Citations

Abstract Purpose To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. Results Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. Recommendations Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines.

PURPOSE To provide guidance to clinicians regarding therapy for patients with brain metastases from solid tumors. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS Thirty-two randomized trials published in 2008 or later met eligibility criteria and form the primary evidentiary base. RECOMMENDATIONS Surgery is a reasonable option for patients with brain metastases. Patients with large tumors with mass effect are more likely to benefit than those with multiple brain metastases and/or uncontrolled systemic disease. Patients with symptomatic brain metastases should receive local therapy regardless of the systemic therapy used. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases, local therapy should not be deferred unless deferral is specifically recommended in this guideline. The decision to defer local therapy should be based on a multidisciplinary discussion of the potential benefits and harms that the patient may experience. Several regimens were recommended for non–small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, and melanoma. For patients with asymptomatic brain metastases and no systemic therapy options, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) alone should be offered to patients with one to four unresected brain metastases, excluding small-cell lung carcinoma. SRS alone to the surgical cavity should be offered to patients with one to two resected brain metastases. SRS, whole brain radiation therapy, or their combination are reasonable options for other patients. Memantine and hippocampal avoidance should be offered to patients who receive whole brain radiation therapy and have no hippocampal lesions and 4 months or more expected survival. Patients with asymptomatic brain metastases with either Karnofsky Performance Status ≤ 50 or Karnofsky Performance Status < 70 with no systemic therapy options do not derive benefit from radiation therapy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/neurooncology-guidelines .

Abstract Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Abstract Background: Several targeted therapies have been recently approved as treatment options for acute myeloid leukemia (AML), however, complete remissions (CR) in relapsed/refractory (R/R) patients remain low. Due to suboptimal responses to standard therapies, most of these patients do not receive an allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). In addition, AML patients ≥55 years have poor tolerance and high morbidity from a myeloablative HCT. The SIERRA trial (Study of Iomab-B in Elderly Relapsed or Refractory AML) has been investigating the use of Iomab-B, an 131I-labeled anti-CD45 monoclonal antibody, to reduce relapse in patients with active, R/R AML who receive HCT as compared to Conventional Care (CC) therapies. With the recent approval of various targeted therapies like BCL-2 inhibitors (e.g., venetoclax), FLT-3 inhibitors (e.g., midostaurin and gilteritinib) and IDH inhibitors (e.g., ivosidenib), the protocol was amended to include patients refractory to these therapies. We are reporting on the success rate of engraftment and tolerability of Iomab-B among the CC patients who cross-over to receive Iomab-B and HCT after failing these agents. Methods: Approximately 150 older patients with R/R AML are to be randomized (1:1) to receive Iomab-B followed by fludarabine, total body irradiation (2 Gy) and allogeneic HCT, or to conventional care (CC). CC patients receive physician's choice of therapy, including targeted therapies, and may proceed to standard of care allogeneic HCT if they achieve CR. CC patients not achieving CR may cross over to Iomab-B-based HCT. Results: Available data for 136 patients (&gt;90% of target enrollment; median age 65) demonstrated they had a median of 3 (range: 1-7) prior lines of AML therapies. Median marrow blast at time of study entry was 25%. Prior to enrollment, 85 (63%) patients received targeted therapies, including BCL-2 inhibitors (62%), FLT-3 inhibitors (18%), IDH inhibitors (7%) and others (13%; e.g., gemtuzumab ozogamicin). Among the 50 evaluable patients in the Iomab-B group that received HCT, all successfully engrafted after a median radiation dose delivered to marrow of 14.7 Gy (range: 4.6 - 44.6) with a median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment of 14.5 (range: 9-28) and 18 (range: 4-58) days, respectively. Of 63 patients randomized to the CC arm and with data available, 11 (17%) achieved CR and proceeded to standard of care HCT without Iomab-B while 52 (83%) did not respond to CC therapy. Twenty-seven of 63 (43%) CC patients received targeted therapy, of whom 21 received venetoclax with hypomethylating agents (HMA) or low-dose Cytarabine (LDAC). Seven of the 27 (26%) CC patients remission after targeted therapy and received standard of care HCT. Of the 20 patients who did not respond to targeted therapies, 11 (55%) crossed-over and received Iomab-B/HCT with a median radiation dose delivered to marrow of 18 Gy (range: 12.6 - 22.6). Median time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment was 12 (range: 10-27) and 20 (range: 15-38) days, respectively. Safety data are available for 103 transplanted patients in both groups and are presented in table. The incidence of Grade ≥3 febrile neutropenia (FN) was 37% vs 55%, sepsis 5% vs 30%, and mucositis 10% vs 20% in the Iomab-B group compared to all transplanted patients in the CC group. In patients who received targeted therapy and HCT (crossover or standard HCT), incidences of FN, sepsis and mucositis were 39%, 28% and 22%, respectively. Conclusion: SIERRA trial patients not achieving CR with recently approved targeted therapies who then crossed-over to receive HCT with Iomab-B successfully engrafted. Time to engraftment was similar to those who were randomized to receive Iomab-B and HCT. Available data suggest incidences of sepsis and mucositis are lower in the Iomab-B group. (www.sierratrial.com or clinicaltrials.gov NCT02665065) Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Gyurkocza: Actinium Pharmaceutical Inc.: Research Funding. Nath: Actinium: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Litzow: Amgen: Research Funding; Biosight: Other: Data monitoring committee; Jazz: Other: Advisory Board; Pluristem: Research Funding; Astellas: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Omeros: Other: Advisory Board; AbbVie: Research Funding. Koshy: Astellas; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Speakers Bureau. Stiff: Seagen: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Gamida Cell: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; BioLineRX: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Cellectar: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding. Abhyankar: Incyte/Therakos: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Hari: Karyopharm: Consultancy; Millenium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive Biotech: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Oncopeptides: 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, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; GSK: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene-BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Chen: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium. Sabloff: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; TaiHo: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Jaxx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; ROCHE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Orozco: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Research Funding. Foran: abbvie: Research Funding; revolution medicine: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; certara: Honoraria; actinium: Research Funding; OncLive: Honoraria; aptose: Research Funding; trillium: Research Funding; gamida: Honoraria; takeda: Research Funding; boehringer ingelheim: Research Funding; bms: Honoraria; taiho: Honoraria; syros: Honoraria; sanofi aventis: Honoraria; pfizer: Honoraria; servier: Honoraria; kura: Research Funding; h3bioscience: Research Funding; aprea: Research Funding; sellas: Research Funding; stemline: Research Funding. Jamieson: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium. Magalhaes-Silverman: Actinium Pharmaceuticals; Incyte; Marker Therapeutics: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium, Research Funding. Schuster: Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MorphoSys Ag: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Astellas: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Intellisphere: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie Incorporated: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Other: Principal Investigator, SIERRA Trial, Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Research Funding; Rafael Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; AlloVir: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Speakers Bureau. Law: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy. Levy: Takeda, Celgene, Seattle Genetics, AbbVie, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Amgen, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,Janssen.: Consultancy. Lazarus: Bristol Myer Squibb: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Giralt: PFIZER: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AMGEN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; SANOFI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CELGENE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JAZZ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; GSK: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; JENSENN: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinnum: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Berger: Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Current Employment. Spross: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Desai: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Reddy: Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment, Current holder of stock options in a privately-held company. Pagel: AstraZeneca: Consultancy; MEI Pharma: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy; BeiGene: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics/AbbVie: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte/MorphoSys: Consultancy.

Objective: We evaluated a protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy approach with a lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS) in patients with large symptomatic walled-off pancreatic necrosis (WON) comprising significant necrotic content, with or without infection. Summary Background Data: Randomized trials have shown similar efficacy of endoscopic treatment compared with surgery for infected WON. Design: We conducted a regulatory, prospective, multicenter single-arm clinical trial examining the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound -guided LAMS with protocolized necrosectomy to treat symptomatic WON ≥6 cm in diameter with >30% solid necrosis. After LAMS placement, protocolized WON assessment was conducted and endoscopic necrosectomy was performed for insufficient WON size reduction and persistent symptoms. Patients with radiographic WON resolution to ≤ 3 cm and/or 60-day LAMS indwell had LAMS removal, then 6-month follow-up. Primary endpoints were probability of radiographic resolution by 60 days and procedure-related serious adverse events. Results: Forty consecutive patients were enrolled September 2018 to March 2020, of whom 27 (67.5%) were inpatients and 19 (47.5%) had clinical evidence of infection at their index procedure. Mean WON size was 15.0 ± 5.6 cm with mean 53.2% ± 16.7% solid necrosis. Radiographic WON resolution was seen in 97.5% (95% CI, 86.8%, 99.9%) by 60 days, without recurrence in 34 patients with 6-month follow-up data. Mean time to radiographic WON resolution was 34.1 ± 16.8 days. Serious adverse events occurred in 3 patients (7.5%), including sepsis, vancomycin-resistant enterococcal bacteremia and shock, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding. There were no procedure-related deaths. Conclusions: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided drainage with protocolized endoscopic necrosectomy to treat large symptomatic or infected walled-off necrotic pancreatic collections was highly effective and safe. Clinicaltrials.-gov no: NCT03525808.

