Citations

Abstract Purpose Bevacizumab is an effective treatment for radiation necrosis; dose dependent radiographic and edema response data are lacking. Methods Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with primary central nervous system tumors or brain metastases who received bevacizumab for radiation necrosis between June 2021 and July 2024. Patients were grouped by bevacizumab dose (7.5 mg/kg vs 10 mg/kg administered every three weeks). Primary outcome was edema response, assessed by a blinded neuro-oncologist. Secondary outcomes included contrast enhancing disease response, clinical response, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing for recurrent radiation necrosis. Analyses were performed with and without adjustment for tumor type. Results 104 patients were included (7.5 mg/kg, n = 53; 10 mg/kg, n = 51). Edema response differed between dosing groups in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.032), favoring the 7.5 mg/kg cohort; however, this association was attenuated after adjustment for tumor type. Contrast enhancing disease response did not differ between groups in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.43). Clinical response was higher in the 7.5 mg/kg group (65.2% vs 37.8%, p = 0.013). Tumor type differed significantly between cohorts (p < 0.001), with more primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg group. Rates of adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing were similar. Conclusions While lower-dose bevacizumab was associated with greater edema reduction in unadjusted analyses, this effect was attenuated after accounting for tumor type. Importantly, 7.5 mg/kg dosing appeared sufficient for achieving edema control and contrast enhancing disease response. These findings support an individualized approach to bevacizumab dosing in radiation necrosis and highlight the need for prospective, tumor-stratified studies.

The advent of high-throughput sequencing technologies has revolutionized cardiovascular genetics, generating vast amounts of data. A major challenge in the genomic era is the efficient and accurate identification of causative genetic variants associated with cardiovascular disease. Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven computational approaches offer a powerful solution by enabling the automation of variant classification, improving consistency and reproducibility, and enhancing predictive accuracy. These methods may guide not only variant classification, variant effect prediction, and clinical prioritization, but also open the door to data-driven precision medicine, enabling more accurate and individualized diagnoses and targeted therapeutic strategies tailored to each patient’s unique genetic and clinical profile. This state-of-the-art review provides a structured overview of AI methodologies applied to cardiovascular genomics, beginning with rule-based expert systems that encode standardized guidelines for consistent variant interpretation. Next, we examine machine learning approaches capable of identifying complex patterns in annotated multimodal clinical and multi-omic datasets. The role of deep learning algorithms is highlighted for their ability to extract features from high-dimensional, unstructured data relevant to cardiovascular disease. In addition, the potential of generative AI is explored, including applications in synthetic data generation, variant impact prediction, and automated summarization of biomedical literature. Despite advances, several challenges remain, including data heterogeneity, the need for explainable AI models to elucidate the decision mechanisms, and the complexity linked to the integration of AI-based tools into clinical workflows. Addressing these issues requires interdisciplinary collaboration among clinicians, geneticists, data scientists, and bioinformaticians to ensure the effective translation of AI-generated insights into clinical practice. This review aims to provide a comprehensive perspective on the evolving role of AI in cardiovascular genomics and its implications for advancing precision medicine.

Abstract Background Bevacizumab is a treatment for radiation necrosis; the optimal dosing remains inadequately studied. Methods Retrospective review of adult patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors or brain metastasis treated with bevacizumab for radiation necrosis from 6/29/2021 to 7/31/2024. Primary outcome was to compare edema response with two different bevacizumab doses: 7.5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. Edema response was classified according to the following groups: (1) increase of edema, &gt;105% of baseline; (2) constant edema, 75%-105% of baseline; (3) slight decrease of edema, 25%-75% of baseline; (4) large decrease of edema, &lt;25% of baseline. Results 104 patients were evaluated (median age 59 years, 56% male); 53 patients in the 7.5 mg/kg group and 51 patients in the 10 mg/kg group. Tumor type varied significantly across dosing groups (p &lt; 0.001). In the 7.5 mg/kg group, tumor type was primary CNS (n = 23, 43%), lung (n = 14, 26%), breast (n = 8, 15%), melanoma (n = 4, 8%) and other (n = 4, 8%). In the 10 mg/kg group, tumor type was primary CNS (n = 43, 84%), lung (n = 2, 4%), melanoma (n = 2, 4%) and other (n = 4, 8%). Median number of bevacizumab doses administered was 4. There was a statistically significant difference in distribution of edema response across all response levels favoring bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (p = 0.032). When edema response was dichotomized (large decrease vs other), the difference remained statistically significant (p = 0.015). Conclusion Bevacizumab 10 mg/kg was more efficacious in terms of edema response; this result is impacted by the significantly higher incidence of primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg dosing group.

