Citations

ABSTRACT The clinical relevance of TP53 mutations ( TP53 MUT ) in myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) and their prognostic interaction with MPN subtype designation has not been systematically studied. In the current study, 114 patients with MPN harboring TP53 MUT (VAF ≥ 2%) were evaluated for overall survival (OS), calculated from the time of TP53 MUT detection: chronic phase myelofibrosis (MF‐CP; N = 61); blast‐phase (MPN‐BP; N = 31) or accelerated‐phase (MPN‐AP; N = 16) MPN, and polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia (PV/ET; N = 6). Sixty‐five (57%) patients harbored International Consensus Classification (ICC)‐defined multihit TP53 MUT and 56 (49%) monosomal/complex karyotype (MK/CK). Majority of MPN‐BP (90%) and MPN‐AP (81%) while 39% of MF‐CP and none of PV/ET patients harbored multihit TP53 MUT . OS in MPN‐BP and MPN‐AP was equally dismal (median 6 vs. 4.5 months, respectively; p = 1.0), regardless of multihit configuration ( p = 0.44), while OS in TP53 MUT MPN‐BP/AP ( N = 47; median 4 months) was inferior to that of a separate cohort ( N = 49) with TP53 wild‐type MPN‐BP/AP (median 11 months; p < 0.01). OS in MF‐CP was significantly shorter with multihit versus non‐multihit TP53 MUT (median 10 vs. 35 months; HR 2.9; p < 0.01), independent of other MF‐relevant genetic risk factors, including ASXL1/SRSF2/U2AF1 mutations. Multihit TP53 MUT was also associated with inferior survival following allogeneic stem cell transplant (ASCT): median 9 months versus “not reached” in patients with ( N = 9) versus without ( N = 8) multihit TP53 MUT ( p < 0.01). The presence of multihit or non‐multihit TP53 MUT in MPN‐BP/AP or multihit TP53 MUT in MF‐CP is associated with exceptionally poor prognosis and justifies inclusion into the ICC category of “myeloid neoplasms with mutated TP53 .” By contrast, detection of non‐multihit TP53 MUT , by itself, might not endanger short‐term survival in MF‐CP, PV, or ET.

ABSTRACTObjectiveTo assess how patient and caregiver factors influence caregiver readiness for hospital discharge in palliative care patients.Study Setting and DesignThis transitional care study uses cross‐sectional data from a randomized controlled trial conducted from 2018 to 2023 testing an intervention for caregivers of hospitalized adult patients with a serious or life‐limiting illness who received a palliative care consult prior to transitioning out of the hospital.Data Sources and Analytical SampleCaregiver readiness was measured with the Family Readiness for Hospital Discharge Scale (n = 231). Caregiver demographic, intra‐ and interpersonal factors were self‐reported. Patient demographic, comorbidity score, and risk score for complicated discharge planning were extracted from electronic health records. Stepwise regression models estimated variance explained (r2) in caregiver readiness for patient hospital discharge.Principal FindingsPatient demographics and complexity were not statistically associated with caregiver readiness for discharge. Caregiver depressive symptoms, poor caregiver‐patient relationship quality, and fewer hours spent caregiving prior to hospitalization explained 29% of the variance in caregiver readiness.ConclusionsReliance on patient data may not be sufficient for explaining caregiver readiness for discharge. Assessing caregiver factors may be a better alternative for identifying caregivers at risk for low discharge readiness and those in need of additional support.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov on November 13, 2017, (No. NCT03339271)

We present an interesting case of a 74‐year‐old female who presented with spinal accessory neuropathy following an ipsilateral right‐sided carotid endarterectomy 6 months after the initial injury. Subsequent surgical exploration revealed a surgical clip that had been placed directly across the spinal accessory nerve. Clip removal and neurolysis was subsequently performed, leaving the nerve intact. After surgical intervention, she immediately demonstrated increased bilateral shoulder shrug motion and continues to improve her function with physical therapy. This case demonstrates a fascinating case of cranial nerve recovery after delayed intervention in the context of existing literature. Laryngoscope, 135:2073–2075, 2025

Background. Early allograft dysfunction (EAD) affects outcomes in liver transplantation (LT). Existing risk models developed for deceased-donor LT depend on posttransplant factors and fall short in living-donor LT (LDLT), where pretransplant evaluations are crucial for preventing EAD and justifying the donor’s risks. Methods. This retrospective study analyzed data from 2944 adult patients who underwent LDLT at 17 centers between 2016 and 2020. We developed a logistic regression model to predict EAD based on this development cohort. We used data from 1020 patients at the King Faisal Transplant Center for external validation. Results. In the development cohort, 321 patients (10.9%) experienced EAD. These patients had poorer health status, more liver decompensation, and higher requirements of hospitalization than those without EAD. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent pretransplant predictors of EAD: laboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score (odds ratio [OR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-1.09), the necessity for hospitalization at the time of transplant (OR, 2.58; 95% CI, 2.00-3.30), and graft weight in kilogram (OR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.17-0.45). Using these predictors, we developed the model for EAD after LDLT, which demonstrated strong discriminative ability in the development cohort with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.71 (95% CI, 0.68-0.74). The model maintained high discrimination during internal validation (AUC, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.67-0.73) and showed a modest reduction in discriminative power in external validation (AUC, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.61-0.68). Conclusions. EAD post-LDLT is influenced by the recipient’s pretransplant health condition and the graft weight. Integrating the model for EAD after LDLT into the pretransplant process of pairing donors and recipients can enhance the safety and efficacy of LDLT.

