Collaborative Modeling to Compare Different Breast Cancer Screening Strategies: A Decision Analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Importance: The effects of breast cancer incidence changes and advances in screening and treatment on outcomes of different screening strategies are not well known. Objective: To estimate outcomes of various mammography screening strategies. Design, Setting, and Population: Comparison of outcomes using 6 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models and national data on breast cancer incidence, mammography performance, treatment effects, and other-cause mortality in US women without previous cancer diagnoses. Exposures: Thirty-six screening strategies with varying start ages (40, 45, 50 years) and stop ages (74, 79 years) with digital mammography or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) annually, biennially, or a combination of intervals. Strategies were evaluated for all women and for Black women, assuming 100% screening adherence and "real-world" treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated lifetime benefits (breast cancer deaths averted, percent reduction in breast cancer mortality, life-years gained), harms (false-positive recalls, benign biopsies, overdiagnosis), and number of mammograms per 1000 women. Results: Biennial screening with DBT starting at age 40, 45, or 50 years until age 74 years averted a median of 8.2, 7.5, or 6.7 breast cancer deaths per 1000 women screened, respectively, vs no screening. Biennial DBT screening at age 40 to 74 years (vs no screening) was associated with a 30.0% breast cancer mortality reduction, 1376 false-positive recalls, and 14 overdiagnosed cases per 1000 women screened. Digital mammography screening benefits were similar to those for DBT but had more false-positive recalls. Annual screening increased benefits but resulted in more false-positive recalls and overdiagnosed cases. Benefit-to-harm ratios of continuing screening until age 79 years were similar or superior to stopping at age 74. In all strategies, women with higher-than-average breast cancer risk, higher breast density, and lower comorbidity level experienced greater screening benefits than other groups. Annual screening of Black women from age 40 to 49 years with biennial screening thereafter reduced breast cancer mortality disparities while maintaining similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs as for all women. Conclusions: This modeling analysis suggests that biennial mammography screening starting at age 40 years reduces breast cancer mortality and increases life-years gained per mammogram. More intensive screening for women with greater risk of breast cancer diagnosis or death can maintain similar benefit-to-harm trade-offs and reduce mortality disparities.

Dietary Magnesium Replacement for Prevention of Hypomagnesemia in Patients With Ovarian Cancer Receiving Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Hypomagnesemia is a common side effect of platinum-based chemotherapy and predicts poor overall survival in some cancers. Standard magnesium replacement strategies are often inadequate for maintaining magnesium levels. We hypothesized that a daily dietary magnesium replacement approach through magnesium-rich foods would help maintain adequate magnesium levels during platinum-based treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective feasibility study of magnesium-rich diets in patients 18 years and older with previously untreated ovarian cancer scheduled to receive carboplatin-containing chemotherapy of at least six consecutive cycles. Education about magnesium-rich diets was provided at enrollment and then weekly during chemotherapy. Feasibility was defined as ≥60% completion of dietary recalls and ≥280 mg average daily dietary magnesium intake across all patients. RESULTS: Twenty-one of 26 patients enrolled completed at least five chemotherapy cycles and were included in the analysis. Adherence to the study diet was 76%. Daily dietary magnesium intake was 100.5 mg at baseline and increased throughout each cycle: 6% of patients at baseline, 24% after the first cycle, and 67% after the fifth cycle reached ≥280-mg/day magnesium intake. Seven (33%) of 21 had at least one incident of hypomagnesemia. Patients who were adherent had significantly lower incidence of hypomagnesemia (19% v 80%, P = .03) and less need for intravenous magnesium (6% v 60%, P = .03) than those who were nonadherent. CONCLUSION: The study achieved primary feasibility objectives of retention and adherence to the study intervention. Weekly education about magnesium-rich diets was effective in increasing dietary magnesium intake. Adequate dietary magnesium appeared to be protective against hypomagnesemia.

