Citations

Abstract Abstract 2105 The existence of multiple inherited disorders of iron metabolism in man, rodents and other vertebrates suggests genetic contributions to iron deficiency. We hypothesized that common variants in genes involved in iron metabolism may modulate susceptibility or resistance to the development of iron deficiency in humans. To examine the association between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in key genes involved in iron metabolism pathways, we previously performed a genome-wide association study using DNA collected from white men aged ≥25 y and women ≥50 y in the Hemochromatosis and Iron Overload Screening (HEIRS) Study with serum ferritin (SF) ≤12 μg/L (cases) and controls (SF >100 μg/L in men, SF >50 μg/L in women). We now report on a multiethnic follow-up association study of HEIRS participants. Candidate SNPs were identified from our GWAS and the scientific literature. Population samples of whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians from the U.S. and Canada were analyzed separately for association between SNPs and case-control status and each of seven quantitative outcomes including serum iron, total iron-binding capacity (TIBC), unsaturated iron-binding capacity (UIBC), transferrin saturation, SF, serum transferrin receptor, and body iron. There were 1084 white (357 cases, 727 controls), 153 Asian (51 cases, 102 controls), 221 African American (77 cases, 144 controls) and 233 of 239 Hispanic individuals (79 cases, 160 controls) that passed quality control. For the African-American and Hispanic samples, ancestry proportions were estimated based on genotypes of ancestry informative markers. Regression analysis was used to examine the association between case-control status and quantitative serum iron measures and 1134, 1115, 1113 and 1134 SNP genotypes in the white, African-American, Hispanic, and Asian population samples, respectively. Model predictors included age, sex, the estimated ancestry proportion (for African American and Hispanic only), genotype, and measured covariates that showed nominally significant associations with the outcome. Three chromosomal regions showed evidence of association across multiple populations, including SNPs in the TF gene on chromosome 3q22, the TMPRSS6 gene on chromosome 22q12, and loci on chromosome 18q21. SNP rs1421312 in TMPRSS6 was associated with serum iron in whites (p=4.7×10−7) and was replicated in African Americans (p=0.0012).Twenty SNPs in the TF gene region were significantly associated with TIBC in the white sample (p<4.4×10−5); six SNPs were replicated in other ethnicities (p< 0.01). SNP rs10904850 in the CUBN gene on 10p13 was significantly associated with serum iron in the African-American sample (P=1.0×10−5). Mutations in the TMPRSS6 gene have been implicated in iron-refractory iron deficiency anemia through linkage studies. We found a novel SNP in TMPRSS6 that was associated with serum iron in whites and replicated in African Americans, suggesting a role for this SNP in increasing the risk of iron deficiency in affected persons. Our results confirm known associations with iron measures and give evidence of their role in different ethnic groups, a unique aspect of this study, suggesting origins in a common founder. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Abstract Background: Patients (pts) with polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) suffer from disease related events linked to risk of vascular events, splenomegaly, progression to myelofibrosis/acute leukemia, and disease related symptoms arising from both elevated cytokines and issues of vascular flow. Impact of front line therapy on ET/PV symptoms has not been reported in a systematic fashion. Methods: MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled cytoreductive therapy naïve (hydroxyurea [HU] <3 mo) pts with high risk ET or PV within 3 years of diagnosis. Pts were randomized (1:1, stratified by ET vs PV) to either response adjusted pegylated interferon alpha 2a (PEG) or HU. MPN symptoms, treatment toxicities, and quality of life (QoL) were measured by the MPN-SAF and EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and 3, 6, 9, and 12 mo. PEG related toxicities were assessed with 5 questions on PEG arm only. European Leukemia Net (ELN) complete hematological responses (CHR) at 12 mo were determined by central blinded review. Individual time point and longitudinal group comparisons were based on mixed models adjusting for age. T-tests were used to compare change scores at 12 mo between pts with and without CHR. Results: Patients: MPD-RC 112 enrolled 168 pts from 9/2011 to 7/2016, with 75 pts included in the interim analysis. 