Citations

Mayo Clinic

Clear

1908 citation(s) found for "Wu, Henry".

Posterior Graft Laryngotracheal Reconstruction for Bilateral Vocal Cord Paralysis in a Resource-Limited Setting: Building a Replicable Airway Reconstruction Program in Eldoret, Kenya
Isaac, André , Menach, Owen , Rotich, Gerald, Callaghan, Amy, Isaac, Daniela Migliarese , Wiedermann, Josh, Holinski, Paula , Anton, Natalie , Propst, Evan J. , Ngoitsi, Henry, Isaac, Daniela M , Rotich, Gerald

Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery | June 17, 2025 | Volume: 54 | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1177/19160216251345468 | PMID 40528278 Get It

Importance Bilateral vocal cord paralysis is a challenging problem to manage in adults, and a known complication of thyroid surgery which is more common in resource-limited settings. Posterior graft laryngotracheal reconstruction is a management option that has not been studied in this population or setting. Objective To report the surgical outcomes of posterior graft laryngotracheal reconstruction for bilateral vocal cord paralysis in a resource-limited setting, and to evaluate the efficacy of a hybrid system for teaching this technique in Kenya. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Tertiary public referral hospital, Eldoret, Kenya Participants Adults >18 years with tracheostomy dependence secondary to bilateral vocal cord paralysis after thyroid surgery or other iatrogenesis. The hybrid training program included Kenyan surgeons and surgical trainees. Intervention or Exposures Posterior graft laryngotracheal reconstruction and hybrid training system included didactic lectures, simulation-based training, case discussion and planning, and live cases. Main Outcomes Measures One-year airway outcomes measured by achievement of tracheostomy decannulation, and self-reported surgeon knowledge and skill acquisition. Results Ten patients met criteria and were included in the analysis, with mean age 42 years (range 30-62 years) and had been tracheostomy dependent for an average of 6 years (range 1-12 years). Seven (70%) had open reconstruction, and 3 (30%) had endoscopic reconstruction. All were decannulated and remained tracheostomy-free at 1 year. Three surgeons and 7 trainees participated in the hybrid teaching methods. All reported increased comfort in laryngotracheal reconstruction, with all 3 surgeons reporting comfort performing the surgeries independently. Conclusion Posterior graft laryngotracheal reconstruction shows promise as a potential method of treating bilateral vocal cord paralysis and achieving decannulation in a resource-limited setting. Relevance The methods reported in this study lend themselves to replication and expansion to other similar settings. The authors plan to replicate this work in other centers in East Africa.
Cardiac Computed Tomography for Prosthetic Heart Valve Assessment. An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the European Soci
Budde, Ricardo P.J. , Faure, M. , Cremer, Paul , Feuchtner, Gudrun , Gonzales, Holly M, Kiefer, Todd L., Leipsic, Jonathon , Nieman, Koen , Williamson, Eric E. , Ballmoos, Moritz C. Wyler von , Salgado, Rodrigo , Faure, Marguerite E , Abbara, Suhny , Alkadhi, Hatem , Cremer, Paul C , Feuchtner, Gudrun M , Gonzales, Holly M , Leipsic, Jonathan , Nieman, Koen , Revels, Jonathan W , Wang, Dee Dee , Williamson, Eric , Salgado, Rodrigo , Budde, Ricardo Peter Jurgen , Revels, Jonathan , Wang, Dee Dee , Zwischenberger, Brittany A.

