Citations

Abstract Objective Despite exponential growth in artificial intelligence (AI) research for laboratory medicine and pathology, a significant gap exists between model development and clinical AI implementation. This article introduces a structured framework, the Clinical AI Readiness Evaluator (CARE), to bridge this gap and support the responsible adoption of AI in clinical laboratory settings. Methods Building upon the Machine Learning Technology Readiness Levels framework, we developed CARE specifically for the clinical laboratory environment by incorporating health care–specific requirements, regulatory considerations, and workflow integration needs. This framework was iteratively refined through practical application across diverse AI use cases within laboratory medicine and pathology. Results The CARE framework provides a systematic approach to AI development and implementation through 8 component workstreams: clinical use case, data, data pipeline, code, clinical user experience, clinical technology infrastructure, clinical orchestration, and regulatory compliance. Unlike generic AI frameworks, CARE distinguishes itself by emphasizing both health care and laboratory workflow integration, regulatory requirements, ethical considerations, and comprehensive validation for clinical contexts. The framework accommodates both internally developed models and commercial AI solutions, providing clear guidance through technology readiness levels and structured review processes. Conclusions The CARE framework addresses the unique challenges of implementing AI in laboratory medicine and pathology by providing a comprehensive roadmap from initial concepts through clinical deployment and maintenance. This article, the first in a series of 4, establishes the foundational AI lifecycle framework, while subsequent articles will explore data documentation, ethical AI considerations, and governance structures. By adopting this structured approach, laboratories can responsibly harness AI’s potential to enhance diagnostic accuracy and operational efficiencies and, ultimately, improve patient care.

7073 Background: The Optimized HLH Inflammatory (OHI) index (Zoref-Lorenz et al., Blood , 2022), based on serum soluble CD25 (sCD25) and ferritin, is a prognostic tool identifying inflammation in the hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) spectrum and early mortality risk. Prior studies were retrospective and enriched with HLH-suspected cases. We hypothesized that the OHI index would predict outcomes in unselected diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Methods: 670 newly diagnosed DLBCL patients from a prospective cohort (2002–2015) were analyzed: 335 for discovery and 335 for validation. Pre-treatment serum sCD25 and ferritin levels were quantified via ELISA, and we evaluated original thresholds (sCD25 ≥ 3,900 U/mL; ferritin ≥ 1,000 ng/mL) and developed DLBCL-optimized thresholds (using receiver operator curves) for predicting 500-day mortality. We also evaluated event-free survival (EFS), EFS at 24 months (EFS24), and overall survival (OS). Results: The median age was 64, and 51% were male. Using original thresholds, 4.2% (n=14) of patients were OHI+, with a 5.6-fold higher risk of 500-day mortality (95% CI 1.6–17; p<0.001). Optimized thresholds identified 23.6% (n=78) as OHI+ with a 9.2-fold higher 500-day mortality risk (95% CI 4.0–24; p<0.001). Optimized OHI+ also had a higher risk of EFS24 failure and inferior EFS and OS (Table). OHI+ patients had higher rates of B symptoms (35% vs. 20%; p=0.027), elevated LDH (76% vs. 34%; p<0.001), worse performance status (ECOG ≥2: 38% vs. 12%; p<0.001), and advanced-stage disease (Stage IV: 57% vs 38%; p<0.001), though IPI scores (3–5) were not significantly different (44% vs 36%; p=0.28). Adjusting for age and IPI, OHI+ independently predicted 500-day mortality (OR=5.0; CI 1.9–13; p=0.001), EFS24 failure (OR=3.2; CI 1.5–6.5; p=0.0018), and inferior long-term EFS (HR=2.2; CI 1.1–4.3; p=0.030) and OS (HR=2.0; CI 1.0–4.0; p=0.040) at a median follow up of 9.8 years in living patients. In validation, optimized OHI predicted 500-day mortality, EFS24 failure, and long-term OS and EFS (Table). Cytokine profiling revealed elevated inflammatory markers in OHI+ patients, including IL1a (p=0.008), CCL2 (p=0.03), CXCL10 (p<0.001), and CXCL9 (p<0.001), reflecting systemic hyperinflammation. Conclusions: The OHI index is a powerful predictor of early and long-term outcomes in DLBCL patients. Optimized thresholds identify a larger OHI+ group, highlighting hyperinflammation’s critical role in poor outcomes. These findings support its use in routine management and clinical trial design for novel therapies. Odds ratios or hazard ratios and p-values for optimized OHI+ and DLBCL prognosis. Outcome Discovery Validation OR for 500-day mortality 9.2; p<0.001 4.0; p=0.002 OR for EFS24 failure 5.2; p <0.001 6.3; p<0.001 HR for OS 2.3; p<0.001 1.8; p=0.006 HR for EFS 2.4; p<0.001 2.5; p<0.001

