Citations

Abstract The RBBP4/p300 complex was recently shown to control genes critical for DNA damage repair and may play a role in glioblastoma (GBM) therapy responsiveness, especially to temozolomide (TMZ). However, the role of this complex in the modulation of the GBM tumor microenvironment (GBM-TME) remains elusive. Because pro-tumorigenic GBM-TME is primarily due to angiogenesis and immune tolerance, we evaluated whether the RBBP4/p300 complex may control these critical processes. To that end, we used shRNA to silence each RBBP4/p300 complex member in GBM43 cells and RNAseq to identify angiogenesis and immune genes regulated by this complex. Our data demonstrated that silencing RBBP4 or p300 suppressed the expression of HIF1α and several other hypoxia response genes, including VEGFA and DDIT4, suggesting that RBBP4/p300 complex may regulate angiogenesis. Consistent with a role in regulating angiogenesis, culture medium conditioned by GBM43 cells expressing the control non-targeting shRNA (shNT) significantly induced angiogenic tube formation by human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVEC). In contrast, this effect was blocked by the medium conditioned by the shRBBP4 or shp300 expressing cells. Both shRBBP4 and shp300 expressing cells failed to activate HIF1α accumulation and other signaling in response to hypoxia. Additionally, the control shNT-conditioned medium inhibited IFN-γ production while the medium conditioned by the shRBBP4 or shp300 expressing cells supported IFN-ɣ production from CD8+ T cells. Intriguingly, silencing RBBP4 or p300 also suppressed the expression of CCL2 and PD-L1 (CD274). CCL2 protein is a chemokine that promotes TME infiltration by myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), while PD-L1 interacts with PD1 to suppress cytotoxic CD8+ T cell activation. Although this is an ongoing investigation, we conclude that RBBP4/p300 complex mediates the expression of hypoxia response genes, including HIF1α, and immunosuppressive genes, including PD-L1, and this activity may enhance angiogenic and immunosuppressed GBM-TME, making this complex a potential target for GBM therapy.

Abstract Introduction Historical reservations regarding stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) brain metastases include concerns for short-interval and diffuse central nervous system (CNS) progression, poor prognoses, and increased neurological mortality specific to SCLC histology. We compared SRS outcomes for SCLC and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) where SRS is well established. Methods Multicenter first-line SRS outcomes for SCLC and NSCLC from 2000 to 2022 were retrospectively collected (n = 892 SCLC, n = 4785 NSCLC). Data from the prospective Japanese Leksell Gamma Knife Society (JLGK0901) clinical trial of first-line SRS were analyzed as a comparison cohort (n = 98 SCLC, n = 814 NSCLC). Overall survival (OS) and CNS progression were analyzed using Cox proportional hazard and Fine-Gray models, respectively, with multivariable adjustment for cofactors including age, sex, performance status, year, extracranial disease status, and brain metastasis number and volume. Mutation-stratified analyses were performed in propensity score–matched retrospective cohorts of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) positive NSCLC, mutation-negative NSCLC, and SCLC. Results OS was superior for patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset (median OS = 10.5 vs 8.6 months; P < .001) and in the JLGK0901 dataset. Hazard estimates for first CNS progression favoring NSCLC were similar in both datasets but reached statistical significance in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 0.92, P = .001). In the propensity score–matched cohorts, there were continued OS advantages for NSCLC patients (median OS = 23.7 [EGFR and ALK positive NSCLC] vs 13.6 [mutation-negative NSCLC] vs 10.4 months [SCLC], pairwise P values < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences in CNS progression were observed in the matched cohorts. Neurological mortality and number of lesions at CNS progression were similar for NSCLC and SCLC patients. Leptomeningeal progression was increased in patients with NSCLC compared to SCLC in the retrospective dataset only (multivariable hazard ratio = 1.61, 95% confidence interval = 1.14 to 2.26, P = .007). Conclusions After SRS, SCLC histology was associated with shorter OS compared to NSCLC. CNS progression occurred earlier in SCLC patients overall but was similar in patients matched on baseline factors. SCLC was not associated with increased neurological mortality, number of lesions at CNS progression, or leptomeningeal progression compared to NSCLC. These findings may better inform clinical expectations and individualized decision making regarding SRS for SCLC patients.

