Citations

ABSTRACT Background Quality of life and symptom burden of patients with myelofibrosis are well recognized and compounded in those with anemia; however, the effects of transfusion burden or anemia severity on quality of life have not been comprehensively characterized. This post hoc descriptive analysis explored the association between transfusion status or hemoglobin improvement and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). Methods The analysis used pooled populations across treatment arms from 3 clinical trials (SIMPLIFY‐1, SIMPLIFY‐2, MOMENTUM); sample sizes for each PRO measure were dependent on the trials in which they were administered. Results At both baseline and week 24, transfusion independence was associated with umerically greater mean SF ‐36v2 and EORTC QLQ ‐ C30 scores than transfusion dependence; in the subgroup that was transfusion dependent at baseline, those who achieved transfusion independence at week 24 had greater PRO improvements than those who remained reliant on transfusions. Regardless of transfusion status, patients who achieved a hemoglobin improvement ≥ 1, ≥ 1.5, or ≥ 2 g/ dL from baseline also had clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life (assessed via mean EQ ‐ 5D ‐ 5L or SF ‐36v2 scores) and symptoms (assessed via PGIC or MPN ‐ SAF / MFSAF Total Symptom Score) at week 24 compared with those who did not. Conclusions Collectively, these results provide preliminary insights into the associations of transfusion status and anemia severity with quality of life in myelofibrosis; as current PRO measures do not directly evaluate the relationship between symptoms such as fatigue and anemia, development of new measures to more comprehensively capture the patient experience for those with anemia in myelofibrosis may be warranted. Trial Registration NCT01969838, NCT02101268, NCT04173494

Abstract Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) with aromatase inhibitors (AIs) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) is a standard endocrine strategy for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. However, poor tolerability to AI+OFS limits its use, leaving tamoxifen as the only alternative. Prospective studies demonstrated that premenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant ET whose tumors exhibit Ki-67 ≤ 10% following 4 weeks of therapy achieve 5-year distant disease-free survival > 96%. Problematically, only 41% of patients reach this threshold with tamoxifen compared to 78% with AI+OFS (Nitz JCO 2022). (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent selective estrogen receptor modulator that dually targets ERα and PKCβ1. At plasma concentrations of 3-5 ng/mL, it inhibits ERα; at ≥ 500 ng/mL, it targets PKCβ1, leading to AKT suppression. The EVANGELINE trial aims to examine endocrine sensitivity in terms of Week 4 Ki-67 in premenopausal women whose baseline Ki-67 > 10%, and objective response rate after 24 weeks of ENDX + goserelin in premenopausal women with baseline Ki-67≤ 10%. Methods: EVANGELINE (NCT05607004) is a multicenter, open-label, Phase 2 study comprised of three parts. Eligible patients are premenopausal women with Stage IIA/IIB ER+/HER2- breast cancer. • Part 1 (PK Run-in): assessed 40mg vs 80mg ENDX (+/- OFS) in 22 patients. • Part 2: patients with baseline Ki-67 >10% were randomized to 40 mg ENDX + goserelin or exemestane + goserelin for 6 months with the primary objective being 4-week ESD rate. Patients with a baseline Ki-67 ≤10% were assigned to a single-arm cohort of 40 mg ENDX monotherapy (no OFS) to evaluate the 24-week endocrine sensitivity disease rate. • Part 3 (replaces Part 2): all patients are treated with ENDX 40mg daily + goserelin every 28 days. A two stage Phase II design was chosen to assess outcomes as follows: Part 3a: Up to 45 patients with baseline Ki-67> 10% to assess Week 4 Ki-67≤ 10% rate is at least 65%. If 9 or more of these patients have a Week 4 Ki-67>10%, enrollment will be stopped due to futility. Otherwise, enrollment will continue. Part 3b: Up to 20 patients enrolled with baseline Ki-67≤ 10% to assess Week 24 objective response rate. Ki-67 levels are determined by central laboratory and images are centrally reviewed. Secondary objectives include safety, tolerability, surgical outcomes, and biomarker analysis using paired biopsies (baseline, week 4) and surgical specimens. Results: The PK run-in (completed Fall 2024) enrolled 22 patients and assessed ENDX doses (40 mg daily vs 80 mg daily (+/-OFS)). The Week 4 Ki-67 ≤ 10% rate with ENDX was 86% and did not differ according to dose. Early safety, PK, efficacy and compliance data supported the selection of 40 mg ENDX daily as the optimal dose. Enrollment in Part 2 began in May 2025. Part 3 will replace Part 2 with simplification of the trial design. Conclusions: EVANGELINE is the first trial to evaluate (Z)-endoxifen + OFS as neoadjuvant therapy in premenopausal ER+/HER2- breast cancer. By targeting both ER and PKC pathways, ENDX may offer a well-tolerated alternative to AI-based regimens and expand endocrine therapy options for this population. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05607004 Citation Format: M. P. Goetz, V. J. Suman, C. Lopez, H. Erickson, L. Beaulieu, S. S. Hammer, L. Mina, R. Leon-Ferre, K. N. Hunt, M. Piltin, A. Degnim, J. N. Ingle, J. C. Boughey, B. A. Sarah, J. M. Reid, M. Schellenberg, J. R. Hawse, P. Advani, K. Giridhar, F. Batalini, D. Flora, J. M. Jones, N. A. Bagegni, J. Jakub, V. Abramson, V. Dabak, W. J. Irvin, E. Sima, K. Seema, S. C. Quay. A Phase 2 Trial of (Z)-endoxifen + Goserelin as Neoadjuvant Treatment for Premenopausal Women with ER+, HER2-, Breast Cancer (EVANGELINE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS5-12-16.

