Citations

ABSTRACT Anaplastic lymphoma kinase‐positive large B‐cell lymphoma (ALK+ LBCL) is a rare, aggressive subtype of diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma with poor outcomes using standard chemotherapy. In this multi‐institutional retrospective study, we analyzed 39 cases of ALK+ LBCL identified at six US academic centers from 2002 to 2024, with treatment including conventional cytotoxic regimens in frontline and biologically informed and nonchemotherapy‐based strategies in the relapsed setting. Ninety‐two percent of patients received frontline anthracycline‐based chemotherapy; 43% received intensified regimens, and 15% underwent upfront autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). Despite these approaches, outcomes remained poor. At a median follow‐up of 5.4 years, median event‐free survival (EFS) was 0.6 years (95% CI, 0.4–0.9), and median overall survival (OS) was 1.5 years (95% CI, 1.3–NR). One‐ and five‐year EFS rates were 28% and 17%, while corresponding OS rates were 72% and 42%, respectively. Advanced stage and high IPI scores were associated with inferior outcomes. Twelve patients received ALK inhibitors, with alectinib showing more durable responses than crizotinib. Lenalidomide and immune checkpoint inhibitors also demonstrated activity, including durable complete responses. Five patients underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation, with three achieving sustained remission. In conclusion, our findings highlight the limited benefit of chemotherapy, even when intensified or followed by ASCT, and support the integration of biologically targeted therapies, which may have contributed to improved OS in our cohort compared to historical outcomes. Prospective, collaborative studies are needed to better understand disease biology and define optimal use of modern therapies in this rare lymphoma.

Abstract Erdheim-Chester disease (ECD) is a rare systemic histiocytic neoplasm, with cardiac morbidities, including cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and cardiac conditions, playing a significant yet poorly understood role in the disease burden. This study evaluated the prevalence, characteristics, and prognosis of ECD in patients with (ECD-C) and without cardiac involvement (ECD-noC) and compared the burden of cardiac morbidities with matched controls. Patients diagnosed with ECD between 1990 and 2021 at a tertiary center were included, with cardiac involvement centrally assessed using radiographic studies. Cardiac morbidities were compared with a control group without ECD, matched for age, sex, body mass index, and smoking history. Among 104 patients with ECD, 39 (37%) had cardiac involvement. Patients with ECD-C had higher rates of hypertension (67% vs 46%), hyperlipidemia (67% vs 40%), heart failure (36% vs 8%), and pericardial effusion (28% vs 2%) than those with ECD-noC. Compared with the matched non-ECD cohort, patients with ECD had higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (20% vs 7%), heart failure (18% vs 4%), and antihypertensive drug use (55% vs 40%). Notably, patients with ECD-C had inferior progression-free survival (PFS) from frontline therapy compared with patients with ECD-noC (5-year PFS, 28.3% vs 70.5%). These findings highlight the burden of CV risk factors and cardiac conditions in ECD, even without a clinical diagnosis of ECD-C. Importantly, this cardiac morbidity burden is substantial for patients with ECD-C compared with ECD-noC. Our findings highlight the need for comprehensive cardiac risk assessment and management strategies to improve patient outcomes.

