Citations

This cohort study examines patterns of bone-modifying agent use from 2013 to 2024 among men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

Prehabilitation with Impella 5.5 offers hemodynamic support while allowing early mobilization, yet its overall effect on post-transplant recovery remains unclear. The aim was to assess recovery during Impella 5.5–supported prehabilitation and determine its association with early post-heart transplant outcomes, including a potential dose–response relationship with ambulatory activity. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of adults bridged to transplant with Impella 5.5 between April 1, 2022 and September 30, 2024. Daily walking distance, recorded by nursing staff, served as the intervention. Primary outcome was postoperative hospital length of stay (LOS); the secondary outcome was time to extubation. Fine–Gray competing-risk models, adjusted for age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and days of Impella support, assessed associations. Longitudinal recovery trajectories were analyzed with linear mixed-effects models incorporating restricted cubic splines. Among 82 eligible patients, 65 met the inclusion criteria. Patients who walked farther during Impella 5.5 support in the intensive care unit (ICU) had shorter hospital stays and were taken off the ventilator sooner after transplantation. The overall recovery peaked during the first 2–3 weeks of support, with smaller recovery thereafter, indicating that most functional recovery occurred early during prehabilitation.

Objective: Esophageal cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality, with a 5-year survival rate of 20%. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment for early and locally advanced disease. Anastomotic leak is a major concern, which significantly increases morbidity and mortality. Impaired conduit perfusion and tissue ischemia are key risk factors. This series describes the use of ELUXEO Oxygen Saturation Endoscopic Imaging (OXEI) technology (Fujifilm Healthcare Americas Corp, Lexington, MA, USA) to assess tissue oxygen saturation during esophagectomy. Methods: OXEI was used in 6 cases to evaluate conduit perfusion during esophagectomy procedures. Real-time hemoglobin oxygen saturation imaging identified ischemic areas, with StO 2 levels ranging from 17% in poorly perfused regions to 92% in well-perfused areas. OXEI findings were congruent with indocyanine green fluorescence imaging but avoided dye-related limitations. Results: OXEI technology offered a dye-free alternative that allowed real-time assessment of tissue oxygenation, facilitating accurate perfusion quantification. Its reproducibility without dye administration and limitations of tissue saturation or washout concerns added reliability, especially during long multistage procedures. In addition, OXEI has been shown to be consistent irrespective of distances from the targeted area, providing precise tissue saturation quantification throughout critical steps of esophagectomy. These findings highlight the potential of this technology as a valuable adjunct in esophageal surgery. Conclusions: The experience with ELUXEO technology in esophagectomy is promising. It provides a reliable, dye-free method for real-time perfusion assessment, potentially reducing the incidence of anastomotic leaks, preventing dye-associated complications, and improving surgical outcomes. Further studies are warranted to validate these findings in esophagectomies.

ABSTRACT Background Treating Mycobacterium avium complex (MAC) infection pre‐lung transplant (LT) can be challenging to treat, given prolonged therapy and side effects. The impact of pre‐transplant MAC treatment on recurrence and outcomes post‐LT remains unclear, especially in patients with interstitial lung disease (ILD) who have a median survival of less than 2 years. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult LT patients at the Mayo Clinic who had positive MAC sputum cultures pre‐LT. The cohort was stratified and compared based on the type of treatment (complete, partial, or no treatment) for MAC pulmonary infection. The primary outcome was MAC recurrence post‐LT, and secondary outcomes were mortality, FEV‐1, and FVC at 1‐year post‐LT. Results Among the cohort of 47 patients, 9 (19.1%) were partially treated and 11 (23.4%) were completely treated for MAC infection pre‐LT. Post‐transplant MAC pulmonary infection recurrence occurred in eight (17%) of the total cohort, with four (14.8%) in the non‐treated, four (44.4%) in the partially‐treated, and none (0%) in the completely treated patients ( p = 0.026). There was no difference in mortality in patients who had MAC recurrence post‐transplantation (13% vs. 9.7%, p > 0.9) and those who were completely or partially treated, compared to non‐treated (0% vs. 13% vs. 13%, p > 0.9). The FEV1 and FVC at 1‐year post‐LT did not differ by the pre‐transplant treatment or post‐transplant MAC recurrence status. Conclusion The role of treatment for MAC infection pre‐transplant is questionable, especially in patients with diseases like ILD who may not have enough wait time to complete therapy.

