Citations

PURPOSE In large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL), use of high-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) to prevent CNS relapse (so-called CNS prophylaxis) remains controversial. International guidelines continue to recommend HD-MTX in patients deemed ultra high risk (UHR) because of a lack of robust data specific to these subgroups. This study was designed to examine the impact of HD-MTX specifically in UHR patients. METHODS Data from two previous retrospective analyses were combined to produce a cohort of UHR patients (≥1 of the following criteria: CNS international prognostic index score 5-6; testicular, renal/adrenal, or breast involvement; ≥3 extranodal sites), treated with or without HD-MTX. The primary outcome was CNS relapse rate (isolated or concurrent with systemic relapse) measured from diagnosis with additional landmark analysis of all responding patients with no progression event at 6 months. RESULTS Analyses were performed on 1,923 patients meeting UHR criteria. No significant difference in 3-year CNS relapse rate was observed between no HD-MTX (n = 1,051) versus HD-MTX patients (n = 872), including in multivariable analyses adjusting for baseline characteristics (3-year rate, 9.3% v 8.1%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.13 [95% CI, 0.82 to 1.57]). Analyses restricted to isolated CNS relapse also confirmed no difference (5.9% v 5.7%; adjusted HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.69 to 1.53]). In the landmark analysis (no HD-MTX n = 782, HD-MTX n = 773), no difference in 3-year CNS relapse was observed (6.7% v 6.6%, adjusted HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.62 to 1.44]). CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this is the largest international comparative data set of patients with LBCL with UHR features showing no significant reduction in CNS relapse with HD-MTX in all UHR or in any individual subgroup. Despite inherent limitations of retrospective analyses, the data strongly support previous studies in suggesting HD-MTX prophylaxis has no meaningful benefit for most patients.

Abstract BACKGROUND Remote, smartphone‐based cognitive testing may improve access to cognitive assessments for Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. We evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of unsupervised smartphone‐based cognitive tests in a registry‐based cohort. METHODS Adults without a record of cognitive impairment ( N = 1815; ages 18–92) were recruited from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) Brain Health Registry to complete three unsupervised smartphone cognitive testing sessions within 2 weeks. Reliability was assessed with correlations between sessions. Linear regression models tested associations of smartphone tasks with demographics, self‐ and informant‐rated cognitive concerns, and web‐based cognitive testing (Cogstate Brief Battery). RESULTS Adherence was high (82.2%) and usability favorable. Test–retest reliability was moderate to strong ( ρ ’s = 0.61–0.85, all p ’s < 0.001). Lower smartphone scores were associated with older age, lower education, cognitive concerns, and worse Cogstate performance. DISCUSSION Findings support the feasibility, reliability, and validity of remote digital assessments in adults without a record of cognitive impairment.