Citations

ABSTRACT Genomic instability is a defining hallmark of breast cancer, yet the mechanisms by which tumors tolerate persistent DNA damage remain poorly understood. We performed a comprehensive, multi-cohort analysis of breast cancer datasets to define how DNA damage response (DDR) and replication stress tolerance (RST) networks are rewired in genomically unstable tumors. Using fraction of genome altered (FGA) as a chromosomal instability metric, we show that BRCA-mutant tumors exhibit elevated genomic instability coupled with increased expression of homologous recombination, Fanconi anemia, mismatch repair, base excision repair, and alternative end-joining pathways. Strikingly, heightened pathway activity correlates with increased genome alteration, supporting a model of damage tolerance rather than repair restoration. RST programs, including fork remodeling, protection, and single strand DNA gap suppression, further contribute to tumor fitness under replication stress. These adaptive states are enriched in aggressive subtypes, intensified with progression, and associate with pathway-specific mutational burden. Co-occurrence and mutual exclusivity mapping uncovered non-random subtype-relevant genetic interactions states among major drivers and DDR genes, nominating context-specific synthetic lethal opportunities. Our findings identify compensatory genome-maintenance programs as central drivers of tumor resilience and highlight pathway-specific vulnerabilities for targeted therapeutic intervention.

PURPOSE Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype of breast cancer. Early-stage, high-risk patients with TNBC are treated with chemotherapy and pembrolizumab per the KEYNOTE-522 regimen. This report examines real-world clinical effectiveness and toxicity of this regimen. METHODS This 19-site retrospective analysis included all patients who received at least one dose of the KEYNOTE-522 regimen. Safety, efficacy, and health care encounters were collected. RESULTS 675 patients from 19 sites in the United States who received chemotherapy and pembrolizumab for early-stage TNBC were included. 547 (81.0%) patients underwent surgery and 250 (54.7%) patients had a pathologic complete response (pCR). No baseline characteristics were predictive of pCR status. 224 patients (33.2%) had an adverse drug event resulting in ≥1 dose reduction of chemotherapy and were significantly more likely to have residual disease. Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were observed in 388 (57.5%) patients and grade 3+ irAEs were observed in 176 (26.1%) patients. There was no difference in pCR status between provider's choice chemotherapy schedules. There was no difference of pCR rate between Black and White patients (55.6% v 51.6%, P = .489). White patients were significantly more likely to have any grade and grade 3+ irAEs. Older patients (age ≥65 years) had similar pCR rates compared with younger patients; however, older patients were significantly more likely to have grade 3+ irAEs. CONCLUSIONS In this multi-institutional real-world cohort, we observed a lower pCR rate, higher rates of toxicity, frequent emergency health care utilization, and the reporting of rare irAEs at higher frequency than the KEYNOTE-522 regimen. These findings have important implications for clinical management of patients with early-stage TNBC and warrant further validation with real-world data sets.

Abstract Background Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a significant public health concern associated with increased rates of hospital admissions and mortality. The purpose of the current study was to compare beta-lactam plus azithromycin or doxycycline vs fluoroquinolones in adults hospitalized with CAP. Methods We searched several databases from inception to 10 June 2024. Two reviewers independently screened, selected, and extracted data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Study quality was assessed in duplicate with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 for randomized studies and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for nonrandomized studies. Meta-analysis was conducted by a random effect model when feasible. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare direct and indirect evidence. The GRADE approach (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was followed to rate the certainty of evidence. Results Twenty studies were included (20 beta-lactam + azithromycin, 7 beta-lactam + doxycycline, 12 levofloxacin, and 4 moxifloxacin): 6 were randomized, enrolling 861 participants (mean age, 61.8 years; 43.2% women), and 14 were nonrandomized, enrolling 185 928 participants (mean age, 65.2 years; 42.9% women). Direct comparison and network meta-analysis results showed no statistically significant differences and likely equal effectiveness between beta-lactam + azithromycin and beta-lactam + doxycycline in terms of in-hospital mortality, need for intensive care unit admission or invasive mechanical ventilation, or safety outcomes including Clostridioides difficile infection and QT prolongation. Conclusions The current evidence demonstrated no likely difference in outcomes between azithromycin and doxycycline in adults hospitalized with CAP receiving beta-lactam. Head-to-head randomized clinical trials are needed to validate these results.

