Citations

Background Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to dramatic changes including social distancing, closure of schools, travel bans, and issues of stay-at-home orders. The health-care field has been transformed with elective procedures and on-site visits being deferred. Telemedicine has emerged as a novel mechanism to continue to provide care. However, there remains a paucity of data regarding its efficacy in nutrition support, especially in patients with chronic intestinal failure (CIF). Objective Describe the utilization of telehealth in the routine management of CIF, particularly in the initiation and training of home parenteral nutrition (HPN). Methods A case series presenting our experience with the use of telemedicine to provide training for HPN for three patients. The manuscript describes the utility of telehealth in providing remote and adequate training for patients commenced on HPN during COVID-19 pandemic. Results Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have successfully provided virtual training to three patients, including two who were noted to be severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positive and one patient who could not be transferred to our facility for training. For SARS-CoV-2 positive patients, the risk of transmission to nursing staff with 8–10 h of face-to-face training in two cases was felt to be too significant for in-person training. We determined that the best option would be to stabilize parenteral nutrition in the hospital and perform virtual training. Although virtual training was successfully performed, it was felt that training in this manner took much longer, required frequent adjustment of the tablet device to ensure patient remained in field of view, and made it difficult to connect with the patient emotionally. Conclusions Telemedicine has significantly improved care provided during COVID-19 as a modality for effective training on HPN, while in-person communication was significantly limited due to the pandemic. However, when possible, it should be used in a manner that complements but does not supplant standard care.

Background: Studies have suggested a synergism between lenalidomide (LEN) and ibrutinib (IBR) in multiple myeloma (MM). Both downregulate IRF4, a key target and master transcriptional factor regulating myeloma cell survival. Method: A 3 + 3 phase I trial was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of IBR in combination with LEN + dexamethasone (DEX) in patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) MM who had at least one prior line of therapy. Three dose levels (DLs) were planned. The cycle length was 28 days. IBR was administered orally daily in doses of 560 mg on DL1-2 and 840 mg on DL3, LEN was administered orally on days 1–21 in doses of 15 mg on DL1 and 25 mg on DL2-3, and DEX was administered orally on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in a dose of 40 mg if age < 75 years or in a dose of 20 mg if it was ≥75 years for DL1-3. Patients with a glomerular filtration rate (GFR) <60 but ≥30 mL/min were treated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions with LEN 10 mg. Dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) included the following: grade 4 neutropenia lasting more than 5 days, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting or diarrhea; grade 3 thrombocytopenia with bleeding or platelet transfusion; and grade 3–4 hyperglycemia or a thrombotic/embolic event, and other nonhematologic toxicities. The overall response rate (ORR) was defined as the percentage of patients with a partial response (PR), very good partial response (VGPR), or complete response (CR) according to IMWG criteria on two consecutive evaluations at least 4 weeks apart. The clinical benefit rate (CBR) was defined as the percentage of patients with stable disease (SD) or a better outcome on two consecutive evaluations at weeks apart. Results: Fourteen patients (DL1: six patients; DL2: three patients; DL3: five patients) were registered for the study from March 2019 to May 2023, prior to its closure due to limited accrual. Thirteen patients are included in the summary of toxicities and response as one patient on DL3 halted participation prior to the start of the treatment. Two patients on DL3 were excluded from the determination of MTD: one having discontinued cycle 1 treatment due to COVID-19 infection and the another having mistakenly taken 280 mg/day of IBR instead of the assigned 840 mg/day dose during cycle 1. Only one patient developed a DLT, on DL1 with grade 3 non-viral hepatitis. The median number of cycles administered was 4 (range: 1–56). Severe toxicities reported included grade 4 lymphocytopenia (1), grade 4 thrombocytopenia (1), and grade 5 sepsis in the setting of PD (1). Disease responses included a VGPR on DL1 and CR on DL3. Thus, the ORR was 15.4% (90% CI: 2.8–41.0%). One patient on DL1 maintained SD for 4.6 years before discontinuing the treatment to undergo an alternative therapy. Another five patients maintained SD for ≥ 2 consecutive cycles. Thus, the CBR was 61.5% (90% CI: 35.5–83.4%). Conclusions: The combination of LEN with IBR in RR MM proved feasible, with manageable toxicities and the majority of discontinuations being due to disease progression.

