Khan, Adeel

ABSTRACT Background Retrospective evaluations of multidisciplinary team (MDT) review of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) demonstrate improved PCL management. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluates PCL for worrisome features; however, its influence on MDT is unclear and may be attenuated by anchoring/confirmation bias. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EUS and the overall performance of MDT evaluation of PCL. Methods Four mock MDT sessions at two institutions were presented imaging from 40 consecutive PCL cases (20 “high‐risk” with advanced neoplasia, 20 “low‐risk” with pathologic low‐grade dysplasia or ≥ 3 years of non‐progression on surveillance), with and without upfront EUS/FNA (cytology, CEA, Amylase), in a randomized, crossover design. Group 1 adjudicated without EUS, Group 2 adjudicated with EUS, and Group 3 adjudicated with EUS after initially adjudicating without it. Results The cohort included branch‐duct ( n = 20), mixed type ( n = 6), and main duct ( n = 4) IPMN, MCN ( n = 5), and non‐mucinous PCL ( n = 5). Group 2 (EUS) correctly identified mucinous PCL with 97% sensitivity and 70% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (No EUS) (Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 20%; p = 0.04). Group 3 (Unblinded to EUS) performed significantly worse in mucinous PCL identification compared with Group 2, indicating cognitive bias (Sensitivity 97%, Specificity 10% ( p = 0.0003)). Group 2 correctly identified high‐risk PCL that required surgical intervention with 85% sensitivity and 85% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (Sensitivity 60%, Specificity 75%; p = 0.0016) and Group 3 (Sensitivity 73%, Specificity 80%, p = 0.0485). Conclusion While susceptible to cognitive bias, EUS significantly improves MDT assessment of PCL. MDT establishes a high bar for iterative additions of biomarkers to PCL analysis.

Introduction: Most induction regimens for multiple myeloma (MM) contain bortezomib. In most clinical trials, bortezomib has been prescribed either intravenously or subcutaneously twice per week in 21-day or 28-day cycles. However, several retrospective single-center studies have shown that once-weekly bortezomib has comparable efficacy and less peripheral neuropathy compared to twice-weekly bortezomib ( Sidana et al, PLoS One 2017; Cook et al, AJH 2021). These findings have also been confirmed by a secondary analysis of data from three prospective Phase 3 randomized studies ( Mateos et al, Haematologica 2014). As such, many clinicians have adopted once-weekly bortezomib regimens in routine care in the past decade. However, the real-world (RW) prevalence and efficacy of once-weekly vs twice-weekly bortezomib regimens in a larger population have not yet been characterized. Methods: This study used US nationwide longitudinal Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived de-identified data. We included patients aged 18-70 years with newly diagnosed MM between 2017-2022 with ≥ 6 months of follow-up and ≥ 2 clinical visits who were treated with a first-line (1L) bortezomib-containing regimen. Patients aged >70 were excluded a priori given the likelihood of altered practice patterns and more frequent comorbidities. Twice-weekly bortezomib was defined as patients for whom the most frequent interval between two doses of 1L bortezomib within a cycle was 3.0-4.9 days, while once-weekly bortezomib was defined as a corresponding interval of 5.0-9.9 days. We used multivariable logistic regression to assess demographic and clinical factors associated with once-weekly vs twice-weekly (reference) bortezomib. RW progression free survival (rwPFS) and RW overall survival (rwOS) from 1L treatment initiation were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Outcomes were compared using Cox proportional hazards model including transplant as a time-varying covariate and adjustment for other demographic and clinical factors. Results: Of 2,522 patients included, 927 (36.8%) received twice-weekly while 1,522 (63.2%) received once-weekly bortezomib. Approximately half of patients (50.3%) were non-Latinx White, 21.7% non-Latinx Black, and 8.0% Latinx. Most patients were treated in the community setting (78.8%). Rates of once-weekly bortezomib administration were 66.2% and 62.1% among patients treated at academic and community practices, respectively. The frequency of weekly bortezomib use increased over time, from 58.0% between 2017-2019 to 68.8% between 2020-2022. In multivariate analysis, ECOG PS ≥ 2 (odds ratio [OR] 1.50; [95% CI 1.14 to 1.99] vs ECOG PS 0), and more recent year of diagnosis (OR 1.14; [95% CI 1.08 to 1.20] per year) were associated with higher odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib. Conversely, Latinx patients vs non-Latinx White (OR 0.60 [95% CI 0.44 to 0.82]) and patients with ≥ 2 high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) vs 0 HRCA (OR 0.66 [95% CI 0.48 to 0.91]) had lower odds of receiving once-weekly bortezomib administration. No significant associations were found between gender, ISS stage, practice setting, insurance category, or baseline creatinine. There was no statistically significant difference in rwPFS among patients receiving once-weekly (median 37.3 months, 95% CI 33.8 to 42.5) vs twice-weekly bortezomib (median 39.2 months, 95% CI 32.9 to 42.8) (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.77 to 1.00]) (Figure 1A). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference in rwOS with median 25.5 months follow-up (Figure 1B). Median rwOS was not reached in either group (hazard ratio 0.89 [95% CI 0.75 to 1.07]). Discussion: We evaluated US bortezomib prescribing patterns for the first time in the modern era using a large nationwide RW-study. Whereas prescribing patterns have shifted towards once-weekly bortezomib over time, over 30% of patients diagnosed in the last three years received twice-weekly bortezomib. Importantly, once-weekly and twice-weekly bortezomib performed comparably with regard to rwPFS and rwOS. While our study did not analyze neuropathy or patient quality of life, once-weekly bortezomib is known to be associated with less neuropathy and less time in clinic. These data further support the conclusion that once-weekly bortezomib should be considered the standard of care for newly diagnosed patients with MM.

Objective: To compare conventional low-temperature storage of transplant donor livers [static cold storage (SCS)] with storage of the organs at physiological body temperature [normothermic machine perfusion (NMP)]. Background: The high success rate of liver transplantation is constrained by the shortage of transplantable organs (eg, waiting list mortality >20% in many centers). NMP maintains the liver in a functioning state to improve preservation quality and enable testing of the organ before transplantation. This is of greatest potential value with organs from brain-dead donor organs (DBD) with risk factors (age and comorbidities), and those from donors declared dead by cardiovascular criteria (donation after circulatory death). Methods: Three hundred eighty-three donor organs were randomized by 15 US liver transplant centers to undergo NMP (n = 192) or SCS (n = 191). Two hundred sixty-six donor livers proceeded to transplantation (NMP: n = 136; SCS: n = 130). The primary endpoint of the study was “early allograft dysfunction” (EAD), a marker of early posttransplant liver injury and function. Results: The difference in the incidence of EAD did not achieve significance, with 20.6% (NMP) versus 23.7% (SCS). Using exploratory, “as-treated” rather than “intent-to-treat,” subgroup analyses, there was a greater effect size in donation after circulatory death donor livers (22.8% NMP vs 44.6% SCS) and in organs in the highest risk quartile by donor risk (19.2% NMP vs 33.3% SCS). The incidence of acute cardiovascular decompensation at organ reperfusion, “postreperfusion syndrome,” as a secondary outcome was reduced in the NMP arm (5.9% vs 14.6%). Conclusions: NMP did not lower EAD, perhaps related to the inclusion of lower-risk liver donors, as higher-risk donor livers seemed to benefit more. The technology is safe in standard organ recovery and seems to have the greatest benefit for marginal donors.