Citations

Hearing loss is a highly prevalent disease state affecting almost 1 in 5 individuals globally. Growing research shows that untreated or undertreated hearing loss carries significant long-term sequelae, including increased risk of social isolation, depression, and cognitive decline, among other ramifications. Limited awareness and common misperceptions among the general US adult population and primary care providers contribute to low rates of referral to hearing specialty clinics and underutilization of hearing aids, cochlear implants, and other rehabilitative devices. Comprised of diverse membership, the Hearing Health Collaborative (HHC) was formed in May 2021 to identify and overcome challenges impacting good health care practices and public policy on hearing care in connection with healthy aging. This editorial documents a recent outcome of the HHC derived from a structured A3 process. Specifically, initiative 2, a proposal to develop a simple, clinically anchored staging system primarily for use by frontline providers and patients, is presented. Unlike other common disorders that harbor long-term health sequelae, a corresponding pragmatic clinical staging system—leveraging precedent disease staging convention, based on clinically meaningful outcomes and prognosis for acquired hearing loss—does not exist. The development of this staging system will potentially allow for improved communication across providers and patients, facilitate referral pathways, and ultimately enable patient access to timely and appropriate care.

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

Abstract The cortical asymmetry index evaluates the cortical thickness asymmetry between hemispheres. We investigated cortical asymmetry index in asymptomatic and symptomatic mutation carriers of autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease to explore the brain asymmetry within the Alzheimer’s disease continuum. Sixty baseline T1-weighted MRI scans were obtained from the Clinic Barcelona cohort. Baseline and longitudinal MRI data from 564 participants within the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study were used as an independent, confirmatory cohort. Cerebrospinal fluid and plasma neurofilament light chain levels were included when available. Cortical thickness was calculated using Freesurfer and cortical asymmetry index was calculated via an open-source pipeline. Cross-sectional analyses examined cortical asymmetry index differences based on clinical classification and APOE ε4 status, adjusting for age, sex and estimated years from onset, while correlations were assessed with age, estimated years from onset, mini-mental state examination scores, and neurofilament light. Longitudinal cortical asymmetry index evolution was modelled using generalized additive models in the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study cohort, incorporating age, sex, and the interaction between group and estimated years from onset. The cortical asymmetry index successfully distinguished asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers from healthy controls in the Clinic Barcelona cohort and symptomatic mutation carriers from controls in dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study. Higher cortical asymmetry index in mutation carriers (asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers combined) and in symptomatic mutation carriers were associated with higher plasma neurofilament light levels, a closer proximity to symptom onset, and lower mini-mental state examination in the Clinic Barcelona cohort. In the dominantly inherited Alzheimer network observational study cohort, mutation carriers exhibited increased cortical asymmetry index compared to controls and correlated with elevated neurofilament light (plasma and Cerebrospinal fluid), lower mini-mental state examination, and a closer proximity to symptom onset. APOE3/3 carriers showed greater asymmetry than other APOE genotypes and significant cortical asymmetry index differences between asymptomatic mutation carrier and symptomatic mutation carriers. Longitudinally, cortical asymmetry index increased over time significantly in symptomatic mutation carriers. These findings underscore brain asymmetry as a potential biomarker for early Alzheimer’s disease progression in autosomal dominant Alzheimer’s disease, with implications for detection and monitoring tracking disease-related neuroanatomical changes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) for brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) can cause radiation-induced changes (RIC), but its interactions with AVM embolization are not well established. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of previous embolization on RIC in SRS-treated AVM patients. METHODS: Data of AVM patients treated with single-session SRS from 1987 to 2018 were retrieved from the International Radiosurgery Research Foundation. Univariable and stepwise backward logistic regression models were used to identify RIC predictors. Patients were stratified into those who received pre-SRS embolization (E + SRS) vs those who did not (SRS-only). Radiologic RIC (rRIC) was the primary end point. Secondary outcomes included symptomatic RIC (sRIC) and permanent symptomatic RIC (pRIC). RESULTS: Among 1187 AVM patients, the mean age was 36.4 years (SD 16.8), with 50.4% female patients. AVMs had a mean untreated AVM volume of 5.2 cm 3 . A total of 130 patients (11%) underwent neoadjuvant embolization (E + SRS). The overall rRIC and sRIC rates were 32.8% and 12.1%, respectively, with time to rRIC and sRIC being significantly longer in the E + SRS vs SRS-only cohorts (103.6 ± 339.4 vs 11.3 ± 12.5 and 60.4 ± 262.9 vs 9.5 ± 9.0 months, respectively). Seizures at presentation and ≥3-cm untreated AVM volume significantly correlated with a higher likelihood of rRIC (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.32 [1.25-4.30] and aOR 2.77 [1.24-6.16], respectively). Age and pre-SRS embolization were associated with a significantly lower risk of rRIC (aOR 0.97 [0.96-0.99] and aOR 0.32 [0.13-0.74], respectively). The E + SRS cohort had significantly reduced odds of rRIC (aOR = 0.37 [0.15-0.89]) and pRIC (aOR = 0.04 [0.00-0.30]) after adjusting for significant covariates. CONCLUSION: Seizures at presentation and larger untreated AVM volume were independently associated with an increased risk of rRIC, whereas older age and pre-SRS embolization were protective. Notably, patients who underwent embolization before SRS had lower odds of rRIC and pRIC, with delayed onset of complications compared with SRS-only.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