ImportancePatients with metastatic castration–resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) harboring BRCA1/2 alterations are eligible to receive poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors as single agents or in combination with an androgen receptor pathway inhibitor after these agents showed survival improvement in their landmark clinical trials. However, data are limited regarding the uptake of PARP inhibitors in these patients.ObjectiveTo investigate the use of PARP inhibitors in patients with mCRPC harboring BRCA1/2 alterations.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study used the deidentified Flatiron-Health electronic health record–derived database of US community and academic practices to extract patient-level data. The data cutoff date was May 31, 2024. Patients with mCRPC with evidence of harboring BRCA1/2 alterations and alive after August 15, 2020 (ie, 3 months after the approval of the first PARP inhibitor, rucaparib, in mCRPC) were included. Statistical analysis was performed from September 2024 to May 2025.ExposuresAge, race and ethnicity, insurance status, and practice type at the time of mCRPC diagnosis.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe receipt of PARP inhibitors. Multivariable logistic regression was conducted to assess the association between the exposures and the main outcome.ResultsOf 24 105 patients with metastatic prostate cancer, 443 male patients (median [IQR] age, 72 [65-79] years) had mCRPC with BRCA1/2 alterations and were eligible and included in our analysis. Of these patients, 227 (51.2%) received a PARP inhibitor, whereas 216 (48.8%) did not. Compared with patients covered by a commercial health plan, those covered by Medicare were significantly more likely to receive a PARP inhibitor (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.66; P = .047). The odds of receiving a PARP inhibitor were not significantly higher in patients treated in community practice compared with those treated in academic centers (odds ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.00-2.70; P = .05).Conclusions and RelevanceThis retrospective cohort study of patients with mCRPC and evidence of BRCA1/2 alterations found that approximately half of patients did not receive PARP inhibitors despite evidence of survival improvement in this population. These findings highlight the need to increase awareness of the survival data and access to life-prolonging therapies in patients with mCRPC.

5076 Background: C and Lu are both life-prolonging therapies for pts with mCRPC after progression on androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) and docetaxel (D). Herein, our objective was to assess the comparative effectiveness of C vs. Lu in pts with mCRPC with prior progression on D and ARPI in real-world pts in the USA. Methods: A de-identified nationwide Flatiron Health electronic health record (EHR)-derived database was used to extract pt-level data. Eligibility: pts with mCRPC who progressed on D and ARPI and received for the first-time single-agent C or Lu. Pts who received alternative Lu or C in a later line of therapy (LOT) were excluded. Endpoints: real-world time to next therapy (rwTTNT) and real-world overall survival (rwOS). These were summarized via Kaplan-Meier survival estimates with a 95% confidence interval (CI) and compared in the context of propensity score (PS) matching weighted analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model. PS model included the following covariates: age, race-ethnicity, socioeconomic status, treatment year, Gleason score, ECOG performance status, log2PSA, alkaline phosphatase, hemoglobin, creatinine, LOT, insurance, and practice type. All the covariates achieved balance after PS matching weighting. Results: Among 24,105 pts with metastatic prostate cancer in the dataset, 1,445 met the eligibility criteria and were included (1,227 treated with C, 218 treated with Lu). In C cohort: median age was 73 (IQR 67 – 78), 66.9% had Gleason score ≥ 8, and median LOT was 4 (IQR 3-4). In Lu cohort: median age was 75 (IQR 67.25 – 80), 68.1% had Gleason score ≥ 8, and median LOT was 4 (IQR 3-5). In PS matching weighting analysis, there was evidence that pts receiving Lu had a significantly improved rwTTNT (median 8.3 months [mo], 95% CI 6.3 – 9.8) compared to those receiving C (median 4.7 mo, 95% CI 4.2 – 5.4) (HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.37 – 0.63, p < 0.001), which persisted after adjusting for covariates (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.32 – 0.57, p < 0.001). Additionally, there was evidence that rwOS was longer in pts receiving Lu (median 10.3, 95% CI 8.9 – 12.8) compared to those receiving C (median 8.8 mo, 95% CI 6.6 – 10.8) (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.51 – 0.92, p = 0.01). This improvement in rwOS with Lu compared to C persisted after adjusting for covariates (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.44 – 0.84, p < 0.001). Conclusions: This is the largest real-world data to date assessing the comparative effectiveness of Lu vs. C, and it showed significantly longer rwTTNT and rwOS with Lu compared to C in pts with mCRPC pretreated with ARPI and D. Limitations: retrospective nature, selection bias, missingness, lack of randomization, etc. and residual confounding in real-world datasets. Upon external validation, these findings could guide treatment selection in the clinic and design of clinical trials.

Heart transplantation is a well-established treatment for end-stage heart failure, but many patients present in poor physical condition, complicating outcomes. The Impella 5.5 device, used in cardiogenic shock, may support pretransplant rehabilitation by stabilizing organ function and promoting functional improvement. This retrospective cohort study assessed the relationship between functional status, measured by standardized Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care Basic Mobility (AM-PAC) scores, and days alive outside the hospital within 30 days post-transplant (DAOH-30). Patients who received Impella 5.5 support before transplantation between January 2019 and October 2023 were included, excluding those without AM-PAC scores within 24 hours pretransplant. Among 65 patients, the median DAOH-30 was 15 days (interquartile range [IQR], 8–19). Higher pretransplant standardized AM-PAC scores correlate with increased DAOH-30 (adjusted coefficient 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04), as did AM-PAC score improvement during rehabilitation (adjusted coefficient 0.35; 95% CI = 0.01–0.6; p = 0.04). Extended rehabilitation was associated with greater functional gains. These findings suggest that better pretransplant functional status and rehabilitation-related improvements were associated with increased DAOH-30. The Impella 5.5 device facilitates rehabilitation and may enhance post-transplant outcomes. Further research should refine strategies to optimize rehabilitation and recovery in this high-risk population.