Citations

Abstract Excessively restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are one of many barriers to clinical trial enrollment for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDSs). Many organizations are developing efforts to increase clinical trial eligibility; yet, several recent publications focused on patients with MDS suggest that many patients with this disease may be excluded from clinical trials unnecessarily. Clinical trial eligibility should reflect the phase of the study and risks of the agent being studied. Phase 3 trials should be less restrictive than early-phase trials to represent the real-world population as closely as possible. We hypothesize that many clinical trials, particularly phase 3 trials, have unnecessarily restrictive eligibility criteria. This study aims to evaluate the most common eligibility criteria according to phase of trial and to determine whether criteria correspond with drug safety signals. We identified MDS clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 January 2000 to 1 September 2023 and analyzed the eligibility criteria of 191 therapeutic MDS trials. We found that categorical inclusion and exclusion criteria are remarkably similar in representation across trial phases. Additionally, only 13% of trials are concordant with drug safety signals, suggesting that the eligibility criteria are often arbitrary. On behalf of the icMDS (International Consortium for Myelodysplastic Syndromes), an association of international MDS experts, we provide a position statement on restrictive eligibility criteria for MDS clinical trials that should be avoided with the aim of removing barriers to clinical trial enrollment.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Importance Completion of the Human Genome Project prompted predictions that genomics would transform medicine, including through genomic screening that identifies potentially medically actionable findings that could prevent disease, detect it earlier, or treat it better. However, genomic screening remains anchored in research and largely unavailable as part of routine care. Objective To summarize 11 years of experience with genomic screening and explore the landscape of genomic screening efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was based in Geisinger’s MyCode Community Health Initiative, a genomic screening program in a rural Pennsylvania health care system in which patient-participants exomes are analyzed. Main Outcomes and Measures Genomic screen-positive rates were evaluated and stratified by condition type (cancer, cardiovascular, other) and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Tier 1 designation. The proportion of participants previously unaware of their genomic result was assessed. Other large-scale population-based genomic screening efforts with genomic results disclosure were compiled from public resources. Results A total of 354 957 patients participated in Geisinger’s genomic screening program (median [IQR] age, 54 [36-69] years; 194 037 [59.7%] assigned female sex at birth). As of June 2024, 175 500 participants had exome sequencing available for analysis, and 5934 participants (3.4%) had a pathogenic variant in 81 genes known to increase risk for disease. Between 2013 and July 2024, 5119 results were disclosed to 5052 eligible participants, with 2267 (44.2%) associated with risk for cardiovascular disease, 2031 (39.7%) with risk for cancer, and 821 (16.0%) with risk for other conditions. Most results (3040 [59.4%]) were in genes outside of those with a CDC Tier 1 designation. Nearly 90% of participants (4425 [87.6%]) were unaware of their genomic risk prior to disclosure. In a survey of large-scale biobanks with genomic and electronic health record (EHR) data, only 25.0% (6 of 24) disclosed potentially actionable genomic results. Conclusions and Relevance In this large, genomics-informed cohort study from a single health system, 1 in 30 participants had a potentially actionable genomic finding. However, nearly 90% were unaware of their risk prior to screening, demonstrating the utility of genomic screening in identifying at-risk individuals. Most large-scale biobanks with genomic and EHR data did not return genomic results with potential medical relevance, missing opportunities to significantly improve genomic risk ascertainment for these individuals and to perform longitudinal studies of clinical and implementation outcomes in diverse settings.

Abstract Objective Dravet syndrome (DS) is a developmental and epileptic encephalopathy. Diagnosis is clinical, but ~90% of patients have pathogenic variants in SCN1A . ATP6V0C has recently been proposed as a novel candidate gene for epilepsy, with or without developmental delay. Here we describe two adult patients with a clinical diagnosis of DS associated with ATP6V0C variants. Methods Patients with developmental and epileptic encephalopathies were evaluated by physicians who are experts in DS, and their clinical diagnosis was correlated with genetic findings. A subgroup of those patients with DS but without known genetic causes were evaluated through gene panels, whole exome sequencing, and chromosome microarray. Phenotype was determined by pediatric and adult chart reviews, interviews, and physical examinations. Results Of 753 patients with DS, two unrelated individuals with classic features of DS during childhood and adulthood were identified with heterozygous de novo missense variants in ATP6V0C (c.319G > C, p.(Gly107Arg) and c.284C > T, p.(Ala95Val), respectively). Both variants were absent in normal populations and computational prediction algorithms suggested deleterious effects on protein structure and/or function. No disease‐causing variants in other genes previously associated with DS were found. Significance Here we describe two adult patients with Dravet‐like syndrome and pathogenic/likely pathogenic variants in ATP6V0C . We propose that abnormal ATP6V0C function can, at the severe end of the clinical spectrum, be associated with Dravet‐like phenotype. This is relevant, as these patients would not qualify for disease‐modifying antisense nucleotide or gene therapies targeting SCN1A .

The NCCN Guidelines for Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS) provide recommendations for the evaluation, diagnosis, and comprehensive care of patients with MDS based on a review of recent clinical evidence that has led to important advances in treatment or has yielded new information on biologic factors that may have prognostic significance in MDS. The multidisciplinary panel of MDS experts is convened at least on an annual basis. During the annual meeting, the panel evaluates new and emerging data to inform their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights review the recent updates, including treatment recommendations both for lower-risk and higher-risk MDS, preference stratification of therapeutic agents, and emerging data on novel therapeutics.

Abstract Objective To assess the performance and cost implications of contrast-enhanced mammography-guided biopsy (CEM Bx). Methods This is a prospective study from May 5, 2021, to April 18, 2022, across 2 U.S. academic centers, evaluating technical success, patient/radiologist feedback, and operational factors of CEM Bx. Inclusion criteria included that patients be 40 years or older and recommended for biopsy with suspicious findings on contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM). Descriptive statistics are reported for clinical outcomes, length of procedure, and user and participant feedback. An estimate of cost was made by comparing general Medicare costs that are being billed for CEM Bx and post-clip mammogram ($475.48) to the Medicare costs of MRI-guided biopsy (MRI Bx) and post-clip placement mammogram ($845.94). Results Eighty-two participants enrolled. Twenty-two were excluded at the time of CEM Bx (22/82, 27%). Sixty participants were included (mean age 57 years, range 33 to 81 years) with 63 suspicious CEM lesions. The malignancy rate was 22% (14/63). A technical success rate of 100% was achieved. Average CEM Bx time was 29% to 33% the average reported MRI-guided breast biopsy times (CEM Bx = 11 minutes; MRI Bx = 33 to 38 minutes), indicating operational efficiencies. A positive opinion of CEM Bx was reported by 78% of radiologists, 93% of technologists, and 98% of patients. The estimated cost for each CEM Bx was ~ 45% lower than MRI Bx. Conclusion CEM Bx demonstrates high success rates and satisfaction scores. CEM Bx resulted in shorter procedure times, enhanced operational efficiency, and ~45% reduction in costs compared with MRI Bx. As advancements continue, we anticipate CEM Bx will offer a cost-efficient and timely option for breast biopsy.