Radiology: Cardiothoracic Imaging | June 17, 2025 | Volume: 7 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1148/ryct.250231 | PMID 40526484 Get It

Prosthetic heart valve (PHV) dysfunction is increasingly seen due to the increase in the number of PHV that are being implanted worldwide. Cardiac CT imaging has emerged as a valuable tool to assess PHVs and determine the cause of dysfunction. This consensus document first summarizes the available techniques for PHV assessment. Then the use of CT in PHV (dys)function assessment is discussed in detail including consensus statements for correct indications and patient selection for CT assessment of PHVs, image acquisition, reconstruction and measurement protocols and how to interpret and report the CT findings for specific types of PHV dysfunction. This article was published in Journal of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, Budde RPJ et al, Cardiac computed tomography for prosthetic heart valve assessment: An expert consensus document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the European Society of Cardiovascular Radiology (ESCR), the North American Society for Cardiovascular Imaging (NASCI), the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA), the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI), and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS). The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal’s style. Either citation may be used when referencing this document. © 2025 Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ). Keywords: Computed Tomography, Valve, Cardiac, Imaging, Dysfunction, Prosthetic
23 | RADIOTHERAPY IMPROVES PROGRESSION‐FREE SURVIVAL FOR STAGE IA NLPHL: A RETROSPECTIVE REPORT FROM THE GLOBAL NLPHL ONE WORKING GROUP (GLOW)
Hartmann, S., Eich, Hans‐Theodor, Skinnider, Brian, Akhtar, Saad , Steiner, R., Milgrom, Sarah A. , Alomari, Mohammed H., Zhang, X., Wirth, A., Tsang, Rky, Smith, Sonali M. , Hendrickson, P., Hopkins, David , Ng, A., Koenig, Julie L. , Casulo, Carla , Sakthivel, GD, Roberts, Kenneth B. , Gao, Sarah , Alkendi, Jalila , Rahbi, Nasser Al, Balogh, Alex, Ricardi, U., Torka, Pallawi , Silva, Ravi De , Shah, Nimish , Osborne, Wendy , Henry, M M , Miall, Fiona , Brady, J.L. , Mikhaeel, G., Brennan, Barbara J. , Penn, Andrew M. , Reeves, Michael A., Terezakis, S., Kirova, Youlia , Fergusson, Pamela, Lee, Denise , Ku, Matthew , Mutsando, Howard , Tedjaseputra, Aditya , Gilbertson, Michael , Marconi, Tamara , Viiala, Nicholas , Natkunam, Y., Kelly, Kara M. , Borchmann, Peter , Hoppe, R T, Binkley, Michael S., Hopkins, David , Ku, Matthew , Flerlage, Jamie E. , Eichenauer, Dennis A. , Fuchs, M., Hartmann, S., Savage, Kerry J. , Hodgson, David C. , Rauf, M. Shahzad , Maghfoor, Irfan , Pinnix, Chelsea C. , Vega, Francisco , Alomari, M., Zhang, X., Collins, Graham P. , Advani, Ranjana H. , Kumar, P., Dickinson, Michael , Tsang, R., Prica, Anca A. , Major, Ajay , Kelsey, Chris R. , McKay, Pamela , Constine, Louis S , Casulo, Carla , Baron, J., Plastaras, John Peter , Levis, Mario , Sridhar, A., Specht, Lena , Pickard, Keir , Blazin, Lindsay , Henry, M., Chang, I., Smith, Christine M , Halperin, Daniel M. , Brennan, B., Penn, A., Senchenko, Maria Anatolevna , Volchkov, Egor Vasilevich , Hoppe, Bradford S. , Talaulikar, Dipti , Pepa, Roberta Della , Picardi, Marco , Fergusson, P., Northend, Michael , Hawkes, Eliza A. , Doo, Nicole Wong , Barraclough, Allison , Opat, Stephen , Cheah, Chan Y. , Salvaris, Ross , Hamad, Nada , Palese, M., Shankar, Ananth , Maurer, Matthew J. , Binkley, Michael S.