73 (97%; HU 37, 95%; PEG 36, 100%) completed surveys at baseline of which 66 (90%; HU 30, 81%; PEG 36, 100%) completed at least 1 survey during treatment. Median age was 60 (range 19-84) with 32 (44%) females; 30 (41%) / 43 (59%) with ET / PV; 19 (26%) had a history of thrombosis; and 16 (22%) had palpable spleen. Baseline characteristics where balanced between arms with the exception of age (median age: HU 66, PEG 54; p<0.001). Baseline Symptom Burden/QoL: Mean MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (TSS, scale 0 [absent]-100 [worst imaginable]) was 15.4 (SD 12.5; range 0-52.2) with means of 12.6 (SD 11.7) / 17.3 (SD 12.7) for ET / PV which were somewhat better than reported means of a previous cohort receiving any line of treatment (ET mean 18.7, SD 15.3; PV mean 21.8, SD 16.3; Emanuel RM, JCO 2012). Symptoms (scale 0 [absent]-10 [worst imaginable]) with the highest prevalence (score >0) included fatigue (65/73, 89%) and insomnia (47/73, 64%). The symptom with the lowest prevalence was fever (8/72, 11%). Mean QLQ-C30 global health status/QoL (GHS/QoL) was 73.3 (SD 19.1) which is comparable to a general healthy population (mean 71.2, SD 22.4) and better than a general cancer population (mean 61.3, SD 24.2; QLQ-C30 Reference Manual 2008). TSS, symptoms, and QoL did not differ between arms. Impact of Therapy on Symptom Burden/QoL: On HU, pts initially experienced worsening of TSS, fatigue, early satiety, itching, bone pain, and fever (all p<0.05) with some symptoms returning to baseline after 6 mo (Table 1). On PEG, pts experienced improved abdominal pain and discomfort, but worsening of headache, cough, injection site irritation, blurry vision, and vision change (all p<0.05). Sad mood did not worsen on PEG, although this may be confounded by concurrent use of mood stabilizers. Concentration problems on PEG were significantly worse at 9 mo (p=0.04). Both arms experienced worsened QoL (MPN-SAF single item: HU p=0.009, PEG p=0.003). In comparing between arms, TSS significantly differed (p=0.009) with higher symptoms on HU vs PEG at 3 and 6 mo, but lower symptoms at 9 and 12 mo (Figure 1). Similar descriptive profiles were observed for most individual symptoms; however, the only symptom profiles which significantly differed between arms was early satiety (p=0.03). ELN Response and Symptom Burden/QoL: Among 62 pts with symptom and response data at 12 mo, CHR rate was 37% (23/62). Change in sad mood and sexuality were the only significant differences between pts with and without CHR regardless of arm though in the unanticipated direction (sad mood: mean change 1.5 vs -0.8, p<0.001; sexuality: mean change 2.33 vs 0.3, p=0.03). Conclusions: PEG was associated with an initial decrease in MPN symptom burden when compared to HU. However, with longer duration of therapy, this superiority dissipated. Patient-reported PEG toxicities worsened over time. On both arms, symptom worsening was observed in pts achieving an ELN CHR, possibly leading to the observed negative impact on mood and sexuality. Future research on the impact of PEG on disease progression and molecular features will be important to assess whether increased side effects with PEG are justified. Disclosures Mesa: CTI: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Harrison:Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kessler:Pfizer: Consultancy; Octapharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Research Funding; Grifols: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Biogen: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Baxalta: Consultancy, Research Funding; LFB: Other: Member of DSMB. Ritchie:Pfizer: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Speakers Bureau. Schlenk:Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Mascarenhas:Promedior: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding.

PURPOSE In a professional setting, the introduction of female speakers without their professional title may have an impact on the public’s perception of the female speaker. We examined how professional titles were used during speakers’ introductions at the ASCO Annual Meeting. METHODS We conducted a retrospective, observational study of video-archived speaker introductions at the 2017 and 2018 ASCO Annual Meetings. A “professional address” was defined as the professional title followed by the speaker’s full name or last name. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with the form of address. RESULTS Of 2,511 videos reviewed, 781 met inclusion criteria. Female speakers were addressed less often by their professional title compared with male speakers (62% v 81%; P < .001). Males were less likely to use a professional address when introducing female speakers compared with females when introducing male speakers (53% v 80%; P < .01). When women performed speaker introductions, no gender differences in professional address were observed (75% v 82%; P = .13). Female speakers were more likely to be introduced by first name only (17% v 3%; P < .001). Male introducers were more likely to address female speakers by first name only compared with female introducers (24% v 7%; P < .01). In a multivariable regression including gender, degree, academic rank, and geographic location of the speaker’s institution, male speakers were more likely to receive a professional address compared with female speakers (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.71 to 3.47; P < .01). CONCLUSION When introduced by men, female speakers were less likely to receive a professional address and more likely to be introduced by first name only compared with their male peers.