Objective: Diabetes is a defining disease of the 21st century because of its rising prevalence, association with obesity, and enormous health impact. Abundant evidence shows that lifestyle interventions can delay or prevent type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, offer relief, and sometimes achieve complete remission. Despite this empowering message, there are no clinical practice guidelines that focus primarily on lifestyle interventions as first-line management of prediabetes and T2D. Our objective, therefore, is to offer pragmatic, trustworthy, and evidence-based guidance for clinicians in using the 6 pillars of lifestyle medicine—nutrition, physical activity, stress management, sleep, social connectedness, avoidance of risky substances—for managing adults with T2D and in preventing T2D in adults with prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus. Methods: We used well-established, peer-reviewed guideline methodology to develop evidence-based key action statements (recommendations) that facilitate quality improvement in clinical practice. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. Recommendation strength was based on the aggregate evidence supporting a key action statement plus a comparison of associated benefits vs harms/costs. Multiple literature searches, conducted by an information specialist, identified 8 relevant guidelines, 118 relevant systematic reviews, and 112 randomized clinical trials. The guideline underwent extensive internal, external, and public review and comment prior to publication. Results: We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Conclusions: There is robust research evidence supporting the efficacy of lifestyle interventions in preventing, treating, and achieving remission of T2D in adults. Our multidisciplinary guideline development group successfully synthesized this evidence into 14 key action statements that can be used by clinicians and other healthcare professionals to improve quality of care for adults with, or at-risk for, T2D. Despite the research gaps and implementation challenges we highlight in the guideline we believe strongly that our recommendations have immediate relevance and can help raise awareness and shift the paradigm of T2D management towards optimal use of lifestyle interventions.

This executive summary highlights evidence-based recommendations for using lifestyle interventions in the treatment and remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes in adults. The summary and guideline are intended for any clinician or healthcare professional in a community or non-inpatient healthcare setting involved in managing non-pregnant adults with T2D, prediabetes or a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). The purpose of this executive summary is to provide a succinct overview of the key action statements (recommendations) from Lifestyle Interventions for Treatment and Remission of Type 2 Diabetes and Prediabetes in Adults: A Clinical Practice Guideline from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine. This is the first diabetes guideline to emphasize lifestyle interventions as the foundation of management and is also the first to focus on all six pillars of lifestyle medicine (plant-predomination nutrition, regular physical activity, restorative sleep, stress reduction, social connectedness, and avoiding risky substances), including behavior change strategies. This summary is not intended to substitute for the full guideline, which should be read before taking the recommended actions. The guideline on which this summary is based was developed with a priori methodology that has been previously published, refined, and used in over 20 multidisciplinary, trustworthy, and evidence-based national guidelines. The guideline development group included 20 members representing consumers, advanced practice nursing, cardiology, clinical pharmacology, behavioral medicine, endocrinology, family medicine, lifestyle medicine, nutrition and dietetics, health education, health and wellness coaching, sleep medicine, sports medicine, and obesity medicine. We developed 14 key action statements and associated evidence profiles, each with a distinct quality improvement goal in the context of lifestyle interventions for T2D. Strong recommendations were made regarding advocacy for lifestyle interventions; assessing baseline lifestyle habits; establishing priorities for lifestyle change; prescribing aerobic and muscle strength physical activity; reducing sedentary time; identifying sleep disorders; prescribing nutrition plans for prevention and treatment; promoting peer/familial support and social connections; counseling regarding tobacco, alcohol, and recreational drugs, and establishing a plan for continuity of care. Recommendations were made regarding identifying the need for psychological interventions and for adjusting (deprescribing) pharmacologic therapy. We include numerous tables and figures to facilitate implementation, a plain-language summary for consumers, and an executive summary for clinicians as separate publications. Although not a substitute for the full clinical practice guideline, this executive summary can provide insight into the key guideline recommendations, to whom they apply, and to how they might alter care. These recommendations offer detailed, explicit, and evidence-based strategies for successful lifestyle behavior change, making them relevant not only to our guideline but to other guidelines and standards that advocate for lifestyle change in managing adults with T2D.

