Citations

Clear

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

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: B-Cell Lymphomas 3.2025
Advani, Ranjana H. , Andreadis, B., Chang, Julie , Christian, Beth , deVos, Sven, Fayad, Luis , Hamid, Muhammad Saad , Hernandez‐Ilizaliturri, Francisco J. , Karimi, Yasmin , King, Rebecca L. , Krivacic, Susan, LaCasce, Ann S. , Messmer, Marcus , Rabinovitch, Rachel , Roberts, Kenneth B. , Saito, Naoyuki G. , Smith, Stephen D. , Swinnen, Lode J., Tuscano, Joseph M. , Dwyer, Mary A., Sundar, Hema, Advani, Ranjana H , Karimi, Yasmin H , Zelenetz, Andrew D. , Gordon, Leo I. , Abramson, Jeremy S. , Bartlett, Nancy L. , Budde, Lihua E. , Caimi, Paolo F. , Dholaria, Bhagirathbhai , Habermann, Thomas M. , Hu, Boyu , Kelsey, Chris R. , Kline, Justin Paul , Landsburg, Daniel J. , Lim, Megan S. , Ramakrishnan, Praveen , Reid, Erin G , Saeed, Hayder , Vose, Julie M.

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | October 9, 2025 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available

10.6004/jnccn.2025.0048 | PMID 41067277 Get It

The treatment landscape of B-cell lymphomas has significantly evolved in recent years with approval of novel targeted therapies. CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies and CD19-directed monoclonal antibodies and antibody–drug conjugates have demonstrated efficacy in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma (FL). Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor–based regimens are emerging as effective treatment options for patients with TP53-mutated classical mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). Results from ongoing clinical trials suggest that the addition of CD3 × CD20 bispecific antibodies to chemoimmunotherapy improves outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). These NCCN Guideline Insights highlight significant updates to the NCCN Guidelines for B-Cell Lymphomas for the treatment of FL, MCL, and DLBCL.
Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation, Version 3.2025, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines In Oncology
Loren, Alison W. , Bolaños‐Meade, Javier , Brammer, Jonathan E. , Cowden, Meredith , Stasi, Antonio Di , El‐Jawahri, Areej , Elmariah, Hany , Gundabolu, Krishna , Gutman, Jonathan A. , Ho, Vincent T. , Hoeg, Rasmus T. , Horwitz, Mitchell E. , Jamy, Omer , Dabaja, Mohamed Kharfan, Lee, Lauren , Luszcak, Christina, Magenau, John, Martin, Thomas , Mittal, Varun , Moreira, Jonathan , Muffly, Lori , Nakamura, Ryotaro , Nawas, Mariam, Ninos, Cameron , Oliai, Caspian , Pidala, Joseph A. , Randolph, Brion, Tessier, Jeffrey, Topal, Jeffrey , Varshavsky‐Yanovsky, Asya, Jones, Frankie, Stehman, Katie, Elmariah, Hany , Jamy, Omer , Muffly, Lori , Mielcarek, Marco B. , Kassim, Adetola A , Logan, Aaron C , Nawas, Mariam T. , Nieto, Yago , Oliai, Caspian H , Papanicolaou, Genovefa A. , Schroeder, Mark A. , Tzachanis, Dimitrios

Mayo Clinic

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network | October 9, 2025 | Volume: 23 | Issue: 10 | Pages: No page available

10.6004/jnccn.2025.0047 | PMID 41067275 Get It

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT) provide expert, multidisciplinary recommendations for autologous and allogeneic HCT based on current evidence. The NCCN Guidelines focus on pretransplant recipient evaluation, hematopoietic cell mobilization, conditioning, and the diagnosis and management of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), a common complication of allogeneic HCT that is associated with significant morbidity. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for HCT focuses on the diagnosis, workup, and management of acute and chronic GVHD, as well as important supportive care considerations.
Learner and Teacher Entrustability Concordance in Endocrine Surgery Entrustable Professional Activities
Balachandra, Sanjana , Allahwasaya, Ashba , Lafrinere, Taylor, Fazendin, Jessica , Carty, Sally E. , Graham, Paul H. , Hughes, David T. , Lyden, Melanie L. , Miller, Barbra S. , Finnerty, Brendan M., Lindeman, Brenessa , Lyden, Melanie, Yip, Linwah , Zmijewski, Polina V. , Kasmirski, Júlia Adriana , McLeod, Chandler , Akhund, Ramsha , Finnerty, Brendan M.

