Citations

Abstract Aims Social isolation (SI) is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). One mechanism linking SI and CVD is accelerated biological ageing, which can be assessed using artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiography (AI-ECG). We investigated whether longitudinal changes in SI status are associated with changes in biological ageing patterns. Methods and results A retrospective longitudinal cohort study including 17 663 individuals without significant CVD who completed ≥2 Berkman and Syme Social Network Index and had paired ECGs within 1 year of each questionnaire. Longitudinal SI status was defined by comparing baseline and follow-up SI status. Ageing trends were assessed using Δage-gap, defined as the change in the gap between AI-ECG-predicted age and chronological age from baseline to follow-up. Linear regression models predicting Δage-gap and survival analyses with Kaplan–Meier and multivariable Cox regression for all-cause mortality were performed. Persistently connected individuals were older [63.1 (52.1, 70.6) years] and had a higher prevalence of hyperlipidaemia and hypertension, yet demonstrated more favourable ageing trajectories. Similarly, those who became connected showed a non-significant attenuation of accelerated ageing. In multivariable linear regression, being persistently isolated [β = +0.412 years, P < 0.001] or becoming isolated [β = +0.438 years, P = 0.012] was associated with accelerated ageing compared to being persistently connected. In survival analyses, becoming isolated (aHR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.53–2.46, P < 0.001) and being persistently isolated (aHR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.40–1.96, P < 0.001) were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality, independent of chronological age and comorbidities. Conclusion Persistent social connection is associated with slower biological ageing and lower mortality. The effects of SI on ageing and survival appear to be potentially reversible, calling for a prospective study to evaluate interventions aimed at improving both the social and biological burden of SI.

Abstract Background Machine perfusion represents the most significant breakthrough in liver transplantation (LT) since the discovery of cyclosporin. Yet, the optimal perfusion strategy remains unsettled. Randomized trials demonstrate that hypothermic oxygenated perfusion (HOPE) improves graft survival and function and reduces ischemic cholangiopathy, whereas normothermic machine perfusion (NMP) decreases post-transplant injury. Real-world comparisons are lacking and challenging due to heterogeneity in donor-recipient risk profiles and regional differences. Aims To compare real-world outcomes of HOPE and NMP in LT. Methods We analyzed consecutive NMP-preserved LTs from seven North American centers between 2021 and 2024. We compared NMP to the European HOPE-REAL cohort, comprising HOPE-treated LTs from 22 centers between 2012 and 2021. Analyses were stratifyied by graft type and risk category and adjusted for donor age, donor risk index, and balance of risk score using entropy balancing. Results A total of 470 NMP and 1202 HOPE-treated grafts were analyzed, revealing major differences in risk profiles (Figure 1). In NMP, death-censored graft survivals at 1, 2, and 3 years were >95% in donation after brain death (DBD) and >94% in donation after circulatory death (DCD) grafts. Comparable outcomes were observed in the HOPE cohort with >93%, in DBD, and >87% in DCD after up to 3 years, despite significantly higher donor age and longer functional warm ischemia in the HOPE DCD cohort (Figure 2). After risk adjustment, death-censored graft survival remained similar between both modalities (Table 1). Non-anastomotic biliary stricture rates after DCD-LT were comparable (8.5% vs. 12.4%), independent of whether continuous or end-ischemic NMP was performed. Conclusion This first transatlantic real-world report demonstrates excellent outcomes with both NMP and HOPE despite higher graft risk in Europe. Machine perfusion is the new standard of care in LT, while further understanding is needed regarding the distinct benefits of each modality across risk profiles.Figure 1.Graft risk in NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Benchmark case was defined as primary transplant with MELD <20 and BAR score <9, extended criteria as either BMI >30kg/m2, donor age >65 years, CIT >12h. DCD grafts were categorized as definedFor image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Figure 2.Death-censored graft survival in liver transplantation following NMP and HOPE stratified by graft type. Abbreviations: NMP (Normothermic Machine Perfusion), HOPE (Hypothermic Oxygenated Perfusion), DBD (Donation after Brain Death), DCD (Donation after circulatory death)For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text. Table 1.Risk-adjusted comparison of death-censored graft survival between NMP and HOPE.For image description, please refer to the figure legend and surrounding text.

