Citations

Introduction Parkinson's disease (PD) and Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) are progressive neurodegenerative disorders characterized by alpha-synuclein pathology. As current therapies largely target symptoms, there is a clear need for disease-modifying treatments. Emerging evidence links these disorders to glucose metabolism dysregulation, suggesting antidiabetic agents may hold therapeutic potential. Methods This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind pilot study involving 12 subjects with PD or DLB to evaluate the tolerability and preliminary effects of a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitor (sitagliptin 100 mg) vs. sodium glucose like transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor (dapagliflozin 10 mg) over a 4-week period, compared to a placebo. We assessed changes in Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) scores, cognitive function, and autonomic biomarkers. Both sitagliptin and dapagliflozin were well-tolerated, with no adverse events. While no significant changes were observed in cognitive scores, a significant difference was found in the change from baseline for MDS-UPDRS part 1 ( P = 0.008), part 2 ( P = 0.020), and total scores ( P = 0.047) when comparing the three groups. Discussion The dapagliflozin group showed more favorable trends in MDS-UPDRS scores. Limitations include small study size and duration as well as all participants had PD except one subject in the DPP4 inhibitor group with DLB. This pilot study suggests that these inhibitors are safe in PD and DLB patients. The preliminary findings, particularly the trends in the dapagliflozin group, provide a basis for larger-scale, long-term studies to confirm these potential symptomatic benefits and explore disease-modifying effects. Clinical trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06263673 , identifier: NCT06263673.

Importance Standard adjuvant therapy for human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV-OPSCC) is radiation therapy 60 Gy with or without cisplatin delivered in 30 fractions during 6 weeks. A phase 3 randomized clinical trial demonstrated decreased toxic effects and improved patient-reported outcomes with de-escalated adjuvant radiation therapy (DART) compared with standard therapy; however, outcomes for patients treated in the clinical practice setting following trial adoption remain unknown. Objective To compare characteristics and oncologic outcomes of patients treated with DART during clinical trials (on study) and in clinical practice settings (off study) and report progression-free survival (PFS) by risk category. Design, Setting, and Participants This retrospective cohort study included patients treated with DART in the MC1273 and MC1675 trials and in clinical practice after study completion at a multisite tertiary care center. Patients with surgically resectable HPV-OPSCC who underwent margin-negative resection between August 20, 2013, and March 21, 2023, and were treated with DART were included in the analysis. Those with prior head and neck cancer, pT0 or pT4 disease, unknown HPV status, metastatic disease at presentation, synchronous primary tumors, induction chemotherapy, or treatment at an outside institution were excluded. Data were analyzed from July 1, 2024, to July 18, 2025. Interventions DART consisting of 30 to 36 Gy in 1.5- to 1.8-Gy fractions twice daily with docetaxel 15 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8. Main Outcomes and Measures Progression-free survival as measured via Kaplan-Meier analysis. Results A total of 282 patients were included in the analysis: 176 (62.4%) in the on-study group and 106 (37.6%) in the off-study group (252 [89.4%] male; mean [SD] age, 59.1 [9.3] years). Both groups were predominantly male (157 [89.2%] and 95 [89.6%], respectively) and consisted mostly of never smokers (118 [67.0%] and 62 [58.5%], respectively). Pathologic features were similar between groups except for nodal stage (pN1: 155 [88.1%] on study vs 102 [96.2%] off study; pN2: 21 [11.9%] on study vs 4 [3.8%] off study; P = .02). The median follow-up times were 5.2 years (95% CI, 5.2-5.8 years) in the on-study group and 2.2 years (95% CI, 1.9-2.4 years) in the off-study group. Two-year PFS was similar (93% [95% CI, 88%-97%] on study vs 93% [95% CI, 88%-99%] off study). For patients with pN1 and no extranodal extension (ENE), 2- and 5-year PFS were 97% (95% CI, 93%-100%) and 96% (95% CI, 92%-100%), respectively. Patients with pN1 and ENE had a 2- and 5-year PFS of 93% (95% CI, 89%-98%) and 87% (95% CI, 81%-94%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance In this retrospective cohort study of patients receiving DART on and off study, oncologic outcomes were similar between the 2 groups. Fewer patients with pN2 received DART off study, given the interim results of MC1675. Patients with pN1 and no ENE treated with DART had excellent 2- and 5-year PFS, supporting DART as a compelling treatment option in well-selected patients. An additional study that is currently underway will evaluate biomarker risk-stratified treatment of patients with pN1 and ENE receiving DART.

Management of locoregionally advanced human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+) OPSCC) can include induction chemotherapy followed by definitive chemoradiation. The standard induction regimen of cisplatin, docetaxel, and 5-fluorouracil (TPF) is associated with high toxicity. Given the chemosensitivity of HPV(+) OPSCC, platinum doublets are frequently used as induction therapy with potentially less toxicity. This retrospective study aimed to compare outcomes between treatment-naive HPV(+) OPSCC patients receiving induction TPF and those receiving an induction platinum doublet. Data collected included tumor characteristics, response after chemoradiation, hospitalization rates, and overall survival (OS). Fifty-five patients (18 TPF and 37 platinum doublet) were included. There was no significant difference in response after completion of definitive chemoradiation (TPF: CR 83.3%, PR 5.6%, progression or metastasis 11.1% vs. platinum doublet: CR 75.7%, PR 16.2%, progression or metastasis 8.1%; p = 0.5241). There were also no differences in hospitalizations for adverse events (38.9% in TPF vs. 40.5% in platinum doublet, p = 0.907) or recurrence (11.1% in TPF vs. 2.7% in platinum doublet, p = 0.198). The 5-year OS was 84.6% in the TPF group and 81.5% in the platinum doublet group (p = 0.581). Induction platinum doublet regimens offer comparable OS, response, and hospitalization rates to TPF in locally advanced HPV(+) OPSCC. Induction with a platinum doublet may be a viable de-escalation strategy for patients who are not candidates for TPF.

IMPORTANCE Neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy has high rates of pathologic response and improved prognosis among solid tumors. Its role in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) remains understudied. OBJECTIVE To summarize the efficacy associated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy regimens in HNSCC and to compare the efficacy associated with neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy vs immunotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced resectable HNSCC prior to definitive surgery. DATA SOURCES A librarian-led systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases, including Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Databases were queried from inception to October 2024. STUDY SELECTION Inclusion criteria included prospective interventional trials that have completed accrual, with results published in English. Only trials of resectable, treatment-naive HNSCC were included. Exclusion criteria included lack of reporting on pathologic response or Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 response. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Two investigators independently conducted title, abstract, and full-text reviews per PRISMA guidelines. Primary outcomes extracted were major pathologic response (MPR) and complete pathologic response (CPR) at surgery and complete response (CR) on imaging by RECIST 1.1. Secondary outcomes included 1-year overall survival (OS) and toxic effects. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES A meta-analysis was performed using a binary random-effects model to determine the pooled proportion of primary outcomes in the immunotherapy and chemoimmunotherapy groups. Heterogeneity was reported as I 2 . RESULTS A total of 751 patients (502 [77%] male; age range, 27-87 years) across 23 studies were included in the meta-analysis, including 357 patients (47%) who underwent chemoimmunotherapy, 102 patients (14%) who underwent dual-agent immunotherapy, and 292 patients (39%) who underwent single-agent immunotherapy. Pooled rates of MPR plus CPR were 66% (95% CI, 58%-73%; I 2 = 0.59) for chemoimmunotherapy, 18% (95% CI, 6%-29%; I 2 = 0.65) for dual-agent immunotherapy, and 6% (95% CI, 3%-9%; I 2 < 0.01) for single-agent immunotherapy. Across all groups, 1-year OS rates ranged from 88% to 96% for single-agent immunotherapy, 88% to 96% for dual-agent immunotherapy, and 88% to 100% for chemoimmunotherapy. Grade 3 to 5 adverse events were reported in 61 of 210 patients (29%), 2 of 67 patients (3.0%), and 36 of 210 patients (17%) among the reporting studies in the single-agent immunotherapy, dual-agent immunotherapy, and chemoimmunotherapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE These findings suggest that neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy regimens were associated with higher pathologic and radiographic response rates compared with immunotherapy alone in locoregionally advanced HNSCC. These results call for phase 3 trials comparing these neoadjuvant regimens head to head.

