Citations

Abstract Introduction: The landscape of classical hematology has undergone substantial evolution over the last decade, marked by new diagnostic tools, nuanced therapeutic strategies, and an expanding understanding of underlying pathophysiology. This increasing complexity often presents unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. These challenges are further compounded by workforce shortages in classical hematology marked by educational gaps, geographic limitations, and difficulty accessing prompt specialty care. Unlike the well-established “Tumor Boards” in oncology, a comparable dedicated, widely accessible forum for classical hematology has largely been absent. This gap contributes to potential practice heterogeneity and isolation, especially across dissimilar care settings and geographic regions, impacting the consistent application of evidence-based practices and access to specialized expertise. To address this critical need, the “Blood Board” initiative was created to serve as an informal, virtual resource for discussing classical hematology topics and cases, fostering diverse perspectives, and collaborative problem-solving. Methods: The Blood Board was formally launched in April 2025, operating as a bi-monthly, hour-long virtual meeting conducted via non-recorded videoconferencing. The forum was designed with broad inclusivity in mind, welcoming all healthcare professionals involved in the care of adult patients with classical hematologic disorders, including trainees such as hematology/oncology fellows, academic and community-based hematologists, and any other interested providers. To date, dissemination of this initiative has been by word of mouth and e-mails containing a calendar invitation have been sent to anyone interested in participating (https://forms.gle/doyHNSx1SVFBJZmy8). To facilitate participation from various practice models and geographical locations, the virtual format was prioritized, eliminating barriers of travel and time commitment often associated with traditional in-person conferences. Participation is voluntary, encouraging an open and informal environment for de-identified case presentations, didactic discussions, and expert opinion sharing. Self-reported data on participant demographics (e.g., role, practice setting) and geographical representation have been collected to assess the initiative's reach and impact. Results: To date, sessions have consistently garnered engagement with a median of five participants in attendance at each session. There have been over 20 unique participants representing a broad spectrum of roles including both trainees and practicing hematologists/hematologist-oncologists and drawing from private practice, community-based hospitals, and academic medical centers. Over half of all participants were either in fellowship or within five years of completion of training. The virtual format has successfully overcome geographical limitations, attracting attendees from numerous states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Wisconsin highlighting its broad appeal and potential for knowledge dissemination across a wide professional network. Conclusions: The Blood Board has demonstrated utility and met a previously unaddressed need. Sustained intellectual interest in Blood Board, coupled with a wide geographical and professional reach underscores a critical role for accessible, free, and multidisciplinary collaborative platforms in the evolving field of classical hematology. Similar to Tumor Boards, Blood Board promotes knowledge exchange and evidence-based care, garners expert support for challenging cases, and harmonizes clinical approaches, which we hope may ultimately improve patient care outcomes across diverse settings. Furthermore, this platform facilitates a national classical hematology community to support workforce development. Future goals include expanding dissemination efforts, measuring specific educational benefits, analyzing impacts on patient care, and increasing participant diversity, including recruitment of advanced practice providers and pharmacists.

Background: Breast cancer survivors face a risk of significant psychological distress, which can persist for years after their initial diagnosis. Although numerous guidelines and tools exist to help screen for and measure distress in patients with cancer, additional longitudinal studies are needed to better characterize the trajectory of distress over time. Patients and Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study to evaluate distress and health-related quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Annual assessments included global mental and physical health scores using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 (PROMIS-10), posttraumatic stress symptoms using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and depressive symptoms using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2). Eligible participants had stage 0–III breast cancer, with baseline surveys administered within 1 year of diagnosis. Annual follow-up surveys were conducted through year 4 after the baseline survey. Only patients who completed the baseline survey and at least one follow-up survey were included in this analysis. Individuals with stage IV or recurrent breast cancer were excluded. Results: A total of 2,140 individuals were included. Over time, global mental health scores declined slightly, with differences in T-scores from baseline ranging from 0.4 to 0.9. In contrast, global physical health scores improved, with differences in T-scores ranging from 0.3 to 0.6. Mean scores remained in the normative range. Depressive symptoms remained stable throughout the study period, while posttraumatic stress symptoms showed improvement over time. Conclusions: This study provides important longitudinal data on distress subtypes in breast cancer survivors with nonmetastatic disease. Although global mental health declined slightly, depression symptoms remained stable, and posttraumatic stress symptoms improved. Investigation of distress subtypes over time merits further study to advance detection of significant distress across the cancer continuum.

