Citations

Abstract Transcriptional condensates (TCs) are dynamic, membrane-less assemblies of proteins and nucleic acids that form at specific genomic loci to control gene expression. The primary drivers of TC formation and function are long stretches of polypeptide chains that lack well-defined tertiary structure, known as the intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) of Transcription Factors (TFs). However, the role of well-structured domains such as the DNA-binding domain (DBD) in condensate formation and downstream regulation remains poorly understood. Here, we investigated whether the DBD of the Progesterone Receptor (PR), a model TF regulated by hormone binding, contributes to the formation of PR TCs. By combining Single Particle Tracking (SPT) with deep-learning-based single-trajectory analysis, we demonstrated that both the IDR and the DBD are required for the formation of PR condensates. Furthermore, transcriptomic analysis showed that mutations of either of the two domains result in the expression of a distinct set of genes, with functional assays corroborating these findings and linking domain-specific transcription to differential effects on cell proliferation and migration. Together, our results show that domains beyond IDRs also play a role in TC formation and function and uncover domain-specific regulation of transcriptional and oncogenic programs.

ABSTRACT Introduction and Methods Cancer therapy–related cardiac dysfunction (CTRCD) is a well established and potentially life‐threatening complication of contemporary oncologic treatment. Although comprehensive cardio‐oncology guidelines have been developed, their integration into routine hematology and oncology practice remains inconsistent. This consensus statement, developed by a multidisciplinary panel of cardio‐oncology experts, aims to provide practical, case‐based guidance to help oncology providers recognize, assess, and manage CTRCD across a spectrum of malignancies and cardiovascular presentations. Clinical Scenarios and Discussion We present representative clinical scenarios that illustrate real‐world challenges in cardio‐oncology and apply evidence‐based recommendations from current guidelines, including those from the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the International Cardio‐Oncology Society (ICOS)—to support informed decision‐making. Key areas of focus include baseline cardiovascular risk stratification prior to initiating potentially cardiotoxic therapies, with an emphasis on biomarker and imaging surveillance strategies tailored to individual risk profiles. Also, this document outlines the application of guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) for cancer patients with heart failure. Conclusion By offering a structured, user‐friendly framework, this document seeks to bridge the implementation gap between oncology and cardiology disciplines. Our goal is to equip oncology providers with accessible tools that facilitate early recognition, consistent surveillance, and timely referral, thereby preserving cancer treatment intensity while minimizing cardiovascular morbidity.

Abstract Background The quantification of Neurofilament Light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proven valuable for diagnosing and prognosing various neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, and ischemic damage. However, there is considerable variability in clinical and laboratory practices between centers, primarily due to different contexts of use (COU), analytical methods, and the application of cutoffs or scales. Additionally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may vary from one center to another, raising concerns about the commutability of the tests. To date, no consensus has been reached among laboratories to define the most appropriate use of cutoffs or conclusions/comments based on NfL profiles. Method This international project involves 38 laboratories across 18 countries, all specialized in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. Using a questionnaire, we obtained descriptions from each center regarding their COU, pre‐analytical and analytical protocols (including the biological fluid and methods used to quantify NfL). Through a consensus approach, we developed a harmonized strategy for the use and reporting of NfL results across different centres according to their respective COU. Results Among the centers, 63% quantified NfL in the CSF, 87% in blood and 53% in both fluids. COU were as follow: frontotemporal dementia (71%), Alzheimer disease (71%), multiple sclerosis (61%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (61%), psychiatric syndrome (45%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (32%), Parkinson disease (39%), peripheral neuropathy (29%), traumatic brain injury (21%), Huntington's disease (13%), amyloid transthyretin related (11%) and cardiac arrest (8%). Most of the centers define pathological cutoffs based on publications (50%) and take age into account for this purpose (42%). Reporting is mostly transmitted through numeric results (95%). Conclusion Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice.