Abstract Background The quantification of Neurofilament Light chain (NfL) in blood and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has proven valuable for diagnosing and prognosing various neurological disorders, including Alzheimer's disease, frontotemporal dementia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, and ischemic damage. However, there is considerable variability in clinical and laboratory practices between centers, primarily due to different contexts of use (COU), analytical methods, and the application of cutoffs or scales. Additionally, for the same biochemical profile, the interpretation and reporting of results may vary from one center to another, raising concerns about the commutability of the tests. To date, no consensus has been reached among laboratories to define the most appropriate use of cutoffs or conclusions/comments based on NfL profiles. Method This international project involves 38 laboratories across 18 countries, all specialized in the biochemical diagnosis of neurological disorders. Using a questionnaire, we obtained descriptions from each center regarding their COU, pre‐analytical and analytical protocols (including the biological fluid and methods used to quantify NfL). Through a consensus approach, we developed a harmonized strategy for the use and reporting of NfL results across different centres according to their respective COU. Results Among the centers, 63% quantified NfL in the CSF, 87% in blood and 53% in both fluids. COU were as follow: frontotemporal dementia (71%), Alzheimer disease (71%), multiple sclerosis (61%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (61%), psychiatric syndrome (45%), Creutzfeldt‐Jakob disease (32%), Parkinson disease (39%), peripheral neuropathy (29%), traumatic brain injury (21%), Huntington's disease (13%), amyloid transthyretin related (11%) and cardiac arrest (8%). Most of the centers define pathological cutoffs based on publications (50%) and take age into account for this purpose (42%). Reporting is mostly transmitted through numeric results (95%). Conclusion Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice.

The first Introduction to Clinical Research for Academic Anesthesiologists (ICRAA) Course took place from July 2024 through April 2025 via online interactive lectures. The 9-month course provided participants with the skills necessary to ethically design research proposals and conduct research projects. Some of the core principles taught included basics of biostatistics, ways to effectively communicate ideas to data analysts, how to write a grant, and tips on writing and analyzing scientific articles. In this report, we summarize the motivation, describe the content, and provide future directions for this initiative, which aims to foster high-quality clinical research among the next generation of academic anesthesiologists.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Neurofilament light chain (NfL) quantification aids in diagnosing and predicting neurological disorders, but clinical and laboratory practices vary across centers. Differences in result interpretation and reporting further challenge test commutability. This study aimed to review the global analytical and post‐analytical methods used for NfL measurement in routine clinical practice across different contexts. METHODS We established an international working group (WG) and distributed a survey to its members to gather information on context of use (COU), (pre) analytical methods, cutoff usage, as well as the interpretation and reporting of NfL measurements. RESULTS Among the centers, 63% measured NfL in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), 87% in blood, and 53% in both. COU was widespread, with 50% defining pathological cutoffs based on publications and 42% considering age. Reporting was primarily done through numeric results (95%). DISCUSSION Harmonizing cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation across various clinical contexts will facilitate the incorporation of this biomarker into routine clinical practice. Highlights Unique international overview of current analytical and post‐analytical methods for neurofilament light chain (NfL) measurement in routine clinical practice. Tailored sheets for each neurological application. Strategies to harmonize cutoffs, reporting, and interpretation of NfL's measurement.