Evaluation of Midodrine Utilization in Patients with Cancer and Heart Failure.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate safety and cardiovascular outcomes as well as overall survival of cancer patients with concomitant heart failure (HF) treated with midodrine for hypotension. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with cancer and HF who were treated with midodrine at a tertiary cancer center from 03/2013 to 08/2021 were identified. Demographic and clinical parameters were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 85 patients were included with a median age of 68 years (IQR: 60, 74; 33% female and 85% White). Of those, 31% had HFpEF (EF ≥ 50%), 42% HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF; EF 41-49%), and 27% HFrEF (EF ≤ 40%). The most common indication for midodrine use was orthostatic hypotension (49%). Midodrine was continued for at least one month in 57% of the patients. Supine hypertension was the only side effect reported in 6% of patients. No statistically significant changes in NYHA class, guideline-directed medical therapy, cardiac biomarkers (NT-proBNP or troponin T), echocardiographic findings or cardiovascular hospitalizations were observed between patients who continued treatment with midodrine compared to those who stopped using midodrine over a median follow-up of 38 months. In the multivariable cox regression analysis, continuation of midodrine, compared to discontinuation, and use of midodrine for orthostatic hypotension, as opposed to other causes of hypotension, were not associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.69, p < .0001; HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18-0.64, p < .001, respectively). In contrast, elevated creatinine (> 1.3 for males and > 1.1 for females) was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.07-3.14). LVEF was not significantly associated with lower or higher risk of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, midodrine use in patients with cancer and HF was not associated with significant adverse effects, worse cardiovascular outcomes, or increased risk of mortality. Larger, prospective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Analysis of Breast Cancer Mortality in the US-1975 to 2019.

Importance: Breast cancer mortality in the US declined between 1975 and 2019. The association of changes in metastatic breast cancer treatment with improved breast cancer mortality is unclear. Objective: To simulate the relative associations of breast cancer screening, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer with improved breast cancer mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using aggregated observational and clinical trial data on the dissemination and effects of screening and treatment, 4 Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network (CISNET) models simulated US breast cancer mortality rates. Death due to breast cancer, overall and by estrogen receptor and ERBB2 (formerly HER2) status, among women aged 30 to 79 years in the US from 1975 to 2019 was simulated. Exposures: Screening mammography, treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Model-estimated age-adjusted breast cancer mortality rate associated with screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment relative to the absence of these exposures was assessed, as was model-estimated median survival after breast cancer metastatic recurrence. Results: The breast cancer mortality rate in the US (age adjusted) was 48/100 000 women in 1975 and 27/100 000 women in 2019. In 2019, the combination of screening, stage I to III treatment, and metastatic treatment was associated with a 58% reduction (model range, 55%-61%) in breast cancer mortality. Of this reduction, 29% (model range, 19%-33%) was associated with treatment of metastatic breast cancer, 47% (model range, 35%-60%) with treatment of stage I to III breast cancer, and 25% (model range, 21%-33%) with mammography screening. Based on simulations, the greatest change in survival after metastatic recurrence occurred between 2000 and 2019, from 1.9 years (model range, 1.0-2.7 years) to 3.2 years (model range, 2.0-4.9 years). Median survival for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/ERBB2-positive breast cancer improved by 2.5 years (model range, 2.0-3.4 years), whereas median survival for ER-/ERBB2- breast cancer improved by 0.5 years (model range, 0.3-0.8 years). Conclusions and Relevance: According to 4 simulation models, breast cancer screening and treatment in 2019 were associated with a 58% reduction in US breast cancer mortality compared with interventions in 1975. Simulations suggested that treatment for stage I to III breast cancer was associated with approximately 47% of the mortality reduction, whereas treatment for metastatic breast cancer was associated with 29% of the reduction and screening with 25% of the reduction.

Severity of Atelectasis during Bronchoscopy: Descriptions of a New Grading System (AtelectasisSeverity Scoring System-"ASSESS") and At-Risk-Lung Zones.

Atelectasis during bronchoscopy under general anesthesia is very common and can have a detrimental effect on navigational and diagnostic outcomes. While the intraprocedural incidence and anatomic location have been previously described, the severity of atelectasis has not. We reviewed chest CT images of patients who developed atelectasis in the VESPA trial (Ventilatory Strategy to Prevent Atelectasis). By drawing boundaries at the posterior chest wall (A), the anterior aspect of the vertebral body (C), and mid-way between these two lines (B), we delineated at-risk lung zones 1, 2, and 3 (from posterior to anterior). An Atelectasis Severity Score System ("ASSESS") was created, classifying atelectasis as "mild" (zone 1), "moderate" (zones 1-2), and "severe" (zones 1-2-3). A total of 43 patients who developed atelectasis were included in this study. A total of 32 patients were in the control arm, and 11 were in the VESPA arm; 20 patients (47%) had mild atelectasis, 20 (47%) had moderate atelectasis, and 3 (6%) had severe atelectasis. A higher BMI was associated with increased odds (1.5 per 1 unit change; 95% CI, 1.10-2.04) (p = 0.0098), and VESPA was associated with decreased odds (0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.47) (p = 0.0080) of developing moderate to severe atelectasis. ASSESS is a simple method used to categorize intra-bronchoscopy atelectasis, which allows for a qualitative description of this phenomenon to be developed. In the VESPA trial, a higher BMI was not only associated with increased incidence but also increased severity of atelectasis, while VESPA had the opposite effect. Preventive strategies should be strongly considered in patients with risk factors for atelectasis who have lesions located in zones 1 and 2, but not in zone 3.

