Citations

ABSTRACT Objective There is limited consensus on endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS) reconstruction principles. This study aims to generate comprehensive themes regarding ESBS reconstruction by pooling the experiences of ESBS experts, with comparison to a literature review of current published evidence. Methods Structured qualitative interviews of ESBS experts regarding postoperative management and reconstruction of various defect locations were conducted. Results A total of 68 experts comprising 40 academic teams across 13 countries with an average of 18 years of ESBS experience were included. We propose 10 stepwise algorithms for common skull base reconstruction scenarios based on these expert interviews. When available, the nasoseptal flap is used for all high_flow cerebrospinal leak defects. Multilayered reconstruction is favored at all anatomical subsites with increasing number of layers for increasing defect size and complexity. Heterogeneity exists in terms of inlay technique and materials, free grafting versus various pedicled flap options for low‐flow defects or in the absence of a nasal septum, nasal packing, tissue sealant, lumbar drain use, and postoperative management. Commonalities and discrepancies between experts were summarized. Conclusion Skull base reconstruction and post‐ESBS management is highly complex with a wide variety of practice patterns and expert strategies. Further research of higher quality evidence is warranted to identify optimal management patterns, though the current work aims to inform surgeons on these controversial areas by drawing from numerous experiences.

This cohort study examines the validity of an electronic health record data model for organ transplantation.

Abstract Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) with aromatase inhibitors (AI) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) is standard for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. However, many premenopausal women are intolerant of AI + OFS, leaving tamoxifen (with or without OFS) as their only option. Extensive studies have demonstrated that premenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant ET whose tumors exhibit Ki-67 ≤ 10% following 4 weeks of therapy (defined as endocrine sensitive disease (ESD)) achieve 5-year distant disease-free survival > 96%. Problematically, only 41% of patients reach this ESD threshold with tamoxifen compared to 78% with AI+OFS (Nitz JCO 2022). (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that inhibits ERα at plasma concentrations of 3-5 ng/ml and dually targets PKCβ1, a suspected oncogene in breast tumors, at concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml. We therefore developed the EVANGELINE study (NCT05607004) is an open label, randomized neoadjuvant phase II study that includes a pharmacokinetic (PK) Run-in, aiming to evaluate whether ENDX +/- goserelin is non-inferior to exemestane plus goserelin with respect to ESD rate. Following the completed PK run-in portion of the study, where 40mg/day or 80mg/day ENDX were assessed, the 40 mg/day dose was selected for further evaluation in the second part of the trial. The second part is comprised of a randomized treatment cohort, for patients with a Ki-67% >10% at preregistration randomized to either 40mg (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin or exemestane + goserelin neoadjuvant treatment and a Single Arm Treatment Cohort for patients who have a Ki-67 ≤ 10% at pre-registration assigned to 40mg/day (Z)-endoxifen monotherapy neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: To investigate ENDX further in premenopausal women, a multicenter study in the United States, was designed(EVANGELINE; NCT05607004). This phase 2, open-label, randomized, neoadjuvant trial includes a PK run-in phase designed to assess whether the 4-week ESD rate with (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin is non-inferior to that of exemestane + goserelin in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- breast cancer with diagnostic Ki67 > 10%. Additionally, a single arm Phase 2, open-label neoadjuvant Cohort was designed to assess the 4-week ESD rate with ENDX monotherapy in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- BC with diagnostic Ki67 ≤10%. Subjects will undergo neoadjuvant treatment for six months before receiving surgical treatment in the involved breast. This study will additionally assess safety, tolerability, response rates, surgical outcomes, and monitor disease progression. Comprehensive biomarker evaluations will be conducted using paired tumor biopsies and blood samples collected at baseline and week four, as well as 6 month surgical specimens. Enrollment in the PK run-in phase (n-22) was completed in Fall 2024 with the second portion of the trial slated to begin early in 2025. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Vera J. Suman, Claudia Lopez, Hayley Erickson, Lonnissa Nguyen, Sandra S. Hammer, Lida Mina, Pooja Advani, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Felipe Batalini, Daniel Flora, Jason M. Jones, Nusayba A. Bagegni, Katie N. Hunt, Mara Piltin, Amy Degnim, James N. Ingle, Judy C. Boughey, Sarah A. Buhrow, Joel M. Reid, Matthew Schellenberg, John R. Hawse, Steven C. Quay. A randomized phase 2 non-inferiority trial of (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin and exemestane + goserelin as neoadjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer (EVANGELINE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT237.