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.

1001 Background: Imlunestrant (imlu) is a next-generation, brain-penetrant, oral selective estrogen receptor degrader. The EMBER-3 trial, in patients (pts) with ER+, HER2- ABC who had disease progression on or after aromatase inhibitor-based therapy, showed significant progression free survival (PFS) improvement with imlu vs standard therapy (SOC, fulvestrant or exemestane) in pts with ESR1 mutations ( ESR1 m), and with imlunestrant+abemaciclib (imlu+abema) vs imlu in all pts, regardless of ESR1 m. Exploratory PRO analyses are presented here. Methods: EORTC QLQ-C30 was administered at baseline (BL) and every 8 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified QLQ-C30 analysis used a longitudinal mixed model for repeated measures to calculate mean change from BL in pts with BL and ≥1 post-BL score. PRO-CTCAE (diarrhea frequency) was administered weekly, reporting 0 (never) to 4 (almost constantly). PRO-CTCAE (injection site reaction [ISR]) was administered to fulvestrant recipients weekly for 2 weeks post-injection, reporting yes/no (pain, swelling, redness). Descriptive analysis was used for PRO-CTCAE. Results: In pts with ESR1 m, imlu monotherapy was associated with many improved or maintained EORTC QLQ-C30 scores, whereas scores with SOC were declined or maintained. Specifically, pts with ESR1 m on imlu had improved global health status (GHS)/quality of life (QOL) and physical function (PF) scores, while scores with SOC declined (mean change differences between treatments: 9.9 [0.1, 19.7] and 6.2 [-0.8, 13.1], respectively). These PRO findings mirror the PFS findings in this group. In the overall population, GHS/QOL scores declined similarly with imlu vs SOC (mean change differences: 0.5 [-4.7, 5.7]), while PF scores were maintained with imlu vs a slight decline with SOC (mean change difference: 2.5 [-1.1, 6.1]). Most fulvestrant recipients (72%) reported ISR at any time while on treatment, with a mean of 31% during the first week of the first 6 cycles. Imlu+abema vs imlu showed broadly similar declines in all pts, with minimal mean change differences in GHS/QOL and PF scores (0.8 [-7.4, 5.9]; -2.2 [-6.6, 2.2], respectively). Pts reported similarly low rates of “frequent” or “almost constant” diarrhea with imlu (3%) and SOC (2%) and higher rates with imlu+abema (22%). Conclusions: PROs from EMBER-3 demonstrated that patients with ESR1 m had better GHS/QOL and PF with imlu vs SOC, mirroring efficacy results. While the frequency of CTCAE defined ISRs was low, the high rate of PRO-CTCAE ISR demonstrates that this clinically relevant adverse event is underappreciated by physicians. Additionally, all pts had generally comparable GHS/QOL and PF with imlu+abema vs imlu. Overall, these results support the efficacy and safety of imlu compared to existing SOC. Clinical trial information: NCT04975308 .

ABSTRACT Background Advancements in organ transplant technology are pushing global transplant capabilities to new heights. However, challenges persist in pediatric surgical and medical transplant fellowship training, primarily due to a limited number of adequate training programs and gaps in education. Addressing these gaps is essential for improving patient outcomes and advancing the field of pediatric transplantation. Methods An international survey was distributed to 416 pediatric transplant fellows via multiple global transplant associations. The 29‐question survey, available in English and Spanish, assessed current clinical knowledge, training satisfaction, and preferred learning formats. The survey received responses from 237 pediatric transplant fellows. Results One of the key findings was that respondents felt most confident in their pre‐transplantation clinical knowledge. About 75.5% of fellows reported being extremely or very aware of pre‐transplant workups and assessments. However, significant gaps were identified in other areas of training. Notably, 24% of respondents felt extremely knowledgeable about the side effects of immunosuppression, and only 22.8% were very confident in managing acute rejection. Fellows expressed strong interest in dynamic educational formats, particularly clinical case discussions (88.8%). Preferred methods to enhance training included continuing medical education (64.6%), hands‐on workshops, and support for transition protocols and psychosocial counseling. Conclusion This global survey highlights critical educational gaps in pediatric transplant fellowship training and identifies preferred learning methods among fellows. Targeted improvements such as standardized curricula, case‐based learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and accessible continuing education are essential to enhance training. These strategies will ensure that future transplant professionals are well‐equipped to deliver high‐quality care across diverse healthcare settings.

