Citations

Abstract Objectives: In the RadComp randomized trial, we compared radiation dose to cardiac substructures in patients treated with proton versus photon radiation therapy (RT) ; evaluated changes in cardiac-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes from baseline to 6 months following RT; and determined associations between radiation dose volume histogram (DVH) parameters and changes in cardiac-specific HRQOL. Methods: The study cohort included patients with locally advanced breast cancer enrolled on RadComp who completed treatment per protocol, had available radiation DVH metrics for all cardiac substructures, and completed both the baseline and at least one follow-up cardiac-specific HRQOL over the 6 months post-RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOL measures included PROMIS fatigue, PRO-CTCAE shortness of breath (SOB) (severity and interference with daily activities), and PRO-CTCAE chest pain, chest tightness, and angina (frequency, severity, and interference). Detailed dose volume histograms (DVH) for cardiac substructures included the whole heart, left ventricle (LV), right ventricle (RV), left atrium (LA), right atrium (RA), and left anterior descending artery (LAD) were derived. The Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used to compare dose distributions between photon and proton RT. Associations between DVH metrics and HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using repeated-measures linear regression via generalized estimating equations with an independent working correlation structure. All models were adjusted for RT type, age, cardiovascular risk factors, surgery type, laterality, ethnicity, education, timepoint, and race. Additional stratified analyses was performed according to laterality (right versus left + bilateral). Results: Across 1160 RadComp participants, RT exposure to cardiac substructures differed significantly between proton and photon RT and by laterality. Median mean heart dose was lower with protons, 0.9 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.49, 1.46), compared to photons 2.83 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.49, 4.52) (p< 0.001), and lower for right-sided disease, 0.91 Gy (Q1, Q3 0.44, 1.55), compared to left and bilateral 1.99 Gy (Q1, Q3 1.11, 3.63) (p<0.001). Similarly, for the LAD, LA, LV, and RA, mean proton dose was significantly lower (p<0.001). However, for the whole heart, RA, and RV, maximum doses to small-volume parameters and dose to 0.03cc were higher with proton RT. PRO-CTCAE measures of HRQOL were generally favorable at all timepoints across all participants, and grade ≥3 toxicity was rare (≤5.5%) for all measures. The PROMIS Fatigue T-Score increased from baseline (median 49 [Q1, Q3 46, 57]) to end of RT (55 [Q1, Q3 49, 63]), and returned to baseline levels at 6 months (p<0.001). While there were no significant differences in PRO-CTCAE SOB severity (p=0.24) and interference (p=0.11) over time, PRO-CTCAE chest pain worsened compared to pre-RT with respect to frequency (p<0.001), severity (p<0.001), and interference (p=0.008). However, the absolute changes were small. No DVH metrics were significantly associated with any cardiac-specific HRQOL outcomes. Stratification by laterality yielded similar results. Conclusions: Proton RT generally conferred significantly lower doses to the heart and cardiac substructures compared to photon RT. HRQOL outcomes were favorable across all participants, with fatigue returning to baseline, no change in SOB parameters, and a slight worsening of chest pain outcomes over 6 months following RT. Cardiac-specific HRQOLs appear not to be significantly affected by RT dose to cardiac substructures within the first 6 months post-RT. Other organs at risk that could also impact cardiac HRQOL endpoints, longer follow-up, and major cardiac events will be evaluated in future analyses. Citation Format: J. L. Wright, K. Ko, W. Kenworthy, W. Bosch, L. Braunstein, G. Freedman, E. Gillespie, R. Jimenez, S. Pugh, H. Lu, M. Pankuch, N. Remmes, W. Straube, W. Zou, E. Berlin, L. Fang, S. MacDonald, N. Taunk, J. Kim, A. Thukral, A. Taghian, M. Mishra, R. Mutter, V. Croog, D. Boggs, J. Urbanic, N. Ohri, A. Chawla, T. Meier, L. Rosen, M. Fegundes, O. Cahlon, K. Hoffman, A. Ferriozzi, J. Bekelman, A. Lin, B. Ky. Associations Between Cardiac Radiation Dose Volume Metrics and Cardiac Specific Health Related Quality of Life for Patients with Breast Cancer Randomized to Proton versus Photon Radiation on the RadComp Trial [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 RF6-04.

