Citations

Introduction: Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source (ESUS) represents about 25% of ischemic strokes, with patent foramen ovale (PFO) involved in roughly 25% of those cases. Recent studies (REDUCE, CLOSE, RESPECT) indicate that PFO closure may benefit select patients. Accurate PFO diagnosis is crucial for treatment decisions but current methods, such as transcranial Doppler (TCD) with bubble study, transthoracic echocardiography with bubble study (TTE), transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), and cardiac computed tomography (CT), vary in accuracy. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of TCD compared to TTE, TEE, and cardiac CT, to determine the most reliable modality for detecting PFO in patients with ESUS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of ESUS patients aged 18 and older referred to our vascular lab between July 2023 and September 2024. Each patient underwent at least two PFO detection methods: TCD with bubble study, TTE with bubble study, TEE, and cardiac CT. PFO presence was confirmed if identified by at least two detection methods. Patients with extracardiac shunts were excluded. Sensitivity, specificity, and overall test performance were evaluated using the Area Under the Curve (AUC) of a Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve, with higher AUC values indicating better performance. Differences in AUCs were assessed using DeLong’s test. Statistical analysis was performed using Analyse-it for Microsoft Excel (version 2.30). Results: Of 187 enrolled patients, 63 (33.7%) had evidence of right-to-left shunt. The mean age of the cohort was 63 ± 18 years, with 51% being male. PFO was confirmed in 36 patients. Sensitivity was highest for TCD (93.1%), followed by TTE (87.1%), TEE (86.7%), and cardiac CT (42.9%). Specificity was highest for cardiac CT (87.5%), followed by TTE (84%), TCD (59.1%), and TEE (47.1%). The AUC was highest for TTE (AUC: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.76–0.95), followed by TCD (AUC: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.64–0.87), TEE (AUC: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.50–0.81), and cardiac CT (AUC: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.42–0.88). No statistically significant differences in diagnostic performance across pairwise comparisons were found (p > 0.05). Conclusion: TCD with bubble study is highly sensitive for screening right-to-left shunt, while cardiac CT is highly specific for detecting PFO in ESUS patients. Further studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings and refine diagnostic strategies.

AbstractBackgroundExternal‐beam radiation (EBRT) is a noninvasive therapeutic alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of prospective randomized clinical trials to assess the clinical efficacy of EBRT versus TACE for HCC as either a definitive monotherapy or as a bridge to transplantation/surgery.MethodsA systematic review and meta‐analysis were performed to include prospective randomized trials comparing EBRT versus TACE. Data was analyzed with random and fixed‐effects models. The inconsistency index (I2) was chosen to assess heterogeneity. Three publications were included with a total of 142 patients. Outcomes included local control (LC), overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and occurrences of grade ≥3 toxicity. Comparisons are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) or risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsThere were three randomized trials that met inclusion criteria. The EBRT was delivered in three to 15 fractions with a total dose between 30 and 75 gray(Gy). EBRT was associated with significantly improved LC (HR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08–0.34; I2 = 0%) and PFS (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.23–0.60; I2, 0%) compared with TACE. There was no significant difference between EBRT and TACE in OS (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.51–1.22; I2 = 0%) or grade ≥3 toxicity (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.31–2.37; I2 = 57%). None of the analyses had statistically significant heterogeneity.ConclusionsCompared with TACE, EBRT yields superior LC and PFS without providing a survival benefit in early and intermediate stage HCC. Additional larger prospective randomized controlled trials should be conducted to further investigate differences in clinical outcomes amongst patients with more advanced disease.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONPlasma amyloid beta42/amyloid beta40 (Aβ42/Aβ40) and phosphorylated tau217 (p‐tau217) identify individuals with primary Alzheimer's disease (AD). They may detect AD co‐pathology in the setting of other primary neurodegenerative diseases, but this has not been systematically studied.METHODSWe compared the clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathological associations of plasma Aβ42/Aβ40 (mass spectrometry), p‐tau217 (electrochemiluminescence), and neurofilament light ([NfL], single molecule array [Simoa]), as markers of AD co‐pathology, in a sporadic frontotemporal dementia (FTD) cohort (n = 620).RESULTSAβ42/Aβ40 showed no clinicopathological associations. High p‐tau217 was present in amnestic dementia (AmD) presumed to be due to FTD, logopenic primary progressive aphasia (lvPPA), and APOEε4 carriers, and correlated with worse baseline and longitudinal clinical scores, lower hippocampal volumes, and more severe AD co‐pathology (Braak Stage). NfL was elevated in all FTD phenotypes, and correlated with clinical scores and frontotemporal brain volumes.DISCUSSIONPlasma p‐tau217 has clinical, neuroimaging, and neuropathological correlates in sporadic FTD and may identify FTD cases with AD co‐pathology.Highlights Alzheimer's disease (AD) features could be identified with plasma phosphorylated tau217 (p‐tau217) in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD). Plasma p‐tau217 is a better discriminator of AD co‐pathology and AD‐associated features in FTLD than plasma amyloid beta42/amyloid beta40 (Aβ42/Aβ40) and neurofilament light (NfL). In FTLD, plasma p‐tau217, but not Aβ42/Aβ40 or neurofilament light, has phenotypical, neurocognitive, and neuroimaging correlates suggestive of AD co‐pathology.

