Citations

CD36 expression in both immune and non-immune cells is known to be directly involved in cancer metastasis. Extracellular vesicles (EVs) secreted by malignant melanocytes play a vital role in developing tumor-promoting microenvironments, but it is unclear whether this is mediated through CD36. To understand the role of CD36 in melanoma, we first analyzed the SKCM dataset for clinical prognosis, evaluated the percentage of CD36 in lymphatic fluid-derived EVs (LEVs), and tested whether melanoma-derived EVs increase CD36 expression and induce M2-macrophage-like characteristics. Furthermore, we performed a multiplex immunofluorescence (MxIF) imaging analysis to evaluate the CD36 expression and its colocalization with various other cells in the lymph node (LN) of patients and control subjects. Our findings show that cutaneous melanoma patients have a worse clinical prognosis with high CD36 levels, and a higher percentage of CD36 in total LEVs were found at baseline in melanoma patients compared to control. We also found that monocytic and endothelial cells treated with melanoma EVs expressed more CD36 than untreated cells. Furthermore, melanoma-derived EVs can regulate immunosuppressive macrophage-like characteristics by upregulating CD36. The spatial imaging data show that cells in tumor-involved sentinel LNs exhibit a higher probability of CD36 expression than cells from control LNs, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusively, our findings demonstrated that CD36 plays a vital role in controlling the immunosuppressive microenvironment in the LN, which can promote the formation of a protumorigenic niche.

TPS2699 Background: Despite the success in hematologic cancers, chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are challenging to implement in solid tumors owing to a lack of tumor-specific targets that discriminate cancer from normal cells. MSLN expression normally is limited to the mesothelium of major body cavities but can be upregulated in diverse solid tumor types (TCGA 2022), making it a potential target for cancer therapy. MSLN-targeted cell approaches, including CAR T-cell and T-cell receptor fusion therapies, have shown promising clinical activity; however, on-target, off-tumor toxicity including fatal events have occurred (1-3). A2B694 is an autologous logic-gated, MSLN-targeted Tmod CAR T-cell therapy that addresses the challenges of on-target, off-tumor toxicity by combining 2 CARs: an activating and blocking receptor. The activator recognizes MSLN present on the surface of both tumor and normal cells; the blocker binds HLA-A*02 and prevents CAR T-cell activity. Thus, in patients with both germline HLA-A*02 and tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH, the blocker prevents on-target, off-tumor toxicity on normal cells owing to retained HLA-A*02 expression (4). Through this unique discriminatory mechanism, A2B694 may provide a therapeutic window to treat patients with MSLN-expressing solid tumors exhibiting HLA-A*02 LOH. Methods: EVEREST-2 (NCT06051695) is a first-in-human, phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of A2B694 in adults with recurrent unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic cancers with MSLN expression, including non-small cell lung cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, or other solid tumors with MSLN expression. Eligible patients should have received ≥1 line of prior therapy such as checkpoint inhibitor, molecular targeted, or chemotherapy. Enrollment to EVEREST-2 occurs through the prescreening study BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119), which identifies patients with tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH via next-generation sequencing (Tempus AI, Inc.). Eligible patients enroll in the BASECAMP-1 study and undergo leukapheresis. A2B694 is manufactured from cryopreserved T cells when clinically appropriate for patients. The primary objective of phase 1 is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of A2B694 and identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The dose-expansion phase will confirm RP2D and collect biomarker data to further characterize A2B694. Phase 2 will assess overall response rate per RECIST v1.1. 1. Beatty, et al. Gastroenterology. 2018. 2. Haas, et al. Mol Ther. 2023. 3. Hong, et al. ESMO 2021. Abstract 9590. 4. Hamburger, et al. Mol Immunol. 2020. Clinical trial information: NCT06051695 .

ImportancePersistent symptoms and disability following SARS-CoV-2 infection, known as post–COVID-19 condition or “long COVID,” are frequently reported and pose a substantial personal and societal burden.ObjectiveTo determine time to recovery following SARS-CoV-2 infection and identify factors associated with recovery by 90 days.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this prospective cohort study, standardized ascertainment of SARS-CoV-2 infection was conducted starting in April 1, 2020, across 14 ongoing National Institutes of Health–funded cohorts that have enrolled and followed participants since 1971. This report includes data collected through February 28, 2023, on adults aged 18 years or older with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection.ExposurePreinfection health conditions and lifestyle factors assessed before and during the pandemic via prepandemic examinations and pandemic-era questionnaires.Main Outcomes and MeasuresProbability of nonrecovery by 90 days and restricted mean recovery times were estimated using Kaplan-Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to assess multivariable-adjusted associations with recovery by 90 days.ResultsOf 4708 participants with self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection (mean [SD] age, 61.3 [13.8] years; 2952 women [62.7%]), an estimated 22.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-23.7%) did not recover by 90 days post infection. Median (IQR) time to recovery was 20 (8-75) days. By 90 days post infection, there were significant differences in restricted mean recovery time according to sociodemographic, clinical, and lifestyle characteristics, particularly by acute infection severity (outpatient vs critical hospitalization, 32.9 days [95% CI, 31.9-33.9 days] vs 57.6 days [95% CI, 51.9-63.3 days]; log-rank P < .001). Recovery by 90 days post infection was associated with vaccination prior to infection (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11-1.51) and infection during the sixth (Omicron variant) vs first wave (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.49). These associations were mediated by reduced severity of acute infection (33.4% and 17.6%, respectively). Recovery was unfavorably associated with female sex (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) and prepandemic clinical cardiovascular disease (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). No significant multivariable-adjusted associations were observed for age, educational attainment, smoking history, obesity, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or elevated depressive symptoms. Results were similar for reinfections.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, more than 1 in 5 adults did not recover within 3 months of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Recovery within 3 months was less likely in women and those with preexisting cardiovascular disease and more likely in those with COVID-19 vaccination or infection during the Omicron variant wave.