Objectives This study aims to compare the reliability and accuracy of three large language models (LLMs) (Claude, Gemini and GPT) in assessing the risk of bias of nonrandomised studies using the ROBINS-I tool. Methods and analysis We conducted a secondary analysis of 171 nonrandomised studies previously assessed with Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool by two independent human review teams. Only studies with concordant human domain-level ratings were included. Each study was independently assessed twice by Claude, Gemini and Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) using agent-based structured implementations of the ROBINS-I tool. Reliability (agreement between two runs of the same LLM) was evaluated using percent agreement and Gwet’s AC1. Accuracy (agreement with human reviewers) was assessed only for studies with consistent LLM ratings, using the same metrics. Results Claude demonstrated high reliability across all domains (79.5–98.0% agreement, AC1=0.729–0.975). Gemini showed moderate-to-high reliability (agreement 76.7–100%, AC1=0.680–1.0). GPT exhibited lower reliability overall, though domain-level agreement ranged from 70.9–95.6% (AC1=0.596–0.944). In terms of accuracy, Claude showed overall poor agreement with human reviewers (14.4–68.5% agreement; low AC1 values). Gemini demonstrated moderate-to-high accuracy in several domains, including deviations from intended interventions (79.6%, AC1=0.848) and measurement of outcomes (73.9%, AC1=0.702), with the highest overall agreement (40.0%, AC1=0.672). GPT showed variable accuracy, with the highest in measurement of outcomes (62.8%, AC1=0.571) and classification of interventions (57.8%, AC1=0.498), but poor performance in selection (14.3%, AC1 = −0.041) and overall agreement (23.0%, AC1=0.267). Conclusions Claude was internally consistent but poorly aligned with human reviewers. Gemini achieved both high reliability and moderate-to-high accuracy, whereas GPT had lower reliability and mixed accuracy. Current off-the-shelf LLMs cannot reliably perform ROBINS-I risk of bias assessments.

Abstract Problem The Association of American Medical Colleges has urged actions to promote inclusivity in medical education for historically underrepresented groups. Studies suggest that underrepresentation may be addressed through structured mentorship and workshops at the premedical level and generate interest in less familiar specialties including physical medicine and rehabilitation (PM&R). Approach The authors implemented a novel half-day multi-institutional workshop in spring 2024 featuring physicians and medical students from New York City medical centers. The workshop included structured mentorship and pertinent PM&R-related topics, including disability health and adaptive sports, to which premedical students often have limited exposure. Participants were invited to complete pre- and postworkshop surveys to evaluate the workshop’s impact. The authors collaborated with prehealth chapters of organizations such as the American Medical Women’s Association and the Minority Association of Pre-Medical Students to distribute surveys. Outcomes The preworkshop survey was completed by 147 premedical students, and 81 registered for the workshop. Ultimately, 55 attended the workshop, with 71% completing the postworkshop survey. Most participants had no previous exposure to PM&R (n = 77, 53.5%) and to adaptive sports (n = 116, 80.6%). Furthermore, although 76 (52.8%) had shadowed a physician, only 6 (4.2%) had experience shadowing a PM&R physician. The authors gathered a diverse representation of responses, including those identifying as female (n = 119, 81.0%) and underrepresented in medicine (n = 84, 57.1%). Pre–post comparative analysis showed a statistically significant rise in students’ motivation to apply to medical school (P = .018), along with a statistically significant increase in the interest and understanding of PM&R and adaptive sports (P < .001). Next Steps Future work will focus on developing longitudinal mentorship, improving accessibility through hybrid formats, and expanding the curriculum through interspecialty collaborations to support broader implementation and evaluation.

