement in patient outcomes.

8036 Background: Ide-cel, a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, showed promising efficacy in patients (pts) with RRMM in the KarMMa study with an ORR of 73% and a CRR of 33% across target doses of 150–450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (Munshi NC, et al. J Clin Oncol 2020;38[suppl 15]. Abstract 8503). Associations of neurotoxicity (NT) with pt and disease characteristics, pt management, and impact on outcomes in the KarMMa study are reported here. Methods: Enrolled pts were triple-class exposed and refractory to their last regimen, with ide-cel given at target doses of 150, 300, or 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells after lymphodepletion (NCT03361748). Investigator-identified NT events were captured under the single preferred term of neurotoxicity and graded according to NCI CTCAE v4.03. Events were managed with corticosteroids (CS), anakinra (ANR), and tocilizumab (Toci) as needed. Results: Of 128 pts treated with ide-cel, NT was reported in 23 (18%); 12 pts (9%) had maximum grade (gr) 1 NT, 7 (5%) had gr 2, and 4 (3%) had gr 3. No gr 4 or 5 NT occurred. Most baseline characteristics were similar in pts with and without NT, including stage III disease (22% and 15%), high-risk cytogenetics (39% and 34%), and extramedullary disease (35% and 40%); exceptions were high tumor burden (65% and 48%) and sex (48% and 62% men). NT (any gr/gr 3) occurred in 0%/0%, 17%/1%, and 20%/6% of pts at doses of 150, 300, and 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells. Median time to onset was similar regardless of gr, and there were no late-onset events (Table). NT was managed with CS in 10 pts (43%), Toci in 3 (13%), and ANR in 1 (4%). Median (range) time to first use of CS was 2 d (1–6). ORR and DOR were similar in pts with and without NT (Table). All NT occurred in the proximity of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) events with the start date of NT events either overlapping with or occurring within 1 wk of the start of a CRS event. Conclusions: NT occurred early in the KarMMa study, was generally of short duration, and was mostly gr 1/2 with no gr ≥4 events. All NT was proximal to CRS. Pts with NT had a favorable ORR after ide-cel treatment. These results continue to demonstrate the durable efficacy and tolerability of ide-cel in pts with RRMM. Clinical trial information: NCT03361748. [Table: see text]

Introduction: Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is an expected and potentially life-threatening toxicity associated with CAR T cell therapy. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel, bb2121), a BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapy, demonstrated promising efficacy in triple-class exposed and highly refractory patients with multiple myeloma in the pivotal phase 2 KarMMa study, with an overall response rate (ORR), complete response (CR) rate, median duration of response, and median progression-free survival of 73%, 33%, 10.7 months, and 8.8 months, respectively, across the target dose levels of 150−450 × 106 CAR+ T cells, and 82%, 39%, 11.3 months, and 12.1 months at the highest target dose of 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells (Munshi et al. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38[suppl, abstr]:8503). Identifying the patterns of CRS evolution, associations with baseline patient and disease characteristics, and the impact of interventions are key to understanding this adverse event in the context of ide-cel. In addition, a better understanding of lower-grade CRS, including maximum grade 1 events, is important as these are easier to manage and represent a lower burden on the healthcare system. We report results of an examination of CRS events in the KarMMa study. Methods: Patients in the KarMMa trial (NCT03361748) were required to have ≥3 prior regimens (including an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 antibody) and were refractory to their last regimen per International Myeloma Working Group criteria. Patients received ide-cel target doses of 150, 300, or 450 × 106 CAR+ T cells 2 days after lymphodepletion with cyclophosphamide 300 mg/m2 plus fludarabine 30 mg/m2 daily for 3 days. The primary endpoint was ORR. The key secondary endpoint was CR rate; other secondary endpoints included safety. CRS was graded according to criteria in Lee et al. (Blood. 2014;124:188). Patient characteristics and CRS management were examined by CRS grade to identify variables associated with higher-grade CRS. Management of CRS included tocilizumab 8 mg/kg with the addition of corticosteroids and other agents as needed. Results: Of 128 patients treated with ide-cel, 107 (84%) experienced CRS; 61 patients (48%) had maximum grade 1 and 46 (36%) had maximum grade ≥2 CRS (grade 2, n=39; grade 3, n=5; grade 4, n=1; and grade 5, n=1). Baseline characteristics were generally balanced among patients with maximum grade 1 and grade ≥2 (Table). Thirty patients (65%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS progressed from initial grade 1 events, whereas 16 (35%) had initial grade ≥2. Median time to onset of CRS was the same (1 day) regardless of initial or maximum grade (Table). Median duration was 5.0 days in patients with maximum grade 1, 5.5 days in patients with maximum grade 2, and 11.0 days in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. Median duration was shorter in patients with maximum grade 1 CRS than in those with initial grade 1 events that progressed to grade ≥2 (5.0 days vs 7.0 days). Most patients (83%) with maximum grade ≥2 CRS received at least 1 dose of tocilizumab and approximately one-third (35%) received corticosteroids, compared with 48% and 5%, respectively, of patients with maximum grade 1 CRS. A higher percentage of patients with initial grade ≥2 vs initial grade 1 CRS received multiple doses of tocilizumab (50% vs 37%) or at least 1 dose of corticosteroids (50% vs 27%). Conclusions: Almost half of the patients treated with ide-cel experienced maximum grade 1 CRS. Baseline disease and patient characteristics were similar among patients experiencing grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. CRS was effectively managed with tocilizumab and corticosteroids, and more frequent use of these interventions in patients with grade ≥2 CRS was not associated with prolonged CRS events. The time to onset of CRS was predictable and equivalent in patients with maximum grade 1 and higher-grade CRS events. Duration of CRS was similar in patients with maximum grade 1 and 2 but was longer in patients with maximum grade ≥3 CRS. These data demonstrate the feasible management of CRS and thus confirm the tolerability of ide-cel in patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Table 1 Disclosures Kansagra: Karyopharm: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Alnylam: Honoraria; BMS: Honoraria; GSK: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria; Sanofi: Honoraria. Lin:Novartis: Consultancy; Sorrento: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Gamida Cells: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vineti: Consultancy; Takeda: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno: Consultancy; Legend BioTech: Consultancy; Merck: Research Funding. Berdeja:BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Cellularity: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Poseida: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bioclinica: Consultancy; Bluebird: Research Funding; Prothena: Consultancy; Legend: Consultancy; Kesios: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Constellation: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Servier: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; EMD Sorono: Research Funding; Vivolux: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; CURIS: Research Funding; Acetylon: Research Funding. Shah:GSK, Amgen, Indapta Therapeutics, Sanofi, BMS, CareDx, Kite, Karyopharm: Consultancy; BMS, Janssen, Bluebird Bio, Sutro Biopharma, Teneobio, Poseida, Nektar: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy. Yakoub-Agha:Celgene: Honoraria; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Gilead/Kite: Honoraria, Other: travel support; Janssen: Honoraria. Einsele:Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Rambaldi:BMS/Celgene: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); University of Milan: Current Employment; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Received travel support., Research Funding; Omeros: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Pfizer: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Advisory board and speaker fees from Pfizer.; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company). Research grant from Amgen Inc.; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Astellas: Honoraria, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel support from Gilead.. Truppel-Hartmann:bluebird bio, Inc: Current Employment, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company); F. Hoffmann La Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Ended employment in the past 24 months. Rowe:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment. Wang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Agarwal:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Campbell:BMS: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Lonial:Takeda: Consultancy, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Millennium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees, Research Funding; Onyx: Honoraria; Genentech: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; JUNO Therapeutics: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Personal fees; Abbvie: Consultancy.