Citations

Abstract Background The phase 3 trial A041202 solidified the Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib as a standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL by showing superior progression-free survival (PFS) as compared with bendamustine plus rituximab. While ibrutinib is highly effective in previously untreated CLL, there do remain disadvantages to this therapy, specifically the low rate of complete response (CR) and therefore need for continuous administration, which increases cost and toxicity. In older patients especially, toxicities with ibrutinib are common; with median duration of ibrutinib treatment of 32 months, 17% of patients had atrial fibrillation and 29% had grade 3 or higher hypertension on the A041202 study. Thus, strategies to decrease the exposure time to ibrutinib are of interest. Venetoclax is an inhibitor of BCL2 which has shown efficacy as a single agent and in combination with monoclonal antibodies, specifically the anti-CD20 monoclonal antibody obinutuzumab for patients with previously untreated CLL. One significant advantage to venetoclax is the ability to produce CRs and minimal residual disease negative (MRD-) responses. In this study, we compare ibrutinib plus obinutuzumab (IO) to ibrutinib plus venetoclax plus obinutuzumab (IVO) with a response-dependent discontinuation. Study Design and Methods A041702 (NCT03737981) is a randomized phase 3 study led by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology that is currently enrolling through the national clinical trials network (NCTN). Eligible patients are those patients with CLL or SLL age 70 or older who are previously untreated and in need of therapy. Patients with del17p on FISH must be age 65 or older. Previous treatment of autoimmune complications with steroids or rituximab are allowed. Patients must have intermediate or high risk Rai stage, ECOG performance status 0-2, ANC ≥ 1000/mm 3 unless due to marrow involvement and plt ≥ 30,000/mm 3. CrCl must be ≥ 40 mL/min and AST/ALT ≤ 2.5x upper limit of normal. Patients with hepatitis B must have undetectable viral load, and patients must not have an intercurrent illness which is expected to limit survival to < 5 years. Warfarin and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A4/5 are not permitted. Patients are initially pre-registered to the study and submit a peripheral blood sample for central FISH analysis of del(17p). Patients who are registered are randomized 1:1 to Arm 1 (IO) or Arm 2 (IVO), stratified upon Rai stage and presence of del(17p). IO consists of I daily starting cycle 1 day 1, and O dosed as standard starting cycle 1 day 1 and continuing to cycle 6 day 1. IVO consists of IO as in Arm 1, with V starting cycle 3 day 1 with standard 5-week ramp-up and continuing until cycle 14 day 28. At the end of 14 cycles, both arms undergo response evaluation with central peripheral blood and bone marrow MRD testing. Patients on IO then continue I indefinitely. Patients on IVO who are in a bone marrow MRD- CR discontinue all therapy, and those who are not continue I indefinitely. The primary objective of the study is to compare PFS between IO and IVO using the strategy of response-dependent discontinuation. There is 90% power to detect a hazard ratio for PFS of 0.55 (corresponding to 5-year PFS rates of 70% and 82.187% for IO and IVO, respectively), at a one-sided significance level of 0.025 by a log-rank test. This design requires 128 events and 431 total evaluable patients assuming uniform accrual over the course of 3 years and minimum follow-up of 5 years. The study includes two interim analyses for superiority when 50% and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed and three interim analyses for futility when 25%, 50%, and 75% of the expected number of events have been observed. Conclusions A041702 is an ongoing phase 3 clinical trial using a novel response-dependent discontinuation method. Results of this study have the potential to change the standard of care for older patients with previously untreated CLL. The study is expected to accrue until third quarter 2022, and we welcome participation from sites throughout the NCTN. Disclosures Woyach: AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Janssen Biotech Inc, Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company,: Consultancy; AbbVie Inc, Loxo Oncology Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly & Company: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences Inc: Other: Data & Safety; AbbVie Inc, ArQule Inc, Janssen Biotech Inc, AstraZeneca, Beigene: Other: Advisory Committee. Ruppert: Telios Pharma: Consultancy. Hill: AstraZenica: Consultancy, Honoraria; Gentenech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kite, a Gilead Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel Support, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Epizyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene (BMS): Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte/Morphysis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ding: DTRM: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Stone: Syndax: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gemoab: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Aprea: Consultancy; Amgen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Foghorn Therapeutics: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; Elevate Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Actinium: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Onconova: Consultancy; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; Innate: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Arog: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BerGen Bio: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Boston Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Syntrix/ACI: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Syros: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Consultancy; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Macrogenics: Consultancy. Byrd: Vincerx Pharmaceuticals: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Newave: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis, Trillium, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Pharmacyclics, Syndax: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Abstract Background: GLUT4 inhibition is an attractive therapeutic option in multiple myeloma (MM) given the dependence of MM cells on glucose transport. Furthermore, combining a GLUT4 inhibitor with an oxidative phosphorylation inhibitor in MM cells to counter the possibility of therapeutic resistance to GLUT4 inhibition has demonstrated synergistic promise (Dalva-Aydemir et al, Clin Can Res 2015). Using a GLUT4 inhibitor such as the HIV protease inhibitor nelfinavir is an attractive choice since it not only inhibits the transport function of GLUT4, but it also lowers the cytotoxicity resistance of MM cells against proteasome inhibitors such as bortezomib (Driessen et al, Blood 2018). Thus, in summary the FDA-approved oral HIV-PI nelfinavir, long used for the treatment of HIV disease, can bind to glucose transporters (GLUT4) on MM cells and reversibly inhibit glucose uptake, thus disrupting the Warburg effect. Nelfinavir can also enhance the activity of PIs such as bortezomib overcome its resistance in MM cells. Metformin, an oral FDA-approved drug for the treatment of Type II Diabetes has the ability to disrupt the electron transport chain of defective mitochondria within MM cells, thus blocking the ability of such mitochondria to generate energy and anabolic substrates as compensatory mechanisms required for proliferation in the setting of GLUT4 inhibition. Thus, this study will look at the safety and tolerability of repurposing the existing FDA-approved drugs for Type II diabetes and HIV in combination with bortezomib for the treatment of relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Methods: This study is a phase 1 clinical trial of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib for patients with relapsed and/or refractory myeloma. Part A of this trial is a 3+3 dose escalation design with 3 dose levels planned. Part B is a dose expansion cohort at the Maximal Tolerated Dose (MTD) determined in Part A. Up to a maximum of 36 patients will be enrolled and treated for a maximum of six 21-day cycles. Bortezomib is administered in its usual weekly subcutaneous dosing schedule of days 1, 8 and 15 of a 21-day cycle at a dose level of 1.3 mg/m2. Metformin will be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 500 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 1000 mg twice daily. Nelfinavir will also be administered for 14 days of a 21-day cycle and started at a dose level of 1250 mg twice daily and will be investigated to a maximum dose of 2500 mg twice daily. Key inclusion criteria include having relapsed/refractory myeloma with at least 2 prior lines of therapy and prior exposure to PIs, immunomodulators and Anti-CD38 monoclonal antibodies, adequate hematologic reserve, kidney function and liver function. This trial especially allows patients with non-secretory disease yet measurable by bone marrow assessments or cross-sectional imaging of plasmacytomas to be enrolled which constitutes an unmet need in the real-world MM population. Finally, this allows patients to be treated with a dexamethasone-free regimen. The primary objective of this trial is to determine the MTD of metformin and nelfinavir in combination with bortezomib. The secondary objective is to evaluate the safety and tolerability as well as the overall response rate (ORR) associated with this combination. Potential predictive biomarkers as well as resistance mechanisms using genomic RNA, immunohistochemistry and metabolomics-based assessment platforms will be evaluated in this study. Recruitment is ongoing with no safety concerns. This trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03829020. This investigator-initiated trial was funded by the generous gift of the Helen Diller Family