Hematological Oncology | June 16, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: S3 | Pages: No page available

10.1002/hon.70093_23 Get It

Preanalytical variables and analytes in liquid biopsy approach for brain tumors: A comprehensive review and recommendations from the RANO Group and the Brain Liquid Biopsy Consortium
Bettegowda, Chetan , Noushmehr, Houtan , Affinito, Alessandra , Ahluwalia, Manmeet S. , Ansorge, Olaf , Ayasoufi, Katayoun , Bagley, Stephen , Barnholtz‐Sloan, Jill S. , Brandsma, Dieta , Brodie, Chaya , Castro, Ana Valeria , Chang, Susan M. , Daher, Ahmad , Datta, Vineet , French, Pim J. , Golebiewska, Anna , Holdhoff, Matthias , LeBlang, Suzanne , Melin, Beatrice , Moulière, Florent , O’Leary, Claire , Robinson, Stephen , Sol, Nik , Vogelbaum, Michael A. , Walbert, Tobias , Watts, Colin , Wen, Patrick Y. , Wykes, Victoria , Yip, Stephen , Short, Susan , Barnholtz-Sloan, Jill S , Best, Myron , Brandsma, Dieta , Brüning-Richardson, Anke , Chang, Susan Marina , Condorelli, Gerolama , Daher, Ahmad , de Groot, John , French, Pim J , Galanis, Evanthia , Golebiewska, Anna , Hamerlik, Petra , Hanemann, C Oliver , Holdhoff, Matthias , Huse, Jason T. , Khasraw, Mustafa , LeBlang, Suzanne , Melin, Beatrice , Rominiyi, Ola , Roncaroli, F , Rudà, Roberta , Sol, Nik , van den Bent, Martin J , Walbert, Tobias , Watts, Colin , Weiss, Tobias , Weller, Michael , Wykes, Victoria , Yip, Stephen , Short, Susan C , Soffietti, Riccardo , Noushmehr, Houtan , Ayasoufi, Katayoun , Ahluwalia, Manmeet S , Bettegowda, Chetan , Groot, John de , Galanis, Evanthia , Hamerlik, Petra , Hanemann, C. Oliver , Khasraw, Mustafa , Rak, Janusz , Ray, Amitava, Roncaroli, Federico , Seoane, Joan , Bent, Martin J. van den , Wen, Patrick Yung , Soffietti, Riccardo

Neuro-Oncology | June 16, 2025 | Volume: 27 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2496-2513

10.1093/neuonc/noaf140 | PMID 40884415 Get It

Abstract This review explores the pivotal role of preanalytical variables in bringing liquid biopsy approaches into the clinic for brain tumors. Preanalytical variables encompass a range of critical issues, from blood sample collection and handling to the impact of tumor heterogeneity and patient-specific factors. These variables introduce challenges such as false positives, false negatives, and variability in the analysis of tumor signals, which can hinder the diagnostic and prognostic utility of liquid biopsies. Understanding the nuances of preanalytical variables is essential for the successful implementation of liquid biopsy in clinical settings. This paper delves into strategies aimed at mitigating the influence of preanalytical variables by emphasizing the importance of standardized sample collection protocols, optimized sample processing and storage, quality control measures, and the integration of multiple liquid biopsy modalities.
Consensus Statement on the Prevention and Management of Complications of Fully Ablative Laser Resurfacing of the Face
Kang, Bianca Y. , Cohen, Joel L. , Geronemus, Roy G. , Kilmer, Suzanne L. , Ross, E. Victor , Tanzi, Elizabeth L., Waibel, Jill , Alam, Murad, Alexiades, Macrene , Arndt, Kenneth A., Avram, Mathew M., Biesman, Brian S. , Bloom, Jason D. , Burns, A. Jay, DiGiorgio, Catherine M., Dover, Jeffrey S. , Fathizadeh, Sam, Esteves, Sara C., Goldberg, Gerald N., Hoss, Elika, Ibrahimi, Omar A. , Jalian, H. Ray, Kelly, Kristen M. , Munavalli, Girish Gilly , Pozner, Jason N. , Robb, Christopher W. , Saedi, Nazanin, Shumaker, Peter R. , Stankiewicz, Kelly, Wanner, Molly, Wu, Douglas C. , Wulkan, Adam J., Ortiz, Arisa , Ross, Edward Victor , Alexiades, Macrene , Chan, Henry H L , Fathizadeh, Sam , Kelly, Kristen M , Manuskiatti, Woraphong , Munavalli, Girish S , Robb, Chris W , Wong, Brian J. F. , Bhatia, Ashish C. , ESTEVES, SARA C., Gold, Michael H , Hædersdal, Merete , Marks, Lisa , Rossi, Anthony M.

