Citations

7094 Background: Waldenström Macroglobulinemia (WM) remains incurable with current available therapeutic options. Treatment options for relapsed/refractory pts are limited and often continuous, underscoring the need for new agents with novel mechanisms of action and pt-centered, fixed duration therapy. Iopofosine I 131 is a novel radiopharmaceutical compound composed of a lipid raft-targeting phospholipid ether covalently bound to 131 I, a beta emitting radioisotope. Here, we report preliminary sub-group results of the CLOVER-WaM study [NCT02952508] in WM pts treated with a Bruton’s Tyrosine Kinase inhibitor (BTKi) immediately prior to iopofosine. Methods: Eligible WM pts had received >2 prior therapies and had symptomatic disease requiring therapy according to consensus recommendations for WM. Treatment consisted of 2 cycles of iopofosine I 131 administered at 15 mCi/m 2 on days 1 and 15 of each 57-day cycle. The primary efficacy endpoint was major response rate (MRR; partial response or better, as determined by the modified IWWM-VI). Secondary and exploratory endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), treatment-free survival (TFS), progression free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR), and clinical benefit rate (CBR; stable disease or better). Herein, efficacy endpoints were assessed in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population (all pts who received ≥60 mCi total administered dose of iopofosine I 131), and whose treatment regimen prior to iopofosine included a BTKi. Safety was evaluated using CTCAE v4.03 in pts who received ≥1 dose of iopofosine. Data cut off for this analysis was Jan. 16, 2026. Results: As previously reported, 65 pts were dosed and 55 are included in the mITT population. Of those, 22 (40%) had received a BTKi containing regimen immediately prior to iopofosine; and 11 who previously received at least 2 regimens utilizing BTKis and 12 who were refractory to rituximab. In this subgroup, median age was 70.5 (range 55-88), 17 (77%) were male, and 5 (23%) were female. The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 2-7), 15/22 (68%) were MYD88 mutated and 18/22 (82%) were TP53 wildtype. The MRR was 15/22 (68.2%), ORR was 19/22 (86.4%) and CBR was 100%, median PFS was 12 months (range 1.6 to 28.0) and median TFS was 19.1 months (range 2.5-34.4). Grade ≥ 3, related treatment emergent adverse events (TEAE) occurring in > 10% of pts included anemia (41%), leukopenia (41%), neutropenia (58%), and thrombocytopenia (86%). Conclusions: Iopofosine I 131 demonstrated significant efficacy; 100% CBR, 86.4% ORR and 68.2% MRR with a median PFS of 12 months (range: 1.6 – 28.0 months) in a pt population with no current standard of care therapy. The treatment was well-tolerated with a manageable toxicity profile with cytopenias as the only Grade 3 or greater TEAE. Based on the results of this pivotal trial, iopofosine I 131 could be a promising novel treatment for WM pts after BTKi therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT02952508 .

