Search

NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasm represents an emerging entity included in the latest 5th edition of WHO classification of both soft tissue and female genital tumors. By immunohistochemistry, they are commonly positive for CD34, S100 protein, and CD30 and typically harbor fusions of kinase genes such as NTRK1/2/3, RET, and BRAF. In the gynecological tract, they typically affect the uterine cervix or uterine body. Most of the reported cases had fibrosarcoma-like morphology, occasionally showing perivascular and stromal hyalinization with only a few cases showing a less cellular spindle cell proliferation. Except for one case with RET fusion, all other gynecological cases harbored exclusively NTRK1/2/3 fusions. Besides kinase gene fusions, the analogous tumors in soft tissues may also harbor activating EGFR or BRAF point mutations, but no such case has been described in the uterus. Herein we are reporting two cases from the uterine cervix showing morphology and molecular features previously unreported at this anatomic site. The patients were 46 and 34 years old and clinically presented with unremarkable cervical polyps each measuring 8 mm in diameter. Histologically, both cases had a rounded polypoid outline and were composed of hypocellular proliferation of bland spindle cells lacking mitotic activity and growing in a fibrotic stroma which was punctuated by prominent small vessels with thick hyalinized walls. Immunohistochemically, both showed a diffuse expression of CD34, CD30, and S100 protein, whereas SOX10 was negative. Both cases harbored exon 20 EGFR mutation and did not reveal any fusions or significant copy number changes. The patient in case 1 was treated by hysterectomy with salpingectomy with no other residual tumor detected, and she was alive and well 27 months after the diagnosis. The patient in case 2 had no other known tumors at the time of diagnosis, but no follow-up is available. We believe the reported cases represent a hitherto unrecognized variant of "NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasms" of the uterine cervix with novel EGFR mutations., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Minimal residual disease (MRD) is one of the most important prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM) and a valid surrogate for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Recently, MRD negativity was approved as an early clinical endpoint for accelerated drug approval in MM. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence of MRD utility in real-world setting. In this retrospective multicenter study, we report outcomes of 331 newly diagnosed MM patients with MRD evaluation at Day+100 after autologous stem cell transplantation using flow cytometry with a median limit of detection of 0.001%. MRD negativity was reached in 47% of patients and was associated with significantly prolonged median PFS (49.2 months vs. 18.4 months; hazard ratios (HR) = 0.37; p < 0.001) and OS (not reached vs. 74.9 months; HR = 0.50; p = 0.007). Achieving MRD negativity was associated with PFS improvements regardless of age, International Staging System (ISS) stage, lactate dedydrogenase (LDH) level, or cytogenetic risk. Importantly, MRD positive patients benefited from lenalidomide maintenance versus no maintenance (18-months PFS: 81% vs. 46%; HR = 0.24; p = 0.002) while in MRD negative patients such benefit was not observed (p = 0.747). The outcomes of our real-world study recapitulate results from clinical trials including meta-analyses and support the idea that MRD positive patients profit more from lenalidomide maintenance than MRD negative ones., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Haematology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Luspatercept, an inhibitor of the transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) pathway, is a novel treatment for anemic patients with lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) with transfusion dependence (TD) who do not respond to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) therapy or are not suitable candidates for this treatment. We present real-world experience with luspatercept therapy from two hematology centers in the Czech Republic., Methods: By January 2024, 54 MDS patients (33 men, 21 women) with a median age of 74 years (range, 55-95) were treated with luspatercept ± ESA at two Charles University hematology centers in Prague and Hradec Králové. According to the WHO 2016 classification, the cohort included 32 MDS-RS-MLD, seven MDS-MLD, two patients with 5q- + ring sideroblasts (RS), 12 RARS-T, and 1 patient with CMML-0 + RS. SF3B1 mutation data were available for 45 patients. All patients were in the IPSS-R and IPSS-M lower-risk groups (except four IPSS-M high). The median follow-up was 17 months (range, 1-54). All patients were transfusion-dependent. Thirty-five (64.8%) patients had a high transfusion burden (HTB) with ≥ 4 transfusion units (TU)/8 weeks, and 19 (35.2%) had a low transfusion burden (LTB) (< 4 TU/8 weeks). The median time between diagnosis and initiation of luspatercept was 27 months (range, 4-156). ESA were used prior to luspatercept in 45 patients, and luspatercept was used as first-line treatment in nine patients. Thirty-one (61%) patients were treated simultaneously with ESA., Results: Only patients who received luspatercept for ≥ 8 weeks (51 patients) were assessed. We evaluated the achievement of transfusion independence (TI) lasting 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks. Thirty-two (62.7%) patients achieved TI for ≥ 8 weeks, 31 (60.7%) for ≥ 12 weeks, 29 (56.8%) for ≥ 16 weeks, and 25 (49%) for ≥ 24 weeks. Hematologic improvement (HI) without TI was achieved in six patients (11.7%). Overall, HI + TI was achieved in 38 patients (74.5%). Epoetin alfa was used simultaneously in 31 patients (60.7%). In 21 (55.2%) of all responding patients, concomitant therapy with epoetin alfa led to an improved response, with 16 reaching TI. Thirteen (25.5%) patients were nonresponders. Eight (21%) patients experienced therapy failure and became transfusion-dependent again. Optimal response required a gradual increase in the luspatercept dose to 1.75 mg/kg in up to 35 patients, with 23 responders (TI + HI). Response rates varied by transfusion burden: 79% in LTB and 50% in HTB reached TI. Of RS+ patients, 70% reached TI, while only one out of five RS- patients achieved TI. Among 39 SF3B1 -positive patients, 61.6% achieved TI. In the low and very low IPSS-M groups, 86% of patients responded (TI + HI), compared to 62% in the moderate-low group. Luspatercept was well-tolerated, with no adverse events higher than grade II toxicity., Conclusion: We have demonstrated in real-world clinical practice that luspatercept is a very effective agent, even in an unselected, pretreated, significantly TD MDS population. The effect was particularly high in the IPSS-M low and very low groups. We believe that the relatively high response rate in our patients was influenced by the frequent use of a higher dose (1.75 mg/kg) and especially by adding ESA to luspatercept in poorly responding patients., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Jonasova, Sotakova, Belohlavkova, Minarik, Stopka, Jonas, Aghova and Zemanova.)

Rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS) of the urinary bladder in adults and elderly is an exceptionally rare neoplasm that displays poorly differentiated solid (alveolar-like) small cell pattern, frequently indistinguishable from small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (SCNEC). However, the histogenesis of RMS and SCNEC and their inter-relationship have not been well studied and remained controversial. We herein analyzed 23 SCNEC and 3 small round cell RMS of the bladder for neuroendocrine (synaptophysin + chromogranin A) and myogenic (desmin + myogenin) marker expression and for TERT promoter mutations. In addition, the RMS cohort and one SCNEC that was revised to RMS were tested for gene fusions using targeted RNA sequencing (TruSight Illumina Panel which includes FOXO1 and most of RMS-related other genes). Overall, significant expression of myogenin and desmin was observed in one of 23 original SCNEC justifying a revised diagnosis to RMS. On the other hand, diffuse expression of synaptophysin was noted in 2 of the 4 RMS, but chromogranin A was not expressed in 3 RMS tested. TERT promoter mutations were detected in 15 of 22 (68%) SCNEC and in two of three (67%) assessable RMS cases, respectively. None of the four RMS cases had gene fusions. Our data highlights phenotypic and genetic overlap between SCNEC and RMS of the urinary bladder. High frequency of TERT promoter mutations in SCNEC is in line with their presumable urothelial origin. In addition, the presence of TERT promoter mutation in 2 of 3 RMS and lack of FOXO1 and other gene fusions in all 4 RMSs suggest a mucosal (urothelial) origin, probably representing extensive monomorphic rhabdomyoblastic transdifferentiation in SCNEC., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Class I triggers for severe and chronic aortic regurgitation surgery mainly rely on symptoms or systolic dysfunction, resulting in a negative outcome despite surgical correction. Therefore, US and European guidelines now advocate for earlier surgery. We sought to determine whether earlier surgery leads to improved postoperative survival., Methods: We evaluated the postoperative survival of patients who underwent surgery for severe aortic regurgitation in the international multicenter registry for aortic valve surgery, Aortic Valve Insufficiency and Ascending Aorta Aneurysm International Registry, over a median follow-up of 37 months., Results: Among 1899 patients (aged 49 ± 15 years, 85% were male), 83% and 84% had class I indication according to the American Heart Association and European Society of Cardiology, respectively, and most were offered repair surgery (92%). Twelve patients (0.6%) died after surgery, and 68 patients died within 10 years after the procedure. Heart failure symptoms (hazard ratio, 2.60 [1.20-5.66], P = .016) and either left ventricular end-systolic diameter greater than 50 mm or left ventricular end-systolic diameter index greater than 25 mm/m 2 (hazard ratio, 1.64 [1.05-2.55], P = .030) predicted survival independently over and above age, gender, and bicuspid phenotype. Therefore, patients who underwent surgery based on any class I trigger had worse adjusted survival. However, patients who underwent surgery while meeting early imaging triggers (left ventricular end-systolic diameter index 20-25 mm/m 2 or left ventricular ejection fraction 50% to 55%) had no significant outcome penalty., Conclusions: In this international registry of severe aortic regurgitation, surgery when meeting class I triggers led to postoperative outcome penalty compared with earlier triggers (left ventricular end-systolic diameter index 20-25 mm/m 2 or ventricular ejection fraction 50%-55%). This observation, which applies to expert centers where aortic valve repair is feasible, should encourage the global use of repair techniques and the conduction of randomized trials., (Copyright © 2023 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The section on mesenchymal tumors in the 5th edition of WHO classification of skin tumors has undergone several changes, the most important of which is the inclusion of newly identified tumor entities, which will be the main focus of this review article. These specifically include three novel cutaneous mesenchymal tumors with melanocytic differentiation, and rearrangements of the CRTC1::TRIM11, ACTIN::MITF, and MITF::CREM genes as well as EWSR1::SMAD3-rearranged fibroblastic tumors, superficial CD34-positive fibroblastic tumors, and NTRK-rearranged spindle cell neoplasms. Some of the other most important changes will be briefly mentioned as well., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

PLAG1 gene fusions were recently identified in a subset of uterine myxoid leiomyosarcomas (M-LMS). However, we have encountered cases of PLAG1-rearranged uterine sarcomas lacking M-LMS-like morphology and/or any expression of smooth muscle markers. To better characterize their clinicopathologic features, we performed a multiinstitutional search that yielded 11 cases. The patients ranged in age from 34 to 72 years (mean, 57 years). All tumors arose in the uterine corpus, ranging in size from 6.5 to 32 cm (mean, 15 cm). The most common stage at presentation was pT1b (n = 6), and 3 cases had stage pT1 (unspecified), and 1 case each presented in stages pT2a and pT3b. Most were treated only with hysterectomy and adnexectomy. The follow-up (range, 7-71 months; median, 39 months) was available for 7 patients. Three cases (7-21 months of follow-up) had no evidence of disease. Three of the 4 remaining patients died of disease within 55 to 71 months, while peritoneal spread developed in the last patient, and the patient was transferred for palliative care at 39 months. Morphologically, the tumors showed a high intertumoral and intratumoral heterogeneity. M-LMS-like and epithelioid leiomyosarcoma-like morphology were present in 3 and 5 primary tumors, respectively, the remaining mostly presented as nondescript ovoid or spindle cell sarcomas. Unusual morphologic findings included prominently hyalinized stroma (n = 3), adipocytic differentiation with areas mimicking myxoid liposarcoma (n = 2), osteosarcomatous differentiation (n = 1), and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma-like areas (n = 1). The mitotic activity ranged from 3 to 24 mitoses per 10 high-power fields (mean, 9); 3 of 10 cases showed necrosis. In 3 of 11 cases, no expression of smooth muscle actin, h-caldesmon, or desmin was noted, whereas 5 of 5 cases expressed PLAG1. By RNA sequencing, the following fusion partners were identified: PUM1, CHCHD7 (each n = 2), C15orf29, CD44, MYOCD, FRMD6, PTK2, and TRPS1 (each n = 1). One case only showed PLAG1 gene break by fluorescence in situ hybridization. Our study documents a much broader morphologic spectrum of PLAG1-rearranged uterine sarcomas than previously reported, encompassing but not limited to M-LMS-like morphology with occasional heterologous (particularly adipocytic) differentiation. As it is currently difficult to precisely define their line of differentiation, for the time being, we suggest using a descriptive name "PLAG1-rearranged uterine sarcoma.", (Copyright © 2024 United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to summarize our experience with modified drilling epiphysiodesis and prediction methods for accurate timing of surgery and to compare the results with those of recent work by other authors. The Macnicol and Gupta modified drilling technique was used. Distal femoral and/or proximal tibial permanent epiphysiodesis was performed in 42 children (21 boys, 21 girls; median age at surgery=12.6 years, age range=9.4-15.4 years) between 2004 and 2016. Based on the groundwork of previous studies, we developed an auxological prediction method. The limb length discrepancy (LLD) was assessed by clinical examination and verified by an x-ray of the hips when standing with blocks under the shorter leg. The predicted shortening was 2.7 cm ± 1.1 cm. The final discrepancy after finishing skeletal growth was 0.5 ± 0.5 cm. In 26 patients (61.9%), equalization of both legs was achieved (0-0.5 cm). In 4 patients (9.5%), the remaining shortening was more than 1.0 cm. Shortening of an initially longer leg occurred in two patients (0.5 cm and 0.6 cm). Failure of growth plate arrest was observed in 1 patient. In another 3 patients, the efficacy of tibial epiphysiodesis was unsatisfactory. Minor complications occurred in 5 cases, but there was no evidence of angular deformity in the frontal and sagittal planes or proximal fibula overgrowth. Three patients (7.1%) returned to the operating room. Compared to published data, more patients achieved complete equalization of leg length. The results of this study verified the accuracy of the auxological prediction algorithm of LLD based on Shapiro's findings. The surgical outcome is comparable between Shapiro patterns 1 and 3. Auxological examination, assessment of bone age, and sexual maturation are crucial tools for accurate timing of surgery.

