Godby, Richard

Abstract Introduction: The landscape of classical hematology has undergone substantial evolution over the last decade, marked by new diagnostic tools, nuanced therapeutic strategies, and an expanding understanding of underlying pathophysiology. This increasing complexity often presents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. These challenges are further compounded by workforce shortages in classical hematology marked by educational gaps, geographic limitations, and difficulty accessing prompt specialty care. Unlike the well-established “Tumor Boards” in oncology, a comparable dedicated, widely accessible forum for classical hematology has largely been absent. This gap contributes to potential practice heterogeneity and isolation, especially across dissimilar care settings and geographic regions, impacting the consistent application of evidence-based practices and access to specialized expertise. To address this critical need, the “Blood Board” initiative was created to serve as an informal, virtual resource for discussing classical hematology topics and cases, fostering diverse perspectives, and collaborative problem-solving. Methods: The Blood Board was formally launched in April 2025, operating as a bi-monthly, hour-long virtual meeting conducted via non-recorded videoconferencing. The forum was designed with broad inclusivity in mind, welcoming all healthcare professionals involved in the care of adult patients with classical hematologic disorders, including trainees such as hematology/oncology fellows, academic and community-based hematologists, and any other interested providers. To date, dissemination of this initiative has been by word of mouth and e-mails containing a calendar invitation have been sent to anyone interested in participating (https://forms.gle/doyHNSx1SVFBJZmy8). To facilitate participation from various practice models and geographical locations, the virtual format was prioritized, eliminating barriers of travel and time commitment often associated with traditional in-person conferences. Participation is voluntary, encouraging an open and informal environment for de-identified case presentations, didactic discussions, and expert opinion sharing. Self-reported data on participant demographics (e.g., role, practice setting) and geographical representation have been collected to assess the initiative's reach and impact. Results: To date, sessions have consistently garnered engagement with a median of five participants in attendance at each session. There have been over 20 unique participants representing a broad spectrum of roles including both trainees and practicing hematologists/hematologist-oncologists and drawing from private practice, community-based hospitals, and academic medical centers. Over half of all participants were either in fellowship or within five years of completion of training. The virtual format has successfully overcome geographical limitations, attracting attendees from numerous states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin highlighting its broad appeal and potential for knowledge dissemination across a wide professional network. Conclusions: The Blood Board has demonstrated utility and met a previously unaddressed need. Sustained intellectual interest in Blood Board, coupled with a wide geographical and professional reach underscores a critical role for accessible, free, and multidisciplinary collaborative platforms in the evolving field of classical hematology. Similar to Tumor Boards, Blood Board promotes knowledge exchange and evidence-based care, garners expert support for challenging cases, and harmonizes clinical approaches, which we hope may ultimately improve patient care outcomes across diverse settings. Furthermore, this platform facilitates a national classical hematology community to support workforce development. Future goals include expanding dissemination efforts, measuring specific educational benefits, analyzing impacts on patient care, and increasing participant diversity, including recruitment of advanced practice providers and pharmacists.

Abstract Background Primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with limited prospective data to guide optimal therapy. This study evaluates real-world treatment patterns and survival outcomes using a large national cohort. Methods We analyzed data from the National Cancer Database (NCDB) for patients diagnosed with PCNSL between 2004 and 2020. Baseline demographics and treatment characteristics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Survival outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using log-rank tests. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to identify independent predictors of overall survival (OS). Results A total of 14,450 patients with PCNSL were included; 14,439 had first-line treatment data available, and 13,390 had survival data. Median age at diagnosis was 67 years (range 18-90), 49.2% were female, and 6.6% were African American. Chemotherapy alone was the modality of treatment for 81.6% (n=11,787), 12.2% (n=1,769) received chemoradiation, 3.8% (n=545) received chemotherapy and underwent autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but no radiation, and 2.4% (n=348) received radiation only. The median follow-up time was 73.5 months (95% CI 71.4-75.6), and the median OS for the group was 17.4 months (95% CI 16.2-18.6). Survival differed significantly by age group (median OS: <65 yrs, 46.1 months [95% CI 41.7 -50.6]; 65-79 yrs, 12.5 months [95% CI 11.2-13.7]; ≥80 yrs, 3.2 months [95% CI 2.9-3.5]; p<0.001), by year of diagnosis (median OS: 2004-2009, 11.0 months [95% CI 9.9-12.1]; 2010-2015, 20.0 months [95% CI 17.4-22.6], 2016-2020, 29.7 months [95% CI 26.0-33.4]; p<0.001), and by frontline treatment strategy (p<0.001). Patients treated with chemotherapy followed by ASCT had the longest median OS (not reached), while those receiving radiation alone had the poorest outcomes with a median OS of 3.9 months (95% CI 3.2-4.7); chemoradiation patients had a median OS of 31.8 months (95% CI 27.5-36.1), and chemotherapy only patients had a median OS of 13.9 months (95% CI 12.7-15.1)(p<0.001). African American patients had an inferior outcome with a median OS of 10.2 months [95% CI 7.2-13.1], compared to “other” races with a median OS of 36.9 months [95% CI 27.6-46.1] (p<0.001), although this is more similar to the median outcome for white patients (17.0 months [95% CI 15.8-18.3]). Treatment at an academic center (25.7 vs 11.0 months) and a high case-volume center (defined as >median number of cases per facility) (18.6 vs 10.5 months), and lower Charlson-Deyo comorbidity scores (CDS) (defined as CDS 0-1) (21.7 vs 6.8 months) were also associated with superior OS (p<0.001). In multivariable analysis, increasing age ( 65-79 y.o HR 1.60 [1.52-1.1.68], ≥80 y.o HR 2.95 [2.75-3.17]), CDS≥2 (HR 1.36 [1.28-1.44]), and African American race (HR 1.12 [1.02-1.24]) were adverse predictors of OS (all p<0.001), while treatment strategy (ASCT [HR 0.17], chemoradiation [HR 0.53], chemotherapy only [HR 0.68] compared to radiation alone), more recent year of diagnosis (2010-2015 [HR 0.81], 2016-2020 [0.70]), and treatment at an academic center [HR 0.81] remained predictors of superior OS (all p<0.001). Conclusion In this large national cohort of patients with PCNSL, treatment with chemotherapy followed by ASCT was associated with the most favorable survival outcomes. Patients treated with chemoradiation or multi-agent chemotherapy also demonstrated improved survival compared to those receiving radiation monotherapy or single-agent chemotherapy alone, respectively. Age, comorbidities, race, and treatment at academic centers were also significant independent predictors of OS. These findings highlight substantial disparities in outcomes and underscore the importance of optimizing treatment strategies, improving access to high-intensity therapies, and supporting timely referral to academic or high case-volume centers, particularly for younger and medically fit patients.