Foundation. Disclosures Kumar: Astra-Zeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Consultancy; Antengene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Carsgen: Research Funding; Roche-Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Beigene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; KITE: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tenebio: Research Funding; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Adaptive: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding. Ailawadhi: Karyopharm: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy, Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Cellectar: Research Funding; Medimmune: Research Funding; Ascentage: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene, Ltd.: Consultancy; Sanofi: Consultancy; Oncopeptides: Consultancy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Multiple meningiomas (MM) occurs in up to 18% of meningioma patients and progression data are scarce. The objective of this study is to explore the influence of number of lesions and clinical characteristics on progression-free survival (PFS) and time to a second intervention (TTSI) in patients with WHO grade 1 meningiomas. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed records of all adults diagnosed with a meningioma at our three main sites from January 2009 to May 2020. Progression was considered as time from diagnosis until radiographic progression of the originally resected meningioma. A secondary analysis was carried to evaluate the time from diagnosis to time of a second intervention. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to assess whether number of lesions or any associated variables (age, sex, race, radiation, location, and extent of resection) had a significant impact on PFS and TTSI. RESULTS 838 patients were included. Log-rank test evaluating PFS and TTSI between single and multiple lesions showed significantly shorter progression for MM (p< 0.001 and p< 0.001, respectively). Multivariable Cox regression showed significantly inferior PFS on MM vs. single lesion (HR 2.262 [CI 95%, 1.392-3.677], p=0.001) and a significantly inferior TTSI for patients with MM vs. single meningioma (HR 2.377 [CI 95%, 1.617 – 3.494], p=0.001). When input as a continuous variable, PFS was significantly inferior for each additional meningioma (HR 1.350 [CI 95% 1.074-1.698], p=0.010) and TTSI is significantly inferior as well (HR 1.428 [CI 95% 1.189 – 1.716], p< 0.001). African-Americans had an inferior PFS when compared to Non-Hispanic White patients (HR 3.472 [CI 95% 1.083-11.129], p=0.036). CONCLUSION The PFS of meningiomas is influenced by the number of lesions present. Patients with MM are more prone to undergo a second intervention for progressive disease. Hence, a closer follow-up may be warranted in patients who present with multiple lesions.

Abstract BACKGROUND Validation of the 2016 LANO MRI scorecard for leptomeningeal metastasis failed for multiple reasons. The objective of this joint EORTC Brain Tumor Group and RANO effort was to validate the feasibility of the revised MRI scorecard for assessing response in leptomeningeal metastasis. METHODS Coded paired cerebrospinal MRI of 20 patients with leptomeningeal metastases from solid cancers at baseline and follow-up after treatment and instructions for assessment were provided via the EORTC imaging platform. The kappa coefficient (K) was used to evaluate inter-observer pairwise agreement. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS V9.4 software (Cary, NC). The sponsor of the study was the University Hospital Zurich (2018-00192). RESULTS Thirty-five raters participated, including 9 neuroradiologists, 17 neurologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 3 neurosurgeons and 2 medical oncologists. Among leptomeningeal metastases-related items at baseline, the best median concordance was noted for hydrocephalus (K=0.63), and the worst median for spinal linear enhancing disease (K=0.46). The median concordance for overall response was moderate (K=0.44). Notably, the interobserver agreement for the presence of parenchymal brain metastases at baseline was minimal (K=0.29). Significant differences were observed when considering the specialty of the raters. Only 394 of 700 ratings (56%) were fully completed. Among 394 fully completed ratings, perfect concordance was noted in 293 ratings (74%) when comparing the overall response according to the guidelines provided in the scorecard and the overall response provided by the raters. The main discordances were noted for partial response according to the rater versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=44), followed by progression according to the raters versus stable disease according to the guidelines (n=23). CONCLUSION Electronic case report forms with "blocking solutions" are probably required to enforce completeness and quality of scoring. These results confirm the necessity of central review and the need for training of MRI assessment in clinical trials.

