Citations

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

Background: The incidence and mortality of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) are rising, with greater than 80% of cases linked to human papillomavirus (HPV), primarily HPV16. Post-treatment surveillance can be challenging due to the limitations of anoscopy, digital anal rectal exam (DARE), and imaging. Plasma tumor tissue modified viral (TTMV)-HPV DNA has shown strong sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value in detecting the recurrence of HPV-driven oropharyngeal cancer. Here, we investigate the ability of TTMV-HPV DNA for the early recurrence detection of ASCC. Methods: This retrospective clinical case series included 117 patients with HPV-driven ASCC across 7 U.S. centers, monitored with TTMV-HPV DNA during routine clinical care between March 2020 and June 2024. Physician-reported clinical data and biomarker testing data were combined to create a comprehensive, longitudinal dataset for evaluating test performance metrics. Results: Patients had a median age of 63 years and median post-diagnosis follow-up of 19 months. HPV status was primarily confirmed by TTMV-HPV DNA (52%) or p16 immunohistochemistry (39%). Of those tested for TTMV-HPV DNA pretreatment, 85% had a positive result. TTMV-HPV DNA clearance during or within three months post-treatment was associated with significantly better recurrence-free survival. The per-patient surveillance sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were 82.8%, 98.4%, 96.0%, and 92.5%. Of 24 patients with a documented recurrence and a positive TTMV-HPV DNA test, the test was the first evidence of recurrence in 14 patients (58.3%), with a median lead time of 59 days (range: 10–536). TTMV-HPV DNA accurately resolved 94.3% of cases with indeterminate clinical findings. Conclusions: TTMV-HPV DNA testing provides a sensitive and specific approach for detecting patients with recurrent ASCC and resolving the status of patients with indeterminate clinical findings.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec) received regulatory approval for the treatment of relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) based on the MajesTEC-1 study. The risk of CRS and ICANS with Tec is well established with a manufacturer's recommendation of inpatient observation for 48-hours for CRS/ICANS monitoring after the initial 3 step up doses. There are limited real-world data on the characteristics of and risk factors for CRS and ICANS with Tec. Such data could inform management of Tec patients (pts), including patient selection for inpatient or outpatient step-up dosing. Methods: RRMM pts treated with standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in this analysis. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. CRS and ICANS classification was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading criteria. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to estimate the effects of covariates on CRS and ICANS events, with a particular focus on grade ≥2 CRS, any-grade ICANS, and the combination of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS. Results: 385 pts were included in the analysis, with a median of 6 lines of prior therapy. Median age was 68 years (range 31-92), 88 patients (25% of pts with available data) had ECOG ≥2, and 301 pts (78%) would have been ineligible for MajesTEC-1. 48 (33%) of 145 evaluable pts with a baseline bone marrow (BM) prior to Tec had >50% BM plasma cells, 139 pts (36%) had extramedullary disease (EMD) (either paraskeletal or true-EMD) and 5 pts (1%) had plasma cell leukemia prior to start of Tec. 224 pts (59%) received Tec with an accelerated step-up dosing regimen, defined as having at least one step-up dose interval of ≥ 2 days. 220 pts (57%) developed any-grade CRS [Grade 1: 46% (N=179), grade 2: 10% (N=37), grade 3: 0.8% (N=3), grade 4: 0.3% (N=1)]. Median time to CRS from start of Tec was 3 days (range, 0-15). Fifty-four pts (14%) developed any-grade ICANS [Grade 1: 7% (N=26), Grade 2: 5% (N=18), grade 3: 3% (N=10), grade 4: none]. There were no grade 5 CRS or ICANS events. Median time to onset of ICANS from start of Tec was 4 days (range, 0-25). There was one case of hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis in the entire cohort. 38% of pts received tocilizumab and 17% of pts received corticosteroids. In univariate analysis (UVA), baseline platelet <50, triple-class refractory, penta-refractory status, and EMD prior to start of Tec were associated with increased risk for CRS grade ≥2 (p-values <0.1) and incorporated in MVA. Baseline platelet <50, age >60, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, and ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile were associated with increased risk for any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Baseline platelet <50, ECOG ≥2, Hgb <8 g/dL, BM plasma cells >50%, ferritin or CRP in the upper quartile, and prior BCMA exposure were associated with increased risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in UVA (p-values <0.1). Accelerated step-up dosing, renal impairment (CrCl < 30 mL/min) and baseline LDH in the upper quartile were not associated with an increased risk of either CRS or ICANS in UVA. Baseline BM plasma cells >50% was excluded from multivariable analysis (MVA) due to high number of missing data, since most pts (62%) did not undergo BM biopsy