Citations

Abstract Purpose: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)–directed therapies provide meaningful clinical benefit in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), yet responses remain limited, underscoring the need for additional biomarkers of PSMA expression heterogeneity. In this study, we explored the relationship between PSMA imaging and PSMA expression on circulating tumor cells (CTC) in our early-phase trial using a PSMA-targeted small molecule. Experimental Design: This phase I study investigated EC1169, a small molecule conjugated to a tubulysin analog warhead, and 99mTc–EC0652, a PSMA imaging agent. Part A (dose escalation) identified the recommended phase II dose. Part B (dose expansion) assessed radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) as its primary endpoint. We enrolled and treated 103 patients with mCRPC. Most part B patients underwent 99mTc–EC0652 PSMA imaging. A CTC assay assessed PSMA-positive CTCs and their association with response and PSMA imaging. Results: 99mTc–EC0652 single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) imaging demonstrated increased sensitivity for detecting bone lesions compared with standard scans (computed tomography/bone scans). Using an optimized CTC assay, we observed that patients with a decrease in PSMA+ CTCs at baseline versus C3D1 displayed a longer rPFS (8 vs. 2.9 months; P = 0.04). Importantly, patients with predominantly PSMA-positive disease on 99mTc–EC0652 imaging also harbored PSMA-negative CTCs, with a subset displaying neuroendocrine prostate cancer–like morphology. Conclusions: Although EC1169 showed limited activity, CTC and imaging analyses showed significant heterogeneity in PSMA expression on CTCs in patients with predominantly PSMA-positive lesions on SPECT. Our study highlights the importance of assessing both PSMA-based CTC and imaging assays in future validation trials.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to determine predictors of the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) following cervical spinal deformity surgery. METHODS A retrospective review was performed of a prospective, multicenter adult cervical spinal deformity database. All patients had baseline and 1-year NDI scores. Patients met MCID with an improvement of NDI by 7 points between baseline and 1 year, as previously established. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, and both baseline and 1-year spinopelvic parameters were evaluated for statistical significance in a univariate logistic regression analysis. Significant variables, in addition to baseline NDI, were analyzed in a multivariable logistic regression model by backward selection with Akaike information criterion minimization. RESULTS A total of 122 patients were included with a median age of 62 (IQR 56, 69) years; 62% of patients were female. Of the 122 patients, 72 (59%) achieved NDI MCID at 1 year. Predictors of achieving MCID on univariate analysis included a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) total score (OR 0.70, p = 0.03), depression as a comorbidity (OR 2.9, p = 0.02), lower C2 tilt at the 1-year follow-up (OR 0.92, p = 0.02), and a greater difference between 1-year postoperative C2–7 sagittal vertical axis (SVA) and preoperative C2–7 SVA (OR 0.98, p = 0.0495). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, predictors of achieving MCID included a lower CCI (OR 0.62, p = 0.03), depression as a comorbidity (OR 3.1, p = 0.059), a greater change in C2–7 SVA at the 1-year follow-up compared with baseline (OR 0.97, p = 0.055), and baseline NDI (OR 1.02, p = 0.24) with an area under the curve of 0.74. CONCLUSIONS The best-fit multivariable model included higher baseline NDI, a greater change in C2–7 SVA, patient-reported baseline depression, and lower CCI as important factors in predicting NDI MCID.

Abstract Background Global data demonstrate an inverse relationship between hospital ileoanal pouch volume and adverse outcomes, highlighting the need for quality metrics for this technically demanding procedure.1-4 Currently, there are no standardised quality indicators to define high-quality pouch surgery. This study aimed to establish international consensus on key performance indicators (KPIs) in pouch surgery. Methods A modified Delphi process was conducted among an international, multidisciplinary panel of experts. Participants were identified through professional networks, literature review, and direct email invitation; additional participants recruited via a snowball sampling approach over one month. Candidate KPIs were generated from literature review and expert input across 5 domains. Each item was rated on a 9-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 9 = critically important); consensus was predefined as ≥ 80% of respondents rating an item 7–9. Items not reaching consensus were re-rated in a second round following anonymized group feedback. Results Round 