Moustafa, Muhamad Alhaj

Objectives: Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare and aggressive type of thyroid malignancy with a very poor prognosis and outcome despite therapy. The rarity of this disease and the poor functional status of ATC patients limit the ability to conduct clinical trials, thus there is a lack of large, controlled trials to guide treatment and evaluate the benefit of combined modality therapy. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with ATC at age 18 or older between 2004 and 2018. After excluding patients with unknown number of treatment modalities, Charlson-Deyo score—a weighted summary of 17 chronic disease categories where higher scores denote greater baseline comorbidity burden—of 3 or more and patients lost for follow-up, we split the cohort into 3 groups according to the number of treatment modalities they received. Treatment modalities included surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy. Then, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) between the 3 groups. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with OS. In addition, propensity score matching (accounting for age, sex, race, Charlson-Deyo score, and clinical M stage) was used for more robust results. Results: A total of 3460 patients with ATC were included in the analysis, of which 1472 (42.5%) either received one type of therapy or did not receive any therapy (group 1), 1092 (31.6%) received bimodal therapy (group 2), and 896 (25.9%) received trimodal therapy (group 3). We found that group 3 had better OS compared with group 1 and group 2 (median OS 9.1 vs. 1.7 and 4.9 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all comparisons). Propensity score matching yielded 896 patients in each group. We found that group 3 had better OS compared with group 1 and group 2 (median OS 9.1 vs. 1.9 and 5.2 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all comparisons). Same trend was found in subgroup analysis when we split the cohort according to the metastatic status; in M0 group (median OS was 10.4 vs. 1.9 and 6.1 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all), in M1 group (median OS was 5.9 vs. 1.4 and 3.7 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Modality-specific analyses further demonstrated that surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy each independently prolonged OS in both M0 and M1 cohorts (all P <0.001). These individual benefits explain the additive advantage of trimodal therapy and underscore that offering at least one evidence-based modality is preferable when comprehensive treatment is infeasible. On multivariate analysis, group 1 and group 2 were associated with worse OS compared with trimodal treatment (HR: 2.721; 95% CI: 2.466-3.002 and HR: 1.434; 95% CI: 1.299-1.582, P <0.001 for all). Conclusions: Patients with ATC who were treated with intensive trimodal therapy had statistically significant improvement in OS compared with patients who received less intense therapy. This survival benefit was observed in both metastatic and nonmetastatic groups. Although we acknowledge the limitations of this retrospective analysis, our results showed the critical role of an intensive therapy approach in this aggressive malignancy.

Acquired angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (AAE-C1INH) is a rare condition characterized by the localized swelling of the deeper skin layers and mucous membranes, especially the face, lips, tongue, throat, and gastrointestinal tract. AAE-C1INH is strongly associated with lymphoproliferative disorders, although it can also be linked to autoimmune conditions, solid tumors, infections, or even occur without an identifiable cause. We present the case of a 45-year-old female patient with complaints of recurrent abdominal pain, bloating, and joint swelling. Laboratory testing showed decreased C1q and C4 complement levels, and C1 esterase inhibitor levels, indicative of AAE-C1INH. Further work up confirmed a diagnosis of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma with involvement of the bone marrow and spleen. Treatment with rituximab led to resolution of angioedema symptoms and almost complete remission of underlying lymphoma. This case underscores the importance of evaluating an underlying lymphoproliferative disorder in AAE-C1INH. Therefore, the early participation of a multidisciplinary team including specialists in immunology, hematology, and oncology is necessary for appropriate management.