Lasers in Surgery and Medicine | June 11, 2025 | Volume: 57 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 477-489

10.1002/lsm.70035 | PMID 40495549 Get It

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo achieve consensus among expert laser surgeons on standards for the prevention and management of adverse events from fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face.Materials and MethodsDelphi study with two rounds of ratings and revisions until consensus was achieved. The draft set of statements was developed by a steering committee based on expert clinical experience. This was followed by two rounds of rating and revisions completed by an expert panel, then a virtual consensus meeting. In both rounds, respondents rated the draft statements on a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree) and optionally provided comments. The consensus meeting was supplemented by the results of a systematic review of the literature (from 2000 to 2023).ResultsTwo rounds of Delphi survey were completed by 34 participants across four countries. Represented specialties were dermatology, facial plastic surgery, plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery. The initial 105 statements from round 1 expanded to 112 in round 2, with 96 statements achieving consensus. These included possible adverse events (11 statements); absolute and relative contraindications to treatment (5 statements); preoperative care and antimicrobial prophylaxis precautions (16 statements); intraoperative precautions (17 statements); postoperative care (21 statements); monitoring for and management of infection (16 statements); management of pigmentation changes (6 statements); and management of scarring and incipient scarring (4 statements).ConclusionAn international consensus statement was developed for the prevention and management of complications associated with fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face. While expert practices vary, key factors for optimizing outcomes include careful patient selection, counseling, and meticulous pre‐ and postoperative care. Further research will improve our understanding of this treatment technique.
Progress in Pharmacogenomics Implementation in the United States: Barrier Erosion and Remaining Challenges
Smith, D. Max , Aquilante, Christina L. , Deverka, Patricia A. , Devine, Emily Beth , Dunnenberger, Henry M. , Empey, Philip E. , Hertz, Daniel L. , Monte, Andrew A. , Moyer, Ann M. , Pratt, Victoria M. , Saulsberry, Loren , Oni‐Orisan, Akinyemi , Douglas, Michael P , Devine, Beth , Dunnenberger, Henry M , Empey, Philip E , Hertz, Daniel L , Moyer, AM , Patel, Jai N , Pratt, Victoria M , Saulsberry, Loren , Scott, Stuart A , Voora, Deepak , Woodahl, Erica L , Whirl-Carrillo, Michelle , Oni-Orisan, Akinyemi , Smith, D Max , Scott, Stuart A. , Whirl‐Carrillo, Michelle

Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics | June 5, 2025 | Volume: 118 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 778-789

10.1002/cpt.3736 | PMID 40468601 Get It

Barriers to incorporating pharmacogenetics into routine clinical practice in the United States are well documented. Initial surveys by the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) in 2009 and 2010 identified barriers across four key domains that have hindered the widespread adoption of clinical pharmacogenetic testing. These are presented verbatim as: (i) absence of a definition of the processes required to interpret genotype information and to translate genetic information into clinical actions; (ii) need for recommended drug/gene pairs to implement clinically now; (iii) clinician resistance to consider pharmacogenetic information at the bedside; and (iv) concerns about test costs and reimbursement. Over time, many of these challenges have been overcome, and clinical pharmacogenetic testing has subsequently reached broader implementation. Despite this progress, several barriers remain that block further adoption. This narrative review used authors' expertise and experience to identify and describe current barriers to pharmacogenetic implementation across seven domains in the United States: equity and inclusion; guidelines and supporting evidence; regulatory agency oversight; payer coverage and insurance; availability of quality pharmacogenetic tests; electronic health records; and provider and patient education. Within each domain, it revisits past successes and challenges and explores remaining barriers. We also propose solutions to address ongoing challenges across these domains, including further expansion of recommendations beyond pharmacogenetic‐specific guidelines, standards for designing clinical decision support tools, and broader pharmacogenetics education. Addressing these remaining obstacles directs work to enable broader adoption of clinical pharmacogenetic implementation to ultimately improve patient outcomes.
Management of obesity in liver transplant candidates and recipients: Rethinking the false dichotomy between pharmacotherapy and surgical intervention
Davis, Jessica P.E. , Reticker, Anesia , Han, Hyosun , Henry, Zachary , Schulman, Allison R. , Tincopa, Monica A. , Group, the AST LICOP Controversies Conference Working, Tincopa, Monica , Orandi, Babak John , Tsunoda, Shirley M. , Heimbach, Julie K. , Group, the AST LICOP Controversies Conference Working

