Citations

ABSTRACT The American Society for Apheresis (ASFA) Attending Physician Subcommittee of the Physicians' Committee performed an annual review of articles published in 2024 related to apheresis medicine. The 10 seminal apheresis articles selected by the subcommittee members are summarized in this review. PubMed was used to identify manuscripts published in 2024 in four areas of interest: donor apheresis, therapeutic apheresis, apheresis education, and apheresis for cellular therapy. Only full length, peer‐reviewed manuscripts in English with data from human subjects were included. Case reports, review articles, and meta‐analyses were excluded. Articles were considered seminal if they met at least one of the following previously established criteria: novel finding(s), practice‐altering outcomes, international in scope, randomized‐controlled trial, relevant to current clinical practice, and/or provide evidence for category III or IV indications based on the ASFA 9th special issue of the Guidelines on the Use of Therapeutic Apheresis in Clinical Practice‐Evidence‐Based Approach.

Background Outcome selection in regional anesthesia and acute pain research is inconsistent, often lacking patient-centered priorities and validated instruments. We aimed to prioritize key outcomes and propose suitable measurement tools to improve the quality, consistency, and relevance of regional anesthesia research. Methods We conducted a multiround Delphi process, including two electronic voting rounds, a multiday in-person meeting, and a patient panel. Experts and patients evaluated existing and proposed outcomes for importance, validity, and relevance. Outcomes reaching ≥70% agreement were prioritized, and appropriate measurement instruments were identified. Results Thirty-two experts and three patients participated. Across three Delphi rounds, 10 outcomes were prioritized for future regional anesthesia research: seven efficacy outcomes (pain scores; opioid consumption; Brief Pain Inventory; functional outcomes; cognitive function; length of stay; block duration); two multidimensional outcomes (quality of recovery and development of a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument); one safety outcome (chronic postsurgical pain). Patients prioritized cognitive recovery, function, chronic pain, and pain scores. Conclusions This consensus-based, patient-centered framework defines the core priorities for future regional anesthesia and acute pain research. Future work should focus on developing and validating a regional anesthesia-specific quality-of-recovery instrument, refining multidimensional measures such as functional recovery, cognitive outcomes, and the Brief Pain Inventory, and standardizing the reporting of chronic pain and opioid-related outcomes. Adoption of these priorities will enhance methodological consistency, comparability, and patient relevance in future clinical trials.

ABSTRACT Suicidality contributes substantially to global morbidity and mortality, yet despite its heritability, its biological etiology remains largely elusive. We conducted multi-ancestry genome-wide association study meta-analyses of suicidal ideation (259,747 cases), suicide attempt (64,993 cases), suicide death (9,197 cases), and suicidal behavior (suicide attempt/ death, 75,300 cases), across 54 cohorts (e.g., the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Million Veteran Program, UK Biobank). We identified 77 significant loci across meta-analyses, including 59 previously unreported for suicidality. SNP-based heritability ranged from 2.0-6.7% and there were strong, yet incomplete, genetic correlations between suicidality phenotypes (0.70-0.88). Fine-mapping prioritized putative causal SNPs and 20 credible genes. Enrichment analyses implicated synaptic pathways and neuronal populations predominantly in subcortical brain regions (e.g., amygdala excitatory, medium spiny, hippocampal CA1-3). Together, these findings establish suicidality as a polygenic set of traits with both shared and distinct genetic influences, providing a foundation for future studies of suicide biology and etiology.

This cohort study examines the oncological, neurological, and serological profiles of adult male patients with testicular germ cell tumors and paraneoplastic neurologic syndromes.

Abstract Background Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hemoglobinopathy with limited treatment options. Genetic modification of the patient's own hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs) offers an avenue to curative therapy using the patient's own cells. Many challenges exist in collecting sufficient numbers of starting material for manufacturing, beginning with the pre‐mobilization optimization of the patient to the mobilization, collection, and post‐collection phases. Study Design and Methods A working group within the Cellular Therapy Subcommittee of the American Society for Apheresis Clinical Applications Committee describes the challenges associated with apheresis collection of the starting material for gene therapy (GT) product manufacturing for patients with SCD and discusses potential strategies for overcoming these challenges. Results and Discussion Patients must undergo automated red blood cell exchange (RCE) to lower hemoglobin S in a relatively short window of time before apheresis collection of HSCs. The risks and benefits of transfusion as well as the logistics of providing adequate and appropriate blood products must be considered. Limited agents are available for mobilization of HSCs into the peripheral blood for collection and the timing of administration is short. Each collection cycle consists of RCE followed by at least three mobilization and apheresis collection events in addition to collecting backup cells. More than one cycle is typically needed to collect enough cells for GT drug product manufacturing. Optimization of patient factors and apheresis instrument parameters leads to better collection yields. Early and frequent ongoing coordination with all stakeholders involved is critical to developing personalized treatment plans for patients.