7052 Background: Secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) is a rare but serious complication that occurs in 2-10% of patients (pts) with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The CNS-International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) is a validated tool used to assess the risk of CNS relapse. However, with advancements in molecular profiling and treatments, the predictors of SCNSL, including the predictive ability of CNS-IPI combined with other molecular markers and treatment regimens, have become uncertain. This study evaluates new prognostic markers for CNS relapse in DLBCL, focusing on cell-of-origin (COO), gene rearrangements, and treatment types. Methods: DLBCL pts enrolled from 2002-2015 in the Mayo Clinic and University of Iowa Lymphoma Molecular Epidemiology Resource were prospectively followed for incidence of CNS relapse. Pts with primary CNS lymphoma or CNS involvement at diagnosis, and pts treated with high-dose methotrexate containing regimens were excluded. COO classification (GCB vs non-GCB) was determined using Hans algorithm and/or NanoString data. Multivariate Cox regression models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for predictors of SCNSL. Survival analysis was performed from time of DLBCL diagnosis using Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Among 1278 newly diagnosed DLBCL pts included (median age: 63 years; 43.6% female), SCNSL occurred in 46 (3.6%) pts. Pts with SCNSL were more likely to have intermediate/high CNS-IPI scores (80.4%) than pts without SCNSL (63.9%, p=0.02). The 3 yr SCNSL incidence was 0.016 (0.008-0.0033) in low CNS-IPI vs 0.043 (0.031-0.0060) in high CNS-IPI. Those with SCNSL were significantly more likely at baseline to have non-GCB COO (56.3% vs. 36.5%, p=0.02), and advanced stage (76.1% vs. 59.9%, p=0.03) compared to those without SCNSL. The incidence of SCNSL was not influenced by MYC, BCL2, or BCL6 rearrangements, nor by treatment with R-CHOP, R-EPOCH, or other immunochemotherapy regimens. MVA showed that intermediate CNS-IPI (HR 2.32, 95% CI 1.09-4.92, p=0.029), high CNS-IPI (HR 3.59, 95% CI 1.49-8.62, p=0.004), and non-GCB COO (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.08-4.42, p=0.0029) were independently associated with increased SCNSL risk. After a median follow-up of 12 years (IQR 9–15), overall survival (OS) was 52.1% for the cohort, with OS significantly worse for SCNSL pts (17.4% vs. 53.4%, p<0.001). Conclusions: This large cohort with extensive follow-up highlights the role of COO as an additional prognostic factor for SCNSL while reinforcing CNS-IPI’s prognostic value. Non-GCB COO pts had a higher risk of SCNSL even when adjusted by CNS-IPI risk. Despite advancements in management, SCNSL pts continue to have poor outcomes. Strategies to reduce the incidence of CNS relapse in high-risk pts require further investigation. MER CNS relapse hazard ratios (95% CI). Characteristics Hazard Ratio 95% CI P-Value CNS-IPI Group 0-1 Low Ref Ref Ref 2-3 Intermediate 2.32 1.09 - 4.92 0.029 4+ High 3.59 1.49 - 8.62 0.004 Cell of Origin* GCB Ref Ref Ref non-GCB 2.19 1.08 - 4.42 0.029 Double Hit* non-DHL Ref Ref Ref DHL 1.08 0.14 - 8.3 0.941 Not Done/Missing 1.38 0.76 - 2.51 0.297 Double Expressor* Negative Ref Ref Ref Positive 2.36 0.71 - 7.85 0.162 Not Done/Missing 1.91 0.89 - 4.08 0.097 IC Group* R-CHOP R-EPOCH Ref 1.63 Ref 0.71 - 3.74 Ref 0.249 Other IC 1.18 0.57 - 2.46 0.660 Any EN Involvement* No Ref Ref Ref Yes 0.98 0.51 - 1.88 0.946 Albumin Group* >=Normal Ref Ref Ref <Normal 1.70 0.75 - 3.85 0.201 Head & Neck Involvement* No Ref Ref Ref Yes 0.35 0.048 - 2.63 0.310 *Adjusted by CNS-IPI risk group.

