Citations

4069 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ̃20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (mIDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ̃780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

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.

Background CD47 is an innate immune checkpoint that binds signal regulatory protein alpha (SIRPα) and delivers a "do not eat" signal to suppress macrophage phagocytosis. Overexpression of CD47 can allow tumor cells to escape immune surveillance. TTI-621 (SIRPαFc) is a fusion protein consisting of the CD47 binding domain of human SIRPα linked to the Fc region of human IgG1, designed to enhance phagocytosis and antitumor activity by blocking the CD47-SIRPα interaction between malignant cells and macrophages, and engaging Fcγ receptors. Here we report updates from the first-in-human study of TTI-621 (NCT02663518) in hematologic malignancies. Methods Study Part 1 tested increasing weekly intravenous doses of TTI-621 based on 3+3 escalation. The maximum tolerated dose was initially determined to be 0.2 mg/kg based on dose limiting toxicity (DLT) of thrombocytopenia [Grade (Gr) 4 of any duration]. Expanded testing followed in patients (pts) with hematologic malignancies, including leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma. In Part 2, most pts received 0.2 mg/kg. However, based on investigator discretion, a subset of pts received escalating doses up to 0.5 mg/kg. In Part 3, pts with T-cell lymphomas received stepwise dose escalations from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg over the first 5−8 weeks. In over 200 pts tested in Parts 1−3, thrombocytopenia did not increase with dose, typically recovered within 2−4 days, and was not associated with clinical sequelae. Part 4 was then undertaken to optimize TTI-621 dosing and is currently escalating doses in a 3+3 manner through pre-planned dose levels (0.5, 0.7, 1, and 1.4 mg/kg) in pts with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL). The DLT criteria was modified to require Gr 4 thrombocytopenia lasting &gt;72 hours. Safety monitoring includes weekly clinical laboratories and assessments of adverse events (AEs) per CTCAE v 4.03. Blood samples are obtained for pharmacokinetics (PK) and for pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments of receptor occupancy (RO) on normal peripheral T cells. Disease assessments are performed per Olsen's criteria. Results In Parts 1−3 (n=214), the most common related AEs were infusion-related reaction (IRR, 43%; 3% Gr ≥3), thrombocytopenia (30%; 22% Gr ≥3), chills (21%; 0% Gr ≥3), and fatigue (15%; 1% Gr ≥3). Objective responses to single agent TTI-621 were achieved in 14/71 (20%) NHL pts including CTCL (n=42, 1 CR, 7 PRs), PTCL (n=22, 2 CRs, 2 PRs) and DLBCL (n=7, 1 CR, 1 PR). In Part 4, as of July 10, 2020, 15 pts (9M/6F, median age 67 years) have enrolled into 4 dose cohorts (0.5−1.4 mg/kg). CTCL subtypes include mycosis fungoides (MF, n=10) and Sézary syndrome (n=5) with advanced (≥IIB) disease in 9 (60%) pts who received a median of 3 (range 1−12) prior systemic therapies. Related AEs have occurred in 11 (73%) pts including IRR (n=10) and thrombocytopenia (n=3); Gr ≥3 AEs have occurred in 4 (27%) pts including thrombocytopenia (n=3), IRRs (n=2), and exfoliative dermatitis (n=1). Thrombocytopenia generally occurred on dosing days, recovered in 2-4 days, and has not worsened with increasing doses. IRRs typically occurred during initial infusions. The Gr 3 IRR events occurred in 2 pts in the 1 and 1.4 mg/kg cohorts; low Gr IRRs have occurred across doses in 8 pts. IRRs typically resolved without recurrence and low Gr events often resolved allowing for completion of infusions. For initial infusions, the Gr 3 IRRs prompted increasing infusion times from 1 hour up to 4 hours and discretional use of steroid pre-medication. The exfoliative dermatitis occurred Day 80 and led to treatment discontinuation in 1 pt with MF whose underlying disease confounded the etiology. PK results reveal dose dependent increases in exposure; PD studies indicate ~60% RO at end of infusion up to 1 mg/kg. Antitumor activity to date includes 1 PR and 1 skin CR in 6 evaluable pts in the 1 mg/kg cohort; 2 responding pts bridged to allogeneic transplantation. The mean % change in mSWAT scores were -0.4%, -27%, and -37% for 0.5, 0.7 and 1 mg/kg cohorts, respectively. 1.4 mg/kg cohort results will be presented at the meeting. Conclusions In Parts 1−3, TTI-621 doses of 0.05 to 0.5 mg/kg were well-tolerated and demonstrated single agent activity in multiple hematologic malignancies. Preliminary data from Part 4 dose optimization indicate that weekly infusions of TTI-621 up to 1.4 mg/kg are well-tolerated without dose limiting or cumulative thrombocytopenia. Antitumor activity was seen at 1 mg/kg; dose escalation is continuing at 2 mg/kg. Disclosures Horwitz: Janssen: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy; ASTEX: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy, Research Funding; C4 Therapeutics: Consultancy; Beigene: Consultancy; Myeloid Therapeutics: Consultancy; Vividion Therapeutics: Consultancy; Infinity/Verastem: Research Funding; Aileron: Consultancy, Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Affirmed: Consultancy; Trillium: Consultancy, Research Funding; Corvus: Consultancy; Millenium/Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kyowa Hakka Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Consultancy, Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Consultancy; Miragen: Consultancy; Mundipharma: Consultancy. Foran:Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy. Sawas:Flatiron Health: Current Employment; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Daiichi Sankyo: Speakers Bureau; Affimed: Research Funding; Roche: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Feldman:AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Viracta: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Kyowa Kirin: Consultancy, Research Funding; Eisai: Research Funding; Cell Medica: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Other, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite: Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Rhizen: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Portola: Research Funding. Sokol:EUSA Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa/Kirin Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Kymera Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mei:Sanofi: Consultancy; Morphosys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Flinn:Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vincera Pharma: Consultancy; Agios: Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Great Point Partners: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; Triphase Research & Development Corp.: Research Funding; Curio Science: Consultancy; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy; Novartis: Research Funding; Pfizer: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Teva: Research Funding; Loxo: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Calithera Biosciences: Research Funding; Johnson & Johnson: Other; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals ≠: Consultancy, Research Funding; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding. Villa:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AZ: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria; Nano String: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sandoz Canada: Consultancy, Honoraria; Immunovaccine: Consultancy, Honoraria; Purdue Pharma: Consultancy, Honoraria. Percival:Pfizer: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Nohla Therapeutics: Research Funding; Biosight: Research Funding; Oscotec: Research Funding; Cardiff Oncology: Research Funding; Genentech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Glycomimetics: Research Funding. Jagadeesh:Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Debiopharm Group: Research Funding. Savage:Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie, Servier: Consultancy; Roche (institutional): Research Funding; Merck, BMS, Seattle Genetics, Gilead, AstraZeneca, AbbVie: Honoraria; BeiGene: Other: Steering Committee. Akilov:Mallinckrodt: Consultancy; Medivir: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy; Kyowa Hakko Kirin: Consultancy; Soligenix: Honoraria; Pfizer: Research Funding; Actelion: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding. Diefenbach:Trillium: Research Funding; Millenium/Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Consultancy, Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Denovo: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding. Kim:Kyowa-Kirin Pharma: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Medivir: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Horizon Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; miRagen: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Galderma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Eisai: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Corvus: Research Funding; Elorac: Research Funding; Forty Seven Inc: Research Funding; Neumedicine: Consultancy, Research Funding; Innate Pharma: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Solingenix: Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Portola: Research Funding. Lin:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Catalano:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Petrova:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Uger:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Molloy:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Large:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Shou:Trillium Therapeutics Inc.: Current Employment. Ansell:Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding.

