Citations

Importance The effect of cornea donor diabetes on endothelial cell density (ECD) and morphometry after Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not known. Objective To determine whether endothelial cell loss (ECL) and morphometric changes 1 year after successful DMEK are related to cornea donor’s diabetes status. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2024 at 28 US clinical sites (46 surgeons) and 13 eye banks. Included in the trial were the eyes of recipients (some of whom received tissue from donors without diabetes and others who received tissue from donors with diabetes) who underwent successful DMEK, primarily for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy, and had at least 1 analyzable postoperative endothelial image. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution. Main Outcomes and Measures ECD, ECL, coefficient of variation in cell area (CV), and percentage of hexagonal cells (HEX) at 1 year from eye bank and postoperative specular central endothelial images. Results A total 1274 eyes of 982 recipients (mean [SD] age, 70 [8] years; 569 female [57.9%]; 816 [64.1%] with tissue from donors without diabetes and 458 [35.9%] with tissue from donors with diabetes) were included in the study. Preoperatively, mean (SD) central ECD in tissue from donors without diabetes and with diabetes were 2676 (290) cells/mm 2 and 2671 (286) cells/mm 2 , respectively. At 1 year, mean (SD) ECL was 28.3% (16.1%) and 28.0% (17.0%), in the donor groups without and with diabetes, respectively (adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −2.3% to 1.4%), resulting in a mean (SD) 1-year ECD of 1927 (498) cells/mm 2 and 1920 (496) cells/mm 2 , respectively (adjusted mean difference = 10 cells/mm 2 ; 95% CI, −36 to 56; P = .95). No difference in ECD at 1 year associated with diabetes severity was noted ( P = .97). Mean (SD) CV did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (31.5% [4.1%] vs 31.4% [4.1%]; adjusted mean difference = −0.4%; 95% CI, −0.9% to 0.1%; P = .51), and mean (SD) HEX did not differ at 1 year between the 2 groups of eyes (57.7% [5.8%] vs 57.2% [5.8%]; adjusted mean difference = 0.1%, 95% CI, −0.8% to 0.9%; P = .33). Conclusions and Relevance This randomized clinical trial found that ECL and morphometry 1 year after DMEK were not affected by cornea donor diabetes status. With comparable 1-year graft success with tissue from donors with and without diabetes demonstrated in this trial, these findings support the use of corneas from donors with diabetes for endothelial keratoplasty procedures. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480

Importance If the success of Descemet membrane endothelial keratoplasty (DMEK) is not affected by whether the donor has diabetes, then the donor pool should expand. Objective To determine whether the 1-year DMEK success rate is affected by the presence of diabetes in the donor. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a multicenter, double-masked, randomized clinical trial conducted from February 2022 to July 2025 at 28 clinical sites (46 surgeons), with donor corneas provided by 13 eye banks in the US. Included in the study were individuals undergoing low to moderate risk DMEK (95% for Fuchs endothelial corneal dystrophy). Study data were analyzed from April to September 2025. Intervention DMEK performed with a cornea from a donor without or with diabetes, assigned using a minimization procedure (comparable with randomization) to achieve an approximate 2:1 distribution, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures Graft success at 1 year Results A total of 1097 individuals (1421 study eyes; median [IQR] age, 71 [66-76] years; 631 female [57.5%]) were included in the study. The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.3% (95% CI, 95.0%-97.5%) among 912 study eyes (64.2%) receiving tissue from donors without diabetes and 97.1% (95% CI, 95.5%-98.4%) among 509 study eyes (35.8%) receiving tissue from donors with diabetes (difference between groups = 0.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.2 to 2.6; P = .63). The 1-year cumulative probability of graft success was 96.5% (95% CI, 93.6%-98.9%) in the mild donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 173) and 97.3% (95% CI, 95.4%-98.8%) in the moderate to severe donor diabetes severity subgroup (n = 336), using a diabetes severity rating scale based on medical history. The rates of primary donor failure, early failure related to surgical complications, and subsequent failure were as follows: 2.5% (23 of 912), 0.7% (6 of 912), and 0.3% (3 of 912), respectively, in recipients of tissue from a donor without diabetes, and 2.6% (13 of 509), 0.4% (2 of 509), and 0%, respectively, among recipients of tissue from a donor with diabetes. There were no failures due to graft rejection. Conclusions and Relevance The 1-year success rate in eyes undergoing DMEK with successfully prepared tissue was very high regardless of donor diabetes status. These results, supported by the separately reported finding that endothelial cell loss and cornea morphometry after 1 year were not affected by donor diabetes status, provide strong support for having no restrictions on the use of tissue from donors with diabetes for DMEK. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05134480

