Citations

Abstract Black/African American populations, globally, bear the greatest prostate cancer (CaP) burden compared to other racial/ethnic groups. Addressing CaP disparities in Black men is complex, requiring a patient-centered, community-centric and comprehensive approach. This study integrates iCCaRE Consortium findings and broader literature to address unmet needs in survivorship care. The iCCaRE Consortium implemented five complementary pilot studies using mixed-methods designs, including feasibility trials, qualitative research, and observational analyses across the United States and sub-Saharan Africa. Descriptive statistics, subgroup analyses, and qualitative thematic analyses were performed across these studies. Collectively, projects addressed multilevel determinants including social, behavioral, and biological drivers of disparities. Project 1 implemented a Virtual Reality Assistant (ViRA) across clinical and community settings, with ongoing evaluation in pragmatic trials. Project 2 showed strong patient preference for home-based cancer care. Project 3 enrolled demonstrated trends toward improved health-related quality of life. Project 4 identified key themes influencing survivorship experiences. Project 5 identified biological mechanisms linking stress, immune modulation, and symptom burden. The iCCaRE pilot projects demonstrate the feasibility and early impact of a consortium-based, transdisciplinary approach to addressing CaP disparities in Black men. These findings highlight the importance of integrating patient-centered interventions, community engagement, and biological insights to inform scalable strategies aimed at improving survivorship outcomes and advancing health equity. The iCCaRE Consortium demonstrates that a transatlantic, patient-centered, and multidisciplinary approach integrating social, clinical, and biological factors can generate scalable strategies to improve survivorship outcomes and advance equity in CaP care for Black men.

e24014 Background: Cardio-oncology traditionally focuses on cardiotoxicity prevention and acute cardiovascular-events. However, the functional, vocational, and mental health challenges that define daily survivorship remain largely hidden, representing a critical gap in holistic care. Methods: Utilizing the 2024 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), we analyzed a nationally representative cohort of U.S. adults (≥18 years) across four groups: (1) Controls (no cancer or CVD), (2) CVD only, (3) cancer only, and (4) cardio-oncology. We evaluated five patient-centered metrics reflecting quality of life: functional and work limitations, assistive equipment use, personal assistance needs, and overall disability. Multivariable regression models, using Taylor series linearization for complex survey weighting, were adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, smoking, psychological distress (K6 score), and insurance status. Results: Among 32,599 adults (Weighted N = 259.7M), 2.9% lived with cardio-oncology multi-morbidity (weighted N = 5.34M; mean age 73y). After multivariable adjustment, functional limitations were highest in the cardio-oncology (63.6%, OR 2.34 [95%CI 1.89-2.88]), exceeding both CVD only (OR 1.99) and cancer only (OR = 1.26) groups. This population was also at the highest risk of disability (OR 2.74) and work limitations (31.7%, OR = 2.53). One in five cardio-oncology survivors reported severe mobility impairment (difficulty walking/steps), with a need for assistive equipment (OR = 2.86) and personal assistance (OR = 1.38). Conclusions: Cardio-oncology survivors face a functional and vocational burden significantly exceeding that of cancer or CVD alone. Care models must expand beyond event prevention to integrate routine functional screening and early rehabilitation to preserve quality of life in this high-risk population. Adjusted odds ratios by disease phenotype. Outcome CVD Only (vs. Control) Cancer Only (vs. Control) Cardio-Oncology (vs. Control) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Functional limitation 1.99 (1.75–2.28) 1.26 (1.14–1.39) 2.34 (1.89–2.88) Uses special equipment 2.56 (2.20–2.98) 1.26 (1.08–1.46) 2.86 (2.32–3.53) Needs assistance 1.51 (1.17-1.94) 0.84 (0.64-1.12) 1.38 (0.99-1.92) Work limitation 2.12 (1.88-2.39) 1.19 (1.07-1.33) 2.53 (2.11-3.03) Disability 2.20 (1.90–2.56) 1.11 (0.96–1.29) 2.74 (2.26–3.32) Note: Models adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, smoking status, psychological distress, and insurance type. Reference group = Adults with no history of cancer or CVD. CVD = Cardiovascular disease; OR = Odds Ratio; CI = Confidence Interval.