Abstract Background: Endocrine therapy (ET) with aromatase inhibitors (AI) plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) is standard for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer. However, many premenopausal women are intolerant of AI + OFS, leaving tamoxifen (with or without OFS) as their only option. Extensive studies have demonstrated that premenopausal women treated with neoadjuvant ET whose tumors exhibit Ki-67 ≤ 10% following 4 weeks of therapy (defined as endocrine sensitive disease (ESD)) achieve 5-year distant disease-free survival > 96%. Problematically, only 41% of patients reach this ESD threshold with tamoxifen compared to 78% with AI+OFS (Nitz JCO 2022). (Z)-endoxifen (ENDX) is a potent selective estrogen receptor modulator (SERM) that inhibits ERα at plasma concentrations of 3-5 ng/ml and dually targets PKCβ1, a suspected oncogene in breast tumors, at concentrations ≥ 500 ng/ml. We therefore developed the EVANGELINE study (NCT05607004) is an open label, randomized neoadjuvant phase II study that includes a pharmacokinetic (PK) Run-in, aiming to evaluate whether ENDX +/- goserelin is non-inferior to exemestane plus goserelin with respect to ESD rate. Following the completed PK run-in portion of the study, where 40mg/day or 80mg/day ENDX were assessed, the 40 mg/day dose was selected for further evaluation in the second part of the trial. The second part is comprised of a randomized treatment cohort, for patients with a Ki-67% >10% at preregistration randomized to either 40mg (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin or exemestane + goserelin neoadjuvant treatment and a Single Arm Treatment Cohort for patients who have a Ki-67 ≤ 10% at pre-registration assigned to 40mg/day (Z)-endoxifen monotherapy neoadjuvant treatment. Methods: To investigate ENDX further in premenopausal women, a multicenter study in the United States, was designed(EVANGELINE; NCT05607004). This phase 2, open-label, randomized, neoadjuvant trial includes a PK run-in phase designed to assess whether the 4-week ESD rate with (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin is non-inferior to that of exemestane + goserelin in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- breast cancer with diagnostic Ki67 > 10%. Additionally, a single arm Phase 2, open-label neoadjuvant Cohort was designed to assess the 4-week ESD rate with ENDX monotherapy in premenopausal women with Stage IIA or IIB ER+/HER2- BC with diagnostic Ki67 ≤10%. Subjects will undergo neoadjuvant treatment for six months before receiving surgical treatment in the involved breast. This study will additionally assess safety, tolerability, response rates, surgical outcomes, and monitor disease progression. Comprehensive biomarker evaluations will be conducted using paired tumor biopsies and blood samples collected at baseline and week four, as well as 6 month surgical specimens. Enrollment in the PK run-in phase (n-22) was completed in Fall 2024 with the second portion of the trial slated to begin early in 2025. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Vera J. Suman, Claudia Lopez, Hayley Erickson, Lonnissa Nguyen, Sandra S. Hammer, Lida Mina, Pooja Advani, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Karthik Giridhar, Felipe Batalini, Daniel Flora, Jason M. Jones, Nusayba A. Bagegni, Katie N. Hunt, Mara Piltin, Amy Degnim, James N. Ingle, Judy C. Boughey, Sarah A. Buhrow, Joel M. Reid, Matthew Schellenberg, John R. Hawse, Steven C. Quay. A randomized phase 2 non-inferiority trial of (Z)-endoxifen + goserelin and exemestane + goserelin as neoadjuvant treatment for premenopausal women with ER+/HER2- breast cancer (EVANGELINE) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_2):Abstract nr CT237.