prior to start of Tec. In MVA, risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 included baseline platelet <50 at the start of Tec treatment (OR: 2.35, 95% CI 1.08-5.08; p=0.03) and penta-refractory disease (OR: 2.48, 95% CI 1.13-5.45; p=0.02). Risk factors for any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 4.18, 95% CI 1.88-9.28; p=0.0004), age >60 (OR: 7.54, 95% CI 1.63-34.89; p=0.01) and CRP in the upper quartile (OR: 2.51, 95% CI 1.16-5.43; p=0.02). Risk factors for CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS included platelet <50 (OR: 2.65, 95% CI 1.42-4.94; p=0.002) and ECOG ≥2 (OR: 2.07, 95% CI 1.19-3.61; p=0.01). Conclusions: This real-world analysis of RRMM pts treated with Tec revealed comparable rates CRS and ICANS relative to the MajesTEC-1 study, and these were mostly limited to grade 1/2. MVA demonstrated a significantly higher risk of CRS grade ≥2 and/or any-grade ICANS in pts with baseline platelet <50 and/or ECOG ≥2, the former may reflect BM disease burden. These results may help identify pts who are at higher risk for IEC related toxicities with Tec that would warrant inpatient monitoring during initial step-up dosing. OP, AA, & LF: co-first authors. AG, HCL & JK: co-senior authors

Background Hispanic patients continue to be underrepresented in clinical trials. To better understand the factors that impact clinical trial participation, we surveyed patients with NHL receiving care at an academic institution on their perspectives on clinical trials, barriers to care, and helpful aids to encourage clinical trial participation. Here we report the findings of the Hispanic patients and non-Hispanic white patients; accrual is ongoing for other cohorts of patients. Methods Consecutive patients ≥ 18 years old with histologically confirmed NHL who received care at MD Anderson Cancer Center in the Texas Medical Center in Houston, Texas were invited to participate regardless of treatment status. A self-administered questionnaire was used to assess patient sociodemographic factors, perceptions and willingness to participate in different clinical trial scenarios as well as participant perceived barriers to care and facilitators of trial participation. The questionnaire included a total of 53 items with an additional 13 demographic items. The questionnaire was available in English and Spanish. Results Of the 1204 patients invited, 316 consented to participate and 285 ultimately completed the survey (participation rate 23.7%). Among the total participants, this cohort included 100 self-identified Hispanic (H) participants and 103 non-Hispanic white (NHW) participants diagnosed with NHL who completed the survey and were included here. The histology of our cohort included Follicular Lymphoma (FL) [35.6%]; Diffuse Large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) [18.2%], Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) [18.7%], T-cell Lymphoma (TCL) [9.4%] Marginal Zone Lymphoma [7.8%]. Compared with NHW participants, Hispanic patients were younger (Median age of 60 vs 66 years), less likely to be male (H 54% vs NHW 66%), less likely to commute more than an hour away from the doctor's office (54% vs 71.8%), had lower household income (income > $100,000 was 32% vs 41.7%) and less likely to have a bachelors' degree or higher (38% vs 50.5%). There were similar prevalence histologies such as DLBCL (H 20% vs NHW 16.5%) and FL (H 36% vs NHW 35%) compared to rarer histologies such as MCL (H 11.1% vs NHW 26.2%) and MZL (H 12% vs NHW 3.9% ) which had disproportional prevalences. Hispanic patients were less likely to have previously participated in a clinical trial (28% vs 51.5%) and less likely to have discussed clinical trials as an option (49% vs 70.9%). A majority of Hispanic (81.0%) and NHW (92.3%) respondents stated that they understood what was meant by a “clinical research study” or “clinical trial” somewhat well or very well. Less than half of Hispanic participants (38.0%) and NHW participants (48.5%) reported being very willing to participate in a cancer clinical trial as their initial course of treatment. The most prevalent concern of both Hispanic and NHW participants respectively was the cost of a clinical trial (34.0%, 22.3%). Other top concerns included distance to the treatment center (32.0%, 13.6%) and frequency of contact with the care team (26.0%, 14.6%). Participants identified access to written materials (69.0%, 60.2%), insurance aid (65.0%, 68.0%), and access to videos (64.0%, 51.5%) as extremely helpful resources that could reduce the burden of participating in a clinical trial. Participants identified that it was most important that a treatment may improve their quality of life by decreasing pain level, increasing activity level, or other symptoms (76.0%, 91.3%). Conclusions Although most Hispanic and NHW participants reported a very good understanding of clinical trials and similar facilitators/barriers for trial participation, Hispanic patients were less likely to have discussed trials as an option with their care teams and less likely to have previously participated in a trial. Evidence-based interventions to address various barriers to clinical trials exist but data on their effectiveness and application is limited. Implementing strategically designed evidence-based interventions to address identified barriers and facilitators will be necessary to improve participation in lymphoma clinical trials.