Pediatric central nervous system tumors are the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in children. The five-year survival rate for high-grade glioma in children is less than 20%. The development of new treatments is dependent upon multi-institutional collaborative clinical trials requiring reproducible and accurate centralized response assessment. We present the results of the BraTS-PEDs 2023 challenge, the first Brain Tumor Segmentation (BraTS) challenge focused on pediatric brain tumors. This challenge utilized data acquired from multiple international consortia dedicated to pediatric neuro-oncology and clinical trials. BraTS-PEDs 2023 aimed to evaluate volumetric segmentation algorithms for pediatric brain gliomas from magnetic resonance imaging using standardized quantitative performance evaluation metrics employed across the BraTS 2023 challenges. The top-performing AI approaches for pediatric tumor analysis included ensembles of nnU-Net and Swin UNETR, Auto3DSeg, or nnU-Net with a self-supervised framework. The BraTS-PEDs 2023 challenge fostered collaboration between clinicians (neuro-oncologists, neuroradiologists) and AI/imaging scientists, promoting faster data sharing and the development of automated volumetric analysis techniques. These advancements could significantly benefit clinical trials and improve the care of children with brain tumors.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification aids in diagnosing and predicting neurological disorders, but clinical and laboratory practices vary across centers. Differences in result interpretation and reporting further challenge test commutability. This study aimed to review the global analytical and post‐analytical methods used for NfL measurement in routine clinical practice across different contexts. METHODS We established an international working group (WG) and distributed a survey to its members to gather information on context of use (COU), (pre) analytical methods, cutoff usage, as well as the interpretation and reporting of NfL measurements. RESULTS Among the centers, 63% measured NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 87% in blood, and 53% in both. COU was widespread, with 50% defining pathological cutoffs based on publications and 42% considering age. Reporting was primarily done through numeric results (95%). DISCUSSION Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice. Highlights Unique international overview of current analytical and post‐analytical methods for neurofilament light chain (NfL) measurement in routine clinical practice. Tailored sheets for each neurological application. Strategies to harmonize cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation of NfL's measurement.

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the measured physiological factors that limit running performance with real marathon results from world-class distance runners, evaluating the compatibility between measured data and predicted results based on the previously suggested model. Methods Four world-class East African marathon runners (three male, one female) underwent physiological running assessments to predict marathon performance times using a model based on V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak, percentage of V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak at the second ventilatory threshold, and running economy. Predictions were then compared to participants’ best marathon times. Results The measured V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak of the world-class runners was 75.1 ± 2.7 mL/kg/min. The second ventilatory threshold occurred at 85 ± 3 % of the peak, with a running economy of 63.7 ± 2.4 mL/kg/min at 19.6 ± 0.9 km/h. The predicted marathon performance time was 2:06:51 ± 0:03:17 h:min:s for the males and 2:17:36 h:min:s for the female. Comparing these predictions to their personal best times, the average difference was 00:55 ± 00:51 min:s (range: 00:20-02:08). Conclusions This research provides laboratory data on world-class road running athletes, reinforcing the link between marathon performance and V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak, the percentage of V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak at the second ventilatory threshold, and running economy. The examined athletes had lower V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak compared to predicted values, highlighting the importance of running economy and fractional utilization of V ˙ $\dot {\mathrm{V}}$ O 2 peak in achieving such performances. Future studies should continue to advance the field by including additional bioenergetic parameters measured during race conditions and expanding the participant cohort of elite marathoners, encompassing both sexes.

