Citations

Background: Although the embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) construct was proposed as a unifying concept for embolic-appearing strokes without an identified cause, it includes patients with diverse and often unrecognized underlying mechanisms. This study investigates the differential rate of recurrent stroke according to the completeness of neurodiagnostic testing in a diverse multicenter cohort. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a multicenter observational cohort study (n=27 sites). Patients with ESUS were categorized into three groups: (1) established mechanism after further work up (ESUS-E), (2) patients who underwent a comprehensive diagnostic workup without an identified etiology (ESUS 2.0), and (3) no advanced workup (ESUS-NAW). The primary outcome of recurrent ischemic stroke was assessed by comparing ESUS 2.0 to both ESUS-E and ESUS-NAW groups using adjusted Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Of the 2,281 patients included, 694 (30%) were classified as ESUS-E, 344 (15%) as ESUS 2.0, and 1,443 (55%) as ESUS-NAW. The ESUS 2.0 group had a significantly lower annualized recurrence rate (1.98 per 100 person-years) compared to both the ESUS-NAW group (7.7 per 100 person-years; aHR 0.27, 95% CI: 0.11–0.62; p=0.002) and the ESUS-E group (6.10 per 100 person-years; aHR = 0.35; 95% CI 0.15–0.85, p=0.020). Within the ESUS-E group, cancer (aHR 5.33; 95% CI: 2.09–13.63; p < 0.001) and non-stenosing atherosclerotic disease or arch atheroma (aHR 3.40; 95% CI: 1.18–9.83; p = 0.023) were associated with significantly increased risk of recurrence when compared to ESUS 2.0. Conclusion: These findings demonstrate a lower risk of recurrent stroke in patients classified as ESUS 2.0, diverging from the 5–6% annual recurrence rates observed in prior ESUS trials. These findings suggest that patients who receive comprehensive diagnostic evaluation without identification of a specific etiology have a lower risk of recurrent stroke, an important consideration for the design of future ESUS studies.

Abstract Cancer occurs in ∼1 per 1000 pregnancies; thousands of patients may require radiation procedures for diagnosis and treatment each year in the United States alone. This rare but high-risk scenario, coupled with fear of radiation, has created ambiguity in the ideal management of pregnant patients. Without a comprehensive guide for the use of radiation in imaging and treatment for pregnant cancer patients, it is difficult for providers to offer optimal patient-centered care without introducing disparities. The goal of this paper is to provide guidance on the use of radiation for screening, diagnosis, staging, and treatment of cancer, while highlighting gaps in existing knowledge and guidelines. The intention is that physicians, medical physicists, and patients could use this document as a resource for shared decision-making, ensuring safe and effective practice. A team of physicians and medical physicists with expertise in imaging, radiotherapy, and maternal fetal medicine was assembled, along with a patient advocate and lawyer. Existing guidelines and recent literature were reviewed. Authors also drew from their experience where published guidance was lacking. The resulting document discusses best practice to guide use of radiation for cancer, as well as patient-centered care management and legal considerations. Overall, it is possible to safely and effectively deliver radiation to pregnant patients in numerous circumstances. Use of radiation or other modalities should be discussed through shared decision-making with the physician and patient, contextualizing the maternal and fetal risk from treatments. Healthcare providers should support wide access to reproductive healthcare to allow equitable, evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