469 Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a potentially life-threatening complication of myelosuppressive chemotherapy. Multiple professional organizations, including the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), have developed clinical guidelines addressing FN management. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework offers a structured method for assessing the evidence underlying these recommendations. Methods: A comparative analysis was conducted across guidelines. Key domains, including definitions, risk stratification, empiric antimicrobial therapy, duration of antimicrobial therapy, use of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and antimicrobial prophylaxis were assessed. Recommendations were analyzed for concordance and the certainty of supporting evidence was appraised using the GRADE framework. The certainty of the evidence was graded as high, moderate, low, or very low. Results: All five guidelines uniformly defined FN as fever ≥38.3°C or sustained ≥38.0°C accompanied by neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count <500 cells/µL), despite very low-certainty evidence supporting these specific thresholds. Risk stratification using validated tools, such as the Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer (MASCC) score and the Clinical Index of Stable Febrile Neutropenia (CISNE), is recommended based on moderate-certainty evidence. Empiric monotherapy with anti-pseudomonal beta-lactam agents is recommended across guidelines and supported by high-certainty evidence. Antifungal therapy is recommended for persistent fever beyond 4–7 days in high-risk patients based on low-certainty data. Variability was noted in the suggested duration of antibacterial therapy and the role of therapeutic G-CSF based on low-certainty evidence. Recommendations for antimicrobial prophylaxis are consistent across high-risk populations. Conclusions: Despite broad agreement in foundational management principles for febrile neutropenia, differences exist in the application of therapeutic G-CSF and the duration of empiric antibiotics. These findings underscore the need for high-quality clinical trials to inform harmonized, evidence-based recommendations. This synthesis identifies priority areas for stewardship initiatives and quality-of-care improvement.

Abstract Immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) carries an increased risk of thrombosis, which may be further amplified by splenectomy and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (TPO-RAs). Although each intervention has been individually studied for its thrombotic risk, data are lacking on the safety of postsplenectomy TPO-RA use. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adult patients with ITP who underwent splenectomy between 2011 and 2024. Patients were stratified on the basis of postsplenectomy TPO-RA use. The primary outcome was incidence of thrombosis. Secondary outcomes included bleeding, mortality, and hematologic response. Time-to-event analyses and multivariate Cox regression were performed. Among 88 patients, 37 (42%) patients received TPO-RAs after splenectomy. Thrombosis occurred in 17 patients in the TPO-RA group vs 14 patients in the non–TPO-RA group (P = .07). The 10-year cumulative incidence of thrombosis was numerically higher in the TPO-RA group (57% vs 36%), with clustering of events within the 3 months of postsplenectomy TPO-RA initiation. Venous events predominated; arterial events were rare. No significant differences were observed in bleeding or mortality rates between groups. Platelet counts alone did not independently affect bleeding or thrombosis. TPO-RA use after splenectomy was not significantly associated with increased thrombosis risk. However, early initiation may coincide with a high-risk period, and the sustained numerical difference in cumulative incidence throughout follow-up highlights potential clinical relevance. These findings support the need for individualized thromboprophylaxis and prospective evaluation of TPO-RA safety in this setting.