Abstract Background To determine if dose escalation improves outcomes for chondrosarcomas (CHS) of the base of the skull (BOS) and the cervical spine (CS). Methods A prospective, randomized, dose-escalation trial was designed for patients with CHS of the BOS and CS. Patients were randomly assigned to 70 Gy (RBE) or 76 Gy (RBE). The primary endpoint was local failure (LF). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment-related toxicities. Results Between 1987 and 2007, 105 patients were randomized, median follow-up was 29.2 years (IQR, 26.7-32.4). Forty-six patients were assigned to 70 Gy (RBE) and 59 were assigned to 76 Gy (RBE). LF at 5-, 10-, and 20 years were 7%, 9%, and 11% for 70 Gy (RBE), and 10%, 15%, and 19% for 76 Gy (RBE) (P = .16). Like LF rates, there was no benefit in dose escalation for OS (P = .28) and CSS (P = .22). Progression-free survival at 5-, 10-, and 20 years was 93%, 89%, and 77% for the low-dose group and 83%, 71%, and 59% for the high-dose group (P = .069). Late RT injury ≥ grade 3 was reported in a total of 19 (18%) patients across both dose levels, with 11% in the low-dose group and 24% in the high-dose group (P = .13). Conclusions This is the first and largest trial of patients with grade I/II BOS and CS CHS evaluating dose escalation for tumor control. Proton-based RT is effective and safe for these tumors, but there is no apparent benefit in dose escalation. Clinical Trial Information NCT00592748.

Oral nimodipine is the only drug approved for aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). However, bioavailability is poor and peak plasma concentrations fluctuate widely, leading to dose‐limiting hypotension. Administration is problematic in patients who cannot swallow. An enteral liquid formulation exists but causes severe diarrhea. GTX‐104 is an intravenous (IV) nimodipine formulation that has 100% bioavailability and is not affected by swallowing, gastrointestinal absorption and first pass effects. When administered in pharmacokinetically‐equivalent doses to oral nimodipine in healthy humans, GTX‐104 has more consistent plasma concentrations and causes less hypotension than oral nimodipine. To conduct a randomized, open label, blinded endpoint study to determine the safety and tolerability of GTX‐104 compared with oral nimodipine in patients with aSAH We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open‐label safety and tolerability study of GTX‐104 compared to oral nimodipine in aSAH. Inclusion/exclusion criteria matched prescribing information for oral nimodipine and included adults with aSAH of all Hunt/Hess grades. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to GTX‐104 or oral nimodipine. The primary endpoint was the proportion of subjects with clinically significant hypotension (hypotension requiring treatment, with a reasonable likelihood of being due to study drug, as determined by an independent, blinded committee). Secondary endpoints included all episodes of hypotension, adverse events, EQ‐5D‐3L and modified Rankin scale within 90 days of aSAH. 102 subjects were randomized at 24 sites in the USA. Demographics reflected those of aSAH. There was a 20% relative reduction in clinically significant hypotension with GTX‐104 compared to oral nimodipine (28% versus 35%). 54% of GTX‐104 subjects got >95% of the prescribed dose compared to 8% on oral nimodipine. Favorable outcome (90‐day mRS 0‐2) was more common in the GTX‐104 group compared with oral nimodipine (62% versus 48%). Fewer patients on GTX‐104 (36% versus 48% oral nimodipine) had serious adverse events. There were no safety issues with GTX‐104. GTX‐104, an IV formulation of nimodipine that can be administered through central or peripheral veins, is safer and potentially more efficacious than oral nimodipine.

Abstract Clinical question What are the benefits and harms of medications for adults with type 2 diabetes at varied risks of cardiovascular and kidney related complications? Context Emerging clinical trials of novel medications have demonstrated benefits on cardiovascular, kidney, and weight related outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. Dynamically updated practice guidelines adhering to standards of trustworthiness are necessary in response to a rapidly evolving evidence base and the availability of multiple medication alternatives. This living practice guideline incorporates the latest available medications and evidence and provides recommendations stratified by risks of cardiovascular and kidney complications to inform diabetes management. Recommendations The panel issued risk-stratified recommendations regarding four prioritised medications for adults with type 2 diabetes (SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, finerenone and tirzepatide): • Lower risk (three or fewer cardiovascular risk factors without established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or chronic kidney disease (CKD)): weak recommendation against SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists. • Moderate risk (more than three cardiovascular risk factors without established CVD or CKD; or established CVD and/or CKD at lower risk of complications): weak recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation against finerenone in adults with CKD. • Higher risk (established CVD and/or CKD at higher risk of complications, or established heart failure): strong recommendation in favour of SGLT-2 inhibitors or GLP-1 receptor agonists; and a weak recommendation in favour of finerenone in adults with CKD. • Across risk strata: weak recommendation in favour of tirzepatide in adults with obesity. About this guideline and how it was created An international panel including two patient partners, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations. The panel followed standards for trustworthy guidelines and used the GRADE approach, explicitly considering the balance of benefits, harms and burdens of treatment from an individual patient perspective. Recommendations were informed by a linked living systematic review and network meta-analysis evaluating relative benefits and harms updated to 31 July 2024; and by linked systematic reviews addressing risk prediction models and values and preferences of adults with type 2 diabetes. Candidate therapeutics are prioritised based on availability of sufficient randomised trial data, relevance to a global audience and likelihood of changing practice. This is the first version of the living guideline. The guideline is part of the BMJ Rapid Recommendations series. MAGICapp displays the most recent version of the guideline and full content including evidence summaries and decision aids; major updates will be published in The BMJ . We encourage re-use, adaptation and translation of these living guidelines, and recognise that the lack of availability or high costs of some medications may be prohibitive and will impact on how these recommendations are implemented across different health care systems.

