Citations

BACKGROUND: Small, randomized trials of patients with cervical artery dissection showed conflicting results regarding optimal stroke prevention strategies. We aimed to compare outcomes in patients with cervical artery dissection treated with antiplatelets versus anticoagulation. METHODS: This is a multicenter observational retrospective international study (16 countries, 63 sites) that included patients with cervical artery dissection without major trauma. The exposure was antithrombotic treatment type (anticoagulation versus antiplatelets), and outcomes were subsequent ischemic stroke and major hemorrhage (intracranial or extracranial hemorrhage). We used adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting to determine associations between anticoagulation and study outcomes within 30 and 180 days. The main analysis used an as-treated crossover approach and only included outcomes occurring with the above treatments. RESULTS: The study included 3636 patients (402 [11.1%] received exclusively anticoagulation and 2453 [67.5%] received exclusively antiplatelets). By day 180, there were 162 new ischemic strokes (4.4%) and 28 major hemorrhages (0.8%); 87.0% of ischemic strokes occurred by day 30. In adjusted Cox regression with inverse probability of treatment weighting, compared with antiplatelet therapy, anticoagulation was associated with a nonsignificantly lower risk of subsequent ischemic stroke by day 30 (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.45–1.12]; P =0.145) and by day 180 (adjusted HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.28–2.24]; P =0.670). Anticoagulation therapy was not associated with a higher risk of major hemorrhage by day 30 (adjusted HR, 1.39 [95% CI, 0.35–5.45]; P =0.637) but was by day 180 (adjusted HR, 5.56 [95% CI, 1.53–20.13]; P =0.009). In interaction analyses, patients with occlusive dissection had significantly lower ischemic stroke risk with anticoagulation (adjusted HR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.18–0.88]; P interaction =0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our study does not rule out the benefit of anticoagulation in reducing ischemic stroke risk, particularly in patients with occlusive dissection. If anticoagulation is chosen, it seems reasonable to switch to antiplatelet therapy before 180 days to lower the risk of major bleeding. Large prospective studies are needed to validate our findings.

AimsCeramic-on-ceramic (CoC) articulations in total hip arthroplasty (THA) have the advantage of low wear but the unique risk of fracture. After revision for CoC-bearing fracture, third-body ceramic particles can lead to massive wear of cobalt-chrome (CoCr) bearings, causing extremely elevated blood cobalt. We present a multicentre series of five cases where patients sustained fractures of ceramic liners, were revised using a CoCr articulation, and rapidly developed severe cobalt toxicity.MethodsWe identified five cases of cobalt toxicity after fractured CoC THA treated with revision to CoCr on polyethylene bearings. Mean follow-up was three years (5 to 72 months) after re-revision to remove the CoCr bearing.ResultsSymptoms of cobalt toxicity occurred at a mean ten months (6 to 12) after revision for ceramic fracture. All patients developed vision and hearing loss, balance difficulties, and peripheral neuropathy. Several had cardiomyopathy, endocrine abnormalities, and local skin discolouration. Only two reported hip pain. Repeat revision for recognized cobalt toxicity occurred at a mean 22 months after revision for ceramic fracture. Mean serum cobalt level at re-revision was 991 ng/ml (normal value < 1 ng/ml; 734 to 1,302). All CoCr femoral heads exhibited massive wear, and deep tissues showed prominent metal staining. Treatment consisted of debridement and revision to a ceramic femoral head with highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) liner. Serum cobalt improved to a mean 25 μg/l (1 to 76) at final follow-up. All patients reported partial improvement in vision and hearing, however their peripheral neuropathy and balance difficulties did not recover.ConclusionSystemic cobalt toxicity is a devastating complication of ceramic-bearing fracture in THA treated with CoCr bearings, which may not present with hip symptoms. The diagnosis of this syndrome of systemic cobalt toxicity was significantly delayed following systemic symptoms in this series. Debridement and re-revision to a ceramic-on-HXLPE bearing leads to improvement, but not full resolution, of cobalt toxicity complications.Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(6 Supple B):92–100.