Background: Teclistamab (Tec), a first-in-class BCMA bispecific T-cell antibody, received regulatory approval for the treatment of RRMM based on the MajesTEC-1 study [Moreau et al, NEJM, 2022] which demonstrated an overall response rate (ORR) of 63% and median progression free survival (PFS) of 11.3 months. However, less than 15% (N=24) of patients (pts) enrolled in MajestTEC-1 were ≥75 years, an age cohort that is often underrepresented in clinical trials and comprises approximately one third of MM pts at diagnosis [SEER 22 2017-2021]. In this multicenter retrospective study, we report the real-world safety and efficacy of a large cohort of elderly (≥75 years) RRMM pts treated with Tec. Methods: Pts with RRMM who received standard-of-care Tec across 13 U.S. academic institutions were included in the study. The follow-up data cutoff was 30 April 2024. Pts were divided by age into two groups: age <75 years (<75 group) and age ≥75 years (≥75 group). High-risk cytogenetic abnormalities (HRCA) were defined as the presence of del(17p), t(4;14), t(14;16) and/or gain or amplification of 1q21. Disease response and progression was evaluated using IMWG criteria. Time-to-event analyses were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Cytokine release syndrome (CRS) and immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome (ICANS) assessment was based on the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy consensus grading. Results: Among 385 pts, 83 (22%) were in the ≥75 group (median age 78, range 75-92) and 302 (78%) in the <75 group (median age 65, range 31-74). Compared to pts in the <75 group, those in the ≥75 group were more often white (78% vs. 63%, p=0.009). Both the ≥75 and <75 age groups had a median of 6 prior lines of therapy, a similar proportion with ECOG ≥2 at start of Tec (29% vs. 24%, respectively; p=0.37), and a high proportion of pts with triple-class-refractory disease (77% vs. 85%, p=0.06) and pts who would have been ineligible MajesTEC-1 (73% vs. 80%, p=0.20). In contrast, pts in the ≥75 group had a lower incidence of adverse MM risk factors compared to the <75 group, including HRCA (44.6% vs. 57.9%, p=0.03), ultra high-risk (≥2 HRCA) MM (12% vs. 24%, p=0.02), extramedullary disease (22% vs. 40%, p=0.02), hemoglobin <8 g/dL (10% vs. 21%, p=0.02) or albumin <3 g/dL (6% vs. 19%, p=0.04) at the time of starting Tec. Moreover, a lower proportion of pts in the ≥75 group had prior autologous stem cell transplantation (43% vs. 72%, p<0.0001) or prior BCMA-directed therapy (33% vs. 55%, p=0.0003). The median time from diagnosis to start of Tec was longer for pts in the ≥75 group (7.21 years vs. 5.81 years, p=0.02). There was no significant difference in rates of any-grade CRS (52% vs. 59%, p=0.27), CRS grade 2-4 (10% vs. 11%, p=0.74) or any-grade ICANS (19% vs. 13%, p=0.12) between the ≥75 and <75 age groups, respectively. Four pts in the entire cohort developed CRS grade 3-4, one of whom was in the ≥75 group. Ten pts developed grade 3 ICANS (none grade 4), three of whom were in the ≥75 group. There was no significant difference between the ≥75 group and <75 group in ORR (62% vs. 53%, p=0.17) and ≥very good partial response (VGPR) rate (53% vs. 44%, p=0.14). After a median follow-up period of 9.9 months (95% CI 9.6-10.6 months), the median PFS in the ≥75 group was 10.7 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) vs. 5.2 months (95% CI 6.6-NR) in the <75 group (p=0.005). At the time of data cut-off, the median overall survival (OS) for pts in the ≥75 group had not been reached (95% CI NR - NR) compared to 16.1 months (95% CI 14.0 - NR) in the <75 group (p=0.048). In multivariable analysis for the entire cohort, age ≥75 was not significantly associated with either PFS (HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54-1.39; p=0.55) or OS (HR 0.60, 95% CI 0.30-1.19; p=0.15). Conclusions: This analysis of a large cohort of RRMM pts treated with Tec in the real-world setting demonstrates comparable efficacy and safety outcomes in elderly (aged ≥75 years) pts to those reported in the overall study population of MajesTEC-1. The adverse baseline disease characteristics and inferior efficacy in pts <75 years age compared to ≥75 years likely reflect patient selection and prescribing patterns in the early era of access to commercial BCMA bispecific therapy with Tec. In multivariable analysis there was no significant impact of age ≥75 on survival outcomes. OP, DD & LF: co-first authors. KKP, HCL & AGC: co-senior authors

Background: Tec is a BCMA-directed bispecific antibody (BsAb) approved for RRMM after ≥4 prior lines of therapy (LOT) based on the MajesTEC-1 trial. However, patients who had previously received a BCMA-DT were excluded from MajesTEC-1. Herein, we evaluated outcomes of RRMM patients with prior exposure to BCMA-DT treated with standard-of-care Tec. Methods: This was a multicenter retrospective cohort study. We compared variables between different groups using Chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and assessed progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier and Cox proportional hazards model. We used the maximally selected rank statistics method to determine the optimal cut-off point for continuous variables to find the most significant difference in PFS among different groups. Results: A total of 385 patients were included in this study. 193 patients had received a prior BCMA-DT, of whom 77%, 22%, and 1% had received 1, 2, and 3 prior anti-BCMA agents, respectively. In patients who had received a prior BCMA-DT, 35% were aged ≥70 years, 24% had ECOG performance status (PS) ≥2, 61% had high-risk FISH, 32% had extramedullary disease (EMD) at Tec initiation, and 42% were penta-refractory. Compared to the cohort without prior BCMA-DT (n=192), patients who were treated with prior BCMA-DT were more likely to have high risk FISH (61% vs 49%, p=0.02), and higher median number of prior LOT (7 vs 5, p <0.001). The specific types of prior BCMA-DTs with the respective overall response rate (ORR) to the most recent prior BCMA-DT were: antibody drug conjugate only (ADC, n=47, ORR 43%), chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy only (CAR T, n=99, ORR 86%), BsAb only (n=6, ORR 100%), ADC + CAR T (n=36, ORR 56%), and other ADC/CAR T/BsAb combinations (n=5, ORR 60%). Median follow up was 9.9 (95% CI:9.5-10.6) months. Patients with prior receipt of BCMA-DT had a lower ORR (51.4% vs 61.5%; p=0.012) and ≥very good partial response rate (39.4% vs 52.6%, p=0.009), but similar ≥complete response rate (22.3% vs 24%; p=0.78) to Tec compared to those without prior BCMA-DT. Moreover, patients with prior BCMA-DT had worse median PFS compared to patients without prior BCMA-DT (prior BCMA-DT: 4.6 months, 95% CI: 2.7-7.5; without prior BCMA-DT: 8.2 months, 95% CI: 5.7-12.2; p=0.017). On multivariable analysis incorporating prior BCMA-DT, age, cytogenetics, EMD, and ECOG PS, receipt of prior BCMA-DT was not independently associated with PFS (HR 1.25, 95% CI 0.95-1.64, p=0.1). The estimated 1-year OS rate was 58.9% (95% CI: 51.64-67.2) for the prior BCMA-DT group vs 65.1% (95% CI: 58.1-73.1) for the group without prior BCMA-DT, p=0.16. For the prior BCMA-DT cohort, response rates to Tec were numerically higher in patients who received CAR T (ORR 51.2%) followed by ADC (ORR 45.5%), and bispecific (ORR 30%) as their most recent prior BCMA-DT (p=0.39). No significant difference in PFS was noted when stratifying patients by number of prior BCMA-DTs, types of all prior BCMA-DTs received, type of most recent prior BCMA-DT, or depth of response to most recent BCMA-DT. Patients who responded to Tec had a numerically longer median time from most recent BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation compared to non-responders: 10.5 vs 7.5 months, p=0.48. We found that the optimal cut-off for time from last BCMA-DT exposure to Tec initiation was 8.7 months. Patients with > 8.7 months between last exposure to prior BCMA-DT and Tec initiation had a superior median PFS with Tec (8.1 months, 95% CI: 4.6-11.7) compared to patients with < 8.7 months from last exposure to prior BCMA-DT (2.5 months, 95% CI: 1.1-5.7), p=0.001. The toxicity profile for patients with prior BCMA-DT was similar to those who had not received a prior BCMA-DT. Grade ≥2 CRS occurred in 8.7% vs 13% (p=0.18), and grade ≥2 ICANS in 7.7% vs 6.7%, (p=0.85) of patients with and without prior BCMA-DT, respectively. Patients in the prior BCMA-DT cohort were more likely to have grade 3 thrombocytopenia in the first 30 days after Tec initiation (10.7% vs 6.6%; p=0.08). Conclusion: This is the largest study to date of any BCMA-directed BsAb among BCMA-exposed patients. Receipt of prior BCMA-DT was associated with a trend toward worse PFS, although not statistically significant, and lower likelihood of attaining an overall response. Waiting >9 months between sequencing BCMA therapies may be associated with improved PFS. D.D., M.A.V.M., J.A.D: co first authors; F.A., C.F., L.S.: co senior authors