Listeriosis is rare after hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT). Little is known about listeriosis in this population. In this retrospective international case-control study, we evaluated 41 listeriosis episodes occurring between 2000 and 2021 in HCT recipients (111 transplant centers in 30 countries) and assessed risk factors for listeriosis by comparisons with matched controls. The 41 listeriosis episodes (all due to Listeria monocytogenes [LM]) occurred in 30 allogeneic (allo)-HCT recipients and 11 autologous (auto)-HCT recipients at a median of 6.2 months (interquartile range [IQR], 1.6 to 19.3 months) post-HCT. The estimated incidence was 49.8/100,000 allo-HCT recipients and 13.7/100,000 auto-HCT recipients. The most common manifestations in our cohort were fever (n = 39; 95%), headache (n = 9; 22%), diarrhea, and impaired consciousness (n = 8 each; 20%). Four patients (10%) presented with septic shock, and 19 of 38 (50%) were severely lymphocytopenic. Thirty-seven patients (90%) had LM bacteremia. Eleven patients (27%) had neurolisteriosis, of whom 4 presented with nonspecific signs and 5 had normal brain imaging findings. Cerebrospinal fluid analysis revealed high protein and pleocytosis (mainly neutrophilic). Three-month mortality was 17% overall (n = 7), including 27% (n = 3 of 11) in patients with neurolisteriosis and 13% (n = 4 of 30) in those without neurolisteriosis. In the multivariate analysis comparing cases with 74 controls, non-first HCT (odds ratio [OR], 5.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10 to 30.82; P = .038); and lymphocytopenia <500 cells/mm 3 (OR, 7.54; 95% CI, 1.50 to 37.83; P = .014) were significantly associated with listeriosis. There were no statistically significant differences in background characteristics, immunosuppression, and cotrimoxazole prophylaxis between cases and controls. HCT recipients are at increased risk for listeriosis compared to the general population. Listeriosis cause severe disease with septic shock and mortality. Neurolisteriosis can present with nonspecific signs and normal imaging. Lymphocytopenia and non-first HCT are associated with an increased risk of listeriosis, and cotrimoxazole was not protective., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objectives: Endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms has tremendously advanced over the past decades. Nevertheless, aneurysm residual and recurrence remain challenges after embolization. The objective of this study was to elucidate the portion of embolized aneurysms requiring open surgery and evaluate whether newer endovascular treatments have changed the need for open surgery after failed embolization., Methods: All 15 cerebrovascular centers in Austria and the Czech Republic provided overall aneurysm treatment frequency data and retrospectively reviewed consecutive cerebral aneurysms treated with open surgical treatment after failure of embolization from 2000 to 2022. All endovascular modalities were included., Results: On average, 1362 aneurysms were treated annually in the 2 countries. The incidence increased from 0.006% in 2005 to 0.008% in 2020 in the overall population. Open surgery after failed endovascular intervention was necessary in 128 aneurysms (0.8%), a proportion that remained constant over time. Subarachnoid hemorrhage was the initial presentation in 70.3% of aneurysms. The most common location was the anterior communicating artery region (40.6%), followed by the middle cerebral artery (25.0%). The median diameter was 6 mm (2-32). Initial endovascular treatment included coiling (107 aneurysms), balloon-assist (10), stent-assist (4), intrasaccular device (3), flow diversion (2), and others (2). Complete occlusion after initial embolization was recorded in 40.6%. Seventy-one percent of aneurysms were operated within 3 years after embolization. In 7%, the indication for surgery was (re-)rupture and, in 88.3%, reperfusion. Device removal was performed in 16.4%. Symptomatic intraoperative and postoperative complications occurred in 10.2%. Complete aneurysm occlusion after open surgery was achieved in 94%., Conclusion: Open surgery remains a rare indication for cerebral aneurysms after failed endovascular embolization even in the age of novel endovascular technology, such as flow diverters and intrasaccular devices. Regardless, it is mostly performed for ruptured aneurysms initially treated with primary coiling that are in the anterior circulation., (Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2024. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are believed to have an increased risk of metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), but reliable data are lacking regarding the precise incidence and associated risk factors., Methods: In a prospective cohort study, including 19 specialist dermatology outpatient clinics in 15 countries, patient and tumor characteristics were collected using standardized questionnaires when SOTRs presented with a new cSCC. After a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, relevant data for all SOTRs were collected. Cumulative incidence of metastases was calculated by the Aalen-Johansen estimator. Fine and Gray models were used to assess multiple risk factors for metastases., Results: Of 514 SOTRs who presented with 623 primary cSCCs, metastases developed in 37 with a 2-year patient-based cumulative incidence of 6.2%. Risk factors for metastases included location in the head and neck area, local recurrence, size > 2 cm, clinical ulceration, poor differentiation grade, perineural invasion, and deep invasion. A high-stage tumor that is also ulcerated showed the highest risk of metastasis, with a 2-year cumulative incidence of 46.2% (31.9%-68.4%)., Conclusions: SOTRs have a high risk of cSCC metastases and well-established clinical and histologic risk factors have been confirmed. High-stage, ulcerated cSCCs have the highest risk of metastasis., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest This study was partly sponsored by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology (EADV), however this did not affect the content of the manuscript. The authors of this manuscript have no conflicts of interest to disclose as described by the American Journal of Transplantation., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adding ibrutinib to standard immunochemotherapy might improve outcomes and challenge autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) in younger (aged 65 years or younger) mantle cell lymphoma patients. This trial aimed to investigate whether the addition of ibrutinib results in a superior clinical outcome compared with the pre-trial immunochemotherapy standard with ASCT or an ibrutinib-containing treatment without ASCT. We also investigated whether standard treatment with ASCT is superior to a treatment adding ibrutinib but without ASCT., Methods: The open-label, randomised, three-arm, parallel-group, superiority TRIANGLE trial was performed in 165 secondary or tertiary clinical centres in 13 European countries and Israel. Patients with previously untreated, stage II-IV mantle cell lymphoma, aged 18-65 years and suitable for ASCT were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to control group A or experimental groups A+I or I, stratified by study group and