Citations

The rapid adoption of telemedicine has transformed healthcare delivery in the US, enhancing access and communication for surgical patients across wide geographic areas. However, a critical challenge persists: the need to define and standardize quality metrics specifically for telemedicine in surgery. Existing studies suggest that telemedicine can yield equivalent or improved outcomes compared with in-person visits. Nevertheless, literature remains limited in evaluating patient satisfaction, cost-effectiveness, and diagnostic accuracy. Through expert consensus within the American College of Surgeons Board of Governors Telehealth Pillar, we propose a structured framework for defining and implementing quality metrics for surgical telemedicine. This is based on the Donabedian model, addressing structure, process, and outcome, while also considering the distinct phases of surgical care: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. This framework identifies unique domains of telemedicine in surgical care, emphasizing hospital and organizational structure, patient and provider readiness, and policy alignment. A comparative analysis with existing AHRQ and WHO frameworks highlights gaps in surgical applicability. Finally, we propose an implementation roadmap prioritizing immediate, feasible metrics while identifying areas for future validation. Collaboration among researchers, clinicians, and policymakers will be essential to establish these metrics and ensure that telemedicine delivers on its potential to improve surgical care delivery while addressing disparities in access and outcomes.

162 Background: Clinical trial conduct in advanced prostate cancer has changed dramatically with the continued development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotypes and genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states. This created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trials. Methods: We convened PCWG4, an international expert committee of multidisciplinary working groups, between 2016 and 2025 to update and expand PCWG2-3 recommendations based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in an innovative biomarker and imaging context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and endpoint assessments. Results: PCWG4 redefines terminology around disease states and prior therapies in a patient-centric context, considering imaging modalities, with a particular focus on PET-defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, imaging and non-imaging-based responses. We define delay/prevent endpoints including responses by pathology, ctDNA, circulating tumor cells, and PSA declines, and specify intervals for re-assessments including imaging, biomarker assessments, and patient reported outcomes. We propose new imaging-specific rPFS criteria including guidance with serial PSMA PET/CT imaging (Table). We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context for the indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. Conclusions: PCWG4 expands guidance on patient and tumor profiling, as well as therapy development, to include both androgen deprivation therapy sensitive and resistant settings, reflecting today’s more heterogeneous and diverse patient population to optimize outcomes. PCWG4-defined radiographic progression by imaging modality for patients with metastatic disease. Pretreatment Scan On-treatment Scan #1(≥week 8) On-treatment Scan #2 All Subsequent Scans Bone scintigraphy Comparator Comparator for subsequent scansPOD never called here POD:PCWG3 criteria (2+2 additional new lesions) POD:≤5 new lesions: PCWG3 criteria 2 new lesions confirmed≥6 new lesions CT/MRI Any measurable disease Comparator PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PCWG3/RECIST PSMA PET Bones, and lymph nodes and lung metastases (non-RECIST qualifying by + on PET only) Comparator POD:≤5 new lesions: 2 new lesions confirmed on a subsequent scan≥6 new lesions Same as prior Same as prior Liver and non-pulmonary viscera Comparator POD:Any single new lesion that represents disease Same as prior Same as prior