PURPOSE There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

Background Cysteine–cysteine chemokine receptors 2 (CCR2) and 5 (CCR5) contribute to immune suppression in tumor microenvironments. CCR2 and CCR5 antagonists have demonstrated antitumor activity in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) and colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. This phase 1b/2, open-label study evaluated BMS-813160, a CCR2/5 dual antagonist, in combination with chemotherapy±nivolumab in advanced PDAC or metastatic CRC. Methods Part 1 included patients with metastatic untreated (first-line (1L)) PDAC, 1L CRC, or previously treated (second or third line (2/3L)) microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC. Patients received 2 weeks of BMS-813160 monotherapy (300 mg two times a day, 600 mg once daily, 300 mg once daily, or 150 mg once daily) and then BMS-813160+chemotherapy (gemcitabine+nab-paclitaxel (gem/nabP; 1L PDAC), 5-fluorouracil+leucovorin+irinotecan (FOLFIRI; 1L CRC)), or nivolumab (2/3L MSS CRC). Part 2 included patients with metastatic 1L PDAC or 2L CRC. Patients received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab (1L PDAC), BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day or 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI (2L CRC), or chemotherapy alone. Primary endpoints were safety and pharmacodynamics (Part 1) and efficacy (Part 2). Results In Part 1, 22 of 75 (29%) and 54 of 72 (72%) patients experienced a treatment-related adverse event during monotherapy lead-in and overall, respectively. Two dose-limiting toxicities (rash and pericardial effusion with pericarditis, both grade 3) occurred. In Part 2, patients with 1L PDAC who received BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 37% (13/35); the median duration of response (DOR) was 45 weeks (95% CI 26.1 to not evaluable). ORRs with BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP and gem/nabP alone were 26% (9/35) and 28% (9/32), respectively; median DORs were 121 and 31 weeks, respectively. Progression-free survival rates at 24 weeks were 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP+nivolumab), 56% (BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+gem/nabP), and 50% (gem/nabP). ORRs in 2L CRC were 19% (6/32; BMS-813160 300 mg two times a day+FOLFIRI), 13% (4/32; BMS-813160 150 mg once daily+FOLFIRI), and 27% (7/26; FOLFIRI). Conclusions In 1L PDAC, BMS-813160 300 two times a day+gem/nabP±nivolumab demonstrated durable antitumor response and was well tolerated. BMS-813160 combination regimens were tolerable in other cohorts, but clinical efficacy was not demonstrated. Trial registration number NCT03184870 .

Context.— The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for SARS-CoV-2 assays encompassed both in vitro diagnostic and laboratory-developed tests. Related testing data and documents from EUAs were published on the FDA website as PDF files, constituting a rich data resource. Objective.— To highlight the value of structured descriptive and validation data and provide recommendations on improving the quality, accessibility, and shareability of the FDA’s digital resources. Design.— SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics EUAs and related files were acquired from the FDA, and data were extracted through an iterative manual or automated process with quality assurance in accordance with a set of data entry definitions to generate a data product (ie, data analysis and presentation of data into tables, graphs, and reports, optionally including different data sets) that could be disseminated. Results.— Four challenges limited the usability of FDA EUA data, including (1) distinguishing EUA tests owing to similar names or inconsistent naming conventions; (2) document location and tracking owing to inconsistent EUA document identifiers, resource locators, and versioning; (3) data location and retrieval owing to heterogeneous structure and data formatting within EUA documentation; and (4) maintenance of existing data owing to lack of clear and traceable communication around EUA amendments. Conclusions.— Converging efforts from disparate groups to extract and synthesize FDA test data reveal an unaddressed need for better organization and communication. Existing FDA data reporting systems must be improved and adapted for the demands of the connected data science era.

Abstract Background Intracranial mesenchymal tumors, FET::CREB fusion-positive (ICMT), show fusions involving FET RNA-binding protein family genes (EWSR1 or FUS) and CREB family of transcription factors (ATF1, CREB1, or CREM). The methylation signature(s), gene expression characteristics, and clinical behavior of this important tumor type require further characterization. Methods We study the methylation profiles of 81 ICMT cases (61 newly profiled cases and 20 cases from publicly available sources). Clinicopathologic and genomic data were recorded for each case when available. Results ICMT showed a relatively distinct methylation signature compared to related tumors. Among the 65 cases where fusion types were documented, the identified fusions included EWSR1::ATF1 (25 cases), EWSR1::CREB1 (12 cases), EWSR1::CREM (21 cases), FUS::CREM (3 cases), and SMARCA2::CREM (4 cases). We confirmed the prior description of 2 distinct subgroups of ICMT (subclasses A and B). The majority of the cases belonged to subclass A (n = 69; 85%), which showed a higher median age compared to subclass B patients (26 years vs. 15 years). Subclass B cases (n = 12; 15%) showed shorter progression-free survival (P &lt; 0.01). Gene expression analysis of ICMT showed key overexpressed markers in ICMT, with significant CREM overexpression regardless of fusion type, when compared to either meningioma alone or a larger group of CNS tumors. Conclusions This work provides further characterization of ICMT as an important CNS mesenchymal neoplasm that is prone to tumor recurrence, showing 2 prognostically relevant methylation subclasses and warranting diagnostic distinction from other epigenetically and histologically related tumors. ICMTs show substantial overexpression of the CREM gene, independent of fusion type.

Abstract Purpose: Rearranged during transfection (RET) alterations are oncogenic drivers across solid tumors. Selective RET inhibitors (SRI) selpercatinib and pralsetinib have transformed outcomes for patients with RET-altered malignancies. Limited knowledge exists on genomic mechanisms of resistance to SRI. Experimental Design: We established “RETgistry,” a global consortium of patients with advanced RET-altered solid tumors who received SRI and underwent postprogression tissue or plasma biopsies assessed by next-generation sequencing. Frequencies of secondary RET resistance mutations and acquired non-RET gene alterations were determined. Progression-free survival (PFS) and time to treatment discontinuation (TTD) on first SRI were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: RETgistry included 109 patients with RET-altered advanced solid tumors (lung, n = 94; thyroid, n = 15) who underwent 143 post-SRI progression biopsies (tissue, 91; plasma, 52). The median PFS and TTD were 13.9 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 10.1–16.6] and 17.3 months (95% CI, 14–20.2), respectively. Secondary RET mutations were detected in 20 (14%) biopsies [lung cancer, 15 (12.4%) and thyroid carcinoma, 5 (22.7%)]. Common acquired off-target alterations involved MET (18.2%; amplification, 15%), TP53 (8.2%), APC (7.6%), KRAS (7.1%), KEAP1 (5.9%), and CDKN2A/B (5.3%). MET alterations were enriched in post-SRI versus pre-SRI specimens (full cohort, 17.6% vs. 2.0%, P = 0.022; lung cancer, 19.1% vs. 2.1%, P = 0.022). Conclusions: The prevalence of secondary RET mutations after SRI was low, underscoring a greater role for off-target resistance. Recurrent acquired alterations involving tumor suppressor genes or upstream regulators of MAPK and PI3K pathways were identified, most commonly MET amplification. Continued efforts to characterize SRI resistance biology are critical to guide the development of novel therapeutic strategies.

830 Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are standard therapy for MSI-H GI cancers. Lynch syndrome, caused by germline mutations in mismatch repair (MMR) genes, leads to MSI-H tumors and robust ICI responses, but its effect on irAEs remains poorly defined. Clarifying this risk may inform treatment selection and toxicity monitoring. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed MSI-H or MMR-deficient (dMMR) GI cancer patients (pts) treated with ICIs across Mayo Clinic (AZ, MN, FL) from January 2017 to June 2025. Eligible pts were identified using Mayo Data Explorer. Demographics, treatment, and irAEs (graded per CTCAE v5.0) were collected. Lynch status was determined by germline testing when available. Logistic regression estimated odds ratios (ORs) for any grade and grade ≥3 irAEs, adjusting for age, cancer type, prior chemotherapy, and treatment regimen. Results: A total of 209 pts with dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer were included: 61 with Lynch syndrome and 148 without. Lynch pts were younger (median 58 vs 76 years, p < 0.001) and more likely to have received prior chemotherapy (62% vs 43%, p = 0.009). Colorectal cancer was the predominant cancer type (74%), but Lynch pts had proportionally more non-colorectal GI cancers (15% vs 2.7%, p = 0.007). Overall, 29% of pts experienced an irAE, with rates significantly higher in Lynch vs non-Lynch pts (43% vs 24%, p = 0.005). The most frequent irAEs were gastrointestinal, endocrine, and dermatologic, followed by hepatic and pulmonary events. Grade ≥3 irAEs occurred in 16% overall, with no significant difference between groups (p = 0.124). In adjusted models, Lynch syndrome was independently associated with a higher risk of any grade irAE (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.09 - 4.19, p = 0.026), while risk of severe irAEs was not increased (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.64 - 3.59, p = 0.316). Lynch syndrome pts were more likely to have combination therapy (17% vs 6.8%, p = 0.029). However, there were no differences observed in any grade irAE between monotherapy and combination immunotherapy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.49 - 3.54, p = 0.535). Conclusions: Lynch syndrome is associated with a higher prevalence of any-grade irAEs among dMMR/MSI-H GI cancer pts treated with ICIs, though severe events were not increased. Incorporating Lynch status into immunotherapy planning may improve risk stratification and guide regimen selection.

