Citations

Abstract Diffuse leptomeningeal glioneuronal tumors (DLGNT) are rare central nervous system tumors. Our understanding of the clinical course, prognostic factors, and optimal treatment strategies remains limited. Histologic, molecular, and clinical data were collected and analyzed for 25 patients with DLGNT reviewed at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital. The median age at diagnosis was 6 years (11 months-20 years). Nineteen (72%) patients were male. The disease was localized at diagnosis in 12 (48.0%) patients, with most tumors localized in the spinal cord. BRAF fusion was present in 22 (95.6%) of 23 patients who had material for testing. Of 18 patients who had tissue for DNA methylation profiling, 3 (16.7%) matched to DLGNT MC-1, 3 (16.7%) to DLGNT MC-2, and 12 (66.7%) did not match to a DLGNT subclass. Median follow-up was 63 months. Twenty-four (96.0%) patients received adjuvant therapy after initial diagnosis or at progression. Thirty-five cytotoxic chemotherapy and 24 single-agent targeted therapy regimens were used in 22 and 13 patients, respectively. With targeted therapy, 3 (12%) patients had partial responses. Eleven (44.0%) received radiotherapy. Median progression-free survival (PFS) after a patient’s first chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or radiotherapy regimen was 44 months (1-77), 11 months (4-39), and 16.5 months (9-23), respectively. The 5-year PFS was 18.7%±9.2, while the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 82.4%±9.2. The 5-year OS was lower in patients older than 9 years at diagnosis (60.0%±21.9 vs 91.7%±8.0, p = 0.02). Ki67 >4% was associated with worse PFS (0%±0 vs 24.6%±11.9 at 5 years, p = 0.03). Initial disease dissemination (localized vs. disseminated) and 1q gain status do not influence PFS or OS. PFS for DLGNT remains poor across all treatment modalities, including targeted therapies, despite the high frequency of BRAF fusions. Due to its rarity, establishing optimal therapeutic strategies for DLGNT requires additional treatment and outcome data and prospective multi-institutional trials.

CTNNB1- mutated hepatocellular carcinomas are characterized by a distinctive morphology and activation of the Wnt pathway. AXIN1 also plays a key role in the Wnt pathway, but the morphology of AXIN1-mutated tumors has not been examined. In addition, there are ongoing questions on the ability of AXIN1 mutations to activate the Wnt pathway in hepatocellular carcinoma. AXIN1 mutated tumors (N=18) were studied, along with control groups: CTNNB1 (N=17), APC (6), or “Other” genes in the Wnt pathway (5). Wnt pathway activation was studied by immunostains for beta-catenin and glutamine synthetase. Findings were supplemented by gene expression analysis using TCGA data. On histologic examination, the classic morphology associated with beta-catenin mutations was found in all 4 groups: 8/18 AXIN1 (44%), 10/17 CTNNB1 (59%), 4/6 APC (67%), and 1/5 Other (20%). By immunohistochemistry, Wnt pathway activation was found in 11/18 AXIN1 (61%), 15/17 CTTNB1 (88%), 6/6 APC (100%), and 5/5 (100%) of Other. In AXIN1- mutated tumors, the Wnt pathway was weakly activated. Glutamine synthetase stains also highlighted a new “progressed pattern” associated with distinct subnodules of staining. Tertiary lymphoid structures were uncommon except for cases with CTTNNB1 mutations plus additional mutations in the Wnt pathway. In summary, the classic morphology associated with CTNNB1 mutations is found in hepatocellular carcinomas with mutations in AXIN1 , APC , and other Wnt genes. AXIN1 mutated tumors have Wnt activation that is detectable but at lower levels than CTNNB1 mutated tumors. As tumors progress, their level of Wnt activation can change.

ABSTRACT Introduction Breast cancer remains a leading cause of death among Latinas. Although breast cancer risk assessment models exist and show promise in reducing mortality, few studies have elicited women's interest in and perceptions around breast cancer risk assessment, particularly among underserved populations, like Latinas, who are susceptible to disparities in breast cancer outcomes. These disparities stem from factors such as limited access to healthcare services, lower rates of screening utilization, language barriers, and socioeconomic challenges, all of which compound their risk and hinder effective engagement with risk assessment tools. This qualitative study aims to explore Latinas' perspectives regarding breast cancer risk assessment and implications on future behaviors. Methods Twenty‐three under‐ or uninsured Latinas aged 45–65 with no personal history of breast cancer took part in either a focus group ( n = 3, 15 participants) or individual interviews (8 participants). Guided by health behavior theories (Theory of Planned Behavior and Health Belief Model), data were transcribed, translated, and analyzed using a deductive‐inductive approach to thematic content analysis, resulting in four themes. Results Latinas expressed high interest in knowing their breast cancer risk and reported that the benefits of knowing one's risk outweighed the harms. Latinas also stated that they would continue screening as recommended if found to be at low risk, but that they would speak with their provider or increase screening frequency if found to be at increased risk. Moreover, Latinas described the pivotal role of providers and social networks in influencing interest and perceptions around breast cancer risk assessment and preventive behaviors. Conclusion Underserved Latinas viewed breast cancer risk assessment positively and underscored the need for multilevel, culturally tailored strategies to improve breast cancer risk assessment. This study yielded four distinct themes: (1) Interest and Awareness of Personal Breast Cancer Risk, (2) Benefits and Barriers of Knowing Personal Breast Cancer Risk, (3) Screening Implications of Knowing Personal Breast Cancer Risk, and (4) Provider Influence on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Behaviors. Potential strategies include efforts to improve provider engagement and communication and leveraging social networks to increase awareness and encourage preventive behaviors. Trial Registration NCI‐2023‐00465

Hazardous health behaviors increasingly contribute to end-stage liver diseases. To address surges in alcohol-associated liver disease and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease, clinicians in hepatology and liver transplantation must increasingly understand factors that influence eating and alcohol behaviors and consider ways to therapeutically influence patients’ health choices. Stigma is a prominent influence on patient behavior, but is overused as a sweeping explanatory factor as to why difficulties arise, behavior change does not occur, or when outcomes are suboptimal. With more awareness of behavioral influences, clinicians may wonder if, for all its adverse effects, stigma exerts some therapeutic effects on patients considering altering habits. While stigma is less likely to yield desired outcomes, other co-occurring systemic, social, and interpersonal influences can favorably affect health choices (ie, structural nudging, social norms and consequences, and motivational interviewing, respectively). In this article, we analyze these related yet distinct constructs in ways pertinent to liver disease and transplantation, indicating where they might be applied and further studied.

214 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) has revolutionized care for patients (pts) with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but only half achieves PSA decline ≥50%. Biomarkers are urgently needed to improve pt selection. EVs and ctDNA released by cancer cells into the blood are emerging biomarkers to estimate overall tumor burden and capture tumor heterogeneity in mCRPC. Here, we analyzed pre-treatment plasma levels of tumor EVs and ctDNA in a pilot cohort of 35 pts with mCRPC treated with LuPSMA. Methods: Blood samples were collected pre-cycle 1 of LuPSMA at Tulane Cancer Center between 12/2018-1/2025. Plasma-derived small and large EVs were incubated with fluorescently conjugated antibodies and enumerated using nanoscale flow cytometry. ctDNA fraction was estimated from plasma cfDNA methylation WGS (∼10×) with ichorCNA. We also analyzed EVs from blood samples of male healthy donors (HD) and pts with localized prostate cancer (LPC) collected 1 day to 8 months after radical prostatectomy (post-RP) from 6/2020-8/2024 at Mayo Clinic as controls. Results: Median age at collection for 10 HD was 55 yrs and for 36 pts with LPC post-RP was 65 yrs. Median PSMA+ EV level was 2.0 x 10 6 /mL for post-RP and 1.4 x 10 6 /mL for HD. For 35 pts with mCRPC, 25 pts had complete data for analysis. Median PSMA+ EV level was 1.4 x 10 7 /mL, significantly higher than post-RP (p<0.001) and HD (p<0.001). At LuPSMA start, median age was 69 yrs (range 54-83), PSA was 82 ng/mL (range 0.8-503), median time from CRPC diagnosis to start was 50 months (range 6.9-285), median time from plasma collection to treatment initiation was 0.5 months (range 0-7.3). Median number of prior lines of life-extending therapy was 4 (range 1-11), including 100% androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and 75% docetaxel. Pts received median 4 cycles of LuPSMA. Median ctDNA fraction was 14.0% (range 0-51.1). Median time to reach nadir PSA for pts with any decline was 2.6 months. 15 pts (60%) achieved PSA40 (defined ≥40% decline in PSA from start to nadir) (range -99% to -42%) compared to 10 pts (40%) who did not (range -16% to rise), which predicted better median overall survival (OS) after LuPSMA start (40.7 v 6.0 months; HR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.07-0.71; p=0.0001). Pts were classified as LuPSMA responders using PSA40. Responders had a lower ratio of large to small PSMA+ EVs (0.30 v 0.53, p=0.0042) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-0.99), and a lower median ctDNA fraction (6.1% v 26.2%, p=0.0044) with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-1.00). Incorporating both PSMA+ EV and ctDNA fraction together predicted PSA40 response with an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.00, p=0.0003). Conclusions: Using pre-LuPSMA plasma samples from a heavily pre-treated historical cohort, we integrated non-invasive liquid biopsy methods to successfully predict response to LuPSMA using PSA decline. Prospective validation is underway.

Background Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) are widely employed for chronic pain. These injections include peripheral nerve blocks and trigger point injections, injections of large appendicular joints, the axial facet and sacroiliac joints, and the epidural space. These injections may be performed in patients who have been recently vaccinated or plan to be vaccinated. This multisociety multispecialty position statement aims to develop evidence-based statements and recommendations (SRs) on the safe interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccine administration. Methods Development of the position statement was approved by the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Board of Directors and several other societies that agreed to participate. The scope of the SRs was agreed on to include the efficacy of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, adverse events related to the CSIs, specifically the effect of CSIs on the hypothalamic–pituitary axis, incidence of COVID-19 in patients who had CSIs during the pandemic, incidence of influenza in patients who had CSIs during the influenza season, and recommend a reasonable interval between CSIs and COVID-19 and influenza vaccination 20 mg/day of prednisone s. Experts were assigned topics to perform a comprehensive literature review and draft SRs, which were refined and voted for consensus (≥75% agreement) using a modified Delphi process. A modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force grading of evidence and strength of recommendation was followed. Results All SRs were approved by all participants after four rounds of discussion. The Practice Guidelines Committees and Boards of Directors of the participating societies also approved all SRs. If a vaccine has been recently administered or planned, then for non-urgent indications, the CSI should be offered at least 1 week before or after vaccine administration. For healthy patient(s), CSI, or vaccine administration may be performed without a 7-day interval after informed discussion with the patient and consent regarding the risk of blunted vaccine efficacy. For non-healthy patients, shared decision-making should include discussion of diminished vaccine effectiveness and the possibility of influenza or COVID-19 infection. Conclusions In this position statement, we provide recommendations on the optimal timing between CSIs and COVID-19 or influenza vaccine.