214 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) has revolutionized care for patients (pts) with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but only half achieves PSA decline ≥50%. Biomarkers are urgently needed to improve pt selection. EVs and ctDNA released by cancer cells into the blood are emerging biomarkers to estimate overall tumor burden and capture tumor heterogeneity in mCRPC. Here, we analyzed pre-treatment plasma levels of tumor EVs and ctDNA in a pilot cohort of 35 pts with mCRPC treated with LuPSMA. Methods: Blood samples were collected pre-cycle 1 of LuPSMA at Tulane Cancer Center between 12/2018-1/2025. Plasma-derived small and large EVs were incubated with fluorescently conjugated antibodies and enumerated using nanoscale flow cytometry. ctDNA fraction was estimated from plasma cfDNA methylation WGS (∼10×) with ichorCNA. We also analyzed EVs from blood samples of male healthy donors (HD) and pts with localized prostate cancer (LPC) collected 1 day to 8 months after radical prostatectomy (post-RP) from 6/2020-8/2024 at Mayo Clinic as controls. Results: Median age at collection for 10 HD was 55 yrs and for 36 pts with LPC post-RP was 65 yrs. Median PSMA+ EV level was 2.0 x 10 6 /mL for post-RP and 1.4 x 10 6 /mL for HD. For 35 pts with mCRPC, 25 pts had complete data for analysis. Median PSMA+ EV level was 1.4 x 10 7 /mL, significantly higher than post-RP (p<0.001) and HD (p<0.001). At LuPSMA start, median age was 69 yrs (range 54-83), PSA was 82 ng/mL (range 0.8-503), median time from CRPC diagnosis to start was 50 months (range 6.9-285), median time from plasma collection to treatment initiation was 0.5 months (range 0-7.3). Median number of prior lines of life-extending therapy was 4 (range 1-11), including 100% androgen receptor pathway inhibitor and 75% docetaxel. Pts received median 4 cycles of LuPSMA. Median ctDNA fraction was 14.0% (range 0-51.1). Median time to reach nadir PSA for pts with any decline was 2.6 months. 15 pts (60%) achieved PSA40 (defined ≥40% decline in PSA from start to nadir) (range -99% to -42%) compared to 10 pts (40%) who did not (range -16% to rise), which predicted better median overall survival (OS) after LuPSMA start (40.7 v 6.0 months; HR 0.23, 95% CI, 0.07-0.71; p=0.0001). Pts were classified as LuPSMA responders using PSA40. Responders had a lower ratio of large to small PSMA+ EVs (0.30 v 0.53, p=0.0042) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-0.99), and a lower median ctDNA fraction (6.1% v 26.2%, p=0.0044) with an AUC of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.68-1.00). Incorporating both PSMA+ EV and ctDNA fraction together predicted PSA40 response with an AUC of 0.93 (95% CI, 0.84-1.00, p=0.0003). Conclusions: Using pre-LuPSMA plasma samples from a heavily pre-treated historical cohort, we integrated non-invasive liquid biopsy methods to successfully predict response to LuPSMA using PSA decline. Prospective validation is underway.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is a potential cardioembolic source of ischemic stroke, but its role in recurrent stroke risk and treatment response remains unclear. We explore whether LV injury associates with the risk of recurrent stroke and modifies the association between anticoagulation and stroke recurrence using real-world data. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective study of Cardiac Abnormalities in Stroke Prevention and Recurrence cohort across 27 US sites. Patients with LV ejection fraction ≥20% were included. LV injury, defined as LV ejection fraction 20% to 40% and wall motion abnormality, was the primary exposure and treatment effect modifier. The treatment of interest was anticoagulant versus antiplatelet therapy. The composite outcome included recurrent stroke, major bleeding, or death. Outcomes were evaluated using unadjusted and inverse probability weighting adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, with treatment effect modification tested by LV injury status. RESULTS: Among 2685 patients enrolled, 2328 with complete data were analyzed (median age, 65 years; 49.8% female; median follow-up, 1.6 years). LV injury was present in 310 patients (13.3%). Overall, 535 events occurred: 258 recurrent ischemic strokes, 28 hemorrhagic strokes, 67 major hemorrhages, and 256 deaths. LV injury was associated with a higher unadjusted risk of the primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR], 1.51 [95% CI, 1.21–1.87]), though nonsignificant after inverse probability weighting adjustment (adjusted HR, 1.29 [95% CI, 0.97–1.70]). In the LV injury subgroup, anticoagulation versus antiplatelet therapy was associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (adjusted HR, 0.24 [95% CI, 0.10–0.59]), relative to the non-LV injury subgroup (adjusted HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.83–1.95]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001). Similar interactions were seen for EF 20% to 40% (versus >40%; adjusted HR, 0.19 [95% CI, 0.04–0.86]; p[LV-interaction], 0.001) and wall motion abnormality (versus no wall motion abnormality; adjusted HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.15–0.73]). CONCLUSIONS: After cryptogenic stroke, anticoagulation in those with LV injury was associated with lower rates of recurrent stroke, major bleeding, and death. These findings warrant confirmation in a dedicated randomized controlled trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT06398366.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral microbleeds (CMBs) are associated with dementia, but the impact of specific microbleed patterns (with distinct pathophysiologies) is unclear. Lobar CMBs commonly result from cerebral amyloid angiopathy (sometimes with cortical superficial siderosis [cSS]), while subcortical microbleeds indicate a hypertensive cause. This study investigates the association of CMB presence, patterns, and frequency with dementia risk. METHODS: Participants from the ARIC-NCS (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities-Neurocognitive Study), a community-based longitudinal cohort, with a 3T research magnetic resonance imaging scan at visit 5 (2011–2013) and without prior intracerebral hemorrhage or dementia were included. CMB and cSS presence and location were evaluated using a T2* gradient-recalled echo sequence. Each individual’s pattern of CMBs was classified as no CMBs, subcortical only, mixed (subcortical and lobar±cSS), lobar±cSS only, or cSS. Dementia adjudication was determined by blinded review of cognitive testing, informant interviews, and hospital discharge codes or death certificates (from follow-up visits and ongoing surveillance). Cox proportional hazards models assessed associations between CMBs and incident dementia through 2020, adjusted for demographics, vascular risk factors, and white matter hyperintensities. RESULTS: Among 1583 participants (mean age, 76 years; 24.7% cumulative dementia incidence over a median of 23.6 follow-up years), 361 had CMBs. Compared with individuals without CMBs, those with mixed (hazard ratio, 1.99 [95% CI, 1.40–2.83]) or lobar±cSS (hazard ratio, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.30–2.97]) CMB patterns had increased dementia risk, whereas individuals with a subcortical-only pattern did not (hazard ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.78–1.39]). cSS presence (n=21; versus absence) showed an increased risk of dementia (hazard ratio, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.36–4.89]). Greater numbers of microbleeds across all CMB subtypes exhibited an increased risk of dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Lobar and mixed CMB patterns and increasing numbers of CMBs are associated with incident dementia. Certain CMB patterns have differential associations with dementia, but severe enough disease burden, regardless of CMB distribution, is associated with increased dementia risk.