ImportanceAlthough incarceration is associated with worse cancer outcomes, little is known about quality of cancer care among people with a history of incarceration.ObjectiveTo describe quality of cancer care among those diagnosed with cancer during or immediately after incarceration.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal cohort study used Connecticut Tumor Registry data linked to Department of Correction rosters from 2005 through 2016. Patients diagnosed with cancer while incarcerated were matched to those diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration and to those with no history of incarceration. Analysis was performed between March 2024 and January 2025.ExposuresIncarceration status at time of cancer diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were treatment initiation within 60 days and receipt of recommended pretreatment and therapeutic care, ascertained from medical records and tumor registries. Logistic regression was used to evaluate odds of treatment initiation by 60 days. The proportion of recommended elements of pretreatment and therapeutic care received was calculated, and group differences were assessed using χ2 tests.ResultsThe sample included 690 individuals (233 diagnosed during incarceration, 221 diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration, and 236 with no incarceration history). The mean (SD) age was 49.7 (12.1) years, and 611 (88.6%) were male. Compared with those with no history of incarceration, those diagnosed with cancer during incarceration were less likely to initiate treatment within 60 days (169 of 209 [80.9%] vs 131 of 189 [69.3%]; OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.31-0.79]). Initiation of treatment within 60 days was not statistically different for those diagnosed after incarceration vs those with no history of incarceration (144 of 187 [77.0%]; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.49-1.34]). Those diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 49.2% of recommended treatment-related care (31 of 63 measures), while those diagnosed after incarceration received 45.3% (34 of 75 measures), compared with 66.7% (36 of 54 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P < .001). People diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 80.6% of recommended pretreatment evaluation (54 of 67 measures), and those diagnosed after received 96.8% (59 of 68 measures), compared with 78.1% (50 of 64 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P = .01).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of people with a history of incarceration, incarceration was associated with lower likelihood of receiving timely, high-quality cancer treatment. Along with other published literature, this work suggests that gaps in quality of care may contribute to observed disparities in outcomes.

Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) have emerged as powerful tools in personalized medicine applicable to both non-malignant conditions and to cancer, where they are increasingly used for personalized drug screening and precision treatment strategies in part due to their ability to replicate tumor heterogeneity. They also serve as study model systems to understand disease mechanisms, pathways, and the impact of ex vivo exposures. We present a detailed step-by-step protocol for generating organoids from normal crypts, polyps, and tumors, including methods for tissue processing, crypt isolation, culture establishment, and the transition from basolateral to apical-out polarity for co-culture and exposure-based studies. The protocol also includes immunofluorescence staining procedures for cellular characterization and quality control measures. Our standardized approach successfully generates organoids from diverse colorectal tissues with high efficiency and reproducibility. This comprehensive guide addresses common technical challenges and provides troubleshooting strategies to improve success rates across different sample types. We believe that this resource will enhance reproducibility in organoid research and expand their utility in translational applications, particularly for personalized medicine approaches in colorectal cancer.

