Alsulaiman, Abdullah A

Abstract Everolimus 10 mg daily is the standard dose for advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), but adverse events frequently necessitate dose reduction. As a result, oncologists often adopt a dose‐escalation strategy starting at 5 mg and increasing the dose as tolerated. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the effect of reduced dose (RD) and standard dose (SD) everolimus on survival, progression, and toxicity in patients with advanced NETs. We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients with advanced NETs treated with everolimus at Mayo Clinic and University Hospitals (Cleveland, OH). Patients were grouped by starting dose (5 mg vs. 10 mg). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), real‐world progression‐free survival (rwPFS), and adverse events. Multivariable Cox models, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), and time‐varying dose sensitivity analysis were used to account for confounding and dose crossover. Among 170 patients (48 started on 5 mg; 122 on 10 mg), the 5 mg cohort was older, had worse ECOG PS, and was more heavily pretreated. Median OS was 43.7 months (5 mg) versus 81.5 months (10 mg; log‐rank p = .02). However, after multivariable adjustment ( N = 124 G1–G2 patients; 51 events), the association was no longer statistically significant (adjusted HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31–1.12; p = .11). Median rwPFS was 7.0 versus 12.4 months (log‐rank p = .05); the adjusted rwPFS difference was not statistically significant (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.56–1.61; p = .84). Nearly half (46.7%) of 10 mg starters required dose reduction. Any‐grade toxicity was more common with 10 mg (89% vs. 75%; p = .05). The apparent survival advantage of standard‐dose everolimus was substantially attenuated after adjustment. These findings do not establish dose equivalence and should be interpreted in the context of limited statistical power. Given its more favorable observed tolerability profile, RD everolimus warrants prospective evaluation as a starting strategy for patients at increased risk of treatment‐related toxicity who may not tolerate SD.

Purpose Neutropenic diet (ND) has historically been recommended to reduce infectious complications in patients with cancer. Although its use has declined over the past decade, recent studies, particularly in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem-cell transplantation (HSCT), have renewed concern regarding the safety of a liberalized diet (LD). We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing ND with LD in patients with cancer. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases from inception through January 2026. Comparative studies evaluating ND versus LD in adults or children with cancer were included. Primary outcomes were major infections and bacteremia/fungemia; secondary outcomes were pneumonia, diarrhea, and mortality. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs. Results Fifteen studies including 4,320 patients met criteria for analysis. ND was not associated with significant differences in major infections (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.18]; P = .795), bacteremia/fungemia (RR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78 to 1.22]; P = .805), pneumonia (RR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.59 to 1.63]; P = .933), diarrhea (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.96 to 1.31]; P = .159), or mortality (RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.15]; P = .632). Sensitivity analyses restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were consistent. In hematologic malignancy/HSCT studies (9 studies; 1,769 patients), no differences were observed across outcomes. In RCTs limited to these patients (6 studies; 855 patients), ND was associated with lower bacteremia/fungemia risk (RR, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.95]; P = .023), with no differences in other outcomes. Conclusion ND was not associated with reductions in major infections, pneumonia, diarrhea, or mortality compared with LD. These findings do not support routine implementation of ND for patients with short-term neutropenia or lower-risk cancer populations although selected high-risk patients, particularly those undergoing HSCT or experiencing prolonged neutropenia related to hematologic malignancies, may still warrant cautious dietary practices.

PURPOSE Gastroesophageal carcinoma (GEC) is increasingly managed using biomarker-guided therapies. Although both tissue DNA (tDNA) and circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) testing are used clinically, the concordance of genomic alterations between primary tumors, metastatic sites, and liquid biopsy remains incompletely understood. METHODS We retrospectively analyzed 345 patients with GEC who underwent ctDNA testing at Mayo Clinic. tDNA next-generation sequencing and immunohistochemistry (IHC) for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)/erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 ( ERBB2 ) and mismatch repair (MMR) were collected. Concordance was evaluated between ctDNA and tDNA, ctDNA and IHC, and across all three modalities, using 60-day and 30-day intervals. RESULTS Among 345 patients with ctDNA testing, 186 had tDNA testing, and 310 underwent IHC. ctDNA testing showed a shorter turnaround time than tDNA (median 6 v 13 days). The most frequent alteration in ctDNA, primary tDNA, and metastatic tDNA was TP53. Concordance between ctDNA and primary tDNA was ≥78.8% for key genes; between ctDNA and metastatic tDNA, it was ≥84.8%. IHC-ctDNA concordance was higher in metastatic tumors, with 91.1% for HER2/ ERBB2 and 97.7% for mismatch repair (MMR)/microsatellite instability (MSI) compared with 81.1% and 95.8%, respectively, in primary tumors. Triplet concordance for MSI/MMR was 97.6% in primary tumors and 100% in metastatic tumors, while ERBB2 /HER2 showed 84.4% and 93.9% concordance, respectively. ctDNA temporal heterogeneity analysis revealed 14 patients with fluctuating ERBB2 status and 3 with fluctuating MSI-H status. CONCLUSION ctDNA testing demonstrates high concordance with tDNA and IHC and offers faster turnaround. Given its minimally invasive nature and strong concordance with tissue-based testing, ctDNA is a reliable tool for genomic profiling and longitudinal monitoring in GEC.