Citations

Objectives This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), direct thrombin inhibitors (DTIs) and factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at risk of stroke in everyday practice. Methods Data from patients with AF and Congestive heart failure, Hypertension, Age 75 years, Diabetes mellitus, prior Stroke, TIA, or thromboembolism, Vascular disease, Age 65-74 years, Sex category (CHA2DS2-VASc) score ≥2 (excluding gender) in the Global Anticoagulant Registry in the FIELD–Atrial Fibrillation registry were analysed using an improved method of propensity weighting, overlap weights and Cox proportional hazards models. Results All-cause mortality, non-haemorrhagic stroke/systemic embolism (SE) and major bleeding over 2 years were compared in 25 551 patients, 7162 (28.0%) not treated with oral anticoagulant (OAC) and 18 389 (72.0%) treated with OAC (FXaI (41.8%), DTI (11.4%) and VKA (46.8%)). OAC treatment compared with no OAC treatment was associated with decreased risk of all-cause mortality (HR 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91)) and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.88)) but increased risk of major bleeding (HR 1.46 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.86)). Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (NOAC) use compared with no OAC treatment was associated with lower risks of all-cause mortality and non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (HR 0.67 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.77)) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.86)) respectively, with no increase in major bleeding (HR 1.10 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.47)). NOAC use compared with VKA use was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and major bleeding (rates/100 patient-years 3.6 (95% CI 3.3 to 3.9) vs 4.8 (95% CI 4.5 to 5.2) and 1.0 (95% CI 0.9 to 1.1) vs 1.4 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.6); HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.89) and 0.77 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.98) respectively), with similar risk of non-haemorrhagic stroke/SE (rates/100 patient-years 0.8 (95% CI 0.7 to 0.9) versus 1.0 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.1); HR 0.96 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.25). Conclusion Important benefits in terms of mortality and major bleeding were observed with NOAC versus VKA with no difference among NOAC subtypes. Trial registration number NCT01090362.

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.

Background: Current treatment options for red blood cell (RBC) transfusion-dependent (TD) patients with lower risk (LR) myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) relapsed after or refractory to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) have limited efficacy and durability; new approaches are needed. Imetelstat is a 13-mer lipid-conjugated oligonucleotide that targets the RNA template of human telomerase and is a competitive inhibitor of telomerase enzymatic activity (Asai et al, Cancer Res 2003; Herbert et al, Oncogene 2005). Preclinical, in vivo xenograft models (Dikmen et al, Cancer Res 2005; Hochreiter et al, Clin Cancer Res 2006) and preliminary clinical data from a pilot study (Tefferi et al, Blood Cancer J 2016) supported initiation of a study in TD LR MDS patients. The Phase 2 part of IMerge demonstrated an 8-week RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) rate of 42%, 24-week RBC-TI rate of 32%, with median duration of TI being 88 weeks. The responses were seen across different subtypes of LR MDS (Platzbecker et al, EHA 2020, S183). No new safety signal was identified. These results support the Phase 3 part of the trial. Methods: IMerge is two-part, Phase 2/3 study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02598661). The Phase 2 portion of the study described above is closed for enrolment. The Phase 3 portion of the study is open for enrollment of adult patients with International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low or intermediate-1 risk, non-del(5q) MDS, who are TD, are relapsed after or refractory to ESAs, and have not received treatment with lenalidomide or hypomethylating agents. The study is a randomized (2:1) double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to compare efficacy of imetelstat vs. placebo that will enroll approximately 170 patients and will be conducted at approximately 130 centers in North America, Europe, Asia and Middle East. Imetelstat will be administered as 2-hour IV infusion every 4 weeks at 7.5 mg/kg. The primary endpoint of the study is to assess the rate of RBC-TI lasting ≥8 weeks. Secondary endpoints include safety, rate of RBC-TI ≥24 weeks, time to RBC-TI start, RBC-TI duration, rate of hematologic improvement-erythroid (HI-E), the amount and relative change in RBC transfusions, rate of complete response or partial response, overall survival, progression of MDS, pharmacokinetics, and effect of treatment on quality of life. Biomarkers relevant to the mechanism of action of imetelstat will be assessed to demonstrate target inhibition and their association with clinical responses. Cytogenetics and mutation analyses will be performed to evaluate the impact of imetelstat on reduction/depletion of malignant clones leading to disease modification. Disclosures Platzbecker: AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Geron: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Fenaux:Abbvie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; BMS: Honoraria, Research Funding; Jazz: Honoraria, Research Funding. Steensma:CRISPR: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Aprea Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy; Onconova: Consultancy; Arena: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; H3 Biosciences: Research Funding; Astex Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka: Consultancy; Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Font:Abbvie: Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Menarini: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: Travel, accommodations, expenses; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Diez-Campelo:Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Thepot:astellas: Honoraria; novartis: Honoraria; sanofi: Honoraria; celgene: Honoraria. Jang:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Sherman:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Dougherty:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sun:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Huang:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wan:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Rizo:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Berry:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Feller:Geron Corp: Current Employment, Current equity holder in private company. Santini:Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Acceleron: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Menarini: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria.

