Citations

AbstractINTRODUCTIONWe investigated the usefulness of plasma neurofilament light chain (NfL) and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) for capturing vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) in the context of amyloidosis.METHODSUsing two independent cohorts (n = 1810), we assessed the relationship of plasma NfL and GFAP with (1) vascular brain indices; (2) diagnostic states using the following definitions: vascular versus not (white matter hyperintensity/total intracranial volume ≥ 1.3%), and cognitively impaired (CI) versus cognitively unimpaired (CU) using Clinical Dementia Rating ([CDR] scale ≥ 0.5); and (3) their upstream predictors using structural equation models (SEMs).RESULTSPlasma NfL and GFAP were associated with vascular brain damage and differed across states (VCI > vascular CU > non‐vascular CI > non‐vascular CU). In a population‐based sample, these biomarkers distinguished vascular CU and VCI from non‐vascular CU groups with greater separation in amyloid negative participants. Pathway analyses showed NfL was primarily influenced by systemic/brain vascular health, whereas amyloid contributed to GFAP variability.DISCUSSIONPlasma biomarkers, particularly NfL, capture vascular brain changes and show promise for VCI identification.Highlights Plasma NfL and glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) were associated with vascular brain indices. Plasma biomarkers differed across diagnostic states (VCI > vascular CU > non‐vascular CI > non‐vascular CU). Plasma markers discriminated vascular from non‐vascular states with greater separation in Aβ− participants. NfL was linked to vascular health, while amyloid influenced GFAP variability in the population‐based sample. Future longitudinal frameworks should consider systemic inflammation markers along with these plasma markers to better understand VCID‐related brain changes and cognitive decline.

ABSTRACTMonoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) is the term used for a minimal clonal expansion of plasma cells that is most typically detected by the presence of a small serum monoclonal protein. For most—but not all—patients, the presence of a small monoclonal protein will have no clinical significance at the time of recognition or even over time. It is imperative, therefore, that a careful—but sensible—evaluation be performed both at the time of recognition and subsequently because these monoclonal may represent significant pathology including diseases such as multiple myeloma, low grade lymphoma or any of the diseases captured under the moniker of monoclonal gammopathy of clinical significance (MGCS), which includes—but is not limited to—immunoglobulin light chain amyloidosis and POEMS syndrome. Herein is a discussion of the diagnosis and follow‐up MGUS and MGCS.

ABSTRACTCastleman disease is a term that represents a spectrum of diseases whose driving factors are poorly understood. Increased interest prompted by the Castleman's Disease Collaborative Network has led to a better understanding of classification, which will lead to a better understanding of underlying pathology and best practices. It is essential that this entity be recognized and correctly classified by anatomic classification (unicentric, oligocentric, and multicentric), by histopathology (the gradient of hypervascular to plasmacytic), and by clinical phenotype (NOS, TAFRO, IPL, HHV8‐associated, or POEMS‐associated). Most of what we know about therapy is from retrospective studies rather than prospective therapeutic trials, but data are emerging through collaboration. The mainstay of therapy for unicentric disease is surgery. For multicentric disease interleukin‐6 blockade is essential for the non‐POEMS, non‐HHV8 multicentric cases, rituximab‐based (plus or minus antiviral) therapy for HHV8 associated cases, and IL‐6 blockade versus plasma cell directed therapy for the POEMS subtype.

Disease response and progression assessment in multiple myeloma (MM) is based on various measurements of monoclonal protein (serum and urine protein electrophoresis, serum free light chain (FLC, and or quantitative immunoglobulins). Currently, the IMWG consensus response criteria require two sequential assessments of any one marker made at any time before confirmation of disease progression and the institution of any new therapy. However, this can be cumbersome in clinical trials. Herein, we hypothesized that if two markers meet the progression criteria simultaneously, a repeat of either will not be necessary for confirmation. We retrospectively studied all sequential patients with myeloma enrolled in clinical trials at Mayo Clinic. We identified 583 episodes of confirmed progression in our study. Among the 583 progression episodes, nearly 70% (sensitivity of the simultaneous criteria) met the two simultaneous variable criteria at the first testing, indicating progression. Conversely, among 413 patients who met progression criteria by two simultaneous values, 98% (specificity of the simultaneous criteria) of patients subsequently had confirmed progression by sequential values. In summary, for patients with two disease burden markers meeting the simultaneous progression criteria, sequential assessment either one for confirmation may not be necessary to determine disease progression.

