Citations

AbstractBackgroundGenome‐wide association studies (GWAS) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) leveraging endophenotypes beyond case/control diagnosis, such as brain amyloid β pathology, have shown promise in identifying novel variants and understanding their potential functional impact. In this study, we leverage two brain amyloid β pathology measurement modalities, PET imaging and neuropathology, to address sample size limitations and to discover novel genetic drivers of disease.MethodWe conducted a meta‐analysis on an amyloid PET imaging GWAS (N = 7,036, 35% amyloid positive, 53.67% female, age = 71) and an autopsy GWAS of brain amyloidosis (N = 6,519, 63.08% amyloid positive, 51.34% female, age at death = 83), both adjusted for covariates including age, sex and principal components of genetic ancestry. All participants in both GWAS were unrelated individuals of European descent. We defined amyloid positivity as moderate or frequent neuritic plaques using the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) staging scores within each autopsy cohort. A Gaussian mixture model (GMM) was applied to each amyloid PET imaging cohort to identify the cohort and tracer‐specific cut‐offs that differentiate amyloid positive and negative populations.ResultThe genome‐wide significant results from the meta‐analysis identified three known AD loci (APOE, CR1, and BIN1) and a novel chromosome 17 locus (rs35635959, intergenic, MAF = 0.27, OR = 1.18, p = 1.47 × 10‐8). The MAGMA gene‐level analysis excluding the APOE region suggests significant associations between rs35635959 and COASY, PLEKHH3, and TUBG2 on chromosome 17, implying the potential roles of these genes on amyloidosis. Functional annotations of rs35635959 leveraging brain eQTL databases indicate its association with differential gene expression of COASY and TUBG2 in AD brains. ROSMAP bulk and single‐nucleus RNAseq analyses link TUBG2 downregulation to the higher amyloid burden and AD diagnosis while suggesting such observations are enriched in excitatory and inhibitory neurons, reaching FDR significance.ConclusionThis study is the most extensive European GWAS of brain amyloidosis, and our findings replicate known AD loci and identify a possible novel locus (index SNP rs35635959) on chromosome 17. Functional annotations of the novel variant indicate TUBG2, implicating in microtubule organization, warrants further assessment. Ongoing efforts aim to validate these novel effects using independent datasets.

Abstract Patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma progressing after chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy have dismal outcomes. The prespecified post–CAR-T expansion cohort of the ELM-1 study investigated the efficacy and safety of odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in patients with disease progression after CAR-Ts. Sixty patients received IV odronextamab weekly for 4 cycles followed by maintenance until progression. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review. The median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range, 2-9), 71.7% were refractory to CAR-Ts, and 48.3% relapsed within 90 days of CAR-T therapy. After a median follow-up of 16.2 months, ORR and complete response (CR) rate were 48.3% and 31.7%, respectively. Responses were similar across prior CAR-T products and time to relapse on CAR-T therapy. Median duration of response was 14.8 months and median duration of CR was not reached. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.8 and 10.2 months, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse event was cytokine release syndrome (48.3%; no grade ≥3 events). No cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome were reported. Grade ≥3 infections occurred in 12 patients (20.0%), 2 of which were COVID-19. Odronextamab monotherapy demonstrated encouraging efficacy and generally manageable safety, supporting its potential as an off-the-shelf option for patients after CAR-T therapy. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02290951.