312 Background: Silmitasertib (CX-4945), an oral small molecule inhibitor of casein kinase 2 (CK2), has exhibited preclinical antitumor activity and strong synergism with gemcitabine + cisplatin. We investigated the safety and efficacy of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Methods: S4-13-001 is a multicenter, open-label, phase Ib/II study of silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. The phase Ib portion included dose-escalation, expansion, and exploratory cohorts of silmitasertib with doses ranging from 200 to 1000 mg bid (6 days for the escalation/expansion cohorts and 10 and 21 days’ continuous dosing for the exploratory cohorts). In the phase II portion patients received silmitasertib 1000 mg bid for 10 days in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin on days 1 & 8 over a 21-day cycle. In this interim analysis, we present findings from the combined population of patients from the phase Ib and II portions of the study. Response to treatment was assessed by RECIST v1.1 every 6 weeks. Primary efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02128282). Results: A total of 87 patients were enrolled and received silmitasertib in the phase Ib (n=50) and phase II (n=37) portions of the study. Of these, 55 patients were evaluable for efficacy with details as follows: median PFS 11.1 (95% CI 7.6–14.7) months; median overall survival (OS) 17.4 (95% CI 13.4–25.7) months; overall response rate (ORR) 32.1%; and disease control rate (DCR) 79.3%. Almost all patients (79/87; 90.8%) evaluable for safety reported ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TEAE). The most common TEAEs (all grades) with silmitasertib were diarrhea (65.5%), nausea (50.6%), vomiting (33.3%), fatigue (31.0%), and anemia (21.8%). The most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhea (13.8%), neutropenia (11.5%), nausea (9.2%), anemia (8.0%), and thrombocytopenia (8.0%). Eleven patients (12.6%) discontinued treatment due to TEAEs. Conclusions: Silmitasertib in combination with gemcitabine + cisplatin yields promising preliminary evidence of efficacy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic CCA. Based on these data a randomized phase III trial is planned. Clinical trial information: NCT02128282.

