Citations

Clear

5628 citation(s) found for "Anderson, KS".

Planning Ahead: Residents’ Guide to Building a Strong Financial Future
Azhideh, Arash , Ozcan, B. Bersu , Miao, Julia H. , Anderson, Jacqueline Kunzelman , Brun‐Vergara, Maria Lucia , Kunzelman Anderson, Jacqueline

Mayo Clinic

RadioGraphics | December 11, 2025 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 1 | Pages: No page available

10.1148/rg.250004 | PMID 41379652 Get It

Cognitive Impairment and Chemoendocrine vs Endocrine Therapy in Pre- and Postmenopausal Women
Kang, Irene , Forschmiedt, Jamie K., Loch, Michelle Marie, Lew, Danika L., Albain, Kathy S. , Hayes, D. F., Perez, Edith A. , Goldstein, Lori J. , Rastogi, Priya , Schott, Anne F. , Baehner, Rick , Tripathy, Debasish , Henry, N. Lynn, Barlow, William E. , Gralow, Julie R. , Meric‐Bernstam, Funda , Lin, Nancy U. , Sharma, Priyanka , Pusztai, Lajos , Hortobágyi, Gabriel N. , Kalinsky, Kevin M.

Mayo Clinic

JAMA Oncology | December 11, 2025 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 159

10.1001/jamaoncol.2025.5220 | PMID 41379459 Get It

Importance Breast cancer treatment is associated with cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI). However, the association of endocrine therapy (ET) vs chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy (CET) with CRCI is poorly understood. Objective To compare patient-reported CRCI between women with breast cancer treated with ET vs CET and to consider whether menopausal status may be associated. Design, Settings, and Participants This was a prespecified secondary analysis of RxPONDER (SWOG S1007), a multinational phase 3 randomized clinical trial of more than 5000 women with hormone receptor−positive ERBB2 -negative (formerly HER2 -negative) breast cancer with 1 to 3 involved lymph nodes and Oncotype DX (21-gene recurrence score) of 25 or less. Participants were enrolled from February 2011 to September 2017, with results first reported in December 2020. Participants were randomly assigned to CET or ET, with ongoing follow-up. This secondary analysis assessed cognitive function using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Perceived Cognitive Function Concerns (PCF) questionnaire at baseline, 6, 12, and 36 months. Data were analyzed from July 2022 to August 2025. Intervention Random assignment to CET or ET. Main Outcomes and Measures Mean PCF standardized (T) scores by menopausal status over time using generalized estimating equations analysis for continuous outcomes. Results Of the 568 patients who completed the baseline questionnaire and were included in the analysis, 139 (24%) were premenopausal (median [range] age, 47.8 [28.0-56.3] years) and 429 (76%) were postmenopausal (median [range] age, 62.3 [37.3-87.6] years). Among the 274 (48%) who received CET and the 294 (52%) who received ET alone, CET was determined to have a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI in both the pre- and postmenopausal participants during the 36-month follow-up. In the ET alone group, PCF scores for premenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (53.53, 51.51, and 51.72, respectively) but recovered to baseline (54.36) at 36 months. For postmenopausal participants, mean PCF scores were essentially stable (51.72, 51.13, 51.11, and 51.70, respectively); however, in the CET group, PCF scores for both pre- and postmenopausal participants decreased from baseline to 6 and 12 months (premenopausal, 52.84, 49.27, 48.04; postmenopausal, 50.65, 48.39, 47.13, respectively) and did not return to baseline at 36 months (premenopausal, 49.25; postmenopausal, 48.44). The difference in longitudinal mean PCF scores over time between CET and ET groups was −3.02 (95% CI, −5.33 to −0.72; P = .01) for premenopausal and −2.37 (95% CI, −3.92 to −0.82; P = .003) for postmenopausal participants. Conclusions and Relevance This secondary analysis of the RxPONDER found that CET had a greater negative association with patient-reported CRCI compared to ET alone in both pre- and postmenopausal participants over a 36-month follow-up period. Interventions to prevent or treat CRCI are needed to improve the long-term quality of life of these patients treated with chemotherapy. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01272037
Vascular Toxicities of Cancer Therapies: 2025 Update
Abe, Jun‐ichi , Lerman, Amir , Iliescu, Cezar , Herrmann, Joerg , Donisan, Teodora , Abe, Jun-Ichi , Lerman, Amir , Iliescu, Cezar A , Herrmann, Joerg , Balanescu, Dinu Valentin