Abstract Background Transthoracic echocardiography is the primary modality used for the assessment of the pericardial space. Guidelines recommend semi-qualitative assessment of the size of a pericardial effusion with characterization as trace, small, moderate or large. The reproducibility and association of this characterization is variable. Whether simple 2D-based quantitative measures of effusion size better associate with pericardial volumes is unclear. An accurate measure of pericardial volume would be helpful for tracking patients over time. Purpose To test whether 2D-based measures of the pericardial space could accurately predict pericardial volumes. Methods We retrospectively assessed a series of echos performed immediately prior to pericardiocentesis. 2D-based area tracings from the parasternal long and short axis at the papillary muscle level as well as 2D volumetric tracings from the apical 4 chamber view using the Simpson's method were tested with the operator blinded to the true pericardial volume (recorded at pericardiocentesis). Patients who underwent pericardiocentesis in setting of acute perforation were excluded as were patients where pericardiocentesis was unsuccessful or incomplete. Pericardial fluid area or volume was calculated by taking the difference between the measures obtained by tracing the epicardial border of the heart and pericardium (figure 1). Results The median pericardiocentesis (n=118) fluid volume was 500 mL (IQR 350 – 750 mL) with a range, 95–2300 mL. The pericardial fluid was serous (22%), sero-sanguineous (37%) and sanguineous in 41%. The effusion was malignant in 24 cases and due to inflammation in 42 cases. Pericardial area traces from either the parasternal short (r=0.56, p<.0001) or long axis (r=0.62, p<.0001) correlated modestly with measured pericardial volume. The average volume estimated echocardiographically by the Simpson’s method was 580 ± 359 mL (range, 85.8–2419 mL). There was stronger linear correlation between echocardiographic (apical 4-chamber measurement) and pericardiocentesis-derived volumes (r=0.92, p < 0.0001; figure 2A). Etiology of the pericardial effusion was not associated with estimates of pericardial volumes. There was a large overlap in pericardial volume amongst the reading physician qualitative grading of effusion size (figure 2B). Categorization of pericardial effusion size was improved when based on volumetric estimates (Kappa 0.65) rather than physician estimates (Kappa 0.32; Figure 2B). Variation between measured pericardial volume and actual pericardial volume was most related to the quality of the image and the likely extent to which the pericardial fluid was not entirely captured in the image window. Conclusion Two-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography using biplane Simpson’s method of disks can simply and reasonably accurately estimate the pericardial effusion volume. This technique may add value in the serial assessment of pericardial effusions. Figure 2

