ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING

ACCURACY OF THE BRCAPRO RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL IN MALES PRESENTING TO MD ANDERSON FOR BRCA TESTING Publication No. _______ Carolyn A. Garby, B.S. Supervisory Professor: Banu Arun, M.D. Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC) syndrome is due to mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Women with HBOC have high risks to develop breast and ovarian cancers. Males with HBOC are commonly overlooked because male breast cancer is rare and other male cancer risks such as prostate and pancreatic cancers are relatively low. BRCA genetic testing is indicated for men as it is currently estimated that 4-40% of male breast cancers result from a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (Ottini, 2010) and management recommendations can be made based on genetic test results. Risk assessment models are available to provide the individualized likelihood to have a BRCA mutation. Only one study has been conducted to date to evaluate the accuracy of BRCAPro in males and was based on a cohort of Italian males and utilized an older version of BRCAPro. The objective of this study is to determine if BRCAPro5.1 is a valid risk assessment model for males who present to MD Anderson Cancer Center for BRCA genetic testing. BRCAPro has been previously validated for determining the probability of carrying a BRCA mutation, however has not been further examined particularly in males. The total cohort consisted of 152 males who had undergone BRCA genetic testing. The cohort was stratified by indication for genetic counseling. Indications included having a known familial BRCA mutation, having a personal diagnosis of a BRCA-related cancer, or having a family history suggestive of HBOC. Overall there were 22 (14.47%) BRCA1+ males and 25 (16.45%) BRCA2+ males. Receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed for the cohort overall, for each particular indication, as well as for each cancer subtype. Our findings revealed that the BRCAPro5.1 model had perfect discriminating ability at a threshold of 56.2 for males with breast cancer, however only 2 (4.35%) of 46 were found to have BRCA2 mutations. These results are significantly lower than the high approximation (40%) reported in previous literature. BRCAPro does perform well in certain situations for men. Future investigation of male breast cancer and men at risk for BRCA mutations is necessary to provide a more accurate risk assessment

Food Insecurity Prevalence Across Diverse Sites During COVID-19: A Year of Comprehensive Data

Key Findings NFACT includes 18 study sites in 15 states as well as a national poll, collectively representing a sample size of more than 26,000 people. Some sites have implemented multiple survey rounds, here we report results from 22 separate surveys conducted during the year since the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. 18 out of 19 surveys in 14 sites with data for before and since the pandemic began found an increase in food insecurity since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic as compared to before the pandemic. In nearly all surveys (18/19) that measured food insecurity both before and during the pandemic, more Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) were classified as food insecure during the pandemic as compared to before it began. Prevalence of food insecurity for BIPOC respondents was higher than the overall population in the majority of surveys (19/20) sampling a general population. In almost all surveys (21/22), the prevalence of food insecurity for households with children was higher than the overall prevalence of food insecurity. Food insecurity prevalence was higher for households experiencing a negative job impact during the pandemic (i.e. job loss, furlough, reduction in hours) in nearly all surveys and study sites (21/22). Food insecurity prevalence in most sites was significantly higher before COVID-19 than estimates from that time period. Reporting a percent change between pre and during COVID-19 prevalence may provide additional information about the rate of change in food insecurity since the start of the pandemic, which absolute prevalence of food insecurity may not capture. Results highlight consistent trends in food insecurity outcomes since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, across diverse study sites, methodological approaches, and time

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

31st Annual Meeting and Associated Programs of the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC 2016) : part two

Background The immunological escape of tumors represents one of the main ob- stacles to the treatment of malignancies. The blockade of PD-1 or CTLA-4 receptors represented a milestone in the history of immunotherapy. However, immune checkpoint inhibitors seem to be effective in specific cohorts of patients. It has been proposed that their efficacy relies on the presence of an immunological response. Thus, we hypothesized that disruption of the PD-L1/PD-1 axis would synergize with our oncolytic vaccine platform PeptiCRAd. Methods We used murine B16OVA in vivo tumor models and flow cytometry analysis to investigate the immunological background. Results First, we found that high-burden B16OVA tumors were refractory to combination immunotherapy. However, with a more aggressive schedule, tumors with a lower burden were more susceptible to the combination of PeptiCRAd and PD-L1 blockade. The therapy signifi- cantly increased the median survival of mice (Fig. 7). Interestingly, the reduced growth of contralaterally injected B16F10 cells sug- gested the presence of a long lasting immunological memory also against non-targeted antigens. Concerning the functional state of tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), we found that all the immune therapies would enhance the percentage of activated (PD-1pos TIM- 3neg) T lymphocytes and reduce the amount of exhausted (PD-1pos TIM-3pos) cells compared to placebo. As expected, we found that PeptiCRAd monotherapy could increase the number of antigen spe- cific CD8+ T cells compared to other treatments. However, only the combination with PD-L1 blockade could significantly increase the ra- tio between activated and exhausted pentamer positive cells (p= 0.0058), suggesting that by disrupting the PD-1/PD-L1 axis we could decrease the amount of dysfunctional antigen specific T cells. We ob- served that the anatomical location deeply influenced the state of CD4+ and CD8+ T lymphocytes. In fact, TIM-3 expression was in- creased by 2 fold on TILs compared to splenic and lymphoid T cells. In the CD8+ compartment, the expression of PD-1 on the surface seemed to be restricted to the tumor micro-environment, while CD4 + T cells had a high expression of PD-1 also in lymphoid organs. Interestingly, we found that the levels of PD-1 were significantly higher on CD8+ T cells than on CD4+ T cells into the tumor micro- environment (p < 0.0001). Conclusions In conclusion, we demonstrated that the efficacy of immune check- point inhibitors might be strongly enhanced by their combination with cancer vaccines. PeptiCRAd was able to increase the number of antigen-specific T cells and PD-L1 blockade prevented their exhaus- tion, resulting in long-lasting immunological memory and increased median survival

The Relationship between Food Security Status and Fruit and Vegetable Intake during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has drastically altered food shopping behaviors, and the resulting economic recession has caused a spike in food insecurity. Since food insecurity is associated with poor diet, especially low intake of fruits and vegetables, food-insecure individuals may disproportionately experience negative health impacts related to poor diet during the pandemic. To assess the relationship between food security status and fruit and vegetable intake during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted an online survey of adult residents of the US state of Michigan in June of 2020. Among the 484 survey respondents, 36.2% were classified as food-insecure. Food-insecure respondents consumed fruits and vegetables fewer times per day than food-secure respondents and were more likely to report decreasing their consumption of any type of fruits and vegetables (total, fresh, frozen, and canned) since the pandemic started. For those who reduced their purchase of fresh fruit and vegetable, reasons included poor quality, poor availability, high price, reduced store trips, and concerns of contamination. These findings highlight the need for adequate food assistance during the COVID-19 pandemic and in future pandemics, as well as public health messages that promote healthy eating

The prevalence of perceptions of mismatch between treatment intensity and achievable goals of care in the intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study

Purpose: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers. Methods: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes. Results: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63–3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18–7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66–8.16, p = 0.0013). Conclusions: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient’s wishes