Citations

Abstract Background and Aims Our goal was to determine the importance of ileal inflammation at computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography in Crohn’s disease patients with normal ileoscopy. Methods Patients with negative ileoscopy and biopsy within 30 days of CT or MR enterography showing ileal inflammation were included. The severity [0–3 scale] and length of inflammation within the distal 20 cm of the terminal ileum were assessed on enterography. Subsequent medical records were reviewed for ensuing surgery, ulceration at ileoscopy, histological inflammation, or new or worsening ileal inflammation or stricture on enterography. Imaging findings were classified as: Confirmed Progression [subsequent surgery or radiological worsening, new ulcers at ileoscopy or positive histology]; Radiologic Response [decreased inflammation with medical therapy]; or Unlikely/Unconfirmed Inflammation. Results Of 1471 patients undergoing enterography and ileoscopy, 112 [8%] had imaging findings of inflammation with negative ileoscopy, and 88 [6%] had negative ileoscopy and ileal biopsy. Half [50%; 44/88] with negative biopsy had moderate/severe inflammation at enterography, with 45%, 32% and 11% having proximal small bowel inflammation, stricture or fistulas, respectively. Two-thirds with negative biopsy [67%; 59/88] had Confirmed Progression, with 68%, 70% and 61% having subsequent surgical resection, radiological worsening or ulcers at subsequent ileoscopy, respectively. Mean length and severity of ileal inflammation in these patients was 10 cm and 1.6. Thirteen [15%] patients had Radiologic Response, and 16 [18%] had Unlikely/Unconfirmed Inflammation. Conclusion Crohn’s disease patients with unequivocal imaging findings of ileal inflammation at enterography despite negative ileoscopy and biopsy are likely to have active inflammatory Crohn’s disease. Disease detected by imaging may worsen over time or respond to medical therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing, especially hospitalizations with acute on chronic liver failure and need for liver transplant. We examined trends in prevalence, inhospital mortality, and resource utilization associated with AALD and ACLF in the young. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (2006–2014) was queried for hospitalizations with a discharge diagnosis of cirrhosis using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, codes. ACLF hospitalization was defined as ≥2 organ failures and stratified by age: young (≤35 years) and older (>35 years). RESULTS: Of 447,090 AALD admissions (16,126 in young) between 2006 and 2014, ACLF occurred in 29,599 (6.6%), of which 1,143 (7.1%) were in young. Compared with older, admissions in young had more women (35% vs 29%), were obese (11% vs 7.6%), were Hispanics (29% vs 18%), have alcoholic hepatitis (AH) (41% vs 17%), and have ACLF grades 2 or 3 (34% vs 25%), P < 0.001 for all. Between 2006 and 2014, ACLF in AALD among young increased from 2.8% to 5.2%, with an AH proportion from 24% to 42%, P < 0.0001 for both. Young had more complications requiring ventilation (79% vs 76%) and dialysis (32% vs 28%), P < 0.001 for both. Compared with older, ACLF admission in young had longer hospitalization (12 vs 10 days) with higher hospital charges ($127,915 vs $97,511), P < 0.0001 for both, with 20% reduced inhospital mortality (54%–45%), P < 0.001. DISCUSSION: AALD-related hospitalizations are increasing in young in the United States, mainly because of the increasing frequency of AH. Furthermore, this disease burden in young is increasing with a higher frequency of admissions with more severe ACLF and consumption of hospital resources. Studies are needed to develop preventive strategies to reduce burden related to AALD and ACLF in young.

Abstract Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Growing evidence supports gene fusions as good candidates for molecularly targeted therapy in CRC. Here we describe a case of a 63-year-old man who had a radical right hemicolectomy procedure 24 months ago. Pathological diagnosis indicated colorectal adenocarcinoma with stage pT4N2bMx. During re-examination in December 2016, positron emission tomography/computed tomography scans indicated relapse with multiple lymph nodes metastasis. Then the patient received a nine-cycle combination treatment of XELOX and bevacizumab and showed progressive disease (PD). Subsequently, the patient was treated with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI for 2 months before discontinuation because of adverse events. Paraffin sections of postoperative colorectal tissue were subjected to next-generation sequencing, and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) amplification and rare EGFR–SEPT14 fusion were identified. The patient then received erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), and achieved a partial response. However, the patient subsequently showed PD, and a new variant, EGFRvIII, appeared in metastasis, which may be involved in erlotinib resistance. We suggest that there is value in treating patients harboring EGFR fusions with EGFR TKI therapy, and EGFR–SEPT14 fusion may be used as a therapeutic target for CRC. Key Points To the authors' knowledge, this is the first report of EGFR–SEPT14 fusion in colorectal cancer. The patient achieved a partial response after treatment with the epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib. This report expands the list of gene fusions in colorectal cancer and highlights new targets for the therapeutic intervention. EGFRvIII may be involved in erlotinib resistance, which is rare in colorectal cancer.

AbstractBackgroundInappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) remains a clinical challenge because patients often are highly symptomatic and not responsive to medical therapy.ObjectiveTo study the safety and efficacy of stellate ganglion (SG) block and cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) in patients with IST.MethodsTwelve consecutive patients who had drug‐refractory IST (10 women) were studied. According to a prospectively initiated protocol, five patients underwent an electrophysiologic study before and after SG block (electrophysiology study group). The subsequent seven patients had ambulatory Holter monitoring before and after SG block (ambulatory group). All patients underwent SG block on the right side first, and then on the left side. Selected patients who had heart rate reduction ≥15 beats per minute (bpm) were recommended to consider CSD.ResultsThe mean (SD) baseline heart rate (HR) was 106 (21) bpm. The HR significantly decreased to 93 (20) bpm (P = .02) at 10 minutes after right SG block and remained significantly slower at 97(19) bpm at 60 minutes. Left SG block reduced HR from 99 (21) to 87(16) bpm (P = .02) at 60 minutes. SG block had no significant effect on blood pressure or HR response to isoproterenol or exercise (all P > .05). Five patients underwent right (n = 4) or bilateral (n = 1) CSD. The clinical outcomes were heterogeneous: one patient had complete and two had partial symptomatic relief, and two did not have improvement.ConclusionSG blockade modestly reduces resting HR but has no significant effect on HR during exercise. Permanent CSD may have a modest role in alleviating symptoms in selected patients with IST.

Pontocerebellar hypoplasia (PCH) is a group of neurological disorders that affect the development of the brain, in particular, the pons and cerebellum. Homozygous mutations of TBC1D23 have been found recently to lead to PCH; however, the underlying molecular mechanisms remain unclear. Here, we show that the crystal structure of the TBC1D23 C-terminal domain adopts a Pleckstrin homology domain fold and selectively binds to phosphoinositides, in particular, PtdIns(4)P, through one surface while binding FAM21 via the opposite surface. Mutation of key residues of TBC1D23 or FAM21 selectively disrupts the endosomal vesicular trafficking toward the Trans-Golgi Network. Finally, using the zebrafish model, we show that PCH patient-derived mutants, impacting either phosphoinositide binding or FAM21 binding, lead to abnormal neuronal growth and brain development. Taken together, our data provide a molecular basis for the interaction between TBC1D23 and FAM21, and suggest a plausible role for PtdIns(4)P in the TBC1D23-mediating endosome-to-TGN trafficking pathway. Defects in this trafficking pathway are, at least partially, responsible for the pathogenesis of certain types of PCH.

Abstract Introduction: Several prognostic models for overall survival (OS) in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been developed, but none were derived for patients (pts) with relapsed or refractory (R/R) CLL treated in the era of novel agents. We used a comprehensive approach to derive and validate a novel risk model for OS in 2,475 pts with R/R CLL who received therapy in randomized phase 3 trials evaluating ibrutinib (IBR), idelalisib (IDELA), and venetoclax (VEN) vs control arms, or the Mayo Clinic CLL Database (MCCD). Methods: In collaboration with Janssen, Gilead, Pharmacyclics, and Genentech/Roche, the analysis included 2,475 pts from 6 multicenter randomized phase 3 trials or the MCCD. Trials included were: IBR plus bendamustine-rituximab (BR) vs placebo plus BR (HELIOS: NCT01611090), IBR vs ofatumumab (RESONATE: NCT01578707), IDELA plus BR vs placebo plus BR (Study 115: NCT01569295); IDELA plus rituximab vs placebo plus rituximab (Study 116: NCT01539512); IDELA plus ofatumumab vs ofatumumab (Study 119: NCT01659021); VEN plus rituximab vs BR (MURANO: NCT02005471). All pts had R/R CLL and required treatment by iwCLL criteria. The model-building dataset (n=969) included pts from HELIOS and RESONATE, and was randomly assigned to the IBR/chemoimmunotherapy (CIT) training dataset (n=727) and IBR/CIT internal-validation dataset(n=242). Three independent external validation datasets included IDELA/CIT (n=897), VEN/CIT (n=389), and MCCD (n=220). We applied univariate and multivariate analyses (MVA) to 28 candidate clinical/laboratory and genetic prognostic factors to derive the risk model in the training dataset. The primary endpoint was OS. We