Citations

Abstract BackgroundRe-allocation of resources during the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in delays in care delivery to patients with cardiovascular disease and cancer. The ability of health care providers to provide optimal care in this setting has not been formally evaluated.ObjectivesTo assess the impact of COVID-19 resource re-allocation on scheduling, testing, elective procedures, telemedicine access, use of new COVID-19 therapies, and providers’ opinions on healthcare policies among oncology and cardiology practitioners.MethodsAn electronic survey was conducted by a cardio-oncology collaborative network through regional and state chapters of the American College of Cardiology , American Society of Clinical Oncology, and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. Descriptive statistics were reported by frequency and proportion for analyses, and stratified categorically by geographic region and specialty.Results1,415 providers (43 countries) participated: 986 cardiologists, 306 oncologists, and 118 trainees/internal medicine. 63% (195/306) of oncologists vs 92% (896/976) of cardiologists reported cancellations of treatments/elective procedures (p=0.01). 46% (442/970) of cardiologists and 25% (76/303) of oncologists modified the scope of their practice (p=<0.001). Academic physicians (74.5%) felt better supplied with personal protective equipment (PPE) vs non-academic (74.5% vs 67.2%; p=0.018). Telemedicine was less common in Europe 81% (74/91), and Latin America 64% (101/158), than the United States, 88% (950/1,097) (p=<0.001). 95% of all groups supported more active leadership from medical professional societies.ConclusionsThese results support initiatives to promote expanded coverage for telemedicine, increased access to PPE, better testing availability and involvement of medical professional societies to help with preparedness for future health care crisis.Appendix: Link to the Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/C8ZDYNW

Background Sudden unexpected death in epilepsy ( SUDEP ) is the leading cause of epilepsy‐related death. SUDEP shares many features with sudden cardiac death and sudden unexplained death in the young and may have a similar genetic contribution. We aim to systematically review the literature on the genetics of SUDEP . Methods and Results PubMed, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Medline In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, MEDLINE , EMBASE , Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus were searched through April 4, 2017. English language human studies analyzing SUDEP for known sudden death, ion channel and arrhythmia‐related pathogenic variants, novel variant discovery, and copy number variant analyses were included. Aggregate descriptive statistics were generated; data were insufficient for meta‐analysis. A total of 8 studies with 161 unique individuals were included; mean was age 29.0 (± SD 14.2) years; 61% males; ECG data were reported in 7.5% of cases; 50.7% were found prone and 58% of deaths were nocturnal. Cause included all types of epilepsy. Antemortem diagnosis of Dravet syndrome and autism (with duplication of chromosome 15) was associated with 11% and 9% of cases. The most frequently detected known pathogenic variants at postmortem were in Na + and K + ion channel subunits, as were novel potentially pathogenic variants (11%). Overall, the majority of variants were of unknown significance. Analysis of copy number variant was insignificant. Conclusions SUDEP case adjudication and evaluation remains limited largely because of crucial missing data such as ECG s. The most frequent pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants identified by molecular autopsy are in ion channel or arrhythmia‐related genes, with an ≈11% discovery rate. Comprehensive postmortem examination should include examination of the heart and brain by specialized pathologists and blood storage.

Abstract Introduction Population level data about the survival outcomes of patients with hematologic malignancies occurring as second cancers is limited. We undertook one of the largest analyses of second hematologic malignancies (SHM) using the Surveillance, Epidemiology & End Results (SEER) registry to identify factors associated with survival. Methods SEER 9 &13 registries were queried to identify adult patients (pts>18 years) diagnosed with SHM that comprised of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoid Leukemia (ALL), Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS), Chronic Myeloid Leukemia (CML) & Other Acute Leukemias (OAL, biphenotypic leukemias, myeloid sarcomas & leukemias NOS) > 1 year (yr) after diagnosis of a primary unrelated cancer, using ICD-O-3 codes over a 40 yr period (1973-2012). Data on demographics, follow up, primary tumor & survival were abstracted. Univariate & multivariate analyses were performed to identify factors influencing survival of SHM & compared with hematologic malignancies occurring as first cancers. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported & significance was set at p< 0.01. Results SHM cases included 4665 AML, 3569 MDS, 1140 OAL, 1076 CML & 536 ALL pts. Median age at diagnosis of SHM was 73 yrs (range, 18-100) for AML, 79 yrs (18-100) for MDS, 74 yrs(20-99) for OAL, 74 yrs(18-98) for CML & 70 yrs(19-97) for ALL. Pts>60 yrs comprised 79.2% of AML, 92% of MDS, 88.7% of OAL, 82.9% of CML & 75.2% of ALL cases. Gender distribution was similar across all categories, with females comprising 48.5% of AML, 42.2% of MDS, 45.3% of OAL, 42.8% of CML & 50.2% of ALL cases. More than 85% of pts in each group were Caucasians. While the majority of pts had one primary unrelated cancer (82-89%), 14% of AML pts, 17.8% of MDS pts, 13.8% of OAL, 15.3% of CML pts& 10.6% of ALL pts had >1 primary unrelated cancer. Most common primary sites were prostate (19.1-29.6%), breast (16.1-21.9%) & colorectal (9.3-14.5%). Median survival (range) was as follows: AML 0.2 yrs (0-28.2); MDS 1.5 yrs (0-14); OAL 0.2 yrs (0-29.1); CML 2.5 yrs (0-27.1); & ALL 0.7 yrs (0-28.8). Median latency periods (range) for secondary cancers were as follows: AML 5.2 yrs (1.0-24.2); MDS 7.6 yrs (1.0-35.5); OAL 5.7 yrs (1.0-=34.3); CML 5.2 yrs (1.0-31.6); & ALL 6.2 yrs (1.0-35.5). In univariable analyses, age <60 yrs predicted for better survival (p<0.0001) for all SHM, as did diagnosis in recent yrs (2001-2012) (p< 0.0001 for AML, OAL, CML & ALL). Effect of time period on survival for MDS was not done, as it became formally reportable in 2001. Having >2 primaries was associated with an unfavorable outcome for subsequent AML (HR=1.15; 1.08-1.23; p < 0.0001), MDS (HR=1.13; 1.05-1.22: p=0.001) & CML (HR=1.30; 1.13-1.48: p=0.0002). In multivariable analyses, advancing age was an independent adverse prognostic factor for all secondary leukemias & MDS, both as a continuous variable & when categorized as <60 yrs vs. >60 yrs (p<0.001). Race & gender did not impact survival. Using breast cancer as a referent primary, AML pts had worse outcomes following colorectal (HR=1.31; 1.14-1.5; p=0.0002) or lung (HR=1.46; 1.22-1.74; p< 0.0001) primaries, while MDS pts fared worse with prior lung (HR=1.61; 1.22-2.12; p=0.0007) or Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (HR=1.58; 1.3-1.92: p< 0.0001). Of all 2ndCML cases, those after colorectal cancer had worst survival (HR=1.54; 1.12-2.13; p=0.008). Among SHM pts, MDS pts had better survival than those with AML (HR=0.42; 0.4-0.44: p< 0.0001), as did pts with CML (HR=0.37; 0.35-0.41: p< 0.0001) & ALL (HR=0.64; 0.58-0.70; p< 0.0001). Out OAL had similar outcomes compared to AML (HR=0.99; 0.92-1.05; p=0.66). Pts with CML fared better than MDS (HR=0.47; 0.41-0.54; p< 0.0001) & OAL (HR=0.37; 0.34-0.41: p< 0.0001). Pts with ALL had worse survival than CML (HR=1.8; 1.6-2.03: p< 0.0001) & MDS (HR=1.28; 1.11-1.48: p=0.0005), but better than OAL (HR=0.65; 0.58-0.73: p< 0.0001). (Figure 1) Patients with all SHM, except CML, had worse outcomes compared to those with primary hematologic cancers (Figure 2). Conclusion The prolonged latencies for SHM in this study suggest that they are likely therapy-related. Our findings show that type & number of primary cancers influence survival of subsequent leukemias & MDS. SHM have worse survival compared to those with primary hematologic malignancies except CML where non-separation of survival curves suggest that CML as SHM does not behave like a therapy-related neoplasm. Disclosures Sekeres: TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Introduction: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) registry captures data on acute leukemias (AL) that morphologically do not conform to well characterized acute leukemic entities in the established French-American-British (FAB) nomenclature. Not much is known about population level outcomes of these rare AL. We performed a comprehensive survival analysis of these rare AL over a forty-year period using the SEER registry. Methods: SEER 18 dataset was queried to identify adult patients (pts > 18 years) diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (ALL) and rare AL from 1973-2012. Rare AL cases were identified using ICD-O-3 morphology codes and included Leukemias, Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) (9800-01, 9860) and myeloid sarcoma (9930). Data on demographics,follow up and survival was abstracted. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors influencing survival of rare AL and survival patterns were compared to AML and ALL. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. Results: We identified 61,550 AML pts, 13,457 ALL pts, 525 myeloid sarcoma pts and 13,446 pts with leukemia NOS. Median age at diagnosis was 68 years (yrs, range 18-100) for AML, 54 yrs (18-100) for ALL, 65 yrs (18-95) for myeloid sarcoma and 76 yrs (18-100) for leukemia NOS. Gender distribution was similar with females comprising 45.9% of AML, 43% of ALL, 42.3% of myeloid sarcoma and 47.2% of leukemia NOS cases. Over 80% pts in all categories were Caucasian. Median survival was as follows: 0.4 (0-40) yrs for AML; 1.4 (0-39.8) yrs for ALL; 0.7 (0-32.9) yrs for Myeloid Sarcoma; and 0.3 (0-38.9) yrs for leukemia NOS. In univariable analysis, younger age predicted for better survival for both myeloid sarcoma and leukemia NOS (p<0.0001). Improvement in survival over time period was observed for pts with leukemia NOS (p < 0.0001). In multivariable analysis, advancing age was an independent prognostic factor for rare AL, both as a continuous variable and when categorized as older vs. younger pts using age cutoff of 60 yrs. Compared to younger pts, HR for pts > 60 yrs with rare AL was as follows: 2.68 (2.13-3.37; p <0.0001) for myeloid sarcoma; and 2.18 (2.07-2.31; p<0.0001) for leukemia NOS. No difference in survival over time was seen for myeloid sarcoma. Pts with leukemia, NOS diagnosed in yrs 2006-2012 (HR=0.87; 0.82-0.92; p < 0.0001) had better survival compared to the referent years 1973-80. Race and gender did not impact survival. In multivariable analysis, pts with leukemia NOS did worse overall compared to AML (HR=1.13; 1.11-1.53; p<0.0001) and ALL (HR=1.86; 1.81-1.91; p<0.0001). Interestingly, younger pts had a poorer outcome than AML (HR=1.10; 1.04-1.16; p=0.0003), but pts > 60 yrs had a better outcome (HR=0.93; 0.91-0.95; p<0.0001). Both younger (HR=1.33; 1.26-1.41; p<0.0001) and older pts (HR=1.45, 1.40-1.50: p<0.0001) compared unfavorably to ALL (Figure 1). Pts with myeloid sarcoma had a better survival compared to AML pts (HR=0.77; 0.7-0.85; p<0.0001) (Figure 2). This was uniform for pts <60 yrs (HR=0.77; 0.64-0.93; p=0.006) and > 60 yrs (HR= 0.77; 0.69-0.87; p<0.0001). Conclusion: Pts with leukemias NOS have poor outcomes compared to AML and ALL but prognosis has improved in recent years. The most probable explanation is identification of prognostic molecular mutations that has allowed accurate risk-stratification of pts using the WHO classification and in turn better selection of treatment strategies. Several reasons have limited our understanding of these rare AL - small numbers, exclusion from clinical trials and wide variability in treatment options used. Efforts at better molecular characterization of these AL holds the most promise for improving outcomes. Disclosures Sekeres: Celgene Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TetraLogic: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Abstract Abstract 5045 Observation remains the standard approach to patients with monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and asymptomatic multiple myeloma (AMM) who lack end-organ impairment characteristic of symptomatic MM. Institution of early MM therapy has not been shown to improve survival or alter the natural progression of the disease. Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX2) inhibitors inhibit proliferation and induce apoptosis in drug resistant MM cell lines. 23 asymptomatic adult patients with a serum monoclonal protein >1g/dL, from Cleveland Clinic, Mayo Clinic, or University of Arkansas Medical Center between August 2005 and April 2008 were randomized to either celecoxib or placebo in a double-blind, 1:1 fashion. The primary end point was change in the monoclonal protein concentration after 6 months. Correlative biomarkers, including IL6 and IL-6R, CD4/CD8+ T-cell ratios, and beta-2 microglobulin, were examined before and after treatment. Celecoxib had no significant effect on the median monoclonal protein concentration, which went from a median of 1. 44 to 1. 65 g/dL with placebo and 2. 42 to 2. 24 g/dL with Celecoxib (p=0. 36), or on any of the analyzed correlative markers (all p-values >0. 34). One patient's monoclonal protein concentration increased on placebo, but he did not require treatment for symptomatic MM. There were no adverse events of Grade 2 or higher. Celecoxib was well tolerated in contrast to previous reports when given in higher doses and in combination with thalidomide. Although accrual was limited we conclude that celecoxib has no clinical or immunologic effect on high risk asymptomatic plasma cell disorders. This study does not support using celecoxib for preventing progression to symptomatic MM. Future studies on progression of MGUS to symptomatic MM would require more patients and a longer follow-up period. Disclosures: Off Label Use: Celecoxib for chemoprophylaxis. Hussein:Celgene: Employment. Reu:Celgene: Research Funding.