Abstract Introduction Biliary-tract cancers, including intra- and extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma, are uncommon but highly lethal. They represent roughly 2–3 % of new cancer diagnoses yet contribute about 5 % of cancer-related deaths. Complete surgical resection remains the foundation of curative treatment, whereas the value of peri-operative chemotherapy continues to be debated. Materials and Methods The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with non- metastatic biliary tract cancer at age 18 or older between 2004 and 2019. After excluding patients with unknown timing of surgery and chemotherapy, patients who died within 90 days of the most definitive primary site surgery, and patients lost to follow-up, we split the cohort into three groups according to the clinical stage (stage I-III). Then, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) between the different treatment modalities (surgery only, chemotherapy only, adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery, and neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery) in each group. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with OS. Results A total of 35,260 patients with non-metastatic biliary tract cancers were included in the analysis, of which 50.4% were females, 83% Caucasians, and 9.5% African Americans. The median age at diagnosis was 70 (range 18-90). 14,757 (41.9%) were stage I, 12,472 (35.4%) stage II, and 8,031 (22.8%) stage III. 7,286 (20.7%) had surgical resection only, 8,144 (23.1%) had chemotherapy only, 6,964 (19.7%) had surgical resection with perioperative chemotherapy, and 12,866 (36.5%) did not receive any treatment. We compared survival between different treatment modalities based on clinical stage. In stage I, patients treated with surgery alone exhibited superior median OS compared with those receiving adjuvant chemotherapy (65.7 vs 50.4 months, P < 0.001). Median OS after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was numerically higher than surgery alone (79.8 vs 65.7 months); however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.63). Whereas in stage II, patients who were treated with adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better mOS compared to those treated with surgery only (33.9 and 40.3 vs 29.9 months with P<0.001 and P=0.005, respectively). The same trend was seen in stage III, patients who were treated with adjuvant and those treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy had better mOS compared to surgery only (22.6 and 41.5 vs 19.5 months, respectively, with P<0.001 for all). In multivariate analysis, adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy did not affect the OS in all stages, except in stage III, where neoadjuvant chemotherapy was associated with better OS (HR 0.646, 95% CI 0.530-0.786; P<0.001). Conclusion Adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy do not seem to have a survival benefit in early-stage (stage I and II) biliary tract cancers, whereas neoadjuvant chemotherapy tends to improve OS in stage III.

Objectives: Anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC) is a rare and aggressive type of thyroid malignancy with a very poor prognosis and outcome despite therapy. The rarity of this disease and the poor functional status of ATC patients limit the ability to conduct clinical trials, thus there is a lack of large, controlled trials to guide treatment and evaluate the benefit of combined modality therapy. Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried for patients diagnosed with ATC at age 18 or older between 2004 and 2018. After excluding patients with unknown number of treatment modalities, Charlson-Deyo score—a weighted summary of 17 chronic disease categories where higher scores denote greater baseline comorbidity burden—of 3 or more and patients lost for follow-up, we split the cohort into 3 groups according to the number of treatment modalities they received. Treatment modalities included surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy. Then, we evaluated the overall survival (OS) between the 3 groups. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with OS. In addition, propensity score matching (accounting for age, sex, race, Charlson-Deyo score, and clinical M stage) was used for more robust results. Results: A total of 3460 patients with ATC were included in the analysis, of which 1472 (42.5%) either received one type of therapy or did not receive any therapy (group 1), 1092 (31.6%) received bimodal therapy (group 2), and 896 (25.9%) received trimodal therapy (group 3). We found that group 3 had better OS compared with group 1 and group 2 (median OS 9.1 vs. 1.7 and 4.9 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all comparisons). Propensity score matching yielded 896 patients in each group. We found that group 3 had better OS compared with group 1 and group 2 (median OS 9.1 vs. 1.9 and 5.2 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all comparisons). Same trend was found in subgroup analysis when we split the cohort according to the metastatic status; in M0 group (median OS was 10.4 vs. 1.9 and 6.1 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all), in M1 group (median OS was 5.9 vs. 1.4 and 3.7 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Modality-specific analyses further demonstrated that surgery, radiation, and systemic therapy each independently prolonged OS in both M0 and M1 cohorts (all P <0.001). These individual benefits explain the additive advantage of trimodal therapy and underscore that offering at least one evidence-based modality is preferable when comprehensive treatment is infeasible. On multivariate analysis, group 1 and group 2 were associated with worse OS compared with trimodal treatment (HR: 2.721; 95% CI: 2.466-3.002 and HR: 1.434; 95% CI: 1.299-1.582, P <0.001 for all). Conclusions: Patients with ATC who were treated with intensive trimodal therapy had statistically significant improvement in OS compared with patients who received less intense therapy. This survival benefit was observed in both metastatic and nonmetastatic groups. Although we acknowledge the limitations of this retrospective analysis, our results showed the critical role of an intensive therapy approach in this aggressive malignancy.