Abstract Extramedullary disease (EMD) is associated with an inferior prognosis and lower response rates to conventional multiple myeloma (MM)–directed therapies compared to MM without EMD. A deeper understanding of the molecular landscape and underlying drivers of EMD is essential to identify potential targets for novel therapeutic strategies. To address this, we performed whole-exome sequencing on EMD tumor tissue from 18 unique patients and bone marrow aspirates (BMAs) from 20 patients at the time of EMD development. Notably, paired EMD and BMA samples were collected from 6 patients at the point of EMD diagnosis, allowing for direct comparison of molecular profiles. Our analysis revealed a near-universal presence of mutations within the MAPK pathway in EMD samples (94%), compared to BMAs (60%; odds ratio, 10.7; P = .02; q &lt; 0.1). Additionally, mutations in established driver genes (NRAS, KRAS, and BRAF) were common and frequently clonal, suggesting their central role in EMD pathogenesis. We also identified alterations in genes associated with cell adhesion and migration (ROBO1, ROBO2, and FAT1) and the SWI/SNF complex and epigenetic regulators (ARID1A, KMT2C, KMT2D, and EP300), although these were predominantly subclonal. Furthermore, we frequently detected biallelic alterations in the tumor suppressor genes MAX (22%), a binding partner for MYC, and CDKN2C (17%). Genomic complexity was significantly higher in EMD samples than BMAs, as evidenced by increased tumor mutational burden and the enrichment of 1q gain/amplifications. These findings underscore the distinct molecular profile of EMD compared to BMA and highlight the genomically complex and heterogeneous nature of extramedullary disease in MM.

PURPOSE The combination of the Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab for first-line treatment of mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) prolonged progression-free survival (PFS), but without improvement in overall survival (OS), likely because of toxicity. Acalabrutinib was shown to be efficacious and less toxic than ibrutinib in a head-to-head trial in chronic lymphocytic leukemia and therefore might lead to better outcomes in MCL. METHODS Patients 65 years and older with previously untreated MCL received acalabrutinib (100 mg twice daily) or placebo (until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity), plus six cycles of bendamustine (90 mg/m 2 once daily; days 1 and 2) and rituximab (375 mg/m 2 as a single dose; day 1) followed by rituximab maintenance in responding patients for 2 years. Crossover to acalabrutinib at disease progression was permitted. The primary end point was PFS per the independent review committee; overall response rate and OS were secondary end points. RESULTS In total, 598 patients were randomly assigned, with 299 in each arm. At a median follow-up of 49.8 months using the reverse Kaplan-Meier method, the median PFS was 66.4 months in the acalabrutinib arm and 49.6 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.94]; P = .0160). Benefit was seen across all subgroups, including those with high-risk features. Overall response/complete response rates were 91.0%/66.6% and 88.0%/53.5% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. OS was not significantly different (HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.65 to 1.13]; P = .27). Grade 3 or greater adverse events were reported in 88.9% and 88.2% in the acalabrutinib and placebo arms, respectively. CONCLUSION The combination of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab significantly improved PFS. Clinical benefit of acalabrutinib with bendamustine-rituximab was achieved with manageable toxicity.