Abstract Early response to therapy, including assessment of MRD is a powerful prognostic factor in childhood ALL. However, there are many other known prognostic factors, and the precise relationship among these and MRD has been incompletely explored. In COG protocol P9900, patients were assigned to one of 3 risk-directed therapies based on NCI risk group, as well as TEL-AML1 translocations (TEL) and simultaneous trisomies of chromosomes 4 and 10 (DT). Infants and Ph+ patients were excluded. Good risk patients (9904) comprised NCI SR patients with either TEL or DT without CNS disease. Poor risk patients (9906) included a subset of NCI HR patients with particularly unfavorable risk factors based largely on age and white count, while 9905 had both NCI SR and HR patients not eligible for 9904 or 9906, including NCI HR patients with TEL or DT. MRD was satisfactorily measured with at least .01% sensitivity by 4-color flow cytometry in the marrow at end of induction (D29) or in blood at Day 8 (D8). D29 MRD was associated with poor outcome in all studies, and in both HR and SR patients on 9905 as shown: Study 4 y EFS ± SE (n) p value MRD <.01% MRD >.01% 9904 Overall 94±1%(668) 75±6%(105) <.0001 TEL-AML1 94±2%(367) 68±12%(38) <.0001 DT 95±1%(316) 80±7%(69) <.0001 9905 NCI-Standard Risk 89±2%(462) 63±6%(119) <.0001 9905 NCI-High Risk 83±4%(292) 49±9%(73) <.0001 9906 74±6%(156) 39±8%(84) <.0001 The proportion of D29 MRD positive DT(17.9%) patients was higher than that of TEL patients (9.4%) but MRD was also prognostic when each group was considered separately; similar findings were seen in HR TEL and DT patients. TEL or DT was associated with a significantly better prognosis in both HR and SR patients who were MRD negative, but were not favorable factors in MRD positive patients. D8 blood MRD was also prognostic in all studies, with higher MRD levels generally associated with poorer outcome. Patients who were both D29 and D8 MRD negative had a good outcome overall (93% 4 y EFS); combining all favorable risk factors, including TEL, DT, NCI risk group, D8 and D29 MRD identified a group of patients (about 13% of B-precursor ALL patients) with 98± 1% 4 y EFS. In multivariate analysis, D29 MRD was the most important prognostic factor. NCI Risk group, DT and D8 blood were also significant, but TEL and day 8 morphologic assessment of marrow were not. We conclude that MRD is a major prognostic factor in childhood ALL even accounting for other risk factors. The prognostic significance of TEL and DT depends on MRD status. The combination of good risk clinical and genetic factors, and absence of MRD in both D8 blood and D29 marrow identifies a group of patients with outstanding outcome on limited therapy.

Abstract Background: We recently clarified the use of consolidative autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) as first remission consolidation therapy for high grade diffuse aggressive T and B non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL)in patients with high-intermediate (HI) or High (H) age adjusted IPI disease (Stiff et al, NEJM 369:1681). After receiving CHOP or R-CHOP for 5 cycles responding patients were randomized to either 3 more induction cycles or 1 cycle followed by an ASCT using either a BCNU or TBI based preparative regimen. We found a PFS but not OS advantage for those randomized to transplant and no differential treatment effect for those with T-NHL patients as compared to B-NHL in the initial analysis of this study. In light of Phase II data suggesting a value of early ASCT for T-NHL, a lack of randomized ASCT trials for T-NHL and the inferior prognosis for T-NHL as compared to B cell disease, we further evaluated this sub group, since a post hoc analysis of the entire trial did find a survival advantage for those with H IPI disease. This then provided a unique opportunity to evaluate the role of ASCT consolidation for T-cell NHL in the setting of a prospective randomized trial. Method: Among the 370 eligible B-NHL and T-NHL patients with HI/H IPI disease treated on this trial, 40 had a T-NHL phenotype and were the subject of this analysis. Individual patient files were re-reviewed and those randomized after the first 5 cycles of CHOP were further analyzed for stage, IPI group, histology (centrally reviewed), and response to induction and consolidation and updated survival outcome. Results: Of the 40 T-NHL patients enrolled on study, 28 (70%) were randomized after induction therapy, a similar ratio to the entire trial (68%). Twelve were not randomized; 1 was ineligible for study, and of the eligible 11, 9 were HI IPI and 8 had peripheral T cell (PTCL-NOS). These 11 were not randomized due to patient choice in 2, and all of the remaining 9 pts progressed early: 2 after C1; 3 after C3, 1 after C4, and 3 after C5. For the 28 randomized, their median age was 50 and 19 were males. Of the group, 21/28 had B symptoms at diagnosis, 14 had stage IV disease, and 18 and 10 were in the HI and H IPI groups respectively. Histologies included 11 with PTCL-NOS, 7 angioimmunoblastic and 10 anaplastic large cell NHL. At randomization 13 were to continue CHOP and 15, ASCT. Of the 15 assigned to ASCT, 3 did not undergo transplant (2-refusals, 1- unable to mobilize); 7 received the BCNU-etoposide-cyclophosphamide and 5 the TBI-etoposide-cyclophosphamide preparative regimen. The 5 year estimates of PFS and OS for the randomized ASCT vs CHOP only groups (intent to treat) were 40% vs 38% (p=0.56) and 40% vs 45% (p=0.98) respectively. We found no difference in outcome based on IPI group, histology or stage of disease. Interestingly, only 1/7 patients who received BCV as the ASCT preparative regimen are long term survivors vs 4/5 receiving the TBI-based regimen. Conclusions: We did not observe a PFS/OS advantage for those with high-risk T-NHL in first remission randomized to ASCT following CHOP induction vs CHOP alone in this retrospective analysis. In addition, the 30% early drop out rate before randomization due primarily to early progression strongly suggests that more optimal induction regimens need to be developed for this disease. While the numbers are small the finding that TBI based preparative regimens might be associated with a higher PFS is of interest and deserves further study. Support: NIH/NCI grants CA180888 and CA180819; Bristol-Myers Squibb. Contributions of Dr. Raymond R Tubbs, deceased, are gratefully acknowledged. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Porcu: miRagen: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; celgene: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial; Millenium: Other: investigator in a clinical trial; Innate Pharma: Other: Investigator in a clinical trial. Winter:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Medivation: Other: Provision of investigational agent for clinical trial; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding. Kahl:This study was coordinated by the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (Robert L. Comis, MD and Mitchell D. Schnall, MD, PhD, Group Co-Chairs) and supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under the following award number: Research Funding. Smith:Juno: Consultancy; TGTX: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Other: on a DSMB for two trials ; Gilead: Consultancy; Portola: Consultancy; Amgen: Other: Educational lecture to sales force; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy. Rimsza:NCI/NIH: Patents & Royalties: L.M. Rimsza is a co-inventor on a provisional patent, owned by the NCI of the NIH, using Nanostring technology for determining cell of origin in DLBCL.. Fisher:Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy; Johnson and Johnson: Consultancy. Friedberg:Bayer: Honoraria, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board.

Abstract Background: Cytoreductive therapy with hydroxyurea (HU) has been considered first line therapy for patients with high risk polycythemia vera (PV) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) since the results of the PVSG-08 trial demonstrated thrombotic risk reduction (Fruchtman SM et al 1997) for PV and PT1 for ET (Harrison CN et al 2005). Although HU is well tolerated by most patients and has been shown to reduce thrombotic risk in this setting, concern regarding the leukemogenic potential of this oral ribonucleotide reductase inhibitor balanced by the observation of molecular responses with interferon-α (IFN-α) led us to compare the clinical response and tolerability of pegIFN-α (PEG) and HU in a global, randomized, phase III trial. Methods : MPD-RC 112 trial (NCT01258856) enrolled patients with high risk (age >60 years, history of thrombosis, extreme thrombocytosis, symptomatic splenomegaly, uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors), newly diagnosed (<5 years), WHO defined ET/PV that were treatment naïve (HU <3 months) and randomized (1:1) to PEG or HU. The primary endpoint was complete hematologic response (CHR) rate by European LeukemiaNet (ELN) criteria between the arms after 12 months of therapy. A planned interim analysis based on intent-to-treat with testing boundaries for efficacy and futility was conducted after 75 patients were on study for 12 months. Response assessment by ELN criteria were conducted by blinded review by 4 investigators (JM, RAM, AY, RH). Intent-to-treat analysis was conducted for efficacy endpoints (HU n=39; PEG n=36). Safety analysis included all patients who received treatment (HU n=36; PEG n=36). Results: Patients: The MPD-RC 112 trial involved 24 centers in 6 countries; enrollment began 09/2011 and concluded 7/2016 prior to full accrual due to study drug availability with 168 patients enrolled (Table 1 for 75 patients in the interim analysis). There was no imbalance between arms with respect to history of thrombosis, erythromelalgia, diabetes, hypertension, but age was significantly older on HU. This remained true when analyzing by ET/PV disease strata with the exception of diabetes which was slightly imbalanced within the PV cohort (HU 5/23, 22%; PEG 0/21, 0%; p<0.05). Response: CHR and PHR were observed in 13 (33%) and 14 (36%) patients for an overall response rate (ORR) of 69% (27/39) for HU, and 10 (28%) and 19 (53%) for an ORR of 81% (29/36) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.60 based on z-test which did not cross either testing boundary). 10 patients randomized to HU were not evaluable for 12-month response due to never initiating treatment (n=3) or early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), patient withdrawal (n=5), or treatment non-compliance (n=1). 