ObjectiveTo determine which ear environment risk factors impact ossiculoplasty hearing outcomes and to generate a statistically‐valid grading system for ossiculoplasty outcome reporting.Study TypeRetrospective case series.MethodsA multi‐institutional database was generated from cases performed between 2011 and 2019. Preoperative and postoperative hearing thresholds were recorded alongside potential ear environment risk factors. Multiple variable linear regression statistical analyses of risk factors were applied to determine independent association with postoperative pure tone average air‐bone gap (PTA‐ABG). Significant factors were used to generate a statistically‐weighted grading scale of Ear Environment Risk (EER).Results1679 cases had a mean follow‐up time of 33.6 months (SD 36.3) and a mean postoperative PTA‐ABG of 21.2 (SD 12.8). Multiple revision status (p < 0.001), presence of canal wall down mastoidectomy cavity (p = 0.020), absent malleus (p < 0.001), absent stapes superstructure (p = 0.016), frequent otorrhea (p = 0.008), pediatric age (p < 0.001), and blunted/lateralized tympanic membrane (p = 0.003) were independently correlated with PTA‐ABG. These factors were incorporated into an EER Scoring System with four distinct risk groups wherein each risk group was significantly correlated with PTA‐ABG, and this grading system was better correlated with PTA‐ABG (Kendall's τ = 0.193) than other existing published grading scales.ConclusionGrading environment risk according to a novel EER scoring system generates meaningful risk groupings that correlate with ossiculoplasty postoperative PTA‐ABG, and this holds potential to frame reporting of hearing outcomes for future ossiculoplasty research.Level of Evidence3 Laryngoscope, 135:S1–S11, 2025

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship include recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment. They also include recommendations to promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors and provide a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s current recommendations regarding sexual health and fertility.

Introduction: Light-chain amyloidosis (ALA) is a rare plasma cell disorder characterized by multiorgan involvement. Patients often present with non-specific symptoms, which can lead to a delay in diagnosis. This is associated with progressive organ involvement and shorter survival. Reducing the time from symptom onset to diagnosis is a critical step in improving outcomes. This study was designed to evaluate the clinical prodrome and challenges associated with the diagnosis of ALA from the patient perspective. Methods: This retrospective study surveyed patients with ALA through the online HealthTree® Cure Hub platform, which helps patients navigate their disease in a holistic way. The survey consisted of 32 questions, including 23 multiple-choice, 7 date-entry, and two free-response questions. Data on diagnosis and demographics were extracted from the electronic health record and self-reported data linked to HealthTree® Cure Hub. Results were reported as numbers and percentages, and comparisons were made by age (≥70 vs. &lt;70 years) and sex. The following statistical methods were used: Fisher's exact test for categorical data, two-sample t-test and F-test for normally distributed continuous data, Wilcoxon rank-sum test for skewed data and Spearman correlation coefficient. Results: We surveyed 248 patients. Of those, a total of 87 patients with a self-reported diagnosis of ALA completed the questionnaire between March 12, 2023, and May 8, 2024. The median age was 66 years; 55% were female, and 91% were white. The most common initial symptoms prompting patients to seek medical evaluation were fatigue/weakness (47%), swelling (38%), shortness of breath (28%), chest pain (23%), and foamy urine (22%). Pain in hands/feet, carpal tunnel syndrome, loss of appetite, hoarseness, macroglossia, diarrhea, periorbital puffiness, nail changes, and erectile dysfunction each accounted for &lt;10% of cases. Signs and symptoms were first detected by patients themselves in 58% of cases, by a physician in 33% and by a family member or friend for the rest. The median number of symptoms per individual was 2; 31% reported only one symptom, 37% 2-3, 18% 4-6, and 14% &gt;6; with chest pain being the most common (39%), followed by swelling (22%), shortness of breath (13%), and foamy urine (13%); one patient reported erectile dysfunction and another reported arrhythmias as their only symptom. There was a correlation between hoarseness and nail changes (ρ=0.71), and carpal tunnel syndrome and orthostatic hypotension (ρ=0.63). Only 16% were aware of ALA as a condition prior to symptom onset. Thirty six percent presented to a general practitioner for initial evaluation; about 50% sought a specialist, including a myeloma/amyloid specialist (21%), and 14% were first evaluated in the emergency department. While most patients (45%) were diagnosed by a hematologist/oncologist, patients reported seeing a median of 3 physicians (range: 1-10) before the diagnosis was established. Among responders, 61% reported having myeloma at the time of testing. After diagnosis, about 50% were referred to a center specialized in ALA, and 72% met with a stem cell transplant specialist. Most patients reported receiving multidisciplinary care, with a median of 3 additional specialists participating in ALA care (range: 0-16). More than half of patients (59%) felt the diagnosis was delayed; among those, 42%, 24%, 24%, and 11% reported a delay of 1-6, 7-12, 13-24, and &gt;24 months, respectively. The proportion of patients reporting &gt;12-month delay was higher among older patients (54% vs. 27%, P=0.02). A quarter of responders felt their treatment was delayed. Half of patients felt the diagnostic delay contributed to a decrease in treatment efficacy and 48% did not feel that all medical professionals were knowledgeable about ALA. Only 38% felt the diagnostic process was simple and easy within their healthcare system. Conclusion: Most patients with AL amyloidosis initially present with non-specific symptoms, with fatigue/weakness being the most common. Over a third were evaluated first by a general practitioner, and about a third reported a diagnostic delay of &gt;12 months. The diagnostic process is associated with high healthcare utilization, even among patients with concurrent multiple myeloma. Increasing disease awareness among patients and medical providers may shorten the time to diagnosis and contribute to improved outcomes.