Mayo Clinic

World Journal of Surgery | October 9, 2025 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 3136-3141

10.1002/wjs.70124 | PMID 41062291 Get It

ABSTRACT Introduction The American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES) drafted Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for Endocrine Surgery (ES) to assess general surgery residents and ES fellows in core topics. Here, we examine learner and teacher concordance of entrustability ratings. Methods Fourteen EPAs were defined (10 “core”–6 with pre‐, intra‐, and post‐operative phases, four single‐phase–and four elective EPAs). Ten institutions collected three‐item micro‐assessments (MAs) of learner EPA performance using a web‐based platform, where entrustment was assessed on observable behaviors using a five‐point scale. Learner provided self‐assessment ratings, while teachers separately assigned ratings for the same activities. Spearman rank correlation tests were applied to compare learner‐teacher ratings for EPAs. Results MAs ( n = 698) were submitted between 7/2022‐9/2023. Programs submitted between 3 and 468 MAs. Among 3‐phase core EPAs, the intraoperative phase was most assessed ( n = 496), followed by pre‐ and post‐operative phases ( n = 108 and 55, respectively). Thirty‐nine single‐phase EPAs were submitted. Learner self‐assessment and teacher ratings were equivalent for 32% of pre‐operative EPAs, 53% of intra‐operative EPAs, 29% of post‐operative EPAs, and 64% of single phase of care EPAs. Spearman rank correlation between teacher and learner ratings for all phases of care combined was 0.66. Correlation was highest for the intra‐operative phase (0.73), followed by single‐phase (0.65), pre‐operative phase (0.27), and post‐operative phase (0.20). Rating concordance did not differ when high and low scores were examined independently. Learners were more prone to underestimate performance than to overestimate it when ratings were discordant. Conclusions Learners' self‐assessment and teacher ratings of endocrine surgery EPAs are strongly concordant with operative technical skills. However, learners often underestimate their performance of pre‐ and post‐operative care compared to faculty ratings when using EPAs.
Genomics Define Malignant Transformation in Myeloma Precursor Conditions
Maura, Francesco , Bergsagel, P. Leif , Kumar, Shaji , Maclachlan, Kylee , Derkach, Andriy , Garcés, Juan‐José , Firestone, Ross , Braggio, Esteban , Asmann, Yan W. , Papadimitriou, Marios , Hultcrantz, Malin , Marella, Alessio , Castellano, Giancarlo , Lionetti, Marta , Matera, Antonio , Pioggia, Stefania, Vià, Matteo Da , Magistris, Claudio De, Siegel, Erin M. , Agius, Phaedra , Teer, Jamie K. , Yamashita, Yusuke , Silva, Ariosto S. , Blaney, Patrick , Patel, Krina K. , Campbell, Peter J. , Morgan, Gareth , Orlowski, Robert Z. , Shain, Kenneth H. , Bolli, Niccolò , Bergsagel, P. Leif , Kumar, Shaji K , Maclachlan, Kylee , Derkach, Andriy , Garces, Juan-Jose , Firestone, Ross , Braggio, Esteban , Asmann, Yan, Durante, Michael , Diamond, Benjamin T , Hultcrantz, Malin , Marella, Alessio , Castellano, Giancarlo , Maeda, Akihiro , Lionetti, Marta , Matera, Antonio , Da Vià, Matteo C , de Magistris, Claudio , DeAvila, Danny , Sudalagunta, Praneeth Reddy , Canevarolo, Rafael Renatino , Siegel, Erin M , Teer, Jamie K , McPherson, Andrew , Yamashita, Yusuke , Blaney, Patrick , Baz, Rachid , Patel, Krina , Fonseca, Rafael , Landgren, C Ola , Orlowski, Robert Z. , Shain, Kenneth H , Bolli, Niccolo' , Usmani, Saad , Rajkumar, S Vincent , Maura, Francesco , Ziccheddu, Bachisio , Durante, Michael , Diamond, Benjamin , Leongamornlert, Daniel , Fonseca, Rafaël , Landgren, Ola , Usmani, Saad Z. , Rajkumar, S. Vincent

