Citations

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: Guidelines acknowledge that discordant low-gradient (LG) aortic stenosis (AS) may be severe, but verifying this can be challenging. Right heart catheterization during exercise is considered the gold standard for evaluating ventricular hemodynamics. No invasive studies have compared the hemodynamic response of discordant LG and severe AS during exercise. The aim of this observational study was to describe exercise hemodynamics in patients with asymptomatic discordant AS and left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50%. METHODS: Patients with aortic valve area ≤1.5 cm 2 underwent right heart catheterization at rest and during maximal exercise, measuring pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), cardiac output (CO), and the PCWP/CO-slope. Patients were stratified into 3 groups: discordant LG AS (aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm 2 and mean gradient <40 mm Hg); moderate AS (aortic valve area >1.0 cm 2 ); and high-gradient (HG) severe AS (aortic valve area ≤1.0 cm 2 and mean gradient ≥40 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 86 patients, 17 (20%) had discordant LG, 49 (57%) moderate, and 20 (23%) HG severe AS. The median PCWP/CO-slope was significantly steeper in discordant LG (3.3 [interquartile range, 2.1–4.3] mm Hg/L/min) and HG severe AS (2.7 [1.9–3.4] mm Hg/L per minute) compared with moderate AS (1.9 [0.7–2.8] mm Hg/L per minute), P =0.004. In a regression model adjusted for age, sex, and rest PCWP, systemic arterial compliance and AS severity were significantly associated with the PCWP/CO-slope. Furthermore, patients with discordant LG AS had a leftward-upward shift in the PCWP/CO-curve. CONCLUSIONS: Discordant LG and HG severe AS had similar hemodynamic responses to exercise with steeper PCWP/CO-slope than in moderate AS, suggesting that discordant LG AS is a severe form of AS. In addition, the left upwards shift in PCWP/CO-curve for discordant LG compared with HG severe AS indicates that this group also has heart failure with preserved ejection fraction physiology. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04913870 and NCT02395107.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hodgkin lymphoma provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma. The panel convenes annually to update recommendations based on a review of recently published clinical trials. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Hodgkin Lymphoma focuses on the management of newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory classic Hodgkin lymphoma in adults aged 18 to 60 years.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) shows marked heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, from indolent to highly aggressive disease. Alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and DNA damage repair genes are linked to poor patient outcomes, yet how the interaction and co-occurrence of these alterations impact prognosis remains unclear. We leveraged the AACR Project GENIE prostate cancer cohort to assess the prognostic impact of individual and concomitant gene alterations, focusing on key PC drivers (BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, RB1). METHODS: the study was conducted in two stages: (i) identification of candidate alterations at individual gene level through a systematic literature review, followed by analyzing the prevalence and co-occurrence of genes in the AACR Project GENIE Public Release (PR) dataset. (ii) Prognostic analysis of the pre-selected biomarkers in the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative (BPC) cohort. Analyses were performed in three clinical settings (entire BPC cohort, n=1114; subgroup of patients with localized disease at diagnosis, n=837; and subgroup of patients with metastatic PC with a biopsy collected before or at the time of mPC, n=455) using two statistical approaches: univariate analysis (UA) and inverse probability weighting using propensity scores (PS). Cox models were applied to estimate overall survival hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: after integrating the findings from the systematic review with the analysis of the GENIE PR (n=5684), 107 individual genes and 122 co-occurring alterations were selected for study. In the GENIE BPC (n=1114 patients) 75% were M0 at diagnosis, and 67% presented metastatic PC at any time. Alteration prevalence was: TP53, 25%; PTEN, 15%; BRCA2, 4%; RB1, 4%; co-alterations included, PTEN-TP53 (6.4%), RB1-TP53 (2.1%), PTEN-RB1 (1.3%), and BRCA2-TP53 (1.2%). All four key genes showed a statistically significant prognostic impact in the entire cohort with UA (BRCA2, HR:1.9; TP53, HR:2.6; PTEN, HR:2.4; RB1, HR:4.1, all p&lt;0.001). Results were consistent in the subgroup analysis and when using PS. Additional genes such as FANCA, PIK3CA, and MYC were also associated with poor outcomes. Among co-alterations, BRCA2-TP53 (HR:2.0, p=0.05), RB1-TP53 (HR:3.6, p&lt;0.001), PTEN-TP53 (HR:2.4, p&lt;0.001); PTEN-RB1 (HR:5.5, p&lt;0.001), and PTEN-TP53-RB1 (HR:9.0, p&lt;0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor survival, with consistent effects across subgroups and analytical methods. Other combinations including MYC-TP53 (HR 2.2, p&lt;0.001) and PIK3CA-TP53 (HR 3.2, p&lt;0.001), also showed independent prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and BRCA2, alone and in combination, independently associate with poor prognosis. Co-alteration patterns such as PTEN-TP53-RB1 define aggressive molecular subsets. This evidence supports integrating genomic interaction patterns for enhancing clinical risk models and guiding precision patient management. Furthermore, this study highlights the potential of AACR Project GENIE to enable data-driven development of biomarker-informed patient care strategies. Citation Format: Pablo Cresta Morgado, Victor Navarro, Guillermo Vilacampa, Haitham Alatoom, Manuel Ramos del Rio, Irbaz Riaz, Shawn Sweeney, Nikolaus Schultz, Ken Kehl, Gregory Riely, Wasim Abida, Katherine Panageas, Deborah Schrag, Philippe Bedard, Christine Micheel, Xindi Guo, Chelsea Nayan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Joaquin Mateo. Genomic prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer from the AACR GENIE cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment; 2026 Jan 20-22; Philadelphia PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(2_Suppl):Abstract nr A013.

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

Abstract Combination therapy incorporating programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) blockade results in unprecedented response rates in both frontline and relapsed/refractory (R/R) classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL). Previous retrospective studies have suggested benefit for PD-1 blockade before autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) but included few patients receiving PD-1 blockade with cytotoxic chemotherapy. To explore the impact of anti–PD-1 based salvage on outcomes for patients with R/R cHL, we retrospectively reviewed 1280 patients with R/R cHL who underwent ASCT from 2010 to 2022 at 6 transplant centers, none of whom received PD-1 blockade as part of frontline therapy. Overall, 25% received a PD-1 inhibitor at any point before ASCT (10% in conjunction with chemotherapy), 28% received salvage brentuximab vedotin (BV) without PD-1 blockade, and the rest received salvage chemotherapy alone. Patients who received PD-1 inhibitors at any point before ASCT had a significantly higher 2-year progression-free survival than those who received BV without PD-1 inhibitors or patients receiving chemotherapy alone (88.2%, 70.2%, and 67.4%, respectively; P&lt; .0001). When restricted to patients in complete response before ASCT, the benefit of PD-1 blockade remained significant. PD-1 blockade before ASCT is independently associated with superior post-ASCT outcomes and patients proceeding to ASCT should be treated with PD-1–based salvage.

PURPOSE Venetoclax, an oral BCL-2 inhibitor, has efficacy in t(11;14)-positive relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM), which is enhanced by dexamethasone, which promotes BCL-2 dependency. METHODS The randomized, open-label, phase III CANOVA study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03539744 ) enrolled adults with t(11;14)-positive RRMM who had received ≥2 previous lines of therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to venetoclax-dexamethasone or pomalidomide-dexamethasone until progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary end point was independent review committee assessed–progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population analyzed by stratified log-rank test (two-sided type I error rate, α = .05), with hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI estimated by stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Secondary end points included response rates, overall survival (OS), minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity rate (<10 –5 ), and safety. RESULTS Overall, 263 patients were randomly assigned (venetoclax-dexamethasone, n = 133; pomalidomide-dexamethasone, n = 130). Median PFS was 9.9 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 12.6) with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 5.8 months (95% CI, 3.8 to 9.2) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.823 [95% CI, 0.596 to 1.136]; P = .24). Overall response and very good partial response or better rates were 62% and 39%, respectively, with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 35% and 14% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. MRD negativity rate was 8% with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 0% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. Median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI, 26.4 to 40.7) with venetoclax-dexamethasone and 26.9 months (95% CI, 20.4 to 38.9) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone (HR, 0.856 [95% CI, 0.612 to 1.197]). Grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse event rates were 67% with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 83% with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. There were 16 (12%) treatment-emergent deaths with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus 8 (6%) with pomalidomide-dexamethasone. CONCLUSION The primary end point of PFS was not met. PFS and OS were numerically longer with venetoclax-dexamethasone versus pomalidomide-dexamethasone in t(11;14)-positive RRMM. Consistent with previous studies, infections were associated with venetoclax-dexamethasone; no new safety signals were observed.