This study aimed to explore contextual elements of the cancer experience that are consistently distressing and/or psychologically traumatic, as well as explore perceptions of Accelerated Resolution Therapy® (ART®) and its influence on the cancer experience. Using a qualitative descriptive design, semi-structured interviews were completed by 12 participants following the completion of ART. Interview data were analyzed using content analysis to identify major themes and patterns. Four themes included: (a) Cancer as the straw that broke the camel’s back, (b) ART® is different from previous therapy, (c) Don’t need to always be looking in the rearview mirror, and (d) Importance of early psychological intervention. Participants perceived that ART® was different and potentially more effective than other types of therapy they had previously received. Results support the diagnosis of cancer and the cumulative effects of previous life events and cancer-related stressors as traumatic events.

AbstractDefining the CSF cytokine/chemokine and injury biomarker signature of glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) autoimmunity can inform immunopathogenesis. CSF GFAP‐IgG‐positive samples (N = 98) were tested for 17 cytokines/chemokines, neurofilament light chain (NfL), and GFAP (ELLA, Bio‐Techne). Controls included non‐inflammatory (N = 42), AQP4‐IgG‐positive (N = 83), CNS infections (N = 13), and neurosarcoidosis (N = 32). IL5, IL6, IL10, IL8/CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CXCL13, BAFF, GM‐CSF, IFN‐gamma, and TNF‐alpha concentrations were higher compared to non‐inflammatory controls (P < 0.01). GFAP concentrations were similar to those of AQP4‐IgG‐positive patients; NfL was higher (P < 0.001) and correlated with MRI changes and outcomes. CSF cytokine/chemokine findings in GFAP autoimmunity correlate with histopathology; GFAP and NfL hold promise as disease biomarkers.

206 Background: XTX101 is an investigational tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced, high affinity binding aCTLA-4 designed to block CTLA-4 and deplete regulatory T cells upon activation in the tumor by proteases. XTX101 also contains mutations designed to enhance Fcγ receptor binding. Fc enhancement augments FcγR co-engagement on antigen presenting cells and has been linked with efficacy of aCTLA-4 combinations in patients (pts) with “cold tumors”, including microsatellite stable (MSS) colorectal cancer (CRC). Parts 1A/1B of the study evaluated XTX101 monotherapy in pts with advanced solid tumors. XTX101 was generally well tolerated with limited peripheral XTX101 activation (~13%) compared to evidence of XTX101 activation in the tumor microenvironment (73-96%, in n=2 on-treatment tumor biopsies). A durable partial response (PR) and resolution of hepatic metastases was observed in a pt with PD-L1 negative NSCLC at the monotherapy recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of 150 mg once every six weeks (Q6W) [1]. Methods: Part 1C evaluated the safety and feasibility of XTX101 in combination with atezolizumab in pts with advanced solid tumors using 3+3 dose escalation to establish the RP2D. Phase 2 is enrolling pts with MSS CRC with at least 1 prior regimen for metastatic CRC. Initial safety and anti-tumor activity data from Phase 2 in ~20 pts will be presented. Results: As of July 15, 2024, 15 pts were enrolled in Part 1C: MSS CRC (n=12), esophageal cancer, NSCLC, and ampullary carcinoma (n=1 each). Median age 69 and 3 prior lines of therapy (1-12). Across all XTX101 dose levels (75 mg to 150 mg), treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade with >10% incidence included infusion reactions (n=4), fatigue and diarrhea (n=2 each), no G4 or G5 TRAEs were reported. In Part 1C, 2 pts experienced a dose limiting toxicity: 1 pt had G3 colitis, and 1 pt had G3 liver enzyme elevation (both were at the XTX101 150 mg dose level and resolved with immunosuppression). Two unconfirmed PRs were reported: in a pt with MSS CRC, including resolution of a liver target lesion, and in a pt with ampullary carcinoma (accompanied by a Ca 19-9 decrease from 700 to 41). In addition, a decrease in intra-tumoral Tregs was observed in paired tumor biopsies from a pt. The combination RP2D was established as XTX101 100 mg Q6W and atezolizumab 1200 mg once every three weeks (Q3W), and enrollment in the Phase 2 part of the study for pts with MSS CRC is ongoing at the RP2D. Conclusions: In Part 1C dose escalation, the combination of XTX101, a tumor-activated, Fc-enhanced aCTLA-4, and atezolizumab was generally well tolerated in pts with advanced solid tumors and demonstrated initial evidence of anti-tumor activity in cold tumors. These data support the initiation of an ongoing Phase 2 study evaluating the combination in pts with MSS CRC with and without liver metastases. 1. Davar ESMO IO 2023. Clinical trial information: NCT04896697 .