assessed the need for separate models for targeted agents by interactions with treatment in univariate analyses. We proceeded to develop a single model for all pts with R/R CLL, as only one candidate factor (del(13q), interaction p value <0.1) demonstrated a marginal differential effect. We evaluated cutoffs for dichotomized covariates and for definition of risk groups after the final factors were selected. We fit a Cox regression on the training and internal/external validation datasets using the risk categories as the covariate to test the difference among the groups, and calculated the C-statistic as a measure of discrimination. Results: Of 11 selected factors with a significant univariate effect on OS (p<0.1), 6 were independently prognostic in the MVA of OS (p<0.05): Baseline β2-microglobubulin (B2M), lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), hemoglobin (HGB), IGHV mutational status, number of prior therapies, and time from initiation of last therapy. We excluded number of prior therapies from the model, reasoning that its optimal cutoff might change with advances in CLL therapies. IGHV did not remain significant (p=0.0592) in MVA of 5 remaining prognostic factors. Notably, del(17p) was not independently prognostic for OS. The final risk model consisted of 4 prognostic factors: B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months. Because hazard ratios for each factor were similar (range, 0.55-0.68) with overlapping confidence intervals, 1 point was assigned to each factor. The resulting score separated pts into low (score 0-1), intermediate (score 2-3), and high risk (score 4) groups. Our risk model was prognostic for OS in the IBR/CIT training dataset (C-statistic 0.74 [95% CI 0.60-0.85]; log-rank p<0.0001) and was validated in the IBR/CIT internal validation (C-statistic 0.79 [95% CI 0.56-0.97]; log-rank p<0.0001), as well as in all 3 external validations: IDELA/CIT dataset (CS=0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.81; log-rank p<0.001); VEN/CIT dataset (CS=0.76, 95% CI 0.66-0.85; log-rank p=0.01); MCCD (CS=0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66; log-rank p<0.001). Conclusions: We present the first validated risk model for OS in R/R CLL in the era of targeted therapies. Our model consists of 4 readily available factors (B2M ≥5 mg/L, LDH elevated, HGB <110 mg/L for women or <120 mg/L for men, and time from initiation of last therapy <24 months), identifies 3 prognostic groups with significantly different OS, and has been validated for pts treated with all FDA approved targeted therapies: IBR, IDELA, and VEN. This identifies a well-defined cohort of pts with R/R disease with an unmet clinical need who are suitable for prospective trials targeting these pts. An exploratory analysis regarding prediction of MRD is ongoing. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Darif: Jannsen: Employment. Londhe:Jannsen: Employment. Xing:Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Employment. Mun:Genentech: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kay:Cytomx Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Infinity Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agios Pharm: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta: Research Funding; Gilead: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Shanafelt:Mayo Clinic: Patents & Royalties: Physician Well-being Index, Medical Student Well-being Index, Well-being index; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Furman:Loxo Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Other: DSMB; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy. Hillmen:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences, Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Acerta: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Sharman:Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Seymour:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Jones:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Ferrante:Jannsen: Employment. Dreiling:Gilead: Employment. Mobasher:F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Other: Ownership interests non-PLC; Genentech Inc: Employment. Stark:Genentech: Employment. Reddy:Actinium Pharmaceuticals: Employment, Equity Ownership; Pharmacyclics: Employment. Howes:Janssen: Employment. James:Pharmacyclics: Employment. Bhargava:Gilead: Employment. Zelenetz:Novartis/Sandoz: Consultancy; Abbvie: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Genentech/Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding.