Background and Objectives: Knowledge of the incidence and time frames of the adverse events of patients presenting syncope at the ED is essential for developing effective management strategies. The aim of the present study was to perform a meta-analysis of the incidence and time frames of adverse events of syncope patients. Materials and Methods: We combined individual patients’ data from prospective observational studies including adult patients who presented syncope at the ED. We assessed the pooled rate of adverse events at 24 h, 72 h, 7–10 days, 1 month and 1 year after ED evaluation. Results: We included nine studies that enrolled 12,269 patients. The mean age varied between 53 and 73 years, with 42% to 57% females. The pooled rate of adverse events was 5.1% (95% CI 3.4% to 7.7%) at 24 h, 7.0% (95% CI 4.9% to 9.9%) at 72 h, 8.4% (95% CI 6.2% to 11.3%) at 7–10 days, 10.3% (95% CI 7.8% to 13.3%) at 1 month and 21.3% (95% CI 15.8% to 28.0%) at 1 year. The pooled death rate was 0.2% (95% CI 0.1% to 0.5%) at 24 h, 0.3% (95% CI 0.1% to 0.7%) at 72 h, 0.5% (95% CI 0.3% to 0.9%) at 7–10 days, 1% (95% CI 0.6% to 1.7%) at 1 month and 5.9% (95% CI 4.5% to 7.7%) at 1 year. The most common adverse event was arrhythmia, for which its rate was 3.1% (95% CI 2.0% to 4.9%) at 24 h, 4.8% (95% CI 3.5% to 6.7%) at 72 h, 5.8% (95% CI 4.2% to 7.9%) at 7–10 days, 6.9% (95% CI 5.3% to 9.1%) at 1 month and 9.9% (95% CI 5.5% to 17) at 1 year. Ventricular arrhythmia was rare. Conclusions: The risk of death or life-threatening adverse event is rare in patients presenting syncope at the ED. The most common adverse events are brady and supraventricular arrhythmias, which occur during the first 3 days. Prolonged ECG monitoring in the ED in a short stay unit with ECG monitoring facilities may, therefore, be beneficial.

Assessment of lung biopsies for the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is one of the most difficult diagnostic problems for surgical pathologists. It is a form of interstitial lung disease resulting from an immune reaction provoked by an inhaled antigen in susceptible individuals. Although this definition sounds simple, in practice, the diagnosis of HP can be challenging. To address these issues, the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) has recently published a guideline for the diagnosis of HP. In this review, we will explore the multidisciplinary diagnostic evaluation of HP with a focus on the pathologic features as outlined in the CHEST guidelines. The histologic criteria are divided into 4 diagnostic categories: (1) Typical nonfibrotic HP or fibrotic HP; (2) Compatible with nonfibrotic HP or fibrotic HP; (3) Indeterminate for nonfibrotic or fibrotic HP; and (4) Alternative Diagnosis. It is important to emphasize that patterns 1 to 3 do not represent discrete histologic entities or pathologic diagnoses. Rather, these categories are meant to serve as a practical guide for organizing a complex set of overlapping histologic patterns into an integrated diagnostic framework for facilitating multidisciplinary discussion. High-resolution computed tomography features are also summarized, emphasizing how the correlation of lung biopsies with computed tomography findings can help to favor the diagnosis, particularly in cases where biopsies are not typical for HP. This review highlights details of the histologic spectrum of HP as well as the utility of different types of biopsies and bronchoalveolar lavage. We also emphasize the importance of multidisciplinary discussion and the complex differential diagnosis.