Phase 1/2 trial of avelumab combined with utomilumab (4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (OX40 agonist), or radiotherapy in patients with advanced gynecologic malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint blockade has shown mixed results in advanced/recurrent gynecologic malignancies. Efficacy may be improved through costimulation with OX40 and 4-1BB agonists. The authors sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of avelumab combined with utomilumab (a 4-1BB agonist), PF-04518600 (an OX40 agonist), and radiotherapy in patients with recurrent gynecologic malignancies. METHODS: The primary end point in this six-arm, phase 1/2 trial was safety of the combination regimens. Secondary end points included the objective response rate (ORR) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and immune-related Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the disease control rate (DCR), the duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Forty patients were included (35% with cervical cancer, 30% with endometrial cancer, and 35% with ovarian cancer). Most patients (n = 33; 83%) were enrolled in arms A-C (no radiation). Among 35 patients who were evaluable for efficacy, the ORR was 2.9%, and the DCR was 37.1%, with a median duration of stable disease of 5.4 months (interquartile range, 4.1-7.3 months). Patients with cervical cancer in arm A (avelumab and utomilumab; n = 9 evaluable patients) achieved an ORR of 11% and a DCR of 78%. The median progression-free survival was 2.1 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.5 months), and overall survival was 9.4 months (95% CI, 5.6-11.9 months). No dose-limiting toxicities or grade 3-5 immune-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this trial highlight that, in heavily pretreated patients with gynecologic cancer, even multidrug regimens targeting multiple immunologic pathways, although safe, did not produce significant responses. A DCR of 78% in patients with cervical cancer who received avelumab and utomilumab indicates that further research on this combination in select patients may be warranted.

Phase I Study of mTORC1/2 Inhibitor Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) in Combination with Metformin in Patients with mTOR/AKT/PI3K Pathway Alterations and Advanced Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of 5'-AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. We report preliminary safety, tolerability, and efficacy from the dose-escalation study of sapanisertib in combination with metformin in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with advanced metastatic solid tumors resistant or refractory to standard treatment, with and without mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, received sapanisertib 3 or 4 mg daily together with metformin once to three times daily (500-1,500 mg). All patients underwent 14-day titration period for metformin in cycle 1. Tumor measurements were performed following cycle 2 and subsequently every 8 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 30 patients were enrolled across four cohorts (3 mg/500 mg; 3 mg/1,000 mg, 4 mg/1,000 mg; 4 mg/1,500 mg). 19 were female (63%), median age was 57 (range: 30-77), all were Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1. Tumor types included sarcoma (6), breast (4), ovarian (4), head and neck (3), colorectal (2), lung (2), renal cell (2), endometrial (2), gastroesophageal junction (1), prostate (1), stomach (1), urachus (1), and cervical cancer (1). Median number of prior lines of therapy was 4. Most common genomic alterations included PIK3CA (27%), PTEN (17%), AKT1/2 (10%), mTOR (10%). Of 30 patients evaluable for response, 4 patients achieved partial response (PR); 15 patients achieved stable disease (SD) as best response. Disease control rate (PR+SD) was 63%. Of the responders in PR, 3 of 4 patients had documented PTEN mutations (3/5 patients enrolled with PTEN mutations had PR); 2 of 4 of patients in PR had comutations (patient with leiomyosarcoma had both PTEN and TSC; patient with breast cancer had both PTEN and STK11); 1 of 4 patients in PR had AKT and mTOR mutation; tumor types included leiomyosarcoma (n = 2), breast (n = 1), and endometrial cancer (n = 1). Most common treatment-emergent adverse events included nausea, anorexia, diarrhea, and rash. Grade (G) 3-5 treatment-related adverse events included hyperglycemia (4/30; 13%), fatigue (2/30; 7%), hypertriglyceridemia (1/30; 3%), rash (2/20; 7%), diarrhea (2/30; 7%), creatinine increase (1/30; 3%), acidosis (1/30; 3%). No dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were reported in the 3 mg/500 mg cohort. One of 6 patient had DLT in the 3 mg/1,000 mg cohort (G3 diarrhea) and 2 of 11 patients had DLTs in the 4 mg/1,500 mg cohort (G3 fatigue, G3 rash). 4 mg/1,000 mg was defined as the MTD. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of mTORC1/2 inhibitor sapanisertib in combination with metformin was generally tolerable, with antitumor activity observed in patients with advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations. SIGNIFICANCE: Sapanisertib (CB-228/TAK-228) is a potent, selective ATP-competitive, next-generation dual inhibitor of mTORC1/2. Metformin is thought to inhibit the mTOR pathway through upstream activation of AMPK suggesting combination therapy may enhance antitumor activity of sapanisertib. This dose-escalation study of sapanisertib and metformin in advanced solid tumors and mTOR/AKT/PI3K pathway alterations, demonstrates safety, tolerability, and early clinical activity in advanced malignancies harboring PTEN mutations and AKT/mTOR pathway alterations.Clinical trial information: NCT03017833.