e23005 Background: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading non-cancer cause of death among cancer survivors. Managing this risk increasingly requires a transition from traditional generic therapies (e.g., statins, ACEi) to novel agents (e.g., SGLT2i, GLP-1RA). While these drugs are clinically recommended for survivors comorbidities, their population level economic impact has not been well defined. Methods: We analyzed the 2016–2023 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS-HC) to identify U.S. adults with a history of cancer (n=5,165; weighted ~54.3M) and non-cancer controls (n=217,834). We evaluated utilization, total prescription expenditures, and out-of-pocket (OOP) costs across 10 cardioprotective drug classes: statins, ACE inhibitors, ARBs, aspirin, antiplatelets, ezetimibe, GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, PCSK9i, and colchicine. surgery-weighted Pearson chi-square tests and design-based F-statistics accounted for the complex sampling design. Results: Cancer survivors were older (mean age ~68 vs 46 years), with higher prevalence of hypertension (54.5% vs 31.5%), diabetes (18.7% vs 8.1%), and dyslipidemia (56.1% vs 23.1%) than controls (all p<0.001). Survivors more frequently used traditional cardioprotective therapies, including statins (43.7% vs 23.1%) and ACE/ARBs (35.8% vs 18.2%). Aspirin use remained common and stable with negligible expenditures and OOP costs, reflecting its role as a low-cost foundational therapy. Antiplatelet use was higher among survivors and associated with modest but persistent OOP spending. Between 2016 and 2023, mean annual per-patient statin expenditures declined by 65% ($177 to $61). In contrast, expenditures for novel agents increased substantially. Mean per-person SGLT2 inhibitor expenditures rose from $0.36 to $211.55, while GLP-1RA utilization increased from 2.0% to 20.5%. These shifts increased patient cost sharing: survivor OOP costs increased 40-fold for SGLT2 inhibitors ($0.35 to $13.91) and more than four-fold for GLP-1 receptor agonists ($3.69 to $15.83). Socioeconomic disparities were evident, with PCSK9 inhibitor users reporting higher family incomes than non-users ($123,069 vs $85,530), and ezetimibe utilization was higher among Black compared with White survivors (14.8% vs 9.5%; p<0.05). Conclusions: Among U.S. cancer survivors, declining costs of generic cardioprotective therapies have been fully offset by rising expenditures and OOP burdens from newer agents. Access to high-value therapies increasingly reflects socioeconomic disparities more than clinical risk alone. Reducing patient cost sharing will be essential to prevent financial barriers from worsening adherence and long-term cardiovascular outcomes in survivorship.

Abstract Objectives: Community-acquired intra-abdominal infections (CA-IAIs) are a leading cause of US hospitalizations. Piperacillin-tazobactam is often used to empirically treat CA-IAIs, despite national guidelines recommending narrower-spectrum antibiotics for these infections. The overuse of broad-spectrum agents such as piperacillin-tazobactam contributes to antibiotic resistance, which poses serious public health challenges. This resident-led quality improvement initiative aimed to reduce unnecessary piperacillin-tazobactam use for treating CA-IAIs measured as DOT/1,000 patient-days by 10% without adversely affecting hospital length of stay (LOS). Methods: Using the DMAIC (define, measure, analyze, improve, control) framework, we identified barriers to appropriate antibiotic use and developed a treatment algorithm for CA-IAIs that included clear guidelines and exclusion criteria. This algorithm was disseminated to internal medicine residents and emergency department physicians along with educational sessions to highlight updated CA-IAI treatment recommendations, antibiotic resistance, and appropriate antibiotic ordering via the electronic health record. Antimicrobial stewardship pharmacists provided overnight support to assist with de-escalation. Data were collected over a 10-month period spanning 2 intervention phases. The primary outcome was piperacillin-tazobactam use, measured as days of therapy (DOT) per 1,000 patient-days and DOT per patient LOS. Mean LOS served as the balancing measure. Results: Piperacillin-tazobactam use was significantly reduced ( P < .001) after the interventions without increasing the mean LOS. Conclusion: This project raised awareness of antibiotic resistance and led to lasting improvements in reducing the inappropriate use of piperacillin-tazobactam to treat CA-IAIs, without affecting the mean LOS. This was attributed to the strong collaboration among a multidisciplinary team of infectious disease physicians, antimicrobial stewardship team members, residents, emergency department physicians, and faculty.

