Comparison of bleeding and thrombotic outcomes in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: Heparin versus bivalirudin.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications with heparin versus bivalirudin use in veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients placed on V-V ECMO with intravenous anticoagulation with either heparin or bivalirudin. Time to thrombotic event and major bleed were analyzed in addition to related outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 95 patients placed on V-V ECMO: 61 receiving heparin, 34 bivalirudin. The bivalirudin group had a higher rate of severe COVID-19, higher BMI, and longer ECMO duration. Despite this, bivalirudin was associated with reduced risk of thrombotic event (HR 0.14, 95% CI 0.06-0.32, p < .001) and increased average lifespan of the circuit membrane lung (16 vs. 10 days, p = 0.004). While there was no difference in major bleeding, the bivalirudin group required fewer transfusions of packed red blood cells and platelets per 100 ECMO days (means of 13 vs. 39, p = 0.004; 5 vs. 19, p = .014, respectively). Lastly, the bivalirudin group had improved survival to ECMO decannulation in univariate analysis (median OS 53 vs. 26 days, p = .015). CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world analysis of bivalirudin versus heparin, bivalirudin is a viable option for V-V ECMO and associated with lower risk of thrombotic complications and fewer transfusion requirements.

Everolimus Plus Exemestane Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Previously Treated with CDK4/6 Inhibitor Therapy.

BACKGROUND: The combination of everolimus (EVE) and exemestane (EXE) is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer (mHRBC) who progress on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy. However, none of the patients enrolled in the trial that led to this approval (BOLERO-2) had previously received CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6is), which have since become a frontline standard of care for mHRBC. As such, the clinical benefit of EVE plus EXE in patients who have previously received CDK4/6is remains unknown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult patients with mHRBC at our institution who progressed on an NSAI plus CDK4/6i or NSAI therapy alone and were treated with at least one cycle of EVE plus EXE between 2012 and 2018 were analyzed. Collected data included patient demographics, treatment history, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. Primary objectives were to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between patients who received prior NSAI plus CDK4/6i therapy versus an NSAI alone. RESULTS: Among 43 patients, 17 had prior CDK4/6i exposure. With the exception of de novo metastatic disease, patient and disease characteristics were comparable across treatment cohorts. There was no significant difference in PFS (median, 3.6 vs. 4.2 months) or OS (median, 15.6 vs. 11.3 months) between patients who had received prior CDK4/6is and those who had not, respectively. CONCLUSION: Prior exposure to CDK4/6i therapy did not impact survival outcomes for patients with mHRBC taking EVE plus EXE. However, there was a trend toward improved OS in the CDK4/6i cohort that should be evaluated in larger cohorts. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The use of CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor has become a standard frontline therapy in metastatic hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. An approved subsequent line of therapy is everolimus plus exemestane; however, the original data supporting this therapy predated approval of CDK4/6 inhibitors. As such, the clinical benefit of everolimus and exemestane in patients previously treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor was unknown. This retrospective cohort study offers real-world data demonstrating prior CDK4/6 inhibitor exposure does not impact survival outcomes for everolimus plus exemestane.

Ado-trastuzumab for the treatment of metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer in patients previously treated with Pertuzumab.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel in combination with two HER2-directed therapies, trastuzumab and pertuzumab, is the current standard frontline therapy for patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Ado-trastuzumab (T-DM1), an antibody-drug conjugate of trastuzumab and a cytotoxic microtubule-inhibitory agent, emtansine, is approved in patients that have progressed with prior trastuzumab-based therapy. However, the benefit of T-DM1 in patients previously treated with pertuzumab therapy for metastatic breast cancer remains unclear. METHODS: We identified thirty-three adults with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer treated between March 2013 and July 2018 with T-DM1 either as subsequent therapy after progression on a pertuzumab-based regimen (i.e., "pertuzumab-pretreated") or without prior exposure to pertuzumab (i.e., "pertuzumab-naïve"). Collected data included patient demographics, treatment history, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. For both cohorts receiving T-DM1, the primary endpoint was PFS and secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), and T-DM1-related toxicity rate. RESULTS: Pertuzumab-pretreated patients (n = 23, with 21 evaluable for T-DM1 efficacy) had a median PFS of 9.5 months (95% CI: 2.9-NA), 1-year OS rate of 67.4% (95% CI: 50.0-90.9%) with an unreached median, ORR of 14.3% (95% CI: 3.0-36.3%), and CBR of 52.4% (95% CI: 29.8-74.3%), with none of these measures being statistically different than those estimated for the pertuzumab-naïve group (n = 10). Treatment with T-DM1 after prior pertuzumab exposure (median T-DM1 duration 2.9 months) resulted in no grade ≥ 3 adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, prior exposure to pertuzumab did not significantly impact T-DM1's clinical efficacy or safety profile as second- or later-line therapy in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.

Specific Tumor Characteristics Predict Upstaging in Early-Stage Esophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early-stage esophageal cancer (stages 0-1) has been shown to have relatively good outcomes after local endoscopic or surgical resection. For this reason, neoadjuvant chemoradiation usually is reserved for higher-stage disease. Some early tumors, however, are found after resection to be more advanced than predicted based on initial clinical staging, termed pathologic upstaging. Such tumors may have benefited from alternate treatment models had their true stage been known preoperatively. This study aimed to identify high-risk features in early esophageal cancers that might predict tumor upstaging and guide more individualized treatment algorithms. METHODS: Through retrospective review of a single-institution foregut disease registry, we evaluated patients who underwent esophagectomy for high-grade dysplasia (Tis) or stage 1 esophageal cancer, searching for factors associated with pathologic upstaging. RESULTS: The review included 110 patients (88% male, median age at diagnosis, 64.5 years) treated between January 2000 and June 2016. Upstaging occurred for 20.9% of the patients, and was more common for patients with angiolymphatic invasion (odds ratio [OR], 11.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.96-41.44; P < 0.001) or signet-ring features (OR, 23.9; 95% CI, 2.6-216.8; P = 0.005). In the absence of other predictors, upstaging was associated with decreased overall survival (P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 20% of patients with early-stage esophageal cancer may be upstaged at resection. Angiolymphatic invasion and signet-ring features may predict tumors likely to be upstaged, resulting in decreased overall survival.