Safety and effectiveness of combination versus monotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with preexisting autoimmune diseases.

Patients with preexisting autoimmune disease (pAID) are generally excluded from clinical trials for immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for cancer due to concern of flaring pAID. In this multi-center, retrospective observational study, we compared safety of ICI combination (two ICI agents) versus monotherapy in cancer patients with pAIDs. The primary outcome was time to AEs (immune-related adverse events (irAEs) and/or pAID flares), with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival as secondary outcomes. Sixty-four of 133 patients (48%) received ICI combination and 69 (52%) monotherapy. Most had melanoma (32%) and lung cancer (31%). Most common pAIDs were rheumatic (28%) and dermatologic (23%). Over a median follow-up of 15 months (95%CI, 11-18 mo), the cumulative incidence of any-grade irAEs was higher for combination compared to monotherapy (subdistribution hazard ratio (sHR) 2.27, 95%CI 1.35-3.82). No statistically significant difference was observed in high-grade irAEs (sHR 2.31 (0.95-5.66), P = .054) or the cumulative incidence of pAID flares. There was no statistically significant difference for melanoma PFS between combination versus monotherapy (23.2 vs. 17.1mo, P = .53). The combination group was more likely to discontinue or hold ICI, but > 50% of the combination group was still able to continue ICI therapy. No treatment-related deaths occurred. In our cohort with pAIDs, patients had a tolerable toxicity profile with ICI combination therapy. Our results support the use of ICI combination if deemed necessary for cancer therapy in patients with pAIDs, since the ICI toxicities were comparable to monotherapy, able to be effectively managed and mostly did not require ICI interruption.

Infliximab for Treatment of Immune Adverse Events and Its Impact on Tumor Response.

Background: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) challenge the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We performed a retrospective study to evaluate response to infliximab for immune-related adverse event management, and infliximab's effect on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) with a focus on melanoma and genitourinary cancers. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed records of all cancer patients exposed to infliximab after immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment from 2004 to 2021 at the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Survival was assessed utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression was utilized to evaluate predictors of infliximab response, OS, and PFS. Results: We identified 185 cancer patients (93 melanoma and 37 genitourinary cancers) treated with ICI and who received infliximab to treat irAEs. Within 3 months of treatment initiation, 71% of the patients responded to infliximab, 27% had no response, and 2% had unknown response. Among different irAEs, colitis was associated with increased response to infliximab at 3 months, irrespective of the type of malignancy. We evaluated best tumor response before and after infliximab in the entire cohort and again in the melanoma and genitourinary (GU); the findings were similar in the melanoma cohort and the entire cohort, where best tumor response before and after infliximab was not significantly different. In the melanoma cohort, acute kidney injury (AKI) was associated with increased risk of death, p = 0.0109, and having response to infliximab was associated with decreased risk of death, p = 0.0383. Interestingly in GU cancer patients, myositis was associated with increased risk of death, p = 0.0041, and having a response to infliximab was marginally associated with decreased risk of death, p = 0.0992. As regards PFS, in a multivariate Cox regression model, having a history of cardiovascular disease remained significantly associated with shorter PFS in the melanoma cohort. For patients with GU cancers, response to infliximab was associated with longer PFS. Conclusions: Our study is among the largest retrospective analyses of infliximab use for irAE management. Patients with colitis were the best responders to infliximab. AKI before initiation of infliximab in the melanoma subcohort and myositis in GU subcohort are associated with higher risk of death. Our results indicate no association between infliximab and cancer progression with the exception of genitourinary cancers.

