Citations

Importance Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) aim to increase trial access for underrepresented populations (URP) and ensure study outcomes, conclusions, and policy-related decisions are applicable to diverse populations. Objective To assess trends in the percentage of accrued participants from more than 120 miles from the research site upon DCT program implementation. Design, Setting, and Participants This descriptive quality improvement study was conducted from January 2024 to March 2025 at Mayo Clinic, a US multiregional, academic medical center (AMC) comprising 3 sites and an affiliated, community-based health care system. All individuals who consented and/or accrued to an institutional review board–approved clinical trial were included. Exposure DCTs are defined as trials with at least 1 decentralized capability beyond remote consent. DCT program development began July 2022. By January 2024, remote consent, video telehealth visits, remote phlebotomy, and device services were implemented across all sites and departments. Remote monitoring and oral medication delivery were available on a limited basis. Prospective automated program and DCT participant data collection and quarterly reporting began in January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Percentage of all DCT accrued participants with a residential zip code more than 120 miles from 1 of 3 AMC sites. Results There were 7469 participants (median [IQR] age, 62 [51-70] years; 3594 [48.1%] female; 241 [3.2%] Asian, 391 [5.2%] Black or African American, and 6347 [85.0%] White individuals) accrued to 765 DCTs. During the study period, the percentage of DCT participants residing more than 120 miles from an AMC site ranged from 18.9% in the first quarter (Q1) of 2024 (383 of 2032 participants) to 29.6% in Q1 of 2025 (346 of 1170 participants). Of those accrued, 1147 (15.4%) were of a racial or ethnic URP, ranging from 12.5% in Q1 of 2024 (253 participants) to 17.4% in Q1 of 2025 (204 participants). There were 1554 (20.8%) participants from a rural location, ranging from 16.6% in Q1 of 2024 (338 participants) to 24.9% in Q1 of 2025 (291 participants). Additionally, by geospatial distance from an AMC site, the male-to-female ratio was nearly 50:50, and the age distribution appeared similar. Conclusions and Relevance In this quality improvement study of a DCT program implementation, DCT accruals trended favorably among those residing more than 120 miles from an AMC site and those of rural or URP populations. While these findings cannot be directly attributed to program implementation, they are reassuring that this strategy may address some barriers to clinical trial access. Future studies should assess the sustained effectiveness and scalability of DCT models in improving equitable trial access.

Reasonable accommodations in higher education are being more frequently requested by graduate occupational and physical therapy students within didactic and clinical contexts. Researchers aimed to describe the experiences of clinical educators in occupational and physical therapy mentoring graduate students with a disclosed accommodation during terminal clinical education, employing a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews and one-time electronic survey were completed. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted following the approach described by Braun and Clarke. Twelve occupational or physical therapy clinical educators participated in semi-structured interviews, each having mentored 1–2 students with a disclosed disability accommodation during a terminal clinical education experience. Four major thematic categories regarding accommodation use in terminal clinical emerged: 1) accommodation process, 2) team approach to accommodating, 3) fostering accommodations, and 4) ambiguity in facilitating accommodations. Clinical educators emphasized the importance of being informed about accommodations well in advance, adapting teaching methods, and maintaining regular communication between academic institutions, clinical sites, and students. Training for clinical educators on the disclosure process, legal obligations, and strategies for effective mentorship to ensure alignment of accommodation, academic requirements, and site expectations is essential.

