Citations

Conventional cigarette smoking remains a leading preventable cause of morbidity and mortality despite declining prevalence, yet evidence-based treatments remain underused. This narrative review examines guideline-supported therapies and emerging approaches, including digital tools, neuromodulation, and harm-reduction strategies. Standard care typically combines FDA-approved pharmacotherapy with behavioral counseling. Digital interventions can extend access and support adherence, particularly when integrated with pharmacotherapy and follow-up. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) can be considered as an adjunctive option for patients who do not respond to pharmacotherapy and is FDA-approved. For patients unable to quit, structured harm-reduction strategies may help reduce risk while supporting progression toward eventual abstinence. These approaches should be used alongside, not in place of, guideline-recommended pharmacotherapy and behavioral counseling, which remain the gold standard for care. This review outlines a pragmatic, primary care–oriented model that integrates stepped-care with harm-reduction strategies.

10578 Background: Multicancer detection (MCD) testing using cell-free DNA methylation patterns is a novel blood-based approach to cancer screening. In 2022, Mayo Clinic implemented offering MCD testing into routine clinical practice. Prior real-world reports have been limited to single-site experiences. We evaluated enterprise-wide implementation of MCD testing across all three Mayo Clinic sites using the Mayo Clinic Platform. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of de-identified clinical data from Mayo Clinic Platform Discover, including GRAIL Galleri tests performed at Mayo Clinic sites in Rochester, MN; Scottsdale, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL. This activity did not require IRB review per 45 CFR 46.102. Demographics, test results, cancer diagnoses, and prior cancer history were extracted using a privacy-preserving protocol, with data de-identified by expert determination. ICD-10 diagnostic codes were used to identify subsequent cancer diagnoses. Results: A total of 8,201 Galleri tests were performed in 7,300 patients; some patients underwent repeat testing. Fifty-seven tests (0.7%) were positive. Among MCD-positive patients, cancer diagnostic codes were identified in 32 patients, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58.7%. The most common cancers identified were oropharyngeal (34.4%), lymphoid and hematopoietic (34.4%), and gastrointestinal malignancies (18.8%).Among 8,144 MCD-negative tests (99.3% of all testing performed), 423 patients (5.2%) subsequently received a cancer diagnostic code, yielding a negative predictive value of 92.5%. The most commonly identified cancers in this group were male genital organs (36.6%), urinary tract (10.6%), and thyroid or other endocrine glands (7.3%). Overall, 10.1% of patients had a prior cancer history, which was more common in MCD-positive than MCD-negative patients (22.6% vs 10.0%). Patients with positive tests were older (mean age 68.4 vs 61.5 years) and more often male (67% vs 62%). Race distribution was similar. Conclusions: Enterprise-wide implementation of MCD testing across diverse clinical settings is feasible within routine workflows. Over half of positive tests were associated with cancer diagnostic codes, supporting the clinical promise of MCD testing. Limitations include incomplete capture of externally diagnosed cancers and lack of cancer signal-of-origin data. The Mayo Clinic Platform enables scalable, secure analytics to support future cancer interception strategies.

Prostate cancer is the second most common cancer in U.S. men, with higher incidence and mortality among African Americans and those with genetic or familial risk. Despite guidelines promoting early detection, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in primary care remains inconsistent. We assessed PSA screening patterns and the association between risk factors and testing. A retrospective analysis was conducted on men aged ≥40 seen at primary care clinics from 2020 to 2022. Risk scores were created based on the number of prostate cancer risk factors. Univariate and multivariate analyses assessed associations between the risk scores, PSA screening, and cancer diagnosis. Of 176,326 patients, 31.4% underwent PSA testing, rising to 78.1% with a risk score of 4. The predictive model was significant (χ 2 = 19,527.021, df = 11, p < .001). PSA testing odds were higher with Medicaid or commercial insurance (vs. Medicare) and lower for self-pay patients. Former and never smokers were more likely to be tested than current smokers. Age, African American race, and family history increased the odds of receiving PSA testing. Prostate cancer diagnosis reached 25% at a risk score of 5, with significant predictors including older age, African American race, family history, and mention of “prostate” in clinical notes. PSA screening remains underused in primary care, even among high-risk patients. More risk factors were linked to higher testing rates, but African American and low-income groups were under-tested. Provider education and decision-support tools may improve guideline adherence and equity.

Background: Acute heart failure affects ~9% of patients with hematological malignancies. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of acute heart failure on in-hospital mortality among patients with hematological malignancies and to identify independent predictors of mortality in this population. Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (2016–2021) was queried for adults (⩾18 years of age) with hematological malignancies and those who experienced in-hospital mortality. Among these, we identified patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of acute heart failure. Univariate analysis and multivariate regression were employed to analyze the mortality risk. A p ⩽ 0.05 was considered significant. Results: Among 40,246 patients with hematological malignancies who died in the hospital, the univariate analysis showed a higher in-hospital mortality in the acute heart failure cohort compared to the non-acute heart failure group (8.08% versus 4.52%, p < 0.001). However, after adjusting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidities, acute heart failure was associated with a lower risk of in-hospital mortality (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.84–0.9, p < 0.001). Predictors of mortality in the acute heart failure cohort were age >60 years, hematopoietic stem cell transplant, severe sepsis, arrhythmias, infective endocarditis, bleeding from any source, acute respiratory failure, hepatic dysfunction, metabolic encephalopathy, and invasive ventilation (all p < 0.01). On subgroup analysis, acute myeloid leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and multiple myeloma had a higher in-hospital mortality in the acute heart failure cohort compared to the non-acute heart failure group ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: Acute heart failure in patients with hematological malignancies was associated with poor outcomes in the presence of severe sepsis, organ dysfunction, and the need for mechanical ventilation. Close monitoring and a multidisciplinary team approach are recommended to optimize the treatment plan for this population.

