Clift, Kristin

Ex vivo liver perfusion (EVLP) sustains human or large animal livers outside the body under near-physiological conditions, enabling functional monitoring for lactate clearance, bile production, and oxygen consumption and allowing targeted therapeutic interventions. Originally developed to optimize donor grafts for transplantation, EVLP has evolved into a powerful translational research platform bridging preclinical discovery and early clinical translation. This review discusses EVLP as a platform for gene therapy, immunotherapy, pharmacology, and personalized medicine, with particular emphasis on gene- and immune-based interventions as mechanistically mature exemplars. We consolidate advances in pharmacological testing and toxicity modeling, viral and non-viral gene delivery, genome engineering, and immunomodulation using perfused livers. We further describe emerging applications, including autologous EVLP pathways for organ-confined therapy, ex vivo liver surgery, and bioengineering strategies such as biliary organoid repair, RNA interference, and mitochondrial transfer. We highlight how these applications align with a paradigm shift in biomedical research, including the NIH’s recent initiative to prioritize human-based experimental models over animal-only studies. By leveraging transplant-declined or surgically resected organs that would otherwise be unused, ex vivo perfusion bridges the gap between pre-clinical testing and clinical practice, enabling real-time evaluation of interventions in functional human tissue. We discuss both the scientific opportunities afforded by EVLP and the technical, biosafety, and ethical challenges that must be addressed to enable responsible clinical translation.

Objectives: New methods are needed to detect pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) earlier to improve outcomes. We previously reported that a panel of protein N-glycosylation traits (NGTs) discriminated PDAC from healthy controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81–0.88. However, it remained unclear whether this panel accurately differentiates PDAC from other benign pancreatic disorders. Our study aims to evaluate the performance of the NGT panel in combination with CA19-9 in a diverse cohort, including PDAC cases, healthy controls, and controls with benign pancreatic disorders. Methods: Protein N-glycosylation profiles were determined in plasma samples using an in-house developed mass spectrometry assay. CA19-9 levels were measured using a routine immunoassay test. Results of total plasma NGTs and CA19-9 were evaluated separately as well as in combination. Logistic regression was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs), AUC, sensitivity, and specificity to determine the performance of NGTs and CA19-9 in distinguishing PDAC from controls. Results: In total, 221 individuals were included: 45 (20.4%) with PDAC, and 176 (79.6%) controls (53 healthy and 123 with benign pancreatic disease). The AUC for differentiating PDAC from the total control cohort based on the combination of the NGT panel and CA19-9 was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90–0.97), with a sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.78–0.98) and specificity of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81–0.91). Comparison of PDAC cases with healthy controls only resulted in an AUC of 0.96 (95% CI, 0.93–0.99), with a sensitivity of 0.84 (95% CI, 0.73–0.93) and specificity of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94–1.00). Conclusions: Both plasma NGTs and CA19-9 distinguish PDAC from a diverse control cohort. The accuracy further improves when these readouts are combined, showing promise for future early detection methods.

PURPOSE Guidelines recommend germline genetic testing (GT) for patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). This study aims to evaluate the utilization and outcomes of multigene panel GT in patients with PDAC. METHODS This retrospective, multisite study included patients with PDAC diagnosed between May 2018 and August 2020 at Mayo Clinic Arizona, Florida, and Minnesota. Discussion, uptake, and outcomes of GT were compared before (May 1, 2018-May 1, 2019) and after (August 1, 2019-August 1, 2020) the guideline update, accounting for a transition period. RESULTS The study identified 533 patients with PDAC, with 321 (60.2%) preguideline and 212 (39.8%) postguideline. Patient characteristics did not differ between the preguideline and postguideline periods. GT was discussed in 34.3% (110 of 321) of preguideline and 39.6% (84 of 212) of postguideline patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.80]) and subsequently performed in 80.9% (89 of 110) of preguideline and 75.0% (63 of 84) of postguideline patients (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.61]). Of 152 tested patients, 26 (17.1%) had a pathogenic variant (PV), of whom 17 (11.2%; 17 of 152) were PDAC-associated. Over the entire study period, GT was more likely in younger patients (65 v 70 years; P < .001), those seen by a medical oncologist (82.9% v 69.0%; P < .001), and those surviving more than 12 months from diagnosis (70.4% v 43.4%; P < .001). Demographics and personal/family cancer history were comparable between patients with and without a PDAC PV. CONCLUSION GT remains underutilized despite National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline recommendations. Given the poor prognosis of PDAC and potential implications of GT, efforts to increase utilization are needed to provide surveillance and support to both patients with PDAC and at-risk family members.