LBA514 Background: Preclinical and clinical data show that antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) such as T-DXd may synergize with immunotherapy. Rilvegostomig (R) is a monovalent, Fc-reduced, dual checkpoint bispecific IgG1 monoclonal antibody against PD-1 and TIGIT receptors. R + T-DXd was evaluated as neoadjuvant therapy for up to 4 cycles. Methods: I-SPY2.2 is a phase II neoadjuvant trial with three neoadjuvant sequences (Blocks A/B/C). All HER2-negative subtypes were eligible for R + T-DXd in Block A. Predicted responders at the end of Block A or B could undergo surgery; otherwise, they continued to Block B +/- C. Block B pts received paclitaxel +/- carboplatin +/- pembrolizumab and Block C pts doxorubicin + cyclophosphamide (AC) +/- pembrolizumab, HR+ immune+ received IO in Blocks B/C. Results are analyzed by receptor and response predictive subtypes (RPS), that include expression-based immune, and luminal signatures with hormone receptor (HR) and HER2 status. Some pts were randomized to a control regimen (skipping R + T-DXd in block A and starting in block B). To minimize risk of interstitial lung disease (ILD) that could lead to treatment discontinuation, pts underwent pulmonary function tests and high-resolution chest CTs every 6 weeks. Abnormalities were reviewed in real time. The primary endpoint was pathologic complete response (pCR), within each RPS and HR/HER2 signature, with estimated pCR (EpCR) rates compared to subtype-specific block A goal rates and control pts in those groups. Other endpoints included safety and treatment discontinuation. Results: 105 pts were treated with R + T-DXd in block A, while 31 pts were randomized to the control regimen. Block A EpCR rate was 57% in the 12 HR+Immune+ pts vs a pre-specified goal of 15% (posterior probability, PP > .99). In 35 HR-Immune+ pts EpCR was 52% vs a pre-specified goal of 40% (PP = .87). No other groups (Immune-) had a PP > .85 for their respective pCR goal rate. HER2-IHC was 0 (27.6%), 1+ (49.5%) and 2+ (22.9%) in the treatment arm vs. 37.7%, 37.7%, and 24.7% in the control arm, with no difference in distribution between arms in immune subtypes. The most common adverse events in Block A were fatigue (84.8%), nausea (81.0%) and alopecia (58.1%). ILD was the most common adverse event of special interest in Block A and overall, occurring in 12 pts (11.4%; 7G1, 4G2, 1G3) during Block A and in 3 pts (G1, 2.9%) in other Blocks. 8 pts discontinued T-DXd + R due to ILD and proceeded to the next Block. Conclusions: When considering the full treatment strategy including block B and C regimens, experimental strategies had similar EpCR rates vs. controls in immune+ subtypes but block A rates exceeded pre-defined goal thresholds. This infers that treatment beginning with R + T-DXd has equivalent efficacy to standard of care for immune+ pts, but 64% pts with pCR skip chemotherapy (Block B) and 97% avoid AC (Block C). R + T-DXd participants avoided persistent ILD. Clinical trial information: NCT01042379 .

LBA10509 Background: The MCED test (Galleri) detects a shared cancer signal from cell-free DNA in blood and predicts a cancer signal origin (CSO) to guide diagnostic (dx) workup. PF2 (NCT05155605) is a large, prospective, multicenter, interventional study of the MCED test’s performance and safety in a diverse US intended-use population. Methods: PF2 enrolled participants aged ≥50y without clinical suspicion of cancer or cancer diagnosis/treatment within 3y of enrollment. Primary objectives were MCED performance and safety in terms of dx testing triggered by a positive (cancer signal detected) MCED test result. Participants with a positive MCED test underwent targeted dx workup guided by the predicted CSO(s). Participant-reported anxiety was assessed with the State Trait Anxiety Inventory. Results: PF2 enrolled 35,878 participants; 32,007 with a 12m cancer assessment were analyzable for performance. Of 287 (0.9%) with a positive MCED test, 173 were diagnosed with cancer within 12m, for a cancer detection rate of 0.5% (95% CI 0.5-0.6%) and positive predictive value of 60.3% (54.5-65.8%). Specificity was 99.6% (99.6-99.7%). 12m episode sensitivity was 69.8% (62.8-76.0%) in a prespecified subgroup of 12 cancers responsible for ⅔ of US cancer deaths, 66.2% (55.1-75.8%) in a subgroup of 6 aggressive cancers with low 5y survival, and 39.3% (34.9-44.0%) across all cancers. Overall CSO prediction accuracy was 91.3% (86.2-94.7%) across all cancers. The MCED test detected 151 new primary and 22 recurrent cancers; additional cancers detected by screening were those with USPSTF A/B (n=31) and C (n=60) recommended screening. Of 151 MCED-detected new primaries, 80 (53.0%) were clinical stage I-II; 107 (70.9%) were stage I-III. Of 80 MCED-detected stage I-II cancers, 71.2% had no USPSTF A/B screening recommendation. Of 35,335 participants analyzable for safety, 213 (0.6%) had invasive procedure(s) to evaluate a positive MCED test result, of which 90% were nonsurgical and 1.8x more likely for participants with vs without cancer diagnosis. Most (87.6%) had a CSO-guided dx evaluation. There were 5 study-related adverse events during the time of dx workup; none were serious. Anxiety temporarily increased for participants with a positive MCED test and cancer diagnosed, and returned to baseline by 12m. Of participants with a positive MCED test, median time from test result to dx resolution was 48d (95% CI 43-56). Few participants (7/63 [11.1%]) had cancer found by dx PET/CT after a targeted dx workup that did not reveal cancer. Conclusion: The MCED test demonstrated robust performance with a favorable safety profile. When MCED testing was added to USPSTF A/B screening, 6.5x more cancers were detected by screening, most at early stages. The diverse, representative PF2 participant population supports the generalizability of these findings to the US intended-use population. Clinical trial information: NCT05155605 .

