Citations

TPS7587 Background: Covalent (c) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) have transformed the management of MCL, but these agents are not curative. cBTKi share pharmacologic liabilities (e.g., low oral bioavailability, short half-life), which collectively may lead to suboptimal BTK target coverage especially in rapidly proliferating tumors with high BTK protein turnover such as MCL, which can manifest as acquired resistance to BTKi. Pirtobrutinib, a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi, has favorable oral pharmacology that enables continuous BTK inhibition throughout the dosing interval regardless of intrinsic rate of BTK turnover. In the phase 1/2 BRUIN study, pirtobrutinib demonstrated promising durable overall response rates and was well tolerated in patients (pts) with MCL regardless of prior therapy (including cBTKi), number of prior lines of therapy, or reason for prior cBTKi discontinuation. Pirtobrutinib was approved by the FDA in January 2023 for R/R MCL after 2 prior lines of therapy including a BTKi. The objective of this study is to establish whether pirtobrutinib is superior to investigator’s choice of cBTKi in pts with previously treated, BTKi naïve MCL. Methods: BRUIN MCL-321 (NCT04662255) is a randomized, open-label, global phase 3 study comparing pirtobrutinib monotherapy versus investigator’s choice of cBTKi monotherapy (ibrutinib, acalabrutinib, or zanubrutinib) in pts with previously treated, BTKi naïve MCL. Approximately 500 pts will be randomized 1:1 and stratified by sMIPI risk (low/intermediate vs high), comparator BTKi (ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib/zanubrutinib), and number of prior lines of therapy (1 vs ≥ 2). Enrollment for this study is ongoing. Adults with a diagnosis of MCL who have received ≥ 1 prior line of systemic therapy for MCL and are BTKi naïve are eligible. Pts must have measurable disease by imaging per Lugano criteria and have progressed on or relapsed following the most recent line of therapy. A history of current or prior CNS involvement, significant cardiovascular disease, stroke or intracranial hemorrhage within 6 months of randomization, and autologous stem cell transplant (SCT), allogeneic SCT or chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy within 60 days of randomization are key exclusion criteria. Progression-free survival (PFS) per Lugano criteria assessed by an independent review committee is the primary endpoint. Overall response rate, duration of response, investigator-assessed PFS per Lugano criteria, overall survival, event-free survival, time to treatment failure, time to next treatment, PFS2 (time from randomization to disease progression on next line of treatment or death from any cause), safety and tolerability, and pt reported outcomes are secondary endpoints. Clinical trial information: NCT04662255 .

7514 Background: Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, non-covalent (reversible) BTKi. Here, we report updated results of pirtobrutinib in patients (pts) with cBTKi pre-treated relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL and more than 3 years follow-up from start of enrollment. Methods: Pts with cBTKi pre-treated R/R MCL received pirtobrutinib monotherapy in a multicenter phase 1/2 BRUIN trial (NCT03740529). Efficacy was assessed in the prespecified primary efficacy cohort that comprised the first 90 enrolled pts who had measurable disease, had received a prior cBTKi, and had no known central nervous system involvement. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) as assessed by independent review committee. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR) and safety. A data cut of 29 July 2022 was utilized. Results: Among MCL pts who received a prior cBTKi (n=90), median age was 70 years (range, 46-87), median prior lines of therapy were 3 (range, 1-8), 82% discontinued a prior cBTKi due to disease progression, and 78% had intermediate/high risk sMIPI score. Of samples available, 17/36 (47%) had TP53 mutations and 25/34 (74%) had Ki67 ≥30%. The ORR was 57% (95% CI, 46-67), including 19% complete responses (n=17) and 38% partial responses (n=34). At a median follow-up time of 13 months, the median DOR among the 51 responding pts was 17.6 months (95% CI, 7.3-27.2). The 12- and 18-month estimated DOR rates were 58% (95% CI, 41-72) and 45% (95% CI, 27-61), respectively. ORR and DOR by subgroups are shown in the Table. The median progression-free survival was 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.3–13.3). The median overall survival was 23.5 months (95% CI, 15.9-NE). In the MCL safety cohort (n=166), the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) were fatigue (31%), diarrhea (22%), and anemia (17%). The most common Grade ≥3 TEAE was neutropenia (15%). Grade ≥3 TEAE of hemorrhage (3%) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (2%) were infrequent. Only 5 (3%) pts discontinued due to a treatment-related AE. Conclusions: Pirtobrutinib continues to show durable efficacy and a favorable safety profile in heavily pre-treated R/R MCL pts with prior cBTKi therapy. Responses were observed in pts with high-risk disease features including pts with blastoid/pleomorphic variants, elevated Ki67 index, and TP53 mutations. Clinical trial information: NCT03740529 . [Table: see text]