ABSTRACT Interactions between clinical pharmacists and industry partners continue to evolve as health care increases in complexity and technology assumes a more dominant role. To address the corresponding ethical challenges, the 2025 Industry Relations Committee of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) was charged with updating the 2008 ACCP position statement, Pharmacists and Industry: Guidelines for Ethical Interactions . This update expands its perspective, reflecting the broader and more influential roles pharmacists play across the health care ecosystem. All clinical pharmacist–industry interactions should be grounded in improving patient care. Through this lens, six recommendations are provided: (1) Pharmacists should not engage in industry partnerships or collaborations that might unduly influence objectivity, independence, or fairness in clinical and professional judgments; (2) Pharmacists should disclose and mitigate financial, consulting, or other relationships that constitute potential conflicts of interest and should not participate in activities where an existing conflict cannot be resolved; (3) Pharmacists who participate in industry‐sponsored research should follow accepted ethical, regulatory, and scientific standards; (4) Pharmacists providing continuing education programs or developing drug information materials should maintain control of content; ensure their content is fair, balanced, and free from bias; and disclose and mitigate any conflicts; (5) Formal instruction on ethical interactions with industry professionals should begin early and continue through all stages of pharmacist education, training, and professional development; (6) Pharmacists should maintain the confidentiality and privacy of patients and other health care professionals when working with industry partners. Questions to guide personal industry interactions are provided. This paper does not detail every emerging area (e.g., artificial intelligence, social media), but recommendations are applicable wherever clinical pharmacists leverage their professional expertise. By maintaining a critical, discerning, and ethical approach to industry collaborations, clinical pharmacists can uphold professional obligations while contributing to the advancement of evidence‐based practice, ultimately prioritizing patient welfare.

Abstract Introduction Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is an aggressive subtype lacking estrogen (ER), progesterone (PR), and HER2 expression. It accounts for ∼15% of breast cancers and is more common in Black women, younger patients, and those with BRCA1 mutations. TNBC carries a poor prognosis with 5-year survival rates of 92% (localized), 66.8% (regional), and 14.3% (metastatic). Patients with high-risk of recurrence can be treated with different adjuvant therapies based on results of 3 trials (capecitabine, pembrolizumab, olaparib), but data on adverse events (AE) on their combination is limited.High-risk, stage II-III TNBC is treated with curative intent using neoadjuvant chemotherapy with pembrolizumab, followed by surgery and radiation. Pembrolizumab, an anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, was FDA-approved in 2021 based on KEYNOTE-522. This phase III trial showed that pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved pathologic complete response (pCR) and event-free survival (EFS). 3-year EFS was 84.5% vs. 76.8% with placebo (HR 0.63); 5-year follow-up confirmed sustained benefit, with OS of 86.6%. Patients achieving pCR had better outcomes, while those with residual disease remained at high risk for recurrence, justifying further adjuvant therapy.In KEYNOTE-522, grade ≥3 treatment-related (AEs occurred in 77.1% receiving pembrolizumab-chemotherapy vs. 73.3% with placebo-chemotherapy. Pembrolizumab was linked to more serious AEs (34.1% vs. 20.1%) and higher discontinuation rates (23.3% vs. 12.3%). Before pembrolizumab, capecitabine was standard of care for TNBC with residual disease, based on the CREATE-X trial (HR 0.52 for OS benefit). Common AEs included hand-foot syndrome, fatigue, and liver enzyme elevation. Notably, KEYNOTE-522 excluded adjuvant capecitabine, and CREATE-X predated the use of pembrolizumab. Olaparib, a PARP inhibitor, was FDA-approved in 2022 for high-risk early TNBC with germline BRCA mutations, based on OlympiA. It improved invasive disease-free and OS. Grade ≥3 AEs included anemia, neutropenia, and fatigue. OlympiA did not include pembrolizumab or capecitabine, limiting insight into optimal sequencing or combination. Currently, no trials compare pembrolizumab, capecitabine, or olaparib directly, nor do they guide how to sequence or combine these therapies. Despite NCCN guidelines allowing combined/sequential use in high-risk patients, real-world safety and outcome data are lacking. This study aims to evaluate and compare the safety and effectiveness of capecitabine, olaparib, pembrolizumab, and their combinations. We will describe AE rates, onset, discontinuation, and dose modifications to inform clinical management and help reduce early termination of effective therapies. Methods We conducted a retrospective observational study across all Mayo Clinic sites. Eligible patients were ≥18 years with early-stage TNBC who initiated adjuvant therapy with capecitabine, pembrolizumab, olaparib, or combinations (capecitabine + pembrolizumab or olaparib + pembrolizumab) from October 2018 to September 2024. Patients with metastatic disease, other active malignancies, or receiving concurrent investigational therapy were excluded. The primary outcomes were incidence and timing of treatment-related AEs. Secondary outcomes included time to AE resolution, immune-related AEs, treatment interruptions/modifications, early discontinuation, and EFS. Time-to-event data will be analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. Subgroup analyses by age, DPYD status, regimen, and dosing will be conducted. Data was abstracted from electronic health records and managed using REDCap. Results Data collection is completed. Final analyses are being conducted, and results will be presented at SABCS 2025. Citation Format: R. Garza-Morales, F. Raheem, D. Alton, S. Sharma, B. Murad, W. Harris, E. Terwilliger, F. Batalini. Analysis of Adverse Events and Outcomes of Adjuvant Therapies in TNBC as Monotherapy and Combination: Pembrolizumab, Capecitabine, and Olaparib [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS4-10-06.