Acquired angioedema due to C1-inhibitor deficiency (AAE-C1INH) is a rare condition characterized by the localized swelling of the deeper skin layers and mucous membranes, especially the face, lips, tongue, throat, and gastrointestinal tract. AAE-C1INH is strongly associated with lymphoproliferative disorders, although it can also be linked to autoimmune conditions, solid tumors, infections, or even occur without an identifiable cause. We present the case of a 45-year-old female patient with complaints of recurrent abdominal pain, bloating, and joint swelling. Laboratory testing showed decreased C1q and C4 complement levels, and C1 esterase inhibitor levels, indicative of AAE-C1INH. Further work up confirmed a diagnosis of extranodal marginal zone lymphoma with involvement of the bone marrow and spleen. Treatment with rituximab led to resolution of angioedema symptoms and almost complete remission of underlying lymphoma. This case underscores the importance of evaluating an underlying lymphoproliferative disorder in AAE-C1INH. Therefore, the early participation of a multidisciplinary team including specialists in immunology, hematology, and oncology is necessary for appropriate management.

Abstract Epcoritamab and glofitamab are CD20-directed bispecific antibodies (BsAbs) approved in the United States for relapsed or refractory (R/R) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Limited data exist for patients treated outside of trials. Patients with R/R DLBCL receiving commercial epcoritamab or glofitamab between 1 January 2023 and 15 October 2024 were collected from 21 United States institutions. Among 245 patients, 156 received epcoritamab and 89 received glofitamab, 113 were refractory to front-line therapy, 40 had MYC and BCL2 and/or BCL6 rearrangements, 147 received prior chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, and 174 patients would have been ineligible for registrational trials. The overall response rate (ORR) for epcoritamab and glofitamab was 51% (23% complete response, [CR]) and 53% (30% CR), respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-3.8 months), and median overall survival (OS) was 7.8 months (95% CI, 6.2-11.0 months). The 6-month PFS was 36% (95% CI, 30-44) and the 6-month OS was 60% (95% CI, 54-67). Both trial ineligibility and undetectable CD20 pre-BsAbs portended shorter PFS and OS. Of 17 individuals with paired biopsies, 15 (88.2%) lost CD20 expression after BsAbs with a median time to progression of 3.7 months. This analysis including patients with R/R DLBCL shows the ORR to CD3/CD20 BsAbs was comparable to pivotal trials, although PFS and OS were lower. Baseline undetectable levels of CD20 were associated with poor outcomes. These results demonstrate the activity of BsAbs in R/R DLBCL, and underscore the importance of target antigen expression.