3 patients were not evaluable for response on PEG due to early study discontinuation for AEs (n=1), physician decision (n=1), or patient withdrawal (n=1). Excluding patients who never initiated treatment did not impact the primary endpoint comparison (HU 13/36, 36%; PEG 10/36, 28%; p=0.45). For ET, CHR and PHR were observed in 7 (44%) and 4 (25%) patient on HU, and 6 (40%) and 6 (40%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.83). For PV, CHR and PHR were observed in 6 (26%) and 10 (44%) patients on HU, and 4 (19%) and 13 (62%) for PEG (CHR comparison p=0.58). Normalization of spleen by palpation at 12 months was seen in 2/7 (29%) and 5/7 (71%) of the HU and PEG treated patients with palpable spleen at baseline, respectively. Among 38 PV patients, rate of phlebotomy use at 12 months was 0/18 (0%) vs 5/20 (20%) on HU and PEG (p=0.02). From baseline to best score through 12 months, 9/28 (32%) and 12/34 (35%) patients with data on HU and PEG, respectively, had a ≥50% reduction in MPN-SAF Total Symptom Score (p=0.79). Toxicity: No Grade 4 AEs occurred in either treatment arm. Overall, Grade 3 AEs occurred in 5/36 (14%) HU patients and 16/36 (44%) PEG patients (Grade 3 hematologic: 4/36 [11%] HU vs 8/36 [22%] PEG; Grade 3 non-hematologic: 5/36 [14%] HU vs 16/36 [44%] PEG). See Table 2 for Grade 3 AEs regardless of attribution occurring in >10% of patients in either arm. Conclusions: This interim analysis does not show a clear difference in primary endpoint of CHR between HU and PEG. A comparative analysis of the quality of life and symptom burden will provide further insight into the tolerability of these agents (Mesa et al ASH 2016). The final results of this pivotal trial will provide necessary data required to firmly establish the optimal first line therapy for patients with high risk ET/PV. Disclosures Mascarenhas: CTI Biopharma: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Novartis: Other: DSMB , Research Funding; Incyte: Other: Clinical Trial Steereing Committee, Research Funding. Mesa:Celgene: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Galena: Consultancy; Ariad: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy. Yacoub:Alexion: Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Harrison:Baxaltra: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. McMullin:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Vannucchi:Novartis: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Kiladjian:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; AOP Orphan: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Mead:Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Kessler:Incyte: Honoraria. Ritchie:Celgene: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accomodations, Expenses, Speakers Bureau; Incyte: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Other: Travel, Accommodations, Expenses, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Ariad: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding. Schlenk:Amgen: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) is a debilitating chronic disease and significantly impacts patient's quality of life. There is evidence that cannabinoids reduce markers of inflammation and fibrosis in pancreatic stellate cells; Cannabis is becoming increasingly popular and there are currently 33 states in the US that have approved medical cannabis while 10 states have approved cannabis for recreational use. We investigated the national trends in prevalence, mortality, length of stay (LOS), hospitalization charges and cost of chronic pancreatitis patients and compared between cannabis-exposed (CE) and non-cannabis-exposed (non-CE). METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2005 to 2014 was queried for all patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of CP as per the International Classification of Diseases 9 th revision (ICD-9) code 5771. Active exposure to cannabis was ascertained based on ICD-9 code 304.3X and 305.2X. We compared CE vs. non-CE patients. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), inflation adjusted charges and cost. Propensity match analysis for age, gender, race, median income quartile, hospital characteristics and Elixhauser comorbidity index and multivariable logistic regression models were performed using STATA 14 software. RESULTS: Over 31,481 patients with CP as the primary diagnosis were analyzed. Cannabis-exposure prevalence was 1.4% (447 patients). The mean age of CP patients was 49. Patients exposed to cannabis were younger (42 vs 49-year-old, P < 0.001) and mostly males (69% vs 49.7%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for these factors, CE patients had lower total charges compared to non-CE (US$ 21,589 vs. 30,291 P < 0.001) (Figure 1a). CE patients were also hospitalized for fewer number of days when compared to non-CE patients (3.84 vs 5.19 days). There was a significant downward trend in the prevalence of chronic pancreatitis admissions ( P < 0.001) amongst non-CE patients while there was an upward trend in the prevalence of chronic pancreatitis admissions amongst CE patients (Figure 2a, b). Interestingly, after matching for age, gender and comorbidities – CE patients had lower inpatient mortality ( P = 0.059). CONCLUSION: In patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of CP, CE patients had fewer length of stay, hospitalization cost and inpatient mortality. The interplay of these factors remains unknown and studies looking at cannabis strength/dose, route and consumption frequency are needed.

