ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical treatment options are increasingly needed for endometrial atypical hyperplasia (AH) and endometrioid endometrial cancer (EEC). Despite promising initial response rates, prospective long-term data and determinants for relapse are limited. METHODS: Follow-up data from patients in our prospective phase II trial of LIUD for AH/G1EEC were collected from medical records. Spatial transcriptomics (Nanostring GeoMX digital spatial profiling) with in silico cell type deconvolution and pathway analyses were employed on longitudinal biopsy samples from five patients across pre-treatment, on-treatment, and relapse. RESULTS: Of 43 participants exhibiting initial response to LIUD, 41 had follow-up data. Sixteen (39%) experienced relapse. Clinical factors associated with shorter response duration included younger age, initial diagnosis of G1EEC, lack of response at six months, premenopausal status, and Hispanic ethnicity (p<0.05), but only six-month response status remained a significant predictor in a multivariate model (p=0.023). LIUD increased abundance of NK cells (DMCP-counter score=46.13, FDR=0.004) and cytotoxic lymphocytes (DMCP-counter score=277.67, FDR=0.004), as well as lymphocyte cytotoxicity markers PRF1 (log2FC=1.62, FDR=0.025) and GZMA (log2FC=2.47, FDR=0.008). NK cells were reduced at relapse (DMCP-counter score=-55.96, FDR=0.02). Immune-related pathways (IFNα-response and TGFß-signaling) were enriched at relapse (FDR<0.05). IDO1 expression, reflecting immune exhaustion, was upregulated at relapse (FDR<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Upfront resistance and relapse after initial response to LIUD for AH/G1EEC impacts nearly half of patients, remaining a major hurdle for non-surgical treatment of AH/G1EEC. Molecular studies evaluating longitudinal biopsies from a small cohort implicate immune mechanisms at relapse, including reversal of progestin-related immunomodulation and increased immune exhaustion.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined patient preferences for telehealth in palliative care after the availability of COVID-19 vaccines. We examined patient preferences for video versus in-person visits and factors contributing to preferences in the postvaccine era. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey of patients who were seen at our palliative care clinic between April 2021 and March 2022. Patients were surveyed directly their preference for either video or in-person visits for outpatient palliative care (primary outcome). We also surveyed preferences including convenience, cost, wait time, and perceptions of COVID-19 safety regarding their palliative virtual-video visit. We examined clinical factors associated with preferences with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: About 200 patients completed the survey. 132 (67%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 60%, 74%) preferred virtual-video, while 16 (8%) preferred in-person visits during the COVID-19 pandemic. About 120 (61%, 95%CI: 54%, 68%) preferred virtual-video after the pandemic. Patients perceived virtual-video favorably regarding travel and related costs (179 [91%]), convenience (175 [88%]), and wait time (136 [69%]). Multivariable analysis showed concerns for catching COVID-19 from healthcare providers (odds ratio [OR]: 4.20; 95%CI: 1.24-14.25; P = 0.02) and feeling comfortable with computers or mobile devices (OR: 4.59; 95%CI: 1.02, 20.60; P = 0.047) were significantly associated with preferring virtual-video. Patients who were of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 0.25; 95%CI: 0.09, 0.71) and had increased dypsnea (OR: 0.74; 95%CI: 0.59, 0.93) were less likely to prefer video over in-person. CONCLUSION: Patients expressed strong preference for video over in-person visits in the outpatient palliative care setting.