Citations

Introduction The rapidly growing population of older adults (individuals aged 65 years and older) presents a new set of challenges for healthcare providers in the emergency department (ED), given the prevalence of severe and life-threatening conditions among this group, such as chronic cancer, Alzheimer’s disease/dementia and congestive heart failure. ED encounters often represent a critical point in an older patient’s trajectory of care and can thus be an important opportunity for various interventions such as palliative care consultation. Therefore, identifying those who will benefit most from palliative care is of high importance, especially in determining the course of future treatment. Thus, we aim to conduct a systematic review assessing the efficacy of palliative care screening in the ED by assessing inpatient length of stay as the primary outcome and quality of life, percentage of hospitalisation and cost of care as secondary outcomes. Methods This study will use Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO CINAHL, Web of Science and Cochrane as databases. The study population comprises adults aged 60 years and older, with no focus on any specific clinical specialty or disease. Patients who have not received palliative care screening will serve as the comparator. Only studies with an applicable comparator will be considered. Studies published from 1 January 2000 to 1 July 2025 will be included. All articles will be reviewed independently and in duplicate, and every author will participate in the review, data abstraction and conflict resolution process. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42024562389.

ImportanceAlthough incarceration is associated with worse cancer outcomes, little is known about quality of cancer care among people with a history of incarceration.ObjectiveTo describe quality of cancer care among those diagnosed with cancer during or immediately after incarceration.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis longitudinal cohort study used Connecticut Tumor Registry data linked to Department of Correction rosters from 2005 through 2016. Patients diagnosed with cancer while incarcerated were matched to those diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration and to those with no history of incarceration. Analysis was performed between March 2024 and January 2025.ExposuresIncarceration status at time of cancer diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcomes were treatment initiation within 60 days and receipt of recommended pretreatment and therapeutic care, ascertained from medical records and tumor registries. Logistic regression was used to evaluate odds of treatment initiation by 60 days. The proportion of recommended elements of pretreatment and therapeutic care received was calculated, and group differences were assessed using χ2 tests.ResultsThe sample included 690 individuals (233 diagnosed during incarceration, 221 diagnosed within 12 months after incarceration, and 236 with no incarceration history). The mean (SD) age was 49.7 (12.1) years, and 611 (88.6%) were male. Compared with those with no history of incarceration, those diagnosed with cancer during incarceration were less likely to initiate treatment within 60 days (169 of 209 [80.9%] vs 131 of 189 [69.3%]; OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.31-0.79]). Initiation of treatment within 60 days was not statistically different for those diagnosed after incarceration vs those with no history of incarceration (144 of 187 [77.0%]; OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.49-1.34]). Those diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 49.2% of recommended treatment-related care (31 of 63 measures), while those diagnosed after incarceration received 45.3% (34 of 75 measures), compared with 66.7% (36 of 54 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P < .001). People diagnosed with local and regional cancers during incarceration received 80.6% of recommended pretreatment evaluation (54 of 67 measures), and those diagnosed after received 96.8% (59 of 68 measures), compared with 78.1% (50 of 64 measures) among those with no history of incarceration (P = .01).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study of people with a history of incarceration, incarceration was associated with lower likelihood of receiving timely, high-quality cancer treatment. Along with other published literature, this work suggests that gaps in quality of care may contribute to observed disparities in outcomes.

Abstract Molecular profiling reveals that up to 40% of advanced biliary tract cancers (BTCs) harbor actionable genomic alterations amenable to matched targeted therapies. However, conventional trial designs typically evaluate these agents in pretreated populations, resulting in approvals for later-line use. Notably, 25–44% of patients with advanced BTC may become ineligible for treatment after first-line therapy due to disease progression or functional decline, thus the real-world survival outcomes with matched therapies remains poorly characterized. This international collaborative study includes data from Mayo Clinic, Duke Cancer Institute, and National Cancer Center East (Japan), as well as a combined dataset from the SCRUM-Japan GOZILA, MONSTAR-SCREEN-1, and MONSTAR-SCREEN-2 projects. We assessed overall survival (OS) of patients based on the presence of actionable alterations and the receipt of matched therapy. To adjust for confounding, we applied propensity score weighting with inverse probability of treatment and multivariate Cox regression modeling, controlling for age, sex, tumor location, prior resection, and mutational subgroup. Among 1,049 patients that were analyzed, 358 (34.1%) harbored actionable alterations, with 160 (44.7%) receiving matched targeted therapy. The matched group (patients with actionable tumors who received a matched therapy) were significantly associated with longer median OS (23.3 months; 95% CI: 19.5–30.4) compared to the unmatched group (14.7 months; 95% CI: 12.8–17.9) and those with non-actionable tumors (17.1 months; 95% CI: 15.5–18.7; HR 0.57, 95% CI: 0.46–0.71; p < 0.0001). The unmatched group also was associated with the lowest three-year OS rate (13% vs. 35% in matched and 19% in actionable groups, respectively; p<0.0001). On multivariable analysis with patients who received ≥2 lines of therapy, receipt of matched therapy remained an independent predictor of improved OS (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.90). These findings support the early integration of targeted therapies in BTC management and underscore the need to overcome systemic barriers to treatment access.

