Citations

Abstract Background Point-of-care testing (POCT) has expanded rapidly across healthcare systems, increasing both program scale and operational complexity. However, quantitative benchmarking data describing how POCT programs are structured and supported across institutions remain limited. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey to characterize POCT program support, including program scope, staffing, operational practices, governance, and challenges. The survey was distributed electronically through professional networks, and 93 institutional responses were analyzed. Descriptive analyses were performed, and derived metrics, including sites per point-of-care testing coordinator (POCC), were used to evaluate the relationship between program scale and staffing. Results POCT programs demonstrated substantial variability in scale, with wide ranges in the number of testing sites and operator populations. Adoption spanned multiple test categories, and many institutions reported use of multiple platforms for the same assays. Training, competency assessment, and quality management activities were primarily supported by laboratory staff and POCCs, with documentation frequently partially electronic. Median POCC staffing increased with program size; however, sites per POCC also increased significantly across program scale tiers (Kruskal–Wallis P < 0.001). Governance structures and operational responsibilities varied across institutions, and common challenges included staffing limitations, training and compliance burden, multisite coordination, and IT/connectivity constraints. Conclusions POCT programs are expanding in scale and complexity, but workforce capacity and governance structures have not scaled proportionally. This mismatch creates a cumulative and multiplicative operational burden. These findings provide benchmarking data to inform scalable staffing models, governance strategies, and infrastructure development for sustainable POCT program management.

Racial minorities remain underrepresented among allied health providers. Pathway programs address this gap by fostering career exposure and mentorship for underrepresented students. A pilot program was designed to increase underrepresented minority (URM) students entering health professions through career exploration and mentorship. High school students were enrolled into a pre-post survey study through a healthcare magnet school having higher proportions of economically disadvantaged students. Career exploration included healthcare presentations and skills sessions. Students were matched with mentors based on career interests. 22 students participated. The program facilitated career exploration sessions, mentor-mentee meetings, and workshops with diverse healthcare professionals. Participants reported increased likelihood towards pursuing healthcare careers. Preliminary findings suggest similar pilot pathway programs may increase URM student interest in healthcare careers.

Objectives: The electroconvulsive therapy for the acute management of severe agitation in dementia (ECT-AD) trial is a multisite study evaluating the effectiveness of ECT for severe agitation in individuals with advanced dementia. Given that participants lack decisional capacity because of advanced cognitive impairment, the trial required a structured and ethically sound approach to obtaining informed consent and assent across jurisdictions with differing legal requirements, including Massachusetts, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, and Michigan. This paper describes the approach used in the study. Methods: We describe the consent framework developed for the ECT-AD trial, including procedures for identifying legally authorized representatives, complying with state-specific laws for ECT consent, obtaining surrogate consent for research participation, and assessing patient assent and dissent using a standardized tool. Conclusions: The approach used in this study may serve as a practical model for future research involving individuals without decision-making capacity and legally complex interventions such as ECT.

BACKGROUND: Although the prognostic utility of positron emission tomography (PET) myocardial flow reserve (MFR) is well established, emerging data suggest that reduced subendocardial flows also predict adverse outcomes. However, the incremental value of subendocardial MFR (MFR SE ) beyond transmural MFR (MFR TM ) remains unclear. METHODS: We studied patients in a multicenter PET registry with normal perfusion on stress/rest Rb-82 PET, excluding those with a previous history of coronary artery bypass surgery, heart transplantation, or left ventricular ejection fraction <40%. The optimal MFR SE cutoff for predicting major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs; death, myocardial infarction [MI], revascularization, or heart failure [HF] hospitalization) was determined using Youden’s index. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: concordant-normal (MFR TM ≥2.0; MFR SE ≥2.1), discordant (low-MFR SE , normal MFR TM ), and abnormal MFR TM . Clinical outcomes were compared by MFR groups. RESULTS: Among 6603 patients (normal N=4103; discordant N=885; abnormal N=1615) the mean age was 66.3±12.4 years, and 54% were women. Compared with the concordant-normal group, patients with discordant low-MFR SE were older and more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, peripheral artery disease, and previous percutaneous coronary intervention. The median MFR TM for normal, discordant, and abnormal groups were 2.86, 2.15, and 1.72, respectively. Over a median follow-up of 4.9 years, 1661 MACE events occurred. Discordant low-MFR SE patients had a higher risk of MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.22–1.64) and all-cause mortality (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.14–1.61) compared with concordant-normal patients. The discordant group had an intermediate absolute risk of MACE, with an adjusted annualized event rate of 5.79% (95% CI, 5.10–6.49) compared with 3.99% (95% CI, 3.67–4.30; P <0.001) in the concordant-normal group and 8.35% (95% CI, 7.71–9.00; P <0.001) in the abnormal MFR TM group. CONCLUSIONS: Subendocardial MFR reveals clinically meaningful risk heterogeneity among patients with preserved transmural flow reserve, helping refine risk stratification beyond traditional PET metrics.