55 Background: Prior authorization (PA) processes are known to create administrative burdens and delays in care, but little is known about how these challenges impact rural oncology patients and practice settings. Methods: To understand the broad impact of prior authorization on rural oncology patients and practices, we conducted this study across three community oncology practices serving majority rural patient populations with distinct geography, healthcare infrastructure, and models of care. Sites included one critical access hospital system located in a highly-rural community (Lakewood Health System; Staples, Minnesota), a community-based hub-and-spoke hospital system-based practice located in a mid-sized community (Mayo Clinic Health System – Northfield; Northfield, Minnesota), and a standalone referral level III trauma center serving a highly rural patient base (Self Regional Healthcare; Greenwood, South Carolina). This retrospective cohort study examined all intravenous and subcutaneous cancer-directed therapy plans (no oral therapy) that required PA submission at these locations over a three-month period from October 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024. Results: 129 PA submissions were required during the study period. 82 were due to cancer-directed therapy agents (of which 14 were immunotherapy agents), and 47 were due to adjunctive therapies (of which 22, 16, and 9 were due to granulocyte stimulation, bone preservation, and anti-emesis agents, respectively). All 129 PA submissions ultimately resulted in approval of the desired medication or formulary-approved biosimilar. Delays from PA submission to approval ranged from 0 to 18 days. A total of 209 patient-days were delayed due to PA during the study period, which did not ultimately result in change of care or denial of care in any instance. Conclusions: At all sites included in this study, all PA submissions were eventually authorized. The PA process was found to introduce inconsistent and potentially avoidable delays for hundreds of patients and their care teams. These findings highlight the inefficiency of current PA processes among rural cancer populations and the practices that care for them, underscoring the need for ongoing efforts directed at state and federal PA reform.

Context.— Though numerous quality assurance (QA) measures are in place for the practice of gynecologic cytopathology, many of them are not clearly defined and may be variably used by laboratories worldwide. Objective.— To assess current practice patterns regarding the implementation of selected gynecologic cytology QA metrics to help develop guidance for laboratories. Design.— A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2022 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program requesting data regarding their QA measures in gynecologic cytology. Results.— A total of 562 laboratories responded to the supplemental questionnaire; responses from 511 laboratories were analyzed further. Of 492 laboratories, most considered Papanicolaou (Pap) tests from patients with untreated abnormal cytology in the previous year (386; 78.5%) or with an abnormal gynecologic biopsy finding (concurrent or within the past year) (331; 67.3%) as high-risk for negative rescreening. Many laboratories (436 of 511; 85.3%) required pathologist review of Pap tests for indications other than reactive/abnormal cells (eg, endometrial cells in women 45 years of age and older). For assessing cytologists’ performance, 88.5% (399 of 451) of respondents recorded the discrepancy rate between cytologist’s and pathologist’s interpretations. For monitoring pathologists’ performance, most laboratories (243 of 389; 62.5%) evaluated cases with significant cytologic-histologic discrepancy. Conclusions.— The CAP survey provided a detailed assessment of current QA practices regarding gynecologic cytology, which can aid laboratories in making decisions related to enhancement of QA in their setting. As the guidelines and tools for cervical cancer screening evolve, QA metrics will need to be accordingly refined.

ABSTRACT Background As head and neck cancer survival rates improve, there is growing demand for quality survivorship care and tools to predict patient adherence; this study aims to evaluate an advanced practice provider ( APP )‐led survivorship clinic and assess these key metrics. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 213 head and neck cancer patients treated with curative radiation therapy between 2016 and 2023, to assess follow‐up adherence in an advanced practice provider–led survivorship clinic. Results With a median follow‐up of 2.4 years, follow‐up care metrics identified high completion percentages (> 90%) for lung cancer screening, smoking cessation, thyroid screening, dental evaluation, xerostomia, dysphagia, and dysgeusia. The HOUsing ‐based SocioEconomic Status ( HOUSES ) index at diagnosis showed a significant adherence difference (median percentile, 78% vs. 55%, adherent vs. nonadherent; p = 0.03). Conclusions High adherence rates with guideline‐defined care metrics are achievable in an advanced practice provider‐led head and neck cancer survivorship clinic. The HOUSES index may assist in predicting nonadherence; however, further studies are needed.