Abstract Background: Black men experience the highest burden of prostate cancer (CaP) incidence and mortality in the United States. The reasons documented for the significant burden of CaP in Black communities include health systems, care process, and individual/personal level factors, such as cultural factors, psychosocial factors, decision making/preferences, comprehension, past experience, and perceived behavioral control. The Community Living Lab (CoLLab) Learning Health System (LHS) was established within three American Legion Posts (ALP) in Northeast Florida to address these factors. Study Objective: This clinical trial study evaluated the impact of the CoLLab LHS on the knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and cues to action of Black men who received Resources, Education, Amenities, and Community Health (REACH) services at the ALPs. Methods: The design was guided by the Intervention Mapping Framework and the Social Ecological Model. CoLLab REACH services were made available to participants through trusted community infrastructures. Services integrated include CaP resources and materials, social determinant of health navigation, healthy grocery distribution, cancer advocacy programs, and research participation. Participants were recruited at three ALPs and were asked to visit their respective CoLLab LHS site at least twice a month and up to 24 times over one year to use any of the services. The impact was measured using baseline and quarterly surveys assessing CaP awareness, knowledge, attitude, health beliefs, perceived control, intentions, and cues to action. Descriptive statistics were used to compare participants' information at baseline and at 3-month follow-up. Results: A total of 173 participants were included in this analysis; 57.9% were ≥ 60 years, and 92.2% were US-born Black men. Prostate cancer knowledge increased from baseline to 3-month follow-up. The median score rose from 4±1.29 at baseline, with the mean increasing to 4.24±1.10. Attitudes towards Cap screening declined marginally from 12.58±2.15 to 12.27±2.40. Health beliefs showed a clear upward shift, with the mean increasing from 22.86±3.0 at baseline to 23.20±2.82 after 3 months of intervention. Additionally, cues to action also improved, with the mean increasing from 2.78±1.67 to 3.25±1.45. Only the cues-to-action index showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.018), with higher scores observed after 3 months of intervention. Conclusion: Across the four core constructs—prostate cancer knowledge, testing attitudes, health beliefs, and cues to action—outcomes at follow-up demonstrated modest but consistent improvements compared to those of baseline, alongside slightly reduced variability for most domains. Overall, the evaluation showed that CoLLab REACH services improved knowledge, enhanced stronger health beliefs, and significantly increased cues to action, while testing attitudes remained comparatively stable. Citation Format: Folakemi T. Odedina, Opeyemi Oreoluwa Bolajoko, Quincy A. Wimberly, Daniel W. Lee, Floyd B. Willis, Toshiko Moultrie, Wayne Ford, Derry Green, Arnold J. Merriweather, Michelle Fudge. The impact of the Community Living Lab learning health system on the prostate cancer knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and cues to action of Black men [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 2 (Late-Breaking, Clinical Trial, and Invited Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(8_Suppl):Abstract nr LB324.

Abstract Background: Black men carry a disproportionate prostate cancer (CaP) burden and often experience significant psychosocial distress at the point of prostate cancer diagnosis (PPCD). Many report emotional shock, uncertainty, and limited access to culturally competent guidance, which can negatively affect treatment decisions and long-term survivorship. To address these needs, we developed the PPCD Virtual Reality Assistant (ViRA), an immersive, AI-enabled intervention co-designed with Black CaP survivors. ViRA delivers tailored psycho-oncology support, emotional guidance, and navigation of social determinants of health (SDOH) within virtual reality environments. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and usability of the PPCD ViRA (NCT06535802). Methods: ViRA was developed through a structured, seven-step co-design process with survivors, integrating mobile immersive technologies, SDOH navigation, and culturally grounded psycho-oncology content. Personalization was enabled through AI-driven predictive analytics and a recommendation engine. Alpha testing assessed initial usability and acceptability among 10 participants (seven team members and three Black CaP survivors). Beta testing with 24 Black men in Florida examined feasibility and preliminary efficacy. Results: A demonstration of ViRA is available (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI-HS5R6sk). Alpha testing indicated strong usability, positive emotional engagement, and clear promise for enhancing support at the PPCD. In Beta testing, participants varied in age; most were married (58.3%), held a bachelor’s degree (45.8%), were retired (45.8%), and had a family history of cancer (83.3%). ViRA use was associated with increased engagement and reduced distress across participants. Overall, 74% rated ViRA as “excellent,” while the remainder rated it as “good” or “very good.” More than 90% reported being “very satisfied,” with the rest indicating satisfaction. Conclusions: Findings demonstrate high feasibility, acceptability, and cultural relevance of the PPCD ViRA for supporting Black men at diagnosis. Lessons learned highlight the need for culturally embedded design, emotional timing, community co-creation, flexible delivery formats, and strong community partnerships to advance digital health equity. The refinement and larger-scale validation to establish clinical utility and readiness for implementation is ongoing (NCT07126548). Citation Format: Folakemi T. Odedina, Che Ngufor, Christopher Williams, Mary Ellen Young, Floyd Willis, Adam M. Kase, Arnold Merriweather, Emelina Asto-Flores, Dee M. Glaser-Boivin, Jada Melton, Monica L. Albertie, Michelle Fudge, Quincy Wimberly, Inclusive Cancer Care Research Equity (iCCaRE) Consortium, Prostate Cancer Transatlantic Consortium (CaPTC). Novel application of the iCCaRE consortium virtual reality assistant (ViRA) to support Black men at the point of prostate cancer diagnosis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 6306.

Abstract Background: Black men across the African Diaspora experience a disproportionate burden of prostate cancer (CaP). The Inclusive Cancer Care Research Equity (iCCaRE) Consortium aims to eliminate CaP burden through global scientific collaboration, innovative research, community-engaged interventions, and next-generation workforce development. The primary objective for this Consortium was to optimize CaP diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship through research, research training and education, community engagement and community outreach. The Consortium integrates digital health technologies, community navigation, precision communication and precision science. Methods: Five full projects and one pilot project were launched across partner institutions in North America and Africa. Supported by multiple cores and services, the research activities included (1) implementation of a Point of Prostate Cancer Diagnosis Virtual Robot Assistant (PPCD-ViRA); (3) initiation of a cancer care at home trial; (4) migrant health studies of Caribbean and Sub-Saharan African immigrants; (5) expansion of genomic and metabolomic research; and (6) digital, psychosocial, and survivorship intervention development. Training and dissemination activities were deployed through iCCaRE TV, webinars, and community engagement programs including the Global Prostate Health Dialogue (Glo-PHD). Results: In one year, accomplishments included 45 presentations, 17 publications, 16 grant submissions, and 3 awards. The consortium delivered 408 live webinar engagements and reached more than 400 men globally through Glo-PHD. PPCD-ViRA was fully developed and prepared for clinical deployment (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI-HS5R6sk). The African cohort expansion for genomic and metabolomic profiling was activated across several countries, with biospecimen collection underway. Media dissemination generated more than 15,000 views across platforms, including high-impact educational videos (see: www.youtube.com/@iCCaREConsortium). Training achievements included 13 early-career investigators and 7 trained prostate cancer advocates. Conclusions: In just one year, the iCCaRE Consortium Phase 2 made substantial progress toward transforming CaP equity globally. Through multidisciplinary science, digital innovation, and community partnerships, the consortium is building scalable infrastructure to address diagnosis experiences, treatment quality, and survivorship among Black men. Ongoing efforts will continue to advance precision medicine, culturally grounded interventions, and global capacity building. Citation Format: Folakemi T. Odedina, Arnold Merriweather, Roxana S. Dronca, Ernest T. Kaninjing, Solomon Rotimi, Gerardo Colon-Otero, Kimlin Ashing, Ademola A. Popoola, Gladys Asiedu, Opeyemi Bolajoko, Ewan COBRAN, Emelina Asto-Flores, Floyd Willis, Christopher Williams, Monica L. Albertie, Michelle Fudge, Oluwaseyi Toye, Collisa Mahin, Jada Melton, Inclusive Cancer Care Research Equity (iCCaRE) Consortium, Prostate Cancer Transatlantic Consortium (CaPTC). Achieving prostate cancer equity globally: Multinational advances from the iCCaRE consortium [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 2382.