266 Background: CCA is a rare cancer for which there are limited effective therapies. IDH1 mutations occur in ~20% of intrahepatic CCAs, resulting in production of the oncometabolite D-2-hydroxyglutarate, which promotes oncogenesis. IVO (AG-120) is a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1 (m IDH1). ClarIDHy aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of IVO vs PBO in pts with unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA. The primary endpoint was met with significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) by independent radiology center (IRC) with IVO vs PBO (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.37, p < 0.0001). Objective response rate (ORR) and stable disease for IVO were 2.4% (3 partial responses) and 50.8% (n = 63) vs 0% and 27.9% (n = 17) for PBO. IVO pts experienced significantly less decline in physical and emotional functioning domains of quality of life at cycle 2 day 1 vs PBO pts (nominal p < 0.05). Methods: Pts with m IDH1 CCA were randomized 2:1 to IVO (500 mg PO QD) or matched PBO and stratified by prior systemic therapies (1 or 2). Key eligibility: unresectable or metastatic m IDH1 CCA based on central testing; ECOG PS 0–1; measurable disease (RECIST v1.1). Crossover from PBO to IVO was permitted at radiographic progression. Primary endpoint: PFS by IRC. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS; by intent-to-treat), ORR, PFS (by investigator), safety, and quality of life. The planned crossover-adjusted OS was derived using the rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) model. Results: As of 31 May 2020, ~780 pts were prescreened for an IDH1 mutation and 187 were randomized to IVO (n = 126) or PBO (n = 61); 13 remain on IVO. Median age 62 y; M/F 68/119; 91% intrahepatic CCA; 93% metastatic disease; 47% had 2 prior therapies. 70% of PBO pts crossed over to IVO. OS data were mature, with 79% OS events in IVO arm and 82% in PBO. Median OS (mOS) was 10.3 months for IVO and 7.5 months for PBO (HR = 0.79; 95% CI 0.56–1.12; one-sided p = 0.093). The RPSFT-adjusted mOS was 5.1 months for PBO (HR = 0.49; 95% CI 0.34–0.70; p < 0.0001). Common all-grade treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs, ≥ 15%) in the IVO arm: nausea 41%, diarrhea 35%, fatigue 31%, cough 25%, abdominal pain 24%, decreased appetite 24%, ascites 23%, vomiting 23%, anemia 18%, and constipation 15%. Grade ≥ 3 TEAEs were reported in 50% of IVO pts vs 37% of PBO pts, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related AEs in 7% of IVO pts vs 0% in PBO. 7% of IVO pts experienced an AE leading to treatment discontinuation vs 9% of PBO pts. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: IVO was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS trend vs PBO despite a high rate of crossover. These data – coupled with statistical improvement in PFS, supportive quality of life data, and favorable safety profile – demonstrate the clinical benefit of IVO in advanced m IDH1 CCA. Clinical trial information: NCT02989857.