Liver Transplantation | June 2, 2025 | Volume: 31 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 1286-1297

10.1097/lvt.0000000000000645 | PMID 40454867 Get It

The prevalence of comorbid metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) and obesity has increased exponentially over the last several years, with current estimates demonstrating that up to 40% of adults in the United States have MASLD. Metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis is now a leading indication for liver transplantation, and rates of obesity and MASLD pre-transplant and post-transplant are on the rise. Our understanding of the physiology of obesity and metabolic disease and the availability of effective obesity treatments have evolved over the same time frame. With the availability of new anti-obesity medications, there has been a debate over the role of pharmacotherapy versus interventional approaches in the treatment of obesity and MASLD in the liver transplantation population. In October 2024, the American Society of Transplantation (AST) Liver and Intestinal Community of Practice held a virtual Controversies Conference on obesity and liver transplantation. Experts in the field presented the available data, and smaller working groups had interactive breakout sessions that identified knowledge gaps and developed recommendations. This perspective prepared on behalf of the participants of the AST Controversies Conference on obesity and liver transplant aims to summarize the available evidence for surgical and pharmaceutical treatment in the liver transplantation population.
Tumor Treating Fields With Gemcitabine and Nab-Paclitaxel for Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Randomized, Open-Label, Pivotal Phase III PANOVA-3 Study
Babiker, Hani M. , Picozzi, Vincent J. , Chandana, Sreenivasa R , Melichar, Bohuslav, Kasi, Anup , Gang, Jin, Gállego, Javier , Bullock, Andrea J. , Chunyi, Hao, Hitre, Erika, Osipov, Arsen , Alés, Inmaculada, Dragovich, Tomislav, Lee, Woo Jin , Feeney, Kynan, Ueno, Makoto , Seufferlein, Thomas , Investigators, on behalf of the PANOVA-3 Study, Osipov, Arsen, Matrana, Marc , Blondin, Nicholas, Shroff, Rachna T. , Orr, Douglas, Anderson, Michael J. , Shields, Anthony F. , Hamm, John , Bullock, Andrea, Nagireddy, Sumana, Kolodney, Joanna, Dragovich, Tomislav, Maniam, Ajit, Sears, Judith D., Stilwill, Joseph, Cusnir, Mike , Niewiaroska, Anna, Small, William, Kasi, Anup, Tache, Jason, Ross, Sharona, Shihabi, Samer, Gandhi, Sunil, Reeves, J. N. , Green, Garrett , Feinstein, Trevor, Huyck, Timothy K., Ramdin, Nadia, Marsh, Robert , Jiang, Yixing , Hatoum, Hassan , Manda, Sudhir, Kochenderfer, Mark D., Illum, Henrik, Richards, Donald , Valilis, P., Wong, Lucas, Newton, Herbert B. , Abdelrahim, Maen, Einspahr, David, Siegel, Richard, McKenney, Scott, Narang, Mohit , Cárdenes, Higinia R. , Thanikachalam, Kannan , Raff, Joshua P. , Ye, Joseph , Behl, Deepti , Kam, Audrey E., DeRose, Paul, Tasneem, A. , Brenner, Warren, Santos, Jennifer De Los , Rausch, D C, Trikha, Gaurav, Gabrail, Nashat , Mowat, Rex B., Jahangir, Khawaja, Schumaker, Robert P. , Soffen, Edward , Bravin, Eric, Gupta, Mukul Kumar , Bedoya-Apraez, Ivan Dario, Kang, Tyler Y., Lemay, Frédéric , Vincent, Mark , Létourneau, Richard, Doehring, Christine, Haberkorn, Mike, Rußwurm, Karen, Chater, Jack, Küng, Marc , Schacher, Sabine, Passhak, Maria , Geva, Ravit , Hubert, Ayala, Golan, Talia , Senellart, Hélène, Trouilloud, Isabelle , Blan, Jean-Frederic, Dourthe, Luis-Marie, Roy, Florence Le, Martin-Babau, J., Greil, Richard , Schreil, Georg, Gerger, Armin , Eisterer, Wolfgang , Mercadé, T. Macarulla, Cubillo, Antonio , Pons, Francesc Valladares, Díaz, Inmaculada Alés, Rivera, Fernando , Sarvise, Mariano Ponz, Airoldi, Mario , Bellotti, Giovanna, Corsi, Domenico , Antonuzzo, Lorenzo , Melichar, Bohuslav, Holečková, Petra , Kotasek, Rostislav, Němeček, Radim , Cutsem, Eric van, Laethem, Jean‐Luc Van , Sym, Sun Jin , Kim, Jin Young , Oh, Sang Cheul , Park, Joon Oh, Kim, Jin Won , Lee, Myung Ah , Choi, Hye Jin, Kang, Seok Yun , Mruk, Andrzej, Freier, Beata, Kosakowska, Ewa Anna, Kocsis, Judit, Csőszi, Tibor , Hitre, Erika, Al-Farhat, Yousuf, Cang, Shundong , Jin, Gang , Zuo, Changzeng, Song, Lijie, Wu, Zheng , Gao, Jie , Zhang, Tao� , Wang, Yusheng , Yuan, Xin , Li, Zhi-Hua , Chen, Rufu , Cai, Xiujun , Zhu, Zhizhen, Bai, Yuxian , Bai, Chunmei, Yau, Thomas, Joubert, Warren , Wong, Ka Yeung Mark, Harris, Marion , Mišir, Ana, Faccio, Adilson , Cruz, Felipe Melo , Azevedo, Srergio De, Victorino, Ana Paula , Paiva, Tadeu Ferreira, Franke, Fábio , Tiscoski, Katsuki Arima , Parolla, Gabriel, Lilno, Flora, Siqueira, Mariana Bruno , Lyra, Marcos, Lira, Jose Luis Martinez, Oliva, Dolores Mendoza, Vazquez, Arturo, Luviano, Jesus Elvis Cabrera, Gutiérrez, Erika Castillo , Camargo, Vanessa Rosas, Guerra, Cristian Chavez, Flores, Osvaldo Hernandez, Contreras, Jessica Reyes, Villanueva, Ángel Gómez, Villanueva, Omar Zayas, Bullock, Andrea , Wyrwicz, Lucjan , Osipov, Arsen , De La Fouchardiere, Christelle , Lee, Woojin , Ueno, Makoto , Van Cutsem, Eric , Macarulla, Teresa , Babiker, Hani , Antonuzzo, Lorenzo , Melichar, Bohuslav, Kasi, Anup , Gang, Jin, Gallego, Javier , Hitre, Erika, Fouchardière, Christelle de la , Dragovich, Tomislav, Philip, Philip A. , Cutsem, Eric Van , Macarulla, Teresa , Investigators, on behalf of the PANOVA-3 Study, Spigel, David R. , Osipov, Arsen, Lou, Emil , Bullock, Andrea, Dragovich, Tomislav, Coveler, Andrew L. , Arena, Francis P. , Kasi, Anup, Ross, Sharona , Reeves, James, Green, Garrett, Uemura, Marc Isamu , Ye, Joseph, Wang, James Z. , Rausch, Daniel, Park, Jae‐Hyun , Schumaker, Robert, Gupta, Mukul, Letourneau, Richard, Fuchs, Martin , Vogel, Arndt , Chater, Jack, Schacher, Sabine, Stemmer, Salomon M. , Dourthe, Luis-Marie, Abdelghani, Méher Ben , Pons, Francesc Valladares, Guillén‐Ponce, Carmen , Yayá, Ricardo , Ponz‐Sarvisé, Mariano , Vincenzi, Bruno , Melichar, Bohuslav, Petruzelka, Lubos B. , Cutsem, Eric van, Borbath, Ivan , Hwang, Jun‐Eul , Oh, Sung Yong , Lee, Moon Hee , Choi, Hye Jin , Chon, Hong Jae , Ramlau, Rodryg , Mruk, Andrzej, Hitre, Erika, Bassam, Ali, Hao, Chunyi , Liang, Bo , Li, Wei , Bai, Chunmei , Joubert, Warren, Marx, Gavin M. , Azevedo, Srergio De, Hoff, Paulo M. , Vazquez, Arturo, Guerra, Cristian Chavez, Cortez, David Orta, Campos-Gómez, Saúl , Espinoza, Iván Romarico González

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 31, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 21 | Pages: 2350-2360

10.1200/jco-25-00746 | PMID 40448572 Get It

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.
Moderation of treatment outcomes by polygenic risk for alcohol‐related traits in placebo‐controlled trials of topiramate
Kranzler, Henry R. , Davis, Christal N. , Zhou, Hang , Kember, Rachel L. , Davis, Christal N , Kember, Rachel L , Jinwala, Zeal , Xu, Heng, Biernacka, Joanna M. , Gelernter, Joel E. , Feinn, Richard

Alcohol, Clinical and Experimental Research | May 30, 2025 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 6 | Pages: 1297-1305

10.1111/acer.70052 | PMID 40445294 Get It

Abstract Background In two 12‐week, randomized, placebo‐controlled trials (RCTs) in individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD), topiramate significantly reduced heavy drinking days (HDDs), and alcohol‐related problems. In a secondary analysis of those findings, we examined four broad measures of genetic risk—polygenic scores (PGS)—of problematic alcohol use (PAU), drinks per week (DPW), and time to relapse to any drinking (TR) and heavy drinking (THR) as moderators of topiramate's effect on HDDs and alcohol‐related problems. Methods We analyzed data from 285 individuals with AUD (65.6% male) of European‐like ancestry, who were treated with either topiramate (49.1%) or placebo (50.9%). All patients underwent genome‐wide array genotyping, and PGS were calculated using summary statistics from genome‐wide association studies of PAU, DPW, and TR and THR (two time‐to‐event outcomes among patients treated in AUD pharmacotherapy trials). We hypothesized an interaction effect in which greater genetic risk—particularly for PAU—would be associated with a greater therapeutic response to topiramate than placebo. Results As shown previously, topiramate significantly reduced both HDDs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50, p < 0.001) and Short Index of Problems (SIP) scores ( b = −3.04, p < 0.001) more than placebo. There were nonsignificant associations of higher PGS with more HDDs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.98–1.41, p = 0.091) and a greater reduction in HDDs in the topiramate group (OR = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.62–1.03, p = 0.089). There were also significant interaction effects with treatment on SIP score by PGS for PAU ( b = −1.64, SE = 0.78, p = 0.033), TR ( b = −2.16, SE = 0.72, p = 0.003), and TRH ( b = −2.17, SE = 0.72, p = 0.003). Conclusions These findings provide proof of principle for the use of alcohol‐related PGS as moderators of the effects of topiramate for treating AUD. Larger RCTs of topiramate are needed to provide adequate statistical power to validate this pharmacogenetic approach to precision AUD treatment.
Efficacy and safety of pralsetinib in patients with advanced RET -fusion-positive NSCLC: Final data from the phase 1/2 ARROW study.
Lopes, Gilberto , Gainor, Justin F. , Doebele, Robert C. , Baik, Christina S. , Kalemkerian, Gregory P. , Becerra, Carlos, Evangelist, Makenzi Colleen, Melear, Jason M., Saxena, Ashish , Thomassen, Amber , Wang, Sophia , Subbiah, Vivek , Bowles, Daniel W. , Mansfield, Aaron S. , Gadgeel, Shirish M. , Ou, Sai‐Hong Ignatius , Liu, Stephen V. , Besse, Benjamin

Journal of Clinical Oncology | May 28, 2025 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 16_suppl | Pages: 8644-8644

10.1200/jco.2025.43.16_suppl.8644 Get It

8644 Background: RET fusions are targetable oncogenic drivers in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). ARROW (NCT03037385) study results (final data lock May 20, 2024) supported the US FDA approval of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor for metastatic RET -altered NSCLC. Here, we present final study results. Methods: ARROW was a phase 1/2 open-label study conducted at 84 sites in 13 countries. Phase 2 included patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC who received 400 mg pralsetinib once daily (QD). Initially, treatment-naïve patients were not candidates for platinum-based therapy and presented with several unfavorable prognostic factors; this requirement was removed by protocol amendment in July 2019. Primary objectives were overall response rate (ORR, per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are reported in the full efficacy population; the measurable disease population (MDP) was the primary analysis population for ORR and duration of response (DOR). Results: 281 patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC received pralsetinib 400 mg QD, with a median duration of treatment of 14.95 months (mos). Median age was 60 years; 46% were male. In the MDP (n=259), ORR was 70.3% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 64.3, 75.8) and median DOR was 19.1 mos (95% CI: 14.5, 27.9; Table). In the efficacy population (N=281), median OS was 44.3 mos (95% CI: 30.9, 53.1) with median follow up of 47.6 mos (95% CI: 44.8, 49.2), and median PFS was 13.1 mos (95% CI: 11.4, 16.8). ORR (Table) and median PFS were markedly higher in the US (25.9 mos, n=64) vs. Asia (12.6 mos, n=122) or Europe (12.9 mos, n=95). In the safety population, 95% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 66% experienced ≥grade 3. Common TRAEs included increased AST (n=128 [46%]), anemia (n=121 [43%]), increased ALT (n=98 [35%]), and hypertension (n=77 [27%]). 3 patients died due to TRAEs (pneumonia, n=2; interstitial lung disease and rhabdomyolysis, n=1 each). No new safety signals were identified with this update. Conclusions: Pralsetinib produced clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC (regardless of prior therapies) with a manageable safety profile, confirming with this longer follow up previously published results. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . All MDP(n=259) Prior Platinum (n=130) Treatment-naive(n=106) ORR, % (95% CI) Overall 70.3(64.3, 75.8) 63.1(54.2, 71.4) 78.3(69.2, 85.7) US (n=58)77.6(64.7, 87.5) (n=31)64.5(45.4, 80.8) (n=19)100(82.4, 100) Europe (n=89)65.2(54.3, 75) (n=36)63.9(46.2, 79.2) (n=43)65.1(49.1, 79) Asia (n=112)70.5(61.2, 78.8) (n=63)61.9(48.8, 73.9) (n=44)81.8(67.3, 91.8) Median DOR, mos (95% CI) a (n=182)19.1(14.5, 27.9) (n=82)31.8(15.1, 40.4) (n=83)13.4(9.4, 21.7) Median DOR follow up, mos (95% CI) 46.8(42.3, 50.2) 50.3(46.9, 56.8) 42.3(37.4, 44.2) a Per FDA censoring rule.