230 Background: The burden of symptoms and financial toxicity are well-documented adverse effects of cancer treatments. Recently, logistic toxicity has emerged, referring to the detrimental impact of logistical demands associated with cancer treatment on patient well-being. For non- English speaking patients, language barriers can affect their treatment experience, increasing logistic burdens. Methods: Between September 2024 and May 2025, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 low English proficiency (LEP)/non-English speaking adults with cancer. The interviews explored logistic challenges faced due to LEP and its impact on patients' cancer care experience. Transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Results: Of the 39 identified eligible individuals, 26 provided consent, and 21 (81%) completed the interview. The most common primary language of the participants was Spanish (9, 43%), followed by Somali (3, 14%), Arabic and Korean (2, 9%), and Amharic, Mandarin, Hmong, Russian, and Vietnamese (1, 5%). Seven major themes emerged regarding the logistic burdens of cancer care: (1) communication challenges, (2) navigating healthcare systems, (3) emotional distress from diagnosis and communication barriers, (4) financial toxicity, (5) transportation challenges, (6) adverse treatment effects, and (7) concerns about the political climate and its impact on resources. Conclusions: The increase in non-English languages in the U.S. highlights the need to understand the unique challenges faced by these patients. This study identified logistic toxicity themes consistent with previous research, while also revealing unique challenges. Further research is necessary to explore strategies to mitigate logistic burdens among those with LEP. Theme Illustrative Quotes Communication challenges “Communication with the psychologist was challenging … I couldn’t express myself effectively and it left me unsatisfied with the interaction.” Navigating healthcare systems “dealing with the insurance, it has been difficult … I have to depend on another person to help me” Emotional distress from diagnosis and communication barriers “In addition to my sickness, the lack of communication and understanding… makes me very sad.” Financial toxicity “...there's no income. There is nothing to feed our children.” Transportation challenges “I have to leave home 2 or 3 hours in advance because people will help me, not within my time, but within their own time.” Adverse treatment effects “I noticed weird feelings in my limbs. I'm not able to write down or hold anything. It makes everything difficult.” Concerns about current political climate and its impact on existing resources “… that they don't want Spanish spoken in the United States. They're not going to provide help for people like me at the hospitals…”

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.

ImportancePatients with metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 alterations are eligible to receive poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as single agents or in combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor after these agents showed survival improvement in their landmark clinical trials. However, data are limited regarding the uptake of PARP inhibitors in these patients.ObjectiveTo investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in patients with mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 alterations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used the deidentified Flatiron-Health electronic health record–derived database of US community and academic practices to extract patient-level data. The data cutoff date was May 31, 2024. Patients with mCRPC with evidence of harboring BRCA1/2 alterations and alive after August 15, 2020 (ie, 3 months after the approval of the first PARP inhibitor, rucaparib, in mCRPC) were included. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2024 to May 2025.ExposuresAge, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and practice type at the time of mCRPC diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe receipt of PARP inhibitors. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between the exposures and the main outcome.ResultsOf 24 105 patients with metastatic prostate cancer, 443 male patients (median [IQR] age, 72 [65-79] years) had mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations and were eligible and included in our analysis. Of these patients, 227 (51.2%) received a PARP inhibitor, whereas 216 (48.8%) did not. Compared with patients covered by a commercial health plan, those covered by Medicare were significantly more likely to receive a PARP inhibitor (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.66; P = .047). The odds of receiving a PARP inhibitor were not significantly higher in patients treated in community practice compared with those treated in academic centers (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00-2.70; P = .05).Conclusions and RelevanceThis retrospective cohort study of patients with mCRPC and evidence of BRCA1/2 alterations found that approximately half of patients did not receive PARP inhibitors despite evidence of survival improvement in this population. These findings highlight the need to increase awareness of the survival data and access to life-prolonging therapies in patients with mCRPC.

ABSTRACT Objectives To characterize practice patterns and outcomes in the management of low‐ and intermediate‐grade salivary gland carcinoma prior to the existence of treatment guidelines. Methods Analysis of a registry of patients who underwent parotid and submandibular gland resections for low‐and intermediate‐grade carcinomas between 2010 and 2019. Results Of all 786 patients included in the study, 726 (92%) had preoperative imaging and 653 (83%) had preoperative biopsy. Of the 729 patients with parotid gland cancer, the majority underwent superficial ( n = 384, 53%) or total ( n = 254, 35%) parotidectomy. In patients with facial nerve preservation, total parotidectomy was associated with a significant increase in transient facial weakness (72/177 (41%) vs. 82/311 (26%), RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.50–0.84, p < 0.05) and permanent facial nerve weakness (23/176 (13%) vs. 16/301 (5%), RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.22–0.75, p < 0.05) compared to superficial parotidectomy. Adjuvant radiation therapy ( RT ) was delivered to 285 (36%) patients. The proportion of patients receiving adjuvant RT declined significantly over the time period from 2015 to 2019 compared to 2010 to 2014 at 162/504 (32%) and 123/282 (44%), respectively ( RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.61–0.89, p < 0.05). When comparing the time periods from 2015 to 2019 and 2010 to 2014, there was no significant difference in local control rates ( RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26–1.04, p = 0.06) or regional control rates ( RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.26–2.13, p = 0.58). Conclusions Management of low‐ and intermediate‐grade salivary cancer from 2010 to 2019 was variable, which is expected given the rarity and heterogeneity of the disease and the lack of treatment guidelines prior to 2021. Most patients with parotid malignancies underwent superficial or total parotidectomy. The extent of parotidectomy had an impact on facial nerve function outcomes. Delivery of adjuvant radiation trended down with time. The data presented here will support dissemination of the guidelines and provide data that could inform future trials. Level of Evidence 2b.