7011 Background: Up to 40% of pts with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) will relapse or have refractory disease following 1L treatment (Tx) with SOC chemoimmunotherapy regimens R-CHOP or Pola-RCHP. High risk (HR) populations include those with International Prognostic Index (IPI) score 3–5 and IPI 1–2 with either ≥1 lesion ≥7 cm or baseline LDH >1.3×ULN. GOLCA is a potential, first-in-class, oral CELMoD designed for the Tx of lymphoma, with preferential distribution to lymphoid organs and enhanced activity in lymphoma cell lines. GOLCA induces rapid and deep degradation of Ikaros and Aiolos, leading to direct cell killing and immunomodulatory activity. GOLCA 0.4 mg + R-CHOP has shown promising safety, a ≥90% minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate, and durable efficacy (24-mo PFS, 79%) in 1L a-BCL (Nowakowski et al, ASH 2025, 476) and is being evaluated in the Phase (Ph) 3 study GOLSEEK-1 (NCT06356129). We report initial Ph1b results with GOLCA + Pola-RCHP in 1L a-BCL. Methods: Pts aged ≥18 y with ECOG PS ≤2, IPI 0–5 (Part 2A) or 2–5 (Part 2B), and newly diagnosed a-BCL with measurable tumorous disease were included. Pts were treated with GOLCA + Pola-RCHP for six 21-day (D) cycles or until disease progression/unacceptable toxicity/study withdrawal. In dose escalation, GOLCA was dosed at 0.2 and 0.4 mg D1–7. In dose expansion, pts were randomized 1:1 to Pola-RCHP + GOLCA 0.2 or 0.4 mg. Primary endpoint: safety; efficacy was a secondary endpoint. Results: At data cutoff, 57 pts were treated with GOLCA + Pola-RCHP (0.2 mg, n=28; 0.4 mg, n=29). Median age was 63 y. Most pts had HR disease (86%) and DLBCL not otherwise specified histology (84%). For known cell of origin (COO), 47% were germinal center B cell (GCB) and 39% non-GCB by Hans algorithm. Forty-seven pts (83%) completed Tx and 52 (91%) entered the follow-up (f/u) period. Grade 3/4 Tx-emergent adverse events occurred in 95% of pts, most frequently neutropenia (86%; an on-target side effect of GOLCA) and anemia (39%). Median relative dose intensity for GOLCA and Pola-RCHP components was >95%. At 15.5 mo median f/u, end of Tx (EOT) complete metabolic response (CMR) rate was 69% at 0.2 mg, 82% at 0.4 mg, and similar across COO subtypes. EOT CMR was consistent in HR pts (65% at 0.2 mg, 83% at 0.4 mg). The 12-mo DOR and PFS rates were 92% and 88% at 0.2 mg, and 96% and 96% at 0.4 mg. In pts with both pre-Tx and EOT ctDNA analysis, 65% and 83% at 0.2 and 0.4 mg achieved MRD negativity (PhasED-Seq) at EOT. Conclusions: GOLCA + Pola-RCHP demonstrated a predictable and manageable safety profile, and addition of GOLCA did not compromise median dose intensity of Pola-RCHP. GOLCA 0.4 mg + Pola-RCHP resulted in a high rate of durable CMRs, high rate of MRD negativity, and a promising 12-mo PFS rate. These data continue to show that GOLCA + SOC regimens R-CHOP and Pola-RCHP has potential to improve outcomes in 1L HR a-BCL. Clinical trial information: NCT04884035 .

632 Background: Prospective data on the risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence among young BC survivors who have a subsequent pregnancy are limited. We sought to evaluate the long-term impact of pregnancy and live birth on BC outcomes in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a prospective multicenter study of women aged ≤40 years at BC diagnosis. Methods: Women with stage 0-III BC without prior hysterectomy were included. The primary endpoint was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) between patients with and without a (a) pregnancy and (b) live birth after BC. Secondary endpoints were distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS). A time-varying Cox proportional hazards model was performed by estrogen receptor (ER) status, controlling for age at diagnosis, tumor stage, HER2 status, tumor grade, parity at diagnosis, and germline pathogenic variant status. Results: Among 1,016 BC survivors at a median follow-up of 12 (range, 0.5-18.5) years, 198 reported ≥1 pregnancy and 165 reported ≥1 live birth post-diagnosis. Among survivors who reported a post-diagnosis pregnancy, median age at diagnosis was 32 (range, 17-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (40%) BC, with 72% hormone receptor (HR)-positive and 25% HER2+; 42% were nulligravid and 60% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors who did not become pregnant post-diagnosis, median age at diagnosis was 37 (range, 21-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (43%) BC, with 75% HR-positive and 28% HER2+; 25% were nulligravid and 29% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors with ER-positive tumors (n = 737), pregnancy after BC was not associated with a difference in BCFI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, P = 0.130), DRFI (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35-1.55, P = 0.416), or OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.40, P = 0.227). Similarly, live birth after BC did not impact BCFI (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45-1.55, P = 0.560), DRFI (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.52-2.06, P = 0.923), or OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34-1.76, P = 0.541). Outcomes among BC survivors with ER-negative tumors (n = 278) were also not affected by post-diagnosis pregnancy (BCFI [HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.70-3.14, P = 0.304], DRFI [HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.68-3.75, P = 0.287], OS [HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39-2.49, P = 0.975]) or live birth (BCFI [HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.53, P = 0.974], DRFI [HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.24-2.69, P = 0.722], OS [HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09-1.69, P = 0.208]). Conclusions: In this multicenter, prospective study with 12 years of median follow-up, pregnancy and live birth after BC did not impact BC events or overall survival, irrespective of ER status. These long-term data from a modern cohort provide reassurance for young BC patients interested in future fertility. Clinical trial information: NCT01468246 .