mantle cell lymphoma international prognostic index risk groups. Treatment in group A consisted of six alternating cycles of R-CHOP (intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 on day 1, and oral prednisone 100 mg on days 1-5) and R-DHAP (or R-DHAOx, intravenous rituximab 375 mg/m 2 on day 0 or 1, intravenous or oral dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1-4, intravenous cytarabine 2 × 2 g/m 2 for 3 h every 12 h on day 2, and intravenous cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 over 24 h on day 1 or alternatively intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1) followed by ASCT. In group A+I, ibrutinib (560 mg orally each day) was added on days 1-19 of R-CHOP cycles and as fixed-duration maintenance (560 mg orally each day for 2 years) after ASCT. In group I, ibrutinib was given the same way as in group A+I, but ASCT was omitted. Three pairwise one-sided log-rank tests for the primary outcome of failure-free survival were statistically monitored. The primary analysis was done by intention-to-treat. Adverse events were evaluated by treatment period among patients who started the respective treatment. This ongoing trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02858258., Findings: Between July 29, 2016 and Dec 28, 2020, 870 patients (662 men, 208 women) were randomly assigned to group A (n=288), group A+I (n=292), and group I (n=290). After 31 months median follow-up, group A+I was superior to group A with 3-year failure-free survival of 88% (95% CI 84-92) versus 72% (67-79; hazard ratio 0·52 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-0·86]; one-sided p=0·0008). Superiority of group A over group I was not shown with 3-year failure-free survival 72% (67-79) versus 86% (82-91; hazard ratio 1·77 [one-sided 98·3% CI 0-3·76]; one-sided p=0·9979). The comparison of group A+I versus group I is ongoing. There were no relevant differences in grade 3-5 adverse events during induction or ASCT between patients treated with R-CHOP/R-DHAP or ibrutinib combined with R-CHOP/R-DHAP. During maintenance or follow-up, substantially more grade 3-5 haematological adverse events and infections were reported after ASCT plus ibrutinib (group A+I; haematological: 114 [50%] of 231 patients; infections: 58 [25%] of 231; fatal infections: two [1%] of 231) compared with ibrutinib only (group I; haematological: 74 [28%] of 269; infections: 52 [19%] of 269; fatal infections: two [1%] of 269) or after ASCT (group A; haematological: 51 [21%] of 238; infections: 32 [13%] of 238; fatal infections: three [1%] of 238)., Interpretation: Adding ibrutinib to first-line treatment resulted in superior efficacy in younger mantle cell lymphoma patients with increased toxicity when given after ASCT. Adding ibrutinib during induction and as maintenance should be part of first-line treatment of younger mantle cell lymphoma patients. Whether ASCT adds to an ibrutinib-containing regimen is not yet determined., Funding: Janssen and Leukemia & Lymphoma Society., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MD reports research grants for clinical studies from AbbVie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Roche; speakers' honoraria from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, and Roche; travel support from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, Lilly/Loxo Oncology, Novartis, and Roche. JDo reports payment for expert testimony (once Advisory Board) from Lilly. EG reports grants from Janssen; honoraria (educational lecture) from Genmab, Gilead, Janssen, and Lilly; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen and Roche; and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Gilead/Kite and Miltenyi Biotec. MJ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, and Roche; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Pierre Fabre. JW reports grants to his institution from GlaxoSmithKline/Novartis and Roche; honoraria for lectures from AbbVie, Amgen, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Takeda; participation on an Advisory Board from AbbVie, Gilead, Novartis, Roche, and Takeda. MHu reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Genmab, Janssen, Merck, Roche, and Takeda. UM reports travel support from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, and Roche; Advisory Board role for Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Takeda; participation in national Guideline committee for the German-Swiss-Austrian Guideline for Mantle Cell Lymphoma. JR reports participation on an Advisory Board for AstraZeneca. VV reports consulting fees from AbbVie, BeiGene, Gilead, Lilly, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen; payment for expert testimony from Gilead and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Gilead. MGdS reports a research grant from AstraZeneca; payment for Advisory Boards from AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for educational events from Gilead and Janssen-Cilag; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Janssen-Cilag, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Roche; leadership in a scientific society (Sociedade Portuguesa de Hematologia); administration board on a patient advocacy group (Associação Portuguesa Contra a Leucemia). SL reports grants or contracts to her institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Genmab, HUTCHMED, Novartis, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, Genmab, Gilead, Novartis, ORION Pharma, Roche, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead, Incyte, and Novartis; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Incyte. StS reports grants or contracts from any entity from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; consulting fees from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem; receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts, or other services from AbbVie, Acerta Pharma, Amgen, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Roche, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Novartis, Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, and Verastem. AK reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie, BeiGene, EUSA Pharma, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. RJ reports travel support for meeting attendance from BeiGene; meeting fee from Janssen. GH reports grants or contracts for clinical research from AbbVie, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, MorphoSys, Pfizer, and Roche; consulting fees from AbbVie, ADC Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Miltenyi Biotec, Novartis, and Roche; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genmab, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, and Roche; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite and Janssen; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Miltenyi Biotec. CV reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead/Kite, Incyte, Istituto Gentili, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, and Servier; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, and Roche. TvM reports payment or honoraria for educational lectures from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead/Kite, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for GE HealthCare and Gilead/Kite. SW reports payment to his