11549 Background: Follicular dendritic cell sarcoma (FDCS) is a rare neoplasm with a subset associated with unicentric Castleman disease (UCD). However, the impact of CD association on clinicopathologic features and survival outcomes remains unclear. This study aims to elucidate differences in disease characteristics and outcomes in FDCS with and without CD to guide future research and clinical practice. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 41 FDCS patients seen at Mayo Clinic between January 2000 and December 2024. Patients were categorized into CD-related (n = 9) and FDCS-only (n = 32) groups. Demographic, clinical, pathological, and survival data were compared. Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Epstein-Barr virus-associated inflammatory FDCS were excluded. Results: The CD-related group was younger at diagnosis (46.0 vs. 58.0 years, p = 0.041). Among those with CD-related FDCS, FDCS was diagnosed concurrently as CD in 6/9 (66.7%) and after the diagnosis of CD in 3/9 (33.3%). The FDCS-only patients were more likely to have extranodal disease (71.9% vs. 22.2%) and to have metastasis (62.5% vs 22.2%). One CD-related FDCS patient had paraneoplastic pemphigus. Among 11 patients with next-generation sequencing (NGS) results, 9 had pathogenic mutations. The most common pathogenic mutations included CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and TRAF3 copy number losses. Surgery was the preferred first-line intervention in FDCS-only and CD-related FDCS groups (19/32, 59.4% vs. 6/9, 66.7%). Eight out of 32 (25.0%) of the FDCS-only group received chemotherapy at first-line, most commonly Gemcitabine/Docetaxel or Adriamycin/Ifosphamide. While Gemcitabine/Docetaxel was the most preferred in the second line, different regimens were pursued in the third and later lines of therapy, including Pembrolizumab, Pazopanib, and stem cell transplant. Five out of 6 patients in the CD-related FDCS group received either adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy, which led to complete remission during the follow-up periods. The median follow-up was 22.4 months for the whole population. There was a trend for better OS and PFS among CD-related FDCS patients. The respective 2-year OS rates were 100% and 66.7%, and 2-year PFS rates were 57.1% and 43.1% for CD-related FDCS and FDCS-only patients, respectively. Conclusions: This study provides novel insights into clinicopathologic differences and survival trends for FDCS. Our data would suggest a less aggressive disease course among CD-related FDCS, which implies the need for different treatment strategies for CD and non-CD-related FDCS. Further research is warranted to elucidate these mechanisms, such as multi-omic analysis on benign FDC proliferation in the microdissected UCD areas and the adjacent FDCS cells to determine factors associated with progression to sarcoma.

e19531 Background: Effective treatment and elimination of clonal plasma cells (PC) in multiple myeloma (MM) are typically associated with recovery of polyclonal (normal) plasma cells (PPC). Studies suggest that robust PPC recovery is associated with better outcomes. However, it is unclear if this remains valid in the context of monoclonal antibodies, such as Daratumumab, that selectively target plasma cells, and in turn, may adversely impact PPC recovery. Methods: We identified patients with MM who underwent MRD testing using Euroflow method at 6-12 months after treatment initiation. Eight patients had disease progression prior to MRD testing and were excluded from further analysis. PPC was quantitated by the proportion of total events acquired during flow examination. Patients were considered MRD-negative if they had <1 clonal PCs in 10 5 cells, as detected in the marrow. We first examined the impact of initial therapy (Daratumumab vs. non-Daratumumab based regimens) and MRD status on PPC recovery. Subsequently, we analyzed impact of PPC recovery on patient outcomes in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: We identified 572 patients who had MRD testing by flow at a median of 9 months (range 6-12) after treatment initiation. The median age was 63 years, 58% were male. Daratumumab was part of initial therapy in 17% of patients; the most common induction therapies were PI-IMiD triplets (73%), and dara-PI-IMiD quads (15%). In our cohort, 74% of patients were MRD-negative. In our practice, only samples with no monotypic PCs identified on initial low-sensitivity flow proceed to MRD testing, hence, the proportion of MRD-negative patients appears higher in our study than previously reported. Median PPC was 0.02% and was similar between MRD-negative and -positive patients. We found the median PPC was significantly low in patients who received Daratumumab compared to the non-Daratumumab treated cohort (0.011% vs. 0.023%; p<0.01). There was a trend towards lower PFS and OS among the lowest PPC quartile group compared to the upper 3 quartiles, although this was not significant (p=0.07 for PFS and OS, Wilcoxon). This trend was more evident among patients who did not receive Daratumumab. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates negative impact of anti-CD38 therapy with Daratumumab on recovery of PPCs after initial treatment, consistent with the persistent hypogammaglobulinemia seen in clinical practice among these patients. However, unlike the observation with the non-Daratumumab treated cohort, the low proportion of PPCs does not significantly impact patient outcomes among patients who received Daratumumab.