Abstract Objectives The aim of this literature review was to establish consensus with respect to the anatomic features of the articular branches innervating the hip joint and the distribution of sensory receptors within its capsule. Methods Five electronic databases were queried, with the search encompassing articles published between January 1945 and June 2019. Twenty-one original articles providing a detailed description of sensory receptors around the hip joint capsule (n=13) and its articular branches (n=8) were reviewed. Results The superior portions of the anterior capsule and the labrum were found to be the area of densest nociceptive innervation. Similar to the distribution of nociceptors, mechanoreceptor density was found to be higher anteriorly than posteriorly. Hip joint capsular innervation was found to consistently involve the femoral and obturator nerves, which supply the anterior capsule, and the nerve to the quadratus femoris, which supplies the posterior capsule. The femoral, obturator, and superior gluteal nerves supply articular branches to the most nociceptor-rich region of the hip capsule. Conclusions The femoral and obturator nerves and the nerve to the quadratus femoris were found to consistently supply articular branches to both the anterior and posterior capsule of the hip joint. The anterior capsule, primarily supplied by the femoral and obturator nerves, and the superior labrum appear to be the primary pain generators of the hip joint, given their higher density of nociceptors and mechanoreceptors. Level of Evidence Anatomy study, literature review.

AbstractBackgroundChange in left atrial pressure (LAP) has been shown to be associated with symptom improvement post‐MitraClip; however, the association between acute procedural changes in transmitral diastolic mean gradient (MG) compared to LAP and symptom improvement is not well established.Methods164 consecutive patients undergoing MitraClip at Mayo Clinic between June 2014 and May 2018 were included. Preclip and postclip MG and LAP were recorded. Baseline demographics, clinical, and echocardiographic outcomes, including 30‐day New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional status were obtained from patient charts.ResultsMedian age was 81.5 years (IQR: 76.3, 87), 34% were female and 94.5% had NYHA class III and IV functional status at baseline. At baseline, median MG was 4 mmHg (IQR: 3, 5) and LAP was 19 mmHg (IQR: 16, 23.5). Following MitraClip deployment, the median MG was 4 mmHg (IQR: 3, 6) and the median LAP was 17 mmHg (IQR: 14, 21), 69.5% of patients had less than moderate MR. There was no statistically significant association between change in MG and NYHA functional class at 30 days (OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.76–1.20). However, a reduction in LAP following MitraClip deployment was significantly associated with improvement in NYHA functional status at 30 days following adjustments for age and sex (aOR 3.36, 95% CI: 1.34–8.65). There was no significant correlation between change in mean LAP and change in MG (p = .98).ConclusionUnlike change in left atrial pressure, change in MG post‐MitraClip was not associated with patient reported outcomes at 30 days and did not correlate with change in left atrial pressure. Long‐term follow up is needed to evaluate the impact of LA pressure on symptoms.