AbstractBackgroundThe quantification of neurofilament light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proved useful in many contexts, for the diagnosis and prognosis of various neurological disorders. There is, however, a diversity of practices between centers, essentially linked to the context of use (COU), analytical methods, consideration of comorbidities, determination of cut‐points or use of interpretation scales. Finally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may differ from one center to another, raising the question of test commutability. To date, no consensus has been reached between the different laboratories involved to define the most appropriate conclusions/comments based on COU and cut‐points. This work is an essential step towards consensual harmonization of the clinical use of NfL after CSF and/or blood analysis in various neurological contexts, as advocated by the Alzheimer's Association "Biofluid Based Biomarkers PIA" working group.MethodThis international project involves 58 clinical laboratories in 16 countries, specializing in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. By means of a questionnaire, we obtained a description of the COU, pre‐analytical and analytical (biological fluid and method used to quantify NfL) protocols of all the centers involved.ResultsOf the centers, 42% quantified NfL in CSF, 29% in serum and 28% in plasma, and 1% in dried blood spot. The COUs were as follows: Frontotemporal dementia (FTD, 17%), Alzheimer's disease (AD, 16%), multiple sclerosis (MS, 16%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS, 11%), psychiatric syndrome (PS, 10%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (CJD, 8%), Parkinson's disease (PD, 8%), peripheral neuropathy (PN, 7%) and traumatic brain injury (TBI, 7%). Most centers define pathological cut‐points based on published literature and take age into account (50%).ConclusionOur initial results highlight the state of the art in terms of the clinical use of NfL analysis in CSF and blood in the context of different neurological diseases. We have now defined a coordinator for each COU subgroup and are organizing consensus meetings to harmonize the use and reporting of NfL measurements for the identified clinical applications. The results of these next steps will be presented.

AbstractAs rates of obesity rise worldwide, incidence of metabolic dysfunction‐associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), formerly referred to as nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, is increasing, worsening the burden of healthcare systems. The council of the Federation of International Societies for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (FISPGHAN) identified the topic of MASLD epidemiology, treatment, and prevention as a global priority issue to be addressed by an expert team, with the goal to describe feasible and evidence‐based actions that may contribute to reducing MASLD risk. The FISPGHAN member societies nominated experts in the field. The FISPGHAN council selected and appointed members of the expert team and a chair. The subtopics included in this manuscript were chosen through a consensus of the experts involved. We review the epidemiology, natural history, and screening and management. We further expand to relevant public health measures aimed at MASLD prevention, including identifying interventions that could reduce risk factors (environmental and iatrogenic), optimize maternal and newborn health, and support healthier lifestyles for older children and adolescents on a local, national, and international scale. While recognizing that various aspects of population health and public policy can shape MASLD risk, we also review what we can do on an individual level to support our patients to reduce the significant burden of this ever rising disease in pediatrics.