Background: It has been demonstrated that an athlete’s psychological readiness contributes to one’s ability to successfully return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the effect of graft choice on psychological readiness is not yet understood. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between graft choice and an athlete’s psychological readiness to RTS. It was hypothesized that similar ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scores would be achieved among patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with quadriceps autograft (QA), hamstring tendon autograft (HA), and bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction at a single institution between January 2017 and December 2018 were placed into separate cohorts depending on graft type (HA, BTB, or QA; n = 30 patients in each group), and the ACL-RSI, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, and Lysholm scores were compared between the different graft cohorts at 6 months postoperatively, at RTS, and at 2 years postoperatively. Also, the rate of patients who achieved an ACL-RSI score of ≥65 (predictive of return to preinjury sport at 2 years postoperatively) was calculated, as was the RTS rate and time. Results: The QA group demonstrated significantly higher ACL-RSI scores than both the HA and BTB groups at 6 months postoperatively ( P < .0001) and RTS ( P = .011). The QA group also had a higher rate of achieving ≥65 on ACL-RSI than the other groups at 6 months postoperatively ( P = .002) and RTS ( P = .024). There was no significant difference in the RTS rate between the 3 groups, although the QA group demonstrated a significantly quicker return (QA, 8.1 months; BTB, 9.6 months; HA, 10.5 months; P < .001). Conclusion: Athletes undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with QA achieved a higher mean ACL-RSI score and more often achieved a score of ≥65 at the 6-month and RTS time points compared with the HA and BTB groups. QA may afford an advantage over other grafts in terms of improved psychological readiness to RTS.

Summary LINE-1 retrotransposons, comprising 17% of the genome, drive cancer instability through hypomethylation. The Detection of long Interspersed nuclear element Altered Methylation ON plasma DNA (DIAMOND) assay, targeting LINE-1 hypomethylation with bisulfite sequencing of cell-free DNA, achieved AUCs of 88% to 100% across six cancer types, surpassing mutation-based diagnostics and suggesting utility in early cancer detection and management. See related article by Michel et al., p. 1275

Key Points Studies on GFR assessment in people with cancer are needed. In this study, the creatinine–cystatin C equations performed better than other equations, and this was observed in solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support to the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in people with cancer. Background GFR assessment is important in clinical practice with implications for diagnosis, prognostication, and drug dosing. People with cancer are at risk of imprecision in GFR estimation. This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance of various creatinine and cystatin C–based equations in comparison with measured GFR (mGFR) in people with cancer. Methods We retrieved data for all adult patients who had mGFR by urinary iothalamate clearance between 2011 and 2023 at Mayo Clinic and use of an electronic health record diagnosis code for cancer within 2 years before mGFR. The CKD Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI), European Kidney Function Consortium, and Cockcroft–Gault equations were computed, along with performance metrics (bias, precision, and root mean square error [RMSE]. Confidence intervals were generated by bootstrapping, and analysis were stratified by solid and hematological cancers. Results From all adults with cancer and mGFR, 1145 had both creatinine and cystatin C available within 7 days of mGFR. Among all equations, the creatinine–cystatin C CKD-EPI equation provided the best performance, with small bias (median, 3.0; 95% confidence interval, 2.3 to 3.8) and higher precision (RMSE, 14.5) compared with creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations (RMSE varying from 16.6 to 20), and this was also true in solid and hematological cancers. The creatinine–cystatin European Kidney Function Consortium equation had a similar performance to CKD-EPI, Cockcroft–Gault showed worst precision (30% of people with errors above 30%), and cystatin C CKD-EPI equation was the most biased, prone to underestimation of mGFR. Conclusions In our cohort of patients with mGFR and cancer, the CKD-EPI creatinine–cystatin C equation performed best for GFR assessment, and this was true for both solid and hematological cancers. Our findings give support for the preferential use of creatinine and cystatin C–based equations instead of creatinine-only or cystatin C–only equations in people with cancer. Podcast This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2025_03_25_CJASNMar20.3.3252025.mp3