Introduction CD19-directed CAR T-cell therapies are an important option for the management of relapsed/refractory (R/R) DLBCL. Studies suggest that ~50% of pts receiving CAR T-cell therapies will relapse within 6 months, with an estimated overall survival (OS) of only 5 months. Additionally, 25-35% of pts do not receive subsequent treatment, indicating a high unmet need. CD19 loss is a potential mechanism of resistance to CAR T-cell therapies; thus, treatments that target alternate B-cell antigens are an attractive option. Here, we report for the first time the primary analysis of the ELM-1 expansion cohort investigating the efficacy and safety of odronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody, in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy (NCT02290951). Methods Pts aged ≥18 with DLBCL and disease progression after CAR T-cell therapy received intravenous odronextamab weekly in 21-day (D) cycles during Cycles (C) 1-4, with steroid prophylaxis and step-up dosing in C1 (described previously), followed by 160 mg on D 1, 8, and 15 of C2-4. After C4, odronextamab maintenance treatment continued at 320 mg Q2W until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Pts with complete response (CR) for ≥9 months transitioned to Q4W dosing. All pts received infection prophylaxis. The primary analysis was conducted when all pts had completed ≥9 months of follow-up. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), as assessed by independent central review (ICR) according to the Lugano classification. Key secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and OS. Exploratory endpoints included immune biomarker assessment. Results As of January 22, 2024, 60 pts were treated and evaluable for efficacy and safety, with median follow-up of 16.2 months. Prior CAR T-cell therapies were axi-cel (50%), tisa-cel (12%), liso-cel (10%), and not specified (28%). Median time since prior CAR T-cell therapy was 6.5 months (range 1.2-46.2). Median age was 63 years (range 27-82; aged ≥75 years: 10%), and 65% were male. Pts had received a median of 3 prior lines of therapies (range 2-9); 77% of pts were refractory to their last therapy, 77% were double refractory, and 72% were refractory to prior CAR T-cell therapy. 48% of pts relapsed within 90 D of CAR T-cell therapy, and 67% relapsed within 180 D. Of the 20 pts with available tumor biopsies at baseline, 10 were CD19(-) and only 2 were CD20(-). 92% of pts completed C1 and 52% completed ≥4 C of treatment. The median duration of treatment was 12 weeks (range 0.7-154.1). The ORR and CR rate by ICR were 48% and 32%, respectively, and were consistent across pts with high-risk features and across prior CAR T products. ORR in pts relapsing in ≤90 D was 21% (6/29) and in pts relapsing in ≤180 D was 33% (13/40). ORR was observed even in pts with low CD20. Median DOR was 14.8 months (95% CI 2.8-not estimable [NE]) and median duration of CR was not reached (NR) (95% CI 3.3-NE); the probability of maintaining CR for 24 months was 68%. Median PFS was 4.8 months (95% CI 2.6-5.4) and median OS was 10.2 months (95% CI 4.6-15.8). Median PFS and OS in complete responders was NR. T-cell counts increased at Week 14 and demonstrated a functional phenotype (CD69 expression and TEMRA count), which was confirmed by ex vivo stimulation. T-cell expansion was observed regardless of CAR T product or time from CAR T administration. The most common TEAE was CRS (any grade [G]: 48%; G1: 25%; G2: 23%; G≥3: 0%). G≥3 TEAEs occurred in 77% of pts (most common: neutropenia 17%, anemia 13%, and neutrophil and white blood cell count decrease 10% each). Five pts (8%) permanently discontinued odronextamab due to AEs (COVID-19, pneumonia, encephalopathy, epilepsy, and gait disturbance [n=1 each]). There was one treatment-related death (COVID-19 pneumonia). No cases of ICANS were reported. G≥3 infections occurred in 12 pts (20%); 2 were due to COVID-19. No cases of tumor flare or TLS were reported. Conclusions ELM-1 is the only study to prospectively evaluate efficacy and safety of a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody in pts with R/R DLBCL progressing after CAR T-cell therapy. Odronextamab monotherapy was associated with encouraging efficacy and generally manageable safety in a setting with limited treatment options and historically dismal outcomes. Efficacy was observed even in pts relapsing in ≤90 D, supporting the potential of odronextamab as an accessible, off-the-shelf option in the post-CAR T setting.