Abstract Background Teclistamab (Tec) and Talquetamab (Tal) are the two first FDA approved bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for the treatment of patients (pts) with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM). Both Tec and Tal should be initiated with step-up dosing (SUD) in an inpatient (IP) setting to mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS), per US label. However, standard of care practice continues to evolve and more pts receive SUD as an outpatient (OP) to reduce healthcare resource utilization and improve pt convenience. While most real-world evidence has focused on clinical and safety outcomes of pts treated with Tec and Tal, pt experience associated with these novel BsAb therapies is relatively unexplored. Methods HealthTree Foundation, a multiple myeloma pt advocacy group which provides enrolled pts with information on treatments, community groups, and research participation, surveyed RRMM patients who have received Tec or Tal. Eligible pts who completed the treatment experience survey had at least 4 months of follow-up after starting BsAb. The survey was fielded from May 2024 through June 2025. Data collection followed IRB-exempt protocols with informed consent. Results A total of 32 patients (24 Tec, 8 Tal) completed the survey. The median age was 70 years, 50% were male, and 84% were white. Most pts (n=24; 75%) received SUD at their primary oncology clinic (n=19, 59% at an academic center; n=5, 16% at local community center), and 8 (25%) at an academic center which was not their primary oncology clinic. All pts who received SUD at an academic center that was not their primary oncology clinic later transitioned to their local community clinic post-SUD and reported being satisfied or very satisfied with their transition of care experience. Overall, most pts (n= 21; 66%) received their entire step-up dosing during a single hospitalization, while some (n=6; 19%) received all doses of the SUD during separate hospitalizations for each dose. About 13% (n=4) received all SUD in an OP setting, and 3% (n=1) received SUD in a hybrid setting (mix of IP and OP). Although 85% (n=27) of the pts received IP SUD, 66% (n=21) would have preferred IP SUD in one hospitalization, while the remaining 34% (n=11) would have preferred OP or hybrid SUD. Among pts who received IP SUD (n=27), almost a quarter reported a preference for either OP (n=4; 15%) or hybrid SUD (n=2; 7%) and 78% (n=21) preferred one IP hospitalization for SUD. The factors influencing their preference for the setting of SUD in this IP sub-group were feeling more secure with IP monitoring (78%), convenience (26%), less worry about staying near healthcare centers (15%), being able to stay with their local physician (11%), staying closer to home (7%), and lower costs to the pt (4%). Among pts receiving OP SUD (n=4), 75% (n=3) preferred fully OP SUD and 25% (n=1) preferred hybrid SUD because of convenience (n=2; 50%), lower cost to pt (n=1; 25%), flexible dosing schedule (n=1; 25%), and feeling of security with IP monitoring (n=1; 25%). All the pts receiving hybrid SUD (n=1) preferred fully OP SUD due to convenience. Although Tec and Tal are subcutaneous (SC) injections, when patients were asked to compare the options of BsAbs with comparable efficacy and safety profile, they favored SC injection (n= 22; 69%) over intravenous infusion (n = 3; 9%), while 22% (n=7) had no preference for mode of drug administration. The challenges that impacted pt experience with Tec or Tal were treatment side effects (Tal pts: n=6, 75%; Tec pts: n=9, 38%) and distance or travel time to the treatment facility (Tal pts: n=2, 25%; Tec pts: n=4; 17%). Other reasons included caring for others, continuing to work, cost and insurance, lack of caregiver/care partner, being away from home, unavailability of the therapy in community setting near home, and eligibility criteria. Conclusions Most pts in this study received SUD at their primary oncology clinic. While most pts received IP SUD and preferred a single planned IP visit, one third preferred OP or hybrid SUD due to convenience. As the field moves toward OP-only SUD, this study underscores the need to consider pt preferences. There is an unmet need for community clinics providing SUD options closer to pt homes.

