Citations

This Practice Advisory presents a comprehensive and evidence-based set of position statements and recommendations for the use of contrast media in interventional pain procedures. The advisory was established by an international panel of experts under the auspices of 11 multinational and multispecialty organizations based on a comprehensive review of the literature up to December 31, 2019. The advisory discusses the risks of using gadolinium-based contrast agents. These include nephrogenic systemic fibrosis, gadolinium brain deposition/retention, and encephalopathy and death after an unintentional intrathecal gadolinium injection. The advisory provides recommendations on the selection of a specific gadolinium-based contrast agent in patients with renal insufficiency, those who had multiple gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging examinations, and in cases of paraspinal injections. Additionally, recommendations are made for patients who have a history of mild, moderate, or severe hypersensitivity reactions to contrast medium.

In persons living with HIV (PLWH), there are multiple sources of liver injury. Gene polymorphisms of PNPLA3 (patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing protein 3) have been identified as an important cofactor for increased disease severity in both alcoholic and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). We utilized a well-characterized cohort of ethnically and racially diverse patients with HIV to define the prevalence of PNPLA3 SNPs (single nucleotide polymorphism) (rs738409), and to determine the relationship to hepatic steatosis and liver fibrosis. Steatosis was determined using MRI-PDFF (magnetic resonance imaging-determined proton density fat fraction) and fibrosis was estimated using MR Elastography (MRE). From the Miami Area HIV Study (MASH) cohort, 100 HIV positive participants and 40 controls (HCV/HIV = 20; HCV and HIV negative = 20) were evaluated. Nearly 40% of all participants carried the variant G allele associated with increased liver disease severity and 5% were homozygotic GG. The variant SNP occurred most frequently in those self-identified as Hispanic compared to white or Black participants. Hepatic steatosis (>5% fat) was present significantly more often in those without HIV vs. those with (p < 0.001). Putative NAFLD/NASH was found to be present in 6% of tested subjects, who were HIV monoinfected. BMI was lower in those that carried the G allele for PNPLA3. This finding suggests that PNPLA3 may be an independent component to NAFLD (non-alcoholic fatty liver disease)/NASH development and longitudinal follow-up of the cohort is warranted.

Mutations provide an enduring record Somatic mutations pepper our cells with change, but because they are not in the germline, they do not propagate to the next generation. Bizzotto et al. leveraged data on the distribution of somatic mutations in adults to take a backward look at the earliest moments of human development. Calculation of cellular lineages on the basis of shared somatic mutations shows the number of cells from which the body will develop when the human embryo gastrulates. The lineage for forebrain cells is identifiable, as are the asymmetrical fates spun out of many of the gastrula cells. Science , this issue p. 1249

The identification of clinically important molecular mechanisms driving endocrine resistance is a priority in estrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer. Although both genomic and non-genomic cross-talk between the ER and growth factor receptors such as human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) has frequently been associated with both experimental and clinical endocrine therapy resistance, combined targeting of ER and HER2 has failed to improve overall survival in endocrine non-responsive disease. Herein, we questioned the role of fatty acid synthase (FASN), a lipogenic enzyme linked to HER2-driven breast cancer aggressiveness, in the development and maintenance of hormone-independent growth and resistance to anti-estrogens in ER/HER2-positive (ER+/HER2+) breast cancer. The stimulatory effects of estradiol on FASN gene promoter activity and protein expression were blunted by anti-estrogens in endocrine-responsive breast cancer cells. Conversely, an AKT/MAPK-related constitutive hyperactivation of FASN gene promoter activity was unaltered in response to estradiol in non-endocrine responsive ER+/HER2+ breast cancer cells, and could be further enhanced by tamoxifen. Pharmacological blockade with structurally and mechanistically unrelated FASN inhibitors fully impeded the strong stimulatory activity of tamoxifen on the soft-agar colony forming capacity—an in vitro metric of tumorigenicity—of ER+/HER2+ breast cancer cells. In vivo treatment with a FASN inhibitor completely prevented the agonistic tumor-promoting activity of tamoxifen and fully restored its estrogen antagonist properties against ER/HER2-positive xenograft tumors in mice. Functional cancer proteomic data from The Cancer Proteome Atlas (TCPA) revealed that the ER+/HER2+ subtype was the highest FASN protein expressor compared to basal-like, HER2-enriched, and ER+/HER2-negative breast cancer groups. FASN is a biological determinant of HER2-driven endocrine resistance in ER+ breast cancer. Next-generation, clinical-grade FASN inhibitors may be therapeutically relevant to countering resistance to tamoxifen in FASN-overexpressing ER+/HER2+ breast carcinomas.

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Aims. Combined cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) and exercise stress echocardiography (ESE) provides a non-invasive tool to study cardiopulmonary pathophysiology. We analyzed how cardiac functional reserve during exercise relates to peak oxygen consumption (VO2). Methods and Results. We performed a symptom-limited graded ramp bicycle CPET-ESE in 30 healthy controls and 357 patients: 113 at risk of developing heart failure (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association HF Stages A-B) and 244 in HF Stage C with preserved (HFpEF, n = 101) or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF, n = 143). Peak VO2 significantly decreased from controls to Stage A-B and Stage C (Table 1). A multivariable regression model to predict peak VO2 revealed peak left ventricular systolic annulus tissue velocity (S"), peak TAPSE/PAPs (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion/systolic pulmonary artery pressure) and low-load left atrial reservoir strain/E/e’ were independent predictors, in addition to peak heart rate, stroke volume and workload (adjusted R²=0.76, p &lt; 0.0001). The model was successfully tested in subjects with atrial fibrillation (n = 49), and with (n = 224) and without (n = 163) beta-blockers (all p &lt; 0.01). Peak S’ showed the highest accuracy in predicting peak VO2 &lt; 10 mL/kg/min (cut-point ≤ 7.5 cm/s; AUC = 0.92, p &lt; 0.0001) and peak VO2 &gt; 20 mL/kg/min (cut-point &gt; 12.5 cm/s; AUC = 0.84, p &lt; 0.0001) in comparison to the other cardiac variables of the model (p &lt; 0.05). Conclusions. A model incorporating different measures of cardiac mechanics is strongly related to peak aerobic capacity and may help in identifying different causes of effort intolerance from HF Stage A to C. Table 1 Variable Overall population (n = 387) Controls (n = 30) Stage A-B (n = 113) Stage C-HFpEF (n = 101) Stage c-HFrEF (n = 143) p-value Age, years 68.9 ± 11.1 67.1 ± 10.6 67.7 ± 10.4 70.5 ± 10.1 68.5 ± 11 0.1 Male, n (%) 247 (64) 18 (60) 70 (62) 57 (56) 102 (71) 0.1 VO2 @peak, mL/min/kg 15.7 (12.1-19.6) 23 (21.7- 29.7) 18 (15.4- 20.7)* 13.6 (11.8- 16.8)*† 14.2 (10.7- 17.5)*† &lt;0.0001 Workload @peak, W 90 (65-120) 130 (115-195) 110 (84-130)* 70 (55-100)*† 80 (60-110)*† &lt;0.0001 Heart rate @peak, bpm 123 ± 22 142 ± 12 130 ± 20* 115 ± 17*† 119 ± 23*† &lt;0.0001 Stroke volume @peak, mL 83 (71-99) 98 (85-114) 86 (76-107) 83 (74-97)* 75 (63-95)*† &lt;0.0001 Average S" @peak, cm/s 11.2 ± 3.8 17.1 ± 3.9 13.3 ± 2.9* 10.6 ± 2.5*† 8.7 ± 2.7*†‡ &lt;0.0001 TAPSE/PAPs @peak, mm/mmHg 0.75 (0.46-0.97) 1.05 (0.93- 1.16) 0.81 (0.52- 0.91)* 0.52 (0.38- 0.83)*† 0.58 (0.41- 0.89)*† &lt;0.0001 Left atrial reservoir strain/E/e" @low-load, % 2.25 (1.17-5.04) 6.23 (4.45-6.77) 4.34 (3.89- 5.58)* 2.23 (1.31- 2.86)*† 1.91 (1.07-2.44)*†‡ &lt;0.0001 * p &lt; 0.01 vs Controls; † p &lt; 0.01 vs Stage A-B; ‡ p &lt; 0.01 vs Stage C-HFpEF. PAPs systolic pulmonary artery pressure; TAPSE: tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion; VO2: oxygen consumption. Abstract Figure 1