Abstract Family history of hematologic malignancy (FHHM) is an established risk factor for developing lymphoma, but studies examining associations between self-reported FHHM and lymphoma prognosis during the recent treatment era are limited. Utilizing a prospective cohort study, we evaluated associations between FHHM and prognosis for common lymphoma subtypes, including diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL), follicular (FL), marginal zone (MZL), mantle cell (MCL), Hodgkin (HL), and T-cell (TCL) lymphomas. We used the Mayo Clinic component of the Molecular Epidemiology Resource, a prospective cohort study of newly diagnosed lymphoma patients enrolled from 2002 to 2015. Self-reported FHHM (HL, NHL, leukemia, or multiple myeloma) in a first-degree relative was obtained via questionnaire. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS; time from diagnosis to disease progression, initiation of second-line therapy, or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes were failure to achieve 24 months of event-free survival (EFS24; associated with aggressive disease and poor outcomes) and lymphoma-specific survival (LSS; time from diagnosis to death from lymphoma or lymphoma treatment-related complications). We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association of FHHM with OS, EFS, and LSS, and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for the association with failure to achieve EFS24. All models were adjusted for sex and a lymphoma subtype specific prognostic index. The cohort consisted of 650 DLBCL, 679 FL, 291 MZL, 178 MCL, 254 HL, and 196 TCL patients. The prevalence of FHHM ranged from 9.7% in TCL to 14% in FL. FHHM was not associated with OS in any subtype, but MCL patients with FHHM showed an inferior EFS (HR=1.70, 95% CI 1.02-2.85; p=0.04). For EFS24, FHHM was associated with failure to achieve EFS24 only in FL (OR=1.57, 95% CI 0.99-2.48; p=0.05). Similarly, FHHM was associated with inferior LSS in FL patients (HR=1.98, 95% CI 1.11-3.53; p=0.02). In a treatment subgroup analysis of FL patients, the FHHM associations with failure to achieve EFS24 (OR=2.48, 95% CI 1.04-5.74; p=0.04) and inferior LSS (HR=2.68, 95% CI 1.09-6.58; p=0.03) strengthened among those treated with frontline immunochemotherapy (IC). In summary, there were no evidence of associations between FHHM and OS across lymphoma subtypes, but MCL patients with FHHM displayed inferior EFS. FL patients with FHHM were more likely to not achieve EFS24 and to ultimately die of their lymphoma or a lymphoma treatment-related complication. This finding was stronger in more aggressive FL requiring frontline IC. This novel finding would suggest that genetic or environmental factors associated with FHHM may underlie pathways that impact disease aggressiveness and early clinical failure in FL. Citation Format: George Cholack, Raphael Mwangi, Thomas M. Habermann, Verena Hinder, Rosalie Griffen, Dennis Robinson, Andrew L. Feldman, Thomas E. Witzig, Stephen M. Ansell, Brian K. Link, Yucai Wang, Carrie A. Thompson, Susan L. Slager, Matthew Maurer, Anne J. Novak, James R. Cerhan. Family history of hematologic malignancy and prognosis across lymphoma subtypes: Novel association with poor outcomes in follicular lymphoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2025; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2025 Apr 25-30; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2025;85(8_Suppl_1):Abstract nr 7344.

Abstract Background: Diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is clinically heterogeneous, and gene expression profiling has identified at least two biologically distinct DLBCL subtypes defined by their cell of origin (COO): germinal center B cell (GCB) and activate B cell (ABC) or non-GCB. We evaluated a variety of putative DLBCL risk factors for etiologic heterogeneity by the COO in a clinic-based study of newly diagnosed DLBCL cases (N = 638) and frequency-matched controls (N = 2,253). Methods: The COO was determined on formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tumor tissue, with DLBCL classified as GCB (N = 283), non-GCB (N = 188), or undetermined/missing (N = 167; mainly because of lack of tissue). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: We identified heterogeneity by the COO for low socioeconomic status (SES), which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 1.88 for low vs. average SES; 95% CI, 1.08–3.27); alcohol use, which was only associated with GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.48 for former drinkers; 95% CI, 0.29–0.80 and OR = 0.47 for current drinkers; 95% CI, 0.32–0.71); and borderline heterogeneity for the regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin, which was only associated with non-GCB DLBCL (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.85). In contrast, there was no significant heterogeneity by the COO for family history, medical history, or other lifestyle factors. Conclusions: Although requiring confirmation, most risk factors for DLBCL did not show etiologic heterogeneity by the COO, with some notable exceptions including alcohol use, SES, and perhaps regular use of regular/extra-strength aspirin showing associations. Impact: Mechanistically, these findings suggest that most of the DLBCL risk factors evaluated here influence lymphomagenesis prior to differentiation into COO subtypes, with selected factors acting later.