12065 Background: Incidence of cancer, including colorectal, breast, pancreas, kidney, and uterine cancer, is increasing in younger populations. Adolescents and young adults (AYA, defined as age 15-39) with cancer face unique challenges. This study aimed to characterize how symptom burden differs between AYA and non-AYA (aged 40+) patients with cancer. Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of the E2C2 study, a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial examining the effectiveness of routine symptom assessment and guideline-based management on patient-centered and healthcare utilization metrics during and following cancer treatment. Six symptoms [Sleep disturbance, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue (SPPADE)] were evaluated using 11-point numerical rating scales (NRS). Symptom severity was classified as mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). We conducted a subgroup analysis of symptom burden among AYA patients (defined as age 18-39 in this study), using their first-reported NRS scores. Results: The E2C2 cohort included 2,598 AYA patients and 38,061 non-AYA patients who completed >1 SPPADE NRS on at least one survey. AYA patients were more likely than non-AYA patients to report severe anxiety ( p<0.0001) and depression ( p<0.0001) (Table). Non-AYA patients were more likely to report severe pain ( p=0.02179), fatigue ( p=0.0022), and physical function limitations ( p<0.0001). Sociodemographic differences were also noted. A higher proportion of AYA patients held a bachelor’s degree or higher (38% vs 28%), were employed (73% vs 37%), and lived in an urban setting (67% vs 56%), compared to non-AYA patients. Non-AYA patients were more likely to have government insurance (63% vs 21%) and to be married (72% vs 59%). Conclusions: AYA patients with cancer were more likely to report severe depression and anxiety compared to their counterparts age 40 and above, underscoring the need for targeted and tailored psycho-oncology care for this population. [Table: see text]

Importance Neurological manifestations during acute SARS-CoV-2–related multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) are common in hospitalized patients younger than 18 years and may increase risk of new neurocognitive or functional morbidity. Objective To assess the association of severe neurological manifestations during a SARS-CoV-2–related hospital admission with new neurocognitive or functional morbidities at discharge. Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective cohort study from 46 centers in 10 countries included patients younger than 18 years who were hospitalized for acute SARS-CoV-2 or MIS-C between January 2, 2020, and July 31, 2021. Exposure Severe neurological manifestations, which included acute encephalopathy, seizures or status epilepticus, meningitis or encephalitis, sympathetic storming or dysautonomia, cardiac arrest, coma, delirium, and stroke. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was new neurocognitive (based on the Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category scale) and/or functional (based on the Functional Status Scale) morbidity at hospital discharge. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the association of severe neurological manifestations with new morbidity in each SARS-CoV-2–related condition. Results Overall, 3568 patients younger than 18 years (median age, 8 years [IQR, 1-14 years]; 54.3% male) were included in this study. Most (2980 [83.5%]) had acute SARS-CoV-2; the remainder (588 [16.5%]) had MIS-C. Among the patients with acute SARS-CoV-2, 536 (18.0%) had a severe neurological manifestation during hospitalization, as did 146 patients with MIS-C (24.8%). Among survivors with acute SARS-CoV-2, those with severe neurological manifestations were more likely to have new neurocognitive or functional morbidity at hospital discharge compared with those without severe neurological manifestations (27.7% [n = 142] vs 14.6% [n = 356]; P &amp;lt; .001). For survivors with MIS-C, 28.0% (n = 39) with severe neurological manifestations had new neurocognitive and/or functional morbidity at hospital discharge compared with 15.5% (n = 68) of those without severe neurological manifestations ( P = .002). When adjusting for risk factors in those with severe neurological manifestations, both patients with acute SARS-CoV-2 (odds ratio, 1.85 [95% CI, 1.27-2.70]; P = .001) and those with MIS-C (odds ratio, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.22-3.89]; P = .009) had higher odds of having new neurocognitive and/or functional morbidity at hospital discharge. Conclusions and Relevance The results of this study suggest that children and adolescents with acute SARS-CoV-2 or MIS-C and severe neurological manifestations may be at high risk for long-term impairment and may benefit from screening and early intervention to assist recovery.

