Citations

SummaryBackgroundBecause most pancreatic intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) will never become malignant, currently advocated long‐term surveillance is low‐yield for most individuals.AimTo develop a score chart identifying IPMNs at lowest risk of developing worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata.MethodsWe combined prospectively maintained pancreatic cyst surveillance databases of three academic institutions. Patients were included if they had a presumed side‐branch IPMN, without worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata at baseline (as defined by the 2012 international Fukuoka guidelines), and were followed ≥ 12 months. The endpoint was development of one or more worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata during follow‐up. We created a multivariable prediction model using Cox‐proportional logistic regression analysis and performed an internal‐external validation.Results875 patients were included. After a mean follow‐up of 50 months (range 12‐157), 116 (13%) patients developed worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata. The final model included cyst size (HR 1.12, 95% CI 1.09‐1.15), cyst multifocality (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01‐2.18), ever having smoked (HR 1.40, 95% CI 0.95‐2.04), history of acute pancreatitis (HR 2.07, 95% CI 1.21‐3.55), and history of extrapancreatic malignancy (HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.91‐1.97). After validation, the model had good discriminative ability (C‐statistic 0.72 in the Mayo cohort, 0.71 in the Columbia cohort, 0.64 in the Erasmus cohort).ConclusionIn presumed side branch IPMNs without worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata at baseline, the Dutch‐American Risk stratification Tool (DART‐1) successfully identifies pancreatic lesions at low risk of developing worrisome features or high‐risk stigmata.

Introduction Despite hundreds of training models for microsurgery being available in the literature, very few of them are scientifically validated. We chose to validate our low-fidelity training model on flower petals by comparing it head-to-head with a moderate fidelity training model, the anastomosis on chicken leg femoral artery. Materials and methods A total of 16 participants of different levels of expertise were randomized into 2 groups, 1 training on flower petals and 1 on chicken leg femoral arteries. The groups were evaluated on performing a rat femoral artery anastomosis using the validated Stanford Microsurgical Assessment (SMaRT) Scale. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to check for statistically significant differences between the groups. The flower petal sutures were also evaluated and Pearson correlation was used to check for associations between better petal anastomosis scores and better final SMaRT results. Results After 6 weeks of flower petal training, microsurgical trainees had significantly better overall SMaRT scores than trainees using chicken leg training, better fine tissue feeling, and better scores in knot tying. The anastomosis times for the rat femoral arteries did not differ between the 2 groups. Good scores for flower petals strongly correlated with a better SMaRT score for the anastomosis. The number of rats used in training reduced after the implementation of this model in continuous training. Conclusions The flower petal technique, despite being a low-fidelity model, shows superiority in developing fine tissue feeling and improved knot tying in microsurgery beginners and intermediate level practitioners adding this training model to their program. Further research needs to establish if the improvements also apply to already seasoned microsurgeons and whether the petal score has predictive value for future clinical application.

Background:IBER is a novel cereblon E3 ligase modulator (CELMoD) with enhanced tumoricidal and immunostimulatory activities. Preclinically, IBER overcomes immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) resistance and has synergy with daratumumab (DARA), bortezomib (BORT), and dexamethasone (DEX).Aims:This phase 1b/2a multicenter, open‐label, dose‐escalation study (NCT02773030) was conducted to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), safety and preliminary efficacy of IBER in combination with DEX, in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).Methods:Eligible patients had RRMM and must have received ≥2 prior regimens including lenalidomide (LEN) and/or pomalidomide (POM), and a proteasome inhibitor (PI). All patients had progressed on or within 60 days of last MM therapy. Escalating doses of IBER were given on days 1–21, in combination with DEX 40 mg (20 mg in patients aged >75 years) on days 1, 8, 15, and 22, of each 28‐day cycle. Dose escalation was reviewed by a dose escalation committee.Results:As of January 2019, 58 patients had received IBER + DEX. Median age was 64.5 years (range 33–79), and median number of prior regimens was 5 (2–12). Prior therapies included autologous stem cell transplantation (79%), LEN (100%), POM (69%), PIs (100%), and DARA (66%). IBER dose ranged from 0.3 to 1.2 mg; MTD/RP2D was not reached. Median duration of therapy was 12+ weeks (range 4–109). Grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 41 (72%) patients and were not related to dose. Grade 3–4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, neuropathy, and fatigue occurred in 26%, 11%, 2%, and 0% patients, respectively. Three patients discontinued treatment due to AEs. Clinical activity occurred early and was observed across all dose levels (Table 1); 20 of 51 patients remain on treatment (2–27+ cycles).Summary/Conclusion:IBER + DEX showed favorable efficacy and safety in heavily pretreated patients with RRMM who failed multiple prior therapies. This study is ongoing, including combinations of IBER with DARA or BORT.image

Background:Iberdomide (IBER) is a novel cereblon (CRBN) E3 ligase modulatory compound (CELMoD) that is being investigated as monotherapy, in combination with dexamethasone (DEX), and in combination with DEX and daratumumab or bortezomib in a phase 1b/2a dose‐escalation study in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). IBER modulates CRBN, which induces ubiquitination of Aiolos, Ikaros and ZFP91, increases their proteasome‐dependent degradation, and thereby inhibits myeloma cell growth. IBER binds more potently to CRBN and is more efficient at degrading Aiolos and Ikaros than the immunomodulatory agents (IMiDs) lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM) and it can overcome IMiD drug resistance in pre‐clinical models.Aims:To determine if IBER is pharmacodynamically (PD) active in multiple myeloma patients refractory to POM and/or LEN, and to establish pharmacokinetic (PK)/PD and PD/dose relationships.Methods:As of Jan 11, 2019, 83 patients received IBER as monotherapy or in combination with DEX; 61 (74%) were LEN refractory and 47 (57%) were POM refractory. Longitudinal immunohistochemistry (IHC) data on CRBN, Aiolos, Ikaros and ZFP91 expression was obtained from bone marrow samples from 14 patients dosed with 0.3–0.9 mg IBER daily ± DEX. PD analysis of immune activity by TruCulture® (n = 45) and by peripheral blood flow cytometry (n = 60) was completed on a subset of patients dosed up to 1.0 mg IBER ± DEX. A population PK approach was used to estimate exposure (area under the concentration curve over the 24 hr dosing interval [AUCτ]) on 59 patients dosed up to 1.0 mg IBER ± DEX.Results:IBER AUCτ increased in a dose‐proportional manner in RRMM patients over the dose range 0.3–1.0 mg (22.4–65.31 ng∗hr/mL, respectively). In patient biopsies analyzed to date, CRBN expression was observed in all tumors by IHC at baseline and did not significantly change while on‐treatment. Furthermore, no significant decrease in baseline CRBN expression was observed in patients refractory to POM. In MM cells, significant decreases in Aiolos (median 37% decrease, P < 0.001), Ikaros (median 12% decrease, P = 0.006), and ZFP91 (median 47% decrease, P < 0.001) protein expression were observed on‐treatment across all dose levels; these decreases were unrelated to levels of CRBN expression at screening or prior LEN or POM refractoriness. In TruCulture® samples, dose‐dependent increases were observed in IL‐2 and IFN‐γ, with median increases of 78% and 66%, respectively, 5 hours post 0.9 mg dose of IBER. A dose‐ and exposure‐dependent decrease in B‐cells was detected (median 74% decrease at cycle 2 day 15, IBER 0.9 mg). These observations are consistent with the proposed IBER mechanism of action. Immunoprofiling showed significant increases in total and proliferating NK cells in RRMM patients treated with IBER, and a dose‐dependent increase in proliferating, activated, and effector memory T‐cells. These trends were consistent in RRMM patients treated with IBER monotherapy and in combination with DEX.Summary/Conclusion:These translational analyses from IBER treated RRMM patients indicate it is pharmacodynamically active at the lowest dose (0.3 mg) and exhibits dose‐ and exposure‐dependent immunostimulatory activity, supporting further dose‐escalation beyond 1.0 mg, which is currently ongoing. These results also suggest that prior refractoriness to LEN or POM is not associated with significant loss of CRBN or IBER PD activity, supporting continued investigation of IBER in RRMM patients refractory to IMiD drugs.