Abstract Epcoritamab and glofitamab are CD20-directed bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Limited data exist for patients treated outside of trials. Patients with R/R DLBCL receiving commercial epcoritamab or glofitamab between 1 January 2023 and 15 October 2024 were collected from 21 United States institutions. Among 245 patients, 156 received epcoritamab and 89 received glofitamab, 113 were refractory to front-line therapy, 40 had MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, 147 received prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, and 174 patients would have been ineligible for registrational trials. The overall response rate (ORR) for epcoritamab and glofitamab was 51% (23% complete response, [CR]) and 53% (30% CR), respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.8 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-11.0 months). The 6-month PFS was 36% (95% CI, 30-44) and the 6-month OS was 60% (95% CI, 54-67). Both trial ineligibility and undetectable CD20 pre-BsAbs portended shorter PFS and OS. Of 17 individuals with paired biopsies, 15 (88.2%) lost CD20 expression after BsAbs with a median time to progression of 3.7 months. This analysis including patients with R/R DLBCL shows the ORR to CD3/CD20 BsAbs was comparable to pivotal trials, although PFS and OS were lower. Baseline undetectable levels of CD20 were associated with poor outcomes. These results demonstrate the activity of BsAbs in R/R DLBCL, and underscore the importance of target antigen expression.

Objectives: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. Liver transplant is a cornerstone in treating nonmetastatic disease, but a significant portion of patients miss the opportunity of upfront liver transplant given the long waiting time for donor organs. Herein, we compare the survival outcomes between upfront liver transplant, liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, and systemic therapy only. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between 2004 and 2017. After including only patients with clinical N0 stage who received either systemic therapy alone, liver transplant alone or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, we split the cohort into 3 groups: systemic therapy only (including intra-arterial chemotherapy eg, TACE) group, upfront liver transplant group and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy group. We evaluated overall survival (OS) among the three groups. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 29,691 patients with nonmetastatic HCC were included for analysis, of which 25,122 (84.6%) were treated with systemic therapy only, 2513 (8.5%) were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant, and 2056 (6.9%) were treated with upfront liver transplant without systemic therapy bridge. We found that patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant had a statistically significantly better OS compared to patients who were treated with systemic therapy only (mean OS was 101.9 mo and 98.2 vs. 39.4 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Whereas there was no significant difference in OS between patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant (mean OS was 101.9 vs. 98.2 months, P =0.187). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with worse OS were older age (HR: 1.011; 95% CI: 1.010-1.013; P <0.001), Male sex (HR: 1.048; 95% CI: 1.014-1.084; P =0.006), White compared with African American race (HR: 1.055; 95% CI: 1.012-1.099; P =0.011), no insurance status (HR: 1.155; 95% CI: 1.079-1.237; P <0.001), clinical T4 stage compared with T0 stage (HR: 1.366; 95% CI: 1.257-1.483, P <0.001), and systemic therapy alone compared with upfront liver transplant and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy (HR for upfront liver transplant and transplant with bridge systemic therapy vs. systemic therapy was 0.202; 95% CI: 0.184-0.223, and HR: 0.194, 95% CI: 0.178-0.212, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Conclusions: Patients with nonmetastatic HCC who were treated with upfront liver transplant or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy had statistically significant improvement in OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy only. While our study confirms the survival benefit of liver transplant among patients with nonmetastatic HCC, these results raise the importance of proceeding with liver transplant after intra-arterial and/or systemic treatments in patients who are not initially eligible for or missed the opportunity of upfront liver transplant.