institution from AbbVie, Stemline Therapeutics, and Takeda; payment for expert testimony from Stemline Therapeutics; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and BeiGene; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AbbVie, Astra Zeneca, Roche, and Stemline Therapeutics. PLZ reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Roche, Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi), and Takeda. UN reports consulting fees to his institution from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events to his institution from Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Novartis, and Takeda; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Gilead, Roche, and Takeda; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen-Cilag, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, and Takeda. CH reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Pfizer; support for attending meetings or travel from AbbVie and Janssen. MHa reports payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Falk Foundation, Gilead, Novartis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi); payment for expert testimony from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, and Swedish Orphan Biovitrum (sobi). WK reports research grants provided to his institution from Amgen, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. DG reports support for attending meetings and travel from Janssen. CS reports consulting fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Janssen; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel from Gilead/Kite. MU reports institutional funding of the TRIANGLE trial from Janssen. ML reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers' bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Janssen, and Lilly; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board with Acerta. All other authors (MT, OS, LJ, MC, LA, PH, FB, KS, JDi, CP, and EH) declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Mesenchymal neoplasms with GLI1 alterations have recently been reported in several anatomic locations. Their morphology and immunohistochemistry (IHC) are nonspecific, making their recognition a true challenge. To assess the diagnostic value of GLI1 and p16 IHC for identifying GLI1-altered neoplasms, we evaluated 12 such neoplasms (6 GLI1-amplified and 6 with GLI1-fusions) using the GLI1 IHC. Additionally, we evaluated some of their morphological and molecular mimickers, including glomangiomas, Ewing sarcomas (ES), myxoid liposarcomas, and MDM2/CDK4-amplified sarcomas (well-differentiated liposarcoma/WDLPS, dedifferentiated liposarcoma/DDLPS, and intimal sarcoma). All successfully tested GLI1-altered tumors (11/11) demonstrated at least moderate/strong nuclear and/or cytoplasmic GLI1 IHC positivity. GLI1-amplified tumors exhibited a moderate/strong predominantly nuclear staining, compared to a moderate, patchy, and predominantly cytoplasmic GLI1 positivity in GLI1-fusion tumors. Among their mimics, GLI1 immunoreactivity, either cytoplasmic or nuclear, was observed in intimal sarcoma (3/3) and WDLPS/DDLPS (22/25). GLI1 IHC demonstrated 92% sensitivity and 90.8% specificity in diagnosing GLI1-altered neoplasms. Strong/moderate nuclear/cytoplasmic p16 immunoexpression was noted in all GLI1-amplified tumors compared to none of fused cases. Overall, the GLI1/p16 combination demonstrated a sensitivity and specificity of 100% and 93% for GLI1-amplified tumors. In conclusion, we confirm that GLI1 IHC represents a good, quick, and cheap helpful screening tool. The inclusion of p16 may aid in pre-screening for potential GLI1-amplified neoplasms and provide insights on which tumors warrant further molecular testing., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

In addition to "classic" and eosinophilic subtype, chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is well-known to demonstrate various morphological patterns including adenomatoid, microcystic, pigmented, multicystic, papillary, neuroendocrine-like, and small cell-like, all of which are important to appreciate for accurate diagnosis. Herein, we expand on a unique chromophobe RCC morphology not previously described consisting of tumor cells with extensive stromal retraction, mimicking upper urothelial tract micropapillary carcinoma (MPC). Twelve MPC-like chromophobe RCC nephrectomies were reviewed with clinicopathological features recorded; molecular testing was performed on 7 of 12 tumors. Patients were mostly men (n=10) with a mean age of 65 years. Mean tumor size was 6.4 cm with pathological stage distribution as follows: 4 (33%) T1a, 2 (17%) T1b, 1 (8%) T2b, and 3 (25%) T3a. The extent of MPC-like chromophobe RCC foci ranged from 10% to 40% (mean=26%; there was no correlation between the extent of MPC-like chromophobe RCC foci and tumor stage). Other chromophobe RCC morphological patterns were not identified. When performed, all (100%) tumors depicted prototypic chromophobe RCC staining pattern of KIT positivity/KRT7 positivity. Molecular showed 6 of 7 (86%) with multiple chromosomal losses. Clinically significant mutations were identified in NF1, TP53, FLCN (likely somatic), CHEK2, and ZFHX3 genes. Follow up available in 9 patients showed no evidence of disease (mean=23 months). Although the etiology behind the extensive stromal retraction in our tumors is unknown, this may likely be artifactual in nature. Nonetheless, it is important to include MPC-like chromophobe RCC in the spectrum of "variant" morphologies to avoid diagnostic pitfalls from micropapillary carcinoma., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, plus dexamethasone was approved in Europe for use in patients with triple-class refractory relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) with ≥3 prior lines of therapy and without prior autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) or with a time to progression >36 months after prior ASCT. The randomized LIGHTHOUSE study (NCT04649060) assessed melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone (melflufen group) versus daratumumab in patients with RRMM with disease refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor or who had received ≥3 prior lines of therapy including an immunomodulatory agent and a proteasome inhibitor. A partial clinical hold issued by the US Food and Drug Administration for all melflufen studies led to financial constraints and premature study closure on February 23rd 2022 (data cut-off date). In total, 54 of 240 planned patients were randomized (melflufen group, N=27; daratumumab group, N=27). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was not reached in the melflufen group versus 4.9 months in the daratumumab group (Hazard Ratio: 0.18 [95% Confidence Interval, 0.05-0.65]; P=0.0032) at a median follow-up time of 7.1 and 6.6 months, respectively. Overall response rate (ORR) was 59% in the melflufen group versus 30% in the daratumumab group (P=0.0300). The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events in the melflufen group versus daratumumab group were neutropenia (50% vs. 12%), thrombocytopenia (50% vs. 8%), and anemia (32% vs. 19%). Melflufen plus daratumumab and dexamethasone demonstrated superior PFS and ORR versus daratumumab in RRMM and a safety profile comparable to previously published melflufen studies.