OBJECTIVEAlmost 30% of the patients with suspected temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) have normal results on MRI. Success rates for resection of MRI-negative TLE are less favorable, ranging from 36% to 76%. Herein the authors describe the impact of intraoperative electrocorticography (ECoG) augmented by opioid activation and its effect on postoperative seizure outcome.METHODSAdult and pediatric patients with medically resistant MRI-negative TLE who underwent standardized ECoG at the time of their elective anterior temporal lobectomy (ATL) with amygdalohippocampectomy between 1990 and 2016 were included in this study. Seizure recurrence comprised the primary outcome of interest and was assessed using Kaplan-Meier and multivariable Cox regression analysis plots based on distribution of interictal epileptiform discharges (IEDs) recorded on scalp electroencephalography, baseline and opioid-induced IEDs on ECoG, and extent of resection.RESULTSOf the 1144 ATLs performed at the authors’ institution between 1990 and 2016, 127 (11.1%) patients (81 females) with MRI-negative TLE were eligible for this study. Patients with complete resection of tissue generating IED recorded on intraoperative ECoG were less likely to have seizure recurrence compared to those with incomplete resection on univariate analysis (p < 0.05). No difference was found in seizure recurrence between patients with bilateral independent IEDs and unilateral IEDs (p = 0.15), presence or absence of opioid-induced epileptiform activation (p = 0.61), or completeness of resection of tissue with opioid-induced IEDs on intraoperative ECoG (p = 0.41).CONCLUSIONSThe authors found that incomplete resection of IED-generating tissue on intraoperative ECoG was associated with an increased chance of seizure recurrence. However, they found that induction of epileptiform activity with intraoperative opioid activation did not provide useful intraoperative data predictive of improving operative results for temporal lobectomy in MRI-negative epilepsy.

SummaryObjectiveWe aimed to determine the frequency of probable obstructive sleep apnea (pOSA) in refractory epilepsy monitoring unit inpatients and clinical features associated with pOSA, including risk for sudden unexpected death in epilepsy (SUDEP).MethodsWe prospectively recruited 49 consecutive adult patients admitted to the Mayo Clinic Epilepsy Monitoring Unit with focal, generalized, or unclassified epilepsy syndromes. pOSA was identified using oximetric oxyhemoglobin desaturation index (ODI) and the Sleep Apnea–Sleep Disorders Questionnaire (SA‐SDQ) and STOP‐BAG screening tools. Revised SUDEP Risk Inventory (rSUDEP‐7) scores were calculated, and epilepsy patients with and without pOSA were compared with Wilcoxon signed‐rank tests. Correlation and regression analyses were utilized to determine relationships between pOSA and rSUDEP‐7 scores.ResultsThirty‐five percent of patients had pOSA, with a mean ODI of 11.3 ± 5.1/h (range = 5.1‐22.8). Patients with pOSA were older and heavier, and more frequently had a focal epilepsy syndrome and longer epilepsy duration, with higher SA‐SDQ and STOP‐BAG scores (all P < 0.05). Median rSUDEP‐7 score was 3 ± 1.4 (range = 0‐6). Higher rSUDEP‐7 scores were positively correlated with higher ODI (P = 0.036). rSUDEP‐7 score ≥ 5 was associated with pOSA by ODI, SA‐SDQ, and STOP‐BAG questionnaire criteria (P < 0.05).SignificanceOur pilot study identified a high frequency of pOSA in refractory epilepsy monitoring patients, finding that pOSA patients were older and heavier, with higher screening symptoms for sleep apnea and more frequent focal seizures with a longer epilepsy duration. We also found a possible association between OSA and SUDEP risk. Identification and treatment of OSA in patients with epilepsy could conceivably provide a novel approach toward preventing the risk of SUDEP. Future studies with polysomnography are needed to confirm predictive features for OSA in epilepsy populations, and to determine whether OSA is associated with SUDEP risk.

Summary Objective Limited data are available regarding the evolution over time of the rate of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy patients (SUDEP) in drug‐resistant epilepsy. The objective is to analyze a database of 40 443 patients with epilepsy implanted with vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy in the United States (from 1988 to 2012) and assess whether SUDEP rates decrease during the postimplantation follow‐up period. Methods Patient vital status was ascertained using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Death Index (NDI). An expert panel adjudicated classification of cause of deaths as SUDEP based on NDI data and available narrative descriptions of deaths. We tested the hypothesis that SUDEP rates decrease with time using the Mann‐Kendall nonparametric trend test and by comparing SUDEP rates of the first 2 years of follow‐up (years 1‐2) to longer follow‐up (years 3‐10). Results Our cohort included 277 661 person‐years of follow‐up and 3689 deaths, including 632 SUDEP. Primary analysis demonstrated a significant decrease in age‐adjusted SUDEP rate during follow‐up ( S = −27 P = .008), with rates of 2.47/1000 for years 1‐2 and 1.68/1000 for years 3‐10 (rate ratio 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53‐0.87; P = .002). Sensitivity analyses confirm these findings. Significance Our data suggest that SUDEP risk significantly decreases during long‐term follow‐up of patients with refractory epilepsy receiving VNS Therapy. This finding might reflect several factors, including the natural long‐term dynamic of SUDEP rate, attrition, and the impact of VNS Therapy. The role of each of these factors cannot be confirmed due to the limitations of the study.