Search

Summary: The shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum; SNS) is an endangered fish that thrives in large river systems along the U.S. east coast. Despite the endangered status, our understanding of this species' ecology is limited, especially regarding the importance of smaller river systems to their recovery. In 2010, the first sighting of SNS occurred in the Saco River estuary (SRE), Maine, a proportionately smaller system to other known drainages. To investigate the habitat usage of SNS within the SRE, an on‐going acoustic tagging study was initiated in 2011. In 2016, the collection of SRE abiotic data was coupled with the acoustic tagging study in an effort to establish which environmental parameters were most influential to SNS habitat preferences using Poisson regression. Aggregations of SNS in the SRE were concentrated rkm 6–8 and regression analyses revealed that water temperature, conductivity, acidity, and dissolved oxygen content were influential to these aggregations. Furthermore, SNS prey appears to be present and abundant throughout the estuary, and thus we hypothesize that SNS use the SRE as a foraging ground, but aggregate upriver due to the physiologically preferable and energetically optimal abiotic conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Individuals with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) may live with their disease for many years. We initiated the Johns Hopkins Hope at Hopkins Clinic to assess the needs and optimize the care of these patients., Patients and Methods: Patients with MBC who agreed to participate in the Clinic in addition to usual care completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys. They met with a navigator and underwent core consults (cancer rehabilitation, integrative medicine, supportive and palliative care, social work, and nutrition), clinical trial eligibility assessment, and optional services based on PRO responses and selection from a Clinic Menu. A medical oncologist provided a Care Plan during a final consult. Participants were asked to complete 3- and 6-month follow-up PRO surveys. We report on initial Clinic implementation, participant characteristics, and baseline PROs., Results: From 11/2020 to 6/2022, 45 patients completed baseline surveys and participated in the Clinic. Median age was 58 (32-86); the majority (71%) were white and had estrogen receptor-positive (84%) tumors. Baseline physical and mental health were not good for ≥ 14 days of the past month for 22 and 10%, respectively. PROMIS measure scores were > 1 standard deviation worse than average for 32% for Physical Health, 16% for Mental Health, and 23% for Physical Function. PHQ-8 and GAD-7 scores suggested depression and anxiety for 22 and 7%, respectively. More than 80% of participants received specific recommendations from the core consultants. Only 20% of participants completed follow-up surveys., Conclusion: Patients living with MBC have multiple needs. We used our results to implement routine PRO assessments and to expand services for patients with MBC. Our experience can serve as a model for coordinated care in other systems., Competing Interests: Declarations. Conflict of interest: The authors report the following competing interests, all outside the submitted work. VS: Received research grants to institution from Abbvie, Biocept, Pfizer, Novartis, Puma Biotechnology, and QUE Oncology (previous); In kind clinical trial assays from Foundation Medicine (previous); Chair, Data Safety Monitoring Board, AstraZeneca (current), all outside the submitted work. CS: Research funding from Pfizer (current) and Genentech (previous) and consulting fees from Shionogi, all outside the submitted work. KLS: Received research grants to institution from Pfizer (previous), was previously employed at AstraZeneca, currently employed at Merck, has stock in Merck, and spouse has stock in Abbvie and ABT Labs, all outside the submitted work. The following authors reported no conflicts: RC, ALB, ES, AF, JJ, CH, JB, JE, MS, RS, SPC, MW, MA. Ethical approval: The project was approved as a quality improvement effort by the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Institutional Review Board., (© 2025. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Breast cancer affects 1/8 of women throughout their lifetimes, with 90% of cancer deaths being caused by metastasis. However, metastasis poses unique challenges to research, as complex changes in the microenvironment in different metastatic sites and difficulty obtaining tissue for study hinder the ability to examine in depth the changes that occur during metastasis. Rapid autopsy programs thus fill a unique need in advancing metastasis research. Here, we describe our protocol and processes for establishing and improving the US-based Hope for OTHERS (Our Tissue Helping Enhance Research and Science) program for organ donation in metastatic breast cancer. Our results reveal key logistical and protocol improvements that are uniquely beneficial to certain programs based on identifiable features, such as working closely with patient advocates, methods to rescue RNA quality in cases where tissue quality may degrade due to time delays, as well as guidelines and future expansions of our program with new research and novel research findings in patient outcomes, metastatic phylogeny, living model development and more., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interest Statement The authors have no conflicts of interest related to this work. Author RB is a former consultant for GE Health (now ended), and current Speaker’s Bureau member for AstraZeneca. Author AB is a current consultant for AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, Merck, Agendia, Sanofi, Puma, Myriad, Gilead, Bria-Cell, and receives research support from Agendia and AstraZeneca.

Purpose: Although patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have been living longer with the advent of more effective treatments such as targeted therapy and immunotherapy, the disease remains incurable, and most patients will undergo therapy indefinitely. When beginning therapy, patients are typically prescribed dose often based upon the maximum tolerated dose identified in phase I clinical trials. However, patients' perspectives about tolerability and willingness to discuss individualized dosing of drugs upon initiation of a new regimen and throughout the course of treatment have not been comprehensively evaluated., Methods: Patient advocates and medical oncologists from the Patient-Centered Dosing Initiative (PCDI) developed a survey to ascertain the prevalence and severity of MBC patients' treatment-related side effects, the level of patient-physician communication, mitigation strategies, perception about the relative efficacy of higher versus lower doses, and willingness to discuss alternative dosing. The PCDI distributed the anonymous confidential online survey in August 2020 to individuals with self-reported MBC., Results: One thousand and two hundred twenty-one patients with MBC completed the survey. 86.1% (n = 1,051) reported experiencing at least one significant treatment-related side effect, and of these, 20.3% (n = 213) visited the emergency room/hospital and 43.2% (n = 454) missed at least one treatment. Nearly all patients with side effects (97.6%, n = 1,026) informed their doctor and 81.7% (n = 838) received assistance. Of the 556 patients given a dose reduction for side-effect mitigation, 82.6% (n = 459) reported relief. Notably, majority of patients (53.3%, n = 651) do not believe that higher dose is always more effective than lower dose, and 92.3% (n = 1,127) would be willing to discuss flexible dosing options with their physicians based upon personal characteristics to optimize quality of life., Conclusion: Given that the majority of patients with MBC experienced at least one substantial treatment-related side effect and most patients given a dose reduction reported improvement, innovative dosage-related strategies are warranted to sustain and improve patients' well-being. Patient-physician discussions in which the patient's unique attributes and circumstances are assessed upon initiation of new treatment and throughout the course of therapy may facilitate the identification of the most favorable dose for each patient, and the majority of patients would be receptive to this approach.

We present an integrated single-cell RNA sequencing atlas of the primary breast tumor microenvironment (TME) containing 236,363 cells from 119 biopsy samples across eight datasets. In this study, we leverage this resource for multiple analyses of immune and cancer epithelial cell heterogeneity. We define natural killer (NK) cell heterogeneity through six subsets in the breast TME. Because NK cell heterogeneity correlates with epithelial cell heterogeneity, we characterize epithelial cells at the level of single-gene expression, molecular subtype, and 10 categories reflecting intratumoral transcriptional heterogeneity. We develop InteractPrint, which considers how cancer epithelial cell heterogeneity influences cancer-immune interactions. We use T cell InteractPrint to predict response to immune checkpoint inhibition (ICI) in two breast cancer clinical trials testing neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 therapy. T cell InteractPrint was predictive of response in both trials versus PD-L1 (AUC = 0.82, 0.83 vs. 0.50, 0.72). This resource enables additional high-resolution investigations of the breast TME., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests I.S.C., L.X., and K.S. are co-inventors on a pending patent application for a method to determine a predominant immune signal in a breast tumor microenvironment., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic., (Published by Oxford University Press 2023.)