Abstract Accurate prediction of risk of progression from smoldering (SMM) to active multiple myeloma (MM) is paramount to individualized early therapeutic strategies with minimum risk of overtreatment. Current risk stratification models do not account for evolving biomarker trajectories. We assembled the largest cohort to date of 2,270 SMM patients from six international centers with longitudinal clinical and biological data to train and validate the PANGEA 2.0 risk models. Four evolving biomarkers were significantly associated with shorter time-to-progression: M-protein increase ≥0.2g/dL, involved:uninvolved serum free light chain ratio increase ≥20, creatinine increase >25%, and hemoglobin decrease ≥1.5g/dL. PANGEA 2.0 outperforms established models including the 20/2/20 and IMWG models by more accurately predicting progression (C-statistics=0.69–0.84), even without biomarker history (C-statistics=0.69–0.83) or recent bone marrow biopsy. PANGEA 2.0 is an easy-to-use, open-access tool (https://ghobrial.shinyapps.io/pangea_2_calculator) to improve and individualize SMM risk stratification. Validation tools are available to compare PANGEA 2.0 to established models (https://ghobrial.shinyapps.io/pangea_validation).

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and resource use of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treated with first-line (1L) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) at five United States (US) institutions: the Mayo Clinic, Houston Methodist, Moffitt Cancer Center, Mays Cancer Center, and University of Arizona. Methods: Treating oncologists extracted data from medical charts of patients with uHCC who were treated with A+B after 1 January 2019. Real-world progression-free survival (rwPFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier method for the overall cohort and for a “trial-like” subgroup with characteristics similar to those in the IMbrave150 trial (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status [ECOG PS] 0–1, Child–Pugh [CP] class A, albumin–bilirubin grade 1–2). Results: Of the 300 patients in the overall cohort (median age of 68 years; 12% ECOG PS ≥ 2; 73% CP A; 26% CP B; median follow-up of 8.7 months), the median rwPFS was 6.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.8, 8.4) months, and the median OS was 14.4 (95% CI: 12.3, 18.2) months. In the trial-like subgroup (n = 194), the median rwPFS was 8.8 (95% CI: 7.6, 12.1) months and the median OS was 19.5 (95% CI: 14.6, 24.7) months. A significantly lower proportion of patients with CP A compared with CP B (39.7% vs. 73.4%) experienced hospitalization within one year of A+B initiation, whereas hospitalizations due to treatment-related adverse events were similar. Conclusions: This study provides insights into the real-world effectiveness of 1L A+B in a diverse US patient cohort, with results from trial-like patients supporting the reproducible efficacy of A+B in clinical practice.

e16330 Background: Sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma (SHC) is a rare and aggressive variant of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for less than 2% of all primary liver cancers. Characterized by the presence of both epithelial and mesenchymal components, SHC demonstrates a high degree of cellular plasticity, often associated with epithelial-mesenchymal transition. This phenotypic heterogeneity contributes to its aggressive clinical behavior, including rapid tumor progression, early metastasis, and poor response to conventional therapies. As a result, patients diagnosed with SHC typically have a median survival of less than 12 months, significantly lower than that observed in patients with conventional HCC. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study at the Mayo Clinic Comprehensive Cancer Center, focusing on patients diagnosed with SHC between April 2017 and December 2023. The data collected included demographics, performance status, underlying risk factors, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, next generation sequencing (NGS) testing, and the treatment received. Results: A total of ten patients with confirmed diagnoses of SHC were included, with median age at the time of diagnosis 63.5 years (37-77), predimonantly male (9 out of 10), and identifying white (8 out of 10). Alcoholic cirrhosis was identified as an underlying risk factor in three patients, NASH cirrhosis in two, and HCV in two patients. The majority (6 out of 10) of the patients had localized disease, with 4 patients having denovo metastatic disease with abdominal lymph node involvement. Five patients had NGS testing (Tempus, Guardant 360, and ProvsSeq523), with resultant pathogenic variants including TP53 in 3 patients, NTRK3 fusion, IDH2, EGFR, TERT, MLH1, ARIS1A, and PALB2. Four patients were treated with combined Yitrrium-90 and systemic therapy. Three patient started systemic therapy, and two patients underwent surgical resection. Systemic Therapy used included combined Atezolizumab/ Bevacizuamab, Pembrolizumab/ Lenvatinib, Gemcitabine/ Docetaxel, Gemcitabine/ Cisplatin, Cabozantinib, and pembrolizumab monotherapy. The median overall survival for this group was 11.5 months; 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.66-40.1 months. Seventy percent experienced progression, with a median progression-free survival after first line of treatment of 2.5 months; 95% CI: 1-15.3 months. Conclusions: Sarcomatoid HCC remains aggressive and difficult to treat cancer with limited overall survival. Immunotherapy based regimens have limited efficacy for this HCC variant.

