Citations

AbstractRegistered nurses increasingly work in remote care and digital interaction roles, offering flexibility and expansion of their scope of practice. These roles may expose nurses to digital compassion fatigue, a phenomenon proposed to be characterized by the negative psychological and emotional impact of caring for patients remotely through the use of technology.The first objective of this work is to propose the phenomenon of “digital compassion fatigue” as a potentially further evolved and differentiated form of “compassion fatigue.” The second objective is to produce a comparative analysis of attributes, antecedents, and consequences through literature reviews.An evolutionary concept analysis approach was selected as a guide for exploring, discussing, and defining the new concept of digital compassion fatigue. Concept analysis was selected given the need for a framework that accounts for the dynamic nature of technology and practice. The process of conducting a concept analysis includes consideration of diverse and multidisciplinary perspectives. As a result, those in caring, educational, and/or support service roles (e.g., social work, counseling, and teaching) for which distance suffering and technostress could feasibly be present were also included in the literature searches and reviews. Health care-specific studies often included nurses in the sample but may not have differentiated their specific insights or data points in the results.The concept analysis explored the attributes, antecedents, and consequences of digital compassion fatigue, differentiating it from its evolutionary parent, compassion fatigue. Key antecedents included technostress, distant suffering, and the unique challenges of delivering care remotely. A major confounding variable was the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have heightened or introduced new technology-related stressors or highlighted the existence of digital compassion fatigue.Further defining and understanding digital compassion fatigue is crucial for developing effective strategies to support nurses who may experience it or who are at risk.

BACKGROUND Tumor-to-tumor metastasis (TTM) is an exceptionally rare phenomenon. To date, only 12 cases of the metastasis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) to a meningioma have been reported in the literature. The authors present a unique case of TTM involving ccRCC metastasizing to a meningioma in a patient with a history of both primary cancers. OBSERVATIONS A 58-year-old male with a history of 2 primary cancers developed a biphasic tumor diagnosed as TTM of ccRCC to meningioma. The patient initially presented with left lower-extremity (LLE) weakness and underwent subtotal resection of his meningioma. Postsurgical imaging revealed rapid tumor progression, for which the patient completed adjuvant radiotherapy. Concurrently, the patient developed hematuria and was diagnosed with ccRCC. Subsequent recurrent LLE weakness and intracranial tumor progression prompted re-resection, revealing a TTM. LESSONS In patients with a history of multiple cancers who present with recurrent intracranial disease progression radiographically and/or clinically, it is worth considering TTM in the differential diagnosis to facilitate multidisciplinary workup, management, and treatment. https://thejns.org/doi/10.3171/CASE24670