Introduction: As therapeutic options for cancer increase at an unprecedented rate, understanding patient's awareness and attitudes is imperative to optimize their participation in shared decision making. Patient surveys are a powerful tool to gain insight into patient awareness but are cumbersome to administer on a large scale. With the advent of technology and virtual care, electronic surveys are being utilized more widely but their validity compared to approaching the patients in-person has not been established. We conducted a survey regarding awareness and preferences for clinical trials in-person and electronically and compared results systematically in a matched cohorts of patients with MM. Methods: A 52-question survey (including the domains: knowledge, trust, fear, external influence and optimism) was administered in-person to cancer patients at Mayo Clinic campuses (NCT04630431), of which patients with MM were identified for this analysis. The same survey was administered to MM patients enrolled in the online portal HealthTree® Cure Hub. Observations from the in-person and online cohorts were matched and weighted based on coarsened exact matching utilizing the “MatchIt” package based on age, gender, race, ethnicity, education, and marital status. Question responses were converted to an agreeance score scaled from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Mean and standard deviation measurements were calculated. Weighted t-tests were conducted using these numeric scores and the matched weights. Results: Final matched cohorts included 83% (n=65) of the in-person and 69% (n=149) of the online participants. Mean age was 63.5 (± 8.5) years with 52% females for in-person vs. 65.9 (± 7.5) years and 54% females in the online participants. In-person cohort included 83% White, 14% Black and 12% Hispanic participants while online cohort had 94% White, 5% Black and 13% Hispanics/Latinos. Education level with 4-year degree or higher was reported by 66% in-person and 75% online participants. Both cohort respondents on average rated a strong likelihood of participating in a clinical trial (in-person 4.04, CI: 3.73-4.35; online 4.34, CI: 4.19-4.5). There was significant agreeance between the 2 cohorts on majority of the questionnaire domains. For basic knowledge about clinical trials, while none of the individual questions in the category were significantly different, the online group had a higher aggregate agreeance score of 3.91 vs. 3.73 for the in-person group with a significant difference of 0.18 (CI: 0.5-0.31, p=0.008). For external influence, the online group had a higher aggregate agreeance score (3.52) than the in-person group (3.15; Difference: 0.37, CI: 0.22-0.52, p&lt;0.001), with the only question-level significant difference being for the question that regulatory agencies effectively control what is being advertised by the pharmaceutical industry (4.46 ± 0.64 vs. 3.48 ± 0.76, p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Online surveys are an effective tool for gaining insight into patient understanding, attitudes and awareness on a variety of topics and can be conducted efficiently on a larger scale than in-person studies, which may be more time and resource intensive. Our study provides evidence of general agreeance between a matched cohort of in-person and online survey respondents, providing validity to carefully conducted, planned online survey tools. The online cohort in our study overall had better knowledge about clinical trials and a better understanding about external influences on available clinical trial result information. These results will help boost studies to collect patient-level responses such that their beliefs and awareness can be better understood and incorporated in optimizing healthcare resource utilization.