e23171 Background: A011502 is a phase 3 trial that randomized high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) to aspirin 300 mg daily vs. placebo. Obesity and Black race have been shown to be associated with worse clinical outcomes. We studied the association of stress, depression, sleep and pain with each other, and with BMI and race. Methods: At baseline, 2735, 2610, 2720, and 2422 pts completed Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) respectively. Stress was categorized with PSS scores: low (0-13), moderate (14-26) or high (27-40). Depression was categorized with CESD-R scores: no depression (0-15) or depression (≥16). Pain was categorized with BPI scores: none/mild (0-3) or moderate/severe (≥4). Sleep quality was categorized with PSQI scores: good (0-5) or poor ( > 5). Associations of measures by race and BMI were analyzed using chi-square test. Results: There was a statistically significant association among stress, depression, pain, and sleep quality (p < 0.01 for all). Compared to pts with BMI < 25, overweight and obese women reported higher stress (2.9%, 2.3% vs. 1.7%, p = 0.04), depression (13.4%, 18% vs. 9.6%, p < 0.01), moderate/severe pain (16.5%, 20.3% vs. 12%, p < 0.01), and poor sleep (64.9%, 71.5% vs. 60.4%, p < 0.01). Black women reported more moderate/severe pain compared to White women or other races (32.9% vs. 14.2% vs. 27.8%, p < 0.01). There was no association of other symptoms with race (Table 1). Conclusions: Obesity was associated with higher stress, depression, poor sleep and pain among BC pts from A011502. Black women reported higher pain compared to other races. Future studies are warranted that determine causal associations, how symptoms may relate to outcome disparities, and develop approaches to address them. U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA233196; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT02927249 . [Table: see text]

11016 Background: A011502 is a phase 3 randomized double-blind clinical trial that enrolled high-risk nonmetastatic breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) and randomized pts to aspirin 300 mg daily vs. placebo. There was no significant difference in invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) between the two arms. A secondary objective was to determine the association of inflammation-affiliated factors (stress, depression, poor sleep quality and pain) with iDFS and overall survival (OS). We hypothesized that these baseline factors are associated with worse clinical outcomes. Methods: At baseline, 2735, 2720, 2422 and 2610 pts completed Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale Revised (CESD-R) respectively. Stress was categorized with PSS scores: low (0-13), moderate (14-26) or high stress (27-40). Pain was categorized with BPI scores: none/mild (0-3) or moderate/severe (≥4). Sleep quality was categorized with PSQI scores: good (0-5) or poor ( > 5).Depression was categorized with CESD-R scores: no depression (0-15) or depression (≥16). Associations between the measures of interest and outcomes were performed with multivariable Cox models controlling for age, body mass index, time since diagnosis, race, ethnicity, hormone receptor status and treatment arm. Results: Median follow up was 35 months. The associations from multivariable Cox model are shown in Table 1. Pts who reported high PSS had significantly worse iDFS and (non-significant) worse OS. Moderate/severe average (avg) pain was significantly associated with worse iDFS and OS. Poor sleep quality and depression were associated with worse iDFS and OS but not statistically significant. Conclusions: Pts reporting higher stress and pain at baseline had worse outcomes. We acknowledge that both pain and stress may be related to other non-cancer issues (chronic comorbidities). Our study highlights the need for clinical trials to consider including questionnaires to assess pt-reported outcomes. Future studies are warranted to determine if measures to decrease pain and stress would improve BC outcomes. U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA233196; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . NCT02927249: Clinical trial information: NCT02927249 . [Table: see text]

OBJECTIVE The COVID-19 pandemic led to many changes across medical organizations and graduate medical education programs nationwide including the rapid implementation of telemedicine as a modality for delivering health care. The purpose of this study was to investigate the telemedicine experiences of residents and fellows with their self-reported level of preparedness, impact on their education including precepting, skill development, and patient-physician relationships, and perceptions of telehealth platforms and curricula in the future. METHODS A total of 365 Mayo Clinic residents and fellows across three sites (Florida, Arizona, and Minnesota) were identified as trainees who conducted at least one telemedicine encounter from January 1, 2020 to June 30, 2020 and were sent an electronic survey by e-mail. RESULTS There was a total of 103 completed surveys across various specialties with 58.3% female respondents, 63.1% residents, 35.0% fellows and 77.7% of respondents who attended medical school in the United States. Most trainees reported having very little to no exposure to telemedicine in their medical careers before the pandemic. The majority were satisfied with their first telemedicine encounter and found precepting comparable to in-person visits. The trainees in this study had a favorable view with 98.1% believing telemedicine will play a more prevalent role in the future and most agreed this should be included in medical school and residency training. CONCLUSION Our survey found that after the implementation of telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, the experiences of trainees at a multi-site academic center were overall positive. More research is needed on the perceptions of skill development (physical exam and history taking) during a telemedicine encounter and outlining an optimal telemedicine curriculum that can improve confidence in trainees.