Brain metastases are an increasing global public health concern, even as survival rates improve for patients with metastatic disease. Both metastases and the sequelae of their treatment are key determinants of the inter-related priorities of patient survival, function, and quality of life, mandating a multidimensional approach to clinical care and research. At a virtual National Cancer Institute Workshop in September, 2022, key stakeholders convened to define research priorities to address the crucial areas of unmet need for patients with brain metastases to achieve meaningful advances in patient outcomes. This Policy Review outlines existing knowledge gaps, collaborative opportunities, and specific recommendations regarding consensus priorities and future directions in brain metastases research. Achieving major advances in research will require enhanced coordination between the ongoing efforts of individual organisations and consortia. Importantly, the continual and active engagement of patients and patient advocates will be necessary to ensure that the directionality of all efforts reflects what is most meaningful in the context of patient care., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests TSA, DKS, PSS, JAH, MGE, JSB-S, PGP, CNC, and MMA are employees of the US National Institutes of Health. BME received consulting fees from Medicenna, MedQIA, Servier, Chimerix, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology, ImmunoGenesis, Ellipses Pharma, Alpheus Medical, Curtana Pharma, Sagimet Biosciences, and Sapience Therapeutics; and other support from Siemens. SCF received grants from Siemens and Neosoma; consulting fees from Medicenna, MedQIA, Servier, Chimerix, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology, ImmunoGenesis, Ellipses Pharma, Alpheus Medical, Curtana Pharma, Sagimet Biosciences, and Sapience Therapeutics; and other services from Siemens. AAA received grants from Varian and NH TheraAguix, and consulting fees from Novartis and Seagen. DMT received grants from Varian Medical Systems, Blue Earth Diagnostics, and NovoCure, and consulting fees from Boston Scientific. RK received grants from Medtronic, Blue Earth Diagnostics, NovoCure, GT Medical Technologies, AstraZeneca, Exelixis, Viewray, Brainlab, and Cantex Pharmaceuticals; consulting fees from Kazia Therapeutics, Elekta, Viewray, Castle Biosciences, and NovoCure; travel support from Elekta, Accuray, NovoCure, and Peerview Institute for Medical Education; other support from Elekta, Accuray, Novocure, and the Peerview Institute for Medical Education; and is on the Viewray Medical Advisory Board. CKA received grants from PUMA, Lilly, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Nektar, Tesaro, G1-Therapeutics, ZION, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Elucida, and Caris; licences from UpToDate and Jones and Bartlett; other support from Genentech, Eisai, IPSEN, Seattle Genetics, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Immunomedics, Elucida, and Athenex; and is on the Genentech board. PWS received consulting fees from Varian. JH-G has funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)/National Cancer Institute (NCI) and received payment for a lecture from Aptitude Health. DNY has a Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Medical Grant and Brockman Foundation Medical Grant. ICGO received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, and Pfizer; and consulting fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, Array, Novartis, Sintetica, and Leal Therapeutics. AM received grants from Eisai/H3B Pharmaceutical, Takeda Millenium Pharm, Lilly, Pfizer, MTEM, Merck, Roche, Zion, Norvatis, Dantari, and Genentech; payment from Taiho; research support from Tempus and PUMA; and was on the boards for Seagen and Eli Lilly. EG received grants from Celgene, Denovo Biopharma, MedImmune, and Servier Pharmaceuticals; and is on the boards for Karyopharm Therapeutics, Kiyatec, and Boston Scientific. VG received grants from ImmunoChem Therapeutics. PKB received grants from Mirati, Eli Lilly, Kinnate, Merck, NIH, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, Damon Runyon, AACR, the Terry and Jean de Gunzburg MGH Research Scholar Fund, and the Demetra fund; consulting fees from Axiom Healthcare, Pfizer, Dantari, Advice Connect inspire, ElevateBio, Sintetica, SK Life Sciences, Voyager Therapeutics, Kazia, MPM Capital, Medscape, Eli Lilly, and Tesaro; other payments from Medscape and Pfizer; other support from GSK, Genentech-Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Kazia, Merck, Mirati, and Pfizer; and was the Chair of Society of Annual Neuro-Oncology Meetings. LC has grants from CDC/Johns Hopkins, DSI, Hological, and Myriad; US patent US7734496B1; stock from UNH; and a leadership role at Touch4Life and MD HBEB. MPM received consulting fees from Kazia, Novocure, Zap, Xoft, Karyopharm, and Sapience; has stocks at Oncoceutics and Chimerix; and is on the boards for Mevion, Oncoceutics, and Xcision. MK received grants from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, BioNTech, CNS pharmaceuticals, Immorna Therapeutics, Celldex Therapeutics, and Astellas; consulting fees from Novocure and George Clinical; miscellaneous payment from Jax Lab, GSK, Voyager Therapeutics, and Johnson and Johnson; and is on the board for Berg Pharmaceuticals. MSA received grants from Seagen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Incyte, Pharmacyclics, Novocure, Mimivax, and