Abstract Background and Aims Truncating variants in the TTN gene (TTNtv) are the most common genetic cause of dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) but also occur as incidental findings in the general population. This study investigated factors associated with the clinical manifestation of TTNtv. Methods An international multicentre retrospective observational study was performed in families with TTNtv-related DCM. Shared frailty models were used to estimate associations of variant characteristics with lifetime risk of DCM, and logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for individual-level clinical risk factor profiles (cardiac conditions, cardiovascular comorbidities, lifestyle) and DCM. Results A total of 3158 subjects in 1043 families with TTNtv-related DCM were studied. TTNtv-positive subjects were 21-fold more likely to develop DCM [OR, 21.21; 95% confidence interval (CI), 14.80–30.39]. Disease onset was earlier in males, but was similar for TTNtv of different types and locations. The presence of clinical risk factors was associated with earlier DCM onset (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.06–5.64), with a prior history of atrial fibrillation having a two-fold increased odds of DCM (OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.27–3.32). The prevalence of clinical risk factors increased with age; however, the strength of the DCM association was greatest for young-onset (<30 years) disease (OR, 4.75; 95% CI, 2.35–9.60). Administration of beta-adrenergic receptor or renin-angiotensin system-blocking drugs prior to overt DCM was associated with 87% reduced odds of DCM (OR, .13; 95% CI, .08–.23). Conclusions Disease onset in TTNtv-associated familial DCM is dependent on individual patient context and is potentially modifiable by risk factor management and prophylactic therapeutic intervention.

Purpose To establish international expert consensus on surgical techniques, complications, and rehabilitation protocols for lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) performed adjunctively with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. In the final round, 16 statements on LEAP techniques and complications were scored on a 5‐point Likert scale; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” constituted consensus. When appropriate, strength of recommendation was graded. Statements lacking support were revised until consensus or abandonment. Results Six statements achieved unanimous consensus (100%), 2 had strong consensus (90%‐99.9%), and 3 reached consensus (75%‐89.9%); 4 were removed. Key technical recommendations were as follows: (1) in iliotibial band procedures, the graft strip should pass beneath the lateral collateral ligament; (2) an anatomic technique is mandatory for anterolateral ligament reconstruction; and (3) no single LEAP is clinically superior to another. Unanimous agreement indicated that modern LEAPs do not increase lateral compartment osteoarthritis risk, carry a low complication rate, and do not necessitate changes to rehabilitation or return‐to‐play timelines. Conclusions Consensus defined core surgical principles and confirmed the safety of adding LEAPs to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. When an iliotibial band graft is used, it should be routed deep to the lateral collateral ligament and fixed between 0° and 60° of knee flexion under low tension. For anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral fixation should be in full extension at a posterior‐proximal point relative to the lateral epicondyle. Although no single LEAP proved superiority, adherence to these principles permits safe, effective surgery without altering standard rehabilitation or return‐to‐sport protocols and without increasing osteoarthritis risk. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Purpose To define expert consensus on whether and how lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) should accompany anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to optimize outcomes in ACL‐deficient knees. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. Twenty‐one statements on patient selection for combined ACL reconstruction (ACLR) + LEAPs were graded on 5‐point Likert scales; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” signified consensus. Strength of recommendation was ranked, and statements failing the threshold were revised or discarded after discussion. Results One statement achieved unanimous agreement (100%): it is strongly recommended to add a LEAP for active patients ≤25 years receiving hamstring‐autograft ACLR to reduce graft failure. Strong consensus (≥90%) supported LEAPs in primary ACLR when grade 3 pivot shift (97.9%), knee hyperextension (97.9%), skeletally immature status (79.5%), revision ACLR (91.5%), return to pivoting sports (93.2%), active patients ≤25 years using nonhamstring grafts (90.7%), grade 3 Lachman test (90%), and when multiple relative risk factors coexist (statement 36, 97.1%). Consensus (75%‐89.9%) favored LEAPs for chronic symptomatic ACL deficiency (86.1%), posterior tibial slope >12° (85.7%), and a history of contralateral ACL injury (88.9%). Eight statements did not reach consensus regarding small‐diameter autografts, female athletes, imaging signs of anterolateral injury (e.g., Segond fracture, lateral femoral‐notch sign), and concomitant meniscal procedures. One statement on LEAPs with primary ACL repair was withdrawn because the project focused on reconstruction. Conclusions International experts strongly recommend adding a LEAP in young active patients undergoing hamstring‐autograft ACLR and in cases of high‐grade rotational or anterior laxity, knee hyperextension, revision surgery, or returning to pivoting sports. Unresolved issues include small graft size, female athletes, imaging findings of rotational instability, and concurrent meniscal procedures, highlighting priorities for future research. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.