OBJECTIVE Spondylolisthesis is a common operative disease in the United States, but robust predictive models for patient outcomes remain limited. The development of models that accurately predict postoperative outcomes would be useful to help identify patients at risk of complicated postoperative courses and determine appropriate healthcare and resource utilization for patients. As such, the purpose of this study was to develop k-nearest neighbors (KNN) classification algorithms to identify patients at increased risk for extended hospital length of stay (LOS) following neurosurgical intervention for spondylolisthesis. METHODS The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) spondylolisthesis data set was queried for patients receiving either decompression alone or decompression plus fusion for degenerative spondylolisthesis. Preoperative and perioperative variables were queried, and Mann-Whitney U-tests were performed to identify which variables would be included in the machine learning models. Two KNN models were implemented (k = 25) with a standard training set of 60%, validation set of 20%, and testing set of 20%, one with arthrodesis status (model 1) and the other without (model 2). Feature scaling was implemented during the preprocessing stage to standardize the independent features. RESULTS Of 608 enrolled patients, 544 met prespecified inclusion criteria. The mean age of all patients was 61.9 ± 12.1 years (± SD), and 309 (56.8%) patients were female. The model 1 KNN had an overall accuracy of 98.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 84.6%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 97.9%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. Additionally, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted for model 1, showing an overall area under the curve (AUC) of 0.998. Model 2 had an overall accuracy of 99.1%, sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 92.3%, PPV of 99.0%, and NPV of 100%, with the same ROC AUC of 0.998. CONCLUSIONS Overall, these findings demonstrate that nonlinear KNN machine learning models have incredibly high predictive value for LOS. Important predictor variables include diabetes, osteoporosis, socioeconomic quartile, duration of surgery, estimated blood loss during surgery, patient educational status, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, BMI, insurance status, smoking status, sex, and age. These models may be considered for external validation by spine surgeons to aid in patient selection and management, resource utilization, and preoperative surgical planning.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of different supervised machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in neck pain after surgery in patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM). METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of the prospective Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. The data set was divided into an 80% training and a 20% test set. Various supervised learning algorithms (including logistic regression, support vector machine, decision tree, random forest, extra trees, gaussian naïve Bayes, k–nearest neighbors, multilayer perceptron, and extreme gradient boosted trees) were evaluated on their performance to predict achievement of MCID in neck pain at 3 and 24 months after surgery, given a set of predicting baseline features. Model performance was assessed with accuracy, F1 score, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall/sensitivity, and specificity. RESULTS In total, 535 patients (46.9%) achieved MCID for neck pain at 3 months and 569 patients (49.9%) achieved it at 24 months. In each follow-up cohort, 501 patients (93.6%) were satisfied at 3 months after surgery and 569 patients (100%) were satisfied at 24 months after surgery. Of the supervised machine learning algorithms tested, logistic regression demonstrated the best accuracy (3 months: 0.76 ± 0.031, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.044), followed by F1 score (3 months: 0.759 ± 0.019, 24 months: 0.777 ± 0.039) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (3 months: 0.762 ± 0.027, 24 months: 0.773 ± 0.043) at predicting achievement of MCID for neck pain at both follow-up time points, with fair performance. The best precision was also demonstrated by logistic regression at 3 (0.724 ± 0.058) and 24 (0.780 ± 0.097) months. The best recall/sensitivity was demonstrated by multilayer perceptron at 3 months (0.841 ± 0.094) and by extra trees at 24 months (0.817 ± 0.115). Highest specificity was shown by support vector machine at 3 months (0.952 ± 0.013) and by logistic regression at 24 months (0.747 ± 0.18). CONCLUSIONS Appropriate selection of models for studies should be based on the strengths of each model and the aims of the studies. For maximally predicting true achievement of MCID in neck pain, of all the predictions in this balanced data set the appropriate metric for the authors’ study was precision. For both short- and long-term follow-ups, logistic regression demonstrated the highest precision of all models tested. Logistic regression performed consistently the best of all models tested and remains a powerful model for clinical classification tasks.

