Mayo Clinic Hospital

Rhinosinusitis is a significant and increasing health problem which results in a large financial burden on society. This evidence based position paper describes what is known about rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps, offers evidence based recommendations on diagnosis and treatment, and considers how we can make progress with research in this area. Rhinitis and sinusitis usually coexist and are concurrent in most individuals; thus, the correct terminology is now rhinosinusitis. Rhinosinusitis (including nasal polyps) is defined as inflammation of the nose and the paranasal sinuses characterised by two or more symptoms, one of which should be either nasal blockage/obstruction/congestion or nasal discharge (anterior/posterior nasal drip), +/- facial pain/pressure, +/- reduction or loss of smell; and either endoscopic signs of polyps and/or mucopurulent discharge primarily from middle meatus and/or; oedema/mucosal obstruction primarily in middle meatus, and/or CT changes showing mucosal changes within the ostiomeatal complex and/or sinuses. The paper gives different definitions for epidemiology, first line and second line treatment and for research. Furthermore the paper describes the anatomy and (patho)physiology, epidemiology and predisposing factors, inflammatory mechanisms, evidence based diagnosis, medical and surgical treatment in acute and chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyposis in adults and children. Evidence based schemes for diagnosis and treatment are given for the first and second line clinicians. Moreover attention is given to complications and socio-economic cost of chronic rhinosinusitis and nasal polyps. Last but not least the relation to the lower airways is discussed.

peer reviewed

Abstract Background This is the fourth updated Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS ® ) Society guideline presenting a consensus for optimal perioperative care in colorectal surgery and providing graded recommendations for each ERAS item within the ERAS ® protocol. Methods A wide database search on English literature publications was performed. Studies on each item within the protocol were selected with particular attention paid to meta‐analyses, randomised controlled trials and large prospective cohorts and examined, reviewed and graded according to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results All recommendations on ERAS ® protocol items are based on best available evidence; good‐quality trials; meta‐analyses of good‐quality trials; or large cohort studies. The level of evidence for the use of each item is presented accordingly. Conclusions The evidence base and recommendation for items within the multimodal perioperative care pathway are presented by the ERAS ® Society in this comprehensive consensus review.

BACKGROUND: Mutations in the gene encoding isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 ( IDH1) occur in 6 to 10% of patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Ivosidenib (AG-120) is an oral, targeted, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1. METHODS: We conducted a phase 1 dose-escalation and dose-expansion study of ivosidenib monotherapy in IDH1-mutated AML. Safety and efficacy were assessed in all treated patients. The primary efficacy population included patients with relapsed or refractory AML receiving 500 mg of ivosidenib daily with at least 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall, 258 patients received ivosidenib and had safety outcomes assessed. Among patients with relapsed or refractory AML (179 patients), treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher that occurred in at least 3 patients were prolongation of the QT interval (in 7.8% of the patients), the IDH differentiation syndrome (in 3.9%), anemia (in 2.2%), thrombocytopenia or a decrease in the platelet count (in 3.4%), and leukocytosis (in 1.7%). In the primary efficacy population (125 patients), the rate of complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery was 30.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.5 to 39.3), the rate of complete remission was 21.6% (95% CI, 14.7 to 29.8), and the overall response rate was 41.6% (95% CI, 32.9 to 50.8). The median durations of these responses were 8.2 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 12.0), 9.3 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 18.3), and 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 9.3), respectively. Transfusion independence was attained in 29 of 84 patients (35%), and patients who had a response had fewer infections and febrile neutropenia episodes than those who did not have a response. Among 34 patients who had a complete remission or complete remission with partial hematologic recovery, 7 (21%) had no residual detectable IDH1 mutations on digital polymerase-chain-reaction assay. No preexisting co-occurring single gene mutation predicted clinical response or resistance to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced IDH1-mutated relapsed or refractory AML, ivosidenib at a dose of 500 mg daily was associated with a low frequency of grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events and with transfusion independence, durable remissions, and molecular remissions in some patients with complete remission. (Funded by Agios Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02074839 .).

BACKGROUND: Senescent cells, which can release factors that cause inflammation and dysfunction, the senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP), accumulate with ageing and at etiological sites in multiple chronic diseases. Senolytics, including the combination of Dasatinib and Quercetin (D + Q), selectively eliminate senescent cells by transiently disabling pro-survival networks that defend them against their own apoptotic environment. In the first clinical trial of senolytics, D + Q improved physical function in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), a fatal senescence-associated disease, but to date, no peer-reviewed study has directly demonstrated that senolytics decrease senescent cells in humans. METHODS: ). Adipose tissue, skin biopsies, and blood were collected before and 11 days after completing senolytic treatment. Senescent cell and macrophage/Langerhans cell markers and circulating SASP factors were assayed. FINDINGS: cells were reduced, as were circulating SASP factors, including IL-1α, IL-6, and MMPs-9 and -12. INTERPRETATION: "Hit-and-run" treatment with senolytics, which in the case of D + Q have elimination half-lives <11 h, significantly decreases senescent cell burden in humans. FUND: NIH and Foundations. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02848131. Senescence, Frailty, and Mesenchymal Stem Cell Functionality in Chronic Kidney Disease: Effect of Senolytic Agents.

AAPM Task Group 119 has produced quantitative confidence limits as baseline expectation values for IMRT commissioning. A set of test cases was developed to assess the overall accuracy of planning and delivery of IMRT treatments. Each test uses contours of targets and avoidance structures drawn within rectangular phantoms. These tests were planned, delivered, measured, and analyzed by nine facilities using a variety of IMRT planning and delivery systems. Each facility had passed the Radiological Physics Center credentialing tests for IMRT. The agreement between the planned and measured doses was determined using ion chamber dosimetry in high and low dose regions, film dosimetry on coronal planes in the phantom with all fields delivered, and planar dosimetry for each field measured perpendicular to the central axis. The planar dose distributions were assessed using gamma criteria of 3%/3 mm. The mean values and standard deviations were used to develop confidence limits for the test results using the concept confidence limit = /mean/ + 1.96sigma. Other facilities can use the test protocol and results as a basis for comparison to this group. Locally derived confidence limits that substantially exceed these baseline values may indicate the need for improved IMRT commissioning.

OBJECTIVES: This is the first of a pair of studies designed to assess efficacy, safety and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) as headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. METHODS: The Phase III REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy 1 (PREEMPT 1) is a phase 3 study, with a 24-week, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase followed by a 32-week, open-label phase. Subjects were randomized (1:1) to injections every 12 weeks of onabotulinumtoxinA (155 U-195 U; n = 341) or placebo (n = 338) (two cycles). The primary endpoint was mean change from baseline in headache episode frequency at week 24. RESULTS: No significant between-group difference for onabotulinumtoxinA versus placebo was observed for the primary endpoint, headache episodes (-5.2 vs. -5.3; p = 0.344). Large within-group decreases from baseline were observed for all efficacy variables. Significant between-group differences for onabotulinumtoxinA were observed for the secondary endpoints, headache days (p = .006) and migraine days (p = 0.002). OnabotulinumtoxinA was safe and well tolerated, with few treatment-related adverse events. Few subjects discontinued due to adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: There was no between-group difference for the primary endpoint, headache episodes. However, significant reductions from baseline were observed for onabotulinumtoxinA for headache and migraine days, cumulative hours of headache on headache days and frequency of moderate/severe headache days, which in turn reduced the burden of illness in adults with disabling chronic migraine.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of onabotulinumtoxinA (BOTOX) as headache prophylaxis in adults with chronic migraine. BACKGROUND: Chronic migraine is a prevalent, disabling, and undertreated neurological disorder. Few preventive treatments have been investigated and none is specifically indicated for chronic migraine. METHODS: The 2 multicenter, pivotal trials in the PREEMPT: Phase 3 REsearch Evaluating Migraine Prophylaxis Therapy clinical program each included a 24-week randomized, double-blind phase followed by a 32-week open-label phase (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT00156910, NCT00168428). Qualified patients were randomized (1:1) to onabotulinumtoxinA (155-195 U) or placebo injections every 12 weeks. Study visits occurred every 4 weeks. These studies were identical in design (eg, inclusion/exclusion criteria, randomization, visits, double-blind phase, open-label phase, safety assessments, treatment), with the only exception being the designation of the primary and secondary endpoints. Therefore, the predefined pooling of the results was justified and performed to provide a complete overview of between-group differences in efficacy, safety, and tolerability that may not have been evident in individual studies. The primary endpoint for the pooled analysis was mean change from baseline in frequency of headache days at 24 weeks. Secondary endpoints were mean change from baseline to week 24 in frequency of migraine/probable migraine days, frequency of moderate/severe headache days, total cumulative hours of headache on headache days, frequency of headache episodes, frequency of migraine/probable migraine episodes, frequency of acute headache pain medication intakes, and the proportion of patients with severe (> or =60) Headache Impact Test-6 score at week 24. Results of the pooled analyses of the 2 PREEMPT double-blind phases are presented. RESULTS: A total of 1384 adults were randomized to onabotulinumtoxinA (n = 688) or placebo (n = 696). Pooled analyses demonstrated a large mean decrease from baseline in frequency of headache days, with statistically significant between-group differences favoring onabotulinumtoxinA over placebo at week 24 (-8.4 vs -6.6; P < .001) and at all other time points. Significant differences favoring onabotulinumtoxinA were also observed for all secondary efficacy variables at all time points, with the exception of frequency of acute headache pain medication intakes. Adverse events occurred in 62.4% of onabotulinumtoxinA patients and 51.7% of placebo patients. Most patients reported adverse events that were mild to moderate in severity and few discontinued (onabotulinumtoxinA, 3.8%; placebo, 1.2%) due to adverse events. No unexpected treatment-related adverse events were identified. CONCLUSIONS: The pooled PREEMPT results demonstrate that onabotulinumtoxinA is an effective prophylactic treatment for chronic migraine. OnabotulinumtoxinA resulted in significant improvements compared with placebo in multiple headache symptom measures, and significantly reduced headache-related disability and improved functioning, vitality, and overall health-related quality of life. Repeat treatments with onabotulinumtoxinA were safe and well tolerated.