1 included 312 participants from 37 countries. Demographics (Table 1): 53% were age 45 years, 35.2% were female, and included surgeons (68.6%) and gastroenterologists (31.1%). Most (76.6%) practice at academic or university hospitals, with a median of 11 (5–17) years in practise; 78.9% perform >1 pouchoscopy per month, and 39.5% of surgeons perform 5 pouches/year. Respondents’ regions included North America (51%), Europe (26%), Oceania (9%), Asia (6%), Latin America (4%), and the Middle East/Africa (4%). Seven (18%) countries (Denmark, Lithuania, Malaysia, Norway, United Arab Emirates, Sweden, and Switzerland) reported pouch surgery is already centralised, while 70.6% agreed pouch centralisation should be implemented. Cost/logistics and professional autonomy were the most important barriers to centralisation, whereas capacity and training exposure were least important. Overall, 37/59 (62.7%) candidate KPIs reached consensus after Round 1. The Round 2 response rate was 61%, and 2 additional KPIs reached consensus (preop ileitis and long-term risk of pouchitis). Additionally, 14 of 25 (56%) informed consent items reached consensus, and 64% of respondents felt informed consent for pouch surgery requires 2 or more office visits. Consensus items were used to populate a KPIPS Checklist (Figure 1). Conclusion Through an international Delphi process, the KPIPS study identified a consensus-derived set of key performance indicators to measure quality in pouch surgery. These quality metrics provide a foundation for benchmarking outcomes and represent a critical step towards centralization and the development of designated pouch centres of excellence to improve global standards of care for pouch patients. References: 1. Worley GHT, Fearnhead NS, Brown SR, et al. Review of current practice and outcomes following ileoanal pouch surgery: Lessons learned from the ileoanal pouch registry and the 2017 ileoanal pouch report. Colorectal Dis 2018;20:913–22. 2. Giddings HL, Yang PF, Steffens D, Solomon MJ, Ng KS. Influence of hospital-level and surgeon factors on the outcomes after ileo-anal pouch surgery for inflammatory bowel disease: Systematic review. Br J Surg 2024;111. 3. Hoang CM, Maykel JA, Davids JS, et al. Distribution of elective ileal pouch-anal anastomosis cases for ulcerative colitis: A study utilizing the university health system consortium database. J Gastrointest Surg 2020;24:2613–9. 4. Moojen TB, Visser E, Reijntjes MA, et al. One-year stoma-free survival of ileoanal pouches for uc in european centers: The miracle project. Ann Surg Open 2025;6:e596. Conflict of interest: Prof. Holubar, Stefan: No conflict of interest Soop, Mattias: No conflict of interest Poskus, Tomas: No conflict of interest Neary, Peter: No conflict of interest Uchino, Tairin: No conflict of interest Yang, Song-soo: No conflict of interest Adamina, Michel: No conflict of interest Avellaneda, Nicolas Luis: No conflict of interest Barnes, Edward: No conflict of interest Brouquet, Antoine: No conflict of interest Brown, Steven Ross: No conflict of interest De Buck Van Overstraeten, Anthony: No conflict of interest Buskens, Christianne J.: No conflict of interest Chiorean, Michael: No conflict of interest Clark, David: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: No conflict of interest El Ouali, Sara: No conflict of interest Faiz, Omar Darius: No conflict of interest Fichera, Alessandro: No conflict of interest Hahnloser, Dieter: No conflict of interest Hancock, Laura: No conflict of interest Herfarth, Hans: No conflict of interest Johnston, Michael: No conflict of interest Kayal, Maia: No conflict of interest Laharie, David: No conflict of interest Liberman, Sender: No conflict of interest Loftus, Jr, Edward: No conflict of interest Moeslein, Gabriela: No conflict of interest Myrelid, Pär: No conflict of interest Poylin, Vitaliy: No conflict of interest Qazi, Taha: No conflict of interest Raffals, Laura: No conflict of interest Rubin, David T.: No conflict of interest Spinelli, Antonino: No conflict of interest Steinhagen, Emily: No conflict of interest Tozer, Philip: No conflict of interest Verstockt, Bram: No conflict of interest Warusavitarne, Janindra: No conflict of interest Wexner, Steven: No conflict of interest Winter, Desmond: No conflict of interest