Introduction Linvoseltamab is an investigational, BCMA×CD3 bispecific antibody designed for the treatment of RRMM. High objective response rates (ORR) to linvoseltamab 200 mg in the LINKER-MM1 trial (NCT03761108) were demonstrated across high-risk subgroups, including patients aged ≥75 years, patients with high-risk cytogenetics, and patients with penta-class refractory status. The aim of this study was to compare ORR, overall and in key subgroups, between patients in Phase 2 of the LINKER-MM1 trial and patients in an international RW SOC external control arm (ECA). Methods The ECA was derived from a chart review of 16 academic sites across 10 countries that are part of the International Myeloma Foundation (IMF)-International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) and 2 US electronic health record databases (COTA and Guardian Research Network [GRN]). Included patients initiated ≥1 anti-MM treatment after meeting key eligibility criteria of LINKER-MM1. Weighted random sampling and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to select 1 line of therapy (LOT) per patient and balance the overall ECA and trial populations on prespecified prognostic factors (Kumar S, et al. IMS 2023). For ORR assessment, LINKER-MM1 and IMF-IMWG used independent central review committees per IMWG criteria, COTA used algorithmic assessment based on IMWG criteria, and GRN used physician-assessed responses. Prior to conducting comparative analyses, an independent committee of epidemiology and oncology experts reviewed the comparability of the cohorts and endpoint assessments, and approved study continuation. ORR among patients in LINKER-MM1 and patients in the ECA was compared overall and across prespecified subgroups (≥10 patients per subgroup), including age, race, cytogenetic risk score, international Staging System (ISS), presence of extramedullary plasmacytoma (EMP), refractory class, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) proportion, and number of prior LOTs. Results Median duration of follow-up was 14.3 months (data cut-off: January 6, 2024) for patients receiving linvoseltamab (n=105) and 13.6 months for the ECA (n=307; n=194, n=72, and n=41 from IMF-IMWG, COTA, and GRN, respectively). Following IPTW, 13 prognostic factors with <30% missingness were balanced between cohorts, with an effective sample size in the ECA of 197. After adjustment, ORR was significantly higher in patients who received linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA (69.5% vs 45.7%, odds ratio [OR] 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6-4.1]) and in key subgroups with age 65-74 years (76.9% vs 48.3%, OR 3.6 [1.6-8.6]), age ≥75 years (72.4% vs 48.5%, OR 2.8 [1.1-7.4]), Black or African American race (82.4% vs 25.0%, OR 14.0 [3.0-85.4]), White race (68.9% vs 49.7%, OR 2.2 [1.3-4.0]), standard cytogenetic risk (72.3% vs 51.3%, OR 2.5 [1.3-4.8]), ISS stage III (58.8% vs 19.7%, OR 5.8 [1.5-25.2]), absence of EMP (71.6% vs 49.3%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.6]), triple-class refractory status (68.2% vs 45.7%, OR 2.6 [1.5-4.4]), quadruple-class refractory status (66.7% vs 45.9%, OR 2.4 [1.3-4.3]), 4-5 prior LOTs (65.1% vs 40.4%, OR 2.8 [1.3-6.0]), and >5 prior LOTs (75.7% vs 36.1%, OR 5.5 [2.4-13.6]). Numerically higher (not statistically significant) or similar ORR was observed for patients receiving linvoseltamab compared with patients in the ECA with age <65 years (59.5% vs 46.8%, OR 1.7 [0.79-3.6]), high-risk cytogenetics (65.0% vs 63.1%, OR 1.1 [0.41-2.9]), ISS stage I (73.3% vs 64.6%, OR 1.5 [0.62-3.7]), ISS stage II (67.6% vs 53.5%, OR 1.8 [0.72-4.7]), presence of EMP (58.8% vs 56.9%, OR 1.1 [0.32-3.8]), penta-class refractory status (64.3% vs 48.5%, OR 1.9 [0.78-4.8]), BMPC <50% (77.0% vs 67.2%, OR 1.6 [0.61-4.3]), BMPC ≥50% (41.7% vs 36.0%, OR 1.3 [0.36-4.7]), and ≤3 prior LOTs (68.0% vs 66.4%, OR 1.1 [0.43-2.9]). Separate findings will be presented for IMF-IMWG and COTA/GRN data at the congress. Conclusions Linvoseltamab induced better ORR vs RW SOC treatments overall, and better or similar ORR in the key subgroups assessed, highlighting its therapeutic value across a range of patients with RRMM with heterogeneous risk profiles and levels of disease burden.

Abstract ELEVATE-RR demonstrated noninferior progression-free survival and lower incidence of key adverse events (AEs) with acalabrutinib vs ibrutinib in previously treated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. We further characterize AEs of acalabrutinib and ibrutinib via post hoc analysis. Overall and exposure-adjusted incidence rate was assessed for common Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor–associated AEs and for selected events of clinical interest (ECIs). AE burden scores based on previously published methodology were calculated for AEs overall and selected ECIs. Safety analyses included 529 patients (acalabrutinib, n = 266; ibrutinib, n = 263). Among common AEs, incidences of any-grade diarrhea, arthralgia, urinary tract infection, back pain, muscle spasms, and dyspepsia were higher with ibrutinib, with 1.5- to 4.1-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rates. Incidences of headache and cough were higher with acalabrutinib, with 1.6- and 1.2-fold higher exposure-adjusted incidence rate, respectively. Among ECIs, incidences of any-grade atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding were higher with ibrutinib, as were exposure-adjusted incidence rates (2.0-, 2.8-, and 1.6-fold, respectively); incidences of cardiac events overall (the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities system organ class) and infections were similar between arms. Rate of discontinuation because of AEs was lower for acalabrutinib (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-0.93). AE burden score was higher for ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib overall and for the ECIs atrial fibrillation/flutter, hypertension, and bleeding. A limitation of this analysis is its open-label study design, which may influence the reporting of more subjective AEs. Overall, event-based analyses and AE burden scores demonstrated higher AE burden overall and specifically for atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and hemorrhage with ibrutinib vs acalabrutinib. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02477696.