776 Background: Surgery is the only potentially curative option for PC. However, only a minority of patients (pts) undergo resection with current perioperative (periop)-chemotherapy (CT). In the absence of phase III trials, selection between mFOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (gem-nab) is based on limited evidence. We assessed whether NGS–based tumor profiling can guide tailoring of CT. Methods: pts with resected PC (resectable, borderline resectable, and downstaged locally advanced) that underwent Tempus xT, xF (DNA), and/or xR (RNA) testing were selected (89% tissue, 11% blood). Most samples (73%) were collected post-CT. Samples were stratified by KRAS status into KRAS -mutated ( KRAS mut) and KRAS wild-type ( KRAS wt). PD-L1 IHC was reported as tumor proportion score (TPS). Primary endpoint was median overall survival (mOS) defined from CT initiation to death with censoring of pts alive at the last follow-up or at a study cutoff of 5 years. Secondary endpoint was molecular profiling by KRAS status. Pearson chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used for descriptive comparisons; univariate Cox regression and log-rank tests (p<0.05) for survival. Results: We included 1,325 pts (median age 66 years [IQR 59–72]) with resected PC [stage II (15%), stage III (12%) and stage I (10%), unknown (62%)]. 95% had adenocarcinoma. Pts received neoadjuvant (50%), neoadjuvant plus adjuvant (26%), neoadjuvant with indeterminate adjuvant allocation (13%) or adjuvant CT (11%). First-line periop-CT was mFOLFIRINOX in 73% and gem-nab in 27% (median duration 4.3 months (mo) [range, 2.6–6.7]). KRAS mutations were present in 75% (G12X 91%: G12D 44%, G12V 34%, G12R 21%, G12C <1%). mOS was 26.7 mo (95%CI, 22.4-35.7) in the total cohort; KRAS mut pts showed a clinically meaningful worse mOS compared to KRAS wt [24.1 vs 35.7 mo; HR 1.61 (95%CI, 0.98 - 2.63); p=0.06]. In the KRAS G12D pts, mFOLFIRINOX showed a trend towards longer mOS compared to gem-nab [17.79 vs 14.53 mo; HR 0.75, (95% CI, 0.56 - 1); p=0.050]; no significant differences were observed in other KRAS subgroups. Compared to KRAS wt, KRAS mut pts were enriched for TP53 (76% vs 22%; p<0.001), SMAD4 (28% vs 5.8%; p<0.001), CDKN2A (33% vs 8.5%; p<0.001), MTAP deletions (7.7% vs 1.2%; p<0.001), and chromatin-regulator alterations ( ARID1A 7.8% vs 1.2%; p<0.001; KMT2C 2.5% vs 0.6%; p=0.034). KRAS wt pts were enriched for BRAF V600E (1.5% vs 0%; p<0.001). PD-L1 TPS ≥1% was more frequent in KRAS mut compared to KRAS wt (11.0% vs 8.1%; p=0.033). Conclusions: KRAS status does not predict benefit from mFOLFIRINOX vs gem-nab in resected PC. Interestingly, resected PC showed a higher prevalence of KRAS wt compared to the metastatic setting. KRAS status is associated with distinct profiles of potentially targetable co-alterations. These findings may suggest the integration of genomic profiling in clinical trials to develop biomarker-driven tailored strategies in the early stage.