INTRODUCTION: Chronic pancreatitis (CP) does not currently have a cure and it leads to multiple complications (pain, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, steatorrhea, bone disease), its management is still a challenge. There is evidence that stimulating the endocannabinoid system may reduce inflammation and fibrosis in pancreatic stellate cells. Cannabis is the most frequently used recreational drug in the US and in recent years its legalization has increased. There are currently multiple States in the US that have approved medical cannabis for CP. We investigate the prevalence and outcomes of CP-related complications amongst cannabis-exposed (CE) and non-cannabis-exposed (non-CE) CP patients. METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database from 2005 to 2014 was queried for all patients with a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis as per the International Classification of Diseases 9 th revision (ICD-9) code 577.1 and a complication related to chronic pancreatitis. Active exposure to cannabis was ascertained based on ICD-9 code 304.3X and 305.2X. We compared CE vs. non-CE patients. Outcomes included pancreatic cancer diagnosis, biliary stricture, pancreatic duct stricture, cholangitis, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) use for either diagnostic or therapeutic purpose. Propensity match analysis for age, gender, race, median income quartile, hospital characteristics and Elixhauser comorbidity index and multivariable logistic regression models were performed using SAS software (STATA 14). RESULTS: 109,326 patients with CP were analyzed (Figure 1). Prevalence of CE was 2.2% (2360 patients). The mean age of CP patients was 49. When comparing CE vs. non-CE, the CP-related complications amongst matched cohorts were as follows chronic abdominal pain 5.2% vs 0.3% ( P < 0.001), steatorrhea/diarrhea 1.2% vs 13.5% ( P < 0.001), biliary stricture 0.3% vs. 7.1% ( P < 0.001), pancreatic cancer 0.4% vs. 11.8% ( P < 0.001), cholangitis (0.1% vs 2.6%; P < 0.001), pancreatic cancer (0.4 vs 11.8; P < 0.001). Cannabis users also required less diagnostic ERCP (1.4% vs 5.5%; P < 0.001) and therapeutic ERCP (3.5% vs 9.3%; P < 0.001) (Figure 2). CONCLUSION: In CP patients admitted to the hospital, CE patients had lower rates of CP-related complications and importantly pancreatic cancer. These effects could possibly be through the effect of cannabis in the endocannabinoid system as previously shown in mice studies in Germany. More studies are needed to corroborate our findings.

This is a condensed summary of an international multisociety statement on ethics of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology produced by the ACR, European Society of Radiology, RSNA, Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine, European Society of Medical Imaging Informatics, Canadian Association of Radiologists, and American Association of Physicists in Medicine. AI has great potential to increase efficiency and accuracy throughout radiology, but it also carries inherent pitfalls and biases. Widespread use of AI-based intelligent and autonomous systems in radiology can increase the risk of systemic errors with high consequence and highlights complex ethical and societal issues. Currently, there is little experience using AI for patient care in diverse clinical settings. Extensive research is needed to understand how to best deploy AI in clinical practice. This statement highlights our consensus that ethical use of AI in radiology should promote well-being, minimize harm, and ensure that the benefits and harms are distributed among stakeholders in a just manner. We believe AI should respect human rights and freedoms, including dignity and privacy. It should be designed for maximum transparency and dependability. Ultimate responsibility and accountability for AI remains with its human designers and operators for the foreseeable future. The radiology community should start now to develop codes of ethics and practice for AI that promote any use that helps patients and the common good and should block use of radiology data and algorithms for financial gain without those two attributes.