e13622 Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized treatment of hematologic malignancies; however, severe toxicities like cytokine release syndrome (CRS) remain a limitation to broader utilization. Using a large dataset of patients treated with CAR-T, we developed a machine learning (ML) model leveraging multi-model patient characteristics to predict the risk of CRS onset with clinically meaningful lead times. Methods: A prospectively maintained dataset of CAR-T patients treated at Mayo Clinic was used. Baseline disease/patients characteristics, labs, ECG, echocardiogram, and vital signs (including data from remote patient monitoring program) were collected. A 24-hour rolling window was used to generate daily averages, maximum, minimum, and deltas for each parameter. ECG and echocardiogram data were forward-imputed; vital signs and labs were not imputed. Each day-post-infusion served as a potential event (CRS onset vs. no CRS). A gradient boosting classifier was trained and tested on a subset of patients (n = 351) using 1,000 bootstrap iterations, evaluating 24-, 48-, and 72-hour lead times. Shapley-based feature importance guided simplification to an 11-feature model, externally validated on an independent cohort (n = 51). Models’ performance assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 402 patients treated with CAR-T were examined. Median age was 64 years and 36% were female. Primary diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma (n = 240) or multiple myeloma (n = 162). A total of 226,332 vital sign measurements and 372,871 lab values, as well as ECG and echocardiogram data, were collected for 30 days post-infusion. Overall, 79.8% of patients experienced CRS within 30 days. The full ML model demonstrated AUCs of 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.93), 0.83 (95% CI 0.77–0.88), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.87) for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour predictions of CRS, respectively. Including “day of CRS onset post CAR-T” as a feature improved the 72-hour AUC to 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90). A model restricted to vital signs alone showed AUCs of 0.88, 0.75, and 0.71 for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour horizons. An 11-feature model—focusing on temperature, blood pressure, fibrinogen, CRP, serum sodium level, QRS interval, and lymphocyte counts—maintained high accuracy at 24 hours (AUC 0.90, 95% CI 0.86–0.93) and was validated externally using an independent dataset with an AUC of 0.92. Conclusions: Our ML model provides a reliable approach for predicting if/when CRS will occur, with up to three days of lead time before clinical manifestation, offering an opportunity for proactive management. The robust performance of a parsimonious 11-feature model supports practical adoption across clinical settings and real-time risk stratification to enhance patient safety. Prospective validation and integration into clinical workflows will be critical to translating these findings into practice.

7075 Background: Hepatosplenic T-cell lymphoma (HSTCL) is a rare, aggressive peripheral T-cell lymphoma arising primarily from γδ T-cells. It carries a poor prognosis and resists conventional chemotherapy. Most reports on HSTCL are case-based. This study comprehensively analyzes a large cohort, evaluating treatment strategies and survival outcomes. Methods: This retrospective study included patients (pts) with pathologically confirmed HSTCL diagnosed between 2000-2024, consecutively seen at Mayo Clinic MN. Clinical, pathological, genomic, and treatment-related data were extracted when available. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize baseline characteristics. Time-to-event analyses, including Kaplan-Meier estimates, median overall survival (OS), and survival time estimates were conducted from the date of diagnosis. Results: A total of 20 patients with newly diagnosed HSTCL were included, with a median age of 57 years (range: 35-71). The cohort was predominantly male (70%) and non-Hispanic (93%). Molecular data was available for five patients, revealing abnormalities in STAT5B, MLL3 deletion, TP53, EZH2, TERT, and NF1 E291D . The median follow-up was 27.6 months (m) with a median OS of 17.6 m (95% CI: 11.2 - NA). First-line treatment was anthracycline-based in 68% of pts and non-anthracycline-based in 32%, with higher response rates in the latter group (50% vs.83%). Although non-anthracycline regimens showed a trend toward improved 3-year OS (100% vs. 29%) the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.16). Achieving a complete response to first-line therapy was also associated with a trend towards a better 3-year OS compared to refractory disease (80% vs. 50%, p = 0.17). Most pts (79%) underwent hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT), primarily allogeneic, with only one receiving autologous HSCT. First-line therapy before HSCT was evenly distributed between anthracycline (55%) and non-anthracycline (45%) regimens. HSCT recipients had significantly higher 3-year OS than non-recipients (83% vs. 33%, p = 0.017). Notably, the patient with a TP53 mutation has remained in remission for over a year post-allogeneic HSCT. Conclusions: HSTCL predominantly affects younger pts, with nearly half dying within a year. Allogeneic HSCT, rarely used in other NHL subtypes, improved survival. Non-anthracycline regimens and achieving CR trended toward better outcomes. Our study, leveraging a sizable cohort, highlights the need for targeted research and novel therapies to improve HSTCL management. Summary of survival outcomes in HSTCL. Characteristics Median OS (y) 3-Year OS (95% CI) 1.48 [0.93- NA] 46% [0.26 - 0.81] Transplant Transplant NA [NA - NA] 83% [0.58 - 1.00] No Transplant 1.02 [0.93 - NA] 33% [0.07 - 1.00] Treatment Anthracycline Based 1.02 [0.36 - NA] 29% [0.11 - 0.73] Non-Anthracycline Based 4.61 [NA- NA] 100% [1.00 - 1.00]

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.