AbstractBackgroundHepatectomy is standard treatment for colorectal liver metastases; however, it is unclear whether liver metastases from other primary cancers should be resected or not. The Japanese Society of Hepato‐Biliary‐Pancreatic Surgery therefore created clinical practice guidelines for the management of metastatic liver tumors.MethodsEight primary diseases were selected based on the number of hepatectomies performed for each malignancy per year. Clinical questions were structured in the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) format. Systematic reviews were performed, and the strength of recommendations and the level of quality of evidence for each clinical question were discussed and determined. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess evidence and make recommendations.ResultsThe eight primary sites were grouped into five categories based on suggested indications for hepatectomy and consensus of the guidelines committee. Fourteen clinical questions were devised, covering five topics: (1) diagnosis, (2) operative treatment, (3) ablation therapy, (4) the eight primary diseases, and (5) systemic therapies. The grade of recommendation was strong for one clinical question and weak for the other 13 clinical questions. The quality of the evidence was moderate for two questions, low for 10, and very low for two.A flowchart was made to summarize the outcomes of the guidelines for the indications of hepatectomy and systemic therapy.ConclusionsThese guidelines were developed to provide useful information based on evidence in the published literature for the clinical management of liver metastases, and they could be helpful for conducting future clinical trials to provide higher‐quality evidence.

Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare subtype of T-cell lymphoma associated with an aggressive clinical course and a worse prognosis. HSTCL develops in the setting of chronic immune suppression or immune dysregulation in up to 20% of cases and is most often characterized by spleen, liver, and bone marrow involvement. Diagnosis and management of HSTCL pose significant challenges given the rarity of the disease along with the absence of lymphadenopathy and poor outcome with conventional chemotherapy regimens. These Guidelines Insights focus on the diagnosis and treatment of HSTCL as outlined in the NCCN Guidelines for T-Cell Lymphomas.

AbstractBackgroundLarge-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have implicated thousands of germline genetic variants in modulating individuals’ risk to various diseases, including cancer. At least 25 risk loci have been identified for low-grade gliomas (LGGs), but their molecular functions remain largely unknown.MethodsWe hypothesized that GWAS loci contain causal single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that reside in accessible open chromatin regions and modulate the expression of target genes by perturbing the binding affinity of transcription factors (TFs). We performed an integrative analysis of genomic and epigenomic data from The Cancer Genome Atlas and other public repositories to identify candidate causal SNPs within linkage disequilibrium blocks of LGG GWAS loci. We assessed their potential regulatory role via in silico TF binding sequence perturbations, convolutional neural network trained on TF binding data, and simulated annealing–based interpretation methods.ResultsWe built an interactive website (http://education.knoweng.org/alg3/) summarizing the functional footprinting of 280 variants in 25 LGG GWAS regions, providing rich information for further computational and experimental scrutiny. We identified as case studies PHLDB1 and SLC25A26 as candidate target genes of rs12803321 and rs11706832, respectively, and predicted the GWAS variant rs648044 to be the causal SNP modulating ZBTB16, a known tumor suppressor in multiple cancers. We showed that rs648044 likely perturbed the binding affinity of the TF MAFF, as supported by RNA interference and in vitro MAFF binding experiments.ConclusionsThe identified candidate (causal SNP, target gene, TF) triplets and the accompanying resource will help accelerate our understanding of the molecular mechanisms underlying genetic risk factors for gliomas.

ABSTRACTBackgroundThe COVID‐19 pandemic restricted usual healthcare management for movement‐disorders patients, with a consequent upsurge in telemedicine to bridge the gap.ObjectiveTo assess global telemedicine usage in the context of the pandemic.MethodsThe Movement Disorder Society (MDS) Telemedicine Study Group surveyed telemedicine experts from 40 countries across all continents in March–April 2020. Four domains of telemedicine were assessed: legal regulations, reimbursement, clinical use, and barriers; comparing emerging responses to the pandemic versus the baseline scenario.ResultsAll forms of telemedicine for movement disorders increased globally, irrespective of country income categorization, as an immediate response to the pandemic. This was aided by widespread availability of technology and updated government regulations. However, privacy concerns, lack of reimbursement, limited access, and lack of telemedicine training were barriers highlighted worldwide.ConclusionsQuestions remain about the longevity and extent of changes in regulations and reimbursement regarding telemedicine in the aftermath of the pandemic. © 2020 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society