382 Background: The natural history of biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) is heterogeneous, with most patients not progressing to metastasis. Determining the impact and optimal timing of salvage radiation therapy (SRT) remains challenging, particularly in the absence of prospective randomized trials with a surveillance control arm. Our objective isto quantify the oncologic benefit of SRT among men with BCR after RP. Methods: Patients who underwent RP at Mayo Clinic between 1990 and 2017 and developed BCR (PSA≥0.20ng/mL) were included. Patients treated with SRT were compared to those managed with surveillance using risk-set matching with time-dependent propensity scores, accounting for covariates at BCR and post-BCR. The primary outcome was metastases, analyzed via Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard models. The number needed to treat (NNT) with SRT to prevent progression was calculated using regression outputs at 5 and 15 years post-BCR. Interaction analyses identified factors modifying SRT’s effect on metastasis. Results: Of 6,881 patients with BCR, 2,109 received SRT. At a median follow-up of 10.2 years, 1,147 patients with BCR developed metastases. After 1:1 matching, SRT was associated with lower metastasis risk than surveillance at 5 years (12.7% vs 19.3%, p<0.0001) and 15 years (28.6% vs. 31.5%, p<0.001). SRT was independently associated with decreased metastasis risk (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.63–0.90, p=0.002) on multivariable analysis, translating to NNT of 23 and 15 at 5 and 15 years, respectively (Table). Additionally, we noted a significant interaction between PSA at SRT and the association of SRT with metastasis (p-interaction=0.02), such that the reduction in metastatic progression with SRT vs. surveillance was restricted to the cohort of patients who received SRT for PSA>0.40ng/mL (HR 0.66, 95%CI 0.54–0.80, p<0.001). Conclusions: Most patients with BCR post-RP do not develop metastases. Indeed, the NNT with SRT to reduce metastasis versus surveillance indicates a generally indolent disease course. Further, the lack of a significant association of SRT with reduction of metastases in patients with a PSA≤0.40ng/mL underscores the importance of careful patient selection when considering early SRT. Our data establish the rationale for a randomized trial comparing early SRT versus surveillance for appropriately selected patients with BCR after RP. Hazard ratios of SRT after matching by propensity scores, and number needed to treat for systemic progression, prostate cancer specific mortality and overall mortality. DiseaseOutcome Hazard Ratio(95% CI) P value Number Needed to Treat* (95% CI) 5 years 15 years Systemic progression 0.75(0.63 – 0.90) 0.002 23(17 – 41) 15(11 – 27) Prostate cancer mortality 0.81 (0.64 – 1.03) 0.086 103(62 – 494) 26(15 – 124) Overall mortality 0.79 (0.70 – 0.89) 0.0001 38(29 – 62) 12(9 – 20) *Number needed to treat (NNT) calculated using regression based absolute differences in event free survival between salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and observation.

129 Background: Few studies have explored the use of focal therapies to address select sites of resistant disease in men receiving 177-Lu-PSMA-617 for metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Our institutional practice is to offer SBRT for patients with up to 5 sites of oligoprogression or non-responding lesions while undergoing 177Lu-PSMA-617 (every 6 weeks for 6 cycles total). This is determined by PSMA or choline PET imaging during the course of 177Lu-PSMA-617. Herein, we evaluated the safety of adding target SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Methods: This retrospective single institution analysis was conducted via systematic chart review to evaluate for adverse events during or after treatment. Grading of treatment-related adverse events was conducted using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Version 5.0 (CTCAE v5). Results: Thirty-one patients receiving 177Lu-PSMA-617 with 51 sites of oligoprogressive or non-responding metastatic disease were treated with SBRT. The median number of sites treated was 1 (range 1-4). Most patients received SBRT immediately after cycle 6 (32%) or after cycle 3 or 4 (42%). Bone was the most commonly treated site of disease (90%) with the majority (54%) of bone sites being spine or sacrum, followed by lymph nodes (10%). Ultimately, 84% of patients completed all 6 cycles of 177Lu-PSMA-617 (range 4-6). The median follow-up time was 19.1 months (IQR 15.5-22.4) after 177Lu-PSMA-617 therapy start. A total of 2 patients experienced a pathologic fracture within the SBRT treatment field that could possibly be related to radiotherapy. One patient experienced a grade 2 neuropathy which may have been related to radiation therapy. Other potential adverse events are listed (Table). Conclusions: Our data demonstrates a low rate of significant toxicity with the use SBRT during treatment with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Further study is indicated to determine the oncologic efficacy and potential late side effects of this treatment strategy. Adverse events. Event All Grades Grade > 3 Any Adverse Event 104 2 Anemia 29 (94%) 0 Low Platelets 11 (35.5%) 1 (3.2%) Any Pathologic Fracture 7 (22.5%) 1 (3.2%) Possible SBRT-related Pathologic Fracture 2 (6.5%) 1 (3.2%) Bone Pain Flare 3 (9.6%) 0 Neuropathy 1 (3.2%) 0