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Aims. We tested the prognostic role of a risk score including bio-humoral evaluation, cardiopulmonary-echocardiographic stress (CPET-ESE) and lung ultrasound, in patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (HFrEF and HFpEF), and subjects at risk of developing HF (American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Stages A and B). Methods and results. We evaluated 318 subjects: 94 in Stages A-B, 194 in Stage C (85 HFpEF and 109 HFrEF), and 30 age and sex-matched controls (Stage 0). During a median follow-up of 18.5 months, we reported 40 urgent HF visits, 31 HF hospitalisations and 10 cardiovascular deaths. Cox proportional-hazards regression for predicting adverse events identified five independent predictors and each was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient: Δstress-rest B-lines &gt;10 (3 points), peak oxygen consumption &lt;16 mL/kg/min (2 points), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope ≥36 (2 points), peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure ≥50 mmHg (1 point) and resting N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) &gt;900 pg/mL (1 point). We defined three risk categories: low-risk (&lt;3 points), intermediate-risk (3-6 points), and high-risk (&gt;6 points). The event-free survival probability for these three groups were 93%, 52% and 20%, respectively. Hazard Ratio was 4.55 for each risk category upgrade (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.44-5.93). The area-under-curve for the scoring system to predict events was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88-0.96). Conclusion. A multiparametric risk score including indices of exercise-induced pulmonary congestion, markers of cardiopulmonary dysfunction and NT-proBNP identifies patients at increased risk for HF events across the HF spectrum. Table 1 Variable EPYC score EPYC score &lt;3 (low risk) n = 217 EPYC score 3-6 (intermediate risk) n = 70 EPYC score &gt;6 (high risk) n = 31 p-value (between risk categories) Event-free (n = 244) 0 (0 - 2) 210 (97) 32 (46) 2 (6) &lt;0.0001 With events (n = 74) 6 (4 - 9) 7 (3) 38 (54) 29 (94) &lt;0.0001 p-value (event-free vs with events) &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 Stage 0-Controls (n = 30) 0 (0 - 1) 30 0 0 &lt;0.0001 Stages A-B (n = 94) 1 (0 - 2) 85 (45) 6 (9) 3 (10) &lt;0.0001 Stage C-HFpEF (n = 85) 3 (1 - 6)*† 46 (25) 29 (41) 10 (32) &lt;0.0001 Stage C-HFrEF (n = 109) 4 (2 - 7)*† 56 (30) 35 (50) 18 (58) &lt;0.0001 p-value (between HF Stages) &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 &lt;0.0001 Values are mean ± standard deviation, n (%), or median [25th quartile, 75th quartile]. * p &lt; 0.01 vs Stage 0-Controls; † p &lt; 0.01 vs Stages A-B. Abstract Figure 1