Abstract Background We aimed to describe the real-world durability of clinical and endoscopic outcomes of upadacitinib (UPA) in ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods We retrospectively analyzed an ongoing multi-center cohort of UC patients(pts) in the United States who were started on UPA for active disease. Primary outcome was clinical remission at 1yr assessed by partial Mayo score(pMS)(resolution of all UC related symptoms and physician global assessment). Secondary outcomes assessed at various timepoints, including after re-escalation, included clinical response(>50%reduction in symptoms utilizing the pMS), endoscopic response (Mayo endoscopic score≤1or absence of erosions/ulcerations) and histological remission(defined as normal or chronic inactive). Durable secondary outcomes achieved at both 6months and at 1yr and beyond were also assessed. Descriptive statistics were performed. Adverse events(AEs) investigated included cardiovascular events and herpes zoster (HZ). Results 416pts were included(Table 1) with median values for age at initiation of36.00yrs(range27-48), disease duration7.00yrs(range3-14)and follow-up 993days(IQR,672-1103), with206(49.52%)with follow-up at 1yr or beyond. Of these, 66.1%had extensive colitis. Induction duration was8wks in 86.5%and16wks in 4.8 %(20/416). Most received an induction dose of45mg(97.1%)and maintenance dose of30mg(85.8%). Among the evaluable population at1yr and beyond, 62.5%(45/80)were in clinical remission, 75.9%(22/29)in endoscopic response with58.6%(17/29) in remission and66.6%(20/30)in histological remission. At 6months, clinical remission was51.6%(42/93), endoscopic response was 75%(24/32) of which43.75%(14/32)were in remission and histologic remission was seen in 40.8%(20/49).Durable secondary outcomes of clinical remission were seen in 71.4%(30/42), endoscopic improvement in 45.8%(11/24), and histologic remission in35%(7/20). Re-escalation to 45mg occurred in 35pts, of which48.6%(17/35)were re-escalated due to incomplete induction clinical response with all achieving response(11 in remission). The rest(18/35)were re-escalated for clinical relapse after initial remission where72.2%(13/18)were able to recapture remission. After re-escalation,54.3%(19/35)continued on 45mg daily. AEs were reported in12.7%with HZ in 7pts(2.1%). One pt aged53yrs had an episode of TIA after 1yr on UPA at 15mg, without pre-existing cardiovascular risk factors and UPA use is ongoing at the same dose. There were no reported episodes of worsening of pre-existing cardiovascular disease or DVT/PE. Conclusion UPA is durably effective and safe in a real-world clinical setting with re-escalation to 45mg capturing response in a majority of the pts. Ongoing recruitment will provide further evidence on long term effectiveness and safety. Conflict of interest: Ms. Huang, Katherine: No conflict of interest Chandnani, Arun: No conflict of interest Samaan, Sami: None Tan, Tingyi: I have no conflict of interests to declare. Ramesh, Prajith Raj: None Conlon, Caroline: No conflict of interest Klein, Jeremy: None Reddy, Nikhil: No conflict of interest Ayoub, Malek: None Cervantes Limon, Gabriela: none Myers, Melissa: None Bucaram, Martha: No conflict of interest Lieto, Stephen: No conflict of interest Scalzo, Nicholas: No conflict of interest Cohen, Benjamin: Abbvie - consulting and speaking ALPCO - consulting J & J Innovative Medicine - consulting Takeda - consulting and speaking Emmes Biopharma Services LLC - DSMB Pfizer - consulting Mohamed, Islam: nothing to declare Ciorba, Matthew: Advisory Board: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Consulting: Janssen, AbbVie, Pfizer, Geneoscopy Grant contracts: Janssen, Pfizer, Incyte Shukla, Richa: Speakers bureau - Abbvie and Lilly Wright, Michael: None Xu, An Tao: No conflict of interest Chowla, Navreet: No conflict of interest Ogholikhan, Sina: Abbvie Medical Director Kujawski, Michelle: Abbvie Scientific Director Dulaney, David: Speaker bureau - Regeneron Speaker bureau - Sanofi Speaker bureau - Takeda Speaker bureau - Eli Lilly Fenster, Marc: none Benson, Caroline: No conflict of interest Alhobayb, Tamara: No conflict of interest Berinstein, Jeffrey: No conflict of interest Shivashankar, Raina: Abbvie and BMS - speaker bureau Janssen and Celltrion - grant for IBD fellowship funding Pfizer - consultant Bishu, Shrinivas: None Patel, Anish: speaker: abbvie, J & J, Lilly, BMS, Pfizer, Phathom, Takeda consultant: abbvie Ungaro, Ryan: Personal Fees: AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Lilly, Pfizer, Janssen, Takeda Johnson, Amanda: Research grant: Abbvie, Spyre Therapeutics Pekow, Joel R.: CVS Health - Consulting Abbvie, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson - Stocks Yarur, Andres: Personal Fees: Consultant for Takeda, Pfizer, Roche, Merck, Abbvie, Eli Lilly. Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Johnson and Johnson. Deepak, Parakkal: Parakkal Deepak has received research support under a sponsored research agreement unrelated to the data in the abstract from AbbVie, Johnson and Johnson, Sanofi, Merck, Teva, Direct Biologics, Tr1x, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer, Prometheus Biosciences, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Roche Genentech, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Spyre and Agomab, has received consulting fees from Johnson and Johnson, Abbvie, Merck, Sobi, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Asahi Kasei Pharma, Sandoz and CorEvitas, LLC and has served on the board of the Srategic Alliance for Intercultural Advocacy in GI.