Abstract Background Dystonia and Parkinson's disease (PD) exhibit clinical and genetic overlap, but the relevance of dystonia gene variants in PD remains unclear. Objective The aim was to assess the frequency of dystonia‐linked pathogenic variants in PD. Methods We screened sequencing data from 15,684 individuals (8272 PD, 3200 atypical parkinsonism, and 4212 unaffected) from the Global Parkinson's Genetics Program (GP2) and Accelerating Medicines Partnership‐Parkinson's Disease (AMP‐PD) for variants in genes linked to isolated dystonia, dystonia‐parkinsonism, and myoclonus‐dystonia. Results Pathogenic variants were identified only in PD patients. Forty‐five PD individuals (0.54%) carried 26 distinct (likely) pathogenic variants in nine dystonia‐linked genes, most frequently in GCH1 , followed by VPS16 . Conclusion Though rare, pathogenic variants in dystonia‐linked genes are present in clinically and pathologically diagnosed PD. Our results reinforce GCH1 as a PD‐relevant gene with clinical implications, whereas variants identified in other genes are rare and of uncertain relation to the PD phenotype. © 2025 The Author(s). Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Background: Thyroid eye disease (TED) is a debilitating autoimmune disorder linked to thyroid dysfunction. There is limited knowledge of TED in Asian populations. This multicenter study characterizes the clinical features and treatment response of TED in a large Chinese cohort. Methods: A retrospective multicenter study included 4157 patients with TED from nine Chinese hospitals from February 2016 to July 2023. Disease severity and activity were evaluated according to the European Group on Graves’ Orbitopathy standards. We examined associations of variables including sex, age, smoking status, I 131 treatment, consultation department, and geographical region with clinical outcomes. Logistic regression and nomogram models were developed to examine associations with sight-threatening TED and, in a subgroup analysis ( n = 126), patients’ responsiveness to intravenous glucocorticoid (IVGC) therapy. Results: We included 4157 patients with mean age and standard deviation (SD) 45.96 ± 16.44 years. Of these, 63.6% ( n = 2644) were females. Over half (55.6%, n = 2310) of participants were in the inactive phase, with a mean clinical activity score of 2.19 ± 1.61 (SD) for all patients. TED severity was categorized as mild (9.3%, n = 385), moderate-to-severe (82.5%, n = 3428), and sight-threatening (8.2%, n = 344). The average degree of exophthalmos was 20.04 ± 5.27 mm, and 48.8% ( n = 2029) of patients had diplopia. Patients treated with I 131 had higher disease activity (47.5%, n = 468, vs. 43.5%, n = 1379, p < 0.05). Coastal region patients exhibited more severe TED (sight-threatening cases: 10.1%, n = 195, vs. 7.2%, n = 147) and higher diplopia scores (1.00 ± 1.10 vs. 0.86 ± 1.09, p < 0.001) than inland counterparts. TED severity was also greater in patients treated in Ophthalmology departments (mild cases: 6.0%, n = 213; moderate-to-severe cases: 85.6%, n = 3055) compared with Endocrinology departments (mild cases: 29.3%, n = 172; moderate-to-severe cases: 63.5%, n = 373). Nomograms had an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.742 (confidence interval [CI] 0.716–0.768) for sight-threatening TED and 0.759 (CI 0.674–0.843) for IVGC therapy responsiveness. Conclusions: We characterized the clinical features and treatment response of TED in a large Chinese cohort. These findings offer valuable insights informing TED risk stratification in Asian patients and forming a foundation for future prospective studies.

207 Background: CAR-T & bispecific antibodies (BsAb) for large B-cell lymphoma offer deep responses, but have unique toxicities requiring close monitoring. Different practice settings have varied strategies for managing these toxicities, leading to increased costs, healthcare resource use, & reduced quality of life. With no direct comparison, rationale for therapy selection may vary. This study explores provider choices, sequencing strategies & access barriers. Methods: A survey of US-based Hematologists was conducted on practice demographics, therapy availability, preferences, & barriers in LBCL. Responses were analyzed across clinical scenarios. Results: Responses were received from 45 physicians. Availability of CAR-T & BsAb varied with 75% prescribing both, & only BsAb being available at 9% of providers’ centers. There was a strong preference for CAR-T over BsAb—higher among academic vs. nonacademic providers (96% vs. 78%; p = 0.03) & at CAR-T vs. non-CAR-T centers (100% vs. 72%; p = 0.001). Even at BsAb-only centers, preference leaned toward CAR-T, though notably lower compared to CAR-T centers. Among centers without either, 86% preferred CAR-T. Practice volume had no impact. Reasons for favoring CAR-T included perceived better outcomes (55%), shorter treatment (26%), center choice (19%), more experience (48%), & curative potential (21%). BsAb selection was driven by CAR-T unavailability & logistical barriers (distance to specialized center, insurance delays, referral complexity, manufacturing time, & hospitalization needs). Axi-cel was preferred by 69% ( p = 0.0001) vs. other CAR-T for third-line or later due to experience with use, response rates, center choice, & logistical ease. Liso-cel (26%) & Tisa-cel (2%) were chosen for perceived favorable toxicity over Axi-cel. Axi-cel was also preferred second-line vs. Liso-cel (73% vs. 24%; p < 0.0001) for similar reasons. Among BsAb, Epcoritamab was favored by 56% for administration ease (subcutaneous), experience, & center preference; Glofitamab by 42% for shorter duration, experience, & center preference. There was no difference by academic vs nonacademic practice & volume for both CAR-T & BsAb. In patients with prior non-CAR-T anti-CD19 therapy, providers chose CD19 CAR-T over CD20 BsAb (80% vs. 18%; p < 0.0001). For relapse after second-line CAR-T, 78% providers preferred BsAb as the next line over other options ( p < 0.0001) due to more favorable response rates, toxicity profile, & experience with use. Providers prioritized response rates, survival, & toxicity profile in their treatment decisions. Logistics, duration, frequency, & cost were less important. There were no differences based on practice setting & CAR-T experience. Conclusions: Despite higher preference for CAR-T due to perceived superior outcomes, access barriers exist. Efforts to streamline referral pathways, logistics, & expand availability are crucial to improve outcomes.

Abstract Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell (CAR-T) treatment for B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) induces high initial response rates, but most patients relapse. Low disease burden (often defined as &lt;5% blasts in the bone marrow) is associated with better outcomes. CAR HEMATOTOX (HT) is a score using prelymphodepletion hematologic and inflammatory parameters to predict outcomes in lymphoma. Here, we assess its prognostic utility in a large multicenter adult B-cell ALL cohort. Patients who received brexucabtagene autoleucel across 33 centers in North America were included as part of the Real-World Outcomes Collaborative of CAR-T in Adult ALL (ROCCA) consortium. An independent cohort of 61 patients with ALL treated with an investigational CD19 CAR-T therapy at 1 center was also described. Among 199 ROCCA consortium patients, 43 (22%) patients with HTlow scores had lower rates of delayed neutrophil recovery than those with HThigh scores (26% vs 52%, P = .002) and fewer severe infections (2.5% vs 18.8%, P = .011). They also had higher response rates, overall survival (OS), and event-free survival (EFS), as well as lower nonrelapse mortality and cumulative incidence of relapse. The survival differences remained significant after multivariable adjustment for disease burden and other covariates. In the investigational cohort of 61 patients, patients with HTlow scores had improved OS and EFS, as well as higher peak CAR-T expansion. In summary, CAR HT score is a prognostic factor independent of disease burden in adult ALL. HTlow score is associated with superior outcomes after CD19 CAR-Ts and higher CAR-T expansion in a single-center cohort. These trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01044069 and #NCT01860937.