5054 Background: Rucaparib significantly improved radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) versus physician’s choice of docetaxel or an androgen-receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) (abiraterone or enzalutamide) in men with BRCA mutations who were chemotherapy-naïve in the mCRPC setting and had received one prior ARPI in the phase 3 TRITON3 trial (NCT02975934). This post-hoc analysis evaluated whether the timing of prior ARPI therapy impacted the efficacy of rucaparib. Methods: Patients were randomized 2:1 to rucaparib (600 mg BID) or physician’s choice of docetaxel or ARPI, after progression on 1 prior second-generation ARPI in any setting. The primary endpoint was rPFS. Outcomes were analyzed according to whether patients received the prior ARPI in the metastatic castration sensitive (mCSPC) or castration resistant (mCRPC) setting. Data cutoff was August 25, 2022. Results: Of the 302 BRCA1/2 patients, 68 received prior ARPI in the mCSPC setting (42 rucaparib; 26 physician’s choice) and 234 in the mCRPC setting (159 rucaparib; 75 physician’s choice). Baseline characteristics were generally similar. Prior treatments in the mCSPC and mCRPC groups, respectively, included abiraterone (73.5% vs 53.0%), enzalutamide (29.4% vs 48.3%), and docetaxel (17.6% vs 24.8%). Median rPFS favored rucaparib over physician’s choice in both groups (mCSPC: 13.6 vs 8.2 months; HR 0.60 [95% CI, 0.32–1.15]; mCRPC: 11.2 vs 5.8 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI, 0.30–0.61]). Median OS was similar between treatments in both settings (mCSPC: 23.2 vs 21.7 months; HR 0.81 [95% CI, 0.47–1.41]; mCRPC: 23.2 vs 21.0 months; HR 0.91 [95% CI, 0.66–1.25]). Treatment-related adverse events occurred at comparable rates (89.6% vs 86.1%). Conclusions: Rucaparib demonstrated efficacy in patients with BRCA-mutated mCRPC, regardless of whether prior ARPI was administered in the mCSPC or mCRPC setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02975934 .

11059 Background: Payments from the drug industry to oncologists are common and influence physicians’ prescribing decisions. However, whether payments affect the likelihood that patients receive optimal cancer treatment has not been assessed. Methods: This was a population-based cohort study. We used fee-for-service Medicare claims to identify patients with incident cancer diagnosis (new cancer diagnosis code after >= 1 year with no cancer diagnosis codes) from 2014-2020. We used National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines to identify treatment scenarios (e.g., metastatic melanoma, stage III colon adjuvant therapy) with variation in the clinical benefit among recommended treatment options. The patient cohort corresponding to each scenario was identified using claims. We used NCCN Guidelines to identify the “optimal” treatment for each scenario (defined as the designated “preferred” treatment, with NCCN Evidence Blocks scores used for tiebreaks) at each time point across the study period. The primary outcome was whether a patient received the treatment that was, as of their diagnosis date, the optimal treatment for their cancer (vs. any non-optimal treatment). The primary exposure[s] were whether a patient’s medical oncologist received personal (“general”) payments (source: linked Open Payments data) related to 1) optimal treatment or 2) any non-optimal treatment, during the year prior to the patient’s cancer diagnosis. We fit Poisson-family generalized estimating equations, with physician-level clustering and adjustment for scenario, year, and patient characteristics, to estimate the relative risk (RR) of optimal treatment. Results: There were 14 clinical scenarios comprising 15,835 patients. There were 3,429 (21.7%) patients whose oncologist received payment for the optimal treatment, 4,891 (30.9%) for non-optimal payments, and 1,993 (12.6%) to both payment types. Oncologist receipt of payment for optimal treatment was associated with a greater likelihood (RR=1.07, 95%CI:1.01-1.13), and payment for non-optimal treatment was associated with lower likelihood (RR= 0.94, 95%CI:0.89-0.98) of patients receiving optimal treatment. Associations became stronger as payment dollar value increased; for optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=1.26 (95%CI:1.02-1.57), and for non-optimal payments ≥$10,000, RR=0.70 (95%CI: 0.49-1.00). An estimated 41.6% of unexposed patients received optimal treatment; versus 52.6%, 29.3%, and 33.8% among patients exposed to ≥$10,000 of payments for optimal treatment only, ≥$10,000 non-optimal payments only, and ≥$10,000 of both payment types, respectively. Conclusions: Industry payments related to the optimal cancer treatment were associated with increased use of the optimal treatment. However, payments related to non-optimal treatments were more common and were associated with decreased use of optimal treatment.