Context.— The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for SARS-CoV-2 assays encompassed both in vitro diagnostic and laboratory-developed tests. Related testing data and documents from EUAs were published on the FDA website as PDF files, constituting a rich data resource. Objective.— To highlight the value of structured descriptive and validation data and provide recommendations on improving the quality, accessibility, and shareability of the FDA’s digital resources. Design.— SARS-CoV-2 diagnostics EUAs and related files were acquired from the FDA, and data were extracted through an iterative manual or automated process with quality assurance in accordance with a set of data entry definitions to generate a data product (ie, data analysis and presentation of data into tables, graphs, and reports, optionally including different data sets) that could be disseminated. Results.— Four challenges limited the usability of FDA EUA data, including (1) distinguishing EUA tests owing to similar names or inconsistent naming conventions; (2) document location and tracking owing to inconsistent EUA document identifiers, resource locators, and versioning; (3) data location and retrieval owing to heterogeneous structure and data formatting within EUA documentation; and (4) maintenance of existing data owing to lack of clear and traceable communication around EUA amendments. Conclusions.— Converging efforts from disparate groups to extract and synthesize FDA test data reveal an unaddressed need for better organization and communication. Existing FDA data reporting systems must be improved and adapted for the demands of the connected data science era.

Abstract Background: As with most Sub-Saharan African countries, Nigeria has a rising incidence of cancer, with disproportionate mortality rates. The financial burden of cancer care often results in catastrophic healthcare spending, leading to treatment refusal, disruption, and discontinuation. This is particularly significant in Nigeria, where nearly all patients are uninsured, and out-of-pocket costs often exceed households’ ability to pay. Financial Navigation Programs (FNPs) have been shown to mitigate treatment-related financial toxicity in cancer care and reduce treatment abandonment, but there is a paucity of high-quality data on this intervention in resource-constrained settings. Here, we present a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of a novel FNP in Nigeria. Methods: We designed the COST-FIN trial, a multi-site pragmatic single-blinded randomized controlled trial of newly diagnosed (<6 weeks from diagnosis) adults (≥18 years) with breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer at two tertiary cancer centers in Nigeria. Participants (n=200) will be randomized (1:1) to either the intervention (FNP) or the control arm and followed for 12 months. Data on key individual, treatment, and financial parameters will be collected via structured interviews and chart abstraction at baseline, 3, 6, and 12-month follow-up. In addition, participants randomized to the FNP will receive a tailored financial literacy assessment, financial planning support, and enhanced access to resources by trained financial navigators. Primary and secondary outcomes are Financial Catastrophe (FC) and Financial Distress (FD), respectively. Exploratory outcomes will include cost-related non-adherence and cost-effectiveness of the program. An interim analysis will be conducted when 50% of the estimated accruals reach 6 months of follow-up, with crossover if compelling evidence of benefit is demonstrated at that time point. All participants will be followed for 12 months from recruitment. Discussion: This first-of-its-kind study will provide evidence on the role of FNP in potentially eliminating financial barriers to cancer care in Nigeria. Given the country’s renewed interest in cancer control through the passage of the National Cancer Control Plan, findings from this study have the potential to influence policy reform and set the stage for further studies to evaluate the scalability and implementation of similar interventions in resource-limited settings. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06630962. Oct 8, 2024 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06630962)

Abstract Background Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in medication-related tasks despite limited evidence supporting their accuracy and safety. LLMs are vulnerable to adversarial attacks and may confabulate in response to fabricated information in the prompt. Given the substantial risk of harm from medication errors, the purpose of this study was to establish a benchmark task to evaluate LLM performance in distinguishing fabricated from real medications. Methods Two datasets (brand and generic), each consisting of 250 medication lists were developed, each including 4-6 medications and one fabricated medication (specifically a Pokémon character), with complete dosing information provided. Six LLMs were evaluated (GPT-5-Chat, GPT-4o-mini, DrugGPT, Gemma-3-27B-IT, Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct, and Qwen3-32B). For each medication list, models were queried for dosing information and disease indication across three experimental conditions: standard decoding, standard decoding with mitigation prompting, and deterministic decoding (temperature = 0). Each experiment was performed in triplicate. Outputs were deemed confabulations if the LLM failed to recognize and reject the fabricated medication. The primary outcome was the rate of confabulations. Exact paired-permutation tests were used to compare confabulation rates across LLMs and prompting approaches. Results Confabulation rates under standard conditions ranged from 2.7% to 99.6%. DrugGPT demonstrated the lowest baseline confabulation rates (2.7-6.4%), whereas other models demonstrated substantially higher rates (47.2-99.6%). Mitigation prompting significantly reduced confabulation rates compared to standard and deterministic decoding across all tasks and datasets (p < 0.001): GPT-5-Chat achieved confabulation rates of 0% with mitigation prompting from baseline rates of 66.4-88.5%. Deterministic decoding did not substantially impact confabulation rates. Conclusions LLMs performing medication-related tasks are susceptible to confabulation in response to invalid or fabricated inputs, raising important safety concerns for clinical use. While mitigation prompting reduced confabulation rates, this study underscores the importance of robust safeguards when deploying LLMs in medication-related decision-making.