6061 Background: PDS0101 is a T cell stimulating immunotherapy (therapeutic vaccine) targeting HPV16. The combination of PDS0101 + pembrolizumab (5 cycles) has shown durable clinical responses in HPV-positive recurrent/metastatic HNSCC. MC200710 is a window of opportunity study in patients with HPV-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+ OPSCC). This prospective phase II trial utilized 2 cycles of neoadjuvant PDS0101 aloneor in combination with pembrolizumab prior to surgical resection or chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Herein, we report the initial results, including primary endpoint of ctDNA response. Methods: Between June 2022 and September 2024, 20 patients (10 per Arm) with locally advanced HPV+ OPSCC were enrolled in a sequential alternating design. Arm A received 2 cycles of PDS0101 and Arm B received 2 cycles of PDS0101 and pembrolizumab with all patients undergoing subsequent surgery or CRT. Assessments were done at baseline, post cycle 1, and post cycle 2 (prior to surgery or CRT). The coprimary endpoint of ctDNA response was defined as a ≥50% decline in ctDNA post cycle 2 compared to baseline as quantified using NavDx (TTMV fragments/mL). Radiologic objective response rate (ORR) was assessed as per RECIST 1.1. Toxicity through the neoadjuvant period was assessed using CTCAE criteria and recurrence rates following surgery or CRT are reported. Results: Patients were similar between arms: male 90%, median age 61 years, cT1/T2 70%, cN1 65%, and no smoking history 65%. All patients completed both cycles of therapy with 13 (65%) undergoing primary operative management and 7 CRT (35%). The most common toxicity was injection site reaction 85% grade 1, 15% grade 2, 0% grade 3, consistent with prior studies. One patient experienced grade 2 pneumonitis during the neoadjuvant window (Arm B). There was one grade 3 toxicity (5%) possibly attributable to study intervention with one patient experiencing transient hepatitis requiring hospitalization (Arm A). Zero of 10 patients in Arm A had a ≥50% decline in ctDNA from baseline while 5 of 10 patients (50%) met this primary endpoint in ARM B (p=0.03). After Cycle 2, based on RECIST 1.1, no Arm A patients had a partial response (PR), with 7 having stable disease (SD); Arm B had 2 patients with PR and 8 with SD. With median follow up of 6 months, 2 patients in Arm A recurred and 0 patients in Arm B. Conclusions: The combination of PDS0101 and pembrolizumab met the trial’s primary endpoint of ctDNA response and shows promise for further evaluation. ctDNA can be used to assess early response and future studies could use ctDNA to adapt neoadjuvant therapy. Based on these findings, a neoadjuvant dose optimization study in HPV16+ oropharyngeal carcinoma is warranted and evaluation of PDS0101 and pembrolizumab in comparison to pembrolizumab alone. Clinical trial information: NCT05232851 .

129 Background: Few studies have explored the use of focal therapies to address select sites of resistant disease in men receiving 177-Lu-PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our institutional practice is to offer SBRT for patients with up to 5 sites of oligoprogression or non-responding lesions while undergoing 177Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for 6 cycles total). This is determined by PSMA or choline PET imaging during the course of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Herein, we evaluated the safety of adding target SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Methods: This retrospective single institution analysis was conducted via systematic chart review to evaluate for adverse events during or after treatment. Grading of treatment-related adverse events was conducted using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0 (CTCAE v5). Results: Thirty-one patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 with 51 sites of oligoprogressive or non-responding metastatic disease were treated with SBRT. The median number of sites treated was 1 (range 1-4). Most patients received SBRT immediately after cycle 6 (32%) or after cycle 3 or 4 (42%). Bone was the most commonly treated site of disease (90%) with the majority (54%) of bone sites being spine or sacrum, followed by lymph nodes (10%). Ultimately, 84% of patients completed all 6 cycles of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (range 4-6). The median follow-up time was 19.1 months (IQR 15.5-22.4) after 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy start. A total of 2 patients experienced a pathologic fracture within the SBRT treatment field that could possibly be related to radiotherapy. One patient experienced a grade 2 neuropathy which may have been related to radiation therapy. Other potential adverse events are listed (Table). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates a low rate of significant toxicity with the use SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further study is indicated to determine the oncologic efficacy and potential late side effects of this treatment strategy. Adverse events. Event All Grades Grade > 3 Any Adverse Event 104 2 Anemia 29 (94%) 0 Low Platelets 11 (35.5%) 1 (3.2%) Any Pathologic Fracture 7 (22.5%) 1 (3.2%) Possible SBRT-related Pathologic Fracture 2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) Bone Pain Flare 3 (9.6%) 0 Neuropathy 1 (3.2%) 0