61 Background: 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was approved in March 2022 for patients with mCRPC pretreated with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and a taxane. There are limited data on the effectiveness of treatments post- 177 Lu-PSMA-617. The aim of this study was to describe prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses among patients with mCRPC receiving a guideline-recommended therapy as the next therapy after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used real-world data from the PRECISION data platform, a proprietary dataset developed by Novartis, comprised of patient-level electronic health record and claims data that represent the US advanced prostate cancer population in the community, academic, urology, and medical oncology settings. Patients with mCRPC who received any guideline-recommended therapy at least 14 days after treatment with 177 Lu-PSMA-617 between March 23, 2022 and July 31, 2024 were included. Guideline-recommended therapies included abiraterone, enzalutamide, darolutamide, apalutamide, cabazitaxel, docetaxel, pembrolizumab, sipuleucel-T, niraparib, olaparib, talazoparib, rucaparib, and radium-223. Patients’ PSA values while on 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment were compared with their PSA values during the subsequent therapy course. Proportions of patients achieving reductions in PSA levels ≥50% (PSA50) and ≥80% (PSA80) were estimated. All analyses were descriptive. Results: A total of 152 patients receiving any subsequent guideline-recommended therapy after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 were identified. Mean age was 72.1 years. Most patients received an ARPI (n=93, 61.2%) – abiraterone (n=38), enzalutamide (n=37), darolutamide (n=10), or apalutamide (n=8) – as their subsequent therapy. Of patients who received a taxane (n=42, 27.6%), 24 received cabazitaxel and 18 received docetaxel. Median time to initiation of subsequent therapy was 206 days (interquartile range [IQR] 101–301 days) from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation and 44 days (IQR 17–119 days) from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 discontinuation. Overall, among patients with sufficient information for PSA evaluation (n=30), 46.7% achieved PSA50 and 40.0% PSA80 post- 177 Lu-PSMA-617. Among patients receiving an ARPI, PSA50 was observed in 11/18 (61.1%) and PSA80 in 10/18 (55.6%). Among patients receiving a taxane, PSA50 and PSA80 were seen in 3/12 (25.0%) and 2/12 (16.7%), respectively. Conclusions: In this real-world analysis, the majority of patients who received guideline-recommended therapies after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 achieved at least a PSA50 response, suggesting that 177 Lu-PSMA-617 treatment does not preclude response to other subsequent therapies.

56 Background: The broad therapeutic arsenal for mCRPC, with overlapping indications, makes selecting the optimal treatment sequence challenging in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) responses and overall survival (OS) among patients with mCRPC receiving 177 Lu-PSMA-617 based on prior ARPI and taxane treatment exposure. Methods: This retrospective, observational study used real-world data from the PRECISION data platform, a harmonized dataset of advanced prostate cancer patients in the US from diverse clinical settings. Patients with mCRPC who had received ≥1 dose of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 between March 23, 2022 and July 31, 2024, after prior treatment with ≥1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane, were included. To assess PSA response, the baseline PSA value obtained within 90 days before starting 177 Lu-PSMA-617 was compared with the on-treatment PSA value obtained ≥28 days after 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation. The number of patients achieving PSA reductions ≥50% (PSA50) and ≥80% (PSA80) were estimated, with patients classified into two cohorts based on prior ARPI and taxane exposure: (1) prompt cohort: after only 1 ARPI and 1 taxane, and (2) deferred cohort: >1 ARPI and/or >1 taxane. Patient characteristics and treatment patterns were evaluated descriptively. OS from 177 Lu-PSMA-617 initiation was estimated using Kaplan–Meier methodology. Results: A total of 431 patients were included: 177 patients in the prompt cohort and 254 patients in the deferred cohort. Of patients in the deferred cohort, 185 (72.8%) received ≥1 ARPI and 1 taxane, 32 (12.6%) received 1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane, and 37 (14.6%) received ≥1 ARPI and ≥1 taxane. Median (interquartile range age was 73 (67–78) years and most demographic characteristics were balanced between groups. Patients in the deferred cohort had higher median PSA levels at baseline (63.1 ng/mL vs 25.2 ng/mL). PSA50 was observed in 18/33 (55%) patients in the prompt cohort vs 28/66 (42%) in the deferred cohort. PSA80 was observed in 13/33 (39%) patients in the prompt cohort vs 21/66 (31%) in the deferred cohort. Across both cohorts, median OS was 18.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1 months–not reached [NR]). Median OS was NR in patients in the prompt cohort vs 15.1 months in patients in the deferred cohort (95% CI: 11.6 months–NR). Conclusions: In this large real-world study, prompt initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617 (after only 1 ARPI and 1 taxane) showed superior clinical outcomes versus deferred initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. Patients were more likely to achieve a PSA reduction ≥50% and ≥80% and had longer OS with prompt initiation of 177 Lu-PSMA-617. These results may help to guide treatment sequencing in clinical practice.