Mayo Clinic

Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology | December 11, 2025 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 2 | Pages: No page available

10.1161/atvbaha.125.319867 | PMID 41376595 Get It

Advances in cancer therapies have transformed many malignancies into chronic or manageable conditions, but have been linked to adverse, including cardiovascular, events. Vascular toxicities associated with cancer treatment range from abnormal vasoreactivity to accelerated atherosclerosis, arterial thrombotic events, vasculitis, and arterial aneurysms or dissections. 5-fluorouracil and VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) inhibitors are the agents most commonly linked to abnormal vasoreactivity, whereas BCR-ABL (breakpoint cluster region–Abelson murine leukemia viral oncogene homolog) inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been associated with accelerated atherosclerosis. Arterial thrombotic events are seen with VEGF and BCR-ABL inhibitors as well as platinum drugs. Vasculitis emerged with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors, and arterial aneurysms and dissections with VEGF inhibitors. Radiation therapy can lead to several of the outlined vascular toxicities. This review comprehensively explores the mechanisms of vascular complications associated with chemotherapy, targeted therapies, immunotherapies, and radiation therapy. Key contributors include endothelial injury and dysfunction, oxidative stress, and inflammation. An understanding of the mechanisms of vascular toxicities may facilitate optimal treatment and preventive strategies in patients with cancer.
(268) Pre- And Post-vasectomy Pain Scores in Office-Based Vasectomy
Dalkin, Bruce L., Anderson, Annette , Klose, Christoph S. N. , Qualkenbush, Eric , Baird, Bryce , Anderson, A, Klose, C

Mayo Clinic

The Journal of Sexual Medicine | December 9, 2025 | Volume: 22 | Issue: Supplement_4 | Pages: No page available

10.1093/jsxmed/qdaf320.264 Get It

Abstract Introduction Vasectomy is a highly effective, permanent method of contraception. Vasectomy is commonly performed in the outpatient urology clinic with the patient awake. There is clearly anticipation of pain as well as anxiety associated with the procedure. Objective The objective of our study was to evaluate anticipated versus experienced pain associated with office-based vasectomy. Methods We studied men who underwent vasectomy in May and June of 2022. Men who had no history of scrotal surgery of any kind were asked to score the anticipated pain associated with an office based vasectomy with a score of 0-10. After the vasectomy, patients were asked to rate the pain they perceived with the vasectomy on the same scale (0-10). Results A total of 17 men were asked to rate their pain as discussed in the method section. The median age of men sampled was 38 years of age. All men we treated were given 15 mg of Valium before the procedure and instructed to take the medication 30 minutes prior to their procedure. The average pre vasectomy prediction pain score was 7.5+/- 1.9; the average post-injection perceived pain score was 2.9+/- 1.9. Thus there was an average decrease of over 4 points in the predicted pain versus perceived pain. A two-sample T test was performed; in addition Wilcoxson Signed Rank Test was performed. Both tests showed a statistical significance in the difference between pre and post vasectomy pain scores (p<0.001). Conclusions We found that patients who are undergoing office based vasectomy for the first time have a significantly higher perception of pain versus perception of pain after the injection. We have utilized this data in our clinic to explain to patients that while most patients will predict a high pain score associated with the vasectomy, the vast majority of patients report minimal pain after the procedure. Our study can be particularly helpful in patients who have had significant anxiety about office based vasectomy and for those patients who are deciding between office based vasectomy and vasectomy performed under general anesthesia. Disclosure No
Immune thrombocytopenia in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
Leaf, Rebecca Karp , Mones, Jodi V. , Shenoy, Tushar , Warsame, Mohamed , Moreira, Marina Beltrami , Panch, Sandhya , Leavitt, Andrew D., Zon, Rebecca L. , Shahamatdar, Sahar , Lim, Tristan , Cui, Can , Jiang, Debbie , Kaunfer, Sarah Allison , Durai, Lavanya , Hoge, Steven T., Dias, Julie‐Alexia , Sha, Carrie , Holmes, Aaron , Easton, Neil , Corley, Elizabeth M. , Zhao, Ethan, Li, Xingyi , Spelman, Amy, Amos, Christina Briggs, Soebbing, Doris, Shabih, Maria, Jamison, Trevor , Liu, Bolun , Hussein, Guleid , Yadav, Sumeet K. , Meara, Alexa, Juras, Patrick K. , Heskel, Marina, Reynolds, Kerry L. , Kroll, Michael H. , Leaf, David E. , Leaf, Rebecca K , Beltrami-Moreira, Marina , Cui, Can , Jiang, Debbie , Kaunfer, Sarah A , Durai, Lavanya , Dias, Julie-Alexia , Holmes, Aaron N , Easton, Neela , Corley, Elizabeth M , Liu, Bolun , Yadav, Sumeet Kumar , Elsaid, Mohamed I , Suresh, Arvind , Huang, Jennifer J , Glezerman, Ilya G , Al-Samkari, Hanny , Kroll, Michael H , Leaf, David E , Leavitt, Andrew D. , Kendall, Ellen K. , Hoge, Steven T., Li, Xingyi, Amos, Christina Briggs, Owen, Dwight H , Meara, Alexa, Go, Ronald S. , Al‐Samkari, Hanny