BACKGROUND: Stimulating an immune response against cancer with the use of vaccines remains a challenge. We hypothesized that combining a melanoma vaccine with interleukin-2, an immune activating agent, could improve outcomes. In a previous phase 2 study, patients with metastatic melanoma receiving high-dose interleukin-2 plus the gp100:209-217(210M) peptide vaccine had a higher rate of response than the rate that is expected among patients who are treated with interleukin-2 alone. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, phase 3 trial involving 185 patients at 21 centers. Eligibility criteria included stage IV or locally advanced stage III cutaneous melanoma, expression of HLA*A0201, an absence of brain metastases, and suitability for high-dose interleukin-2 therapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive interleukin-2 alone (720,000 IU per kilogram of body weight per dose) or gp100:209-217(210M) plus incomplete Freund's adjuvant (Montanide ISA-51) once per cycle, followed by interleukin-2. The primary end point was clinical response. Secondary end points included toxic effects and progression-free survival. RESULTS: The treatment groups were well balanced with respect to baseline characteristics and received a similar amount of interleukin-2 per cycle. The toxic effects were consistent with those expected with interleukin-2 therapy. The vaccine-interleukin-2 group, as compared with the interleukin-2-only group, had a significant improvement in centrally verified overall clinical response (16% vs. 6%, P=0.03), as well as longer progression-free survival (2.2 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 3.9 vs. 1.6 months; 95% CI, 1.5 to 1.8; P=0.008). The median overall survival was also longer in the vaccine-interleukin-2 group than in the interleukin-2-only group (17.8 months; 95% CI, 11.9 to 25.8 vs. 11.1 months; 95% CI, 8.7 to 16.3; P=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced melanoma, the response rate was higher and progression-free survival longer with vaccine and interleukin-2 than with interleukin-2 alone. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00019682.).

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BACKGROUND: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR-RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR-RS-2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence-based findings of the document. METHODS: ICAR-RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence-based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence-based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. RESULTS: ICAR-RS-2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence-based management algorithm is provided. CONCLUSION: This ICAR-RS-2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence-based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS.

Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is not a single disease, but several histologically defined cancers with different genetic drivers, clinical courses, and therapeutic responses. The current study evaluated 843 RCC from the three major histologic subtypes, including 488 clear cell RCC, 274 papillary RCC, and 81 chromophobe RCC. Comprehensive genomic and phenotypic analysis of the RCC subtypes reveals distinctive features of each subtype that provide the foundation for the development of subtype-specific therapeutic and management strategies for patients affected with these cancers. Somatic alteration of BAP1, PBRM1, and PTEN and altered metabolic pathways correlated with subtype-specific decreased survival, while CDKN2A alteration, increased DNA hypermethylation, and increases in the immune-related Th2 gene expression signature correlated with decreased survival within all major histologic subtypes. CIMP-RCC demonstrated an increased immune signature, and a uniform and distinct metabolic expression pattern identified a subset of metabolically divergent (MD) ChRCC that associated with extremely poor survival.