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.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of trichloroacetic acid (TCA) as treatment for high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN 2 or 3). Methods: Retrospective study of patients with CIN 2 or greater treated with TCA from 2016 to 2022. Patients who desired future childbearing had a satisfactory colposcopy and had not received prior treatment for CIN. Patients were offered excision as initial treatment and for lesions that did not regress. TCA was discussed as an alternative, off-label treatment. Under colposcopic guidance, 85% TCA was applied to the transformation zone and distal endocervix. Patients were followed with colposcopy and cytology every 3–6 months and subsequently underwent excision or reapplication of TCA. Primary outcomes were regression and remission after a minimum of 6 months of treatment with TCA. Results: A total of 43 patients elected treatment with TCA. The mean age was 28.6 years with a median follow-up time of 12 months. The majority of patients were nonsmokers (95.3%) and White (73.9%). Pretreatment diagnosis was CIN3 and CIN2 in 32.6% and 67.4% of cases, respectively. After a median of three TCA treatments, 23.3% regression and 55.8% remission were noted for an overall cytological response rate of 79.1%. 16.3% required excision within 1 year. There were no cervical cancer diagnoses. The median time to regression and remission was 9 months and 6 months, respectively. Conclusion: In patients with high-grade CIN, treatment with TCA may have favorable short-term outcomes. TCA may represent an alternative to excision in reproductive-aged patients, though additional studies are needed with a larger cohort in a prospective manner.

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 Infection is increasingly recognized as a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy. The current study analyzed the natural history, risk factors, and outcomes of infection in 3350 patients with R/R LBCL receiving commercial CD19 CAR T-cell therapy (n = 2804 axicabtagene ciloleucel [axi-cel], n = 546 tisagenlecleucel) from December 2017 to June 2022. Infection developed in 834 patients (24.9%) within 100 days after infusion, resulting in an infection density of 0.43 per 100 patient days and a 100-day cumulative incidence of 22%. Bacterial, viral, and fungal infections were recorded in 527 (15.7%), 374 (11.2%), and 108 patients (3.2%), respectively, with corresponding infection densities of 0.23, 0.15, and 0.04 per 100 patient days. After a 24-month median follow-up, 1482 patients (44%) had died, with infection as the primary cause in 173 cases (12%). The 100-day infection-related mortality (IRM) was 1.6% (95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.0). Patients with a Karnofsky performance score of ≤80, infection history before CAR T-cell therapy, axi-cel therapy, severe cytokine release syndrome (grade ≥3), and severe immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome (grade ≥3) had increased infection risk. Infections within 100 days were an independent risk factor for inferior overall survival beyond day 100 after CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. In conclusion, study results show a significant incidence of infection and IRM in patients with R/R LBCL treated with CD19 CAR T-cell therapy. Furthermore, results identify patients at a heightened risk of infection, offering insights to guide potential interventions aimed at mitigating infection and improving patient outcomes after CAR T-cell therapy.