ImportanceMyeloperoxidase is one of the most abundant peroxidase enzymes in activated myeloid cells. Myeloperoxidase inhibitors may have a clinical benefit in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) by slowing neurodegeneration via reduced neuroinflammation and oxidative stress.ObjectiveTo determine the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of verdiperstat, a selective myeloperoxidase inhibitor, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsVerdiperstat was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a multicenter, double-blind, perpetual platform design, randomized clinical trial, with sharing of trial infrastructure and placebo data across multiple regimens. The study was conducted at 54 ALS referral centers across the US from July 2020 to April 2022. Adult participants with a diagnosis of clinically possible, probable, laboratory-supported probable, or definite ALS defined by the revised El Escorial criteria were randomized to verdiperstat or regimen-specific placebo. An additional group of participants concurrently randomized to placebo from other regimens was included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized in a 3:1 ratio to receive oral verdiperstat, 600 mg, twice daily or matching placebo for a planned placebo-controlled duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in disease severity, as measured by a joint model of ALS Functional Rating Scale–Revised and survival, with the treatment effect quantified by the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression of verdiperstat relative to placebo.ResultsA total of 167 participants (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.4] years; 59 [35.3%] female; 108 [64.6%] male) were randomized to either verdiperstat (126 [75.4%]) or to placebo (41 [25.6%]). Among the participants randomized to the verdiperstat regimen, 130 (78%) completed the trial. The estimated DRR was 0.98 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.24; posterior probability = 0.57 for slowing of disease progression [DRR &amp;lt;1]). Verdiperstat was estimated to slow progression by 2% vs placebo (95% credible interval, −23% to 24%; posterior probability 0.57). Verdiperstat was overall safe and well tolerated. Common adverse events in the verdiperstat group were nausea, insomnia, and elevated thyrotropin levels.Conclusions and RelevanceResults demonstrate that treatment with verdiperstat was unlikely to alter disease progression in ALS.Trial RegistrationClinical Trial Identifiers: NCT04297683 and NCT04436510

ImportanceAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease. The sigma-1 (σ1) receptor emerged as a target for intervention.ObjectiveTo determine the effects of pridopidine, a σ1-receptor agonist, in ALS.Design, Settings, and ParticipantsPridopidine was tested as a regimen of the HEALEY ALS Platform Trial, a phase 2/3, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, platform trial. The study was conducted at 54 sites in the US from January 2021 to July 2022 (final follow-up, July 14, 2022). A total of 163 participants with ALS were randomized to receive pridopidine or placebo. An additional 122 concurrently randomized participants were assigned to receive placebo in other regimens and included in the analyses.InterventionsEligible participants were randomized 3:1 to receive oral pridopidine 45 mg twice daily (n = 121) or matching oral placebo (n = 42) for a planned duration of 24 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary efficacy outcome was change from baseline through week 24 in ALS disease severity, analyzed using a bayesian shared parameter model, which has components for function (Revised Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale [ALSFRS-R]) and survival that were linked through an integrated estimate of treatment-dependent disease slowing across these 2 components. This was denoted as the disease rate ratio (DRR), with DRR less than 1 indicating a slowing in disease progression on pridopidine relative to placebo. There were 5 key secondary end points: time to 2-point or greater reduction in ALSFRS-R total score among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, rate of decline in slow vital capacity among participants with bulbar dysfunction at baseline, percentage of participants with no worsening in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, time to 1-point or greater change in the ALSFRS-R bulbar domain score, and time to death or permanent assisted ventilation.ResultsAmong 162 patients (mean age, 57.5 years; 35% female) who were randomized to receive the pridopidine regimen and included in the primary efficacy analysis, 136 (84%) completed the trial. In the primary analysis comparing pridopidine vs the combined placebo groups, there was no significant difference between pridopidine and placebo in the primary end point (DRR, 0.99 [95% credible interval, 0.80-1.21]; probability of DRR &amp;lt;1, 0.55) and no differences were seen in the components of ALSFRS-R or survival. There was no benefit of pridopidine on the secondary end points. In the safety dataset (pridopidine, n = 121; placebo, n = 163), the most common adverse events were falls (28.1% vs 29.3%, respectively) and muscular weakness (24.0% vs 31.7%, respectively).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this 24-week study, pridopidine did not impact the progression of ALS.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT04297683, NCT04615923