Isolated pulmonary valve endocarditis (PV-IE) is a rare condition. Its epidemiology, clinical profile, and management remain poorly characterized. A systematic review was conducted to provide a contemporary characterization (2020–2025) of adult cases with isolated PV-IE. Individuals with previous cardiac surgeries, cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), or long-term venous catheters were excluded. Of 1902 citations identified, 72 studies were selected with 79 eligible cases, mostly case reports. Patients were predominantly male (78.5%) with a median age of 43 years. Congenital heart disease (CHD) and injection drug use (IDU) were risk factors in 30.4% and 27.8% of cases, respectively, while 41.8% had neither (No-CHD/IDU group). Staphylococcus aureus was the leading pathogen (39%), followed by streptococci (16.5%) and Enterococcus faecalis (8.9%). Vegetations were large (median, 19.5 mm), and pulmonary septic emboli highly prevalent (~93% of cases). More than half (54.4%) of patients underwent surgery. Hospital mortality was low (7.6%). Differences across risk factor subgroups were observed, with higher median age in No-CHD/IDU patients and more staphylococcal etiology in patients with IDU, although treatment approaches and mortality did not differ. This review highlights distinct characteristics and the overall favorable short-term prognosis of isolated PV-IE, underscoring the need for larger, systematically collected datasets.

Noncirrhotic portal hypertension has historically been described using heterogeneous and region-specific terminology—such as idiopathic portal hypertension (IPH), noncirrhotic portal fibrosis (NCPF), obliterative portal venopathy, and nodular regenerative hyperplasia—leading to substantial variability in diagnosis, reporting, and international research collaboration. Differences in guideline definitions from major societies (AASLD, EASL, and APASL), together with the presence of characteristic histologic lesions in patients without clinically overt portal hypertension, have further complicated disease classification. To address these challenges, a large, multisociety, international initiative was convened to harmonize nomenclature and diagnostic criteria. Representatives from liver, pathology, and pediatric hepatology societies across the Americas, Europe, and Asia participated in a structured consensus process that included specialized working groups and external Delphi validation. The initiative produced a globally harmonized and implementable diagnostic framework. Consensus was reached that the terms porto-sinusoidal vascular disorder (PSVD) and NCPF may be used interchangeably when identical diagnostic criteria are applied, and that they should be written as PSVD or NCPF . The diagnosis was defined as fundamentally clinicopathological, requiring integrated assessment. Core principles include the need for a high-quality liver biopsy (≥10 mm), mandatory exclusion of cirrhosis, and systematic exclusion of specific alternative conditions. Importantly, the consensus recognizes that PSVD or NCPF may be diagnosed even without clinical portal hypertension and may coexist with other liver diseases, provided cirrhosis is excluded. Standardized major and minor histologic criteria were developed collaboratively by expert pathologists and externally validated. Features of portal hypertension were harmonized into specific and nonspecific categories applicable to routine clinical practice. An integrated diagnostic scoring system incorporating histology, clinical features, associated conditions, and concommitant etiologies was developed and validated using the Delphi method. This consensus provides the first internationally endorsed, unified framework for the diagnosis of PSVD or NCPF. Its global implementation is expected to reduce diagnostic variability, improve comparability across regions, and facilitate the development of robust, internationally harmonized clinical and translational research cohorts.

