Goldin, Jonathan

Objective Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) can stabilize or improve lung function in systemic sclerosis–related interstitial lung disease (SSc‐ILD). We hypothesized that combining MMF with pirfenidone (PFD) would produce a significantly more rapid and/or greater improvement in lung function. Methods A randomized (1:1), double‐blind, placebo (PLA)‐controlled phase 2 trial was conducted in SSc‐ILD in which patients received PFD or PLA (801 mg three times daily) along with MMF (1,500 mg twice daily) for 18 months. The primary outcome was change in percent predicted forced vital capacity (FVC‐%). Linear mixed‐effects models assessed treatment differences in a modified intention‐to‐treat population. Results Only fifty‐one of 150 intended subjects (34%) were randomized (MMF+PLA, n = 24; MMF+PFD, n = 27). The FVC‐% improved from baseline to 18 months by 2.24 ± 1.35 (least‐squares mean [LSM] ± SEM) in the MMF+PLA group and 2.09 ± 1.28 in the MMF+PFD group (LSM treatment difference −0.14; P = 0.93). Median time to achieve a ≥3% improvement in FVC‐% was numerically faster in the MMF+PFD versus MMF+PLA group (12.3 vs 17.8 months, respectively), but the difference was not significant ( P = 0.33). For secondary outcomes, only the change over 18 months in the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29‐item physical function score, favoring MMF+PFD, reached statistical significance ( P = 0.04). Although other related patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) numerically favored the MMF+PFD group, as did quantitative high‐resolution computed tomography measures of ILD, the differences between groups did not reach statistical significance. Early withdrawals from study medication and adverse events of special interest were numerically greater with MMF+PFD (n = 8 vs 2 and n = 20 vs 7, respectively). Conclusion In this underpowered study, there was no statistically significant treatment difference in overall change in FVC‐% between groups. MMF+PFD was not as well tolerated as MMF+PLA.

Abstract Emphysema’s significant morbidity and mortality underscore the need for reliable outcome metrics in clinical trials. However, commonly accepted chronic obstructive pulmonary disease outcome measures do not adequately capture emphysema severity or progression. Computed tomography (CT) metrics have been validated as accurate indicators of pathological emphysema and predictors of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease progression, exacerbations, and mortality. This position paper reviews the evidence supporting CT densitometry as a biomarker for emphysema, establishes implementation standards, and highlights areas for future research. A systematic literature review addressed three key questions: whether CT densitometry can be used as a diagnostic biomarker of emphysema, whether CT densitometry can be used as a prognostic biomarker, and whether longitudinal change in densitometry can be used as a disease progression monitoring biomarker. Emphysema metrics, such as the percentage of low attenuation areas below −950 Hounsfield units, are validated, highly reproducible diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Volume-adjusted lung density is recommended for disease monitoring. Both metrics demonstrate a scan–rescan intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.99 with proper technique. The paper also discusses relevant CT physics, techniques, and sources of variation, including technical factors, physiological changes, and software analysis. Key recommendations for clinical trials include using standardized CT techniques, proper subject selection, and longitudinal evaluation with volume-adjusted lung density.

Patients with systemic sclerosis are at high risk of developing systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease. Symptoms and outcomes of systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease range from subclinical lung involvement to respiratory failure and death. Early and accurate diagnosis of systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease is therefore important to enable appropriate intervention. The most sensitive and specific way to diagnose systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease is by high-resolution computed tomography, and experts recommend that high-resolution computed tomography should be performed in all patients with systemic sclerosis at the time of initial diagnosis. In addition to being an important screening and diagnostic tool, high-resolution computed tomography can be used to evaluate disease extent in systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease and may be helpful in assessing prognosis in some patients. Currently, there is no consensus with regards to frequency and scanning intervals in patients at risk of interstitial lung disease development and/or progression. However, expert guidance does suggest that frequency of screening using high-resolution computed tomography should be guided by risk of developing interstitial lung disease. Most experienced clinicians would not repeat high-resolution computed tomography more than once a year or every other year for the first few years unless symptoms arose. Several computed tomography techniques have been developed in recent years that are suitable for regular monitoring, including low-radiation protocols, which, together with other technologies, such as lung ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging, may further assist in the evaluation and monitoring of patients with systemic sclerosis–associated interstitial lung disease. A video abstract to accompany this article is available at: https://www.globalmedcomms.com/respiratory/Khanna/HRCTinSScILD

Abstract Determination of therapeutic benefit in intracranial tumors is intimately dependent on serial assessment of radiographic images. The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (RANO) criteria were established in 2010 to provide an updated framework to better characterize tumor response to contemporary treatments. Since this initial update a number of RANO criteria have provided some basic principles for the interpretation of changes on MR images; however, the details of how to operationalize RANO and other criteria for use in clinical trials are ambiguous and not standardized. In this review article designed for the neuro-oncologist or treating clinician, we outline essential steps for performing radiographic assessments by highlighting primary features of the Imaging Charter (referred to as the Charter for the remainder of this article), a document that describes the clinical trial imaging methodology and methods to ensure operationalization of the Charter into the workings of a clinical trial. Lastly, we provide recommendations for specific changes to optimize this methodology for neuro-oncology, including image registration, requirement of growing tumor for eligibility in trials of recurrent tumor, standardized image acquisition guidelines, and hybrid reader paradigms that allow for both unbiased measurements and more comprehensive interpretation.