Nivolumab and ipilimumab with concurrent stereotactic radiosurgery for intracranial metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: analysis of the safety cohort for non-randomized, open-label, phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop brain metastasis (BM), for which the current standard of care is radiation therapy with or without surgery. There are no prospective data on the safety of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) concurrent with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy for BM. This is the safety cohort of the phase I/II investigator-initiated trial of SRS with nivolumab and ipilimumab for patients with BM from NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-institution study included patients with NSCLC with active BM amenable to SRS. Brain SRS and systemic therapy with nivolumab and ipilimumab were delivered concurrently (within 7 days). The endpoints were safety and 4-month intracranial progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled in the safety cohort, 10 of whom were evaluable for dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Median follow-up was 23 months (range 9.7-24.3 months). The median interval between systemic therapy and radiation therapy was 3 days. Only one patient had a DLT; hence, predefined stopping criteria were not met. In addition to the patient with DLT, three patients had treatment-related grade ≥3 adverse events, including elevated liver function tests, fatigue, nausea, adrenal insufficiency, and myocarditis. One patient had a confirmed influenza infection 7 months after initiation of protocol treatment (outside the DLT assessment window), leading to pneumonia and subsequent death from hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis. The estimated 4-month intracranial PFS rate was 70.7%. CONCLUSION: Concurrent brain SRS with nivolumab/ipilimumab was safe for patients with active NSCLC BM. Preliminary analyses of treatment efficacy were encouraging for intracranial treatment response.

Selective immune suppression using interleukin-6 receptor inhibitors for management of immune-related adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) is important as they cause treatment interruption or discontinuation, more often seen with combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. Here, we retrospectively evaluated the safety and effectiveness of anti-interleukin-6 receptor (anti-IL-6R) as therapy for irAEs. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study evaluating patients diagnosed with de novo irAEs or flare of pre-existing autoimmune disease following ICI and were treated with anti-IL-6R. Our objectives were to assess the improvement of irAEs as well as the overall tumor response rate (ORR) before and after anti-IL-6R treatment. RESULTS: We identified a total of 92 patients who received therapeutic anti-IL-6R antibodies (tocilizumab or sarilumab). Median age was 61 years, 63% were men, 69% received anti-programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) antibodies alone, and 26% patients were treated with the combination of anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4 and anti-PD-1 antibodies. Cancer types were primarily melanoma (46%), genitourinary cancer (35%), and lung cancer (8%). Indications for using anti-IL-6R antibodies included inflammatory arthritis (73%), hepatitis/cholangitis (7%), myositis/myocarditis/myasthenia gravis (5%), polymyalgia rheumatica (4%), and one patient each with autoimmune scleroderma, nephritis, colitis, pneumonitis and central nervous system vasculitis. Notably, 88% of patients had received corticosteroids, and 36% received other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) as first-line therapies, but without adequate improvement. After initiation of anti-IL-6R (as first-line or post-corticosteroids and DMARDs), 73% of patients showed resolution or change to ≤grade 1 of irAEs after a median of 2.0 months from initiation of anti-IL-6R therapy. Six patients (7%) stopped anti-IL-6R due to adverse events. Of 70 evaluable patients by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) V.1.1 criteria; the ORR was 66% prior versus 66% after anti-IL-6R (95% CI, 54% to 77%), with 8% higher complete response rate. Of 34 evaluable patients with melanoma, the ORR was 56% prior and increased to 68% after anti-IL-6R (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: Targeting IL-6R could be an effective approach to treat several irAE types without hindering antitumor immunity. This study supports ongoing clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of tocilizumab (anti-IL-6R antibody) in combination with ICIs (NCT04940299, NCT03999749).

Safety and Effectiveness of Direct Oral Anticoagulants for the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Cancer-Associated Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastrointestinal cancer (GICA) are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Data from randomized clinical trials in cancer-associated VTE suggest that direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) conferred similar or superior efficacy but a heterogeneous safety profile in patients with GICA. We compared the safety and effectiveness of DOACs in patients with GICA and VTE at MD Anderson Cancer Center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review of patients with GICA and VTE receiving treatment with DOACs for a minimum of 6 months. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients experiencing major bleeding (MB), clinically relevant non-major bleeding (CRNMB), and recurrent VTE. Secondary outcomes were time to bleeding and recurrent VTE. RESULTS: A cohort of 433 patients with GICA who were prescribed apixaban (n = 300), or rivaroxaban (n = 133) were included. MB occurred in 3.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1-5.9), CRNMB in 5.3% (95% CI 3.4-7.9), and recurrent VTE in 7.4% (95% CI 5.1-10.3). The cumulative incidence rates of CRNMB and recurrent VTE were not significantly different when comparing apixaban to rivaroxaban. CONCLUSION: Apixaban and rivaroxaban had a similar risk of recurrent VTE and bleeding and could be considered as anticoagulant options in selected patients with GICA and VTE.