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 8, 2025 | Volume: 147 | Issue: 12 | Pages: 1351-1364

10.1182/blood.2025031449 | PMID 41359796 Get It

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitor–associated immune thrombocytopenia (ICI-ITP) has been described in case reports and small case series, but comprehensive data on its incidence, risk factors, clinical features, treatment, and outcomes are lacking. We reviewed medical records of all adults initiating ICI therapy between 2016 and 2023 at 29 US hospitals across 7 major cancer centers to identify patients with ICI-ITP. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify risk factors, and Cox modeling was performed to assess the association between ICI-ITP, its severity, and mortality. Among 86 467 patients, ICI-ITP occurred in 214 (0.25%). Independent risk factors included lower baseline platelet count, combination ICI therapy, stage IV cancer, and additional immune-related adverse events. ICI-ITP occurred at a median of 8 weeks (interquartile range [IQR], 4-18) after ICI initiation, with a median nadir platelet count of 41 × 109/L (IQR, 17 × 109/L to 64 × 109/L). Patients were treated with glucocorticoids (n = 106 [49.5%]), immune globulin (n = 39 [18.2%]), and thrombopoietin receptor agonists (n = 29 [13.6%]). Recovery occurred in 161 patients (75.2%) at a median of 2.3 weeks (IQR, 1.0-5.3). Of 76 patients rechallenged with ICIs, 23 (30.3%) developed recurrent ICI-ITP. ICI-ITP and its severity were associated with higher all-cause mortality, with a nearly threefold increase in risk among patients with severe ICI-ITP than those without ICI-ITP (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.96 [95% confidence interval, 2.14-4.08]). These findings establish ICI-ITP as a rare but clinically significant complication of ICI therapy, provide, to our knowledge, the first large-scale description of its risk factors and clinical course, and underscore the importance of timely recognition and management.
Differences in patient-reported time toxicity between bispecific antibody (BsAb) options: Impact of treatment duration and dosing frequency on patient-reported time burden in relapsed/refractory (R/R) follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B-cell lymph
Major, Ajay, Ma, Esprit, Masaquel, Anthony, Tsang, Mazie, Di, Mengyang, Kaur, Supreet, Pophali, Priyanka, Werner, Sally, Bungay, Rebecca, Latremouille-Viau, Dominick, Guerin, Annie, Reyes, Carolina, Wu, Mei, Cassoli, Lourenia, Torka, Pallawi, Major, Ajay, Ma, Esprit, Masaquel, Anthony, Tsang, Mazie, Di, Mengyang, Kaur, Supreet, Pophali, Priyanka, Werner, Sally, Bungay, Rebecca, Latremouille-Viau, Dominick, Guerin, Annie, Reyes, Carolina, Wu, Mei, Cassoli, Lourenia, Torka, Pallawi