OBJECTIVE Craniopharyngiomas are challenging lesions, and aggressive resections may cause significant postoperative morbidity and mortality. To mitigate morbidity, a potential strategy of subtotal resection (STR) and adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) has been used, but its impact on survival when compared to gross-total resection (GTR) has been under-investigated. Thus, the objective of this study was to analyze short-term mortality between patients undergoing STR ± RT and GTR, and differences in overall survival (OS) between patients undergoing STR, STR + RT, and GTR in a large, nationally representative database. METHODS The authors queried the National Cancer Database for patients diagnosed with craniopharyngioma between 2004 and 2017. Tumor characteristics, treatment strategies, and extent of resection were analyzed. Endpoints were 3-month mortality rate and OS, which were compared between treatment modalities. Firth’s logistic regression was used to analyze 3-month mortality and was adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score, histopathological diagnosis, income quartile, insurance payor, and maximal tumor diameter. Differences in survival between treatment modalities were compared with log time-to-event analyses after excluding deaths occurring within 3 months to control for immortal time bias. RESULTS A total of 1460 adult and 390 pediatric patients were included. Adults undergoing STR ± RT had a lower rate of 3-month mortality compared to those undergoing GTR in adjusted analysis (2.8% vs 4.6%, odds ratio 0.42; p = 0.03). Survival curves for the STR + RT and GTR cohorts did not significantly differ (p = 0.198). A strategy of STR alone showed worse OS compared with GTR and STR + RT (p < 0.01). The average follow-up length for adults was 65.5 months. For pediatric patients, 3-month mortality for those undergoing GTR and STR ± RT was similar (0% vs 1%, respectively; p = 0.33). Additionally, compared to GTR, there were no significant differences in OS between STR + RT (p = 0.41) and STR alone (p = 0.44). The average follow-up length for the pediatric cohort was 79 months. CONCLUSIONS STR + RT was associated with a favorable perioperative mortality profile when compared with GTR and provided similar long-term survival outcomes. Therefore, STR + RT may be considered when GTR carries significant risks.

This cross-sectional study investigates the association between lipoprotein(a) levels and risk of ventricular arrhythmias among patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

<title>RESUMEN</title> <p>A pesar de que la Práctica Basada en la Evidencia (PBE) ha estandarizado los tratamientos psicológicos, la realidad clínica sigue enfrentándose a una barrera persistente: la dificultad de traducir los resultados de ensayos clínicos grupales a la singularidad de cada paciente en contextos reales. Como respuesta, la Salud Mental de Precisión (SMP) propone una evolución del modelo actual, integrando el cuidado basado en la medición y la toma de decisiones basada en datos para ajustar la intervención a las necesidades específicas de cada persona, gracias en gran medida a desarrollos tecnológicos recientes como la Inteligencia Artificial (IA). En este contexto, el presente artículo persigue dos objetivos fundamentales. En primer lugar, sintetiza los pilares operativos de la SMP, analizando cómo la medición rutinaria y las predicciones algorítmicas pueden potenciar el juicio clínico del profesional. En segundo lugar, se introduce el proyecto NOVA (Navigating Outcomes via Analytics), un proyecto traslacional diseñado para superar las barreras actitudinales, tecnológicas, estadísticas y contextuales de la implementación de herramientas de SMP en España. Se discute sobre los pasos necesarios para cerrar la brecha entre la innovación tecnológica y la práctica asistencial en psicología, acelerando la adopción sostenible de una psicología de precisión en el mundo real.</p>