Mayo Clinic

Journal of Clinical Oncology | October 8, 2025 | Volume: 44 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 188-199

10.1200/jco-25-01733 | PMID 41061199 Get It

Multiple myeloma (MM) is consistently preceded by monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (MGUS) and smoldering multiple myeloma (SMM). While these precursor conditions are asymptomatic, they are not entirely benign and carry a lifelong risk of progression to MM. Unlike other cancers defined by pathology, malignant transformation from MGUS or SMM to MM has so far relied on demonstration of clinical end-organ damage as morphology and cytogenetics cannot reliably distinguish them. In this study, using genomic data from 374 patients with MGUS or SMM (277 training, 97 validation), to our knowledge, we demonstrate for the first time the ability to identify malignant transformation in MGUS and SMM. We introduce the concept of genomic MM and genomic MGUS to differentiate the subsets of MGUS and SMM that are biologically malignant with genomic features indistinguishable from MM from the subset that is premalignant and unlikely to progress to malignancy. Importantly, we find that most SMM has biological features of malignant transformation indistinguishable from MM. As expected, this subset that we consider having genomic MM is associated with a high risk of progression to MM although some patients remained progression-free beyond 5 years. Conversely, 60% of MGUS and 10% of SMM have no evidence of malignant transformation (genomic MGUS), with no progression during follow-up. Integration of genomic features with the 2/20/20 International Myeloma Working Group model significantly improved the prediction of progression among genomic MM. These findings support the use of genomic criteria to refine the classification and the risk stratification in myeloma precursor conditions.
Discovery and Validation of Molecular Biomarkers for Differentiation of Nondysplastic Barrett’s Esophagus from High-grade Dysplasia and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma
Matchett, Caroline L. , Taylor, William R. , Berger, Calise K. , Anderson, Caryn E., Passe, Melissa, Lansing, Ramona, Wang, Panwen , Chalmers, Collin E., Foote, Patrick H. , Eckel‐Passow, Jeanette E. , Codipilly, Don C. , Leggett, Cadman L. , Ramirez, Francisco C. , Wolfsen, Herbert C. , Eluri, Swathi , Konda, Vani J. , Iyer, Prasad G. , Slettedahl, Seth W , Taylor, William R , Berger, Calise K , Anderson, Caryn E , Passe, Melissa A , Lansing, Ramona M , Wang, Panwen , Chalmers, Collin E , Foote, Patrick H , Eckel-Passow, Jeanette E , Sun, Zhifu , Mahoney, Douglas W , Codipilly, Don Chamil , Leggett, Cadman L , Ramirez, Francisco C , Kahn, Allon , Wolfsen, Herbert C , Eluri, Swathi , Konda, Vani , Trindade, Arvind J , Iyer, P G , Kisiel, John B , Slettedahl, Seth W. , Sun, Zhifu , Mahoney, Douglas W. , Kahn, Allon , Trindade, Arvind J. , Kisiel, John B.