Abstract BACKGROUND BRAF pathway alterations are frequent in glial/neuroepithelial tumors. BRAF-targeted therapy with BRAF inhibitors (BRAFi) and/or MEK inhibitors (MEKi) has proven efficacy in clinical trials, though mainly enrolling pediatric patients. We sought to investigate real-world data for adult patients with BRAF-pathway mutant glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms treated with BRAFi/MEKi. METHODS Adults with BRAF-pathway mutated glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms treated with BRAFi/MEKi were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS Five patients (n=4 female, median age at diagnosis 36) were identified (tumor types: glioblastoma n=1, high-grade astrocytoma with epithelioid features n=1, low-grade neuroepithelial tumor n=1, pilocytic astrocytoma n=1, pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma n=1). Four had BRAF V600E and one had NF1 p.S2687Cfs*5 mutant tumors. Prior to targeted therapy initiation, patients underwent a median 2.4 treatments including surgery (n=4), radiation therapy (n=4), chemotherapy (temozolomide n=4; carboplatin/vincristine n=1). BRAF-targeted therapies included dabrafenib/trametinib (n=4), binimetinib/encorafenib (n=2), binimetinib (n=2). One NF1-mutant glioblastoma received binimetinib followed by binimetinib/bevacizumab. Median BRAFi/MEKi treatment was 15.2 months (range: 6-36 months). Toxicities included leukopenia (n=3), peripheral edema (n=1), reduced ejection fraction (n=1), skin rash (n=5), transaminitis (n=1) with all patients requiring dose reductions and 3 cases requiring discontinuation. Among patients where BRAFi/MEKi was discontinued due to toxicity, 2 received other treatments at progression, then switched to a different BRAFi/MEKi combination, which they tolerated (duration 6-10months). Best radiographic response was partial response, noted in 3 patients treated with dabrafenib/trametinib. Four patients remain alive and continue BRAFi/MEKi. CONCLUSIONS In this cohort of heavily-pretreated patients with glial/neuroepithelial neoplasms, BRAF-targeted therapy was associated with durable responses. Interestingly, two patients who were unable to tolerate one combination of BRAFi/MEKi were able to tolerate a different combination with sustained response. Our findings support ongoing use of BRAF targeted therapy for CNS tumors. Optimal timing and duration of treatment requires further prospective evaluation in adult patients.

Background: DPP4 (dipeptidyl peptidase-4) inhibitors comprise a class of oral diabetes medication that have the potential for off-target cardiovascular effects. We previously showed that DPP4 inhibition attenuates the hypotensive effect of acute ACE (angiotensin-converting enzyme) inhibition and increases norepinephrine. Here, we investigated the effects of DPP4 during sustained ACE inhibition compared with during therapy with an ARB (angiotensin receptor blocker) or calcium channel blocker (neutral comparator) in a randomized, double-blinded crossover study. Methods: We enrolled 106 adults with type 2 diabetes and hypertension and 100 received intervention. Subjects were randomized to one of 3 blood pressure arms: ramipril, valsartan, or amlodipine for a total of 15 weeks and received 3 one-week crossover therapies in random order: placebo + placebo, sitagliptin + placebo, and sitagliptin + aprepitant separated by 4-week washout. Results: We found that DPP4 inhibition increased norepinephrine during ramipril but did not increase blood pressure. Aprepitant, a NK1 (substance P) receptor blocker, lowered standing heart rate during renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system blockade with ramipril or valsartan. Conclusions: Increased catecholamines during concurrent ACE and DPP4 inhibition may contribute to cardiovascular complications in patients predisposed to heart failure.

Abstract Context Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP4) inhibitors may increase the risk of heart failure. Decreased degradation of vasoactive peptides like substance P [also degraded by angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)] and Y1 agonists peptide YY (PYY 1-36) and neuropeptide Y (NPY 1-36) could contribute. Objective This study tested the hypothesis that there is an interactive effect of DPP4 inhibition and ACE inhibition (vs antihypertensive control subjects) on vasoactive peptides after a mixed meal. Participants and Design Fifty-three patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension were randomized to double-blind treatment with ramipril, valsartan, or amlodipine for 15 weeks in parallel groups. During the 5th, 10th, and 15th weeks, participants also received placebo + placebo, sitagliptin 100 mg/d + placebo, and sitagliptin + aprepitant 80 mg/d in random order. On the last day of each crossover treatment, participants underwent a mixed-meal study. Results Sitagliptin increased postprandial glucagon-like peptide-1 and decreased glucose in all antihypertensive groups. Sitagliptin increased NPY 1-36 and decreased Y2 agonists NPY 3-36 and PYY 3-36 in all groups. During ramipril or valsartan, but not amlodipine, sitagliptin increased postprandial norepinephrine; substance P receptor blockade with aprepitant prevented this effect. Despite increased norepinephrine, sitagliptin decreased postprandial blood pressure during ACE inhibition. Conclusion DPP4 inhibition increases postprandial concentrations of the Y1 agonist NPY 1-36. During treatment with an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker, DPP4 inhibition increased postprandial norepinephrine through a substance P receptor–dependent mechanism. Increased NPY 1-36 and norepinephrine could increase risk of heart failure but did not result in higher postprandial blood pressure.