PURPOSE The continuous development of new imaging approaches, molecular phenotyping, genetic subtypes, prognosis assessments, and effective therapies across a range of disease states has created a need to redefine terminology and best practices for clinical trial conduct in patients with advanced prostate cancer. Methods We convened an international expert committee of diverse working groups, the Prostate Cancer Working Group 4 (PCWG4), between 2016 and 2025. Our objective was to formulate updated criteria based on emerging evidence and clinical trial data in a biomarker context to provide guidance for clinical trial design, eligibility, and end point assessments for patients with advanced prostate cancer. RESULTS PCWG4 redefines terminology around the disease state and previous therapies in a patient-centric context and terminology focused on androgen pathway modulation. We consider imaging, with a particular focus on positron emission tomography (PET)–defined disease. New recommendations are provided for disease state terminology, defining eligibility criteria, response and delay/prevent end points, intervals for reassessments including imaging, and patient-reported outcome determination. We provide recommendations in a biomarker-based context of use for the intended indication, reflective of patient benefit for specific interventions. We emphasize the need for development of validated PET imaging and molecular and phenotypic criteria as well as trial designs to appropriately risk stratify patients, predict and assess benefit, and measure post-treatment outcomes reliably in a trial framework. CONCLUSION PCWG4 updates recommendations on patient and tumor characterization, therapy development, and imaging criteria and extends guidance into earlier androgen pathway modulator–naïve/sensitive disease states to reflect an evolving, heterogeneous, and diverse patient population to optimize treatment benefits for all patients.

The systemic impairment that accompanies liver cirrhosis is known to carry a significant burden on death and postoperative complications in cardiovascular interventions. This review analyzes the impact of liver cirrhosis on short‐ and long‐term outcomes after cardiac surgery and percutaneous procedures, providing an evidence‐based guidance in the decision‐making process and perioperative management of these patients. Several parameters should be considered by the heart teams when assessing eligibility, indications for intervention, and perioperative management of these patients. Life expectancy, long‐term procedural outcomes, Child–Pugh or the Model for End‐Stage Liver Disease score, presence of gastroesophageal varices and hepatic venous pressure gradient were extrapolated as the main determinants in decision making in patients with cirrhosis. Assessment and treatment of gastroesophageal varices is mandatory. Hepatic venous pressure gradient values >20 mm Hg preclude patients from a surgical approach. Considering the poor prognosis of advanced liver cirrhosis, futile treatments should be avoided. A multidimensional heart team approach involving surgical, cardiologic, anesthesiologic, hepatological, and medical considerations is recommended.