688 Background: Guidelines recommend patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) undergo genetic testing for germline pathogenic variants (PV). The aim of this study was to evaluate compliance with recently updated guidelines (May 2019) and assess subsequent uptake and outcomes of genetic testing in PDAC patients. In addition, social and clinical factors associated with genetic testing were assessed. Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with PDAC between May 2018 and August 2020 was performed. Discussion and subsequent uptake of genetic testing was reviewed and compared between a 12-month period before (pre-guideline) and a 12-month period after (post-guideline) guidelines were updated, accounting for a three-month transition period. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors predictive of undergoing genetic testing. Results: In total, 534 patients with PDAC were identified; 321 (60.1%) in the pre-guideline period and 213 (39.9%) in the post-guideline period. The mean age at diagnosis was 68 years and 47% were female. Genetic testing was discussed in 34% (109/321) of pre-guideline and in 39% (84/213) of post-guideline patients ( P = .23). Of those, 82% (89/109) of patients in pre-guideline and 75% (63/84) in post-guideline groups underwent subsequent genetic testing ( P = .71). In 26 (17.1%) of 152 tested patients, a PV was identified, of which 17 (11.2%; 17/152) had a PDAC-associated PV. Age, cancer stage at diagnosis, length of survival, and having a first-degree relative with pancreatic cancer were significant predictors of genetic testing on multivariate analysis. Conclusions: Adherence to recently updated guidelines is poor and germline genetic testing in PDAC patients remains insufficient. Efforts to increase awareness of benefits of testing, which include personalized therapies for patients and cascade testing in family members for subsequent enrollment in pancreatic cancer surveillance programs, could improve future uptake.[Table: see text]

AbstractAdvances have dated the genetic testing initially offered to evaluate for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risks. Previous research has demonstrated that many patients have not updated testing. This study reviewed the incidence of additional analysis after an uninformative BRCA1/2 result and offered updated testing with limited barriers to those who had not completed. After viewing an educational video and providing informed consent, eligible patients were mailed a saliva collection kit to complete an 84‐gene hereditary cancer panel at no personal cost. A total of 704 patients had completed BRCA1/2 only testing between 2001 and 2020. Fifteen percent (N = 102) of the 671 patients with an uninformative BRCA1/2 result had already completed expanded testing. Most, 74 of 102 (73%), had been rereferred to medical genetics during a clinical visit related to cancer care. Those who had already completed additional testing were more likely to have a personal history of cancer (92% vs. 79%, p = 0.002) and live locally (p = 0.032). Invitation to complete updated testing through this study was sent to 372 people, and 116 (31%) consented to participate. For 142 of the 256 who did not proceed with testing through the study, proof of receipt of research information was available. In total, 22 pathogenic variants were reported in 21 of the 226 patients with updated testing from before and including our study: ATM (4), CHEK2 (4), LZTR1 (1), MUTYH (3), NBN (1), NF1 (1), NTHL1 (1), PALB2 (4), PMS2 (1), RAD50 (1), and SPINK1 (1). Many potential barriers of retesting were eliminated by removing personal costs or travel requirements. Still, only about 30% of patients agreed to participate, and a significant portion elected not to proceed. Future research could focus on the discovery of other factors that dissuade patients and what measures may better inform them on potential benefits.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionally affected historically marginalized populations and their access to resources and healthcare. In times of crisis, authentic community engagement is more important than ever. This study was Phase 1 of a larger 3-phase study to conduct timely community-engaged research with community members to understand the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on historically underserved communities. The objective of this work was to conduct key informant (KI) interviews (1) to understand community organizations perspectives about the role that large academic health centers play as they interface with community organizations to support their work, (2) to leverage KI’s expertise to identify needs and assets within the community, and (3) to inform both Phase 2 (focus group qualitative research) and Phase 3 (survey) of the broader study. Methods: A total of 24 key informants were identified through purposeful sampling and one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted across 4 states using video conferencing. Results: Barriers to access and lack of transparency were highlighted as major issues requiring reform—in particular, aggressive billing practices and insurance barriers exacerbated local distrust of medical institutions. KIs recognized the health institution’s support for testing and vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic, but noted other significant gaps in care, especially regarding mental health support. Although communication with the health institution was consistent for some KIs, others experienced unsustained communication efforts that hindered cooperation and relationship building. Conclusions: Leaders in the community as key stakeholders can provide unique insights into the challenges and potential solutions required to promote health equity, and foster understanding between local communities and healthcare institutions.