Introduction: T-PLL is a rare, aggressive malignancy with poor prognosis and limited therapies. Outside of prospective trials utilizing alemtuzumab, data is derived primarily from small retrospective series, and limited data on survival outcomes and therapeutic efficacy, particularly beyond frontline therapy are available. In this large multi-center series, with comprehensive clinical data, we evaluated survival and therapeutic outcomes in T-PLL patients, with a focus on identification of prognostic subgroups of T-PLL, that will inform future investigations into the biology and treatment of this disease. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated all patients diagnosed with T-PLL at 15 academic cancer centers throughout the USA between 2000-2023 using the recent TPLL-ISG staging and response criteria with overall response rate (ORR) defined as CR and PR. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier methods and cox proportional hazard models. Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNAseq) was performed using the standard 10X Genomics platform. Results: 377 patients, with a median follow-up time of 29 months (range: 0-196) were evaluated. The median age at diagnosis was 64 and 51% were male. In evaluated patients (n=223), TCL1A was positive by cytogenetics or FISH in 82%. 61% of patients had CD4+CD8- T-PLL, 11% of patients had CD4-CD8+ T-PLL, and 24% of patients had CD4+CD8+ T-PLL, with 4% unknown. 175 patients (46.4%) had known nodal involvement at diagnosis identified by PET or CT scan. Among treated patients (n=342, 91%), using TPLL-ISG criteria, the ORR to any frontline treatment was 67% (49% CR, 18% PR). Median OS and PFS was 19 months and 10 months in responding patients from the start of treatment initiation. For those treated with frontline alemtuzumab (n=250), the ORR was 74% (58% CR), with a median OS and PFS of 18 and 12 months. 20 patients (5%) were treated with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin frontline with an ORR of 85% (70% CR), which was superior to alemtuzumab alone (ORR 74%, 58% CR). Patients that had frontline chemotherapy (excluding pentostatin, n=48) had a worse ORR of 35% (15% CR) (p<0.001), and a worse PFS of 4 months (p=0.002), when compared to those who received alemtuzumab. Among patients in 1st CR/PR (n=226), 44% (n=99) received an allograft and had an improved 3-year OS of 50% vs 17%, (HR=0.67, 95%CI 0.48-0.93), and 50% improvement in PFS (HR 0.48, 0.33-0.68) compared to those who did not receive an allograft. For patients that received second line treatment (n=176, 52%), re-treatment with alemtuzumab (n=33) produced a 46% ORR (21% CR). Other active second-line treatments included: pentostatin (n=23; 44% ORR, 17% CR), ruxolitinib-based regimens (n=4; 25% ORR, 0% CR), venetoclax-based regimens (n=13; 39% ORR, 8% CR), bendamustine (n=10; 30% ORR, 0% CR), and nelarabine (n=4; 75% ORR, 50% CR). In subgroup survival analysis, TCL1A+ patients had a worse OS and PFS when compared to TCL1A- patients (23 months vs 43 months; p=0.02), and (14 months vs 24 months; p=0.02) respectively, with HR 1.58 (1.08, 2.31) (p=0.02) for OS and HR 1.62 (1.09-2.40) (p=0.02) for PFS. Furthermore, CD4- T-PLL had worse OS (16 months vs 25 months) when compared to CD4+ patients [HR 1.57 (1.08, 2.27), p=0.02]. Single cell RNA seq in 13 patients, including 3 TCL1A- patients, with a total of 66,269 T-PLL cells, demonstrated a unique RNA signature between the CD4+/- and TCL1A+/- patients, suggesting these represent unique molecular subtypes of T-PLL. Conclusions: In this large, multi-center study of T-PLL, frontline treatment with a combination of alemtuzumab/pentostatin improved response rates and OS. Further, among patients who attained a CR, allograft improved OS & PFS vs no allograft. In relapsed T-PLL, retreatment with alemtuzumab had a high ORR, and we report significant activity of multiple novel/alternative agents with the largest reported numbers to date. Intriguingly, TCL1A+, and CD4- T- PLL had worse OS/PFS, and scRNAseq confirmed unique molecular signatures in these populations, suggesting these represent novel molecular subtypes of T-PLL with prognostic significance. These studies form the foundation for future, targeted, therapeutic studies in this rare, aggressive disease with few treatment options.