Background & AimsThere are no effective and safe treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection of patients who have advanced liver disease.MethodsIn this phase 2, open-label study, we assessed treatment with the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir, the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, and ribavirin in patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4. Cohort A enrolled patients with cirrhosis and moderate or severe hepatic impairment who had not undergone liver transplantation. Cohort B enrolled patients who had undergone liver transplantation: those without cirrhosis; those with cirrhosis and mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment; and those with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive 12 or 24 weeks of a fixed-dose combination tablet containing ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, once daily, plus ribavirin. The primary end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12).ResultsWe enrolled 337 patients, 332 (99%) with HCV genotype 1 infection and 5 (1%) with HCV genotype 4 infection. In cohort A (nontransplant), SVR12 was achieved by 86%–89% of patients. In cohort B (transplant recipients), SVR12 was achieved by 96%–98% of patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis, by 85%−88% of patients with moderate hepatic impairment, by 60%–75% of patients with severe hepatic impairment, and by all 6 patients with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Response rates in the 12- and 24-week groups were similar. Thirteen patients (4%) discontinued the ledipasvir and sofosbuvir combination prematurely because of adverse events; 10 patients died, mainly from complications related to hepatic decompensation.ConclusionThe combination of ledipasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin for 12 weeks produced high rates of SVR12 in patients with advanced liver disease, including those with decompensated cirrhosis before and after liver transplantation. ClinTrials.gov: NCT01938430. There are no effective and safe treatments for chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection of patients who have advanced liver disease. In this phase 2, open-label study, we assessed treatment with the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir, the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir, and ribavirin in patients infected with HCV genotypes 1 or 4. Cohort A enrolled patients with cirrhosis and moderate or severe hepatic impairment who had not undergone liver transplantation. Cohort B enrolled patients who had undergone liver transplantation: those without cirrhosis; those with cirrhosis and mild, moderate, or severe hepatic impairment; and those with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Patients were assigned randomly (1:1) to receive 12 or 24 weeks of a fixed-dose combination tablet containing ledipasvir and sofosbuvir, once daily, plus ribavirin. The primary end point was sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of treatment (SVR12). We enrolled 337 patients, 332 (99%) with HCV genotype 1 infection and 5 (1%) with HCV genotype 4 infection. In cohort A (nontransplant), SVR12 was achieved by 86%–89% of patients. In cohort B (transplant recipients), SVR12 was achieved by 96%–98% of patients without cirrhosis or with compensated cirrhosis, by 85%−88% of patients with moderate hepatic impairment, by 60%–75% of patients with severe hepatic impairment, and by all 6 patients with fibrosing cholestatic hepatitis. Response rates in the 12- and 24-week groups were similar. Thirteen patients (4%) discontinued the ledipasvir and sofosbuvir combination prematurely because of adverse events; 10 patients died, mainly from complications related to hepatic decompensation. The combination of ledipasvir, sofosbuvir, and ribavirin for 12 weeks produced high rates of SVR12 in patients with advanced liver disease, including those with decompensated cirrhosis before and after liver transplantation. ClinTrials.gov: NCT01938430.

BACKGROUND: Fremanezumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), is being investigated as a preventive treatment for migraine. We compared two fremanezumab dose regimens with placebo for the prevention of chronic migraine. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients with chronic migraine (defined as headache of any duration or severity on ≥15 days per month and migraine on ≥8 days per month) in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive fremanezumab quarterly (a single dose of 675 mg at baseline and placebo at weeks 4 and 8), fremanezumab monthly (675 mg at baseline and 225 mg at weeks 4 and 8), or matching placebo. Both fremanezumab and placebo were administered by means of subcutaneous injection. The primary end point was the mean change from baseline in the average number of headache days (defined as days in which headache pain lasted ≥4 consecutive hours and had a peak severity of at least a moderate level or days in which acute migraine-specific medication [triptans or ergots] was used to treat a headache of any severity or duration) per month during the 12 weeks after the first dose. RESULTS: Of 1130 patients enrolled, 376 were randomly assigned to fremanezumab quarterly, 379 to fremanezumab monthly, and 375 to placebo. The mean number of baseline headache days (as defined above) per month was 13.2, 12.8, and 13.3, respectively. The least-squares mean (±SE) reduction in the average number of headache days per month was 4.3±0.3 with fremanezumab quarterly, 4.6±0.3 with fremanezumab monthly, and 2.5±0.3 with placebo (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The percentage of patients with a reduction of at least 50% in the average number of headache days per month was 38% in the fremanezumab-quarterly group, 41% in the fremanezumab-monthly group, and 18% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Abnormalities of hepatic function occurred in 5 patients in each fremanezumab group (1%) and 3 patients in the placebo group (<1%). CONCLUSIONS: Fremanezumab as a preventive treatment for chronic migraine resulted in a lower frequency of headache than placebo in this 12-week trial. Injection-site reactions to the drug were common. The long-term durability and safety of fremanezumab require further study. (Funded by Teva Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02621931 .).