e19545 Background: Cytogenetic abnormalities (CA) at diagnosis are important prognostic factors in multiple myeloma (MM), but there is limited information on how these abnormalities evolve at first relapse and their significance. Methods: This retrospective study included patients aged ≥18 years, with a confirmed diagnosis of MM who experienced at least one disease relapse and had fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis within six months of both diagnosis and relapse. Data on CA and clinical outcomes were collected. High-risk (HR) secondary CA were defined as the presence of deletion of chromosome 17p (del17p) or gain or amplification of chromosome 1q. The primary objective was to evaluate changes in HR secondary CA at first relapse, while the secondary objective was to assess the impact of the cytogenetic changes on overall survival (OS) from diagnosis. Based on the presence or absence of HR secondary CA, patients who were tested for HR secondary CA at both time points were classified into four groups: 1) persistent absence of HR secondary CA, 2) emergence of HR secondary CA at relapse, 3) persistent presence of HR secondary CA, and 4) loss of HR secondary CA at relapse. Results: A total of 233 patients diagnosed between 2004 and 2023 were included. HR secondary CA were tested in 98.7% (n= 230) of patients at diagnosis, with 24.8% (n=57) testing positive. At first relapse, testing for HR secondary CA was performed in 97.4% (n=227) of patients, of whom 23.8% (n=54) tested positive. Del17p was evaluated in 98.3% (n=229) of patients at baseline and 95.7% (n=223) at relapse, with positivity increasing from 10.9% (n=25) to 15.3% (n=34). Gain or amplification of chromosome 1q was evaluated in 49.4% (n=115) at baseline and 25.5% (n=60) at relapse, with positivity rate rising from 28.7% (n=33) to 38.3% (n=23). There were no differences in overall response rate or very-good-partial-response-or-better rates to the initial therapy at diagnosis between the groups. (Table) Emergence/persistence of HR CA were associated with lower OS from diagnosis. Conclusions: Emergence of HR secondary CA at first relapse in MM has prognostic significance. These findings highlight the importance of serial cytogenetic testing for risk stratification. Response rate to initial line of therapy and overall survival from diagnosis among patients tested for HR secondary CA both at diagnosis and first relapse (n=224). Outcome Persistent absence of HR secondary CA(n=142) Emergence of HR secondary CA at relapse (n=25) Persistent presence of HR secondary CA (n=27) Loss of HR secondary CA at relapse(n=30) p-value Overall response rate a 75% (106) 76% (19) 63% (17) 67% (20) 0.5 b Very-good-partial response or better response rate 43% (61) 36% (9) 44% (12) 40% (12) >0.9 b Median (95% CI) OS from diagnosis in years 11.3 (9.7-13.4) 7.5 (5.1-12.1) 6.1 (4.2-9.4) 10.1 (6.5-14.1) <0.0001 c a Partial response or better; b Chi-square test; c Log-rank test.

e19503 Background: The uptake of BCMA directed ADCs in MM has been hindered by ocular toxicity. Belantamab mafodotin (BM) and MEDI2228 (MEDI) are BCMA directed monoclonal antibodies conjugated to the microtubule inhibitor, monomethyl auristatin F and the alkylator, pyrrolobenzodiazepine, respectively. Differences in the ADCs payload, antibody specificity and linker stability influence ocular toxicity. We investigated the patterns of ocular toxicity and tolerability of BCMA directed ADC therapy. Methods: Retrospective study of MM patients who commenced treatment with a commercial or investigational BCMA directed ADC at the Mayo Clinic between 2019-22. Results: 111 patients were included, the median age was 69 and median follow up 40 months. The median number of prior treatments was 6, 87% of patients were triple class refractory, 50% penta class refractory, 14% had prior BCMA directed therapy and 24% had extraosseous disease. Treatments included BM (n=56, 50%), BM in combination with other MM therapy (n=12, 11%) and MEDI (n=43, 39%). The overall response rate was 30% for BM and 44% for MEDI. The median OS and PFS for BM was 8 and 2 months, the median OS and PFS for MEDI was 11 and 5 months. The median number of ADC cycles was 2.5. Ocular toxicity is summarized in the table 1. Keratopathy was more common with BM (p=0.004). Only 4 MEDI patients developed keratopathy, all grade 1 and associated with dry eyes and/or photophobia. In contrast, 60% of BM patients developed keratopathy (13% grade 3-4 keratopathy). The median time to keratopathy onset was 1 month with BM, and 2.8 with MEDI. The median time until keratopathy was 4.6 months for BM. Loss of best-corrected visual acuity (VA) was significantly more common with BM (p<0.001). The median time to any decline in VA was 1.5 months for BM and 2.3 for MEDI. The median time until VA returned to baseline was 2.4 months for BM and 2.3 for MEDI. The frequency of dose delays for ocular toxicity was comparable between ADCs, as was the number of dose reductions (16% BM vs. 12% MEDI, p=0.5). The most common reasons for treatment discontinuation were progression or death (BM=69%, MEDI=44%) and ocular toxicity (BM=18%, MEDI=30%). Conclusions: Treatment interruptions, dose reductions and drug discontinuation are common with BCMA directed ADC therapy. Further research to optimize the administration schedule of these agents is warranted. BM and MEDI produce distinct patterns of ocular side effects, namely keratopathy and reduced VA with the former, and photophobia and dry eyes with the latter. BM N = 68 MEDI N = 43 p-value 2 Prophylactic steroid eye drops 4 (6%) 28 (68%) <0.001 Prophylactic lubricant eye drops 42 (63%) 33 (80%) 0.051 Max grade keratopathy 0.004 1-2 29 (47%) 4 (19%) 3-4 8 (13%) 0 (0%) VA equal or worse than 20/40 26 (68%) 6 (20%) <0.001 Days of ADC treatment 59 (33, 167) 68 (41, 105) 0.9 Dose delay for ocular toxicity 19 (28%) 8 (19%) 0.2 n (%); Median (IQR); 2 Chisq test; Wilcoxon rank sum.

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .