Citations

Understanding the evolution of clinical tools and models of care is fundamental to advancing the field of epilepsy. The 2025 American Epilepsy Society Annual Course examined the expanding spectrum of epilepsy care through the integration of multispecialty collaboration, innovative diagnostic modalities, and surgical and nonsurgical therapeutic interventions. The course underscored significant global advancements in epilepsy research and practice. This comprehensive review synthesizes key educational insights from the program, offering a critical perspective on the ongoing transformation of epilepsy care.

ABSTRACT Background Isolated chromosome 5/5q losses (–5/5q) without TP53 mutations are associated with favorable outcomes in myeloid neoplasms (MN) with <5% blasts. However, the clinical implication of concurrent −5/5q and TP53 aberrations in MN with ≥5% blasts is poorly understood. Methods Patients with TP53 ‐mutated MN carrying ≥5% blasts assessing the prognostic impact of ‐5/5q on 24‐month overall survival (OS24) were examined. Results Of 587 patients, 515 (88%) exhibited −5/5q overwhelmingly in the context of a complex karyotype (98.3% vs. 61.1% complex karyotype without −5/5q; p < .0001) and multihit TP53 allelic state (88.3% vs. 56.9%; p < .0001). Proportions of patients with blasts ≥20% were comparable between groups with and without −5/5q; p = 0.26. Notably, patients with −5/5q exhibited significantly fewer coalterations; p < .0001. Looking at outcomes, presence of −5/5q was associated with shorter median 24‐month overall survival (7.8 months vs. 11.2 months; p Log‐rank = .012), an effect restricted to subgroups with blasts <20% ( p = .039; N = 163), absent −7/7q ( p = .007; N = 225), or WHO5‐defined single hit allelic state ( p = 0.030; N = 91). Importantly, −5/5q retained independent adverse prognostic significance regardless of TP53 allelic state in a multivariable model. Furthermore, among the subset of 75 (13%) patients undergoing allogeneic stem cell transplantation, −5/5q predicted significantly shorter median 5‐year posttransplant survival (16.2 months vs. median not reached; p Log‐rank = .009). Conclusions These findings emphasize the independent prognostic relevance of chromosome 5/5q losses underscoring the clinical relevance of cytogenetic testing for −5/5q even in this high‐risk cohort.

ABSTRACT Objectives Odontogenic sinusitis (ODS) refers to purulent sinusitis caused by infectious maxillary dental pathologies, with > 90% occurring unilaterally. While various clinical features suggest ODS, diagnosing some ODS patients can be challenging. This study aimed to determine the value of maxillary sinus papillary edema (MSPE) in predicting ODS. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent at least maxillary antrostomy for unilateral sinus disease (USD). Adequately powered samples of three USD cohorts were generated: ODS, infectious maxillary CRS without nasal polyps (CRSsNP), and noninfectious CRSwNP. Multiple variables were collected, but the primary outcome was MSPE presence via double‐blinded endoscopic image review by three rhinologists. Inter‐rater agreement was calculated, and a predictive model for MSPE was generated. Results Of 41 ODS, 22 infectious CRSsNP, and 13 noninfectious CRSwNP patients, mean age was 57.0 years and 55.3% were female. There was almost perfect agreement between rhinologists when assessing for MSPE on endoscopic images ( κ = 0.927). MSPE was seen in 100% of ODS, 22.7% infectious CRSsNP, and 0% CRSwNP. MSPE was significantly more likely in ODS compared to non‐odontogenic CRS ( p < 0.0001), demonstrating 100% sensitivity and 89.1% specificity for ODS, with 85.7% positive and 100% negative predictive values. Conclusions MSPE is a distinct finding that is reliably identifiable and is significantly more likely in ODS compared to infectious CRSsNP and noninfectious CRSwNP. With 100% sensitivity and NPV, MSPE absence makes ODS very unlikely. With 86% PPV, MSPE is not pathognomonic for ODS, but should arouse suspicion for a possible odontogenic source. Level of Evidence 3.

Background ‘Exception from informed consent’ research requires community consultation to ensure that the views of the local population have been considered. Using market research companies to distribute surveys across local populations is attractive because it ensures adequate response rates. It is not known whether individuals who respond to surveys are typical of the targeted communities. The purpose of this study is to compare the demographics of the survey respondents with that of the general population in the same area. Methods This is an analysis of data collected as part of the ‘Trauma Resuscitation with Group O Whole Blood or Products’ (TROOP) trial. The surveys used a commercial market research service to reach the communities of interest and consisted of 18 questions designed to evaluate respondents’ willingness to be enrolled in the TROOP trial and the demographics of survey respondents. Results Catchment populations varied from 0.5 to 9.4 million residents, with a total of 33.5 million. The racial and ethnic composition of the population (and the survey respondents, in brackets) was 44.8% (57.0%) white, 25.7% (13.4%) Hispanic, 12.7% (19.4%) black, 8.0% (2.5%) multiracial, 7.9% (4.4%) Asian, 0.7% (0.9%) Native American, and 0.2% (0.5%) Islanders. Of the male population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 12.2% (15.3%) were aged 18years to 24 years, 20.5% (22.3%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 18.1% (24.9%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 16.3% (18.5%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 15.5% (14.8%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 17.4% (4.3%) aged 65 years and over. Of the female population (and survey respondents, in brackets), 11.0% (18.5%) were aged 18 years to 24 years, 18.4% (22.6%) aged 25 years to 34 years, 16.4% (23.5%) aged 35 years to 44 years, 15.0% (17.3%) aged 45 years to 54 years, 18.5% (14.1%) aged 55 years to 64 years, and 20.6% (3.9%) aged 65 years and over. Conclusions For this trial, using a market research company to distribute community surveys resulted in respondents that are broadly representative of the geographic areas where the trial will be conducted, except for individuals over the age of 65 years and older. This finding provides reassurance to investigators and institutional review boards that the views expressed by respondents are representative of the population where the trial will be conducted. Level of evidence III

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Importance Breast cancer treatment is associated with cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). However, the association of endocrine therapy (ET) vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (CET) with CRCI is poorly understood. Objective To compare patient-reported CRCI between women with breast cancer treated with ET vs CET and to consider whether menopausal status may be associated. Design, Settings, and Participants This was a prespecified secondary analysis of RxPONDER (SWOG S1007), a multinational phase 3 randomized clinical trial of more than 5000 women with hormone receptor−positive ERBB2 -negative (formerly HER2 -negative) breast cancer with 1 to 3 involved lymph nodes and Oncotype DX (21-gene recurrence score) of 25 or less. Participants were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2017, with results first reported in December 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to CET or ET, with ongoing follow-up. This secondary analysis assessed cognitive function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Perceived Cognitive Function Concerns (PCF) questionnaire at baseline, 6, 12, and 36 months. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to August 2025. Intervention Random assignment to CET or ET. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean PCF standardized (T) scores by menopausal status over time using generalized estimating equations analysis for continuous outcomes. Results Of the 568 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis, 139 (24%) were premenopausal (median [range] age, 47.8 [28.0-56.3] years) and 429 (76%) were postmenopausal (median [range] age, 62.3 [37.3-87.6] years). Among the 274 (48%) who received CET and the 294 (52%) who received ET alone, CET was determined to have a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI in both the pre- and postmenopausal participants during the 36-month follow-up. In the ET alone group, PCF scores for premenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (53.53, 51.51, and 51.72, respectively) but recovered to baseline (54.36) at 36 months. For postmenopausal participants, mean PCF scores were essentially stable (51.72, 51.13, 51.11, and 51.70, respectively); however, in the CET group, PCF scores for both pre- and postmenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (premenopausal, 52.84, 49.27, 48.04; postmenopausal, 50.65, 48.39, 47.13, respectively) and did not return to baseline at 36 months (premenopausal, 49.25; postmenopausal, 48.44). The difference in longitudinal mean PCF scores over time between CET and ET groups was −3.02 (95% CI, −5.33 to −0.72; P = .01) for premenopausal and −2.37 (95% CI, −3.92 to −0.82; P = .003) for postmenopausal participants. Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the RxPONDER found that CET had a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI compared to ET alone in both pre- and postmenopausal participants over a 36-month follow-up period. Interventions to prevent or treat CRCI are needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these patients treated with chemotherapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01272037

Abstract Introduction There is wide variation in male fertility preservation practices. While physician preference accounts for some of this diversity, practice patterns often reflect multiple extrinsic factors including patient demographics, equipment availability, laboratory protocols, and state law. Objective We sought to characterize national trends in sperm retrieval and storage across reproductive urology practices in the United States. Methods An anonymous 34-item survey characterizing provider demographics, practice settings, fertility preservation procedures, andrology laboratory practices, and cryopreservation expenses was designed. Practicing reproductive urologists were identified using information available through professional societies. Our survey was constructed using the Qualtrics platform and distributed electronically between October 2024 and May 2025. Results 39 responses were received by urologists practicing across 21 states (response rate: 21%, n=189). A majority (74%, n=29) of survey responders practiced at academic medical centers, with others practicing at non-academic hospitals (8%, n=3) and private practices (13%, n=5). The most common indications for fertility preservation reported included oncologic care (42%), gamete storage for planned ART (31%), transgender care (18%), pre-vasectomy sperm banking (10%), and pre-deployment banking for military personnel (5%). Nearly all providers performed microsurgical sperm retrievals (97%, n=38, Figure) and oncologic testicular sperm extractions (85%, n=33) when indicated. More than half of providers offered conventional testicular sperm extractions (72%, n=28), microsurgical epididymal sperm aspirations (59%, n=23), testicular sperm aspirations (56%, n=22), penile vibratory stimulation (54%, n=21), or percutaneous epididymal sperm aspirations (52%, n=20). Fewer providers offered post-mortem sperm retrieval (49%, n=19), pre-pubertal testicular tissue cryopreservation (36%, n=14), or electroejaculation (31%, n=12). Most respondents (62%, n=24) had access to an on-site andrology laboratory. Semen analyses were evaluated using manual (53%, n=20), computer-assisted (11%, n=4), or combinatorial methods (26%, n=10). Though many (37%, n=14) providers were uncertain about institutional costs for semen specimen processing, a plurality of respondents (40%, n=15) reported fees ranging from $100-500 with the remainder (23%, n=9) reporting fees exceeding $500. Respondents most frequently reported semen storage fees ranging between $100-300 per year (39%, n=15), while approximately a third (31%, n=12) estimated these costs to range between $300-600 per year. However, 18% (n=7) of respondents reported higher costs for specimen storage and 13% (n=5) were uncertain about the expense of this service. Conclusions This multi-institutional, geographically diverse survey reveals significant variation in reproductive urology practice patterns and cost associated with semen analyses and storage. Future studies will explore differences in practice patterns to better understand the factors influencing this variation and their effect on male reproductive healthcare. In the absence of society guidelines, reproductive urologists must collaborate, share best practices, and maintain price transparency to ensure sperm retrieval remains accessible and affordable. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Fertility preservation is an essential component to cancer survivorship. One third of male survivors experience infertility following gonadotoxic treatments, and expeditious preservation prior to therapy is recommended by oncology guidelines. However, this can be challenging given time constraints, lab expertise, and financial considerations. Objective We describe national practice patterns and identify barriers and facilitators regarding inpatient male fertility preservation. Methods An anonymous 34-item Qualtrics survey was sent to reproductive Urologists in the United States. Email addresses were obtained from public membership databases. Respondents were queried across several domains, including provider demographics, specific inpatient cryopreservation scenarios, and fertility preservation procedures. Results Thirty-nine (21%, n=39/189) responses were received. The majority of respondents were fellowship-trained reproductive urologists 89.7% (35). The majority (97.4%) of respondents offer microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE) for fertility preservation, and many offer conventional TESE (71.8%), traditional ejaculated sperm cryopreservation (71.8%), or microsurgical epididymal sperm aspiration (59%). Only 30.8% of respondents offer electroejaculation. Respondents rate non-urology provider awareness of male cancer fertility preservation options at 5.05/10 on a Likert scale. Many (65%) respondents provide formal materials or education to nonurology providers to address this deficit. On average, respondents reported 2.6 inpatient oncofertility preservation consults per month (range 0-25, median=1). Most (60%) of respondents reported that &lt;25% of these patients ultimately complete inpatient preservation. Financial burdens (97%), logistical hurdles (97%), limited awareness (97%), and concern for delay of oncologic care (92%) were identified as the most common barriers for patients precluding fertility preservation. In addition, 85% of respondents also listed difficulty coordinating with other specialists as a barrier. On free-text queries, respondents identified facilitators of fertility preservation as automatically triggered consults, use of an urgent cryopreservation pager, formal fertility preservation pathway within the order set, and utilization of an inpatient coordinator as facilitators that aid in achieving timely fertility preservation prior to gonadotoxic therapies. Conclusions Despite all reproductive urologists offering cryopreservation services and education regarding the urgency and priority of inpatient fertility preservation, less than a quarter of patients complete this process during hospitalization prior to initiation of treatment. This remains the consequence of numerous patient, provider, and facility level barriers, even in systems with robust referral processes. Inpatient fertility preservation remains an underutilized and often missed opportunity. Multidisciplinary interventions are needed to address ongoing barriers. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Oncologic testicular sperm extraction (oncoTESE) remains a poorly defined concept that is a heterogeneous and understudied fertility preservation option for cancer patients with male gonads. Given variation in practice patterns, reproductive insurance coverage, and provider availability, there is significant diversity among the accepted indications, desired evaluations, and surgical practices afforded to patients facing a cancer diagnosis. Objective This study aimed to characterize and help further define oncoTESE practice patterns across the United States. Methods A 34-item, anonymized survey assessed provider demographics and oncoTESE practice patterns, including indications, contraindications, workflows, and institutional barriers surrounding OncoTESE procedures. A survey was created and electronically distributed to reproductive urologists across the United States using email addresses obtained via society membership websites. Results Thirty-eight urologists (20%, 38/189) from 21 states responded to the survey. Most (95%, 36/38) were fellowship-trained reproductive urologists, and nearly all (87%, 33/38) reported offering oncoTESE to indicated patients. The most cited indications for oncoTESE were azoospermia (78%, 28/36), anejaculation (72%, 26/36), and severe oligozoospermia or cryptozoospermia on ejaculated specimen (53%, 19/36). Less commonly reported indications included prepubertal or peripubertal status (33%, 12/36) and elevated sperm DNA fragmentation (19%, 7/36). Relative contraindications included inability to consent (86%, 31/36), clinical instability (83%, 30/36), thrombocytopenia (61%, 22/36), and a history of remote chemotherapy (58%, 21/36). When asked how many semen analyses are obtained to confirm azoospermia before proceeding to oncoTESE in patients able to ejaculate, the majority reported two analyses (67%, 24/36), while 28% (10/36) reported one. There was stronger consensus that oncoTESE includes sperm retrieval during back-table orchiectomy (94%, 34/36) and ipsilateral microTESE during partial orchiectomy (86%, 31/36). Greater variability was noted regarding contralateral microTESE at the time of orchiectomy (64%, 23/36), procedures for non-genitourinary malignancies (61%, 22/36), and delayed procedures performed years after diagnosis (42%, 15/36). (Figure 1) Estimated patient costs for oncoTESE were most commonly reported as $2,000–$5,000 (39%, 14/36), followed by $500–$2,000 (22%, 8/36), $5,000–$10,000 (19%, 7/36), and over $10,000 (3%, 1/36); 14% (5/36) were unsure. On a 10-point Likert scale, the most significant barriers to performing oncoTESE were logistical challenges (mean 6.6, median 8), followed by patient cost (mean 5.4, median 5.5) and patient illness (mean 5.3, median 5.0). Conclusions This multi-institutional survey found strong agreement among reproductive urologists on core procedural elements, but substantial variation on oncoTESE definition, patient selection criteria, pre-procedural evaluation, and fertility preservation management. Similar institutional barriers across centers highlight opportunities to improve accessibility and standardize oncoTESE practices. Disclosure No

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is a common and effective surgical treatment for erectile dysfunction. However, the presence of comorbidities and the use of anti-thrombotic therapy (AT) can complicate surgical decision-making. Due to the correlation between erectile dysfunction and cardiovascular disease, the preoperative comorbidities of surgical patients are important to examine. Objective The goal of this study was to assess the outcomes of IPP implantation in men on active AT therapy compared to a non-AT therapy cohort. Methods A retrospective analysis from 2015 to 2023 was conducted using data from three high-volume implant centers. The study focused on men who underwent three-piece IPP placement. Demographics, comorbidities, secondary procedures, drain information, and complications were recorded. The three centers each have different techniques and approaches to the surgery. Center 1 utilizes a penoscrotal approach, never places a drain, and places the reservoir in an ectopic location. Center 2 utilizes an infra-pubic approach, places a drain which remains in place for 3 days, and utilizes various reservoir locations depending on patient profile. Lastly, center 3 utilizes a penoscrotal approach, places a drain with removal when output is less than 50 mL over 8 hours, and places the reservoir in an ectopic location. Outcomes were analyzed using multivariate and univariate analysis. Results A total of 210 patients on active AT therapy and 128 non-AT patients were included. The AT and non-AT groups showed significant differences in baseline comorbidities, with the AT group exhibiting higher rates of cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and thrombosis (p&lt;0.05). Among patients on anti-thrombotic therapy, 27.6% required revision surgeries and had increased rates of ectopic reservoir placement compared to the non-AT group (p&lt;0.001). Despite these differences, there were no statistically significant variations in overall complication rates between the two groups. Drain output was notably higher in the AT cohort on postoperative days 1 (mean 110.5 cc vs 60 cc, p&lt;0.001) and 2 (mean 78 cc vs 20 cc, p&lt;0.001); however, hematoma rates remained comparable between both groups (p=0.667). Importantly, neither the type of anti-thrombotic therapy nor the surgical approach used appeared to influence postoperative outcomes. Eleven patients (5.2%) experienced complications in the AT arm and 5 patients (3.9%) experienced complications in the non-AT arm (p=0.793). Conclusions IPP implantation is feasible and safe in men on active anti-thrombotic therapy when performed in high-volume centers with appropriate perioperative management. Further studies with larger cohorts and longer follow-up are needed to refine protocols and determine long-term outcomes for these high-risk patients. Disclosure No