Purpose To develop a standardized method for tibial tunnel volumetric bone mineral density (BMD) analysis with quantitative computed tomography (qCT) using cadaveric specimens to provide validation of this technique on a healthy control population and to determine whether osteopenia occurs following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Methods: qCT was used to develop a volumetric BMD (mg/cm 3 ) measurement technique throughout the region of a standard tibial tunnel. This method was applied to 90 lower extremities, including 10 matched cadaveric knees, 10 matched healthy knees, 25 ACL‐injured knees, and 25 contralateral ACL‐uninjured knees. The mean total and segmental (proximal, middle, and distal) tibial tunnel BMD were analyzed. Results The mean entire tibial tunnel BMD measured 165.8 ± 30.5 mg/cm 3 (cadaver), 255.9 ± 28.2 mg/cm 3 (healthy control), 290.3 ± 36.4 mg/cm 3 (ACL‐injured), and 300.1 ± 35.1 (ACL‐uninjured). Segmental tibial tunnel BMD demonstrated distal one‐third segments as the greatest areas of BMD, followed by proximal one‐third, and middle one‐third for all cohorts with all pairwise comparisons ( P < .001). The mean BMD was significantly greater in the uninjured extremity compared with the injured extremity in the entire tunnel (290.3 vs 300.1; P < .001), proximal (271.2 vs 279.1; P = .002), middle (167.6 vs 179.6; P < .001), and distal segments (432.7 vs 441.7; P = .004) at an average of 8 weeks following ACL injury. Conclusions A standardized method to quantitatively measure the volumetric BMD within the region of a standard tibial tunnel for ACL reconstruction was successfully developed and validated. Significant osteopenia of the injured knee occurs following ACL injury when compared with the contralateral uninjured knee. This observation has potential clinical implications for ACL graft tibial fixation and healing. Level of Evidence Descriptive diagnostic study, Level III.

Background: Lateral meniscal oblique radial tears (LMORT) occur frequently in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) disruption and are anatomically distinct from meniscus root tears. Hypothesis/Purpose: The purpose of this study was to characterize the effects of LMORT types 3 (LMORT3) and 4 (LMORT4) lesions on joint stability and meniscal extrusion in ACL-deficient knees. Our hypothesis was that both lesions would promote significant increases in anterior translation and meniscal extrusion, with the LMORT4 lesion having a greater effect. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Two matched pairs of cadaveric knees (n = 4) were used to optimize the testing sequence. Additional cadaveric knees with LMORT3 (n = 8) and LMORT4 (n = 8) lesions created after ACL transection underwent robotic kinematic testing for anterior drawer and pivot-shift simulations with associated ultrasound-measured meniscal extrusion at clinically relevant knee flexion angles. Results: Optimization testing showed no differences on the effect of LMORT4 lesions for anterior translation and lateral meniscal extrusion with ACL-intact versus ACL-deficient knees. ACL deficiency and LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions with ACL deficiency were associated with significantly greater anterior translation compared with ACL-intact state for both anterior drawer and pivot-shift testing at all flexion angles ( P < .001). ACL deficiency with either LMORT3 or LMORT4 lesion was associated with significantly greater anterior translation than was ACL deficiency only ( P < .005) for anterior drawer testing at 90° of flexion. Meniscal extrusion was greater with LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions compared with ACL deficiency only ( P < .05) for anterior drawer at 60° of flexion and for pivot shift at 15° of flexion. The LMORT4 lesion demonstrated increased anterior translation for anterior drawer ( P = .003) at 60° of flexion (12%) as well as for pivot shift at 15° of flexion (7%) and 30° of flexion (13%) ( P < .005) compared with ACL deficiency only. Conclusion: In this cadaveric model, the addition of an LMORT3 or LMORT4 lesion increased anterior laxity for both the anterior drawer and the pivot shift when compared with an isolated ACL tear. Lateral meniscal extrusion was also exacerbated by these LMORT lesions. Clinical Relevance: LMORT lesions, distinct from meniscus root tears, occur frequently in conjunction with ACL tears. This study characterized the biomechanical consequences of LMORT3 and LMORT4 lesions on joint stability and meniscal function, highlighting the importance of diagnosing and treating LMORT lesions at the time of ACL reconstruction.