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) making decisions regarding anticoagulation for stroke prevention. Decision support tools (e.g., Decision Aids [DAs]) facilitate SDM. However, little research has compared the effectiveness of the two most common types of DAs: (1) encounter decision aid (EDA) and (2) pre-encounter patient decision aid (PDA). Our study assessed the comparative effectiveness of PDAs and EDAs on SDM during AF clinical encounters where stroke prevention strategies were discussed. Research Question: Do decision aids (PDA or EDA), alone or in combination, improve patients’ AF decision-making experience compared to usual care? Methods: A cluster randomized multi-center trial in patients with AF comparing usual care (no DA) vs. one DA (EDA or PDA) or both DAs. Clinicians and patients were randomized independently into 4 study arms. Clinicians were randomized to use or not use the EDA for all study visits, and patients were randomized to use or not use the PDA. Co-primary outcome domains were: (1) quality of SDM (2) patient knowledge, and (3) decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes included: (1) treatment choice, (2) treatment initiation, and (3) treatment persistence. Patient characteristics were assessed. We will present comparisons of the randomized DAs on the co-primary and secondary outcomes and subgroup analyses. Results: Between December 2020-July 2023, investigators in 6 U.S. healthcare systems enrolled 1117 patients (mean (M) age 69, 63% male, 89% White) and 107 clinicians. Compared to usual care (no DA, M=31.6), SDM was better in patients receiving PDA (M=35.4) and EDA (44.5) alone or together (M=43.7; p’s<0.001). Knowledge about AF was greatest for those receiving both DAs or the PDA alone (84% accurate responses for PDA and both vs 76% with no DA, p<0.001), followed closely by the EDA alone (82%, p=0.003). Finally, both DAs (M=19.5) and EDA alone (M=20.0) had better decisional conflict scores compared to usual care (M=25.8; p’s<0.001). We will present analyses that assess the impact of DAs on secondary outcomes and interactions with DA, patient, and clinical characteristics across each outcome. Conclusions: In one of the first randomized trials examining the comparative effectiveness of EDAs and PDAs on SDM in clinical medicine, both PDAs and EDAs improved shared decision-making, decisional conflict, and knowledge compared to patients receiving usual care.

The NCCN Guidelines for the Management of Immunotherapy-Related Toxicities are intended to provide oncology practitioners with guidance on how to manage the wide-ranging and potentially fatal toxicities that may occur with cancer immunotherapy. The guidelines address immune-related adverse events related to immune checkpoint inhibitors, CAR T-cell therapies, and lymphocyte engagers (which include T-cell–engaging bispecific antibodies). These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight recent guideline updates pertaining to the management of emerging toxicities related to cancer immunotherapy.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Alzheimer's disease (AD) is the most prevalent neurodegenerative disease, yet our comprehension predominantly relies on studies within non‐Hispanic White (NHW) populations. Here we provide an extensive survey of the proteomic landscape of AD across diverse racial/ethnic groups. METHODS Two cortical regions, from multiple centers, were harmonized by uniform neuropathological diagnosis. Among 998 unique donors, 273 donors self‐identified as African American, 229 as Latino American, and 434 as NHW. RESULTS While amyloid precursor protein and the microtubule‐associated protein tau demonstrated higher abundance in AD brains, no significant race‐related differences were observed. Further proteome‐wide and focused analyses (specific amyloid beta [Aβ] species and the tau domains) supported the absence of racial differences in these AD pathologies within the brain proteome. DISCUSSION Our findings indicate that the racial differences in AD risk and clinical presentation are not underpinned by dramatically divergent patterns in the brain proteome, suggesting that other determinants account for these clinical disparities. Highlights We present a large‐scale proteome (∼10,000 proteins) of DLPFC (998) and STG (244) across AD cases. About 50% of samples were from racially and ethnically diverse brain donors. Key AD proteins (amyloid and tau) correlated with CERAD and Braak stages. No significant race‐related differences in amyloid and tau protein levels were observed in AD brains. AD‐associated protein changes showed a strong correlation between the brain proteomes of African American and White individuals. This dataset advances understanding of ethnoracial‐specific AD pathways and potential therapies.