Citations

Aim: The definition of high-risk (HR) in Multiple Myeloma (MM) is ever evolving with the discovery of new genomic abnormalities and increasing therapeutic options. There are various stratification models incorporating laboratory and genetic features with different definitions of high-risk and varied emphasis on individual risk factors. Recognized high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) include t(4;14), t(14;16), t(14;20), del(17p) with recent inclusion of del(1p) and gain/amplification (amp) of 1q (+1q) . In addition to del(17p), the presence of biallelic del(1p) and ≥2 HRCAs (“double-” or “triple-hit”) appear to confer poorer outcomes. A new definition proposed by the International Myeloma society (IMS) defines HR as the presence of del(17p) and/or TP53 mutation; an IgH translocation - t(4;14), t(4;16) or t(14;20) along with +1q and/or del(1p); monoallelic del(1p32) along with +1q; bi-allelic del(1p32); or β2 microglobulin ≥5.5 with normal creatinine (<1.2mg/dL). Herein, we report real-world outcomes on these HRCAs and the new IMS consensus definition of HR MM. Method: We retrospectively reviewed newly diagnosed MM patients from the Australian and New Zealand Myeloma and Related Diseases Registry across 4 Australian states. Patients with FISH and/or SNP microarray testing for IgH translocations, 1q21 (CKS1B), del(1p32) (CDKN2C) and del(17p) (TP53) were identified. Positive threshold was 30%. We used Kaplan-Meier methods to compare progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between groups and first performed univariate analysis (UA) for each HRCA. We next analyzed patients with gain1q vs amp1q and monoallelic vs biallelic del(1p). In the final analysis, two risk groups were formed: cases meeting the new IMS-defined HR criteria were considered IMS-HR and the rest were considered standard risk (IMS-SR). Indeterminate cases with missing variables that could influence risk classification were excluded. Results: Of 839 newly diagnosed patients (pts) included, 31% had ISS (International staging system) stage 3 disease. High-risk IgH translocations t(4;14) and t(14;16) were present in 8% and 4%. Secondary HRCAs del(17p), del(1p), gain1q and amp1q were present in 9%, 14%, 30% and 11% respectively. In this cohort, 41% received ASCT. Of the transplant eligible pts, 41% received triplet therapy (PI, IMiD and corticosteroid) and 57% received PI-based induction. Of the transplant ineligible pts, 31% received triplet therapy, 47% PI-based and 19% IMiD-based therapy. Frontline Anti-CD38 antibody use was <1%. Median follow up was 35 months[m] (IQR 18-60). On UA, the risk of progression and/or death was increased with ISS III vs I, amp1q, del(17p), t(14;16), del(1p) and gain1q in descending order by hazard ratio. The risk remained significant in ISS III, del(17p), amp1q and gain1q after multi-variate analysis (MVA). The risk of death was increased with ISS III vs I, del(17p), amp1q, del(1p) and t(14;16), ISS II vs I in descending order by hazard ratio. After MVA, the risk remained significant for ISS stage III, del(17p), amp1q and t(14;16). Of the 117 pts with del(1p32), 108 had monoallelic and 9 had biallelic loss. Pts with biallelic del(1p32) had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 23.2m, p<0.001) and OS (median 24.8m vs NR, p<0.001) compared to those with monoallelic del(1p32). In pts with 1q+, pts with amp1q had an inferior PFS (median 16.3 vs 27.5m, p<0.001) and OS (median 37.0m vs NR, p<0.001) vs pts with gain1q. Based on the new definition of HR myeloma - 385 pts met the criteria for IMS-HR and 216 for IMS-SR. There were 238 indeterminate cases due to missing data. The IMS-HR group had an inferior PFS (median 20.2 vs 39.7m, p<0.001) and OS (median 44.2m vs NR, p<0.001) when compared to IMS-SR. Noting that the IMS-HR group had a higher median age, poorer performance status and lower rates of ASCT use, adjusted analysis for these variables still showed an inferior PFS (aHR 1.68; 95% CI 1.30-2.16, p<0.001) and OS [aHR 1.72; 95% CI 1.21-2.44, p=0.002). Conclusion: ISS III, del(17p), amp1q are the strongest predictor of OS and PFS. Differentiating between monoallelic vs biallelic del(132p) and gain vs amp1q21 has important prognostic value. The IMS- HR definition which takes into account del(1p), “double-” and “triple-hit” disease predicts for a group of patients with a PFS of ~20 months and inferior OS, and provides a standardized approach to risk stratification in MM.

PURPOSE The nodal burden of patients with residual isolated tumor cells (ITCs) in the sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) (ypN0i+) is unknown, and axillary management is not standardized. We investigated rates of additional positive lymph nodes (LNs) at axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and oncologic outcomes in patients with ypN0i+ treated with and without ALND. METHODS The Oncoplastic Breast Consortium-05/ICARO cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06464341 ) retrospectively analyzed data from patients with stage I to III breast cancer with ITCs in SLNs after NAC from 62 centers in 18 countries. The primary end point was the 3-year rate of any axillary recurrence. The rate of any invasive recurrence was the secondary end point. RESULTS In total, 583 patients were included, of whom 182 (31%) had completion ALND and 401 (69%) did not. The median age was 48 years. Most patients (74%) were clinically node-positive at diagnosis and 41% had hormone receptor–positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative tumors. The mean number of SLNs with ITCs was 1.2. Patients treated with ALND were more likely to present with cN2/3 disease (17% v 7%, P < .001), have ITCs detected on frozen section (62% v 8%, P < .001), have lymphovascular invasion (38% v 24%, P < .001), and receive adjuvant chest wall (89% v 78%, P = .024) and nodal radiation (82% v 75%, P = .038). Additional positive nodes were found at ALND in 30% of patients, but only 5% had macrometastases. The 3-year rates of any axillary and any invasive recurrence were 2% (95% CI, 0.95 to 3.6) and 11% (95% CI, 8 to 14), respectively, with no statistical difference by type of axillary surgery. CONCLUSION The nodal burden in patients with ypN0(i+) was low, and axillary recurrence after ALND omission was rare in patients selected for this approach. These results do not support routine ALND in all patients with ypN0(i+).

Abstract Background Current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) breast cancer staging considers contralateral axillary metastasis (CAM) stage IV disease (M1). Retrospective studies suggest that women with CAM have improved overall survival (OS) compared to those with distant metastasis (M1) and/or comparable OS to locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). These studies support consideration of curative intent treatment; however, they contain heterogeneous cohorts with highly variable treatment strategies. We sought to evaluate treatment and outcomes in a well-defined CAM cohort treated with contemporary systemic and locoregional therapy. Methods We performed a retrospective multi-institution cohort study to compare OS of patients with CAM matched 1:3 on age +/- 5 years to LABC (defined as cN2-3 and/or pN2-3), and to non-CAM M1. CAM patients classified as type 1) de novo CAM, synchronous with the contralateral primary, 2) metachronous isolated CAM in the setting of prior surgical and/or radiation treatment to primary index cancer, 3) synchronous with, or 4) metachronous after an in-breast or axillary nodal recurrence of the primary index cancer. The M1 cohort included de novo and recurrent metastasis with varied sites and number of metastasis. OS was defined as time from CAM diagnosis to death or last follow-up for CAM patients; time from primary diagnosis to death or last follow-up for LABC; and time from metastatic diagnosis to death or last follow-up for M1. Unadjusted OS was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method, and Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the association of group with OS after adjustment for covariates Results We identified 57 CAM and 155 LABC from 8 institutions (2016-2022), and 632 M1 from a single institution. The median age was similar between groups (CAM=59 years, LABC=58, M1=57, p=0.44), and there were no statistically significant differences in hormone receptor status (p=0.25). There were more Non-Hispanic Black patients in the M1 cohort compared to CAM or LABC (p&lt; 0.001). The majority of CAM cases were delayed metachronous from the index cancer (type 2, 35.1%), or synchronous with a recurrence (type 3, 33.3%). Type 1 (de novo, 14%) and type 4 (delayed metachronous after breast cancer recurrence, 17.5%) were less frequent. Among CAM patients, 49.1% were hormone receptor positive (HR+)/HER2-negative (HER2-), 22.8% HR-/HER2-, 10.5% HR+/HER2+, and 5.3% HR-/HER2+. Comparing CAM versus LABC, invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC) was more commonly seen in CAM (82.5% vs 66.5%), as was grade 3 (45.6% vs 35.5%), and triple negative (22.8% vs 13.5%). Conversely, in LABC, treatment of the primary index cancer more frequently included chemotherapy (CAM=71.9%, LABC=92.3%), mastectomy (CAM=54.4%, LABC 74.2%), and adjuvant radiation (CAM=73.7%, LABC=90.3%). On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, and hormone receptor status, both CAM and M1 had inferior survival to LABC (Table 1), but with a 2.4-fold difference for CAM (95% CI 1.42-4.07, p=0.001) versus a 6.3-fold difference for M1 (95% CI 4.29-9.23, p=&lt; 0.001). Discussion In this contemporary, multi-institution study, we demonstrated that CAM patients selected for presumed curative intent treatment experienced improved OS when compared to stage IV (M1) patients. Our data adds additional support for re-evaluating the current stage IV designation, in favor of N3, and consideration of curative intent treatment in this disease. Table. Adjusted* Overall Survival Comparing Patients with Breast Cancer Contralateral Axillary Metastasis (CAM) to those with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer (LABC) and Metastatic Disease (M1) *Adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, hormone receptors. Citation Format: Meghan R. Flanagan, Stephanie Downs-Canner, Samantha Thomas, Astrid Botty van de bruele, Margaret Lillie, Kristalyn Gallagher, Tammeza Gibson, James Jakub, Alexandra Verosky, Sarah Tevis, Malia Brennan, Francys Verdial, Jennifer Q. Zhang, Leisha Elmore, Jennifer Plichta, Laura Rosenberger. A Multi-Institutional Review of Contralateral Axillary Metastases: Time for Reclassification as Local-Regional Event? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-05-13.

Abstract Background: In patients with micro- and macrometastases in the sentinel lymph node (SLN) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC), additional positive nodes are found in &gt;60% of cases and axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is currently considered standard of care. The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with residual isolated tumor cells (ITCs) is unknown, and the benefit of ALND is unclear. As a consequence, surgical management of the axilla in these patients is not standardized. We sought to evaluate how often additional positive lymph nodes are found, to determine factors associated with ALND, and to compare oncological outcomes in patients treated with and without ALND after identification of residual ITCs in the SLN. Methods: Data were collected from 42 centers: 20 in the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) and EUBREAST networks, and 22 in North and South America. We included patients with cT1-4 N0-3 breast cancer at diagnosis who underwent NAC followed by axillary staging with either SLN biopsy (SLNB) or targeted axillary dissection (TAD) and were found to have residual ITCs [ypN0(i+)]. Single-tracer mapping was allowed for cN0 patients, while dual mapping or TAD was required for cN+ cases. Axillary treatment included completion ALND and/or nodal radiotherapy (RT). Competing risk analysis was performed to assess the cumulative incidence rates of any axillary recurrence (AR), locoregional recurrence (LRR), and any invasive (locoregional or distant) recurrence. Five-year cumulative incidence rates were compared between patients who underwent ALND and those who did not using the Gray’s test. Type I error rate was set to 0.05 (α). Results: We included 412 patients treated with NAC followed by surgery from 01/2009-05/2022. 146 (35.4%) had completion ALND and 266 (64.6%%) did not. Median patient age was 48 years. The majority (57%) of patients had clinical T2 tumors, and 68% had biopsy-proven N1 disease. Most were HR+/HER2- (41%) or HER2+ (39%). Most patients (80%) received anthracycline and taxane-based chemotherapy regimens. Nodal RT was administered to 83% of patients. The median number of SLNs with ITCs was 1. Patients treated with ALND were more likely to have ITCs detected on frozen section (61% v 6.7%, p&lt; 0.001), to have N2/3 disease at presentation (15.1% v 5.6%, p=0.001) and to have LVI (40% v 26%, p=0.004) (Table 1). There was no significant trend over time in the proportion of patients undergoing completion ALND during the study period (p=0.5). In the ALND group, additional positive nodes were found in 43/146 (29.5%) of cases, and consisted of macrometastases in 11/146 (7.5%), micrometastases in 9/146 (6.2%), and ITCs in 23/146 (15.8%). 