OBJECTIVE The Quality Outcomes Database (QOD) was established in 2012 by the NeuroPoint Alliance, a nonprofit organization supported by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Currently, the QOD has launched six different modules to cover a broad spectrum of neurosurgical practice—namely lumbar spine surgery, cervical spine surgery, brain tumor, stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS), functional neurosurgery for Parkinson’s disease, and cerebrovascular surgery. This investigation aims to summarize research efforts and evidence yielded through QOD research endeavors. METHODS The authors identified all publications from January 1, 2012, to February 18, 2023, that were produced by using data collected prospectively in a QOD module without a prespecified research purpose in the context of quality surveillance and improvement. Citations were compiled and presented along with comprehensive documentation of the main study objective and take-home message. RESULTS A total of 94 studies have been produced through QOD efforts during the past decade. QOD-derived literature has been predominantly dedicated to spinal surgical outcomes, with 59 and 22 studies focusing on lumbar and cervical spine surgery, respectively, and 6 studies focusing on both. More specifically, the QOD Study Group—a research collaborative between 16 high-enrolling sites—has yielded 24 studies on lumbar grade 1 spondylolisthesis and 13 studies on cervical spondylotic myelopathy, using two focused data sets with high data accuracy and long-term follow-up. The more recent neuro-oncological QOD efforts, i.e., the Tumor QOD and the SRS Quality Registry, have contributed 5 studies, providing insights into the real-world neuro-oncological practice and the role of patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Prospective quality registries are an important resource for observational research, yielding clinical evidence to guide decision-making across neurosurgical subspecialties. Future directions of the QOD efforts include the development of research efforts within the neuro-oncological registries and the American Spine Registry—which has now replaced the inactive spinal modules of the QOD—and the focused research on high-grade lumbar spondylolisthesis and cervical radiculopathy.

PURPOSE Pirtobrutinib is a highly selective, noncovalent (reversible) Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi). We report the safety and efficacy of pirtobrutinib in patients with covalent Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (cBTKi) pretreated mantle-cell lymphoma (MCL), a population with poor prognosis. METHODS Patients with cBTKi pretreated relapsed/refractory (R/R) MCL received pirtobrutinib monotherapy in a multicenter phase I/II trial (BRUIN; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03740529 ). Efficacy was assessed in the first 90 consecutively enrolled patients who met criteria for inclusion in the primary efficacy cohort. The primary end point was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. RESULTS The median patient age was 70 years (range, 46-87), the median prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 1-8), 82.2% had discontinued a prior cBTKi because of disease progression, and 77.8% had intermediate- or high-risk simplified MCL International Prognostic Index score. The ORR was 57.8% (95% CI, 46.9 to 68.1), including 20.0% complete responses (n = 18). At a median follow-up of 12 months, the median DOR was 21.6 months (95% CI, 7.5 to not reached). The 6- and 12-month estimated DOR rates were 73.6% and 57.1%, respectively. In the MCL safety cohort (n = 164), the most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were fatigue (29.9%), diarrhea (21.3%), and dyspnea (16.5%). Grade ≥3 TEAEs of hemorrhage (3.7%) and atrial fibrillation/flutter (1.2%) were less common. Only 3% of patients discontinued pirtobrutinib because of a treatment-related adverse event. CONCLUSION Pirtobrutinib is a first-in-class novel noncovalent (reversible) BTKi and the first BTKi of any kind to demonstrate durable efficacy after prior cBTKi therapy in heavily pretreated R/R MCL. Pirtobrutinib was well tolerated with low rates of treatment discontinuation because of toxicity.