Background: Shared Decision Making in palliative care encompassing patient-clinician collaboration has shown potential for improved patient outcomes. However, the impact of decision aids intended to support palliative care decision making discussions across clinical care settings remains uncertain. Aim: To assess the impact of shared of decision aids on decision making, clinical outcomes, and quality of life for patients with palliative care needs and their caregivers. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, reported according to PRISMA, with overall evidence quality assessed using GRADE. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE (all segments), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from inception through September 20, 2024, without restrictions on publication date, sample size, or language. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with palliative care needs or their caregivers, using any form of decision aids. Outcomes encompassed decision-related, clinical, and quality of life measures. Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included. Participant ages ranged from 44 to 85 years. Predominant decision aids were videos or printed materials addressing goals of care and treatment options, with aims that included improving understanding of prognosis and supporting values clarification. Decision aids significantly improved decision-related knowledge (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–0.67, p = 0.003) and lowered preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001). They showed no significant impact on decisional conflict, satisfaction, or regret. Conclusion: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of decision aids in palliative care decision making is limited and of low overall quality, with observed improvements primarily in patient knowledge and changes in stated treatment preferences rather than established improvements in decision quality or values-concordant care. Future research should prioritize integration into comprehensive shared decision making frameworks, cultural adaptations, and larger-scale studies to enhance patient-centered outcomes.

Abstract Inflammation is a key driver of coronary syndromes across the continuum from chronic coronary syndromes to acute coronary syndromes. It contributes to atherogenesis, plaque destabilization, and ischaemic events and influences myocardial injury, repair, and remodelling. Inflammatory activity is further amplified by metabolic and autoimmune comorbidities such as diabetes, obesity, and connective tissue diseases, with obesity representing a major driver of chronic low-grade inflammation through adipose tissue dysfunction and cytokine activation, while psychosocial stress and environmental exposures including air pollution serve as additional triggers. Genetic variations, including human leucocyte antigen genotypes, modulate individual susceptibility to vascular inflammation and myocardial injury. This expert consensus from the European Society of Cardiology’s Association for Acute CardioVascular Care summarizes the current understanding of inflammation across the full spectrum of coronary syndromes, including underlying mechanisms, relevant biomarkers, and imaging approaches that characterize vascular inflammation, and integrates insights from experimental and clinical studies. Importantly, this document provides explicit consensus-based guidance on when, how, and in whom inflammation should be assessed and treated in routine clinical practice. While the causal association between inflammation and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease is well established, pharmacological modification of inflammation has produced conflicting evidence. Some agents, such as low-dose colchicine, have demonstrated modest reductions in cardiovascular events, although results across trials have been inconsistent. Other anti-inflammatory therapies have not shown clinical benefit, whereas selective cytokine inhibition with canakinumab has reduced cardiovascular risk at the cost of increased infection rates. The present manuscript also focuses on the evaluation of inflammatory activity in cardiovascular patients in routine clinical practice. It further discusses criteria for patient selection and clinical decision-making regarding the introduction of anti-inflammatory therapy in individuals with established atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is a common and treatable cause of hypertension, yet data on the durability of medical treatment response beyond the first year are limited. Using the PA medical treatment outcomes framework, we evaluated long-term biochemical and clinical outcomes and factors associated with treatment response. METHODS: We conducted an international, multicenter, observational cohort study across 27 centers on 4 continents. Adults with PA treated with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists and/or epithelial sodium channel blockers between 2016 and 2021 were included if follow-up data were available at ≥12 months. Biochemical and clinical responses were classified as complete, partial, or absent using PA medical treatment outcomes criteria. Ordinal logistic regression identified determinants of a favorable treatment response. RESULTS: The cohort included 1292 patients (47.5% women, mean age 52 years) with a median follow-up of 34 months (interquartile range, 21–51). At ≥12 months, 58.3% achieved a complete biochemical response, and 20.8% achieved a complete clinical response, with only 5% showing no response. Determinants of a favorable biochemical response included lower aldosterone and lateralization index, and higher renin and potassium levels at baseline. In those taking spironolactone, a higher daily dose was also associated with a favorable biochemical response. Determinants of a favorable clinical response included female sex, lower body mass index, shorter duration of hypertension, and absence of hypertension-mediated organ damage. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted medical therapy for PA can deliver sustained biochemical and clinical benefits. Early disease detection and adequate dose titration are highly actionable determinants of long-term treatment success.