Mayo Clinic

Cancer Prevention Research | October 8, 2025 | Volume: 19 | Issue: 1 | Pages: 49-60

10.1158/1940-6207.capr-25-0215 | PMID 41059926 Get It

Abstract Aberrant DNA methylation and copy-number alterations (CNA) drive Barrett’s esophagus progression to esophageal adenocarcinoma; however, their combined utility for early detection is unclear. We aimed to identify and validate methylated DNA markers (MDM) and CNAs to distinguish esophageal adenocarcinoma/high-grade dysplasia (HGD) from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus (NDBE). In this multiphase, multicenter study, we discovered and validated MDMs and quantified CNAs utilizing whole-genome methylation sequencing of esophageal brushings. DNA biomarkers identified from discovery were further validated in independent patients with paired esophageal brushing and swallowed capsule sponge samples. MDMs were filtered against a reduced representation bisulfite sequencing dataset obtained from independent tissue samples to advance only concordant candidates. CNA burden was quantified using ichorCNA-derived aneuploidy scores (AS). Two hundred MDMs discovered in HGD (N = 18) and esophageal adenocarcinoma (N = 18) versus NDBE brushing samples (N = 18) were tested in independent samples (N = 146). A 52-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82–0.95]; the addition of AS improved discrimination of HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from NDBE to 0.91 (95% CI, 0.86–0.97) AUC. At 80% specificity, the combined model detected 93% of esophageal adenocarcinoma and 88% of HGD cases. In paired capsule sponge samples, a 58-MDM panel achieved a cross-validated AUC of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.66–0.88); a combined 58-MDM and AS model achieved AUC 0.80 (95% CI, 0.7–0.9). MDMs and AS discerned HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from normal esophagus/NDBE in endoscopic brushing and capsule sponge samples. This approach may improve Barrett’s esophagus surveillance. Prevention Relevance: This study demonstrates that combining epigenetic and genomic biomarkers across minimally invasive sampling methods can accurately distinguish HGD/esophageal adenocarcinoma from nondysplastic Barrett’s esophagus, offering promising, less invasive strategies to improve BE surveillance and enable endoscopic therapy for esophageal adenocarcinoma prevention and treatment.
Selection of the Most Appropriate Radiation Treatment Modality for Children’s Cancers: A Paediatric Radiation Oncology Society (PROS) Position Paper on the Ethical Utilization of Proton Therapy
Indelicato, Daniel J. , Mahajan, Anita , Parkes, Jeannette , Paulino, Arnold C. , Beldjoudi, Guillaume , Kristensen, Ingrid, Lassen–Ramshad, Yasmin , Njiraini, Pauline Njoki , Robles, Beatriz García, Seiersen, Klaus , Paulino, Arnold C , Parkes, Jeannette , Indelicato, Daniel J , Njiraini, Pauline Njoki , Esiashvili, Natia , Beljoudi, Guillaume, Laprie, Anne , Lassen, Yasmin, Qureshi, Bilal Mazhar , Robles, Beatriz Garcia, Timmermann, Beate , Gaze, Mark N.

Mayo Clinic

No container title available | October 8, 2025 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.22541/au.175992134.44586481/v1 Get It

Adaptation and Performance of the Self‐Report‐Generated Charlson Comorbidity Index in the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort
Cerhan, James R. , Соколова, Т. Н. , Cahn, Elliot, Tsang, Mazie , Strouse, Christopher , Hildebrandt, Michelle A.T. , Feldman, Andrew L. , Jaye, David L. , Martin, Peter , Cohen, Jonathon B. , Lossos, Izidore S. , Friedberg, Jonathan W. , Thompson, Carrie A. , Flowers, Christopher R. , Sokolova, Tereza, Cahn, Elliott J, Strouse, Christopher S , Rosenthal, Allison , Feldman, Andrew L , Jaye, David L , Martin, Peter , Cohen, Jonathon B , Kahl, Brad S , Lossos, Izidore S , Friedberg, Jonathan W , Nastoupil, Loretta J , Link, Brian K , Habermann, Thomas , Maurer, Matthew , Casulo, Carla , Thompson, Carrie A , Williams, Annalynn M , Flowers, Christopher R , Cerhan, James R , Hildebrandt, Michelle A T , Tsang, Mazie , Sokolova, Tereza, Kahl, Brad S. , Nastoupil, Loretta J. , Link, Brian K. , Habermann, Thomas M. , Maurer, Matthew J. , Casulo, Carla