Abstract Breast cancer risk assessment tools are widely used in clinical practice to guide decisions regarding screening timing and modality, lifestyle interventions, genetic testing, preventive therapy, and risk-reducing surgery. Although a number of tools designed for the general population are used in practice, they face a series of challenges including: (i) modest discriminatory ability due to lack of a unified model that flexibly incorporates a comprehensive set of risk factors; (ii) inability to produce subtype-specific risk estimates, relevant for tailoring screening and/or preventive strategies (e.g. prophylactic endocrine therapy that is effective only for hormone receptor positive tumors); (iii) lack of data from diverse populations to build models that work well for all women; and, (iv) scarcity of opportunities for comparative validation of different models. The Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project (BCRPP), a collaboration currently including 20 prospective cohorts from the National Cancer Institute’s Cohort Consortium, is addressing these challenges by harmonizing, sharing, and analyzing data on over 1.8 million women, over 115, 000 of whom have developed breast cancer. The BCRPP is developing a comprehensive tool that will predict breast cancer risk, overall and by subtypes, across major racial and ethnic groups in the United States. This tool incorporates known and emerging risk factors (e.g. reproductive history, anthropometry, smoking, alcohol intake, medication use, mammography, family history, and measured genotypes). In parallel to model building and validation efforts, BCRPP investigators are developing privacy-preserving web and mobile interfaces to deliver the risk tools to patients and clinicians. Here we present descriptive data on participating cohorts (e.g. dates of enrollment, ages at enrollment, length of follow up, numbers of cases by subtype), summarize missing data patterns and our approach to model development and validation that accounts for heterogeneity in missingness patterns across cohorts, and describe data governance procedures and data sharing infrastructure (including pooled and federated analyses, to account for policy limitations on sharing individual data). Descriptive information and procedures for requesting and accessing data are available via the BCRPP data platform (https://epidataplatforms.cancer.gov/bcrpp/). Although originally assembled for risk model development, these data on a large and diverse sample of women with extensive harmonized risk factors and covariates can be a resource to address other outstanding questions in breast cancer epidemiology across time, the lifecourse, and diverse populations. Citation Format: Peter Kraft, Laura Beane-Freeman, Julie Palmer, Ellen O'Meara, Jeanine Genkinger, James Lacey, Thomas Rohan, Lauren Teras, Marian L. Neuhouser, Kala Visvanathan, Celine Vachon, Roger Milne, Christopher Haiman, Yu Chen, Heather Eliassen, Cari Kitahara, Katie O'Brien, Emily White, Garnet Anderson, I-Min Lee, Archie Campbell, Renee Fortner, Ylva Lagerros, Sven Sandin, Mia Gaudet, Montserrat Garcia-Closas, Nilanjan Chatterjee. The Breast Cancer Risk Prediction Project: a resource of 1.8 million women with diverse backgrounds from 20 prospective cohorts to improve breast cancer risk prediction and advance breast cancer epidemiology [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 3583.