OBJECTIVE The American Spine Registry (ASR) is a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The goal of this study was to evaluate how representative the ASR is of the national practice with spinal procedures, as recorded in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS). METHODS The authors queried the NIS and the ASR for cervical and lumbar arthrodesis cases performed during 2017–2019. International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision and Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify patients undergoing cervical and lumbar procedures. The two groups were compared for the overall proportion of cervical and lumbar procedures, age distribution, sex, surgical approach features, race, and hospital volume. Outcomes available in the ASR, such as patient-reported outcomes and reoperations, were not analyzed due to nonavailability in the NIS. The representativeness of the ASR compared to the NIS was assessed via Cohen’s d effect sizes, and absolute standardized mean differences (SMDs) of < 0.2 were considered trivial, whereas > 0.5 were considered moderately large. RESULTS A total of 24,800 arthrodesis procedures were identified in the ASR for the period between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2019. During the same time period, 1,305,360 cases were recorded in the NIS. Cervical fusions comprised 35.9% of the ASR cohort (8911 cases) and 36.0% of the NIS cohort (469,287 cases). The two databases presented trivial differences in terms of patient age and sex for all years of interest across both cervical and lumbar arthrodeses (SMD < 0.2). Trivial differences were also noted in the distribution of open versus percutaneous procedures of the cervical and lumbar spine (SMD < 0.2). Among lumbar cases, anterior approaches were more common in the ASR than in the NIS (32.1% vs 22.3%, SMD = 0.22), but the discrepancy among cervical cases in the two databases was trivial (SMD = 0.03). Small differences were illustrated in terms of race, with SMDs < 0.5, and a more significant discrepancy was identified in the geographic distribution of participating sites (SMDs of 0.7 and 0.74 for cervical and lumbar cases, respectively). For both of these measures, SMDs in 2019 were smaller than those in 2018 and 2017. CONCLUSIONS The ASR and NIS databases presented a very high similarity in proportions of cervical and lumbar spine surgeries, as well as similar distributions of age and sex, and distribution of open versus endoscopic approach. Slight discrepancies in anterior versus posterior approach among lumbar cases and patient race, and more significant discrepancies in geographic representation were also identified, yet decreasing trends in differences suggested the improving representativeness of the ASR over the course of time and its progressive growth. These conclusions are important to underline the external validity of quality investigations and research conclusions to be drawn from analyses in which the ASR is used.

OBJECTIVE Depression and anxiety are associated with inferior outcomes following spine surgery. In this study, the authors examined whether patients with cervical spondylotic myelopathy (CSM) who have both self-reported depression (SRD) and self-reported anxiety (SRA) have worse postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with patients who have only one or none of these comorbidities. METHODS This study is a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the Quality Outcomes Database CSM cohort. Comparisons were made among patients who reported the following: 1) either SRD or SRA, 2) both SRD and SRA, or 3) neither comorbidity at baseline. PROs at 3, 12, and 24 months (scores for the visual analog scale [VAS] for neck pain and arm pain, Neck Disability Index [NDI], modified Japanese Orthopaedic Association [mJOA] scale, EQ-5D, EuroQol VAS [EQ-VAS], and North American Spine Society [NASS] patient satisfaction index) and achievement of respective PRO minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) were compared. RESULTS Of the 1141 included patients, 199 (17.4%) had either SRD or SRA alone, 132 (11.6%) had both SRD and SRA, and 810 (71.0%) had neither. Preoperatively, patients with either SRD or SRA alone had worse scores for VAS neck pain (5.6 ± 3.1 vs 5.1 ± 3.3, p = 0.03), NDI (41.0 ± 19.3 vs 36.8 ± 20.8, p = 0.007), EQ-VAS (57.0 ± 21.0 vs 60.7 ± 21.7, p = 0.03), and EQ-5D (0.53 ± 0.23 vs 0.58 ± 0.21, p = 0.008) than patients without such disorders. Postoperatively, in multivariable adjusted analyses, baseline SRD or SRA alone was associated with inferior improvement in the VAS neck pain score and a lower rate of achieving the MCID for VAS neck pain score at 3 and 12 months, but not at 24 months. At 24 months, patients with SRD or SRA alone experienced less change in EQ-5D scores and were less likely to meet the MCID for EQ-5D than patients without SRD or SRA. Furthermore, patient self-reporting of both psychological comorbidities did not impact PROs at all measured time points compared with self-reporting of only one psychological comorbidity alone. Each cohort (SRD or SRA alone, both SRD and SRA, and neither SRD nor SRA) experienced significant improvements in mean PROs at all measured time points compared with baseline (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Approximately 12% of patients who underwent surgery for CSM presented with both SRD and SRA, and 29% presented with at least one symptom. The presence of either SRD or SRA was independently associated with inferior scores for 3- and 12-month neck pain following surgery, but this difference was not significant at 24 months. However, at long-term follow-up, patients with SRD or SRA experienced lower quality of life than patients without SRD or SRA. The comorbid presence of both depression and anxiety was not associated with worse patient outcomes than either diagnosis alone.