e12562 Background: Previous research has suggested that breast cancer (BC) diagnosed during pregnancy or the postpartum period exhibits more aggressive clinical features, possibly due to pregnancy-related hormonal changes, immune modulation, and alterations in the mammary microenvironment compared to nulligravid or women many years out from pregnancy. Emerging data have demonstrated potential worse outcomes for patients (pts) diagnosed in post-partum. This study evaluated the influence of timing of diagnosis in relation to pregnancy history and recency of childbirth on long-term outcomes in a modern cohort of young pts with early-stage BC. Methods: Pts with stage I–III BC age < 40y in the prospective Young Women’s Breast Cancer Study (YWBCS) were categorized at diagnosis as Nulligravid (no prior pregnancy), Nulliparous (prior pregnancy without live birth), Currently Pregnant, or Parous (subdivided by time since last childbirth: within 5 years [≤ 5y PP], and 5–10 years postpartum [5–10y PP]). Baseline characteristics and outcomes were compared across BC subtypes (estrogen receptor+/HER2- [ER+/HER2-], HER2+, and triple-negative BC [TNBC]). Prognostic analyses for distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS) used Cox models. Results: 859 pts were included, 257 (30%) nulligravid, 50 (6%) nulliparous, 37 (4%) pregnant, and 515 (60%) parous (348 [68%] were ≤5y PP, and 167 [32%] were 5–10y PP). Median follow-up was 133 (6–209) months. Median age at diagnosis was lower in nulligravid pts (33 vs. 35–38 years); T1 tumors were most common in pts >5y PP (62%), and N0 status was highest in nulligravid pts (64%) (all p < 0.0001). Pregnant pts had higher rates of TNBC (27%), and T3 tumors (14%), N1 status, N1 (41%), and Grade 3 (81%) tumors compared to other groups (all p < 0.0001). Overall, only tumor size (T2-T4 vs T1, HR 2.03; 95% CI 1.37–3.03) and nodal status (N1 vs N0, HR 2.22; 1.48–3.34; N2/3 vs N0, HR 3.23; 1.96-5.33) were independently associated with worse DRFS; pregnancy history was not: nulligravid + nulliparous pts had no significant differences in DRFS compared to Pregnant (HR 1.46; 0.75–2.86), Parous <5y PP (HR 0.86; 0.58–1.26), and Parous 5–10y PP (HR 0.89; 0.54–1.48). Subgroup analyses by BC subtype (Table) and sensitivity analyses (excluding currently pregnant pts or separating nulligravid and nulliparous pts) demonstrated no significant associations between pregnancy history and DRFS. Conclusions: In this cohort study of very young patients with early breast cancer with contemporary treatment including management of breast cancer during pregnancy, pregnancy history and recency of pregnancy were not independent predictors of long-term disease outcomes. DRFS results by subgroup. Pregnancy Group N (%) HR (95% CI) ER+/HER2- Nulligravid + Nulliparous 173 (38.1) Ref Pregnant 16 (3.5) 0.93 (0.32–2.70) Parous ≤5y PP 177 (39.0) 0.77 (0.45–1.29) Parous 5–10y PP 88 (19.4) 0.78 (0.39–1.53) HER2+ Nulligravid + Nulliparous 77 (30.8) Ref Pregnant 11 (4.4) 3.27 (0.80–13.38) Parous ≤5y PP 113 (45.2) 1.50 (0.60–3.75) Parous 5–10y PP 49 (19.6) 1.45 (0.45–4.66) TNBC Nulligravid + Nulliparous 56 (36.8) Ref Pregnant 10 (6.6) 1.92 (0.61–6.09) Parous ≤5y PP 57 (37.5) 0.68 (0.28–1.63) Parous 5–10y PP 29 (19.1) 1.16 (0.43–3.14)