Abstract Background: Traditionally, mutational burden and mutational signatures have been assessed by tumor-normal pair DNA sequencing. The requirement of having both normal and tumor samples is not always feasible from a clinical perspective, and led us to investigate the efficacy of using RNA sequencing of only the tumor sample to determine the mutational burden and signatures, and subsequently molecular cause of the cancer. The potential advantages include reducing the cost of testing, and simultaneously providing information on the gene expression profile and gene fusions present in the tumor. Results: In this study, we devised supervised and unsupervised learning methods to determine mutational signatures from tumor RNA-seq data. As applications, we applied the methods to a training set of 587 TCGA uterine cancer RNA-seq samples, and examined in an independent testing set of 521 TCGA colorectal cancer RNA-seq samples. Both diseases are known associated with microsatellite instable high (MSI-H) and driver defects in DNA polymerase ɛ (POLɛ). From RNA-seq called variants, we found majority (>95%) are likely germline variants, leading to C>T enriched germline variants (dbSNP) widely applicable in tumor and normal RNA-seq samples. We found significant associations between RNA-derived mutational burdens and MSI/POLɛ status, and insignificant relationship between RNA-seq total coverage and derived mutational burdens. Additionally we found that over 80% of variants could be explained by using the COSMIC mutational signature-5, -6 and -10, which are implicated in natural aging, MSI-H, and POLɛ, respectively. For classifying tumor type, within UCEC we achieved a recall of 0.56 and 0.78, and specificity of 0.66 and 0.99 for MSI and POLɛ respectively. By applying learnt RNA signatures from UCEC to COAD, we were able to improve our classification of both MSI and POLɛ. Conclusions: Taken together, our work provides a novel method to detect RNA-seq derived mutational signatures with effective procedures to remove likely germline variants. It can leads to accurate classification of underlying driving mechanisms of DNA damage deficiency.

Precise management of kidney cancer requires the identification of prognostic factors. hPG80 (circulating progastrin) is a tumor promoting peptide present in the blood of patients with various cancers, including renal cell carcinoma (RCC). In this study, we evaluated the prognostic value of plasma hPG80 in 143 prospectively collected patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). The prognostic impact of hPG80 levels on overall survival (OS) in mRCC patients after controlling for hPG80 levels in non-cancer age matched controls was determined and compared to the International Metastatic Database Consortium (IMDC) risk model (good, intermediate, poor). ROC curves were used to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hPG80 using the area under the curve (AUC). Our results showed that plasma hPG80 was detected in 94% of mRCC patients. hPG80 levels displayed high predictive accuracy with an AUC of 0.93 and 0.84 when compared to 18–25 year old controls and 50–80 year old controls, respectively. mRCC patients with high hPG80 levels (>4.5 pM) had significantly lower OS compared to patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM) (12 versus 31.2 months, respectively; p = 0.0031). Adding hPG80 levels (score of 1 for patients having hPG80 levels > 4.5 pM) to the six variables of the IMDC risk model showed a greater and significant difference in OS between the newly defined good-, intermediate- and poor-risk groups (p = 0.0003 compared to p = 0.0076). Finally, when patients with IMDC intermediate-risk group were further divided into two groups based on hPG80 levels within these subgroups, increased OS were observed in patients with low hPG80 levels (<4.5 pM). In conclusion, our data suggest that hPG80 could be used for prognosticating survival in mRCC alone or integrated to the IMDC score (by adding a variable to the IMDC score or by substratifying the IMDC risk groups), be a prognostic biomarker in mRCC patients.