Abstract Introduction: Attending to survivorship including distress in the contexts of social drivers (SDH) is critical but lacking. In response, this novel research on Black CaP survivors (CaPS) aims to measure SDH distresses and assess utility of a digital intervention to inform survivorship studies, practice and outcomes. Method: Informed by the Science of Survivorship, and our pilot study with multisectoral stakeholders, we assessed SDH and acceptability/utility of a digital Survivorship Care (SC) Toolkit. SCToolkit is a digitized whole-person care with guidance from multisectoral stakeholders e.g., clinicians and survivors. SCToolkit includes: ASCO informed treatment summary template for diagnostics, treatments, side effects, care team, genetics, and comorbidities, and patient active guide on survivorship concerns, provider communication, health advisories, survivorship care booklet, SDH FINDHELP resource, and survivorship videos. SCToolkit was delivered via survivors’ personal REDCap file, and can be uploaded to their EMR patient portal for easy-to-use survivorship roadmap accessible on smartphones, laptops, and computers. Motivational Interviewing was provided via Zoom to facilitate digital efficacy and SCToolkit use. Descriptive analyses were conducted using SAS. Citation Format: Kimlin Ashing, Floyd Willis, Christopher Williams, John McCall, Gaole Song, Douglas Adu-Fokuo, Erika Galdamez, Fornati Bedell, Cassandra N. Moore, EWAN COBRAN, Che Ngufor, Kathleen J. Yost, Timethia J. Bonner, Getachew Dagne, Arnold Merriweather, Ernest T. Kaninjing, Rotimi Oladapo, Roxana S. Dronca, Folakemi T. Odedina. Examining contextual distress and utility of a digital survivorship care toolkit [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2026; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2026 Apr 17-22; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(7 Suppl):Abstract nr 880.

Abstract Objectives: In the RadComp randomized trial, we compared radiation dose to cardiac substructures in patients treated with proton versus photon radiation therapy (RT) ; evaluated changes in cardiac-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from baseline to 6 months following RT; and determined associations between radiation dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and changes in cardiac-specific HRQOL. Methods: The study cohort included patients with locally advanced breast cancer enrolled on RadComp who completed treatment per protocol, had available radiation DVH metrics for all cardiac substructures, and completed both the baseline and at least one follow-up cardiac-specific HRQOL over the 6 months post-RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOL measures included PROMIS fatigue, PRO-CTCAE shortness of breath (SOB) (severity and interference with daily activities), and PRO-CTCAE chest pain, chest tightness, and angina (frequency, severity, and interference). Detailed dose volume histograms (DVH) for cardiac substructures included the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA), right atrium (RA), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were derived. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare dose distributions between photon and proton RT. Associations between DVH metrics and HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using repeated-measures linear regression via generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation structure. All models were adjusted for RT type, age, cardiovascular risk factors, surgery type, laterality, ethnicity, education, timepoint, and race. Additional stratified analyses was performed according to laterality (right versus left + bilateral). Results: Across 1160 RadComp participants, RT exposure to cardiac substructures differed significantly between proton and photon RT and by laterality. Median mean heart dose was lower with protons, 0.9 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.49, 1.46), compared to photons 2.83 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.49, 4.52) (p&lt; 0.001), and lower for right-sided disease, 0.91 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.44, 1.55), compared to left and bilateral 1.99 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.11, 