Merck; consulting fees from Bayer, Novocure, Kiyatec, Insightec, GSK, Xoft, Nuvation, Cellulartity, SDP Oncology, Apollomics, Prelude, Janssen, Tocagen, Voyager Therapeutics, Viewray, Caris Lifesciences, Pyramid Biosciences, Anheart Therapeutics, Varian Medical Systems, Theraguix, and Menarini Ricerche; has stocks from Mimivax, Cytodyn, and Medlnnovate Advisors; and is on the boards for Cairn Therapeutics, Pyramid Biosciences, Modifi Biosciences, and Bugworks. MHG has grant number U54CA261717 from the NIH/NCI and received consulting fees from Midatech. JL has research funding from Bristol Myers Squibb. MMK has a grant (number R50CA276015) from the NIH/NCI and Blue Earth Diagnostics; and is on the boards for the NCCN CNS Cancers Guidelines Committee, International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, Neuro-Oncology, and the External Advisory Board for Stanford U54 MetNet. JR received grants from Black Diamond Therapeutics, Blueprint Medicines, Hummingbird, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Cancer Core Europe, Yingli, AadiBioscience, Amgen, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, BioAtla, BioMed Valley Discoveries, Cellestia, Curis, CytomX, Deciphera, ForeBio, GenMab, GlaxoSmithKline, Hummingbird, Hucthinson MediPharma, Ideaya, Kelun-Biotech, Linnaeus Therapeutics, Loxo Oncology, Merus, Mirati, Novartis, Nuvation, Pfizer, Roche Pharmaceuticals, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Symphogen, Taiho, Takeda-Millennium, and Tango Therapeutics; consulting fees from Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Avoro Capital Advisors, Boxer Capital, the Chinese University of Hong Kong, Clarion Healthcare, Columbus Venture Partners, Cullgen, Debiopharm, Incyte, Macrogenics, Merus, Monte Rosa Therapeutics, Oncology One, Pfizer, Sardona Therapeutics, Tang Advisors, and the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Ministero De Empleo Y Seguridad Social; travel support from European Society for Medical Oncology; is on boards for AadiBioscience, Ellipses Pharma, Envision Pharma Limited, Incyte, IONCTURA, Merus, and Monte Rosa Therapeutics; and is on the steering committee for the Vall d’Hebron Institute of Oncology/Ministero De Empleo Y Seguridad Social. AB received support from NIH grant number P30 CA008748, has four US patents, and is on the Evren Technologies Scientific Advisory Board. HT has grants from BMS Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, Eisai, GSK, RAPT, and Dragonfly; and received consulting fees from BMS Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Merck, Genentech, Eisai, Iovance, Pfizer, Karyopharm, Boxer Capital, Jazz Pharma, and Medicenna. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. Approximately one-tenth of all patients with advanced breast cancer develop brain metastases resulting in an overall survival rate of fewer than 2 years. The challenges lie in developing new approaches to treat, monitor, and prevent breast cancer brain metastasis (BCBM). This review will provide an overview of BCBM from the integrated perspective of clinicians, researchers, and patient advocates. We will summarize the current management of BCBM, including diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. We will highlight ongoing translational research for BCBM, including clinical trials and improved detection methods that can become the mainstay for BCBM treatment if they demonstrate efficacy. We will discuss preclinical BCBM research that focuses on the intrinsic properties of breast cancer cells and the influence of the brain microenvironment. Finally, we will spotlight emerging studies and future research needs to improve survival outcomes and preserve the quality of life for patients with BCBM., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The COVID-19 pandemic has rapidly changed delivery of cancer care. Many nonurgent surgeries are delayed to preserve hospital resources, and patient visits to health care settings are limited to reduce exposure to SARS-CoV-2. Providers must carefully weigh risks and benefits of delivering immunosuppressive therapy during the pandemic. For breast cancer, a key difference is increased use of neoadjuvant systemic therapy due to deferral of many breast surgeries during the pandemic. In some cases, this necessitates increased use of genomic tumor profiling on core biopsy specimens to guide neoadjuvant therapy decisions. Breast cancer treatment during the pandemic requires multidisciplinary input and varies according to stage, tumor biology, comorbidities, age, patient preferences, and available hospital resources. We present here the Johns Hopkins Women's Malignancies Program approach to breast cancer management during the COVID-19 pandemic. We include algorithms based on tumor biology and extent of disease that guide management decisions during the pandemic. These algorithms emphasize medical oncology treatment decisions and demonstrate how we have operationalized the general treatment recommendations during the pandemic proposed by national groups, such as the COVID-19 Pandemic Breast Cancer Consortium. Our recommendations can be adapted by other institutions and medical oncology practices in accordance with local conditions and resources. Guidelines such as these will be important as we continue to balance treatment of breast cancer against risk of SARS-CoV-2 exposure and infection until approval of a vaccine.