Background:PRM‐151, a recombinant human pentraxin‐2 molecule, prevents and reverses fibrosis in animal models of myelofibrosis (MF) in part by targeting differentiation of fibrocytes from monocytes. In the first stage of a two‐stage trial, treatment of patients (pts) with primary (PMF), post‐essential thrombocythemia/polycythemia vera (post‐ET/PV) MF with PRM‐151 ± ruxolitinib (Rux) was associated with decreases in bone marrow fibrosis (BMF), improvements in hemoglobin (Hgb) and platelets (PLT), reductions in transfusions and symptoms, and modest reductions in splenomegaly.Aims:Here, we report efficacy and safety data from a stage 2 randomized, double‐blind evaluation of single agent PRM‐151.Methods:Pts with DIPPS Int‐1, Int‐2, and high risk PMF or post‐ET/PV MF who were ineligible for, intolerant of, or had an inadequate response to Rux were randomized between 0.3, 3, and 10 mg/kg of PRM‐151 as a sole agent. PRM‐151 was to be administered by IV infusion at one of the three assigned doses on Days 1, 3, and 5 of Cycle 1 and on Day 1 of each subsequent 28‐day cycle for at least 9 cycles. Randomization was stratified according to baseline (BL) Hgb <100 g/L receiving transfusions and/or PLT <50 x 109/L. Bone marrow biopsies and imaging for spleen volume were obtained at BL, C4D1, C7D1, and C9D29. BMF score was evaluated centrally by three independent, blinded hematopathologists. The primary objective of the study was to determine the effect size of three different doses of PRM‐151 on reduction in BMF by ≥ 1 grade at any time during the study.Results:Of the 98 randomized patients, 97 were treated with 0.3 mg/kg (n = 33), 3 mg/kg (n = 32), or 10 mg/kg (n = 32). BL characteristics are provided in Table 1. Forty‐six pts discontinued treatment prior to Cycle 9. Decrease in BMF grade at any time was observed in 10 of 33 pts (30%) at 0.3 mg/kg, 9 of 31 pts (28%) at 3 mg/kg, and 8 of 32 pts (25%) at 10 mg/kg. Decrease in BM collagen grade was observed in 31–37% of pts. In pts who were RBC transfusion dependent or with Hgb <100 g/L and transfusion independent at BL, 16–29% of pts had ≥50% reduction in RBC transfusions or Hgb increases ≥10 g/L for ≥12 consecutive weeks. In pts who were PLT transfusion dependent or with PLT<25 or PLT25‐<50 x 109/L and transfusion independent at BL, 31–40% of pts had ≥50% reduction in PLT transfusions, PLT ≥25 x 109/L or PLT ≥50 x 109/L or doubling of PLT count, without transfusions for ≥12 consecutive weeks. Improvement from BL in MPN‐SAF TSS of ≥25% for ≥12 consecutive weeks was observed in 10–26% of pts. Reduction in spleen volume was observed with a maximum reduction of 34% in one pt. Response rates for BM collagen, Hgb, PLT, MPN‐SAF, and spleen were generally similar across the three dose levels. The most common treatment emergent adverse events (AEs) were fatigue, cough, thrombocytopenia, and abnormal weight loss. A majority of the AEs were Grade 2 or lower in severity and consistent with disease progression. Grade 3 and 4 related AEs were reported in 12% and 6% of pts, respectively.Summary/Conclusion:The study enrolled a large proportion of MF pts with advanced disease (Int‐2 or high risk, BMF grade 3, anemic/transfusion dependent, and PLT <50 x 109/L). Decrease in BMF and collagen grade were observed across all dose levels. Increases in Hgb and PLT count or reduction in transfusion requirements were also reported across all dose levels. Improvements in MPN‐SAF TSS and spleen volume were observed in a proportion of pts. PRM‐151 treatment for up to 9 cycles was well tolerated. These data warrant confirmation in a larger controlled study.image