Abstract Background Myocarditis following coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna) has been increasingly reported. Incidence rates in the general population are lacking, with pericarditis rather than myocarditis diagnostic codes being used to estimate background rates. This comparison is critical for balancing the risk of vaccination with the risk of no vaccination. Methods A retrospective case series was performed using the Mayo Clinic COVID-19 Vaccine Registry. We measured the incidence rate ratio (IRR) for myocarditis temporally related to COVID-19 mRNA vaccination compared with myocarditis in a comparable population from 2016 through 2020. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of the affected patients were collected. A total of 21 individuals were identified, but ultimately 7 patients met the inclusion criteria for vaccine-associated myocarditis. Results The overall IRR of COVID-19–related myocarditis was 4.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63–8.98), which was entirely attributable to an increased IRR among adult males (IRR, 6.69; 95% CI, 2.35–15.52) compared with females (IRR 1.41; 95% CI, .03–8.45). All cases occurred within 2 weeks of a dose of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, with the majority occurring within 3 days (range, 1–13) following the second dose (6 of 7 patients, 86%). Overall, cases were mild, and all patients survived. Conclusions Myocarditis is a rare adverse event associated with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. It occurs in adult males with significantly higher incidence than in the background population. Recurrence of myocarditis after a subsequent mRNA vaccine dose is not known at this time.

Abstract Early T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ETP-ALL) is an aggressive hematologic malignancy associated with early relapse and poor prognosis that is genetically, immunophenotypically, and transcriptionally distinct from more mature T-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (T-ALL) tumors. Here, we leveraged global metabolomic and transcriptomic profiling of primary ETP- and T-ALL leukemia samples to identify specific metabolic circuitries differentially active in this high-risk leukemia group. ETP-ALLs showed increased biosynthesis of phospholipids and sphingolipids and were specifically sensitive to inhibition of 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme in the mevalonate pathway. Mechanistically, inhibition of cholesterol synthesis inhibited oncogenic AKT1 signaling and suppressed MYC expression via loss of chromatin accessibility at a leukemia stem cell–specific long-range MYC enhancer. In all, these results identify the mevalonate pathway as a druggable novel vulnerability in high-risk ETP-ALL cells and uncover an unanticipated critical role for cholesterol biosynthesis in signal transduction and epigenetic circuitries driving leukemia cell growth and survival. Significance: Overtly distinct cell metabolic pathways operate in ETP- and T-ALL pointing to specific metabolic vulnerabilities. Inhibition of mevalonate biosynthesis selectively blocks oncogenic AKT–MYC signaling in ETP-ALL and suppresses leukemia cell growth. Ultimately, these results will inform the development of novel tailored and more effective treatments for patients with high-risk ETP-ALL. This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 587

Abstract The public health impact of genomic screening can be enhanced by cascade testing. However, cascade testing depends on communication of results to family members. While the barriers and facilitators of family communication have been researched following clinical genetic testing, the factors impacting the dissemination of genomic screening results are unknown. Using the pragmatic Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network‐3 (eMERGE‐3) study, we explored the reported sharing practices of participants who underwent genomic screening across the United States. Six eMERGE‐3 sites returned genomic screening results for mostly dominant medically actionable disorders and surveyed adult participants regarding communication of results with first‐degree relatives. Across the sites, 279 participants completed a 1‐month and/or 6‐month post‐results survey. By 6 months, only 34% of the 156 respondents shared their results with all first‐degree relatives and 4% did not share with any. Over a third (39%) first‐degree relatives were not notified of the results. Half (53%) of participants who received their results from a genetics provider shared them with all first‐degree relatives compared with 11% of participants who received their results from a non‐genetics provider. The most frequent reasons for sharing were a feeling of obligation (72%) and that the information could help family members make medical decisions (72%). The most common reasons indicated for not sharing were that the family members were too young (38%), or they were not in contact (25%) or not close to them (25%). These data indicate that the professional returning the results may impact sharing patterns, suggesting that there is a need to continue to educate healthcare providers regarding approaches to facilitate sharing of genetic results within families. Finally, these data suggest that interventions to increase sharing may be universally effective regardless of the origin of the genetic result.