Importance The choice of induction agent during rapid sequence intubation (RSI) of critically ill adults may affect clinical outcomes. Although ketamine and etomidate are frequently used for RSI, their comparative effectiveness remains controversial. Objective To compare the safety of etomidate vs ketamine for emergency RSI in critically ill adults. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study used a target trial emulation with observational data collected between March 1, 2022, and April 30, 2024, from 18 emergency departments across Brazil, with data from the Brazilian Airway Registry Cooperation. Adults who underwent RSI and received either etomidate or ketamine as a sole hypnotic agent were included; those with preintubation cardiac arrest or immediate postintubation transfer were excluded. Exposure Administration of etomidate or ketamine as the induction agent for RSI. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included 7-day in-hospital mortality, first-attempt intubation success, and major adverse events (new hemodynamic instability, severe hypoxemia, and cardiac arrest) within 30 minutes after intubation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs were used to compare outcomes between groups. Results Among 1810 patients (median age, 64 years [IQR, 50-74 years]; 1048 men [57.9%]), 514 received ketamine and 1296 received etomidate. The median shock index was higher in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (0.81 [IQR, 0.65-1.01] vs 0.76 [IQR, 0.59-0.99]), and preintubation vasopressor use was more common in the ketamine group than the etomidate group (191 of 514 [37.2%] vs 391 of 1296 [30.2%]). Weighted 28-day mortality was higher with etomidate than ketamine (60.5% [95% CI, 57.2%-63.8%] vs 54.4% [95% CI, 45.0%-63.9%]; RR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27]; RD, 7.6% [95% CI, 2.0%-13.3%]). Seven-day mortality was also higher with etomidate than ketamine (35.2% [95% CI, 32.0%-38.3%] vs 30.1% [95% CI, 23.5%-36.7%]; RR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.04-1.35]). New hemodynamic instability within 30 minutes after intubation was more frequent with ketamine (24.2% [95% CI, 20.4%-28.0%] vs 18.9% [95% CI, 16.7%-21.0%]; RR, 0.78 [0.64-0.95]). There were no statistically significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance In this cohort study of critically ill adults undergoing RSI, etomidate use was associated with higher in-hospital mortality at 7 and 28 days compared with ketamine. These findings highlight the need for definitive randomized clinical trials to compare both agents.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer remains a leading cause of cancer associated death in the United States and colonoscopy the primary screening strategy for prevention. Rates of adenomatous and serrated neoplasia detection are inversely associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. This crucial quality metric depends on accurate ascertainment of colorectal neoplasia findings from both endoscopy and histopathology records. We aimed to assess the feasibility of a random forest machine learning model to rapidly and accurately categorize colorectal neoplasia from electronic health record data. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared neoplasia detection rates among individuals undergoing colonoscopy at a large academic institution to develop a rule-based algorithm to categorize colorectal neoplasia from endoscopy reports and pathology systematized nomenclature of medicine – clinical terms. This cohort provided a large training set to develop a natural language processing system using a random forest approach to automatically classify unstructured pathology findings into adenoma, serrated, or advanced neoplasms. This system was manually validated through an independent holdout set. RESULTS: The training set comprised 35,953 unstructured pathology reports with matched systematized nomenclature of medicine – clinical terms from 95,188 unstructured colonoscopy reports. The final model was assessed on an independent holdout set of 337 manually annotated procedures obtaining an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.997 (confidence interval [CI] 0.994–1), 0.99 (CI 0.98–1), and 0.99 (CI 0.98–0.99) for prediction of adenoma, serrated, and advanced lesions, respectively. DISCUSSION: The random forest-based hybrid natural language processing system for classification of colonoscopy results was both accurate and explainable. NLP combined with effective machine learning algorithms can provide a scalable strategy for colonoscopy quality monitoring.