Melphalan flufenamide (melflufen), a first-in-class, alkylating peptide-drug conjugate, demonstrated clinical benefit in combination with dexamethasone in triple-class refractory multiple myeloma (MM). The phase I/IIa ANCHOR study evaluated melflufen (30 or 40 mg) and dexamethasone (40 mg with daratumumab; 20 mg followed by 40 mg with bortezomib; dose reduced if aged ≥75 years) in triplet combination with daratumumab (16 mg/kg; daratumumab arm) or bortezomib (1.3 mg/m2; bortezomib arm) in patients with relapsed/refractory MM refractory to an immunomodulatory agent and/or a proteasome inhibitor and who had received one to four prior lines of therapy. Primary objectives were to determine the optimal dose of melflufen in triplet combination (phase I) and overall response rate (phase IIa). In total, 33 patients were treated in the daratumumab arm and 23 patients received therapy in the bortezomib arm. No dose-limiting toxicities were reported at either melflufen dose level with either combination. With both triplet regimens, the most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia; thrombocytopenia was the most common treatment-emergent adverse event leading to treatment discontinuation. In the daratumumab arm, patients receiving melflufen 30 mg remained on treatment longer than those receiving the 40-mg dose. In the daratumumab arm, the overall response rate was 73% and median progression-free survival was 12.9 months. Notably, in the bortezomib arm, the overall response rate was 78% and median progression-free survival was 14.7 months. Considering the totality of the data, melflufen 30 mg was established as the recommended dose for use with dexamethasone and daratumumab or bortezomib for future studies in relapsed/refractory MM.

The optimal conditioning for patients with higher risk MDS receiving potentially curative allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant(allo-HCT) remains to be defined. This is particularly the case for patients with excess of blasts at time of allo-HCT. Sequential (Seq) conditioning, whereby chemotherapy is followed rapidly by transplant conditioning, offers an opportunity to decrease disease burden, potentially improving outcomes allo-HCT outcomes. Herein we present the only analysis comparing Seq to myeloablative (MAC) and reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) specifically focussed on MDS patients with excess of blasts at allo-HCT. 303 patients were identified in the EBMT registry, receiving RIC (n = 158), Seq (n = 105), and MAC (n = 40). Median follow-up was 67.2 months and median age at allo-HCT was 59.5 years (IQR 53.5-65.6). For the entire cohort, 3 y overall survival (OS) was 50% (95% CI 45-56%) and relapse free survival (RFS) 45% (95% CI 40-51%). No significant differences in OS (log-rank p = 0.13) and RFS (log-rank p = 0.18) were observed between conditioning protocols. On multivariable analysis, lower performance status, worse IPSS-R cytogenetics, sibling donor (compared to 8/8 MUD) and ≥20% blasts at allo-HCT were associated with worse outcomes. In conclusion, the Seq protocol did little to influence the outcome in this high-risk group of patients, with outcomes mostly determined by baseline disease risk and patient characteristics such as performance status., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Unmet medical needs remain in patients with red blood cell transfusion-dependent (RBC-TD) lower-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (LR-MDS) who are not responding to or are ineligible for erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs). Imetelstat, a competitive telomerase inhibitor, showed promising results in a phase 2 trial. We aimed to compare the RBC transfusion independence (RBC-TI) rate with imetelstat versus placebo in patients with RBC-TD LR-MDS., Methods: In phase 3 of IMerge, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 118 sites including university hospitals, cancer centres, and outpatient clinics in 17 countries, patients (aged ≥18 years) with ESA-relapsed, ESA-refractory, or ESA-ineligible LR-MDS (low or intermediate-1 risk disease as per International Prognostic Scoring System [IPSS] criteria) were randomly assigned via a computer-generated schedule (2:1) to receive imetelstat 7·5 mg/kg or placebo, administered as a 2-h intravenous infusion, every 4 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomisation was stratified by previous RBC transfusion burden and IPSS risk group. Patients, investigators, and those analysing the data were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was 8-week RBC-TI, defined as the proportion of patients without RBC transfusions for at least 8 consecutive weeks starting on the day of randomisation until subsequent anti-cancer therapy, if any. Primary efficacy analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population, and safety analyses were conducted in patients who received at least one dose of trial medication or placebo. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02598661; substudy active and recruiting)., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2019, and Oct 13, 2021, 178 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (118 to imetelstat and 60 to placebo). 111 (62%) were male and 67 (38%) were female. 91 (77%) of 118 patients had discontinued treatment by data cutoff in the imetelstat group versus 45 (75%) in the placebo group; a further one patient in the placebo group did not receive treatment. Median follow-up was 19·5 months (IQR 12·0-23·4) in the imetelstat group and 17·5 months (12·1-22·7) in the placebo group. In the imetelstat group, 47 (40% [95% CI 30·9-49·3]) patients had an RBC-TI of at least 8 weeks versus nine (15% [7·1-26·6]) in the placebo group (rate difference 25% [9·9 to 36·9]; p=0·0008). Overall, 107 (91%) of 118 patients receiving imetelstat and 28 (47%) of 59 patients receiving placebo had grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events. The most common treatment-emergent grade 3-4 adverse events in patients taking imetelstat were neutropenia (80 [68%] patients who received imetelstat vs two [3%] who received placebo) and thrombocytopenia (73 [62%] vs five [8%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported., Interpretation: Imetelstat offers a novel mechanism of action with durable transfusion independence (approximately 1 year) and disease-modifying activity for heavily transfused patients with LR-MDS who are not responding to or are ineligible for ESAs., Funding: Janssen Research & Development before April 18, 2019, and Geron Corporation thereafter., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests UP received honoraria consultancy fees and research funding from Geron Corporation, BMS/Celgene, AbbVie, Jazz, Janssen, Syros, Servier, Silence Therapeutics, and Takeda. VS served on advisory boards with AbbVie, CTI, Geron Corporation, Gilead, BMS/Celgene, Novartis, Otsuka, Servier, and Syros, and received a travel grant from Janssen. PF received consultancy fees, research funding, and honoraria from BMS/Celgene, and honoraria and research funding from Celgene. MAS received advisory board fees from Geron Corporation, BMS/Celgene, Novartis, and Kurome. MRS received research funding from ALX Oncology, Astex, Incyte, Takeda, and TG Therapeutics; consults or serves on advisory or data safety monitoring boards for AbbVie, BMS/Celgene, Forma, Geron Corporation, Karyopharm, Novartis, Ryvu, Sierra Oncology, Taiho, Takeda, and TG Therapeutics; and has equity in Karyopharm and Ryvu. YFM received honoraria or consulting fees from Blueprint Medicines, Geron Corporation, and OncLive; participated in advisory boards