Phenotypic Plasticity in Circulating Tumor Cells Is Associated with Poor Response to Therapy in Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients.

Circulating tumor cells (CTCs) are indicators of metastatic spread and progression. In a longitudinal, single-center trial of patients with metastatic breast cancer starting a new line of treatment, a microcavity array was used to enrich CTCs from 184 patients at up to 9 timepoints at 3-month intervals. CTCs were analyzed in parallel samples from the same blood draw by imaging and by gene expression profiling to capture CTC phenotypic plasticity. Enumeration of CTCs by image analysis relying primarily on epithelial markers from samples obtained before therapy or at 3-month follow-up identified the patients at the highest risk of progression. CTC counts decreased with therapy, and progressors had higher CTC counts than non-progressors. CTC count was prognostic primarily at the start of therapy in univariate and multivariate analyses but had less prognostic utility at 6 months to 1 year later. In contrast, gene expression, including both epithelial and mesenchymal markers, identified high-risk patients after 6-9 months of treatment, and progressors had a shift towards mesenchymal CTC gene expression on therapy. Cross-sectional analysis showed higher CTC-related gene expression in progressors 6-15 months after baseline. Furthermore, patients with higher CTC counts and CTC gene expression experienced more progression events. Longitudinal time-dependent multivariate analysis indicated that CTC count, triple-negative status, and CTC expression of FGFR1 significantly correlated with inferior progression-free survival while CTC count and triple-negative status correlated with inferior overall survival. This highlights the utility of protein-agnostic CTC enrichment and multimodality analysis to capture the heterogeneity of CTCs.

Safety and Efficacy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients with Cancer and Viral Hepatitis: The MD Anderson Cancer Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Despite the clinical benefit of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), patients with a viral hepatitis have been excluded from clinical trials because of safety concerns. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence rate of adverse events (AEs) in patients with viral hepatitis who received ICIs for cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study in patients with cancer and concurrent hepatitis B or C, who had undergone treatment with ICI at MD Anderson Cancer Center from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019. RESULTS: Of the 1076 patients screened, we identified 33 with concurrent hepatitis. All 10 patients with HBV underwent concomitant antiviral therapy during ICI treatment. Sixteen of the 23 patients with HCV received it before the initiation of ICI. The median follow-up time was 33 months (95% CI, 23-45) and the median duration of ICI therapy was 3 months (IQR, 1.9-6.6). Of the 33 patients, 12 (39%) experienced irAEs (immune-related adverse events) of any grade, with 2 (6%) having grade 3 or higher. None of the patients developed hepatitis toxicities. CONCLUSION: ICIs may be a therapeutic option with an acceptable safety profile in patients with cancer and advanced liver disease.

A Prospective Study of Conventionally Fractionated Dose Constraints for Reirradiation of Primary Brain Tumors in Adults.

PURPOSE: Dose constraints for reirradiation of recurrent primary brain tumors are not well-established. This study was conducted to prospectively evaluate composite dose constraints for conventionally fractionated brain reirradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A single-institution, prospective study of adults with previously irradiated, recurrent brain tumors was performed. For 95% of patients, electronic dosimetry records from the first course of radiation (RT1) were obtained and deformed onto the simulation computed tomography for the second course of radiation (RT2). Conventionally fractionated treatment plans for RT2 were developed that met protocol-assigned dose constraints for RT2 alone and the composite dose of RT1 + RT2. Prospective composite dose constraints were based on histology, interval since RT1, and concurrent bevacizumab. Patients were followed with magnetic resonance imaging including spectroscopy and perfusion studies. Primary endpoint was the rate of symptomatic brain necrosis at 6 months after RT2. RESULTS: Patients were enrolled from March 2017 to May 2018; 20 were evaluable. Eighteen had glioma, 1 had atypical choroid plexus papilloma, and 1 had hemangiopericytoma. Nineteen patients were treated with volumetric modulated arc therapy, and one was treated with protons. Median RT1 dose was 57 Gy (range, 50-60 Gy). Median RT1-RT2 interval was 49 months (range, 9-141 months). Median RT2 dose was 42.4 Gy (range, 36-60 Gy). Median planning target volume was 186 cc (range, 8-468 cc). Nineteen of 20 patients (95%) were free of grade 3+ central nervous system necrosis. One patient had grade 3+ necrosis 2 months after RT2; the patient recovered fully and lived another 18 months until dying of disease progression. Median overall survival from RT2 start for all patients was 13.3 months (95% credible interval, 6.3-20.7); for patients with glioblastoma, 11.5 months (95% credible interval, 6.1-20.1). CONCLUSIONS: Brain reirradiation can be safely performed with conventionally fractionated regimens tailored to previous dose distributions. The prospective composite dose constraints described here are a starting point for future studies of conventionally fractionated reirradiation.