LBA14 Background: CALGB/SWOG 80702 previously showed that the addition of celecoxib to standard adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX did not significantly improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage III colon cancer. Here, we evaluated the prognostic and predictive value of ctDNA in identifying a subpopulation of patients who may benefit from celecoxib. Methods: In the subset of patients with adequate biospecimens who participated in CALGB/SWOG 80702, a randomized phase III trial of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) +/- celecoxib, ctDNA assessment was performed using a clinically validated, tumor-informed 16-plex mPCR-NGS assay (Signatera(TM), Natera, Inc.) after surgery and before the start of adjuvant therapy (baseline). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to describe the distribution of survival time based on ctDNA positivity and log-rank testing was performed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to examine unadjusted associations between ctDNA positivity and disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Two-sided P values equal to or less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant, except for interaction P values (tested with a likelihood ratio). Results: In total, 1,011 of the 2,526 patients who participated in 80702 had ctDNA testing results from baseline; 189 were ctDNA positive (18.7%). ctDNA positivity associated with male sex, higher T stage, and N2 (versus N1) stage. ctDNA positivity was significantly associated with worse DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 6.52 [95% confident interval (CI) 5.09-8.34; p<0.0001] and OS (HR 6.28 [95% CI 4.63-8.51; p<0.0001]). Three-year DFS was 86.6% in ctDNA-negative cases and 36.8% in ctDNA-positive cases. Among patients who were ctDNA negative, celecoxib use was not significantly associated with worse DFS as compared to placebo (HR 0.75 [95% CI 0.54-1.05; p=0.095]) with a three-year DFS of 87.7% versus 85.5%, respectively. Among ctDNA-positive patients, celecoxib significantly improved DFS compared to placebo (HR 0.59 [95% CI 0.42-0.85; p=0.004]) with a three-year DFS of 44.1% versus 26.6% (P interaction = 0.25). Similar results were seen for overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (95% CI 0.56-1.33; p=0.49) for ctDNA negative cases and 0.63 (95% CI 0.41-0.96; p=0.028) for ctDNA-positive cases for celecoxib versus placebo (P interaction = 0.28). Conclusion: In a randomized phase III adjuvant therapy trial for stage III colon cancer, ctDNA was highly prognostic of DFS and OS. ctDNA positivity also appeared predictive of the benefit of adjuvant celecoxib for DFS and OS. These results suggest a potential role for ctDNA in determining which patients should consider celecoxib in addition to standard FOLFOX adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01150045 .

666 Background: In the phase 3 CABINET trial (NCT03375320), cabozantinib (CABO) significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (PFS) compared to placebo (PB) in patients with advanced, previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic NET (epNET) [HR 0.38 (95% CI, 0.25-0.59, P<0.0001)] and pancreatic NET (pNET) [HR 0.23 (95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P<0.0001)] (Chan et al., NEJM, 2024). In this analysis, we focus on outcomes of patients with epNET arising in the GI tract. Methods: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized 2:1 in separate cohorts to receive CABO 60 mg daily vs PB. The epNET cohort included patients with tumors arising in the GI tract (not including pancreas), lung, unknown primary, and other rare primary sites. In this subgroup analysis of the epNET cohort, patients with GI NET were included. Eligibility included progression by RECIST within 12 months (mo) prior to registration, ≥ 1 prior systemic therapy. Primary endpoint: PFS by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate, overall survival, safety. Results: 116 of the 203 patients in the epNET cohort had GI NET (CABO, n=70; PB, n=46). Median age was 66 yrs; females: 46%; G1/G2/G3/unknown grade: 35%/57%/6%/2%. ECOG performance status: 0/1-2: 43%/57%. White race: 86%. The most common primary tumor locations were ileum/cecum (54%), small intestine with location not specified (20%); non-cecum colon or rectum (11%), stomach (4%); duodenum (3%); jejunum and nonspecified midgut site (3% each). Prior systemic therapies included somatostatin analogs (SSA) (100%), everolimus (59%); Lu-177 dotatate (77%); temozolomide +/- capecitabine (16%). In patients with GI NET, CABO was associated with improved PFS by BICR compared to PB (stratified HR, 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.88, 1-sided stratified log-rank P=0.007). Median PFS with cabozantinib was 8.5 mo (95% CI, 6.0-16.7) compared to 5.6 mo (95% CI, 3.9-11.0) with PB. CABO demonstrated potential benefit in patients with midgut GI NET and across clinical factors including grade, functional status related to hormone secretion, concurrent SSA use, and prior therapy with Lu-177 dotatate or everolimus. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events attributed to therapy with CABO included hypertension (19%), diarrhea (13%), fatigue (10%). Conclusions: CABO is associated with improvement in PFS compared to PB in patients with advanced GI NET. Potential benefit was observed across clinical factors including grade, functional status, concurrent SSA, and prior treatment. The safety profile for CABO in patients with GI NET is consistent with that previously reported. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180820 (ECOG-ACRIN), U10CA180868 (NRG Oncology), U10CA180888 (SWOG); Exelixis; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