and received honoraria from Sierra Oncology, Stemline Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Morphosys, Taiho Oncology, and Novartis; and received travel reimbursement from Blueprint Medicines and Morphosys. MD-C consulted or participated in an advisory role with BMS/Celgene, Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, and Blueprint Medicines; received travel and accommodation expenses from Gilead Sciences; and received honoraria from BMS/Celgene and Novartis. DV consulted or participated in an advisory role with BMS/Celgene, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Takeda, Pfizer, BMS/Celgene, Sanofi, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, and SOBI; participated in speakers' bureau at Agios, Novartis, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Astellas Pharma, Pfizer, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi/Aventis, BMS/Celgene, Astellas Pharma, Kyte, and Gebro Pharma; and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from BMS/Celgene, Amgen, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, and Jazz Pharmaceuticals. TI consulted or participated in an advisory role at Novartis, AstraZeneca, and AbbVie. AJ consulted or participated in an advisory role at AbbVie, BMS/Celgene, and Novartis; and received travel, accommodations, and expenses from AbbVie and BMS/Celgene. RSK participated on a speaker bureau with Jazz, Servier, AbbVie, CTI, and PharmaEssentia; received advisory board fees or honoraria from BMS/Celgene, Novartis, AbbVie, Jazz, Servier, PharmaEssentia, Taiho, Takeda, Geron Corporation, Gilead/Forty Seven, and CTI; received travel, accommodations, expenses from Jazz, BMS/Celgene, and PharmaEssentia; has stock and other ownership interests in AbbVie; and received research funding from BMS/Celgene. AMZ received research funding (institutional) from BMS/Celgene, AbbVie, Astex, Pfizer, Kura, Medimmune/AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Takeda, Novartis, Shattuck Labs, Geron Corporation, Foran, and Aprea; participated in advisory boards, had a consultancy with, or received honoraria from AbbVie, Pfizer, BMS/Celgene, Jazz, Incyte, Agios, Servier, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Astellas, Daiichi Sankyo, Geron Corporation, Taiho, Seattle Genetics, BeyondSpring, Takeda, Ionis, Amgen, Janssen, Genentech, Epizyme, Syndax, Gilead, Kura, Chiesi, ALX Oncology, BioCryst, Notable, Orum, Mendus, Zentalis, Schrodinger, Regeneron, Syros, Schrodinger, and Tyme; and served on clinical trial committees for Novartis, AbbVie, Gilead, Syros, BioCryst, ALX Oncology, Kura, Geron Corporation, and BMS/Celgene. LS, TB, SD, SS, QX, LJS, YW, FH, AI, SN, and FF are employees of Geron Corporation. PB declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Anti-CD19 immunotherapy tafasitamab is used in combination with lenalidomide in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are ineligible for autologous stem cell transplant. Open-label, phase 1b, First-MIND study assessed safety and preliminary efficacy of tafasitamab + R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone) ± lenalidomide as first-line therapy in patients with DLBCL. From December 2019 to August 2020, 83 adults with untreated DLBCL (International Prognostic Index 2-5) were screened and 66 were randomly assigned (33 per arm) to R-CHOP-tafasitamab (arm T) or R-CHOP-tafasitamab-lenalidomide (arm T/L) for 6 cycles. Primary end point was safety; secondary end points included end-of-treatment (EoT) overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) rate. All patients had ≥1 treatment-emergent adverse event, mostly grade 1 or 2. Grade ≥3 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia occurred, respectively, in 57.6% and 12.1% (arm T) and 84.8% and 36.4% (arm T/L) of patients. Nonhematologic toxicities occurred at similar rates among arms. R-CHOP mean relative dose intensity was ≥89% in both arms. EoT ORR was 75.8% (CR 72.7%) in arm T and 81.8% (CR 66.7%) in arm T/L; best ORR across visits was 90.0% and 93.9%. Eighteen-month duration of response and of CR rates were 72.7% and 74.5% (arm T) and 78.7% and 86.5% (arm T/L); 24-month progression-free and overall survival rates were 72.7% and 90.3% (arm T) and 76.8% and 93.8% (arm T/L). Manageable safety and promising signals of efficacy were observed in both arms. Potential benefit of adding tafasitamab + lenalidomide to R-CHOP is being investigated in phase 3 frontMIND (NCT04824092). This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT04134936., (© 2023 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

We compared FT14 (fludarabine 150-160 mg/m 2 , treosulfan 42 g/m 2 ) versus FB4 (fludarabine 150-160 mg/m 2 , busulfan 12.8 mg/kg) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML) transplanted at primary refractory/relapsed disease. We retrospectively studied: (a) adults diagnosed with AML, (b) recipients of first allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) from unrelated/sibling donor (2010-2020), (c) HSCT with primary refractory/relapsed disease, (d) conditioning regimen with FT14 or FB4. We studied 346 patients, 113 transplanted with FT14, and 233 with FΒ4. FT14 patients were significantly older, more frequently had an unrelated donor and had received a lower dose of fludarabine. Cumulative incidence (CI) of acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) grade III-IV and extensive chronic GVHD was similar. With a median follow-up of 28.7 months, 2-year CI of relapse was 43.4% in FT14 versus 53.2% in FB4, while non-relapse mortality (NRM) was respectively 20.8% versus 22.6%. This led to 2-year leukemia-free survival (LFS) of 35.8% for FT14 versus 24.2% in FB4, and overall survival (OS) of 44.4% versus 34%. Adverse cytogenetics and conditioning regimen independently predicted CI of relapse. Furthermore, conditioning regimen was the only independent predictor of LFS, OS, and GVHD-free/relapse-free survival. Therefore, our real-world multicenter study suggests that FT14 is associated with better outcomes in primary refractory/relapsed AML., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Individuals with transtibial amputation place more load on the contralateral lower extremity. A higher adduction moment at the knee joint has been shown to have an effect on the risk of osteoarthritis., Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of weight-bearing of lower-limb prosthesis on the biomechanical parameters associated with the risk of contralateral knee osteoarthritis., Study Design: Cross-sectional., Methods: The experimental group of 14 subjects with unilateral transtibial amputation (13 males). The mean age was 52.7 ± 14.2 years, height 175.6 ± 6.3 cm, weight 82.3 ± 12.5 kg, and duration of prosthesis use 16.5 ± 9.1 years. The control group consisted of 14 healthy subjects with identical anthropometric parameters. Dual emission X-ray absorptiometry was used to determine the weight of the amputated limb. For gait analysis, 10 Qualisys infrared cameras and a motion sensing system on 3 Kistler force platforms were used. Gait was analyzed with the original, lighter, commonly used prosthesis, as well as the prosthesis loaded to the original limb weight., Results: The gait cycle and kinetic parameters of the amputated and healthy limbs were more similar to those of the control group when using the weighted prosthesis., Conclusions: We recommend further research to more accurately specify the weight of the lower-limb prosthesis with respect to the prosthesis design and duration of use of the heavier prosthesis during the day., (Copyright © 2023 International Society for Prosthetics and Orthotics.)

Smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM) is an asymptomatic precursor to active multiple myeloma (MM). The aim of this study was to report clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with SMM stratified based on their risk of progression to MM using the Mayo 20/2/20 criteria. Data were leveraged from the Czech Myeloma Group Registry of Monoclonal Gammopathies (RMG). Key outcomes included progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to active MM diagnosis or death (PFS), progression-free survival from SMM diagnosis to progression on first line (1 L) MM treatment or death (PFS2), and overall survival (OS). Of 498 patients, 174 (34.9%) were classified as high risk and 324 (65.1%) as non-high risk. Median follow-up was approximately 65 months. During follow-up, more patients in the high-risk vs non-high-risk group received 1 L MM treatment (76.4% vs 46.6%, p < 0.001). PFS, PFS2, and OS were significantly shorter in high-risk vs non-high-risk patients (13.2 vs 56.6 months, p < 0.001; 49.9 vs 84.9 months, p < 0.001; 93.2 vs 131.1 months, p = 0.012, respectively). The results of this study add to the growing body of evidence that patients with high-risk vs non-high-risk SMM have significantly worse outcomes, including OS., (© 2023. Springer Nature Limited.)

Background: Parsaclisib, a potent and highly selective PI3Kδ inhibitor, has shown clinical benefit in patients with relapsed or refractory (R/R) B-cell malignancies. This phase 2 study (CITADEL-203; NCT03126019, EudraCT 2017-001624-22) assessed efficacy and safety of parsaclisib monotherapy in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL)., Methods: Patients ≥18 years of age with histologically confirmed R/R FL (grade 1-3a) and prior treatment with ≥2 systemic therapies received parsaclisib 20 mg once daily (QD) for 8 weeks then parsaclisib 20 mg once weekly (weekly dosing group [WG]) or parsaclisib 20 mg QD for 8 weeks then parsaclisib 2.5 mg QD (daily dosing group [DG]); DG was selected for further assessment. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR)., Findings: At data cut-off (January 15, 2021), 126 patients had been treated (WG: n = 23; DG: n = 103). ORR (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 77.7% (68.4-85.3) with a complete response rate (95% CI) of 19.4% (12.3-28.4) in DG; median (95% CI) duration of response was 14.7 months (10.4-not estimable [NE]), median progression-free survival was 15.8 months (11.0-NE), and median overall survival was not reached. The most common any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) among all treated patients included diarrhoea (n = 48, 38.1%), nausea (n = 31, 24.6%), and cough (n = 28, 22.2%); the most common grade ≥3 TEAEs were diarrhoea (n = 15, 11.9%), neutropenia (n = 13, 10.3%), and colitis (n = 7, 5.6%). Dose interruption, reduction, and discontinuation from TEAEs occurred in 46.8% (n = 59), 17.5% (n = 22), and 23.8% (n = 30) of patients, respectively., Interpretation: Treatment with parsaclisib demonstrated rapid and durable responses, and a manageable safety profile in patients with R/R FL., Funding: Incyte Corporation., Competing Interests: Marek Trněný—Consultancy: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, MorphoSys, Roche, and Takeda. Honoraria: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, MorphoSys, Roche, and Takeda. Travel, accommodations, or expenses: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. Research funding: Roche. Abraham Avigdor—Consultancy: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Takeda. Honoraria: Gilead Sciences, Pfizer, and Takeda. Research funding: Bristol Myers Squibb and Janssen. Matthew S. McKinney—Consultancy: BTG Specialty Pharmaceuticals, Celgene, Genentech, Molecular Templates, Pharmacyclics, and Verastem Oncology. Honoraria: Genentech and Kite Pharma/Gilead Sciences. Research funding: BeiGene, Celgene, Genentech, Incyte Corporation, Molecular Templates, Nordic Nanovector, and Novartis. Speakers bureau: Kite Pharma/Gilead Sciences. Shankara Paneesha—Honoraria: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, and Janssen. Björn E. Wahlin—Consultancy: Roche. Research funding: Gilead Sciences and Roche. David Cunningham—Advisory committee: OVIBIO. Research funding: 4SC, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen, MedImmune, Merck, Merrimack Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi. Nicholas Morley—Advisory board: Roche. Honoraria: Kite Pharma and Janssen. Conference support: AbbVie, Roche, and Takeda. Miguel Canales—Honoraria: BeiGene, Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, Karyopharm, Kyowa, Novartis, Sandoz, and Takeda. Speakers' bureau: Amgen, Janssen, Kyowa, Roche, Sandoz, and Takeda. Mariana Bastos-Oreiro—Honoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Novartis, and Roche. Research funding: Roche. Speakers’ bureau: Bristol Myers Squibb/Celgene, Janssen, Kite Pharma, Roche, Novartis, and Takeda. David Belada—Consultancy: Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. Board of Directors or Advisory committee: Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. Travel expenses: Gilead Sciences, Roche, and Takeda. Research funding: Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Janssen, Roche, and Takeda. Fred Zheng—Employment and stock ownership: Incyte Corporation. Douglas J. DeMarini—Former employment and stock ownership: Incyte Corporation. Wei Jiang—Former employment and stock ownership: Incyte Corporation. Ping Jiang—Former employment and stock ownership: Incyte Corporation. Ryan C. Lynch—Consultancy: MorphoSys. Research funding: Bayer, Cyteir Therapeutics, Genentech, Incyte Corporation, Juno Pharmaceuticals, Rhizen Pharmaceuticals, Takeda, and TG Therapeutics. John S. Hrom and Liliana Devizzi—No relevant financial relationships to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors.)