Citations

Abstract Background Ten years after the original publication, the Centiloid framework is now broadly used to harmonize amyloid‐PET quantification, facilitate data sharing and comparison across cohorts, and even assist visual interpretation in clinical settings. We evaluated the global implementation of Centiloids by comparing their distribution and corresponding positivity thresholds across cohorts. Methods We gathered data from publicly available cohorts and reached out to investigators across the world to collect cross‐sectional Centiloids, demographic and clinical information, and visual read data. Gaussian mixture models (GMM, k=2) were fitted to Centiloid values for each cohort and cutoffs were calculated as mean + 2SD of the lower Gaussian. When visual reads were available, we determined Centiloid cutoffs that maximized correspondence with visual reads (Cohen’s kappa). Data was combined across cohorts using random effects meta‐analyses. Results As of January 2025, we included 37 cohorts ( n = 41,678 participants) with heterogeneous pipelines, radiotracers, and clinical and demographic characteristics (Table‐1). The low Gaussian peaks ranged from ‐9 to 10CL; the meta‐analysis identified a common peak at 1CL. The second peaks were more heterogeneous (range=38‐102CL; meta‐analysis outcome=64CL). Across cohorts, the proportion of cognitively unimpaired versus impaired participants impacted the position of both peaks, with better separation in cohorts enriched in impaired individuals (Figure‐1C). The meta‐analysis indicated a GMM‐based cutoff of 19CL (95%CI: 16‐21CL, Figure‐1B); subgroup analyses showed no evidence of significant effect between single versus multicenter settings (17 versus 20CL, p = 0.30), MRI‐based or PET‐only processing (18 versus 19CL, p = 0.88), and no evidence of difference across radiotracers (Flutemetamol: 16CL; PIB: 17CL, Flutafuranol: 18CL, Florbetaben: 19CL, Florbetapir: 20CL, p = 0.78). In a subset of 29,496 participants with visual reads available, binary visual reads corresponded well to Centiloids (common kappa=0.86, Figure‐2A). The visual read‐based cutoff of 24CL (95%CI: 21‐27CL, Figure‐2B) maximized correspondence between visual read and quantification and was slightly higher than the GMM‐based cutoff. All meta‐analysis models showed high non‐random heterogeneity (I 2 >80%) across studies, suggesting non‐random differences in peaks and cutoffs. Conclusions Meta‐analysis‐based cutoffs align well with thresholds from the existing literature. High heterogeneity among studies underscores the need to investigate contributing factors, raising concerns about applying common cutoffs.

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy Bodies (DLB) is often misdiagnosed or conflated with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD) due to overlapping clinical presentations and neuropathological features. The presence of AD‐like features correlates with accelerated cognitive decline and a worse overall prognosis. Compared to AD, studies suggest that amyloid uptake in DLB may spare the occipital lobe. This project aims to investigate whether amyloid PET could be leveraged to differentiate between AD and DLB patients, with the goal of improving diagnostic accuracy and supporting patient stratification and safety in anti‐amyloid trials. Method This study involves collaboration across six centres (University of Geneva, BioFINDER, AMPLE, AMYPAD PNHS, MCSA, GEHC), each contributing amyloid PET imaging data from patients diagnosed with DLB based on clinical or neuropathological assessments. Moreover, each center provided an additional subset of AD and healthy controls, then matched to DLB samples based on age/sex/APOE genotype/education for comparison. A sub analysis will be performed on patients with evidence of both DLB and AD markers. Given the relatively small sample size, key aspect of the methodological approach is to reduce technical sources of variability. The processing workflow includes rigorous quality control, formatting, normalisation to MNI space, harmonisation (differential smoothing), and MRI‐based segmentation. Result The dataset currently includes amyloid PET scans (acquired using [ 11 C]PiB, [ 18 F]Flutemetamol or [ 18 F]Florbetapir) and MRI scans from ∼130 DLB patients, along with ∼150 AD patients and ∼150 controls. In addition, 99 patients positive for the CSF α‐Synuclein Seeding Amplification Assay were included. Patient data were anonymized, and a harmonised database was created, including demographic characteristics, clinical history, and results from neuropsychological assessments. Conclusion The creation of a standardized, multi‐centre amyloid PET dataset for DLB will enable the study of amyloid PET patterns at the global, regional and voxel level, in comparison with uptake in AD patients and controls. This dataset will serve as a valuable resource for investigating the neuropathological underpinnings of DLB, improving diagnostic accuracy, and potentially guiding patient stratification in anti‐amyloid trials. Efforts to integrate [ 18 F]Florbetaben and additional data are ongoing.

Abstract The comparative value of liposomal cytarabine/daunorubicin (CPX-351) versus venetoclax plus a hypomethylating agent (Ven-HMA) in the frontline treatment of older adults with primary ( de novo ) or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains uncertain. In the current study, we retrospectively examined outcomes of 600 patients with newly diagnosed AML treated with CPX-351 (N = 112) or Ven-HMA (N = 488). AML subtypes included de novo (46%), post-myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) (19%), post-myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN) (12%), post-MDS/MPN (6%), therapy-related (17%) and AML with myelodysplasia-related genetic abnormalities (AML-MR; 46%). Patients receiving CPX-351 were younger (median 65 vs. 73 years; p < 0.01), predominantly female (50% vs. 38%; p = 0.02), more likely to have secondary AML (68% vs. 51%; p < 0.01), and less likely to harbor NPM1 MUT (5% vs. 12%; p = 0.02). Rates of complete response with or without count recovery (CR/CRi) were comparable between CPX-351 and Ven-HMA (55% vs. 60%; p = 0.30), including in AML-MR (60% vs. 63%; p = 0.70). Ven-HMA use was associated with fewer infectious complications (62% vs. 83%; p < 0.01) and yielded higher CR/CRi rates in males (60% vs. 45%; p = 0.04), de novo AML (68% vs. 50%; p = 0.03), and in the presence of STAG2 MUT (86% vs. 44%; p = 0.02), or CEBPA MUT (88% vs. 50%; p = 0.03). Overall survival censored for transplant, was similar (median 10 vs. 13 months; p = 0.90), with Ven-HMA being superior in post-MDS AML (median 12 vs. 7 months; p = 0.02) and CPX-351 in the presence of SF3B1 MUT (not reached vs. 14 months; p < 0.01). Our findings suggest that Ven-HMA is as effective and less toxic than CPX-351 in newly diagnosed AML, including AML-MR, despite selection of younger, fitter patients for CPX-351.

The treatment landscape for soft tissue sarcomas (STS) is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for STS specific to surgical management and systemic therapy recommendations for various subtypes.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cervical Cancer provide diagnostic workup, staging, and various treatment recommendations for cervical cancer based on clinical and surgical staging. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for cervical cancer specifically focuses on diagnosis and workup, principles of staging and surgery, and primary treatment recommendations for early-stage and advanced disease and provides a detailed overview of systemic therapy recommendations for cervical cancer.

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 ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . 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 provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Malignant transformation of intracranial nongerminomatous germ cell tumors (NGGCTs) is a rare but clinically relevant phenomenon. We present the case of a 13-year-old boy with a localized, pineal NGGCT. After an initial favorable response, tumor growth was noted while still on chemotherapy. Histopathologic characterization revealed that 40% of the tumor was embryonal rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), consistent with potential malignant transformation. Due to the rare nature of NGGCT malignant transformation, the best clinical approach to these cases remains unclear. We explore existing cases, treatments, and outcomes of malignant transformation in intracranial NGGCTs to help inform future clinical decision-making and the establishment of treatment guidelines.