AbstractBackgroundAlzheimer’s disease (AD) prevention trials aim to intervene prior to significant neuronal loss, brain damage, and symptom onset to delay or slow cognitive decline. In dominantly inherited AD (DIAD), mutation carriers develop symptomatic AD at predictable ages with near 100% penetrance. In 2012, the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network Trials Unit Adaptive Prevention Trial (DIAN‐TU APT) platform launched a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel group trial of two anti‐amyloid‐beta monoclonal antibodies with two different antigenic targets, gantenerumab and solanezumab (NCT01760005). The DIAN‐TU scientific development, implementation of the first AD prevention trial, trial challenges and opportunities, including dose escalation, and top‐line results will be presented.MethodDIAN was established in 2008 in response to a call from the National Institute of Aging to establish a network to study DIAD and enable future clinical trials. Successive breakthroughs in understanding disease processes enabled the launch of the DIAN‐TU adaptive prevention trial, a global adaptive platform trial supporting testing multiple drugs in parallel. The DIAN‐TU partners include patients and families at risk for DIAD, global academic researchers, the NIH, Alzheimer’s Association, philanthropic supporters, the DIAN‐TU Pharma Consortium, and pharmaceutical companies with drugs being tested. Important milestones include developing a platform to enable a comprehensive efficient treatment trial for this rare population, adding tau PET as part of AMP AD, adapting dosing mid‐trial and extending the original biomarker trial to continue randomized dosing to test a cognitive endpoint until the last patient reaches 4 years, developing a disease progression statistical model and inclusion of DIAN observational data to increase the power to determine drug effects.ResultThe primary and key secondary outcomes of the DIAN‐TU trial will be presented for each therapy in the context of targeting amyloid‐beta at pre‐clinical and clinically symptomatic stages of disease.ConclusionThese results inform about AD hypotheses, timing of treatment and the prospect of slowing, or preventing AD in DIAD and sporadic AD.

AbstractBackgroundGantenerumab is a humanized anti‐amyloid‐beta monoclonal antibody in clinical development for the treatment of several stages of Alzheimer disease (AD). Gantenerumab was evaluated in a phase 2/3 clinical trial program designed to evaluate its efficacy in autosomal dominant AD based on a combination of clinical and biomarker evidence.MethodThe study enrolled both mutation carriers (n=69 with 3:1 randomization of treatment (n=52) vs placebo (n=17)) and non‐carriers (n=28, all on placebo) from 15 years before to 10 years after the expected age of onset inclusive. Patients were both asymptomatic (CDR 0 and MMSE >25) and symptomatic (CDR 0.5‐1 and MMSE >16). There were 41 asymptomatic and 28 symptomatic mutation carriers. The initial dose of gantenerumab was 225 mg monthly administered subcutaneously. The dose was titrated to 1200 mg/month following a protocol amendment based on the increased amyloid lowering seen at higher doses in the gantenerumab program in symptomatic AD. The treatment duration was a minimum of 4 years (range 48‐80 months). The primary outcome was change from baseline in the DIAN‐TU multivariate cognitive endpoint. Secondary clinical outcomes included the DIAN‐TU cognitive composite, Cogstate multivariate cognitive endpoint, CDR SB, and time to CDR progression of >0.5 points. Change from baseline in amyloid PET was the primary biomarker outcome. Other biomarker outcomes included MRI, tau PET, CSF amyloid, tau and phosphotau, and CSF and plasma neurofilament light (NfL). Safety outcomes including ARIA were compared between drug and placebo groups.ResultWe will report change from baseline on the DIAN‐TU multivariate cognitive endpoint, DIAN‐TU cognitive composite, CDR‐SB and other secondary efficacy endpoints. We expect significant lowering on amyloid PET with PIB and florbetapir based on the results from recent anti‐amyloid antibodies, including Gantenerumab, in sporadic AD. We will also present the results of change in other key imaging and fluid biomarkers. The frequency, duration, and severity of ARIA will be reported and compared with studies in sporadic AD.ConclusionThis clinical trial was designed to inform future for ADAD and will provide new insights on the role of amyloid reduction in both pre‐symptomatic and clinical AD.