Abstract Background Cancer patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have been reported to have double the case fatality rate of the general population. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central was done for studies on cancer patients with COVID-19. Pooled proportions were calculated for categorical variables. Odds ratio (OR) and forest plots (random-effects model) were constructed for both primary and secondary outcomes. Results This systematic review of 38 studies and meta-analysis of 181 323 patients from 26 studies included 23 736 cancer patients. Our meta-analysis shows that cancer patients with COVID-19 have a higher likelihood of death (n = 165 980, OR = 2.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.47 to 4.42), which was largely driven by mortality among patients in China. Cancer patients were more likely to be intubated. Among cancer subtypes, the mortality was highest in hematological malignancies (n = 878, OR = 2.39, 95% CI = 1.17 to 4.87) followed by lung cancer (n = 646, OR = 1.83, 95% CI = 1.00 to 3.37). There was no association between receipt of a particular type of oncologic therapy and mortality. Our study showed that cancer patients affected by COVID-19 are a decade older than the normal population and have a higher proportion of comorbidities. There was insufficient data to assess the association of COVID-19–directed therapy and survival outcomes in cancer patients. Conclusion Cancer patients with COVID-19 disease are at increased risk of mortality and morbidity. A more nuanced understanding of the interaction between cancer-directed therapies and COVID-19–directed therapies is needed. This will require uniform prospective recording of data, possibly in multi-institutional registry databases.

Abstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by SARS-CoV-2 has exacted an enormous toll on healthcare systems worldwide. The cytokine storm that follows pulmonary infection is causally linked to respiratory compromise and mortality in the majority of patients. The sparsity of viable treatment options for this viral infection and the sequelae of pulmonary complications have fueled the quest for new therapeutic considerations. One such option, the long-forgotten idea of using low-dose radiation therapy, has recently found renewed interest in many academic centers. We outline the scientific and logistical rationale for consideration of this option and the mechanistic underpinnings of any potential therapeutic value, particularly as viewed from an immunological perspective. We also discuss the preliminary and/or published results of prospective trials examining low-dose radiation therapy for COVID-19.

Abstract Introduction: Patients with RR-AML, particularly older adults, have dismal outcomes and limited therapy options. Given low response rates and high toxicity with salvage intensive chemotherapy, and frequent ineligibility for allogeneic stem cell transplantation (alloSCT), many patients are treated with HMAs. Robust data regarding use of HMAs in AML predominates in the frontline setting, while their use in RR-AML has limited supportive data. Here wesought to analyze theoutcomes and their predictors in patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs. Methods:We collected data, spanning a period from 2006 to 2016, from 7 centers in the United States and 4 centers in Europe regarding patients treated with HMAs for RR-AML. Responses were defined by International Working Group criteria. Kaplan-Meier methods estimated overall survival (OS) from initiation of HMAs to death or end of follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression models estimated odds for response, and multivariable Cox Proportional Hazard (CPH) models estimated hazards ratios (HR) for OS. Covariates considered included HMA received, age at diagnosis (in years), AML classification at diagnosis (AML with myelodysplasia-related changes [AML-MRC], therapy-related [t]-AML), disease status (relapsed vs. refractory), number of therapy lines prior to HMA (1 vs. 2 vs. >=3), duration of first complete remission (CR1), white blood cell count, peripheral blood blast percentage, bone marrow (BM) cellularity (<=20% vs. > 20%), BM blast percentage (<=20% vs. >20%), cytogenetic risk group, and the presence of complex or chromosome 7 abnormalities. Results: Of 514 patients, 217 patients (42.2%) had refractory and 297 (58%) had relapsed AML. By end of study, 415 patients (88.5%) had died. Median follow-up for living patients was 11.6 months.Median age at diagnosis was 64 years (range [R], 16-92). AML-MRC was diagnosed in 29.0% while 8.2% had t-AML. Median number of prior therapies was 2 (R, 1-7), with 48.3% receiving 1 prior line, 30.2% receiving 2 prior lines, and 21.5% receiving >=3 prior lines. Prior alloSCT was performed in 21.2%. Only 1.9% had good risk (core binding factor) karyotype, while 56.2% had intermediate risk karyotype, and 41.9% had poor risk karyotype. Azacitidine was used in 45.8% and decitabine in 54.2%; median number of azacitidine cycles was 4 (Interquartile range [IQR], 2-6) compared to 2 for decitabine (IQR, 1-4, p <0.001). Best response to HMAs was CR in 11.7% (95%CI, 9%-14%), CRi in 6.4% (95%CI, 4.3%-8.8%), hematologic improvement (HI) in 8% (95%CI, 5.7%-10.5%), stable disease (SD) in 9.8% (95%CI, 7.2%-12.5%), while 64.1% (95%CI, 57.7%-66.2%) had progressive disease (PD). Median OS from HMA initiation for all patients was 6.9 months (IQR, 3.0-13.3). There was a significant difference in OS based on best response achieved [Figure 1]. Unadjusted OS showed an insignificant trend for worsening with increasing number of prior lines of therapy [Figure 2A]. In unadjusted analyses, there was no difference in OS based on HMA received in all patients [Figure 2B] or the subset who received only 1 prior line of therapy (median OS: Azacitidine vs. decitabine 8.4 vs 7.3 months, p=0.88). Following HMA therapy, the median number of subsequent therapies was 0 (R, 0-6), and only 12.8% underwent alloSCT. In multivariate CPH models, HMA used was not significantly associated with OS (HR=0.80, 95%CI, 0.42-1.51, p=0.49), while increasing age, and presence of complex cytogenetics and chromosome 7 abnormalities were significantly associated with risk of death [Table 1]. In multivariable logistic regression models, HMA used was not associated with achieving CR+CRi (Odds ratio=0.56, p=0.32). Conclusions: In this largest reported cohort of patients with RR-AML treated with HMAs, we found that HMAs are often used as alast line of therapy, with a minority of patients receiving subsequent treatment. Nonetheless, the minority of patients who achieve CR (11.7%) with HMA therapy had a median OS of 25.6 months. Therefore, use of HMAs for management of RR-AML is a reasonable intervention in the absence of clinical trial options. There appears to be no difference in OS or probability of achieving CR+CRi based on HMA used. Ongoing analyses in this dataset include further evaluations of predictors, including genetic mutations, and the development of prediction tools for clinical outcomes with HMA therapy. Figure 1. Figure 1. Disclosures Podoltsev: Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ritchie:Novartis: Honoraria; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Arian: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria; Celgene: Speakers Bureau. Sekeres:Millenium/Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Komrokji:Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Al-Kali:Onconova Therapeutics, Inc.: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding. Santini:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria; Onconova: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; Astex: Consultancy. Roboz:Cellectis: Research Funding; Agios, Amgen, Amphivena, Astex, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celator, Celgene, Genoptix, Janssen, Juno, MEI Pharma, MedImmune, Novartis, Onconova, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Sunesis, Teva: Consultancy. Fenaux:Celgene, Janssen,Novartis, Astex, Teva: Honoraria, Research Funding. Prebet:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria. Gore:celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Zeidan:Ariad: Consultancy, Honoraria; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria.