Methylene blue for intractable pain from oral mucositis related to cancer treatment: a randomized phase 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) in patients receiving cancer therapy is thus far not well managed with standard approaches. We aimed to assess the safety and effectiveness of methylene blue (MB) oral rinse for OM pain in patients receiving cancer therapy. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind phase 2 clinical trial, patients were randomized to one of four arms: MB 0.025%+conventional therapy (CTx) (n = 15), MB 0.05%+CTx (n = 14), MB 0.1%+CTx (n = 15), or CTx alone (n = 16). Intervention groups received MB oral rinse every 6 h for 2 days with outcomes measured at days 1-2; safety was evaluated up to 30 days. The primary outcome measured change in the pain numeric rating scale (0-10) from baseline to day 2. Secondary outcome measured change in oral function burden scores from baseline to day 2, World Health Organization OM grades, morphine equivalent daily doses, and adverse events. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03469284. RESULTS: Sixty patients (mean age 43, range 22-62 years) completed the study. Compared with those who received CTx alone, those who received MB had a significant reduction of pain scores at day 2 of treatment (mean ± SD); 0.025%: 5.2 ± 2.9, 0.05%: 4.5 ± 2.9, 0.1%: 5.15 ± 2.6) and reduction of oral function burden scores (0.025%: 2.5 ± 1.55, 0.05%: 2.8 ± 1.7, 0.1%: 2.9 ± 1.60). No serious adverse events were noted, but eight patients reported burning sensation of the oral cavity with the first dose, and this caused one patient to discontinue therapy. CONCLUSIONS: MB oral rinse showed significant pain reduction and improved oral functioning with minimal adverse effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03469284.

Percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cancer using bare metal stents compared to drug-eluting stents.

Background: Management of coronary artery disease (CAD) is unique and challenging in cancer patients. However, little is known about the outcomes of using BMS or DES in these patients. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients who were treated with bare metal stents (BMS) vs. drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods: We identified cancer patients who underwent PCI using BMS or DES between 2013 and 2020. Outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and the number of revascularizations. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate the survival probability. Multivariate Cox regression models were utilized to compare OS between BMS and DES. Results: We included 346 cancer patients who underwent PCI with a median follow-up of 34.1 months (95% CI, 28.4-38.7). Among these, 42 patients were treated with BMS (12.1%) and 304 with DES (87.9%). Age and gender were similar between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.09 and 0.93, respectively). DES use was more frequent in the white race, while black patients had more BMS (p = 0.03). The use of DES was more common in patients with NSTEMI (p = 0.03). The median survival was 46 months (95% CI, 34-66). There was no significant difference in the number of revascularizations between the BMS and DES groups (p = 0.43). There was no significant difference in OS between the BMS and DES groups in multivariate analysis (p = 0.26). In addition, independent predictors for worse survival included age > 65 years, BMI ≤ 25 g/m2, hemoglobin level ≤ 12 g/dL, and initial presentation with NSTEMI. Conclusions: In our study, several revascularizations and survival were similar between cancer patients with CAD treated with BMS and DES. This finding suggests that DES use is not associated with an increased risk for stent thrombosis, and as cancer survival improves, there may be a more significant role for DES.

Outcomes by Class of Anticoagulant Use for Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Active Cancer.

Background: The choice of anticoagulant agent for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in the setting of active cancer has not been well studied. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the rates of cerebrovascular accident (CVA), gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), and intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) in patients treated with direct oral anticoagulant agents (DOACs) compared with warfarin for NVAF in patients with active cancer. Methods: This was a retrospective electronic medical record review of eligible patients treated at a cancer hospital. The outcome events were CVA; GIB; ICH; the composite of GIB, CVA, or ICH; and overall mortality. Propensity score matching (1:1) was conducted to select comparable patients receiving warfarin vs DOACs. Fine-Gray models were fitted for each outcome event. Results: The study cohort included 1,133 patients (mean age 72 ± 8.8 years, 42% women), of whom 74% received DOACs (57% received apixaban). After propensity score matching, 195 patients were included in each anticoagulant agent group. When comparing warfarin with DOACs, there were similar risks for CVA (subdistribution HR: 0.738; 95% CI: 0.334-1.629); ICH (subdistribution HR: 0.295; 95% CI: 0.032-2.709); GIB (subdistribution HR: 1.819; 95% CI: 0.774-4.277); and the composite of GIB, CVA, or ICH (subdistribution HR: 1.151; 95% CI: 0.645-2.054). Conclusions: Patients with active cancer had similar risks for CVA, ICH, and GIB when treated with DOACs compared with warfarin for NVAF.