9567 Background: Resected stage IIB/C and microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma presents a significant risk of recurrence risk of 37 to 62% at 5 years (yrs). While 1 year of adjuvant PD1 therapy reduces this risk by approximately half, the individual patient’s baseline risk without treatment and their specific benefit from adjuvant PD1 remain unknown. We aimed to generate two separate predictive models for recurrence – one for untreated and one for treated pts - to calculate the individualised benefit of adjuvant PD1. Methods: Pts with resected stage IIB/C or microscopic stage IIIA/B/C/D melanoma, either treated with adjuvant PD1 or untreated at 13 major melanoma centres, and with at least 2 years of follow-up from surgery were included. We analysed pts demographics, disease characteristics, blood parameters, pathological and imaging data at baseline, and clinical outcomes. Propensity scores were estimated using logistic regression with covariates associated with treatment in univariate screening (p<0.05). Separate penalised multivariable logistic regression models were built to predict recurrence for treated and untreated pts. A tool based on these models was created to calculate the individual patient benefit from adjuvant PD1. Results: A total of 3560 pts was included, divided into untreated (discovery n=2384 and validation n=597) and treated (discovery n=404 and validation n=175) cohorts. The model for untreated pts included age, gender, primary site, histological subtype, Breslow thickness, ulceration, mitosis, number and site of regional lymph nodes (LN), mutation status and LDH (AUC 0.70 in discovery, 0.69 in validation). The model for treated pts included age, gender, Breslow thickness, site of regional LN, and mutation status (AUC 0.69 in discovery, 0.61 in validation). ADAPT-M (ADjuvant Anti-PD-1 Tool for Melanoma) calculates the individualized benefit of adjuvant PD1. For example, patient A, a woman ≤45 years old with a primary head & neck melanoma (superficial spreading, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the neck, NRAS mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 21.9% untreated vs 2.3% treated (benefit 19.6%), and a 24-month risk of 41.1% untreated vs 6.4% treated (benefit 34.7%). While, patient B, a man ≤45 years old with a primary melanoma in the lower limb (nodular, thickness >1-2 mm, no ulceration, 1 mitosis/mm 2 ), 2 clinically occult LN metastases in the groin, BRAF V600 mutant, and normal LDH, has a 12-month recurrence risk of 14.2% untreated vs 11.8% treated (benefit 2.5%), and a 24-month risk of 28.0% untreated vs 30.1% treated (no benefit). Conclusions: ADAPT-M, a clinical tool that estimate individualized recurrence risks with and without adjuvant anti-PD1 therapy, quantifies the absolute benefit of treatment for pts with high-risk resected melanoma, facilitating personalized adjuvant therapy decisions.

9535 Background: MUM carries a poor prognosis with few effective treatments, especially for HLA-A*02:01-negative pts. While a subset of MUM pts responds to immune checkpoint inhibitors, the comparative efficacy of IPI+PD1 versus PD1 monotherapy is unclear. This study compares objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety between these regimens in MUM. Methods: MUM pts treated with PD1 or IPI+PD1 at 15 major melanoma centres (from Australia, Europe, United States and Israel) were included. Demographics, patient and disease characteristics, and clinical outcomes were examined. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) analyses were performed to identify clinical predictors of response and survival. Results: Of 412 MUM pts treated, 150 (36%) had PD1 and 262 (64%) received PD1+IPI. Compared to the PD1 group, PD1+IPI-treated pts were younger (64 vs. 70 years; p<0.001), had higher rate of elevated LDH (44% vs. 31%; p=0.037), and more frequently had prior treatment with tebentafusp (6.5% vs. 1.3%; p=0.031). Median follow-up from commencement of PD1+/-IPI was 4.9 years (95% CI 4.7 – 6.1). ORR was higher in IPI+PD1 group (18%) vs. PD1 (9%) (p=0.008), particularly in males (p=0.009), patients with liver metastases (p=0.018) and with lung metastases (p=0.011), with elevated LDH (p=0.047) and with no prior treatment with tebentafusp (p=0.007). PFS and OS at 1 and 2 years were numerically higher with IPI+PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 23% and 15%; 1- and 2-year OS: 63% and 39%) vs. PD1 (1- and 2-year PFS: 17% and 11%; 1- and 2-year OS: 54% and 36%), but these differences were not statistically significant (p>0.05). On MVA, adjusting for predefined variables (age, gender, ECOG PS, LDH, presence/absence of liver/lung metastases, prior treatment with tebentafusp), IPI+PD1 was associated with higher ORR (OR 2.71, 1.30 – 6.05; p=0.01) but not with PFS or OS compared to PD1. Presence of liver metastases (ORR [OR 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 - 0.64], PFS [HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.11 - 2.34], OS [HR 2.02; 95% CI 1.32 - 3.10]), ECOG PS≥2 (PFS [HR 1.82; 95% CI 1.07 - 3.10], OS [HR 2.24; 95% CI 1.25-4.01]), elevated LDH (PFS [HR 1.66; 95% CI 1.30 - 2.11], OS [HR 2.39; 95% CI 1.84-3.10]) and prior tebentafusp treatment (OS [HR 2.36; 95% CI 1.21-4.59]) were also independent predictors of response and/or survival. A higher percentage of pts experienced grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in the IPI+PD1 group compared to the PD1 group (34% vs 13%, p<0.0001). Most pts ceased treatment due to progression (234, 57%), and more pts stopped due to toxicity in the IPI+PD1 vs. PD1 group (25% vs. 9%, p<0.0001). Conclusions: In pts with MUM, IPI+PD1 demonstrated a higher ORR but did not improve survival compared with PD1 alone. IPI+PD1 was more toxic, leading to early treatment discontinuation in one-quarter of pts. These findings may help guide treatment selection in MUM.