Objective(s): To quantify and compare pre-procedure worry versus the experience of pain, gagging, and dyspnea during in-office laryngoscopy procedures in patients who did or did not receive pre-procedure anxiolytics, and to explore patient perception of intra-procedure interventions. Methods: Patients undergoing awake laryngology procedures at a quaternary care center were enrolled. The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) Y1 and Y2 questionnaires were administered to establish baseline levels of state anxiety and trait anxiety, respectively. Pre-procedure and post-procedure surveys assessed patient perception of select interventions. Results: 34 patients were enrolled (35.3% female, 91.2% white, mean age 60 years). Pre-procedure, 51.5% of patients reported some degree of worry about pain, 61.8% about gagging, 52.9% about dyspnea, and 55.9% about having something in their nose/throat. Post-procedure, 54.5% reported experiencing pain to some degree, 63.6% had gagging, 39.4% had dyspnea, and 78.7% were bothered by having something in their nose/throat. Patients who received a pre-procedure anxiolytic were significantly more likely to report more pain compared to those who did not. The highest rated interventions were pre-procedural education (97.0% “Very helpful”), verbal reassurance (96.9%), provider communicating steps of the procedure (96.9%), and reminders to breathe (87.5%). Conclusion: For patients undergoing awake laryngology procedures, the anticipation of gagging, pain, trouble breathing, and scope-related discomfort are worrisome factors. Of these, scope-related discomfort and gagging are the most often-reported sources of intraprocedural discomfort. The interventions patients found most helpful were based on preprocedural education and clear intraprocedural communication, which suggests that purposeful communication has a role in relieving anxiety. Level of evidence: Level 4

Abstract Introduction We describe the safety of sotorasib monotherapy in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and discuss practical recommendations for managing key risks. Methods Incidence rates of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were pooled from 4 clinical trials: CodeBreaK 100 (NCT03600883), CodeBreaK 101 (NCT04185883), CodeBreaK 105 (NCT04380753), and CodeBreaK 200 (NCT04303780) and graded according to CTCAE v5.0. Adverse events were deemed sotorasib-related per investigator causality assessment. Results In the pooled population (n = 549), TRAEs were reported in 388 (70.7%) patients (grade 1: 124 [22.6%]; grade 2: 117 [21.3%]; grade ≥ 3: 147 [26.8%]). Gastrointestinal and hepatic TRAEs, including diarrhea (171 [31.1%]), nausea (80 [14.6%]), elevated alanine aminotransferase (ALT; 68 [12.4%]), and elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST; 67 [12.2%]) were the most common (≥10%). Dose interruption and dose reduction of sotorasib resulted in the resolution of &gt;90% of diarrhea events; median time to resolution were 18.0 days and 22.0 days, respectively. Similar trends were observed for elevated ALT and AST events. Patients who stopped immunotherapy &lt;3 months before initiating sotorasib had a higher incidence of treatment-related hepatotoxicity (80/240 [33.3%]) than those who stopped immunotherapy ≥3 months before initiating sotorasib (26/188 [13.8%]). Treatment-related pneumonitis/interstitial lung disease (ILD) and corrected QT (QTc) prolongation were observed in 9 (1.6%) and 4 (0.7%) patients, respectively. Two (0.4%) patients died with TRAEs, 1 with ILD whose ultimate cause of death was disease progression, and the other with an unknown cause. Conclusions Sotorasib has a well-characterized safety profile in patients with KRAS G12C-mutated advanced NSCLC, and key risks are manageable with dose modification.