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding the efficacy of treatment with ibrutinib-rituximab, as compared with standard chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) have been limited. METHODS: In a phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL to receive either ibrutinib and rituximab for six cycles (after a single cycle of ibrutinib alone), followed by ibrutinib until disease progression, or six cycles of chemoimmunotherapy with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. The primary end point was progression-free survival, and overall survival was a secondary end point. We report the results of a planned interim analysis. RESULTS: mutation was 87.7% in the ibrutinib-rituximab group and 88.0% in the chemoimmunotherapy group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.14 to 1.36). The incidence of adverse events of grade 3 or higher (regardless of attribution) was similar in the two groups (in 282 of 352 patients [80.1%] who received ibrutinib-rituximab and in 126 of 158 [79.7%] who received chemoimmunotherapy), whereas infectious complications of grade 3 or higher were less common with ibrutinib-rituximab than with chemoimmunotherapy (in 37 patients [10.5%] vs. 32 [20.3%], P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The ibrutinib-rituximab regimen resulted in progression-free survival and overall survival that were superior to those with a standard chemoimmunotherapy regimen among patients 70 years of age or younger with previously untreated CLL. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Pharmacyclics; E1912 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02048813.).

BACKGROUND: Septic shock is associated with vasopressin deficiency and a hypersensitivity to its exogenous administration. The goal of the current study was to determine whether short-term vasopressin infusion in patients experiencing severe septic shock has a vasopressor sparing effect while maintaining hemodynamic stability and adequate end-organ perfusion. METHODS: Patients experiencing septic shock that required high-dose vasopressor support were randomized to a double-blinded 4-h infusion of either norepinephrine (n = 11) or vasopressin (n = 13), and open-label vasopressors were titrated to maintain blood pressure. To assess end-organ perfusion, urine output and creatinine clearance, gastric mucosal carbon dioxide tension, and electrocardiogram ST segment position were measured. RESULTS: Patients randomized to norepinephrine went from a median prestudy norepinephrine infusion of 20.0 microg/min to a blinded infusion of 17.0 mug/min at 4 h, whereas those randomized to vasopressin went from a median prestudy norepinephrine infusion of 25.0 microg/min to 5.3 microg/min at 4 h (P < 0.001). Mean arterial pressure and cardiac index were maintained in both groups. Urine output did not change in the norepinephrine group (median, 25 to 15 ml/h) but increased substantially in the vasopressin group (median, 32.5 to 65 ml/h; P < 0.05). Similarly, creatinine clearance did not change in the norepinephrine group but increased by 75% in the vasopressin group (P < 0.05). Gastric mucosal carbon dioxide tension and electrocardiogram ST segments did not change significantly in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The authors conclude that short-term vasopressin infusion spared conventional vasopressor use and improved some measures of renal function in patients with severe septic shock.

PURPOSE BRCA1 or BRCA2 ( BRCA) alterations are common in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and may confer sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors. We present results from patients with mCRPC associated with a BRCA alteration treated with rucaparib 600 mg twice daily in the phase II TRITON2 study. METHODS We enrolled patients who progressed after one to two lines of next-generation androgen receptor–directed therapy and one taxane-based chemotherapy for mCRPC. Efficacy and safety populations included patients with a deleterious BRCA alteration who received ≥ 1 dose of rucaparib. Key efficacy end points were objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST/Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 in patients with measurable disease as assessed by blinded, independent radiology review and by investigators) and locally assessed prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (≥ 50% decrease from baseline) rate. RESULTS Efficacy and safety populations included 115 patients with a BRCA alteration with or without measurable disease. Confirmed ORRs per independent radiology review and investigator assessment were 43.5% (95% CI, 31.0% to 56.7%; 27 of 62 patients) and 50.8% (95% CI, 38.1% to 63.4%; 33 of 65 patients), respectively. The confirmed PSA response rate was 54.8% (95% CI, 45.2% to 64.1%; 63 of 115 patients). ORRs were similar for patients with a germline or somatic BRCA alteration and for patients with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 alteration, while a higher PSA response rate was observed in patients with a BRCA2 alteration. The most frequent grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event was anemia (25.2%; 29 of 115 patients). CONCLUSION Rucaparib has antitumor activity in patients with mCRPC and a deleterious BRCA alteration, but with a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other solid tumor types.

