Citations

Abstract Objective: Subjective cognitive complaints (SCC) can precede cognitive decline and are associated with demographic, exposure, lifestyle, and psychological factors. Prevalences of SCC and their correlates in individuals with repetitive head impacts (RHI) are poorly understood. This study characterized SCC in former elite American football players by frequency, mood and behavioral correlates, concordance with informant reports, and associations with neuropsychological test performance, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) markers of neurodegeneration. Method: Former American football players ( n = 180) completed measures of global and domain-specific SCC, neuropsychiatric symptom questionnaires, neuropsychological testing, lumbar puncture, and MRI. Elastic net regression evaluated the relative importance of potential SCC correlates. Intraclass correlation coefficients measured concordance between self and informant reports. Multiple linear regressions tested associations between SCC and verbal memory and executive functioning scores. CSF Aβ 1-42 , p-tau 181 , t-tau, neurofilament light (NfL), hippocampal volume, and regional cortical thickness were examined for their potential associations with SCC. Results: Rates of SCC ranged from 43 to 77% depending on the domain. Symptoms of depression, impulsivity, and anxiety were strongly associated with SCC. Self- and informant-reported SCC showed moderate inter-rater agreement. Adjusting for age, race, education, APOE ϵ4 carrier status, and depressive symptoms, SCC were associated with lower objective verbal memory and executive functioning performance. SCC were associated with lower parahippocampal cortical thickness but not with hippocampal volume or any of the measured CSF tests. Conclusions: SCC are strongly associated with neuropsychiatric factors in former American football players. SCC may also be a marker of cognitive decline and neurodegeneration.

Abstract: Urine drug testing (UDT) is an important laboratory tool utilized in various healthcare settings to identify drug or toxic exposures. It has wide clinical applications, including but not limited to detecting substance misuse, monitoring treatment effectiveness and compliance, and identifying substances in affected patients. Depending on the clinical care setting and patient population, the UDT service model and practice are important decisions by the clinical laboratory to meet the needs of the healthcare providers. In addition, clinical laboratories must appreciate the testing process and unique aspects of this toxicology test, from specimen collection and integrity, testing methods, to the result reporting and interpretation. Each phase has specific quality requirements to ensure the accuracy and appropriate interpretation of results. This review aims to summarize the preanalytical, analytical, and postanalytical considerations of clinical laboratories when implementing the test or providing support to clinicians in point-of-care settings. To bring awareness of the limitations inherent to different analytical methodologies, this review discusses important considerations and presents the current gaps, opportunities, and recommendations for quality improvement and standardization. This article may serve as a framework for clinical laboratory directors and other laboratory professionals to review their current provision of UDT and provide recommendations on various important aspects when considering changes to the test service models to meet their local clinical needs, including when introducing new test methods. It may also help physicians and healthcare providers appreciate the complexities of UDT and recognize the challenges in clinical interpretation.

BACKGROUND: While health systems have implemented resources to improve lipid management in people with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, the population-level effectiveness is unclear. METHODS: Electronic health record data from patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2023, across 16 US academic health systems were analyzed. Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (defined by diagnosis and procedure codes) was established on or before the index date defined as the date of the most recent LDL-C (low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol) or the last day of the study period for those without an LDL-C available. Systems were surveyed to identify lipid management programs (eg, prevention/lipid clinic, electronic health record–based tools, and lipid management algorithms). Sequential multilevel multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to (1) assess the system-level association between an LDL-C <70 mg/dL and the presence of lipid management programs, adjusting for patient-level demographic and clinical characteristics, and (2) whether system-level uptake of statin or nonstatin lipid-lowering therapy was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. RESULTS: We included 1 738 042 patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (median, 88 365 per system; range, 17 086–2 48 371). About 81% of the health systems had prevention or lipid clinics. The proportion of those on statins ranged from 31.0% to 60.4% across health systems (median, 46.3%). Lower proportions were observed in the use of high-intensity statins (16.2%–33.1%), nonstatins (2.6%–8.1%), and combination lipid-lowering therapy (1.7%–6.3%). Among those with an LDL-C level available (n=890 521), 42.5% had an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, ranging 35.8% to 49.4% across systems. There was no association between the odds of achieving LDL-C <70 mg/dL and health system lipid management algorithm, prevention clinics/lipid clinics, or electronic health record–based tools. Neither system-level high-intensity statin utilization nor nonstatin use was associated with an LDL-C <70 mg/dL. CONCLUSIONS: Despite variability in lipid management resources and lipid-lowering therapy use across systems, many did not reach an LDL-C <70 mg/dL, and there was low uptake of lipid-lowering therapy. Innovative implementation strategies are needed for system-level lipid management.