Our polyvinyl alcohol feedstock was prepared through carbic anhydride functionalization, UV curing during direct ink writing, and base treatment. The scaffold exhibited mechanical properties similar to pelvic floor tissue.

Background: PAINESD score was established as a predictor of periprocedural acute hemodynamic instability, long-term mortality and heart failure among patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT-CA). Objective: To assess the validity of PAINESD score and compare outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) with and without mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use during procedure. Methods: We conducted an observational dual-center study of consecutive patients with SHD undergoing VT-CA over a decade (2012-2022). The PAINESD score, based on 7 variables (COPD, age >60 years, general anesthesia, ischemic cardiomyopathy, NYHA class III or IV, ejection fraction <25%, VT storm, and diabetes mellitus), was calculated and categorized into low risk (<10), intermediate risk (10-16), and high risk (>16) as previously reported. Two survival analyses were performed to compare outcomes between different groups: one using all-cause mortality or heart transplant as the event, and another using recurrent or repeat ablation as the event. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios for each PAINESD category and to determine the hazard ratio for the use of MCS among high-risk patients. Results: We found that between 2012 to 2022, 559 ablations were performed on 441 patients. There were 296 (53%), 182 (32.6%) and 81(14.5%) patients in low, medium, and high risk. Using low risk as reference, aHR for medium risk was 2.1 (1.24-3.7; p=0.006) and for high risk was 4.6(2.54-8.3; p <0.001). Among patients with high PAINESD score (n=81), 5 patients (6.2%) required MCS (Intra-arterial balloon pump (IABP)=1, ECMO only=1, ECMO+IABP=1, bypass=2). 4/5 (80%) patients on MCS stayed on them post procedure, except one patient on IABP. In this cohort, there was no difference between patients with and without MCS in primary outcome [aHR= 1.6 (0.48-5.4); p=0.43] and in secondary OUTCOME [1.29 (0.3-5.5; p=0.735)]. Conclusion: PAINESD was a significant predictor of mortality or heart failure, but it did not help in prediction of recurrence of VT, or repeat VT-CA.

Background: Patients undergoing epicardial access for ventricular tachycardia (VT) have a higher rate of complications and VT recurrence post-procedure. Data regarding electrophysiological factors driving the outcomes are scant. Objective: To compare the factors and outcomes associated with epicardial vs endocardial VT ablation. Methods: A single-center, retrospective study of patients undergoing catheter ablation for scar-related VT was conducted. Data collected included demographics, comorbidities, medications, relevant laboratory abnormalities, electrocardiograms, echocardiograms, detailed procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Results: Our cohort of 554 patients had 89 (16.1%) epicardial and 465 (83.9%) endocardial VT ablations. Patients undergoing epicardial ablation had a greater frequency of NICM, and more patients had undergone sympathetic modulation for VT (p < 0.05) but had lesser frequency of valve surgery, and CABG. Epicardial ablation was associated with greater use of both short-term (<3 months) and long-term (>6 months) anti-arrhythmic drugs (AAD) (p<0.01). Epicardial access was obtained by micropuncture or needle-in-needle technique for 22.5% (n=20) of patients. Except for more use of general anesthesia and the lesser usage of drugs for VT induction during epicardial procedures, there were no significant differences. Epicardial ablation had a higher risk of acute complications (<30 days) after the procedure (driven by pericarditis) (25% vs 7.8%, p<0.01). On survival analysis, epicardial access was associated with an increase in VT recurrence and repeat ablation (p<0.01) during a mean follow-up of 1072 days. On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for age, sex and comorbidities, epicardial access was an independent predictor of VT recurrence or repeat ablation [aHR 1.61 (CI: 1.18- 2.2)] Conclusion: Patients undergoing epicardial ablations with fewer comorbidities demonstrated increased AAD usage prior to and after the procedure, and a higher risk of acute complications after the procedure. Epicardial access was an independent predictor of VT recurrence or repeat ablation.