3020 Background: Radioligand therapy (RLT) use has been increasing with the approval of 177Lu-Dotatate for metastatic neuroendocrine tumors (NET) & 177Lu-PSMA-617 for metastatic castration resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Therapy-related myeloid neoplasms [tMN, including myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) & acute myeloid leukemia, (AML)] have been reported after 177Lutetium (177Lu) for NET with rates of 2-20% & median time from first 177Lu to tMN of 2.8yrs [4-12]. Clonal hematopoiesis (CH) is a risk factor for tMN, with the spectrum of CH depending on selection pressures. To describe the prevalence of therapy selected CH & tMN, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients (pts) who had a bone marrow biopsy (BMB) post-177Lu. Methods: After IRB approval, we queried the electronic health record for pts with BMB post-177Lu. Pt demographics, treatment history, labs & BMB results were collected. Results: Fifty-seven pts met criteria, 41 (72%) with NET & 16 (28%) with mCRPC. . Median age at BMB was 68yrs (range, 28-85). Of the 57pts, prior treatments included: radiation (RT) in 21 (37%), temozolomide in 14 (25%), taxane in 15 (26%), & platinum agents in 10 (18%). The median number of 177Lu cycles was 4 (range, 1-11).Cytogenetics were available in 84% (n = 48) & were normal in 60% (n = 29). Of those with abnormal cytogenetics (n = 18, 38%), the most common abnormalities involved chromosome (chr) 7 (n = 12, 26%), chr 5 (n = 7, 15%), chr 20 (n = 5, 11%) and complex karyotypes in 7 (15%), with 3 (17%) of these patients having no mutations. Diagnoses were assessable in 49 (86%) pts: 15 (31%) with undefined cytopeniasand 16 (33%) with tMDS. Metastatic carcinoma was identified in 17 Fifty-one percent (n = 29), at a median of 0.5yrs (range, 0.04-2.6) after hematologic diagnosis. Conclusions: The enrichment of CH involving the DDR pathway in recipients of 177Lu underscores the impact of RLT on bone marrow progenitors.

Abstract Rapid developments in cancer genetics and hereditary cancer risk assessments have enabled the identification of individuals at elevated risk for hereditary malignancies to guide enhanced cancer screening and prevention efforts. Multigene panel testing has emerged as the standard approach as emphasized in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. The purpose of this study was to investigate the frequency of other pathogenic mutations identified through multigene panel testing in individuals who previously tested negative for germline BRCA1/2 and assess the clinical impact of panel testing. Patients either previously diagnosed with breast cancer or with a family history of breast or ovarian cancer that had also been seen by Oncology Genetics at a single institution and tested negative for BRCA1/2 genes but had not undergone prior multigene panel testing were invited via a letter to return for an additional genetic counseling visit to discuss multigene panel testing. Patients were also able to opt-in to a survey component of the study and received an email to fill out the Multidimensional Impact of Cancer Risk Assessment (MICRA) and Cancer Worry Scale (CWS). Surveys were completed prior to the initial genetic counseling appointment and repeated after discussion of the multigene panel test results. A total 24 women met with a genetic counselor of which 22 (92%) had a personal history of breast cancer, 1 (4%) had a family history of breast cancer, and 1 (4%) had a family history of ovarian cancer. The mean age was 52.6 years (range, 42-68) and 100% of women were Caucasian. Of the 24 women, 17 (71%) completed multigene panel testing. Of the women that underwent testing, 7 (41%) had negative results, 6 (35%) had variants of unknown significance (VUS), and 4 (24%) had a pathogenic mutation identified in another gene (CDKN2A, CHEK2, and CFTR). There was no significant change in MICRA or CWS scores after multigene panel results were reviewed in the 9 patients that completed both pre- and post-genetic testing surveys. The mean/median summary MICRA scores pre- and post-counselling were 30 (SD 12.4), median 26 (min 18, max 56), and 21.2 (SD 15.4), median 21 (min 3, max 43), respectively (p=0.19, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). The mean/median summary CWS scores pre- and post-counselling were 14.3 (SD 5), median 15 (min 7, max 24), and 13.6 (SD 2.59), median 14 (min 10, max 17), respectively (p=0.53, Wilcoxon signed ranks test). Of the 4 patients with newly identified pathogenic mutations, 2 started new screening protocols and 1 underwent a prophylactic mastectomy. In conclusion, multigene panel testing identified pathogenic mutations in a subset of individuals who previously tested negative for BRCA1/2 genes leading to changes in clinical management. The completion of multigene panel testing did not lead to a significant increase in MICRA or CWS scores. Key limitations of this study include a small sample size and an all Caucasian population. Citation Format: Devon Miller, Stephanie Pritzl, Angela Tess, Jessica Gooding, Lisa Barroilhet, Lori Dubenske, Kari Wisinski. Clinical Impact of Multigene Panel Testing in Patients with a Personal or Family History of Breast or Ovarian Cancer Previously Negative for BRCA1/2 Genes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO1-09-03.

Rural patients are often underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. This is a secondary analysis of a study that tested short (2000 word) versus long (6000 word) consent forms with a focus on rurality. Among 240 patients, 89 (37%) were rural. Seventy-one (80%) rural and 117 (77%) nonrural patients signed a consent form of any length ( P = .68). Forty-one of 47 (87%) rural patients signed a short consent form; in contrast, 30 of 42 (71%) signed a long form. These trends suggest rural patients are more likely to sign short consent forms. Further study is indicated.