Objectives: To summarize recent high-quality trials and provide an update to the original 2022 American College of Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria for Treatment of Locoregional Gastric Adenocarcinoma. This multi-specialty-led committee included gastrointestinal radiation and medical oncology, gastroenterology, radiology, and surgical oncology. Methods: Using the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, timing, and study design framework, the evidence was assessed using Cochrane and PRISMA 2020 methodology. Eligible studies included prospective Phase II/II trials and select retrospective studies published between 5/1/2020 and 8/1/2025 in the Embase, Medline, and Pubmed databases. Study type and quality were assessed. Well-established RAND-UCLA consensus methodology (modified Delphi) was used to rate the appropriateness of the treatment options. Results: ARS AUC recommendations include adjuvant FLOT chemotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FLOT and surgery, poCT or perioperative chemoimmunotherapy for localized gastric adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy +/− CRT for localized gastric adenocarcinoma that undergoes upfront surgery, and systemic therapy alone for localized gastric adenocarcinoma in a medically inoperable patient. Conclusions: This updated ARS AUC summary provides guidelines for the multimodality treatment of resectable gastric adenocarcinoma.

Abstract Few prospective benchmark studies exist to characterize the evolving contemporary real-world practice for peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL). We report the patterns of first-line care and outcomes for 720 patients with systemic PTCL enrolled in 2 related prospective cohort studies, Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) from 2015 to 2020 and Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) from 2002 to 2015, both followed to 2024. The primary end points were event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier estimator and Cox regression model. Secondary end points included correlations of clinical and treatment factors with survival. The most common induction regimens were CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone) based (70%), given as CHOP (36%), CHOP plus etoposide (23%), or CHOP-like plus novel agents (11.5%, including 5% BV-CHP [brentuximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone]). Consolidative autologous stem cell transplant was performed in 102 patients (14%). Within nodal PTCL, EFS and OS were adversely associated with International Prognostic Index 2 to 5, prognostic index for T-cell lymphoma score 1 to 4, and non–anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) subtypes. Within LEO, which captured increasing first-line etoposide and brentuximab vedotin, adding etoposide to CHOP was associated with better OS in anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative ALCL. BV-CHP showed a trend toward OS improvement in ALCL. Patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 had 5-year subsequent OS of 12% and 17%, respectively. The inferior outcomes in non-ALCL subtypes and patients failing EFS6 and EFS24 highlight unmet needs with CHOP-based induction, where clinical trials with targeted therapy should be prioritized. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02736357.

Abstract The human X chromosome accounts for ∼5% of the genome. Despite its size, the role of X-chromosomal variants in human diseases is not well understood, mainly due to its distinct inheritance pattern and the frequent omission of sex chromosomes from genome-wide association studies. This study used whole-genome sequencing data from 888 multiple system atrophy (MSA) cases and 7128 controls to perform an X-chromosome-wide common variant association study. Our analyses revealed two sex-differential risk loci: one located at Xq28, associated with increased risk for MSA in females [index variant: rs4898389, odds ratio (OR) = 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.40–2.03, P-value = 2.43 × 10⁻⁸], and another at Xp22.2 within the TBL1X gene, identified in males (index variant: rs6638956, OR = 1.48, 95%CI = 1.26–1.73, P-value = 9.92 × 10⁻⁷). In the Xq28 locus, colocalization analyses pointed to FAM3A and PLXNA3 as genes of interest. These findings emphasize the vital role of sex-differential genetic factors in the pathogenesis of MSA.

Abstract Patients at risk for progression from myeloid precursor states (idiopathic cytopenia of undetermined significance [ICUS] and clonal cytopenia of undetermined significance [CCUS]) to myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) are not well defined. Epidemiologic risk factors, clonal changes for MDS development, and evolution from one MDS state to another were available in the MDS Natural History Study (NHS), a prospective cohort enrolled at diverse US sites. Extensive clinical data and biospecimens were collected at baseline and follow-up. A total of 1177 (56%) individuals with MDS or MDS-related precursor conditions (ICUS/idiopathic dysplasia of undetermined significance [IDUS], CCUS, and MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasm overlap) were enrolled and diagnosed in the MDS NHS. The median age was 74 years, with 89% aged ≥60 years, and most were male patients. Median follow-up time was 1.6 years and was similar among ICUS/IDUS, CCUS, and MDS. During follow-up period, 68% of participants terminated the study, 35% died, and 38% had disease progression. Using a refined clinical definition of progression, the greatest proportion of progression was observed among higher-risk-MDS (116 [73%]), followed by lower-risk-MDS (170 [52%]); fewer progression events were observed among participants with CCUS (65 [22%]) and ICUS/IDUS (46 [17%]). Predictors of progression are delineated, including female sex, higher quantity of mutations, the presence of TP53 mutation, and poor/very poor cytogenetic score. Based on these prospective data, guidelines for clinical management including monitoring and surveillance are outlined. The MDS NHS provides real-world data to illustrate how clinical and genotypic differences inform the classification, disease course, and approach to therapy, with informed monitoring guidelines for patients. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02775383.