Introduction: Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is an uncommon B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) Prognosis is highly variable due to underlying biological and molecular heterogeneity. The first-line (1L) treatment paradigm for MCL continues to evolve with increasing use of bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) and decreasing use of autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). TP53 alterations are associated with inferior outcomes in MCL. The aim of this retrospective study is to determine treatment strategies and clinical outcomes in MCL patients based on TP53 gene mutation status. Methods: Retrospective data were collected from 19 institutions in the United States from 1/1993 to 1/2024. We examined treatment patterns and outcomes among MCL patients &gt;18 years of age with known TP53 mutation status by sequencing. Patients who did not receive treatment were excluded. The analysis was stratified based on presence of TP53 mutations. Systemic therapies were categorized as chemo-immunotherapy (CIT), non-chemotherapy (including monoclonal antibodies, lenalidomide, venetoclax, and novel agents on clinical trial), and regimens containing BTKi. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS) and secondary outcomes were progression free survival (PFS) and time to next treatment (TTNT). OS and PFS were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests were used to compare groups. Results: 645 patients were included in the study, with 468 men (72.6%) and median age was 64 years (range 30-89). 230/645 patients (35.7%) had a TP53 mutation, of which 182 (79%) were identified prior to 1L. While the male/female distribution was the same between the mutated and unmutated groups, median age at diagnosis and MIPI risk score was higher in the TP53 mutated group (age 65.9 vs 63.1 yrs, p= 0.015; MIPI 6.4 vs 6.1, p&lt;0.001). TP53 unmutated patients had a median of 1 line of therapy vs. 2 for the mutated group (p&lt;0.001, range 1-8). Blastoid histology and higher ki67 were also associated with the TP53 mutated group (p=0.045, 0.01 respectively) The median OS was 14.2 years for TP53 unmutated and 8.3 years for TP53 mutated patients (p&lt;0.0001). PFS in 1L was 0.95 years in TP53 mutated compared to 2.02 years in TP53 unmutated group (p&lt;0.0001). Selection of 1L therapeutic strategy was not associated with presence of TP53 mutation (Χ2 p= 0.21) although more patients in the TP53 unmutated group underwent ASCT (119/415 vs 38/230; Χ2 p=0.0006) TP53 mutation was associated with inferior survival compared to TP53 unmutated patients for CIT in 1L but the difference did not reach statistical significance when non-chemotherapy regimens and regimens containing BTKi were used. For CIT in 1L, 5 year OS was 78% [71-84%] for unmutated compared to 58% [48-67%] for the mutated group (p=0.0001 ). For non-chemotherapy regimens, 5 year OS for unmutated patients was 73% [52- 86%] compared to 52% [25-73%] for the mutated group (p=0.09). For regimens containing BTKi, 5 year OS for unmutated was 93% [81-97%] compared to 57% [28-78%] for mutated (p=0.07). Within the TP53 mutated group, there were no differences in any clinical outcomes between those receiving CIT, non-chemotherapy, or BTKi in 1L. While median OS appeared numerically longer in the BTKi group (14.4 yrs vs 8.8 yrs for CIT and 6.8 yrs for non-chemotherapy), the difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.58). In contrast,TP53 unmutated patients who received CIT in 1L had better TTNT (p=0.0039) compared to those in non-chemotherapy and BTKi groups. There was no improvement in PFS (p=0.79) or OS (p=0.47). Conclusions To our knowledge this is the largest retrospective real world dataset of MCL treatment outcomes stratified by TP53 mutation. As in prior studies, TP53 mutation portends a worse prognosis in MCL compared to TP53 unmutated patients, but outcomes are better than historically reported. CIT in 1L was not associated with improved OS in either group. Irrespective of TP53 mutation status, incorporation of BTKi in first line was not associated with improved clinical outcomes. The gap in OS between TP53 mutated and unmutated MCL may be narrowing as treatment paradigms shift away from intensive induction chemotherapy and ASCT, and due to an increasing number of effective therapies for relapsed patients. Clinical trials of novel agents are needed to further improve the OS of TP53 mutated MCL patients.