Delaune, Robert

Introduction: Outcomes from multidisciplinary lymphoma tumor boards in the molecular era are limited, and the effects of transitioning to virtual formats during the COVID-19 pandemic are not well-documented. This study evaluates how the transition of the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board to a virtual format has impacted its effectiveness and operations. The board, part of the International Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN), involves case presentations, subspecialist reviews, and collaborative recommendations. Methods: The Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board, an integral part of the Mayo Clinic Care Network (MCCN), conducted a comprehensive review of lymphoma cases from 2014 to 2024. The board's review process involves a structured approach including the presentation of clinical case details, radiology and hematopathology findings, proposed treatment options, relevant literature review, and discussions. From 2014 to 2024, the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board reviewed a total of 722 patients. The review process involves a multidisciplinary team, including physicians, pharmacists, clinical research associates, and trainees. Recommendations and changes related to radiology interpretation, pathologic diagnosis, and treatment approaches were documented and tracked prospectively. In March 2020, the board transitioned to a virtual format due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This shift allowed for remote participation and continued collaborative review while maintaining the board's structured approach and documentation practices. Results: In a total of 722 patients, changes in care were identified in 423 patients, including 287 with newly diagnosed lymphoma and 136 with relapse or refractory disease. Among those who experienced changes, 94 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, 49 had follicular lymphoma, 39 had marginal zone lymphoma, 36 had classical Hodgkin lymphoma, and 29 had mantle cell lymphoma. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 431 patients were analyzed, with 217 (50.3%) experiencing changes. A total of 268 changes were documented among these patients. Changes in radiologic interpretation occurred in 9 patients (2.1% of 431 total patients). Pathologic diagnosis changes were noted in 42 patients (9.7%). Additional testing was recommended for 73 patients (16.9%), and clinical management was altered for 144 patients (33.4%). After transitioning to a virtual format, 291 patients were reviewed post-COVID, with 206 (70.8%) having recommended changes. The total number of change recommendations was 322, reflecting increases across all components compared to previous data, with adjustments for varying numbers of patients reviewed. Specifically, radiologic interpretation changes occurred in 21 patients (7.2%), pathologic diagnosis changes in 57 patients (19.6%), additional testing recommendations for 85 patients (29.2%), and clinical management alterations in 159 patients (54.7%). Conclusion: Transitioning to a virtual format in the Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Tumor Board's continued to demonstrate the effectiveness, with increased changes in diagnostic interpretations and clinical management. These results illustrate the potential of virtual tumor boards to improve collaborative decision-making and adapt to evolving clinical needs.

Purpose Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting toxicity of capecitabine for which no effective preventative treatment has been definitively demonstrated. This trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary data that a urea/lactic acid–based topical keratolytic agent (ULABTKA) may prevent HFS. Patients and Methods A randomized, double-blind phase III trial evaluated 137 patients receiving their first ever cycle of capecitabine at a dose of either 2,000 or 2,500 mg/m2 per day for 14 days. Patients were randomly assigned to a ULABTKA versus a placebo cream, which was applied to the hands and feet twice per day for 21 days after the start of capecitabine. Patients completed an HFS diary (HFSD) daily. HFS toxicity grade (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the end of each cycle. The primary end point was the incidence of moderate/severe HFS symptoms in the first treatment cycle, based on the patient-reported HFSD. Results The percentage of patients with moderate/severe HFS symptoms was not different between groups, being 13.6% in the ULABTKA arm and 10.2% in the placebo arm (P = .768 by Fisher's exact test). The odds ratio was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.37 to 5.76). Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not significantly so (33% v 27%; P = .82). No significant differences were observed in other toxicities between groups. Conclusion These data do not support the efficacy of a ULABTKA cream for preventing HFS symptoms in patients receiving capecitabine.