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy that has shown remarkable efficacy in patients with RRMM. As real-world (RW) experience with cilta-cel continues to expand, and with the recent FDA guidance reducing the recommended proximity to the CAR T center from four to two weeks post-infusion, there is growing interest in identifying patients at low risk for severe early complications who may be safely managed in the outpatient setting and potentially ‘discharged’ home earlier. Methods Data were collected from 769 patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel at 15 institutions in the U.S. via the Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium.Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients who could be managed in the outpatient setting (low-risk group). Based on expert consensus within the Consortium, low-risk patients were defined as: grade ≤1 CRS, no ICANS, and no IEC-HS. The remaining patients were categorized as high-risk. We evaluated baseline characteristics with missingness < 20% as predictors, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, ECOG performance status (PS) at time of lymphodepletion (LD), extramedullary disease, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) percentage, high-risk cytogenetics, bridging therapy including response, penta-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, prior anti-BCMA therapy, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and baseline ferritin. The cohort was restricted to patients with complete data on all predictors (n=455) and split into a training and testing cohort (80/20 split, n=364/91). Bidirectional stepwise regression was used to build the predictive model using variables with significance of p<0.15 selected for entry. The best model was selected based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and a significance level of p<0.05. Results Among the 455 patients with complete data included in the final model, 290 (64%) were categorized as low-risk and 165 (36%) as high-risk. Compared to the low-risk group, high-risk patients were more likely to have an ECOG PS ≥2 at time of LD (20% vs 9%, p<0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (47% vs 35%, p=0.009), and penta-refractory disease status (34% vs 24%, p=0.031). High-risk patients also had a higher median BMPC percentage (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), and higher baseline pre-LD CRP and ferritin. Overall response rates were high, at 95% vs 90% (p=0.047) for the low vs high risk groups, with complete response or better achieved in 73% vs 66% of patients, respectively (p=0.14). With a median follow-up of approximately 11 months, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI: 27-NA) in the low-risk group and 18.2 months (95% CI: 13.1-NA) in the high-risk group. In terms of safety, non-ICANS neurotoxicity (NINT) occurred less frequently in the low-risk group (6.6% vs 13%, p=0.015). Specifically, Parkinsonism was observed in 1.7% vs 6.1% (p=0.013), and cranial nerve palsy in 4.5% vs 5.5% (p=0.7), respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was lower in the low-risk group (4.2%) compared to the high-risk group (14%; p < 0.001). The most common causes of NRM in the low- and high-risk groups were acute toxicities (0% vs 36%, including CRS, IEC-HS, and ICANS), delayed toxicities (0% vs 8%, including colitis, NINT, and Parkinsonism), infections (50% vs 48%), and other unrelated causes (50% vs 8%). The best model to predict low-risk patients that could be managed in the outpatient settingincluded BMPC percentage and ECOG PS at LD. In the training cohort, patients with a higher pre-LD BMPC percentage and an ECOG PS ³2 were less likely to be in the low-risk group(OR per 1-unit change in BMPC percentage = 0.99, 95% CI=0.98-0.99, p<0.001 and OR for ECOG PS 2-4 = 0.38, 95% CI=0.20-0.72, p=0.003). The AUC for this model was 0.663 in the training cohort and 0.659 in the testing cohort. Conclusion In this large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel, we identified clinical factors associated with lower risk for early severe toxicities, supporting outpatient administration and the potential for earlier discharge in selected patients, particularly those who are fit and have low disease burden. Our findings provide a practical framework to guide risk stratification and outpatient CAR T management strategies, particularly in light of evolving regulatory guidance and growing RW experience with cilta-cel.

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.

Abstract Introduction: Despite advent of multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and newer treatment methods for AML and ALL, the outcomes of patients (pts) with chronic myeloid leukemia in blast phase (CML-BP) remain poor. Consensus guidelines on treatment of CML-BP are scarce. A recent study from the European leukemia network blast phase registry on 240 pts reported marked heterogeneity in treatment patterns and lack of an accepted standard. Hence, we undertook this study through the H Jean Khoury Cure CML Consortium (HJKC3) to describe the treatment patterns and outcomes of pts with CML-BP in the US. Methods: This is a multi-institution, retrospective study. IRB approval was obtained at each institution and data sharing agreements were executed. All pts diagnosed with CML-BP based on modified MD Anderson Criteria (≥30% blasts in the blood or bone marrow or extramedullary (EM) disease) from 2010 to 2025 were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from time of diagnosis of CML BP to death from any cause. Event free survival (EFS) was calculated from date of best response to event (death or relapse). Results: Of the 283 pts with CML-BP, 96 (33.9%) were female and 187 (66.1%) were males. At the time of diagnosis, 183 (64.6%) had CML-CP, 21 (7.4%) pts had CML-AP and 79 (27.9%) pts had de-novo CML-BP. For the 204 pts that were initially diagnosed with CML-CP or CML-AP, the median time to progression to CML-BP was 22.5 months (1-207 months). Median age at diagnosis of CML-BP was 50 years (range 16-86 years). EM disease was present in 78 (27.6%) pts (38 myeloid sarcoma, 30 central nervous system and 10 skin). Blasts were of myeloid phenotype in 168 (59.4%), lymphoid in 103 (36.4%) and mixed in 9 (3.2%) pts. The bcr-abl protein was p210 in 229 (80.9%), p190 in 8 (2.8%) and p230 in 2 (0.7%) pts. ABL kinase domain mutation was seen in 42.1% (80/190) pts, with T315I being the most common (n=32), followed by E255K (n=16). Next generation sequencing was performed in 117 pts. The most common mutations were ASXL1 (n=27), RUNX1 (n=14), BCOR (n=4), DNMT3A (n=4) and BCORL1 (n=3). Of the 283 pts, 269 underwent CML-BP directed therapy. 63 (23.4%) pts were treated with TKI monotherapy, 184 (68.4%) pts were treated with a combination of chemotherapy (chemo) and TKI and 22 (8.2%) pts were treated with chemo alone. Response rate after CML-BP directed therapy was 75.3% (n=213). Best response was return to CML-CP in 49 pts, CHR with PCyR in 18 pts, CCyR in 31 pts, MMR in 31 pts, MR4 in 18 pts, MR4.5 in 19 pts and MR5 in 47 pts. Rate of response with 2G and ponatinib was significantly better than imatinib (85.3% and 77.3% vs 63.6%; p=0.04). 149 (55.4%) pts proceeded to alloSCT. Of the 213 pts that responded, 59 (27.7%) relapsed. At a median follow-up of 47 months, the median OS for all pts was 19.7 months (95% CI: 16.3-40.2 months), with 5-year OS rate of 38% (95% CI: 32-45%). Pts with myeloid phenotype had a significantly lower OS compared to lymphoid and mixed phenotype (Median OS 14.9 vs 45.9 and 31.1 months respectively; p=0.02). OS of pts that were treated with a combination of TKI and chemo was significantly longer compared to pts treated with TKI or chemo alone (52.9 vs 16.1 or 7.5 months; p<0.0001). Dasatinib (n=99; 34.9%) and ponatinib (n=97; 34.3%) were the most used TKIs followed by imatinib (n=23; 8.1%), nilotinib (n=21; 7.4%), bosutinib (n=8; 2.8%) and asciminib (n=3; 1.1%). Pts treated with ponatinib had a numerically longer OS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib, however this was not statistically significant (40.1 vs 30.6 and 20.3 months; p=0.52). EFS for pts treated with ponatinib was significantly longer compared to 2G-TKI or imatinib (25.9 vs 17.6 and 15.9 months; p=0.03). In a landmark analysis, pts that underwent alloSCT within 6 months of diagnosis had a significantly longer OS compared to those who did not (69.3 vs 16.0 months; p=0.006). Conclusion: CML-BP continues to have poor prognosis. Treatment is heterogenous involving various combinations of TKI and chemo. In our analysis, treatment with 2G-TKI or ponatinib led to better responses. CML-BP with myeloid phenotype had worse OS. Treatment with ponatinib was associated with a numerically longer OS and significantly longer EFS compared to 2G-TKI and imatinib. In addition, treatment with chemo in combination with TKI and alloSCT led to improved OS.