5041 Background: Prior studies suggest that chemotherapy-naïve pts with mCRPC treated with AA have a higher CV event-related hospitalization risk than those treated with ENZA. To further explore this association, this real-world, comparative causal inference study used a large US dataset to assess CV event risk in chemotherapy-naïve pts with mCRPC who initiated treatment (Tx) with ENZA or AA and provide outcome data based on history of (h/o) CV disease (CVD). Methods: Using US Medicare fee-for-service claims (Jan 2010–Dec 2022), we identified chemotherapy-naïve pts aged ≥65 years with mCRPC who initiated ENZA or AA between Sep 2014 and May 2017. The primary endpoint was a 4-point major adverse CV event (MACE-4; composite of acute myocardial infarction [AMI], stroke, unstable angina/revascularization [UA/R], and heart failure). Atrial fibrillation (AFib), venous thromboembolism (VTE), and all-cause death were also analyzed. Groups were propensity score matched (PSM) to adjust for differences in pt characteristics, assessed using standardized mean difference (SMD). Cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models were used to comparethe risk of CV outcomes between intention-to-treat cohorts, with death as a competing event. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on h/o CVD. Sensitivity analysis was performed with a MACE-5 endpoint, defined as MACE-4 or CV-related death. Results: Of 6319 pts in the total study population (ENZA: 2934; AA: 3385), 2913 PSM pts were included from each group. The ENZA and AA cohorts had similar baseline characteristics even before PSM (SMD<0.1), with a mean (standard deviation) age of 78.8 (7.3) years; 76% of pts had prior CVD. Compared with pts on ENZA, pts on AA had a significantly higher risk of experiencing MACE-4—particularly UA/R—as well as a higher risk of AFib and VTE (Table). Similar results were found in the subgroup of pts with a h/o CVD and the sensitivity analyses. Additionally, pts on AA had a higher risk of all-cause death than pts on ENZA, regardless of CVD history (h/o CVD hazard ratio [HR]: 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.07–1.21, P =0.0001; no h/o CVD HR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.01–1.26, P =0.036). Conclusions: This matched analysis of US Medicare beneficiaries showed an increased risk for MACE-4, AFib, and VTE in pts with mCRPC treated with AA compared to ENZA, in the overall pt population and pts with a h/o CVD. The risk of all-cause death was higher with AA in all pts. These findings provide insights into Tx decision-making for pts with mCRPC, especially those at high risk of CV events. Outcomes HR* (95% CI) P -value MACE-4 1.12 (1.02–1.24) 0.028 AMI 1.01 (0.76–1.32) 0.987 Stroke 0.92 (0.70–1.20) 0.505 UA/R 1.13 (1.01–1.26) 0.041 Heart failure 1.19 (0.90–1.58) 0.237 AFib 1.73 (1.31–2.29) 0.0001 VTE 1.37 (1.02–1.85) 0.037 All-cause death 1.13 (1.07–1.19) 0.0001 *ENZA = reference group.

12005 Background: Young adults (YAs) diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 18 and 39 face unique psychosocial challenges and are at risk of experiencing significant emotional distress and poor health-related quality of life (HRQOL). This randomized trial evaluated the efficacy of Bright IDEAS-YA, a problem-solving skills training intervention, on reducing distress and improving HRQOL of YAs newly diagnosed with cancer. A secondary aim examined change in problem-solving ability as a potential mediator of treatment effects. Methods: A three-site randomized trial of Bright IDEAS-YA compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) enrolled YA survivors within four months of a first diagnosis of cancer. Participants were randomized 1:1 to Bright IDEAS-YA or EUC (NCT04585269). Bright IDEAS-YA is a 6-session, one-on-one intervention that teaches a systematic approach to overcome personal challenges across any life domain. EUC involved usual psychosocial care plus AYA resources. Participants completed surveys at 0 (baseline), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months, with 6 months as the primary endpoint. Validated measures included the PROMIS Depression Short Form and Anxiety Short Form (primary outcomes), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General (FACT-G; primary outcome), and Social Problem-Solving Inventory-Revised Short Form (SPSI-R; mediator). Efficacy was tested using linear mixed effects models, run in R, examining the group x time interaction effects. Mediation was tested using the R multiple mediation analysis. Results: 344 YA (34.2% acceptance rate, M age = 30.3 years, SD = 6.3; 63% female, 37% male, < 1% non-binary) participated (100% planned enrollment), with 86% and 81% completing surveys at 3 and 6 months, respectively. Compared to baseline, the intervention arm showed statistically significant improvements in depression, anxiety, and HRQOL relative to the control group at 6 months. The intervention arm demonstrated an average reduction of 3.2 T-score points reduction in depression (95% CI [-4.9, -1.5], p < 0.001), 2.4 T-score points in anxiety (95% CI [-4.0, -0.81], p = 0.003), and 3.4 points improvement in total FACT-G (95% CI [0.34, 6.5], p = 0.029) relative to the control. These differences reflect clinically meaningful changes per published reports. Across all three models, change in total problem-solving ability (SPSI-R) was shown to mediate treatment effects, primarily due to change in the negative problem-orientation subscale. Conclusions: Bright IDEAS-YA was efficacious in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety and improving HRQOL compared with enhanced usual care among YAs with cancer. Improvements are attributable to increased problem-solving ability, particularly by reducing the tendency to view problems as significant threats and doubt one’s ability to successfully solve problems. Clinical trial information: NCT04585269 .