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 6181-6181

10.1182/blood-2025-6181 Get It

Abstract Background Several BsAbs with different treatment (Tx) approaches have been approved by the FDA for Tx of lymphoma, including: fixed-duration and less frequently dosed mosunetuzumab (mosun) and glofitamab (glofit) (Option 1 Tx approach); and treat to progression and more frequently dosed epcoritamab (epcor) (Option 2 Tx approach). Differences in Tx approaches have implications for time spent receiving care, known as “time toxicity”. We previously reported that mosun and glofit were associated with about 2 weeks lower time toxicity vs epcor over the first year in R/R FL and DLBCL, based on registrational trial protocols (Torka et al. Blood 2024; Ma et al. Value in Health 2025). In this study, we assessed time toxicity from the perspective of patients (pts) receiving BsAbs for R/R FL or DLBCL. Methods An online survey was conducted aiming for input from 120 pts with R/R FL or DLBCL, who have received BsAb for ≥1 month in the US. Time toxicity was measured by pts recalling time spent on healthcare contacts related to BsAb Tx, cancer management, and any other reasons in the past 30 days. Pts' preferences were assessed through direct elicitation of choice between 2 hypothetical Tx profiles with different Tx approaches and time toxicity, assuming the same efficacy and safety. The survey was pre-tested and refined based on input from 3 BsAb pts with R/R DLBCL to ensure relevance and comprehension. Descriptive analyses were performed on pts characteristics, mean and standard deviation (SD) of time spent per pt per month, and the proportion of pts preferring the convenience of different Tx profiles. Results At this interim analysis, 101 pts receiving BsAbs responded to the survey: 48 pts with R/R FL (mosun n=28; epcor n=20) and 53 pts with R/R DLBCL (glofit n=32; epcor n=21). Most pts with R/R FL lived in urban/suburban areas (87.5% vs 12.5% in rural areas) and had a shorter one-way travel time to receive care vs pts in rural areas (mean±SD: 28.2±13.5 vs 60.3±30.2 minutes). The median age was 58 years for both mosun and epcor. Mean±SD Tx duration was 6.2±1.8 months for mosun vs 4.5±1.3 months for epcor. In the past 30 days, pts on mosun had fewer BsAb Tx visits vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.0±0.2 vs 2.0±1.2), and fewer all-cause healthcare contacts vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.7±0.8 vs 3.5±2.0). The mean±SD time spent per BsAb Tx visit was 5.0±1.4 hours for mosun vs 3.8±1.8 hours for epcor. Less time was spent per pt per month on recovery at home after Tx visit for mosun vs epcor (22.7±16.5 vs 43.2±47.6 hours). Less time was spent per pt per month on Tx and cancer management for mosun vs epcor (mean±SD: 30.5±16.9 vs 56.9±59.3 hours). Most pts with R/R DLBCL lived in urban/suburban areas (88.7% vs 11.5% in rural areas) and had a shorter one-way travel time to receive care vs pts in rural areas (mean±SD: 31.4±14.1 vs 103.3±19.4 minutes). The median age was 67 years for glofit and 66 years for epcor. The mean±SD Tx duration was 6.1±2.0 months for glofit vs 5.9±1.8 months for epcor. In the last 30 days, pts on glofit had fewer BsAb Tx visits vs epcor (mean±SD: 1.1±0.2 vs 1.7±0.5), and fewer all-cause healthcare contacts vs epcor (mean±SD: 2.2±1.3 vs 3.0±1.1). Irrespective of the route of administration, the time spent per BsAb Tx visit was similar (mean±SD: 5.1±1.6 hours for mosun; 5.6±1.2 hours for epcor). Less time was spent per pt per month on recovery at home after Tx visit for glofit vs epcor (mean±SD: 34.3±23.8 vs 69.3±39.4 hours). Less time was spent per pt per month on Tx visits and cancer management for glofit vs epcor (mean±SD: 43.0±25.9 vs 85.0±44.2 hours). Regardless of which BsAb pts received, most pts (93%) preferred the convenience of Option 1 Tx approach with less time required over Option 2 Tx approach with more time required. Conclusions This is the first study to directly measure pt-reported time toxicity from pts with R/R FL and DLBCL receiving BsAbs in a real-world setting. Fixed-duration less frequently dosed mosun and glofit (Option 1 Tx approach) had less pt-reported time toxicity, with less healthcare contact and less time spent per pt per month vs treat to progression more frequently dosed epcor (Option 2 Tx approach). Over 90% of pts preferred the convenience of a fixed-duration, less frequently dosed, and less time required Tx option, suggesting that time toxicity is a significant factor in shared Tx decision-making for pts with R/R FL and DLBCL. Analysis is ongoing to comprehensively measure pt-reported time toxicity.
Identifying candidates for outpatient administration of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (Cilta-cel) in relapsed-refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM)
Peres, Lauren C. , Shune, Leyla , Leitzinger, Christelle, Reid, Brett M. , Cassano, Raffaella Cassano , Kalariya, Nilesh, Gaballa, Mahmoud , Hunzeker, Zachary , Hosoya, Hitomi , Mikkilineni, Lekha , Gonzalez, Rebecca , Cahoon, Christopher, Sborov, Douglas W. , Bhurtel, Jenny , Purvey, Sneha , Ferreri, Christopher J. , Varga, Cindy , Voorhees, Peter M. , Goel, Utkarsh, Khouri, Jack , Afrough, Aimaz , Sannareddy, Aishwarya , Hassan, Hamza , Gordillo, Christian , Biran, Noa , Green, Kimberly , Zanwar, Saurabh , Costa, Luciano da Fontoura , Bal, Susan , Midha, Shonali , Alsina, Melissa , Shain, Kenneth H. , Kumar, Shaji , Patel, Krina, Sidana, Surbhi , Hansen, Doris, Davis, James A. , Sidana, Surbhi , Davis, James A , Hosoya, Hitomi , Dima, Danai , Colin, Christelle , Portuguese, Andrew J. , Banerjee, Rahul , Pasvolsky, Oren , Dillard, Christen , Grajales‐Cruz, Ariel , Puglianini, Omar Castañeda , Nishihori, Taiga , Wagner, Charlotte B , Kort, Jeries , Geer, Marcus , Atrash, Shebli , Goel, Utkarsh , Raza, Shahzad , Anwer, Faiz , Anderson, Larry D. , Herr, Megan M. , Reshef, Ran , Zolotov, Eli , Biran, Noa , Davis, James, Green, Kimberly, Lin, Yi , Costa, Luciano, Nadeem, Omar , Baz, Rachid , Locke, Frederick L. , Patel, Krina K. , Hansen, Doris K.

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4000-4000

10.1182/blood-2025-4000 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Cilta-cel is a BCMA-directed CAR T-cell therapy that has shown remarkable efficacy in patients with RRMM. As real-world (RW) experience with cilta-cel continues to expand, and with the recent FDA guidance reducing the recommended proximity to the CAR T center from four to two weeks post-infusion, there is growing interest in identifying patients at low risk for severe early complications who may be safely managed in the outpatient setting and potentially ‘discharged’ home earlier. Methods Data were collected from 769 patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel at 15 institutions in the U.S. via the Multiple Myeloma Immunotherapy Consortium.Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of patients who could be managed in the outpatient setting (low-risk group). Based on expert consensus within the Consortium, low-risk patients were defined as: grade ≤1 CRS, no ICANS, and no IEC-HS. The remaining patients were categorized as high-risk. We evaluated baseline characteristics with missingness < 20% as predictors, including age, sex, race, and ethnicity, ECOG performance status (PS) at time of lymphodepletion (LD), extramedullary disease, bone marrow plasma cell (BMPC) percentage, high-risk cytogenetics, bridging therapy including response, penta-refractory status, number of prior lines of therapy, prior anti-BCMA therapy, baseline C-reactive protein (CRP), and baseline ferritin. The cohort was restricted to patients with complete data on all predictors (n=455) and split into a training and testing cohort (80/20 split, n=364/91). Bidirectional stepwise regression was used to build the predictive model using variables with significance of p<0.15 selected for entry. The best model was selected based on the AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and a significance level of p<0.05. Results Among the 455 patients with complete data included in the final model, 290 (64%) were categorized as low-risk and 165 (36%) as high-risk. Compared to the low-risk group, high-risk patients were more likely to have an ECOG PS ≥2 at time of LD (20% vs 9%, p<0.001), high-risk cytogenetics (47% vs 35%, p=0.009), and penta-refractory disease status (34% vs 24%, p=0.031). High-risk patients also had a higher median BMPC percentage (15% vs 5%, p<0.001), and higher baseline pre-LD CRP and ferritin. Overall response rates were high, at 95% vs 90% (p=0.047) for the low vs high risk groups, with complete response or better achieved in 73% vs 66% of patients, respectively (p=0.14). With a median follow-up of approximately 11 months, median progression-free survival was not reached (95% CI: 27-NA) in the low-risk group and 18.2 months (95% CI: 13.1-NA) in the high-risk group. In terms of safety, non-ICANS neurotoxicity (NINT) occurred less frequently in the low-risk group (6.6% vs 13%, p=0.015). Specifically, Parkinsonism was observed in 1.7% vs 6.1% (p=0.013), and cranial nerve palsy in 4.5% vs 5.5% (p=0.7), respectively. Non-relapse mortality (NRM) was lower in the low-risk group (4.2%) compared to the high-risk group (14%; p < 0.001). The most common causes of NRM in the low- and high-risk groups were acute toxicities (0% vs 36%, including CRS, IEC-HS, and ICANS), delayed toxicities (0% vs 8%, including colitis, NINT, and Parkinsonism), infections (50% vs 48%), and other unrelated causes (50% vs 8%). The best model to predict low-risk patients that could be managed in the outpatient settingincluded BMPC percentage and ECOG PS at LD. In the training cohort, patients with a higher pre-LD BMPC percentage and an ECOG PS ³2 were less likely to be in the low-risk group(OR per 1-unit change in BMPC percentage = 0.99, 95% CI=0.98-0.99, p<0.001 and OR for ECOG PS 2-4 = 0.38, 95% CI=0.20-0.72, p=0.003). The AUC for this model was 0.663 in the training cohort and 0.659 in the testing cohort. Conclusion In this large, multi-institutional cohort of patients with RRMM treated with cilta-cel, we identified clinical factors associated with lower risk for early severe toxicities, supporting outpatient administration and the potential for earlier discharge in selected patients, particularly those who are fit and have low disease burden. Our findings provide a practical framework to guide risk stratification and outpatient CAR T management strategies, particularly in light of evolving regulatory guidance and growing RW experience with cilta-cel.
Diagnostic and therapeutic patterns in cutaneous T-cell lymphomas (CTCL): Real-world data from the lymphoma epidemiology outcome-molecular epidemiology resource (LEO-MER) prospective cohort study.
Hamid, Muhammad Saad , Mehta-Shah, Neha, Akkad, Neha , Orlando, Evelyn, Ruan, Jia , Abro, Brooj , Flowers, Christopher R. , Pongas, Georgios , Allen, Pamela B. , McCook‐Veal, Ashley A. , Switchenko, Jeffrey M. , Mehta–Shah, Neha , Malpica, Luis , Wallace, Danielle, Larson, Melissa C. , Cerhan, James R. , Mou, Eric , Bennani, N. Nora

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 1870-1870

10.1182/blood-2025-1870 Get It

Abstract Introduction: CTCLs are rare, heterogeneous non-Hodgkin lymphomas (NHL) with significant regional variability in treatment patterns. Prospective studies characterizing CTCL management, particularly in racially and ethnically diverse populations, remains limited. The LEO-MER multi-center prospective cohort study (NCT02736357) is designed to address the persistent disparities in outcomes research by enrolling historically underrepresented groups of patients diagnosed with lymphoma across the United States (US). Here, we present a real-world analysis of CTCL patients that reflects US academic practice, evaluating treatment patterns, as well as prognostic factors influencing survival outcomes. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed CTCL were prospectively enrolled in either the University of Iowa/Mayo Clinic MER cohort (2002-2015) or the expanded LEO cohort (2015-2020), which included 8 US academic centers. Standardized protocols were used to abstract clinical, pathologic, treatment, and outcome data from medical records. ANOVA/Kruskal-Wallis and Fisher's/chi-square tests were used to compare patient distribution across demographic and clinical characteristics based on data distribution and sample size. Overall survival (OS) was calculated from diagnosis to death or last follow-up. Survival analyses employed Kaplan-Meier estimation supplemented by Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: The LEO-MER cohort enrolled 223 CTCL patients (91 MER and 132 LEO). Subtypes included mycosis fungoides (MF, n=155, 69.5%), Sézary syndrome (SS, n=22, 9.9%), primary cutaneous anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (n=17, 7.6%), subcutaneous panniculitis-like T-cell lymphoma (n=11, 4.9%), cutaneous CD4+ small/medium T-cell lymphoproliferative-disorder (n=9, 4%), and other rarer CTCL subtypes (n=9, 4%). Among the MF/SS cohort, median age was 64 years (Range: 18-89 years), 58.2% (n=103) were male and race/ethnicity distribution included White (n=123, 69.5%), Black (n=29; 16.4%) and others/unknown (n=25; 14.1%). Stage distribution included 62.7% with early-stage (ES) MF (IA-IIA, n=111), 37.2% with advanced-stage (AS) MF (IIB-IVB, n=66). To complete diagnostic workup, T-cell receptor (TCR) testing was performed in 52.6% of skin biopsies (n=92) and 62.5% of blood samples (n=110), with clonal detection rates of 75% (69/92) in skin and 51.8% (57/110) in blood. Paired TCR matching between skin and blood samples was performed in 31.6% (n=56) of cases, demonstrating 53.6% (30/56) concordance. Blood flow cytometry data were reported in 80.1% (89/111) and 84.4% (56/66) of ES and AS MF cases, with T-cell population being detected in 7.2% (8/111) and 62.1% (41/66) of ES and AS cases. Nodal biopsies were obtained in 23.4% (n=41) of patients and clonality assessment was reported in 18.6% (33/177) of these cases. The MF/SS cohort's lifetime treatment exposure data (n=160) revealed topical skin-directed therapies alone (n=49, 31.8%) as the most common approach followed by lifetime exposure to topical skin-directed and systemic therapies (n=45, 29.2%) followed by multimodal exposure of topical skin-directed, radiation and systemic treatments (n=30, 19.5%). Only 5.6% of patients were enrolled in a clinical trial. First-line (1L) systemic regimens were predominantly a) immunomodulatory agents (n=47, 29.3%); including oral retinoid (n=20), extracorporeal photopheresis (n=18), interferon (n=9) followed by b) chemotherapy (n=30, 18.7%) and c) targeted therapies (n=17, 10.6%) including Brentuximab Vedotin (n=6), Romidepsin (n=5), Mogamulizumab (n=3), Vorinostat (n=2) and Pralatrexate (n=1). Multivariable analysis predicting 1L systemic treatment initiation demonstrated a significant association with presence of N2/N3 stage (N2/N3 vs N0/N1: Odds Ratio (OR): 5.45) and elevated LDH (OR: 5.30). At median follow-up of 91.1 months (mon), median OS was 122.3 mon (95% confidence interval 67.2-159.2 mon). In subset analyses, Black race (p=0.001) and SS (p=0.0001) were associated with worse OS outcomes. Conclusion: We present initial data from our prospective LEO-MER cohort, a large US-based multicenter consortia. Our findings demonstrate variability in both diagnostic staging and treatment approaches for MF/SS patients. The cohort demonstrated worse outcomes with high-risk disease and Black race/ethnicity. These findings warrant further study on the impact of underlying social determinant factors, given the variability noted in this population.
Real-world comparison of progression-free and overall survival between idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) and teclistamab in triple-class exposed relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma
Patel, Krina, Chen, Jenny, Dhanda, Devender, Towle, Kevin, Costa, Luciano, Ailawadhi, Sikander, Usmani, Saad, Rajeeve, Sridevi, Lin, Yi, Liu, Sichen, Cope, Shannon, Sidana, Surbhi, Sidana, Surbhi , Sidana, Surbhi , Patel, Krina, Chen, Jenny, Dhanda, Devender, Towle, Kevin, Costa, Luciano, Ailawadhi, Sikander, Usmani, Saad, Rajeeve, Sridevi, Lin, Yi, Liu, Sichen, Cope, Shannon

Mayo Clinic

Blood | December 5, 2025 | Volume: 146 | Issue: Supplement 1 | Pages: 4563-4563

10.1182/blood-2025-4563 Get It

Abstract Introduction: Patients with triple-class exposed (TCE) relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have historically experienced poor clinical outcomes, prompting the development of novel therapeutic options. Idecabtagene vicleucel (ide-cel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy approved for this population, while teclistamab became the first approved bispecific antibody. Both target B-cell maturation antigen (BCMA) and are increasingly used in real-world (RW) settings. Most comparative evidence to date is derived from single-arm clinical trials with cross-trial adjustments. RW studies offer an opportunity to directly compare these therapies and assess their relative effectiveness in routine clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a comparative effectiveness analysis of ide-cel and teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM using RW data from the United States Flatiron Health electronic health record-derived, deidentified database (January 2011 to April 2025 data cut). Adults who received either index therapy at any line of treatment after becoming TCE (ie, previously exposed to an immunomodulatory agent, a proteasome inhibitor, and an anti-CD38 monoclonal antibody) were included. Exclusion criteria were prior exposure to CAR T cell therapy, bispecific antibodies, or belantamab mafodotin; absence of index treatment; or lack of post-index follow-up. Index dates (T0) represent the date of infusion for ide-cel and the start of treatment for teclistamab. Seventeen prognostic covariates were selected a priori based on published rankings and used to balance treatment groups via inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) with average treatment effect weights. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate unadjusted and IPTW-adjusted HRs with 95% CIs for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). As the ide-cel cohort only included infused patients, additional analyses were performed to emulate a real-world intention-to-treat population given the potential immortal time bias (patients in the ide-cel cohort were required to survive between apheresis and infusion). Specifically, patients in the teclistamab cohort who died within the first 24 days (median turnaround time for ide-cel manufacturing in United States in 2024) were excluded and 2 scenarios were performed to re-align T0 based on this 24-day period (either shifting teclistamab T0 forward or ide-cel T0 backward). Lastly, sensitivity analyses assessed differences in restricted mean survival time (dRMST) at 12 and 24 months. Results: A total of 281 patients met the inclusion criteria (ide-cel, N=106; teclistamab, N=175), with median follow-up of 22.4 and 13.7 months, respectively. IPTW adjustment balanced all covariates between groups (effective sample size: ide-cel, n=68; teclistamab, n=135). Adjusted analyses showed improved PFS with ide-cel versus teclistamab (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.47–0.97), with median PFS of 11.3 versus 6.5 months. OS was also improved with ide-cel (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35–0.98); median OS was not reached in either group due to insufficient follow-up. There was a consistent trend of HRs favoring ide-cel versus teclistamab for both PFS and OS in both scenario analyses addressing the potential immortal time bias. Further, sensitivity analyses using dRMST confirmed statistically significant improvements in both PFS and OS with ide-cel across all scenarios at all time points evaluated. Conclusions: In this RW analysis, ide-cel was associated with superior PFS and OS compared with teclistamab in patients with TCE RRMM. These findings support emerging RW evidence favoring BCMA-directed CAR T cell therapies over bispecific antibodies and may inform treatment sequencing decisions in this high-risk population.