LBA5 Background: Available 2L therapies offer limited clinical benefit in mPDAC with reported mPFS of 3–4 mo and mOS of 6–7 mo. Aberrant RAS pathway activation is the key driver of PDAC, with oncogenic RAS mutations (mut) identified in >90% of cases, most commonly at codon G12. Daraxonrasib is an oral, RAS(ON) multi-selective, tri-complex inhibitor of the active, GTP-bound state of mutant and wild type RAS. Methods: RASolute 302 (NCT06625320) is a global, randomized, open-label, Ph 3 study in pts with 2L mPDAC and ECOG PS 0-1. Pts were randomized 1:1 to receive daraxonrasib 300 mg PO QD or investigator’s choice of SOC cytotoxic chemo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS by BICR in the RAS G12 mutant (RAS G12) population. Key secondary endpoints included OS and PFS by BICR in the overall population, ORR by BICR in RAS G12 and overall populations. Results: 248 pts were randomized to daraxonrasib and 252 to chemo. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. At data cutoff (Feb 10, 2026; mFU: 8.5 mo), all primary and key secondary endpoints were met. Statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS were observed with daraxonrasib vs chemo in the RAS G12 and overall populations (Table). Gr ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 43.6% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 57.5% receiving chemo. The most common (≥10%) Gr ≥3 TRAEs were rash (13.7%) and stomatitis (12.0%) for daraxonrasib; neutrophil decrease (18.2%) and anemia (16.4%) for chemo. TRSAEs occurred in 10.8% of pts receiving daraxonrasib vs 18.7% receiving chemo. Discontinuation due to TRAEs occurred in 1.2% of pts for daraxonrasib vs 11.2% for chemo. Median/mean daraxonrasib dose intensity was 93.1%/84.7%. Conclusions: Daraxonrasib demonstrated unprecedented improvements in OS and PFS vs chemo in pts with 2L mPDAC with or without an identified tumor RAS mut. Daraxonrasib was generally well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile and with no new safety signals. Results support daraxonrasib as the new SOC for 2L mPDAC. Clinical trial information: NCT06625320 . RAS G12 Overall b Daraxonrasibn=228 Chemo n=231 Daraxonrasib n=248 Chemo n=252 OS Median; mos(95% CI) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.6(5.4–8.2) 13.2(10.0–NE) 6.7(5.8–8.0) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.40(0.30-0.54)<0.0001 0.40(0.30-0.53)<0.0001 PFS a Median; mos(95% CI) 7.3(6.3–8.1) 3.5(2.9–3.8) 7.2(5.7–7.5) 3.6(2.9–4.2) HR(95% CI)P-value 0.45(0.34-0.59)<0.0001 0.49(0.38-0.64)<0.0001 ORR a %(95% CI) 33.2(27.0–39.9) 11.8(7.8–16.8) 31.6(25.8–38.0) 11.2(7.5–15.9) a By BICR. b RAS G12, G13 or Q61 mut or no RAS mut identified.

LBA2 Background: Dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLS) remains a difficult disease to treat with limited systemic therapy options. Approved drugs offer modest benefit such as trabectedin (median progression-free survival [mPFS] 2.2 months [m]) or eribulin (mPFS 2.0m). The Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 (CDK4) oncogene is ubiquitously amplified in DDLS and is a rational therapeutic target. In single-arm phase 2 studies, treatment with selective CDK4 inhibitors resulted in mPFS 4.2m with palbociclib and mPFS 7.7m with abemaciclib. We hypothesized that treatment with abemaciclib would improve PFS compared to placebo in patients with recurrent or metastatic DDLS. Methods: SARC041 was a phase 3 randomized double-blind study of abemaciclib versus placebo. The study was open at 9 academic medical centers in the USA. Eligible patients (pts) had recurrent or metastatic DDLS (purely well-differentiated liposarcoma excluded), progression of disease by RECIST 1.1 in the 6 months prior to study entry, any number of prior systemic therapies, and adequate organ function and performance status. Pts were stratified by prior lines of therapy (0 vs 1 or more) and randomized 1:1 between abemaciclib 200 mg PO twice a day or matching placebo. Scans were every 6 weeks (every 12 weeks after week 36) and pts with progression of disease on placebo could cross over to open label abemaciclib. The primary endpoint was PFS. The design provided 80% power with two-sided 10% significance level to detect a hazard ratio of 0.6 by log-rank test. Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS and response rate after crossover, and overall survival (OS). Data cutoff was March 1, 2026. Results: In total, 108 pts were randomized to receive abemaciclib (n = 54) or placebo (n = 54). Demographic/baseline characteristics were generally similar across treatment arms. Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS at 9.67m vs placebo at 1.52m (hazard ratio [HR] 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25–0.59; p < 0.001). ORR was 9.3% for abemaciclib vs 0% for placebo (p = 0.057). mOS was not reached with abemaciclib vs 25.45m with placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.28–1.07; p = 0.077). mPFS after crossover from placebo to abemaciclib was 3.44m (95% CI 2.66, 6.84). ORR after crossover was 4.3% (95% CI 0.53%, 15%). mOS after crossover was 24.03m (95% CI: 11.7, NA). Grade 3 or higher adverse event rates were similar in both arms (p > 0.99). No new safety signals were observed. Conclusions: Abemaciclib demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs placebo in pts with dedifferentiated liposarcoma, with an encouraging OS trend. These results support abemaciclib as a new treatment option for dedifferentiated liposarcoma. Clinical trial information: NCT04967521 .

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .