Citations

Abstract Background and Aims Primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) increases the risk of developing cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), which is the leading cause of premature death in these patients. Current diagnostic methods for early detection of either condition remain largely suboptimal. This study investigates serum metabolites as potential non-invasive diagnostic biomarkers. Methods This multicenter international study analyzed 459 serum samples from 13 international centers, including patients with PSC (n = 216), PSC who developed CCA during follow-up (PSC to CCA; n = 24), PSC with concomitant CCA (PSC-CCA; n = 88), ulcerative colitis (UC; n = 14), and healthy individuals (n = 79). Serum metabolomics was evaluated by ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (UHPLC-MS) and the accuracy of the single candidate metabolite biomarkers was further assessed. Machine learning was used to generate the best diagnostic and predictive algorithms. Results Fifty-two serum metabolites were identified as markers of PSC, independent of age, biological sex, cirrhosis, UC, or ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment. A diagnostic model based on only six lipids distinguished PSC patients from healthy controls with high accuracy (AUC 0.952 discovery, 0.918 validation), independently of the levels of transaminases or cholestasis markers (i.e., GGT, AP, bilirubin) in blood. Subgroup analyses were performed in PSC patients with and without inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), confirming the model’s consistent performance across both subgroups when compared with their respective control groups – UC and healthy controls (AUC 0.959 and 0.939, respectively). The PSC model also confirmed its diagnostic performance in patients with established PSC-CCA or progression to CCA within 2 years, when compared to UC and healthy controls, showing AUC values ranging from 0.911 to 0.976. Additionally, 20 metabolites were significantly altered in PSC patients with CCA (PSC-CCA), regardless of demographics, cirrhosis, UDCA treatment, IBD status, or CCA subtype, and independently of serum transaminases and cholestatic markers levels. A model incorporating six lipids accurately identified PSC-CCA cases compared to PSC patients (AUC = 0.912 discovery; 0.896 validation), showing excellent performance in early-stage tumor detection (AUC 0.921) and outperforming CA19-9 (AUC 0.708). Importantly, the model retained high accuracy even in CCA patients with low CA19-9 levels (AUC 0.905) and in PSC patients who developed CCA within a year of clinical diagnosis (AUC 0.792). Conclusion The PSC and PSC-CCA blood tests provide a non-invasive approach for diagnosing PSC and PSC-CCA, addressing an important need in this population. Their integration into clinical practice could enhance risk stratification, early detection, personalized surveillance, and treatment decision-making in PSC patients.

Abstract Objective Invasive presurgical evaluation plays a key role in pediatric epilepsy surgery, particularly in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)‐negative cases, by guiding resective, disconnective, or ablative procedures. This International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery Taskforce study provides an updated global overview of current invasive evaluation practices. Methods Group‐level data were collected from 61 epilepsy surgery programs (49 pediatric‐only) in 29 countries across six continents. Included were children and adolescents who underwent presurgical evaluation and epilepsy surgery in 2023. The study was designed to enable comparison with the similar ILAE survey conducted in 2004. Results A total of 2427 patients were included. Invasive evaluations were performed in 21.1% of cases, most frequently in North America (33.7%, higher than Europe: 18.0%, p = .003). Among invasive cases, 32.3% had no detectable MRI abnormalities. The main indication for invasive evaluation was seizure onset localization (88.1%), followed by motor or sensory mapping (17.2%) and language mapping (14.2%). Stereoelectroencephalography (SEEG) was the predominant technique (19.8% overall, 93.6% of invasive cases), more common in North America (30.0%, p = .021) and less common in South America (7.4%, p < .001). Subdural electrodes were used in only 3.2% of invasive cases, and combined depth and subdural approaches in 3.2%. SEEG‐guided radiofrequency thermocoagulation (RF‐TC) was performed in 40.9% of SEEG cases, most commonly in Asia (63.8%). In 16.2% of invasive evaluations, patients did not proceed to resection, disconnection, or ablation, with the highest rate in Europe (28.5%). Significance This global survey provides the first broad overview of invasive evaluation practices in pediatric epilepsy surgery across participating centers worldwide. It highlights the widespread adoption of SEEG, declining use of subdural electrodes, and increasing application of SEEG‐guided RF‐TC. The high proportion of MRI‐negative cases and the considerable proportion of patients not proceeding to resection, disconnection, or ablation underscore the complexity of contemporary surgical candidates and the need for further refinement of selection strategies.

Abstract Objective Pediatric epilepsy surgery is well established, but contemporary global data on referral and presurgical evaluation practices are lacking. This International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Pediatric Epilepsy Surgery Task Force study provides an updated overview of current trends and regional differences. Methods Group‐level data were collected from 61 epilepsy surgery programs (49 pediatric‐only) across 29 countries and six continents, identified through ILAE networks, and included all children and adolescents treated in 2023 who underwent presurgical evaluation/epilepsy surgery. Results Group‐level data were available for 2427 patients. Mean age at surgery was 9.1 ± 4.9 years; mean epilepsy duration was 5.3. At surgery, 3.2% were <1 year old (highest in Oceania: 5.1%), and 6.1% were nonpharmacoresistant (highest in Europe: 15.0%). Prior neurosurgery was reported in 14.2% (highest in North America: 28.8%), including 8.0% resections (6.1% for epilepsy, 1.5% for tumors; highest in Oceania: 16.5%), 2.3% disconnections (1.3% corpus callosotomy; highest in South America: 4.7%), and 4.2% neuromodulation (3.7% vagal nerve stimulation, .2% responsive neurostimulation, one deep brain stimulation; highest in North America: 12.2%). Developmental and epileptic encephalopathies (DEEs) at surgery included Lennox–Gastaut syndrome (7.4%), infantile epileptic spasms syndrome (5.1%), and DEE with spike–wave activation in sleep (1.5%). Presurgical investigations included fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (52.6%; highest in Oceania: 79.7%), genetic testing (46.8%; highest in Asia: 54.3%), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) postprocessing (32.4%; highest in South America: 53.0%), functional MRI (fMRI; 15.2%; highest in North America: 40.3%), magnetoencephalography (11.9%; highest in North America: 39.3%), single photon emission computed tomography (9.6%; highest in North America: 22.2%), high‐density electroencephalography (EEG; 1.9%; highest in Europe: 4.7%), source localization (1.6%; highest in Oceania: 7.6%), Wada test (1.2%; highest in North America: 3.5%), and EEG‐fMRI (.5%; highest in Europe: 1.1%). Significance Despite some early surgeries, including in infancy and before pharmacoresistance, mean epilepsy duration before surgery remains >5 years. Reoperations are common, with resection more frequent than neuromodulation. Genetic testing in nearly half of patients reflects its growing relevance, and the high rate of DEEs underscores the complexity of surgical candidates.

Abstract Background Sepsis is a life-threatening condition in which delayed recognition and treatment are associated with increased mortality. While predictive models such as Epic’s Early Detection of Sepsis Model (ESM) were developed to support early intervention, their real-world impact after integration into clinical workflows remains difficult to evaluate. Objectives To evaluate the real-world impact of ESM integrated into clinical workflow on clinical outcomes, antibiotic use, and harm-benefit tradeoffs. Methods We conducted a quasi-experimental study in a single healthcare system using encounter-level data from inpatient settings. Inpatient mortality, prolonged hospitalization, antibiotic use, and sepsis prevalence were compared between the pre-implementation period (3 June 2023 to 20 August 2024) and the online period (21 August 2024 to 26 December 2024) when the model became visible to clinicians. We also applied a counterfactual framework using models trained on pre-implementation data to estimate expected outcomes without ESM and to quantify harms related to overtreatment and delayed treatment. Results Among 101,138 encounters, 86,884 occurred during the pre-implementation period and 14,254 during the online period. In unadjusted analyses, the online period had lower inpatient mortality, prolonged hospitalization, antibiotic use, and sepsis prevalence (all p≤0.002). In the counterfactual analyses, observed outcomes were lower than expected without ESM for mortality (1.21% vs 1.82%; p<0.001), prolonged hospitalization (5.56% vs 7.95%; p<0.001), and antibiotic use (43.52% vs 47.04%; p<0.001). False positive harm (37.72% vs 41.68%; p<0.001) was also lower than expected. Conclusions Integration of ESM into clinical workflow was associated with improved patient outcomes, reduced antibiotic use, and decreased harm from overtreatment, without evidence of increased harm from delayed treatment, supporting a positive net clinical benefit and the safety and effectiveness of ESM under Software as a Medical Device principles.

e17004 Background: Living clinical practice guidelines offer the opportunity to keep recommendations aligned with the latest evidence, but they also present a fundamental challenge: as evidence accumulates, panelists cannot sustainably query and synthesize a growing body of literature. In developing ASCO's living metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) guideline, we encountered this challenge firsthand. To address it, we developed and evaluated an interactive agentic framework that enables guideline panelists to query evidence in natural language and retrieve structured facts, tables, and figures—with the goal of extending this tool as a clinician-facing companion to enhance guideline accessibility. Methods: The mCRPC systematic review dataset supporting ASCO's clinical practice guideline was used, comprising 212 structured columns capturing trial characteristics, patient populations, and outcomes extracted from 188 references across 88 clinical trials. A large language model (LLM)-based agentic framework was developed employing a coding agent that translates natural language queries into executable scripts for structured evidence retrieval. Claude (Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 4.5, and Opus 4.5) served as the core LLM agents. We constructed a benchmark of 50 fact-based queries with gold-standard answers targeting trial identification, treatment modalities, and endpoint characteristics (e.g., "Which trials evaluated systemic monotherapy?"). Performance was evaluated using exact-match accuracy for final answers, and precision, recall, and F1 score for trial-level retrieval. Results: Across 50 queries, exact-match accuracy ranged from 82% to 86%. Haiku 4.5 and Sonnet 4.5 each achieved 82% (42/50), while Opus 4.5 achieved 86% (43/50). Precision ranged from 0.93–0.97, recall from 0.94–0.96, and F1 scores from 0.91–0.94. Conclusions: This agentic framework enables scalable, auditable, natural language interrogation of guideline evidence, addressing a critical bottleneck in living guideline maintenance. For panelists, it supports rapid, reproducible evidence surveillance during recommendation development. For clinicians, it offers a foundation for an interactive companion tool that transforms static guidelines into queryable resources—enabling personalized evidence retrieval at the point of care. LLM EM Precision Recall F1 claude-haiku-4-5 0.82(42/50) 0.95 0.94 0.91 claude-sonnet-4-5 0.82(42/50) 0.97 0.96 0.93 claude-opus-4-5 0.86(43/50) 0.93 0.96 0.94

8057 Background: The NCI Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trials (ALCHEMIST) study tested resected stage II-IIIB(N2) NSCLC for targetable EGFR and ALK alterations and PD-L1 expression to screen patients for biomarker-driven adjuvant therapy trials (NCT02194738). Local lab results were requested when available for comparison to central lab results. Methods: We identified patients with both central and local PD-L1 results in the ALCHEMIST adjuvant immunotherapy study screening population. Discrepancies in tumor proportion score (TPS) between central and local PD-L1 were defined using prespecified cut-points (granular: <1%, 1-<5%, 5-<10%, 10-<20%, 20-<30%, 30-<40%, 40-<50%, 50-60%, 60-<70%, 70-<80%, 80-<90%, 90-<100%; clinical: <1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Large discrepancies were defined as ≥ 50 percentage point differences; for these cases, local PD-L1 and hematoxylin & eosin-stained slides were requested. These and all central slides were digitally scanned at 40X. Three expert pathologists reviewed the scanned slides in a blinded fashion. Differences between patient or tumor characteristics were assessed by Chi-square and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Percent agreement was computed within and between the reviewers. Results: Central and local PD-L1 results were available for 497 patients. 177 cases (36%) had discrepancies that placed patients in different clinical TPS categories (<1%, 1-<50%, 50-100%). Among these, 43 cases had large TPS discrepancies; 14 had available local testing slides. 46 of the 320 cases without discrepancy were randomly selected as controls. No patient or tumor characteristics were associated with discrepancy, including tumor location, histology, grade or cancer stage (p > 0.05). Pairwise comparisons of TPS according to three pathologists re-reading the same scanned PD-L1 slides showed similar levels of disagreement in clinical TPS category whether there was initial discrepancy between central and local results (24%, 34%, and 23%; mean 27%) or not (33%, 30%, and 20%; mean 28%). Among the 14 cases with large initial discrepancies and local slides available, there was agreement in clinical TPS category when the anonymized central and local scanned slides were re-read by the pathologists in 54%, 38%, and 43% of cases, despite 100% non-agreement in initial reads. There were higher rates of agreement when the tested slides both originated from the same (100%) versus different (35%) blocks, when the same (48%) versus different (40%) PD-L1 antibodies were used, and when the cases were of non-squamous (52%) versus squamous (14%) cell carcinoma. Conclusions: There are substantial differences in PD-L1 TPS read by pathologists that can result in placement of patients in different categories commonly used for clinical management. These differences have clear implications in clinical trials and routine patient care.

8001 Background: The ALCHEMIST clinical trial platform, launched by the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) in 2014, screened patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for molecular markers and tailored post-operative adjuvant therapy trials. A081105 evaluated whether adjuvant erlotinib improved overall survival (OS) following complete resection in patients with early stage EGFR mutated lung adenocarcinoma. Methods: A081105 was a randomized phase III trial enrolling patients with completely resected stage IB (≥4 cm), II, or IIIA non-squamous NSCLC (per the 7 th TNM staging classification) harboring EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations. Patients were randomized 1:1 to erlotinib 150 mg daily for up to 2 years or placebo/observation, stratified by stage, prior chemotherapy, EGFR mutation subtype, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint was OS in the per-protocol (PP) population with centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, designed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.67 in favor of erlotinib with a power of 86% and one sided type I error rate of 5%. Secondary endpoints included OS and disease free survival (DFS) in a modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population with local or centrally confirmed EGFR mutations, and safety. A prespecified backstop analysis was conducted after a minimum of 5 years of follow-up on all patients. Results: Trial enrollment was discontinued when 390 of the intended 450 patients had been enrolled due to the proven benefit of adjuvant osimertinib. Among 390 enrolled patients, the arms were balanced for age (median: 67.0 years), sex (70% female), race (70% white), stage (II: 51%, IIIA: 37%), prior chemotherapy (82%), ECOG PS 0 (60%), and exon 19 deletion (57%). Adjuvant erlotinib did not significantly improve OS compared with placebo/observation in the overall PP population (364 patients, 108 events, HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.59–1.34; 1-sided P = 0.29) or within exon 19 deletion (HR: 0.94) or L858R mutation (HR: 0.82) subgroups. Five-year OS rates were 78.6% versus 77.9%, respectively. Results were consistent in the mITT analysis (379 patients, 113 events, HR 0.86; 95% CI, 0.58–1.28). Erlotinib improved DFS (mITT: 181 events, median: 68 vs 50 months, HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.55–1.01). Across both arms, 11% of patients started non-protocol treatment (Osimertinib: 9%) prior to disease progression, and 9% withdrew consent for all follow-up prior to recurrence. In the erlotinib arm, 3 deaths on study were reported; grade 3 or higher adverse events were reported on 39% of patients. Median duration of treatment on Erlotinib arm was 16 months; only 37% of patients completed the planned treatment. Conclusions: In resected EGFR -mutant NSCLC, adjuvant erlotinib did not improve overall survival but improved DFS. Additional studies are exploring efficacy in selected subsets of patients using genomics and proteomic analyses. Clinical trial information: NCT02193282 .