TPS788 Background: MSLN is a desirable candidate for targeted therapy given its limited expression in normal tissues and its overexpression in several malignancies, including PANC, mesothelioma, non-small cell lung, and ovarian cancers (TCGA 2022). MSLN-targeted CAR T and T-cell receptor therapies have shown promising clinical activity; however, on-target, off-tumor toxicity, including fatal events, have occurred (1-3). Autologous logic-gated Tmod CAR T therapies address the challenges of on-target, off-tumor toxicity by combining 2 CARs: activating and blocking receptors. The activator recognizes a tumor-associated antigen present on the surface of both tumor and normal cells; the blocker prevents CAR T activity when it binds HLA-A*02, which is present in normal cells and often lost in tumor cells. Thus, in patients with tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH, the blocker prevents on-target, off-tumor toxicity on normal cells due to retained HLA-A*02 expression (4). HLA-A*02 LOH is observed in various solid tumors, including ~20% of PANC (5). Two autologous CAR T therapies are currently under investigation: A2B530, targeting carcinoembryonic antigen, in the EVEREST-1 trial, and A2B694, targeting MSLN, in the EVEREST-2 trial, described herein. A2B694 may provide a therapeutic window to treat patients with PANC and other MSLN-expressing solid tumors exhibiting HLA-A*02 LOH due to its unique discriminatory mechanism. Methods: EVEREST-2 (NCT06051695) is a first-in-human, phase 1/2, open-label, nonrandomized study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of A2B694 for recurrent unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic cancers with MSLN expression, including PANC. Eligible patients must have exhausted options of potentially curative therapy and have recurrent disease. Enrollment to EVEREST-2 occurs through the prescreening study BASECAMP-1 (NCT04981119), in which patients with tumor-associated HLA-A*02 LOH are identified via next-generation sequencing (Tempus AI, Inc) and leukapheresis product is collected. A2B694 is manufactured from cryopreserved T cells when clinically appropriate for patients. The primary objective of phase 1 is to evaluate the safety and tolerability of A2B694 and identify the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). The dose-expansion phase will confirm RP2D and collect biomarker data to further characterize A2B694. Phase 2 will assess the primary endpoint overall response rate per RECIST v1.1 and secondary endpoints progression-free survival and overall survival. The first patient was dosed on April 24, 2024 and dose escalation is ongoing. 1. Beatty, et al. Gastroenterology . 2018. 2. Haas, et al. Mol Ther . 2023. 3. Hong, et al. ESMO 2021. Abstr 9590. 4. Hamburger, et al. Mol Immunol . 2020. 5. Hecht, et al. J Clin Oncol . 2022. Clinical trial information: NCT06051695 .