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the https://www.asco.org/practice-patients/guidelines/guideline-methodology . ASCO Guidelines follow the https://www.asco.org/about-asco/legal/conflict-interest-coi . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To offer clinicians recommendations concerning breast cancer follow-up and surveillance after primary treatment. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to develop recommendations based on a systematic review and a formal consensus process. RESULTS One randomized controlled trial (RCT) was identified and formed the evidentiary basis for the surveillance mammography guideline recommendation. No RCTs were identified that evaluated different follow-up approaches by risk of relapse in patients treated for early-stage breast cancer. Given the dearth of evidence identified in the systematic review of the literature, formal modified Delphi consensus-based recommendations were generated. RECOMMENDATIONS The guideline offers recommendations on the role of a risk-based approach to the frequency and intensity of follow-up among patients with breast cancer in the adjuvant setting. Regular history, physical examination, and mammography are recommended for breast cancer follow-up. Either virtual or in-person visits can be offered. Certain patients at a high risk of cancer recurrence warrant closer surveillance, such as those patients with locally advanced disease or residual disease following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Recommendations on the use of blood-based biomarkers and supplemental imaging are provided. Guideline recommendations will be updated once additional evidence-based tools become available to better individualize surveillance. Additional information is available at www.ascopubs.org/topics/asco-guidelines/breast-cancer .

Importance Multidomain lifestyle interventions slow cognitive decline in at-risk older adults, but effects on cerebrovascular injury and whether any effect differs by age or across magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers remain unclear. Objectives To test whether a structured multidomain lifestyle intervention, vs a self-guided program, alters trajectories of cerebrovascular MRI markers and whether baseline diffusion MRI estimates subsequent vascular injury. Design, Setting, and Participants POINTER Imaging was a prespecified secondary imaging analysis of the US POINTER (US Study to Protect Brain Health Through Lifestyle Intervention to Reduce Risk) randomized clinical trial conducted at multiple US sites. Starting August 1, 2020, and continuing until March 1, 2023, all newly enrolled US POINTER trial participants who met criteria, including being 60 to 79 years of age and at increased risk for cognitive decline, were given the opportunity to enroll in POINTER Imaging. Annual MRIs were performed at baseline and up to 2 follow-up visits at 12 and 24 months. The imaging study ended May 14, 2025. Interventions Structured multidomain lifestyle arm (supervised exercise, dietary counseling, cognitive and social engagement, and health coaching) vs self-guided educational arm. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were cerebrovascular MRI markers of global white matter free water (FW), fractional anisotropy (FA), peak width of skeletonized mean diffusivity (PSMD), analysis along the perivascular space (ALPS) index, white matter hyperintensity (WMH) volume, and incident cerebral microbleeds (CMBs). Age-group analyses (&amp;lt;70 vs ≥70 years) were prespecified. Linear mixed-effects models tested time, intervention arm, age group, and interactions for continuous outcomes; logistic regression evaluated incident CMBs. All analyses were adjusted for sex, hypertension, diabetes, and smoking and were conducted for the evaluable population. Data were analyzed September 5 to December 11, 2025. Results For 959 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 68 (5) years, and 594 (61.9%) were female. A significant time × arm × age group interaction was observed for FW (β = 0.050; SE = 0.018; P = .006). In participants younger than 70 years, the structured intervention, compared with the self-guided intervention, attenuated the FW increase over time (β = −0.031; SE = 0.012; P = .009); no intervention arm difference was observed in participants aged 70 years or older (β = 0.019; SE = 0.014; P = .18). No intervention-related interactions were detected (eg, time × intervention arm interaction) for WMH (β = 0.002; SE = 0.016; P = .90), FA (β = 0.016; SE = 0.016; P = .30), PSMD (β = −0.011; SE = 0.021; P = .60), or ALPS (β = 0.006; SE = 0.021; P = .79). Overall, greater odds of incident CMBs were associated with higher baseline FW (odds ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.24-2.14]; P &amp;lt; .001) and PSMD (odds ratio, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.08-1.81]; P &amp;lt; .001). Greater WMH progression was associated with higher baseline FW (β = 0.014; SE = 0.006; P = .02) and lower baseline FA (β = −0.018; SE = 0.006; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary imaging analysis of a randomized clinical trial, FW was the cerebrovascular MRI marker most responsive to lifestyle intervention in adults 60 to 70 years of age, showing attenuated small-vessel disease–related injury. Findings suggested greater microvascular benefit when intensive lifestyle intervention is implemented earlier in late life. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03688126