Introduction: Family health history can be a valuable indicator of risk to develop certain cancers. Unfortunately, patient self-reported family history often contains inaccuracies, which might change recommendations for cancer screening. We endeavored to understand the difference between a patient’s self-reported family history and their electronic medical record (EMR) family history. One aim of this study was to determine if family history information contained in the EMR differs from patient-reported family history collected using a focused questionnaire. Methods: We created the Hereditary Cancer Questionnaire (HCQ) based on current guidelines and distributed to 314 patients in the Department of Family Medicine waiting room June 20 to August 1, 2018. The survey queried patients about specific cancers within their biological family to assess their risk of an inherited cancer syndrome. We used the questionnaire responses as a baseline when comparing family histories in the medical record. Results: Agreement between the EMR and the questionnaire data decreased as the patients’ risk for familial cancer increased. Meaning that the more significant a patient’s family cancer history, the less likely it was to be recorded accurately and consistently in the EMR. Patients with low-risk levels, or fewer instances of cancer in the family, had more consistencies between the EMR and the questionnaire. Conclusions: Given that physicians often make recommendations on incomplete information that is in the EMR, patients might not receive individualized preventive care based on a more complete family cancer history. This is especially true for individuals with more complicated and significant family history of cancer. An improved method of collecting family history, including increasing patient engagement, may help to decrease this disparity.

e13161 Background: Capturing family health history is a simple and cost-effective way to identify individuals at increased risk for hereditary cancers. Several barriers exist to family history collection in the clinical setting. Self-reported histories can be limited, inaccurate or static. Physicians are often overwhelmed with data and “alert fatigue.” These complex factors make it difficult to quantify hereditary risks. Patients with increased genetic predisposition may be missed and may not receive individualized cancer surveillance measures. Methods: A practice improvement project was implemented at Mayo Clinic Florida to enhance family history screening. A questionnaire and simple scoring algorithm were developed to prompt referral for genetic counseling. This tool was pilot tested in a multi-specialty gastroenterology clinic. The questionnaire was administered in the waiting room (tablet interface). Patients with significant risk factors identified were contacted and offered genetic counseling. Results: Currently, 291 patients have completed the questionnaire. Thirty of the 60 patients identified to have significant familial risk factors met with a genetic counselor. Of the twenty who completed genetic testing, 9 patients received one or more variants of unknown significance. Two pathogenic variants were identified. One patient was molecularly confirmed to have multiple endocrine neoplasia type 2, which can allow for cascade screening in her unaffected sibling. A pathogenic ATM variant was found in a patient with a recent personal history of pancreatic cancer. The result prompted consideration of platinum based chemotherapy and/or PARP inhibitors in her cancer management. She has had a visible response thus far with the treatment. Her sister implemented a new surveillance regimen after testing positive for the familial variant. Conclusions: Enhanced family history screening is a low cost, effective method for the identification of patients who may benefit from hereditary cancer screening and genetic testing. Increased attention to family history is a vital component of precision medicine in any care setting.