BACKGROUND: Selinexor, a selective inhibitor of nuclear export compound that blocks exportin 1 (XPO1) and forces nuclear accumulation and activation of tumor suppressor proteins, inhibits nuclear factor κB, and reduces oncoprotein messenger RNA translation, is a potential novel treatment for myeloma that is refractory to current therapeutic options. METHODS: We administered oral selinexor (80 mg) plus dexamethasone (20 mg) twice weekly to patients with myeloma who had previous exposure to bortezomib, carfilzomib, lenalidomide, pomalidomide, daratumumab, and an alkylating agent and had disease refractory to at least one proteasome inhibitor, one immunomodulatory agent, and daratumumab (triple-class refractory). The primary end point was overall response, defined as a partial response or better, with response assessed by an independent review committee. Clinical benefit, defined as a minimal response or better, was a secondary end point. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients in the United States and Europe were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (primary analysis), and 123 were included in the safety population. The median age was 65 years, and the median number of previous regimens was 7; a total of 53% of the patients had high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities. A partial response or better was observed in 26% of patients (95% confidence interval, 19 to 35), including two stringent complete responses; 39% of patients had a minimal response or better. The median duration of response was 4.4 months, median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, and median overall survival was 8.6 months. Fatigue, nausea, and decreased appetite were common and were typically grade 1 or 2 (grade 3 events were noted in up to 25% of patients, and no grade 4 events were reported). Thrombocytopenia occurred in 73% of the patients (grade 3 in 25% and grade 4 in 33%). Thrombocytopenia led to bleeding events of grade 3 or higher in 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Selinexor-dexamethasone resulted in objective treatment responses in patients with myeloma refractory to currently available therapies. (Funded by Karyopharm Therapeutics; STORM ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02336815.).

PURPOSE: Pathogenic variants affecting MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2 cause Lynch syndrome and result in different but imprecisely known cancer risks. This study aimed to provide age and organ-specific cancer risks according to gene and gender and to determine survival after cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter prospective observational study using independent test and validation cohorts of carriers of class 4 or class 5 variants. After validation the cohorts were merged providing 6350 participants and 51,646 follow-up years. RESULTS: There were 1808 prospectively observed cancers. Pathogenic MLH1 and MSH2 variants caused high penetrance dominant cancer syndromes sharing similar colorectal, endometrial, and ovarian cancer risks, but older MSH2 carriers had higher risk of cancers of the upper urinary tract, upper gastrointestinal tract, brain, and particularly prostate. Pathogenic MSH6 variants caused a sex-limited trait with high endometrial cancer risk but only modestly increased colorectal cancer risk in both genders. We did not demonstrate a significantly increased cancer risk in carriers of pathogenic PMS2 variants. Ten-year crude survival was over 80% following colon, endometrial, or ovarian cancer. CONCLUSION: Management guidelines for Lynch syndrome may require revision in light of these different gene and gender-specific risks and the good prognosis for the most commonly associated cancers.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of responsive stimulation at the seizure focus as an adjunctive therapy to reduce the frequency of seizures in adults with medically intractable partial onset seizures arising from one or two seizure foci. METHODS: Randomized multicenter double-blinded controlled trial of responsive focal cortical stimulation (RNS System). Subjects with medically intractable partial onset seizures from one or two foci were implanted, and 1 month postimplant were randomized 1:1 to active or sham stimulation. After the fifth postimplant month, all subjects received responsive stimulation in an open label period (OLP) to complete 2 years of postimplant follow-up. RESULTS: All 191 subjects were randomized. The percent change in seizures at the end of the blinded period was -37.9% in the active and -17.3% in the sham stimulation group (p = 0.012, Generalized Estimating Equations). The median percent reduction in seizures in the OLP was 44% at 1 year and 53% at 2 years, which represents a progressive and significant improvement with time (p < 0.0001). The serious adverse event rate was not different between subjects receiving active and sham stimulation. Adverse events were consistent with the known risks of an implanted medical device, seizures, and of other epilepsy treatments. There were no adverse effects on neuropsychological function or mood. SIGNIFICANCE: Responsive stimulation to the seizure focus reduced the frequency of partial-onset seizures acutely, showed improving seizure reduction over time, was well tolerated, and was acceptably safe. The RNS System provides an additional treatment option for patients with medically intractable partial-onset seizures.