e16265 Background: The pivotal TOPAZ-1 trial established durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) as a new first-line standard of care for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABTC). However, weekly administration of GC can lead to significant toxicity limiting its tolerability in clinical practice. Based on previous studies, we implemented biweekly regimen of GC on days 1 and 15 together with durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle to optimize the treatment delivery and improve tolerability. Here, we report the Mayo Clinic experience with biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab in patients with ABTC. Methods: At our three-site institution, we retrospectively identified patients with ABTC between January 2021 and August 2024, who received biweekly GC with monthly durvalumab. Patient demographics, tumor characteristics, treatment details - treatment related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to the NCTCAE V5.0 were collected. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS) and clinically assessed overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR). Results: 57 patients were included in our analysis, median age was 68 years (range 35-90), and 57.9% were females. 91.2% of patients had ECOG performance status of 0-1. 71.9% had intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, 19.3% extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and 8.7% gallbladder carcinoma. 70.2% had metastatic disease, 21 % locally advanced unresectable disease and 8.7% recurrent metastatic disease. Patients were followed for a median of 9.1 months (2.3-28.5). 91.2% of the patients received biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab while 8.8% switched from weekly to biweekly GC plus monthly durvalumab due to treatment toxicities. Median number of treatment cycles was 5. Maintenance regimens included durvalumab (19.3%), gemcitabine/durvalumab (8.8%) and GC/durvalumab (8.8%). Median duration of follow up was 9.1 months (range 2.3 – 28.5). ORR was 36.9% and DCR was 72% (complete response 5.3%, partial response 31.6% and stable disease 35.1%). mPFS was 7.2 months, while mOS was 16 months. Grade(G) 3 or 4 trAEs included abnormal liver function tests (15.7%), infections (11.5%), anemia (8.7%), thrombocytopenia (5.2%), peripheral neuropathy (1.7%), acute kidney injury (1.7%). Immune-related AEs were noted in 6 patients (10.5%) including colitis, gastritis, hepatitis, myocarditis and hypothyroidism. There was no patient with severe neutropenia or febrile neutropenia. Only 5 patients (8.8%) stopped treatment due to trAEs. Conclusions: Biweekly GC on days 1 and 15 plus durvalumab on day 1 of each 28-day cycle is associated with a more favorable toxicity profile while maintaining efficacy similar to that observed in the TOPAZ-1 trial indicating that a de-escalation strategy is feasible with improvement in patient centered outcomes.

4085 Background: Cholangiocarcinoma (CC) is a rare disease with an increasing incidence among younger adults, which is poorly understood. Genomic profiling of tumors is both prognostic and predictive of benefit for targeted therapies. We investigated if there are clinical and molecular differences between younger vs older patients with CC. Methods: We collected TEMPUS genetic data via retrospective chart review from tumors in young vs old patients seen at our institution, defined as ≤50 vs > 50 years of age at time of diagnosis. We included patients diagnosed with CC between January 2008 and July 2024 with available clinical follow up and TEMPUS genetic sequencing data. We collected mutation data on the following actionable genes: FGFR2, IDH1/2, BRCA1, BRCA2, BRAF, ATM, ERBB2/3, and KRAS. Patient characteristics and gene expression variables were compared using Chi-square, Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Kaplan-Meier, log rank tests and a multivariable Cox model were used for survival analysis. This study was IRB exempt. Results: We included 410 patients, 84 in the young group with median age at diagnosis of 40.8 years, and 326 in the old group with median age 68.5 years. 91.5% of patients were white. There was no difference in BMI between groups, however the older group had higher rates of hypertension (15.5% vs 57.7%), hyperlipidemia (6.0% vs 49.7%), cardiovascular disease (1.2% vs 20.6%), and type 2 diabetes (6.0% vs 21.5%), (all p < 0.01). Primary sclerosing cholangitis was more common in the young group (26.2% vs 4.3%, p < 0.01). ECOG status of 0 at first treatment was seen in 65.3% of young vs 52.5% of old patients (p = 0.02). FGFR2 alterations were more common in the young group (17.9% vs 8.0%, p < 0.01), while ATM mutations were more common in old vs young (5.5% vs 0%, p = 0.03). There was no age difference seen for the other genetic alterations. Mean tumor mutational burden was higher in the old group (4.1 vs 3.8 mut/mb, p = 0.01). MSI-high was found in 2% of cases with no difference between groups. There was no significant difference in overall survival between age groups. There was a numeric difference in overall survival in stage IV patients, though not statistically significant (17.8 months vs. 16.3 months, p = 0.08). In a multivariable Cox analysis, female sex, earlier stage at diagnosis and clinical trial enrollment were associated with favorable prognostics. Conclusions: Our data highlight relatively low rates of comorbidities associated with metabolic dysfunction in younger adults with CC, suggesting alternative factors are likely to explain the increasing incidence of early-onset disease. FGRFR2 is a more common pathogenic alteration among the young and could inform targeted therapies. Younger patients with CC may not have improved survival outcomes compared to their older counterparts. This underscores the aggressive nature of CC and the need for more effective therapies to improve outcomes.