e13718 Background: Oncology has evolved in the cyber era of medicine. The 21 st Century Cures Act mandated patient access to medical data (tests, provider notes) via patient portals connected to EHRs in order to facilitate patient engagement. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic rapidly transformed patients’ interactions with portals by increasing reliance on telehealth and portal messaging. This shift has been well-documented in primary care, and emerging research suggests similar trends in oncology. More information is needed regarding how this has evolved post-pandemic. We present single academic institution real-world data (RWD) describing ongoing changes in patient messages and telephone calls in oncology. Methods: We quantified the changes (2019-2024) within oncology at Mayo Clinic Rochester campus including all care team, provider, nursing, and pharmacist visits, patient portal medical advice requests, patient calls, and messages sent to patients per year using Epic's SlicerDicer™ tool. Results: Patient visits/year dipped (-0.2%) from 2019 to 2020, but increased steadily from 2021 forward (Table 1). Patient portal advice requests increased significantly faster (Table 1); from 2019 to 2024, visits /year increased by 40%, while the number of advice requests increased by 131%. Patient calls/year increased more modestly (64%), while the number of messages sent to patients increased by 163% over this time. Conclusions: The transparency allowed by the Cures Act coupled with the impact of the pandemic has empowered patients to engage in their oncology care more proactively through the EHR. Patient-initiated portal messaging is increasing, with messages sent to patients from the oncology department similarly rising. Patient call volumes are also growing despite EHR messaging. Further research is necessary to better understand patterns of EHR use in oncology and explore ways to reduce clinician burnout that may arise from responding to this increased communication volume, as well as to understand the impact on patient satisfaction and outcomes. Changes in patient volume compared to patient calls and EHR messaging over time. Year Total Patient Visits Change in Patient Visits from Prior Year (%) Total Patient Medical Advice Messages Change in Patient Medical Advice Message Volume from Prior Year (%) Total Patient Calls Change in Patient Call Volume from Prior Year (%) Messages Sent to Patients Change in Patient Messages Sent to Patients from Prior Year (%) 2019 62,440 n/a 173,177 n/a 195,143 n/a 99,974 n/a 2020 61,959 -0.7 218,976 +26.5 240,833 +23.4 135,044 +35.1 2021 70,950 +14.5 276,561 +26.3 267,395 +11.0 165,293 +22.4 2022 74,961 +5.7 325,580 +17.7 263,732 -1.4 206,043 +24.7 2023 80,672 +7.6 349,756 +7.4 274,446 +4.0 214,257 +4.0 2024 87,605 +8.6 399,740 +14.3 319,963 +16.6 263,271 +22.9

9024 Background: Comprehensive hematology education during fellowship is essential for delivering high-quality healthcare. Variability in individual learning experiences can lead to trainee dissatisfaction and suboptimal clinical acumen. Fellowship programs must strive for a well-rounded and equitable educational experience for all fellows to prepare them for real-world practice in the increasingly dynamic field of hematology. Methods: Hematology fellows (n=30) at Mayo Clinic (Rochester) were invited to complete a survey about the inpatient Fellow Hematology Curriculum (FHC) during 2021-2022. Responses were recorded in a five-point Likert scale and free-text. Using the initial results, we implemented a structured inpatient hematology curriculum starting in 2022 and conducted a post-implementation survey in Spring 2024 to assess its success and sustainability. Results: The initial survey was completed by twenty fellows, with a response rate of 66%. All respondents agreed that the FHC could be improved. Only 45% agreed that structured education is adequately paired with clinical duties. In the open-ended responses, a structured curriculum covering a set list of topics was the most common recommendation given to improve the FHC. This prompted a longitudinal QI initiative to implement standardized rotation-specific lectures created by fellows and distributed to faculty and fellows prior to the associated 4-week rotations. Twelve fellows (40%) completed the post-implementation survey. Summary of key responses are shown in table 1. Although there remained high variability among consultants regarding their engagement in education, significant improvements were noted. Agreement that the curriculum has well-defined objectives for each rotation increased from 25% to 58%. Additionally, 83% of fellows agreed that structured education was effectively paired with clinical duties, up from 45%. Open-ended responses highlighted variability in consultants' utilization of the curriculum but reflected overall satisfaction. Conclusions: The need for a well-structured FHC was identified as a gap in equitable hematology education. This was addressed through a fellow led longitudinal QI project generating easily accessible educational material relevant to weekly themes on inpatient hematology services. The introduction of a structured and clinically relevant curriculum was well-received. Summary of survey responses. Pre-implementation Post-implementation Statement Agreed or strongly agreed (%) Agreed of strongly agreed (%) I know what topics and to what extent I’m expected to learn 25 67 The FHC has well-defined objectives for each rotation 25 55 There is high variability among consultants with engagement in education 95 75 Structured education is paired with clinical duties 45 83 I can easily locate lectures given by hematology consultants 5 42