Abstract Background: Guadecitabine SC (SGI-110) is a dinucleotide next generation HMA resistant to degradation by cytidine deaminase resulting in extended in vivo exposure to its active metabolite decitabine. A Phase 1 established 60 mg/m2 QDx5 as the biologically effective dose (BED), and 90 mg/m2 QDx5 as the Maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in MDS patients given in 28-day cycles (Issa et al, 2015, Lancet Oncology). Phase 2 is conducted to evaluate dose response between the BED and MTD in both untreated MDS patients, and patients previously treated with other HMAs. M ethods: Int, or HR MDS, and CMML patients who were either treatment-naïve (TN) or relapsed/refractory to other HMAs (r/r) were randomized to either 60 mg/m2 or 90 mg/m2 QDx5 every 28 days. Efficacy was evaluated by the clinical responses of CR, PR, marrow CR (mCR), and Hematological Improvement (HI) based on the International Working Group Criteria 2006, as well as transfusion-independence, and overall survival (OS). Adverse events (AEs) were graded by the CTCAE v4 criteria. Results: The study completed target enrolment with 102 patients: 53 r/r MDS, and 49 TN MDS. Fifty three patients were randomized to 60 mg/m2 and 49 patients to 90 mg/m2 QDx5 with a median follow up of 3.2 years (IQR 2.8-3.5 years). Median age was 72 and 71 years for r/r and TN MDS respectively. Most baseline patient characteristics were well balanced between the 2 treatment dose groups except that more CMML patients were randomized to the 60 mg/m2 group (28%) vs. 14% in the 90 mg/m2 group, and more patients with baseline BM blasts >5% were in the 90 mg/m2 group (67%) vs. 38% in the 60 mg/m2 group. Most patients were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline (57%). In the r/r MDS cohort, most patients (58%) received their last HMA treatment <3 month before enrolment, and most of them received ≥6 months of prior HMA treatment (77%). Median number of treatment cycles was 5 for both r/r and TN MDS (range 1-37 in r/r MDS and 1-49 in TN MDS). In the TN MDS cohort CR was achieved in 11 (22%) of patients with no major difference between the 2 dose groups (19% in the 60 mg/m2 group vs 27% in the 90 mg/m2 group). Overall CR+mCR was achieved in 18 patients (37%) in TN MDS patients and median OS was 23.4 months. In the r/r MDS cohort, CR was achieved in 4% of patients in each of the 2 dose groups. Overall CR+mCR in the r/r MDS cohort was achieved in 17 patients (32%), with a median duration of response of 7.9 months, and median OS of 11.7 months. No significant difference in response or OS between the 2 dose groups was observed. In patients who were RBC transfusion-dependent at baseline, transfusion independence for at least 8 weeks was achieved in 42% of TN MDS, and 15% in r/r MDS patients. In the overall population of 102 TN and r/r MDS patients there were no major differences in OS based on DNMT3A or TET2 mutation status while patients with TP53 mutations had worse median OS (7.4 months) compared to those without TP53 mutations (22.6 months). Other baseline prognostic factors for worse OS were BM blasts >5%; RBC transfusion-dependence; IPSS High Risk; and ECOG Performance Status of >1. Overall incidence of Grade ≥3 AEs regardless of relationship to treatment was reported in 83 vs. 96% for 60 and 90 mg/m2 dose groups respectively. There was a slightly higher but non-significant difference in Grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (57 vs 41.5%); neutropenia (51 vs 39.6%); febrile neutropenia (43% vs 32%); and pneumonia (32.7 vs. 26.4%) for the 90 mg/m2 compared to 60 mg/m2 dose group. Early 30, 60, and 90-day all-cause mortality was observed in 0, 3.7%, and 5.7% in the 60 mg/m2 dose group respectively; and in 2%, 4%, and 12% in the 90 mg/m2 dose group respectively. Conclusions: Guadecitabine at both dose groups is a well-tolerated novel HMA with clinical activity in the treatment of both TN and r/r Int and HR MDS, and CMML patients. In TN MDS patient CR rate of 22% and median OS of 23.4 months compare well with first generation HMA efficacy (Fenaux et al, 2009, Lancet Oncology). Activity in r/r MDS who previously failed prior HMAs is particularly promising (CR+mCR in 32% of patients with median duration of response and overall survival of almost 8 and 12 months respectively). A phase 3 trial (ASTRAL-3) of guadecitabine vs Physician Treatment Choice in r/r MDS and CMML patients previously treated with azacitidine or decitabine is actively enrolling (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02907359). Disclosures Ritchie: NS Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; ARIAD Pharmaceuticals: Speakers Bureau; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding. Savona:Boehringer Ingelheim: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Incyte: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Kropf:Celegene: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Daver:Pfizer: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; ImmunoGen: Consultancy; ARIAD: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Otsuka: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Consultancy; Alexion: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy; Karyopharm: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Kiromic: Research Funding; Daiichi-Sankyo: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding. Jabbour:Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Yee:Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Agensys, Astex, GSK, Onconova, Genentech/Roche: Research Funding. Stock:Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy. Griffiths:Alexion Inc.: Honoraria, Research Funding; Astex/Otsuka Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene, Inc: Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis, Inc.: Research Funding; Pfizer, Inc.: Research Funding. Podoltsev:Astex Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Daiichi Snakyo: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Research Funding. Berdeja:Genentech: Research Funding; Bluebird: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Glenmark: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Sanofi: Research Funding; Poseida Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding. Naim:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Hao:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Azab:Astex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Employment. Roboz:Orsenix: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Orsenix: Consultancy; Pfizer: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Sandoz: Consultancy; Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding; Eisai: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Celgene Corporation: Consultancy; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Eisai: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Otsuka: Consultancy; Argenx: Consultancy; Celltrion: Consultancy; Astex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Aphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Cellectis: Research Funding.