Abstract Background Watchful waiting is a common option for pts with asymptomatic FL/MZL. Anti-tumor immunization may delay or even avoid subsequent need for more toxic therapies. EO is designed from non-self-protein sequences derived from gut bacteria, including 4 HLA-A2 CD8 T cell epitopes (synthetic mimic peptides), exhibiting molecular mimicry with specific epitopes on B cell markers (CD20, CD22, CD37, BAFF-receptor). EO also contains a CD4 helper epitope UCP2. EO expands pre-existing memory CD8 T cells recognizing non-self-epitopes from gut bacteria that cross-react with B cell antigens on tumor cells. Methods Cohort 2 (C2; planned accrual 25 pts) of EONHL1-20/SIDNEY includes HLA-A2+ pts with previously untreated FL/MZL not in need of treatment. Pts receive EO (300μg/peptide) SC with adjuvant Montanide, q2 weeks (w) x 4, then q4w, for 12 total doses. For antigen-specific immune responses, peripheral blood mononuclear cells were assayed by flow cytometry using EO-mimic or B cell peptide specific tetramers without in vitro stimulation. IFN-γ ELISPOT was used to evaluate response to UCP2 and anti-CD3. Primary endpoint is objective response rate (ORR) per Lugano 2014. A pre-defined futility boundary was applied (ORR uninteresting=5%/promising=20%). Finding at least 3 of 25 pts with ORR would meet criteria to continue development (chance of 13% and 90% for true ORR of 5% and 20%, respectively). Results As of July 2025, 22 pts had started EO. Median age 59 years (range 32-86); 9 female; 19 ECOG 0/3 ECOG 1; 19 FL/3 extranodal MZL (ENMZL); 3 Ann Arbor stage I-II/8 stage III/11 stage IV; FLIPI low risk 8/intermediate 8/high 6; FLIPI-2 low risk 12/intermediate 7/high 3; 19 GELF neg/3 pos. At a median follow-up for progression of 9.4 months, 9 pts completed EO, 4 stopped for progressive disease (PD), 2 due to PI/pt decision; 7 ongoing. Median treatment duration 38 w (range 4-39). Among 19 evaluable pts, best Lugano response was 3 complete (CR) and 6 partial responses (PR) (ORR 47% [95% CI 24%–71%]; CR-rate 16% [3%-40%]), 6 stable disease (SD), and 4 PD. ORR by PET-CT was 29% (n=14) w6, 39% (n=18) w19, 46% (n=13) w42; corresponding CR rates were 0%, 11%, 15%. Median time to response 17.1 w (range 5.3-41.1). Currently there are only 2 confirmed PD events in pts with prior PR/CR. Among 8 pts with an initial indeterminate response per LyRIC 2016 followed by a confirmatory scan, 4 pts did not have confirmed PD; a possible atypical response pattern rate of 50% on EO (occurring 5.3-41.9 w after start of EO). In 16 immune response evaluable pts, 88% and 81% had expansion of CD8 T cells specific for EO mimic and B cell target peptides, respectively. Expanded specific CD8 T cells had a memory phenotype dominated by effector memory (TEM) and central memory cells. At w5, 7 clinical responders and 7 non-responders were evaluable; more responders had a positive immune response against EO mimic (Chi-square p=0.025) and B cell target (p=0.047) peptides. Max expansion (response sum for 4 EO mimic or 4 B cell target peptides at a single timepoint w3-w8) of specific CD8 T cells (% of all peripheral CD8 T cells) was higher for responders than non-responders both for EO mimic (Mann Whitney p=0.018) and B cell target (p=0.017) peptides. Pts (4) with an initial indeterminate response (LyRIC 2016) had a higher max expansion of B cell target peptide specific CD8 T cells vs 4 pts with a typical progression pattern (Mann Whitney p=0.018) and vs all other 12 pts evaluable for immune response (p=0.029). There was no difference in CD4 T cell response to UCP2 in responders vs non-responders (induction or max immunity w3-w8). Anti-CD3 expansion of T cells indicating T cell intrinsic activation potential did not correlate with clinical response (baseline or max). The most common EO-related adverse events (AEs) were Gr (Grade) 1 (10 pts) and Gr 2 (6 pts) local administration site reactions. Other related AEs in &gt;1 pt were Gr 1 headache (3 pts) and Gr 1-2 fatigue (3 pts). Asthenia lasting 2 days was the only related Gr 3 AE. There were 4 unrelated Gr 3 AEs (gastroenteritis, GI-hemorrhage, inguinal hernia, and syncope). There were no Gr 4-5 AE. ConclusionsEO has a favorable safety profile and is preliminary associated with an ORR of 47%, exceeding the pre-specified boundary for promising activity. The speed and level of expansion of both EO mimic and B cell target peptide specific CD8 memory T cells are associated with objective response. Results will be updated.