Background: The economic burden associated with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is not well understood, especially since the approval of antifibrotic medications to treat IPF in 2014. Objective: This study assessed healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) and costs for patients with and without IPF among insured patients in the United States. Methods: This retrospective study used claims data from the Optum Research Database from 01 January 2016 through 31 December 2023. The IPF cohort included patients with at least 2 claims for IPF within 365 days. A comparator cohort was exact matched to the IPF cohort in a 4:1 ratio on demographic characteristics. Follow-up all-cause and respiratory-related HCRU and costs were collected. Outcomes were presented as weighted per-patient per-month (wPPPM) to account for variable follow-up. Descriptive results were reported by cohort, overall, and stratified by insurance type. All-cause and respiratory-related wPPPM costs were modeled using generalized linear models and time to all-cause and respiratory-related inpatient visits were modeled using Cox proportional hazards regression models, adjusted for baseline comorbidities. Results: A total of 7582 patients were included in the IPF cohort; 10.4% were commercially insured and 89.6% insured by Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug (MAPD) plans. The comparator cohort included 30 328 demographically matched controls. Overall, mean all-cause wPPPM counts of HCRU during follow-up were significantly higher in the IPF cohort than the comparator cohort for all categories (all P < .001). Similarly, mean (SD) follow-up all-cause wPPPM total healthcare costs were higher for the IPF cohort than the comparator cohort ($4667 [$8252] vs $1196 [$2114], P < .001). After adjustment, the cost ratio for all-cause total healthcare costs between the IPF and comparator cohorts was 3.4 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.10-3.64), and patients in the IPF cohort were 2.1 times (95% CI, 1.97-2.15) more likely to be hospitalized for all causes than the comparator cohort. For both HCRU and costs, similar patterns were observed in both the commercial and MAPD populations. Conclusion: Patients with IPF incurred substantially higher HCRU and costs than the demographically matched comparator cohort. Study results suggest the need for treatment options to improve management of IPF and reduce costly HCRU.

ABSTRACT Richter transformation of Chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL) into classic Hodgkin lymphoma (CHL-RT) is rare and remains incompletely understood. Two histologic subtypes are recognized: type 1 (CLL/SLL with scattered Hodgkin/Reed-Sternberg (HRS) cells) and type 2 (HRS cells within a polymorphous inflammatory background). In this multi-institutional study of 77 patients with CHL-RT (27 type 1 and 50 type 2), we characterized immune evasion markers, PD-L1 / PD-L2 copy number alterations, tumor microenvironment, and performed targeted next-generation sequencing on 37 CLL/SLL samples. HRS cells in CHL-RT displayed immune-evasion phenotypes similar to de novo CHL, though PD-L1 expression was lower in type 1 cases. PD-L1/PD-L2 gain/polysomy were frequent (83.3%). CLL/SLL with CHL-RT harbored increased mutations in XPO1, FBXW7, BIRC3, TRAF3 , and HLA-A versus reference CLL/SLL. Similar mutational profiles, demographics, and survival outcomes support a biological continuum between type 1 and type 2 CHL-RT, with distinct genetic features in CLL/SLL predisposing to CHL transformation. STATEMENT OF SIGNIFICANCE Classic Hodgkin lymphoma-type Richter transformation arises from convergent Hodgkin-like immune evasion on a genetically primed CLL/SLL background. Through integrated genomic and tumor microenvironment analyses in a large multicenter cohort, we establish this as a biologically coherent entity and provide rationale for PD-L1/PD-L2-directed therapeutic strategies.