Ophthalmic immune-related adverse events (Eye-irAEs) from immune checkpoint inhibitors can cause visual morbidity. The absence of standardized definitions for Eye-irAEs not only impedes the development of evidence-based treatments but also progress in translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to Eye-irAEs. Four ophthalmic physicians (uveitis specialists and neuro-ophthalmologists) drafted Eye-irAE consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Eye-irAE definition panel. The panel was divided into Group A (Neuro-ophthalmology/Orbital Disease) and Group B (Uveitis/Ocular Surface Disease). A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. For each disorder, five diagnostic components were evaluated: symptoms, examination findings, laboratory studies/imaging findings, diagnostic criteria, and treatment. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free-text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND Corporation/ University of California Los Angeles Health Services Utilization Study (RAND/UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 29 panelists from 25 academic medical centers voted on 114 rating scales (66 neuro-ophthalmic/orbital disease components, 48 uveitis/ocular surface disease components); of these, 86.3% (57/66) in Group A and 89.6% (43/48) in Group B reached first-round consensus. After revisions, all items except 6.1% (4/66) in Group A and 1.6% (1/60) in Group B received second-round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for 10/11 neuro-ophthalmic/orbital disorders: optic neuritis, inflammatory optic disc edema, arteritic ischemic optic neuropathy, optic perineuritis, orbital inflammation, thyroid eye disease-like orbital inflammation, cavernous sinus syndrome, oculomotor mononeuritis, trochlear mononeuritis, and abducens mononeuritis. Consensus definitions were achieved for 9/10 uveitis/ocular surface disorders: anterior uveitis, intermediate uveitis, posterior uveitis, panuveitis, Vogt-Koyanagi-Harada-like syndrome, sarcoidosis-like syndrome, acute macular neuroretinopathy, dry eye disease, and scleritis. These disease definitions establish a standardized classification for Eye-irAE, highlighting differences between irAEs and other inflammatory disorders. Importantly, diagnostic certainty does not always align directly with the need to treat as an Eye-irAE. Given the consensus from this representative panel group, it is anticipated the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

Sarcomas are rare heterogenous mesenchymal tumors with over seventy-five different subtypes, with varying biology and outcomes, with no clear inciting factor in the vast majority. To determine the prevalence of pathogenic germline variants (PGV) in patients with sarcomas, we undertook a prospective multi-site study of germline sequencing using an 84-gene next-generation sequencing panel among patients receiving care at the four Mayo Clinic Cancer Centers. Of 115 patients with bone and soft tissue sarcoma, the median age was 60 years, 49.6% were female, 82.6% were White. The anatomical location of the primary tumor included extremities (34.8%), retroperitoneum (19.1%), trunk (13.0%), and head and neck (7.8%). Family history of cancer was present in 62.6% of the study population. Ten patients (8.7%) had a pathogenic/likely pathogenic variant (PGV). Of these, three had stage IV sarcoma, and seven had earlier-stage sarcoma (stages I–III). Among the 55 (48.7%) patients who had variant of uncertain significance (VUS), 41.1% (22/55) had stage IV sarcoma and 58.9% (33/55) had earlier-stage disease. Of the ten patients with PGV, high-to-moderate penetrance gene abnormalities were identified in eight patients (80%) involving TP53 (3), BRCA1 (1), SDHA (1), ATM (2), and NBN (1) genes. The vast majority of the PGVs (70%) would not have been detected using the current guidelines. Because of the paucity of sarcomas and lack of effective treatment options for advanced disease, germline testing in sarcomas represents a potentially impactful strategy to assess therapeutic options and for assessment of familial risk.

Background Intolerance of Uncertainty (IU) has never been explored in functional motor disorder (FMD) or any functional neurological disorder but perceptions of control are theoretically relevant. Objective To evaluate if IU changes in people with FMD completing intensive 1-week motor retraining treatment, and if IU change associates with outcome. Methods A consecutive cohort of 45 FMD patients completed a 1-week intensive outpatient motor retraining treatment. At program beginning and end, patients self-rated IU using the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale-12 (IUS-12) and four functional impairment measures. Paired t-tests analyzed program changes in IU and functional outcomes. Linear regressions analyzed association strength between IU change and outcome. Results IU improved with FMD treatment (p < 0.001). Pre- to post-treatment IU was improved in 32/45 (71%), stable in 5/45 (11%), and worsened in 8/45 (18%). Age, symptom duration, and FMD phenotype did not predict IU improvement. Self-rated function improved across measures with treatment (p < 0.001). Program change in IU positively predicted outcome on 3 of 4 measures. Conclusions IU improves with FMD rehabilitation, even without explicit psychological focus of treatment, regardless of age or FMD phenotype. Improving IU associates with positive FMD treatment outcomes suggesting an important treatment target in FMD.