4166 Background: GN is a front-line therapy for aPDAC. A Phase I/II study demonstrated that GCN has a higher overall response rate and median overall survival (mOS). Our previous study found no difference in outcomes among patients with DNA damage repair gene mutations; however, stromal gene expression correlated with mOS in patients receiving GCN. Here, we further evaluate differences in the outcomes with GCN and GN by site of biopsy. Methods: PDAC samples (n = 4,463) were analyzed by NGS (NextSeq/NovaSeq) or RNA (NovaSeq) (Caris Life Sciences, Phx, AZ). Expression of stromal and related genes ( ACTA2, ADIRF, HAS2, IL-6, MMP-2, MMP-9, SPARC, STAT3, TBGB1, TGFB2, TGFBR3, IDO1, HLA-DRB4, VEGFB) from different biopsy sites [high expression (H) >50% of RNA transcripts per million] was correlated with outcomes to GCN or GN. mOS was obtained from insurance claims and calculated from first treatment to last contact. The hazard ratio (HR) was calculated by the Cox proportional hazards model, and p-values were calculated using the log-rank test. Results: 4325 patients [primary biopsy (PT), n = 1,878; non-liver metastatic biopsy (N-LM), n = 818; Liver biopsy (LM), n = 1,629] received GN while 138 patients (PT, n = 45; N-LM, n = 28; LM, n = 65) received GCN. GCN was associated with longer mOS than GN [∆: 5.2 months (m), HR: 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.01]. GCN was associated with longer mOS compared to GN in LM (∆: 5.6 m, HR: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.87, p = 0.003), but it was not significant in PT (∆: 4.6 m, p = 0.13) and N-LM (∆: 4.4 m, p = 0.35). Median MMP2 (38.5 vs. 163.1 vs. 162.2), VEGFB (14.4 vs. 16.9 vs. 16.2) and TGFBR3 (11.4 vs. 15 vs. 16.4) expression were lower in LM compared to PT and N-LM while TGFB1 (41.6 vs. 34.5 vs. 39.8) and IL6 (1.61 vs. 1.19 vs. 1.41) expression were highest in LM (p < 0.05). In LM, IL6 -H (∆: -11 m, p = 0.037) and TGFB1 -H (∆: -5.9 m, p = 0.10) were associated with worse post-GCN survival compared to GN (p = 0.82 and p = 0.57). Whereas, in N-LM, TGFBR3 -H trended towards longer post-GCN survival (∆: 12 m, p = 0.18), while ADIRF -H trended towards shorter post-GCN survival (∆: -12 m, p = 0.056) compared to GN (p = 0.42 and p = 0.10). While in PT, MMP2 -H (∆: 11.3m, HR: 0.46, p = 0.16), TGFB1 -H (∆: 11.3 m, HR: 0.33, p = 0.09), HLA-DRB4 -H (∆: 12.9 m, HR: 0.44, p = 0.11) and VEGFB -H (∆: 10.7, HR: 0.34, p = 0.09) trended towards longer post-GCN survival compared to GN ( MMP2 -H, ∆: 3.4 m, p = 0.03, TGFB1 -H, p = 0.661, HLA-DRB4 -H, p = 0.67, VEGFB-H , ∆: 1.3 m, p = 0.03). Conclusions: GCN is associated with improved mOS compared to GN, especially in LM.Stromal gene expression in the liver differs from that in N-LM and the pancreas. While high stromal gene expression trends towards worse post-GCN survival in LM, it is associated with improved survival in N-LM and PT. Further validation is needed to understand the impact of stromal gene expression in different tumor sites on survival outcomes and signature development.