5-year rates of any AR, LRR, and any invasive recurrence in the entire cohort were 2.7% (95% CI 1.2-5.4), 2.8% (95% CI 1.2-5.4) and 16% (95% CI 11-21), respectively. There was no statistical difference between patients who underwent ALND and those who did not in any of the 3 endpoints (2.2% v 3.1%, p=0.6), (2.6% v 3.0%, p=0.4) and (14% v 18%, p=0.12), respectively. Conclusion: The likelihood of finding additional positive lymph nodes in patients with ITCs after NAC is lower than in patients with residual micro- and macrometastases, and in the majority of cases, they contain ITCs. Nodal recurrence after omission of ALND is rare in this population. Overall, these results do not support routine ALND in patients with residual ITCs. Table 1. Clinicopathological Features of the Study Cohort, Stratified by Type of Axillary Surgery Frequency (row percent) reported for categorical variables, and median (IQR) reported for continuous variables. SLNB sentinel lymph node biopsy; TAD targeted axillary dissection; SLNs sentinel lymph nodes; LNs lymph nodes; pCR pathologic complete response; ACT anthracycline and taxane; AC anthracycline; H Herceptin, HP, Herceptin and Perjeta; TC taxol (or Taxotere) and carboplatinum; LVI lymphovascular invasion; BCS breast-conserving surgery. ^ Applied to HER2- tumors only (n=252). ^^ Applies to HER2+ tumors only (n=160). # LVI was present on core biopsy or final pathology. * Applies to BCS patients only (n=175). ** Applies to mastectomy patients only (n=237). Citation Format: Giacomo Montagna, Alison Laws, Massimo Ferrucci, Mary Mrdutt, Natália Polidorio, Varadan Sevilimedu, Tracy-Ann Moo, Andrea Barrio, Marissa K. Boyle, Flavia Vidal Cabero, Daniela Cocco, Fabio Corsi, Angelena Crown, Meghan R. Flanagan, Mehmet Ali Gulcelik, Callie Hlavin, Justyna Jelinska, Hasan Karanlik, Susan Kesmodel, Henry Kuerer, Sherko Küemmel, Cornelia Leo, Tehillah Menes, Melissa Pilewskie, Nina Pislar, Nicola Rocco, Jai Min Ryu, Leonardo Soares, Christoph Tausch, M. Umit Ugurlu, CICERO URBAN, Astrid Botty van de Bruele, Denise Vorburger, Fredrik Wärnberg, Anna Weiss, Austin Williams, Stephanie Wong, Steven G. Woodward, Susie X. Sun, Jennifer Q. Zhang, M. Firdos Ziauddin, Guldeniz Karadeniz Cakmak, Nuran Bese, Thorsten Kühn, Judy Boughey, Tari King, Nina Ditsch, Maggie Banys-Paluchowski, Monica Morrow, Walter Weber. Are nodal ITCs after neoadjuvant chemotherapy an indication for axillary dissection? The OPBC05/EUBREAST-14R/ICARO study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr GS02-02.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus has rapidly involved the entire world and exposed the pressing need for collaboration between public health and other stakeholders from the clinical, scientific, regulatory, pharmaceutical, and medical device and technology communities. To discuss how to best protect people with diabetes from serious outcomes from COVID-19, Diabetes Technology Society, in collaboration with Sansum Diabetes Research Institute, hosted the “International COVID-19 and Diabetes Virtual Summit” on August 26-27, 2020. This unique, unprecedented real-time conference brought together physicians, scientists, government officials, regulatory experts, industry representatives, and people with diabetes from six continents to review and analyze relationships between COVID-19 and diabetes. Over 800 attendees logged in. The summit consisted of five sessions: (I) Keynotes, (II) Preparedness, (III) Response, (IV) Recovery, and (V) Surveillance; eight parts: (A) Background, (B) Resilience, (C) Outpatient Care, (D) Inpatient Care, (E) Resources, (F) High-Risk Groups, (G) Regulation, and (H) The Future; and 24 sections: (1) Historic Pandemics and Impact on Society, (2) Pathophysiology/Risk Factors for COVID-19, (3) Social Determinants of COVID-19, (4) Preparing for the Future, (5) Medications and Vaccines, (6) Psychology of Patients and Caregivers, (7) Outpatient Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus and Non-Pharmacologic Intervention, (8) Technology and Telehealth for Diabetes Outpatients, (9) Technology for Inpatients, (10) Management of Diabetes Inpatients with COVID-19, (11) Ethics, (12) Accuracy of Diagnostic Tests, (13) Children, (14) Pregnancy, (15) Economics of Care for COVID-19, (16) Role of Industry, (17) Protection of Healthcare Workers, (18) People with Diabetes, (19) International Responses to COVID-19, (20) Government Policy, (21) Regulation of Tests and Treatments, (22) Digital Health Technology, (23) Big Data Statistics, and 24) Patient Surveillance and Privacy. The two keynote speeches were entitled (1) COVID-19 and Diabetes—Meeting the Challenge and (2) Knowledge Gaps and Research Opportunities for Diabetes and COVID-19. While there was an emphasis on diabetes and its interactions with COVID-19, the panelists also discussed the COVID-19 pandemic in general. The meeting generated many novel ideas for collaboration between experts in medicine, science, government, and industry to develop new technologies and disease treatment paradigms to fight this global pandemic.

