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.

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.

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 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.