Key Points In the largest study of HMAs in RR-AML to date, 16% of patients achieved CR/CRi and experienced a median OS of 21 months. Low proliferative disease (peripheral blood blasts <5%) was associated with improved response and OS.

BACKGROUNDExisting data supporting the use of proton‐beam therapy (PBT) for limited‐stage small cell lung cancer (LS‐SCLC) are limited to a single 6‐patient case series. This is the first prospective study to evaluate clinical outcomes and toxicities of PBT for LS‐SCLC.METHODSThis study prospectively analyzed patients with primary, nonrecurrent LS‐SCLC definitively treated with PBT and concurrent chemotherapy from 2011 to 2016. Clinical backup intensity‐modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were generated for each patient and were compared with PBT plans. Outcome measures included local control (LC), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) rates and toxicities.RESULTSThirty consecutive patients were enrolled and evaluated. The median dose was 63.9 cobalt gray equivalents (range, 45‐66.6 cobalt gray equivalents) in 33 to 37 fractions delivered daily (n = 18 [60.0%]) or twice daily (n = 12 [40.0%]). The concurrent chemotherapy was cisplatin/etoposide (n = 21 [70.0%]) or carboplatin/etoposide (n = 9 [30.0%]). In comparison with the backup IMRT plans, PBT allowed statistically significant reductions in the cord, heart, and lung mean doses and the volume receiving at least 5 Gy but not in the esophagus mean dose or the lung volume receiving at least 20 Gy. At a median follow‐up of 14 months, the 1‐/2‐year LC and RFS rates were 85%/69% and 63%/42%, respectively. The median OS was 28.2 months, and the 1‐/2‐year OS rates were 72%/58%. There was 1 case each (3.3%) of grade 3 or higher esophagitis, pneumonitis, anorexia, and pericardial effusion. Grade 2 pneumonitis and esophagitis were seen in 10.0% and 43.3% of patients, respectively.CONCLUSIONSIn the first prospective registry study and largest analysis to date of PBT for LS‐SCLC, PBT was found to be safe with a limited incidence of high‐grade toxicities. Cancer 2017;123:4244–4251. © 2017 American Cancer Society.