3.63) (p&lt;0.001). Similarly, for the LAD, LA, LV, and RA, mean proton dose was significantly lower (p&lt;0.001). However, for the whole heart, RA, and RV, maximum doses to small-volume parameters and dose to 0.03cc were higher with proton RT. PRO-CTCAE measures of HRQOL were generally favorable at all timepoints across all participants, and grade ≥3 toxicity was rare (≤5.5%) for all measures. The PROMIS Fatigue T-Score increased from baseline (median 49 [Q1, Q3 46, 57]) to end of RT (55 [Q1, Q3 49, 63]), and returned to baseline levels at 6 months (p&lt;0.001). While there were no significant differences in PRO-CTCAE SOB severity (p=0.24) and interference (p=0.11) over time, PRO-CTCAE chest pain worsened compared to pre-RT with respect to frequency (p&lt;0.001), severity (p&lt;0.001), and interference (p=0.008). However, the absolute changes were small. No DVH metrics were significantly associated with any cardiac-specific HRQOL outcomes. Stratification by laterality yielded similar results. Conclusions: Proton RT generally conferred significantly lower doses to the heart and cardiac substructures compared to photon RT. HRQOL outcomes were favorable across all participants, with fatigue returning to baseline, no change in SOB parameters, and a slight worsening of chest pain outcomes over 6 months following RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOLs appear not to be significantly affected by RT dose to cardiac substructures within the first 6 months post-RT. Other organs at risk that could also impact cardiac HRQOL endpoints, longer follow-up, and major cardiac events will be evaluated in future analyses. Citation Format: J. L. Wright, K. Ko, W. Kenworthy, W. Bosch, L. Braunstein, G. Freedman, E. Gillespie, R. Jimenez, S. Pugh, H. Lu, M. Pankuch, N. Remmes, W. Straube, W. Zou, E. Berlin, L. Fang, S. MacDonald, N. Taunk, J. Kim, A. Thukral, A. Taghian, M. Mishra, R. Mutter, V. Croog, D. Boggs, J. Urbanic, N. Ohri, A. Chawla, T. Meier, L. Rosen, M. Fegundes, O. Cahlon, K. Hoffman, A. Ferriozzi, J. Bekelman, A. Lin, B. Ky. Associations Between Cardiac Radiation Dose Volume Metrics and Cardiac Specific Health Related Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer Randomized to Proton versus Photon Radiation on the RadComp Trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr RF6-04.

Background: Plasma cell dyscrasia (PCD) is a rare but important cause of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). Kidney transplant is the treatment of choice in patients with ESKD. However, the complexity of PCD care and risk of disease recurrence poses challenges to kidney transplant candidacy and outcomes. We examined the current clinical practice patterns of clinicians who care for patients with PCD and identified barriers to kidney transplantation for patients with PCD. Methods: A web-based survey was developed and distributed from January to July 2024 to kidney transplant clinicians (American Society of Transplant (AST) members), hematologists (PCD experts), and onco-nephrologists. Results: Seventy clinicians (50 transplant nephrologists, 18 hematologists, and two surgeons) from 42 transplant centers in the US participated in the survey. Clinical practice patterns pre and post kidney transplant for patients with PCD are highly variable among institutions, and only 36% reported having a protocol for pre- and post-transplant management for patients with PCD. Particularly, the requirement for pre-transplant hematologic remission criteria, induction and maintenance immunosuppression regimens and protocols for prophylaxis and screening for opportunistic infection are areas of future study. Clinicians listed lack of data and practice guidance as well as communication challenges among multiple specialties especially hematology and kidney transplant clinicians as notable barriers. Conclusions: Our study identified the highly variable current practice patterns when evaluating and managing patients with PCD for kidney transplant. Our findings emphasize the need for collecting and sharing clinical data to support standardized practices and serve as a basis for the upcoming multi-societal management recommendation for kidney transplant for patients with PCD.