Mayo Clinic

Hematological Oncology | October 8, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 6 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/hon.70137 | PMID 41057230 Get It

ABSTRACT Newly diagnosed patients with non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) often have a history of other diseases, and these comorbidities can impact patient treatment and management options, as well as overall survival (OS). We developed the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) comorbidity index (LCI) as a sum of 10 comorbidities adapted from the Self‐Report‐Generated Charlson Comorbidity Index (SRG‐CCI) for use in the LEO cohort, a national prospective study of newly diagnosed NHL. Of the 5502 participants with self‐reported comorbidity data, 3107 (56.4%) were male and the mean age at diagnosis was 60.9 years (range, 18–99 years). The LCI ranged from 0 to 6, with 48.6% having 0, 30.2% having 1, 21.2% having 2 or more comorbidities. With a median follow‐up of 62.4 months among surviving participants, 2099 patients had an event and 1219 died. Continuous LCI similarly predicted both 1‐year mortality (c‐statistic = 0.654) and OS (c‐statistic = 0.655), while it showed a weaker but still statistically significant predictive ability for lymphoma‐specific (c‐statistics = 0.617) and event‐free (c‐statistic = 0.574) survival. Participants with 1 (HR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.05–1.39) and 2+ (HR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.56–2.08) comorbidities had inferior OS compared to those with no comorbidities after adjustment for age and sex (c‐statistic = 0.654), and performance strengthened after adjustment for the International Prognostic Index (c‐statistic = 0.672). LCI predicted OS most strongly in marginal zone (c‐statistics = 0.748) and weakest in T‐cell (c‐statistic = 0.579) lymphoma. The cumulative incidence of death due to lymphoma, lymphoma treatment, and other causes all increased with increasing comorbidities, with the greatest increase observed for death due to other causes. The LCI performs comparable to other published comorbidity indices, supporting its use in the LEO cohort to better model real‐world outcomes and more generally providing an approach to implementing comorbidity indices in cancer survivorship cohorts.
Utilizing EMR capabilities to improve shared decision-making regarding DPYD pharmacogenomic testing.
Sutton, Joseph , Jazieh, Khalid , Wright, Jessica , Jin, Zhaohui , Anderson, Benjamin O. , Hálfdánarson, Þorvarður R. , Tevaarwerk, Amyé

Mayo Clinic

JCO Oncology Practice | October 7, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 10_suppl | Pages: 426-426

