Citations

Pediatric sarcomas are a heterogeneous group of rare mesodermal malignancies. These cancers, which affect children from infancy through adolescence and young adulthood, are in general challenging to treat with currently available therapies. Biologically, many are characterized by quiet genomes, fusion oncoproteins, immune “cold” microenvironments, and vast epigenetic deregulation that contributes to diverse and complex mechanistic drivers. Multifaceted advancements in research strategies, including high-throughput screening, new model systems, surfaceome profiling, and study of oncogenic fusion condensates have led to new opportunities for understanding the biology of pediatric sarcomas. To continue to make progress for these difficult to treat cancers, it will be critical to continue to improve access to bioinformatic data, approach patient care using innovative clinical trial frameworks, and foster interdisciplinary partnerships among medicinal chemists, scientists, clinicians, advocates, and industry partners.

ABSTRACT HLA‐C*07:1268 differs from HLA‐C*07:02:01:01 by one nucleotide substitution in exon 3.

Background With improvements in in vitro culture techniques, there has been a steady shift in practice to transfer in vitro fertilisation (IVF) embryos at the blastocyst-stage to increase pregnancy rates per embryo transfer (ET) and reduce the risk of multiple pregnancy. In patients with fewer embryos (≤5 zygotes), fresh cleavage-stage ET is still commonly performed to reduce the risk of cycle cancellation if no embryo survives to the blastocyst-stage in vitro. However, evidence for improved outcomes with cleavage-stage embryo transfer in this subgroup of patients is lacking. We will compare blastocyst-stage to cleavage-stage ET with regard to cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval and other patient-centred cycle outcomes in patients with ≤5 zygotes. Methods and analysis Multicentre, randomised pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial with superiority design comparing blastocyst-stage to cleavage-stage ET in patients with ≤5 zygotes. This trial will enrol and randomise 1126 women aged 18–44 undergoing IVF to either fresh cleavage-stage or blastocyst-stage ET at eleven IVF centres. Surplus embryos will be vitrified at the blastocyst-stage. The primary outcome is the CLBR per oocyte retrieval. Secondary outcomes include: multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss <20 weeks and cycle cancellation. Exploratory outcomes include: live birth per fresh ET, ectopic pregnancy, time to pregnancy, stillbirth, preterm birth, financial burden, patient distress and facilitators and barriers for patient involvement and implementation. All primary analyses will be conducted according to the intent-to-treat principle. We also will report per-protocol analyses as a sensitivity analysis. A multidisciplinary stakeholder team, including a 5-patient stakeholder panel, will participate in study design, conduct and oversight. Ethics and dissemination The Institutional Review Board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) provides central regulatory oversight. Results will inform timing of embryo transfer in patients with ≤5 zygotes and will be disseminated through academic publications, meeting presentations and communications to advocacy groups and patient participants. Trial registration number NCT06746129 .

Importance: Chronic liver disease requires sustained engagement with the health system, which co-occurring social and functional risks may disrupt. Whether these risks form reproducible patterns with different mortality associations is uncertain. Objective: To identify social and functional risk patterns among US adults with chronic liver disease and evaluate their associations with all-cause mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nationally representative cohort study of National Health Interview Survey sample adults interviewed from 2011 through 2018 and linked to the National Death Index through 31 December 2019. Participants were aged 18 years or older, eligible for mortality linkage, reported a chronic liver condition, and had no baseline liver cancer. Exposures: Latent class membership derived from 7 binary indicators: poverty, food insecurity, uninsurance, cost-related delayed care, no usual place of care, single-adult household status, and activity limitation. A complete 0- to 7-item count was a secondary exposure. Main Outcomes and Measures: All-cause mortality. Survey-weighted Cox models estimated hazard ratios (HRs) with sequential demographic, clinical, and liver-specific adjustment. Prespecified sensitivity analyses used 20 multiple imputed data sets, sampling-weighted pseudo-likelihood latent class models, complete-case re-estimation, a fixed 5-year horizon, and class-by-age interaction testing. Results: Among 3407 adults (weighted mean age, 54.0 years; 49.4% female), 529 deaths occurred over 17,297.6 person-years (median follow-up, 5.0 years [IQR, 3.0–7.0]). Four classes were retained: low social and access burden (weighted prevalence, 63.1%); functional limitation with financial strain (13.2%); poverty, single-adult household, and functional limitation (15.0%); and uninsurance with major access barriers (8.7%). Compared with the low-burden class, the functional-limitation/financial-strain class had higher adjusted mortality (HR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.34–2.82; p < 0.001); the other 2 classes did not differ significantly. Sampling-weighted latent class analysis after multiple imputation reproduced 97.2% of modal assignments, and the association persisted with attenuation (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.08–2.22; p = 0.02). Each additional risk was associated with higher mortality (exact count: HR, 1.24 [95% CI, 1.13–1.36]; imputed count: HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.10–1.29]). The class-by-age interaction was not significant (p = 0.41). Conclusions and Relevance: Among US adults with self-reported chronic liver disease, social and functional adversity was both cumulative and patterned. A profile combining functional limitation, food insecurity, and cost-related delayed care had the clearest independent mortality association despite largely retained insurance coverage. These profiles are not a validated clinical score, but the findings argue against reliance on any single indicator, particularly insurance status, as a marker of vulnerability.