Background:Patients (pts) with multiple myeloma associated with high cytogenetic risk abnormalities have poor outcomes. In CASTOR, D‐Vd prolonged progression‐free survival (PFS) vs bortezomib and dexamethasone (Vd) alone, and exhibited a manageable safety profile in pts with RRMM. We conducted a subgroup analysis of D‐Vd vs Vd in CASTOR, based on cytogenetic risk.Aims:The purpose of this analysis was to determine the efficacy and safety of D‐Vd in CASTOR based on cytogenetic risk status.Methods:Eligible pts received ≥1 prior line of therapy. Cytogenetic risk was based on a combined analysis of next‐generation sequencing (NGS) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH)/karyotype testing. High‐risk pts had t(4;14), t(14;16), or del17p abnormalities. Standard (std)‐risk pts were confirmed negative for all 3 abnormalities. Minimal residual disease (MRD; 10–5) was assessed via NGS using clonoSEQ® assay V2.0.Results:In CASTOR (D‐Vd, n = 251; Vd, n = 247), high‐risk was confirmed in 26.7% and 25.9% of pts in the D‐Vd and Vd groups, respectively. At a median follow up of 40.0 months (mo), D‐Vd prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with high‐ (median 13.4 vs 7.2 mo; HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.24–0.65]; P = 0.0002) or std‐risk (median 18.4 vs 6.8 mo; HR, 0.28 [95% CI, 0.20–0.37]; P <0.0001). Higher ORR was seen with D‐Vd vs Vd (high risk: 84.8% vs 60.0%; P = 0.0226; std risk: 85.4% vs 65.0%; P <0.0001), including deep responses of ≥CR (high risk: 33.3% vs 8.3%; std risk: 29.9% vs 10.2%) and ≥VGPR (high risk: 65.2% vs 35.0%; P = 0.0049; std risk: 64.3% vs 28.0%; P <0.0001). Higher rates of MRD negativity (high risk: 17.9% vs 0%; P = 0.0003; std risk: 13.3% vs 2.4%; P = 0.0003), and sustained MRD negativity for ≥6 mo (high risk: 16.4% vs 0%; P = 0.0006; std risk: 6.1% vs 1.8%; P = 0.0859) and ≥12 mo (high risk: 7.5% vs 0%; P = 0.0581; std risk: 1.8% vs 0%; P = 0.2477) were seen with D‐Vd vs Vd. D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS vs Vd in pts with one prior line of therapy only (high risk: median 20.1 vs 8.4 mo; HR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.14–0.64]; P = 0.0012; std risk: median 32.6 vs 7.9 mo; HR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.11–0.29]; P <0.0001; Figure). Additionally, D‐Vd significantly prolonged PFS2 (high risk: median 27.9 vs 18.6 mo; HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.37–0.94]; P = 0.0258; std risk: median 40.1 vs 21.6 mo; HR, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.32–0.59]; P <0.0001) regardless of cytogenetic risk status.Additional data including safety analyses will be presented.Summary/Conclusion:Adding daratumumab to Vd demonstrates significant efficacy in pts with high‐risk RRMM including PFS2. Among high‐risk RRMM pts, MRD negativity was only achieved with D‐Vd. These findings support use of D‐Vd for high‐risk RRMM. NCT02136134image

Abstract Many factors contribute to the poor survival of malignant brain tumor patients, some of which are not easily remedied. However, one contributor to the lack of progress that may be modifiable is poor clinical trial accrual. Surveys of brain tumor patients and neuro-oncology providers suggest that clinicians do a poor job of discussing clinical trials with patients and referring patients for clinical trials. Yet, data from the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society suggest that most eligible oncology patients asked to enroll on a clinical trial will agree to do so. To this end, the Society for Neuro-Oncology (SNO) in collaboration with the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) Working Group, patient advocacy groups, clinical trial cooperative groups, including the Adult Brain Tumor Consortium (ABTC), and other partners are working together with the intent to double clinical trial accrual over the next 5 years. Here we describe the factors contributing to poor clinical trial accrual in neuro-oncology and offer possible solutions.