7569 Background: MAIA and CEPHEUS trials demonstrated that daratumumab (Dara) with standard of care (SOC) VRd or Rd significantly improved clinical outcomes versus SOC in TIE NDMM. Here we describe efficacy and safety in TIE pts from both trials by age and baseline (BL) frailty using the latest data cuts. Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to DRd (n=368) or Rd (n=369) in MAIA and 1:1 to DVRd (n=144) or VRd (n=145) in CEPHEUS. Progression-free survival (PFS), complete response or better (≥CR), overall MRD negativity (neg) at 10 -5 with ≥CR, sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (confirmed MRD neg ≥12 ± 1 months [mo] apart without MRD positivity in between), and safety were assessed by age (<70, 70–<75, or ≥75 years [y]) and BL frailty (assessed by IFM simplified frailty score: 0–1, non-frail; ≥2, frail). Results: Median follow-up was 64.5 mo in MAIA and 76.0 mo in CEPHEUS. In MAIA, 155 (21%) pts were <70 y, 261 (35%) 70–<75 y, and 321 (44%) ≥75 y; 341 (46%) pts were frail, 88.0 % of whom were ≥70 y. In CEPHEUS TIE pts, 70 (24%) pts were <70 y, 133 (46%) 70–<75 y, and 86 (30%) ≥75 y; 83 (29%) pts were frail, 86% of whom were ≥70 y. DRd or DVRd improved PFS, MRD neg rates, sustained MRD neg rates, and ≥CR rates vs Rd or VRd arms across age and frailty subgroups in both trials (Table). Safety was consistent with established individual drug profiles, and adverse event rates were generally comparable across treatment arms and subgroups within both trials. Additional data on patient-specific factors relevant to these subgroups will be presented. Conclusions: Dara-based regimens improved efficacy outcomes across subgroups in MAIA and CEPHEUS trials, reinforcing Dara-based regimens as SOC in TIE NDMM regardless of age or frailty. These data offer clinically relevant insights to help guide treatment selection for TIE pts. Clinical trial information: NCT03652064 ; NCT02252172 . PFS, hazard ratio (95% CI) ≥CR rate, % MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Sustained MRD neg with ≥CR (10 -5 ) rate, % Age/ Frailty status MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** MAIA* CEPHEUS** MAIA* CEPHEUS ** <70 y 0.35 (0.21–0.56) 0.60 (0.31–1.18) 56.4 vs 31.2 85.7 vs 68.6 35.9 vs 11.7 74.3 vs 42.9 25.6 vs 3.9 62.9 vs 28.6 70–<75 y 0.64 (0.45–0.89) 0.60 (0.37–0.99) 56.2 vs 31.3 77.9 vs 69.2 36.2 vs 12.2 55.9 vs 47.7 20.8 vs 5.3 45.6 vs 38.5 ≥75 y 0.59 (0.44–0.79) 0.46 (0.22–0.94) 44.4 vs 28.6 80.5 vs 44.4 26.9 vs 9.9 58.5 vs 26.7 13.8 vs 3.1 43.9 vs 15.6 Frail 0.64 (0.48–0.85) 0.62 (0.32–1.18) 44.8 vs 33.1 72.9 vs 54.3 25.6 vs 13.0 56.3 vs 34.3 15.7 vs 4.1 39.6 vs 17.1 Non-frail 0.48 (0.36–0.64) 0.51 (0.34–0.78) 56.6 vs 27.5 84.4 vs 63.6 37.8 vs 9.5 63.5 vs 41.8 21.4 vs 4.0 54.2 vs 32.7 *MAIA: DRd vs Rd; **CEPHEUS: DVRd vs VRd.