The excess intake of dietary sodium is a key modifiable factor for reducing disease progression in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the scored salt questionnaire (SSQ; a frequency questionnaire of nine sodium-rich food types) is a valid instrument to identify high dietary salt intake in ADPKD. The performance of the SSQ was evaluated in adults with ADPKD with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≥ 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 during the screening visit of the PREVENT-ADPKD trial. High dietary sodium intake (HSI) was defined by a mean 24-h urinary sodium excretion ≥ 100 mmol/day from two collections. The median 24-h urine sodium excretion was 132 mmol/day (IQR: 112–172 mmol/d) (n = 75; mean age: 44.6 ± 11.5 years old; 53% female), and HSI (86.7% of total) was associated with male gender and higher BMI and systolic blood pressure (p < 0.05). The SSQ score (73 ± 23; mean ± SD) was weakly correlated with log10 24-h urine sodium excretion (r = 0.29, p = 0.01). Receiving operating characteristic analysis showed that the optimal cut-off point in predicting HSI was an SSQ score of 74 (area under the curve 0.79; sensitivity 61.5%; specificity 90.0%; p < 0.01). The evaluation of the SSQ in participants with a BMI ≥ 25 (n = 46) improved the sensitivity (100%) and the specificity (100%). Consumers with an SSQ score ≥ 74 (n = 41) had higher relative percentage intake of processed meats/seafood and flavourings added to cooking (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the SSQ is a valid tool for identifying high dietary salt intake in ADPKD but its value proposition (over 24-h urinary sodium measurement) is that it may provide consumers and their healthcare providers with insight into the potential origin of sodium-rich food sources.

This article is the work product of the Continuous Glucose Monitor and Automated Insulin Dosing Systems in the Hospital Consensus Guideline Panel, which was organized by Diabetes Technology Society and met virtually on April 23, 2020. The guideline panel consisted of 24 international experts in the use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) and automated insulin dosing (AID) systems representing adult endocrinology, pediatric endocrinology, obstetrics and gynecology, advanced practice nursing, diabetes care and education, clinical chemistry, bioengineering, and product liability law. The panelists reviewed the medical literature pertaining to five topics: (1) continuation of home CGMs after hospitalization, (2) initiation of CGMs in the hospital, (3) continuation of AID systems in the hospital, (4) logistics and hands-on care of hospitalized patients using CGMs and AID systems, and (5) data management of CGMs and AID systems in the hospital. The panelists then developed three types of recommendations for each topic, including clinical practice (to use the technology optimally), research (to improve the safety and effectiveness of the technology), and hospital policies (to build an environment for facilitating use of these devices) for each of the five topics. The panelists voted on 78 proposed recommendations. Based on the panel vote, 77 recommendations were classified as either strong or mild. One recommendation failed to reach consensus. Additional research is needed on CGMs and AID systems in the hospital setting regarding device accuracy, practices for deployment, data management, and achievable outcomes. This guideline is intended to support these technologies for the management of hospitalized patients with diabetes.