Introduction Historically, nearly all relapses in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) occur within the first 5 years (Radford et al, BMJ 1997). In the phase 3 ECHELON-1 study (NCT01712490), treatment with brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) significantly improved modified progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with newly-diagnosed Stage III/IV cHL compared with doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD) (Connors et al, NEJM 2018). 3- and 4-year follow-up (Straus et al, Blood 2020; Bartlett et al, Blood 2019) reported durable PFS benefit with A+AVD vs ABVD in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population that was consistent across most key pt subgroups, irrespective of interim positron emission tomography (PET) scan status, disease stage, and baseline disease risk factor score. We report updated efficacy and safety results for pts in the ECHELON-1 study after a median follow-up of 55.6 months. Methods In this evaluation of longer follow-up, an exploratory analysis of PFS (time from randomization to relapse, progression, or death from any cause) per investigator (INV) was conducted, with a cutoff date of May 18, 2020. Pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL were randomized 1:1 to receive up to six cycles of A+AVD (n=664) or ABVD (n=670) intravenously on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. An interim PET scan after cycle 2 (PET2) was required. Resolution and improvement (defined as improvement by ≥1 grade from worst grade as of the latest assessment) of peripheral neuropathy (PN) in pts with ongoing symptoms at the end of treatment (EoT) were monitored during the extended follow-up period. The rate of secondary malignancies, and the incidence and outcomes of pregnancies among pts and their partners were also assessed. Results With extended follow-up (median 55.6 months; 95% CI 55.2-56.7) estimated 5-year PFS rates were 82.0% (95% CI 78.7-84.8) for A+AVD and 75.2% (95% CI 71.5-78.4) for ABVD. Overall, PFS per INV favored A+AVD over ABVD (HR 0.691; 95% CI 0.543-0.880; p=0.003) (Table). Exploratory subgroup analyses by PET2 status and age demonstrated PFS benefits regardless of PET2 status (Table); estimated 5-year PFS per INV with A+AVD vs ABVD in the ITT population was 84.7% vs 78.8% in PET2-negative pts (HR 0.676; 95% CI 0.512-0.892; p=0.005), and 60.6% vs 45.9% in PET2-positive pts (HR 0.703; 95% CI 0.393-1.256; p=0.230). PFS benefit with A+AVD over ABVD was also independent of the number of International Prognostic Factors Project (IPFP) risk factors (Figure). After a median follow-up of almost 5-years, 84% (370/442) and 86% (245/286) of pts with treatment-emergent PN reported complete resolution or improvement of symptoms in the A+AVD and ABVD arms, respectively. Median time to complete resolution of PN events that were ongoing at EoT was 30 weeks (range 0-262) in the A+AVD arm and 16 weeks (range 0-267) in the ABVD arm; median time to improvement was 49 weeks (range 8-270) and 12 weeks (range 2-70) , respectively. Of the 132 (30%) pts with ongoing PN in the A+AVD arm, 77 (17%), 39 (9%), 15 (3%) and 1 (&lt;1%) experienced a maximum severity of grade 1, 2, 3 or 4, respectively. In the ABVD arm, PN was ongoing in 61 pts (21%); maximum severity was grade 1, 2, 3 or 4 in 40 (14%), 17 (6%), 4 (1%) and 0 pts, respectively. A total of 124 pregnancies were reported among pts and their partners (40 female and 30 male pts in the A+AVD arm; 26 female and 28 male pts in the ABVD arm). The proportion of live births was similar between arms for female pts (26/40 in the A+AVD arm and 17/26 in the ABVD arm, 65% in each arm) and for male pts' partners (19/30 [63%] in the A+AVD arm and 20/28 [71%] in the ABVD arm). No stillbirths were recorded. Additional follow-up at an estimated median of ~5 years and secondary malignancy data will be presented. Conclusions After a median follow-up of 55.6 months, A+AVD continues to demonstrate a robust and durable treatment benefit independent of disease stage, risk factor score, and PET2 status. In addition, compared with ABVD, treatment adaptation by interim PET2 status is not required and bleomycin exposure is avoided. The sustained PFS benefit with A+AVD is coupled with a manageable safety profile with symptoms of PN improving or resolving over time and similar pregnancy rates in both treatment arms. The benefits observed with A+AVD at this important milestone suggest that A+AVD is an attractive treatment option for all pts with previously untreated Stage III or IV cHL. Disclosures Straus: Karyopharm Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Imedex, Inc.: Speakers Bureau; Targeted Oncology: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; NY Lymphoma Rounds: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; OncLive: Speakers Bureau; Elsevier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: CME writer; ASH: Other: Conference in December 2019 on HL to other physicians during ASH; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Connors:Seattle Genetics: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations; Takeda: Other: Sponsorship to educational presentations. Illés:Takeda, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Novartis, Janssen, Pfizer, Roche;: Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses; Janssen, Celgene, Takeda, Novartis Pharma SAS, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals Israel, Roche;: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene, Janssen, Novartis,Roche, Takeda: Consultancy. Lech-Marańda:Roche, Novartis, Takeda, Janssen-Cilag, Amgen, Gilead, AbbVie, Sanofi: Consultancy; Roche, Amgen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Feldman:KITE: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Morphosis: Other: Ad board; AstraZeneca: Other: Ad board; BMS/Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Smolewski:Roche Poland: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz: Honoraria; Morphosis: Honoraria. Savage:Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria. Bartlett:Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BTG: Consultancy; Acerta: Consultancy; Affimed Therapeutics: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Autolus: Research Funding; BMS/Celgene: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Immune Design: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Kite, a Gilead Company: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Millennium: Research Funding. Walewski:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Ramchandren:Janssen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Zinzani:Eusapharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; MSD: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Immune Design: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics, Inc.: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Kirin Kyowa: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; ADC Therapeutics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Celltrion: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sandoz: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Hutchings:Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Novartis, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Research Funding; Genmab, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Munoz:Juno/Celgene/BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Alexion: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Fosunkite: Consultancy; Innovent: Consultancy; Acrotech/Aurobindo: Speakers Bureau; Verastem: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau; Kyowa: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech/Roche: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AbbVie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Millenium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kim:JJ: Research Funding; Celltrion: Research Funding; Kyowa Kirn: Research Funding; Donga: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Advani:Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Cell Medica, Celgene, Genentech/Roche, Gilead, KitePharma, Kyowa, Portola Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda: Consultancy; Celgene, Forty Seven, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Janssen Pharmaceutical, Kura, Merck, Millenium, Pharmacyclics, Regeneron, Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Ansell:Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding. Younes:HCM: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Curis: Consultancy; BMS: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; BioPath: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Current Employment; Janssen: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Gallamini:Takeda: Other: Speaker. Liu:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Current Employment. Little:Takeda: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fenton:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Fanale:Seattle Genetics: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Radford:GlaxoSmithKline: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; AstraZeneca: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Other: Spouse; Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding; ADCT: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau.