Objective: Multicancer Detection (MCD) tests, such as the GRAIL Galleri, offer a novel approach to cancer screening by detecting cancer-specific methylation patterns in cell-free DNA through a single blood sample. This study evaluated an 18-month implementation of MCD testing in a tertiary ambulatory internal medicine clinic. Patients and Methods: Between June 2022 and November 2023, 2244 asymptomatic (without symptoms attributed to cancer) patients underwent MCD testing. The study focused on operational workflows, patient and physician education, and diagnostic follow-up of positive results. Standardized materials, including electronic health record (EHR) workflows, FAQs, and diagnostic pathways, were developed to facilitate implementation. Challenges included managing false positives, patient anxiety, costs, and ethical considerations. Results: Of the 2244 patients tested, 17 (0.76%) had positive results, and 15 underwent further diagnostic evaluation. Cancer was confirmed in 11 (73.3%) patients, including cases of breast, colon, esophageal, lymphoma, ovarian, and pancreatic cancers. Four patients had no identifiable malignancy despite comprehensive work-up. Conclusions: MCD testing is feasible in routine clinical workflows, with 73% of positive cases yielding cancer diagnoses. While promising, further research is required to assess long-term outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and optimal implementation strategies of cancer interception in broader healthcare settings.

A 67-year-old male with positive signals for neuroendocrine and head/neck cancer on a commercially available multicancer detection test underwent an extensive negative diagnostic workup at a local hospital. Referred to our medical center for advanced imaging and endoscopic procedures ultimately led to the diagnosis of an early-stage seminoma with eventual orchiectomy. This case highlights challenges in evaluating positive multicancer detection results, emphasizing the need for a broader understanding of how to interpret these testing results to fully evaluate complex cases, as well as the need for protocolized follow-up approaches to a positive multicancer detection test.

Introduction: Heparin induced-thrombocytopenia (HIT) is a severe autoimmune reaction to heparin that increases patients' risk of developing venous thrombosis, leading to fatal conditions such as pulmonary embolism. The clinical 4T scoring system guides need for further testing, based on noting fall in platelet counts, the timing of platelet counts falling in conjunction with heparin exposure, the presence of new thromboses, and ruling out other causes of thrombocytopenia. In patients in whom 4T scoring indicates a higher protest probability for HIT, screening is then performed. The Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) detects antibodies against platelet factor 4 (PF4)-heparin complexes. In order to confirm the diagnosis of HIT, the serotonin release assay testing is required, which refers to measuring the serotonin levels produced during platelet activation using radio-labeling techniques. Since the start of the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020, there has been ongoing discussion regarding whether incidence of HIT diagnosis has increased. Herein we report on a retrospective observational study of a cohort of patients seen at a community hospital in Georgia between March 2017 to December 2022 to determine the changes in frequency of HIT and SRA testing, and to assess its association with the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We included patients aged &gt;18 years, hospitalized at a community hospital in Georgia during the study duration and de-identified data was collected from electronic medical records. Text-based data analysis was performed to identify those patients who received HIT testing, SRA testing, and ultimately a final diagnosis of HIT (HIT positive and SRA positive). The overall rates of 4T scoring documentation and assessment in the hospital were also assessed. Several multivariable logistic regression models were constructed to examine factors associated with HIT testing and SRA testing, and their association since the start of the the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020). Results: A total of 244,457 patients were included in the study population. Of them, 2,375 (0.97% of total) patients were tested with the HIT-ELISA, and only 468 (0.19% of total) patients were tested with SRA. In further subgroup analysis, evaluating the temporal associations of HIT and SRA testing, it was observed that the rate of HIT-ELISA testing increased since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, as did the rate of SRA testing (p &lt; 0.000). Notably, of the 2,375 patients who received the HIT-ELISA testing, only 193 (8% of HIT-tested patients) had documentation of clinical suspicion of HIT with the 4T score. Discussion: An increase in HIT and SRA testing has been observed since the start of COVID-19 pandemic, with a notable lack of 4T score data in the study population preceding this testing. This study emphasizes the importance of clinician education regarding the process of accurate HIT diagnosis, which would start with clinical 4T scoring, followed by ELISA testing for screening, and finally confirmed by SRA testing. Further research is warranted to understand the barriers that may exist in providing guideline-directed evaluation of HIT so that targeted interventions can be implemented to ensure high-quality care is delivered to patients.