Reclassification of Treatment Strategy with Fractional Flow Reserve in Cancer Patients with Coronary Artery Disease.

Background and Objectives: Cancer and coronary artery disease (CAD) often coexist. Compared to quantitative coronary angiography (QCA), fractional flow reserve (FFR) has emerged as a more reliable method of identifying significant coronary stenoses. We aimed to assess the specific management, safety and outcomes of FFR-guided percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in cancer patients with stable CAD. Materials and Methods: FFR was used to assess cancer patients that underwent coronary angiography for stable CAD between September 2008 and May 2016, and were found to have ≥50% stenosis by QCA. Patients with lesions with an FFR > 0.75 received medical therapy alone, while those with FFR ≤ 0.75 were revascularized. Procedure-related complications, all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or urgent revascularizations were analyzed. Results: Fifty-seven patients with stable CAD underwent FFR on 57 lesions. Out of 31 patients with ≥70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 14 (45.1%) had an FFR ≥ 0.75 and lesions were reclassified as moderate and did not receive PCI nor DAPT. Out of 26 patients with <70% stenosis as measured by QCA, 6 (23%) had an FFR < 0.75 and were reclassified as severe and were treated with PCI and associated DAPT. No periprocedural complications, urgent revascularization, acute coronary syndromes, or cardiovascular deaths were noted. There was a 22.8% mortality at 1 year, all cancer related. Patients who received a stent by FFR assessment showed a significant association with decreased risk of all-cause death (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.15−0.90, p = 0.03). Conclusions: Further studies are needed to define the optimal therapeutic approach for cancer patients with CAD. Using an FFR cut-off point of 0.75 to guide PCI translates into fewer interventions and can facilitate cancer care. There was an overall reduction in mortality in patients that received a stent, suggesting increased resilience to cancer therapy and progression.

Ventilatory Strategy to Prevent Atelectasis During Bronchoscopy Under General Anesthesia: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (Ventilatory Strategy to Prevent Atelectasis -VESPA- Trial).

BACKGROUND: Atelectasis negatively influences peripheral bronchoscopy, increasing CT scan-body divergence, obscuring targets, and creating false-positive radial-probe endobronchial ultrasound (RP-EBUS) images. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a ventilatory strategy reduce the incidence of atelectasis during bronchoscopy under general anesthesia? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Randomized controlled study (1:1) in which patients undergoing bronchoscopy were randomized to receive standard ventilation (laryngeal mask airway, 100% Fio2, zero positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP]) vs a ventilatory strategy to prevent atelectasis (VESPA) with endotracheal intubation followed by a recruitment maneuver, Fio2 titration (< 100%), and PEEP of 8 to 10 cm H2O. All patients underwent chest CT imaging and a survey for atelectasis with RP-EBUS bilaterally on bronchial segments 6, 9, and 10 after artificial airway insertion (time 1) and 20 to 30 min later (time 2). Chest CT scans were reviewed by a blinded chest radiologist. RP-EBUS images were assessed by three independent, blinded readers. The primary end point was the proportion of patients with any atelectasis (either unilateral or bilateral) at time 2 according to chest CT scan findings. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients were analyzed, 38 in each group. The proportion of patients with any atelectasis according to chest CT scan at time 2 was 84.2% (95% CI, 72.6%-95.8%) in the control group and 28.9% (95% CI, 15.4%-45.9%) in the VESPA group (P < .0001). The proportion of patients with bilateral atelectasis at time 2 was 71.1% (95% CI, 56.6%-85.5%) in the control group and 7.9% (95% CI, 1.7%-21.4%) in the VESPA group (P < .0001). At time 2, 3.84 ± 1.67 (mean ± SD) bronchial segments in the control group vs 1.21 ± 1.63 in the VESPA group were deemed atelectatic (P < .0001). No differences were found in the rate of complications. INTERPRETATION: VESPA significantly reduced the incidence of atelectasis, was well tolerated, and showed a sustained effect over time despite bronchoscopic nodal staging maneuvers. VESPA should be considered for bronchoscopy when atelectasis is to be avoided. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04311723; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.