PURPOSE: IMpower133 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02763579 ), a randomized, double-blind, phase I/III study, demonstrated that adding atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1 [PD-L1]) to carboplatin plus etoposide (CP/ET) for first-line (1L) treatment of extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) resulted in significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus CP/ET. Updated OS, disease progression patterns, safety, and exploratory biomarkers (PD-L1, blood-based tumor mutational burden [bTMB]) are reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated ES-SCLC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive four 21-day cycles of CP (area under the curve 5 mg per mL/min intravenously [IV], day 1) plus ET (100 mg/m 2 IV, days 1-3) with atezolizumab (1,200 mg IV, day 1) or placebo, and then maintenance atezolizumab or placebo until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or loss of clinical benefit. Tumor specimens were collected; PD-L1 testing was not required for enrollment. The two primary end points, investigator-assessed PFS and OS, were statistically significant at the interim analysis. Updated OS and PFS and exploratory biomarker analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Patients received atezolizumab plus CP/ET (n = 201) or placebo plus CP/ET (n = 202). At the updated analysis, median follow-up for OS was 22.9 months; 302 deaths had occurred. Median OS was 12.3 and 10.3 months with atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95; descriptive P = .0154). At 18 months, 34.0% and 21.0% of patients were alive in atezolizumab plus CP/ET and placebo plus CP/ET arms, respectively. Patients derived benefit from the addition of atezolizumab, regardless of PD-L1 immunohistochemistry or bTMB status. CONCLUSION: Adding atezolizumab to CP/ET as 1L treatment for ES-SCLC continued to demonstrate improved OS and a tolerable safety profile at the updated analysis, confirming the regimen as a new standard of care. Exploratory analyses demonstrated treatment benefit independent of biomarker status.

Abstract Aims Risk stratification of heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can promote a more personalized treatment. We tested the prognostic value of a multi-parametric evaluation, including biomarkers, cardiopulmonary exercise testing-exercise stress echocardiography (CPET-ESE), and lung ultrasound, in HFpEF patients and subjects at risk of developing HF (HF Stages A and B). Background Risk stratification of heart failure (HF) patients with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) can promote a more personalized treatment. Design We tested the prognostic value of a multi-parametric evaluation, including biomarkers, cardiopulmonary exercise testing-exercise stress echocardiography (CPET-ESE), and lung ultrasound, in HFpEF patients and subjects at risk of developing HF (HF Stages A and B). Methods and results We performed a resting clinical/bio-humoural evaluation and a symptom-limited CPET-ESE in 274 patients (45 Stage A, 68 Stage B, and 161 Stage C-HFpEF) and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. During a median follow-up of 18.5 months, we reported 71 HF hospitalizations and 10 cardiovascular deaths. Cox proportional-hazards regression identified five independent predictors and each was assigned a number of points proportional to its regression coefficient: stress-rest ΔB-lines &gt;10 (3 points), peak oxygen consumption &lt;16 mL/kg/min (2 points), minute ventilation/carbon dioxide production slope ≥36 (2 points), peak systolic pulmonary artery pressure ≥50 mmHg (1 point) and resting N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) &gt;900 pg/mL (1 point). The event-free survival probability for low risk (&lt;3 points), intermediate risk (3–6 points), and high risk (&gt;6 points) were 93%, 52%, and 20%, respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) for the scoring system to predict events was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.96), with an accuracy significantly higher than the individual components of the score (all P &lt; 0.01 vs. individual AUCs). Conclusion A weighted risk score including NT-proBNP, markers of cardiopulmonary dysfunction and indices of exercise-induced pulmonary congestion identifies HFpEF patients at increased risk for adverse events and Stage A and B subjects more likely to progress towards more advanced HF stages.