Abstract Women remain underrepresented in physical medicine and rehabilitation, comprising only 36%–39% of residents despite evidence that diverse teams improve patient outcomes. Limited early exposure and systemic barriers may contribute to this disparity. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed 1101 US premedical students from 198 colleges across 40 states and territories to assess perceptions of physical medicine and rehabilitation and identify effective early intervention strategies. While respondents included all gender identities, the analysis focused on the 870 female-identifying students (78.8%) due to the study’s primary aim of addressing gender equity in physical medicine and rehabilitation. Only 30.6% were familiar with physical medicine and rehabilitation, with exposure primarily through social media (42.6%) and personal connections (31.1%); just 9.0% had shadowed a physical medicine and rehabilitation physician. Financial concerns were prevalent, with 68.6% citing medical education costs and 66.4% citing application fees as deterrents. Despite these barriers, 60.6% expressed interest in learning more about physical medicine and rehabilitation. Preferred engagement strategies included shadowing (81.8%), interactive workshops (76.6%), mentorship programs (60.1%), and gender-specific events such as “Women in PM&R” (62.8%). These findings underscore the need for targeted, early outreach initiatives that address both informational and financial barriers, aiming to foster greater awareness and representation of women in physical medicine and rehabilitation and ultimately support a more inclusive physician workforce.

Objective: The objective of this investigation was to evaluate the agreement rate on judgments made using the Murad tool by different systematic review teams. Introduction: Evaluating the methodological quality of case reports and case series is challenging but some tools do exist for this purpose. We leveraged the presence of studies that have been evaluated by different systematic review teams to assess the inter-consensus agreement among different teams on Murad tool domains. Methods: Using a back-citation method, we identified systematic reviews that used the Murad tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. We calculated observed agreement and Gwet’s agreement coefficient on judgments made about each signaling question. Results: We identified 982 systematic reviews that cited the Murad tool and collectively cited 59,080 references. The final data comprised of 81 duplicated case reports and series assessed by more than 1 systematic review team. Overall, the signaling questions had very high observed agreement with 5 of the 8 questions having agreement over 75%. The signaling questions with the highest agreement addressed the adequacy of the ascertainment of the exposure (coefficient 0.959), ascertainment of the outcome (coefficient 0.829), presence of a dose-response gradient (perfect agreement), and clarity of reporting (coefficient 0.755). Conclusion: The current study demonstrates overall high agreement among different systematic review teams that used the Murad tool for appraisal of the same case series and case reports. Leveraging duplicated studies across systematic reviews is a feasible way to retrospectively assess the reliability of the tool.

Abstract Background Partial breast irradiation (PBI) is an effective treatment for early-stage breast cancer. However, evidence comparing different PBI modalities is limited. Methods This trial emulation uses electronic health records from a multi-state large tertiary health system. Three PBI modalities were compared: proton radiation therapy, photon radiation therapy, and applicator-based brachytherapy. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance confounders. The primary outcome was ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR). Results Between 2013 and 2023, 1041 women with early-stage breast cancer were treated with PBI. Of these, 1026 patients were included in the analyses. The median age was 66 years; 22.51% had ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), and 97.56% were estrogen receptor positive. With median follow-up of 38.2 months, the rate of IBR in the overall group was 3.05% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.99% to 4.65%) at 3 years. After IPW, compared with photon PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for proton PBI was 2.11 (95% CI = 0.70 to 6.33) and for brachytherapy, 3.86 (95% CI = 1.39 to 10.69). Compared with proton PBI, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 1.83 (95% CI = 0.88 to 3.81). IBR risk was similar across PBI modalities for patients with tumor size ≤ 10 mm and in patients treated for DCIS. Among patients with tumor size >10 mm, the hazard ratio for IBR for brachytherapy was 7.64 (95% CI = 1.64 to 35.58) and 3.59 (95% CI = 1.22 to 10.56) relative to photons and protons, respectively. Conclusion PBI with applicator-based brachytherapy was associated with higher IBR than photon or proton PBI in patients with tumor size > 10 mm, suggesting the need for more careful PBI patient selection for this modality.