Objectives: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of liver malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death in the world. Liver transplant is a cornerstone in treating nonmetastatic disease, but a significant portion of patients miss the opportunity of upfront liver transplant given the long waiting time for donor organs. Herein, we compare the survival outcomes between upfront liver transplant, liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, and systemic therapy only. Methods: The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with non-metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) between 2004 and 2017. After including only patients with clinical N0 stage who received either systemic therapy alone, liver transplant alone or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy, we split the cohort into 3 groups: systemic therapy only (including intra-arterial chemotherapy eg, TACE) group, upfront liver transplant group and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy group. We evaluated overall survival (OS) among the three groups. We studied the OS using Kaplan-Meier estimates and multivariate Cox regression analyses to evaluate factors associated with overall survival (OS). Results: A total of 29,691 patients with nonmetastatic HCC were included for analysis, of which 25,122 (84.6%) were treated with systemic therapy only, 2513 (8.5%) were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant, and 2056 (6.9%) were treated with upfront liver transplant without systemic therapy bridge. We found that patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant had a statistically significantly better OS compared to patients who were treated with systemic therapy only (mean OS was 101.9 mo and 98.2 vs. 39.4 mo, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Whereas there was no significant difference in OS between patients who were treated with bridge systemic therapy followed by liver transplant and patients who were treated with upfront liver transplant (mean OS was 101.9 vs. 98.2 months, P =0.187). On multivariate analysis, factors associated with worse OS were older age (HR: 1.011; 95% CI: 1.010-1.013; P <0.001), Male sex (HR: 1.048; 95% CI: 1.014-1.084; P =0.006), White compared with African American race (HR: 1.055; 95% CI: 1.012-1.099; P =0.011), no insurance status (HR: 1.155; 95% CI: 1.079-1.237; P <0.001), clinical T4 stage compared with T0 stage (HR: 1.366; 95% CI: 1.257-1.483, P <0.001), and systemic therapy alone compared with upfront liver transplant and liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy (HR for upfront liver transplant and transplant with bridge systemic therapy vs. systemic therapy was 0.202; 95% CI: 0.184-0.223, and HR: 0.194, 95% CI: 0.178-0.212, respectively, with P <0.001 for all). Conclusions: Patients with nonmetastatic HCC who were treated with upfront liver transplant or liver transplant with bridge systemic therapy had statistically significant improvement in OS compared with patients who were treated with systemic therapy only. While our study confirms the survival benefit of liver transplant among patients with nonmetastatic HCC, these results raise the importance of proceeding with liver transplant after intra-arterial and/or systemic treatments in patients who are not initially eligible for or missed the opportunity of upfront liver transplant.

e13622 Background: Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapy has revolutionized treatment of hematologic malignancies; however, severe toxicities like cytokine release syndrome (CRS) remain a limitation to broader utilization. Using a large dataset of patients treated with CAR-T, we developed a machine learning (ML) model leveraging multi-model patient characteristics to predict the risk of CRS onset with clinically meaningful lead times. Methods: A prospectively maintained dataset of CAR-T patients treated at Mayo Clinic was used. Baseline disease/patients characteristics, labs, ECG, echocardiogram, and vital signs (including data from remote patient monitoring program) were collected. A 24-hour rolling window was used to generate daily averages, maximum, minimum, and deltas for each parameter. ECG and echocardiogram data were forward-imputed; vital signs and labs were not imputed. Each day-post-infusion served as a potential event (CRS onset vs. no CRS). A gradient boosting classifier was trained and tested on a subset of patients (n = 351) using 1,000 bootstrap iterations, evaluating 24-, 48-, and 72-hour lead times. Shapley-based feature importance guided simplification to an 11-feature model, externally validated on an independent cohort (n = 51). Models’ performance assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: A total of 402 patients treated with CAR-T were examined. Median age was 64 years and 36% were female. Primary diagnosis was B-cell lymphoma (n = 240) or multiple myeloma (n = 162). A total of 226,332 vital sign measurements and 372,871 lab values, as well as ECG and echocardiogram data, were collected for 30 days post-infusion. Overall, 79.8% of patients experienced CRS within 30 days. The full ML model demonstrated AUCs of 0.90 (95% CI 0.86–0.93), 0.83 (95% CI 0.77–0.88), and 0.82 (95% CI 0.77–0.87) for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour predictions of CRS, respectively. Including “day of CRS onset post CAR-T” as a feature improved the 72-hour AUC to 0.87 (95% CI 0.83–0.90). A model restricted to vital signs alone showed AUCs of 0.88, 0.75, and 0.71 for 24-, 48-, and 72-hour horizons. An 11-feature model—focusing on temperature, blood pressure, fibrinogen, CRP, serum sodium level, QRS interval, and lymphocyte counts—maintained high accuracy at 24 hours (AUC 0.90, 95% CI 0.86–0.93) and was validated externally using an independent dataset with an AUC of 0.92. Conclusions: Our ML model provides a reliable approach for predicting if/when CRS will occur, with up to three days of lead time before clinical manifestation, offering an opportunity for proactive management. The robust performance of a parsimonious 11-feature model supports practical adoption across clinical settings and real-time risk stratification to enhance patient safety. Prospective validation and integration into clinical workflows will be critical to translating these findings into practice.