10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.426 Get It

426 Background: Testing for DPYD gene variations prior to administration of fluoropyrimidines ([FP] e.g. 5-FU or capecitabine) can determine if patients are at risk of significant toxicity and may benefit from dose reduction or elimination of chemotherapy. Barriers to testing include lack of recommendations in US guidelines for routine DPYD testing, absence of insurance coverage, and limitations in provider support. We designed an electronic health record (EHR)-based intervention to support shared decision-making (SDM) between providers and patients regarding DPYD testing. Methods: We built an EHR alert identifying all patients initiating FP without DPYD testing. The alert fired to remind providers upon signing FP. Clinical decision support (CDS) was included in the alert to help with DPYD testing selection along with an educational note template containing the incidence of DPYD deficiency, rationale for testing, test costs, and turnaround time. Interactions with the EHR were recorded to determine why providers declined ordering pharmacogenomic testing. Testing rates and results for patients initiating FP were collected from the EHR. Finally, providers were surveyed to determine the impact of the alert on conversations with patients as well as the utility of the embedded CDS and educational note template. Results: Within the first 8 months after alert activation, 34 patients completed DPYD testing of 444 starting FP (testing rate of 7.7%) vs the baseline testing rate in the 3 months prior to alert go-live of 6.8% (p = 0.86 via chi-squared analysis, two-tailed). Of the 34 patients, 5 were intermediate DPYD metabolizers. Reasons for alert dismissal per provider selection were: “Patient already tolerated prior fluoropyrimidines” (15.7%), “Patient declines” (12.9%), “Will order separately” (5.7%), “Not discussed as not appropriate” (5.3%), and “Not discussed, deferred” (60.4%). Thirty-nine providers (n = 77 eligible) responded to the survey; 22 prescribed FP in their practice and had encountered the alert. 21 (95.5%) of these reported the alert was “Very Useful” or “Somewhat Useful” and 18 (81.8%) used the DPYD testing options available in the alert. Sixteen (72.7%) discussed DPYD testing more frequently with patients as a result of the alert. Barriers to DPYD testing were “Concerned about the impact of lowering FP dosing” and “Lack of knowledge about DPYD testing”, while “Cost of DPYD testing” was scored lowest. Conclusions: Utilizing an EHR alert with embedded CDS had a positive impact on provider awareness and led to more discussions regarding DPYD pharmacogenomic testing with patients in line with current FDA recommendations. Limitations in provider knowledge regarding DPYD testing and concerns about lowering chemotherapy doses posed barriers to ordering testing. Further interventions including additional education are required.
The growing burden of prior authorization: A national survey.
Gracie, Jayden , Sim, Austin J. , Gardner, Liz, Beatley, Emilio, Chen, Xuguang , Sharifzadeh, Yasamin , Winkfield, Karen M. , Chin, Alexander L. , Paravati, Anthony J., Luh, Join Y. , Barnes, Justin M. , Beatley, Emilio, Bates, James E. , Shen, Xinglei , Hong, David S. , Sio, Terence T. , Jimenez, Rachel , Chino, Fumiko

Mayo Clinic

JCO Oncology Practice | October 7, 2025 | Volume: 21 | Issue: 10_suppl | Pages: 98-98

10.1200/op.2025.21.10_suppl.98 Get It

98 Background: Prior authorization (PA) purports to control costs and ensure adherence to evidence-based guidelines but negatively impacts cancer care. Radiation oncology (RO) represents a minority of overall cancer spending yet bears a disproportionately high PA burden. Limited research exists on the effects of PA on patient outcomes and administrative workload within RO clinics. Methods: From 9/2024 to 10/2024, an online survey was open to U.S. members of the American Society for Radiation Oncology assessing experiences with PA including disposition (approval/denial/appeal including peer-to-peer [P2P] review) and perceived impact on patient care and administrative workload. Outcomes included treatment delays, changes from recommended treatment, and patient event including hospitalization, ED visits, permanent disability, or death. Descriptive statistics evaluated responses. Results: Of 736 responding radiation oncologists (16% response rate), 83% reported a rise in PA over the past three years, with 58% noting the burden has increased greatly. In the past year, 50% reported that more than half of their cases required PA, with a median approval rate of 75% and median overturn rate of 82% for denials. For more than half of their cases, nearly half of physicians (43%) noted that P2P was a futile effort to overturn PA denials due to insurance policies. Most (75%) reported that PA resulted in their practice needing to reallocate staff; 91% reported worsening burnout due to PA. P2P reviews were particularly burdensome, averaging 1.65 hours per week. A third (30%) reported that PA requirements had caused serious complications for their patients, including 7% who reported PA had contributed to patient death. Almost all (91%) reported PA-related treatment delays for some of their patients, with 58% indicating average delays of ≥5 days. Most (81%) reported that at times they had to use radiation techniques they considered less optimal due to PA, including 58% who were forced to deviate from national guidelines. The most common reasons for not appealing a PA denial were anticipated delays (73%), perceived futility based on prior PA experiences (62%), and administrative burden (45%). Conclusions: The administrative and clinical burdens associated with PA have significant implications for patient care, physician well-being, and healthcare resource allocation in RO. Treatment delays, compromised therapies, and adverse patient outcomes are commonly reported and underscore the need for PA reform to improve patient outcomes, reduce physician burnout, and improve efficiency.