632 Background: Prospective data on the risk of breast cancer (BC) recurrence among young BC survivors who have a subsequent pregnancy are limited. We sought to evaluate the long-term impact of pregnancy and live birth on BC outcomes in the Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (NCT01468246), a prospective multicenter study of women aged ≤40 years at BC diagnosis. Methods: Women with stage 0-III BC without prior hysterectomy were included. The primary endpoint was breast cancer-free interval (BCFI) between patients with and without a (a) pregnancy and (b) live birth after BC. Secondary endpoints were distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI) and overall survival (OS). A time-varying Cox proportional hazards model was performed by estrogen receptor (ER) status, controlling for age at diagnosis, tumor stage, HER2 status, tumor grade, parity at diagnosis, and germline pathogenic variant status. Results: Among 1,016 BC survivors at a median follow-up of 12 (range, 0.5-18.5) years, 198 reported ≥1 pregnancy and 165 reported ≥1 live birth post-diagnosis. Among survivors who reported a post-diagnosis pregnancy, median age at diagnosis was 32 (range, 17-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (40%) BC, with 72% hormone receptor (HR)-positive and 25% HER2+; 42% were nulligravid and 60% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors who did not become pregnant post-diagnosis, median age at diagnosis was 37 (range, 21-40) years; most had stage I (35%) or II (43%) BC, with 75% HR-positive and 28% HER2+; 25% were nulligravid and 29% were nulliparous at diagnosis. Among BC survivors with ER-positive tumors (n = 737), pregnancy after BC was not associated with a difference in BCFI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.60, 95% CI 0.31-1.16, P = 0.130), DRFI (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35-1.55, P = 0.416), or OS (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.24-1.40, P = 0.227). Similarly, live birth after BC did not impact BCFI (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.45-1.55, P = 0.560), DRFI (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.52-2.06, P = 0.923), or OS (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34-1.76, P = 0.541). Outcomes among BC survivors with ER-negative tumors (n = 278) were also not affected by post-diagnosis pregnancy (BCFI [HR 1.48, 95% CI 0.70-3.14, P = 0.304], DRFI [HR 1.59, 95% CI 0.68-3.75, P = 0.287], OS [HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.39-2.49, P = 0.975]) or live birth (BCFI [HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.41-2.53, P = 0.974], DRFI [HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.24-2.69, P = 0.722], OS [HR 0.39, 95% CI 0.09-1.69, P = 0.208]). Conclusions: In this multicenter, prospective study with 12 years of median follow-up, pregnancy and live birth after BC did not impact BC events or overall survival, irrespective of ER status. These long-term data from a modern cohort provide reassurance for young BC patients interested in future fertility. Clinical trial information: NCT01468246 .

Abstract Background Whether outcomes of germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2)-associated breast cancer differ compared with sporadic tumors is controversial. We explored the impact of gBRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) status beyond established prognostic features. Methods We conducted 2 retrospective, matched cohort studies comparing gBRCA1/2 PV carriers and noncarriers with HER2-negative, stage I-III breast cancer (Clinical Outcomes Quality Database [COQD] cohort: 185 carriers, 555 noncarriers; Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study [YWS] cohort: 113 carriers, 226 noncarriers). Matching factors were age, stage, hormone receptor status, and year of diagnosis. Clinicopathological features, treatments, and survival outcomes were compared between carriers and noncarriers. Results Most patients in COQD had stage I-II disease (87.2%), and more carriers than noncarriers had genetic testing before diagnosis (33% vs 5.6%, P &lt; .001). In YWS, 22.7% of patients had stage III tumors, and few were tested before diagnosis (14.8% of carriers vs 1.7% of noncarriers; P &lt; .001). Carriers in COQD received chemotherapy more often than noncarriers (81.1 vs 67.0%, P &lt; .001), including platinum (P = .010); the proportion was similar for carriers and noncarriers in YWS. After adjusting for chemotherapy, relapse-free survival was longer in carriers than noncarriers in COQD (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.48 [95% CI = 0.26 to 0.87], P = .016), and a favorable trend was observed for other survival outcomes in both cohorts. Triple-negative tumors appeared to drive the differences. Conclusions We observed a trend toward improved outcomes in gBRCA1/2 PV carriers compared with noncarriers. These findings suggest that carriers should not receive more aggressive treatment solely based on their germline mutation status. Prospective clinical trials in this population are warranted.

Abstract Heart involvement in eosinophilia represents a rare entity with substantial cardiac morbidity and mortality. This disorder is often overlooked and diagnosed in its advanced stages. In a subgroup of patients with eosinophilic heart disease, peripheral blood eosinophilia may not be present, and the biopsy of the affected organ or tissue is essential to establish the correct diagnosis. In this clinical consensus statement, an expert consensus group reviews the epidemiology, aetiology, diagnosis, and management of eosinophilic heart disease. The aim of the document is to increase awareness about the cardiac involvement associated with eosinophilia in order to diagnose the disease in early phases and prevent deleterious heart damage and adverse outcomes of affected individuals. The spectrum of physiological and immunological derangements requires a multidisciplinary approach for optimal management of affected individuals.