Citations

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) combining endoscopic resection (ER) with endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) followed by ablation is the standard of care for the treatment of dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (BE). We have previously shown comparable rates of complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CRIM) with both approaches. However, data comparing recurrence after CRIM are lacking. We compared rates of recurrence after CRIM with both techniques in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: Patients undergoing EET achieving CRIM at 3 academic institutions were included. Demographic and clinical data were abstracted. Outcomes included rates and predictors of any BE and dysplastic BE recurrence in the 2 groups. Cox-proportional hazards models and inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 621 patients (514 EMR and 107 ESD) achieving CRIM were included in the recurrence analysis. The incidence of any BE (15.7, 5.7 per 100 patient-years) and dysplastic BE recurrence (7.3, 5.3 per 100 patient-years) were comparable in the EMR and ESD groups, respectively. On multivariable analyses, the chances of BE recurrence were not influenced by ER technique (hazard ratio 0.87; 95% confidence interval 0.51–1.49; P = 0.62), which was also confirmed by IPTW analysis (ESD vs EMR: hazard ratio 0.98; 95% confidence interval 0.56–1.73; P = 0.94). BE length, lesion size, and history of cigarette smoking were independent predictors of BE recurrence. DISCUSSION: Patients with BE dysplasia/neoplasia achieving CRIM, initially treated with EMR/ablation, had comparable recurrence rates to ESD/ablation. Randomized trials are needed to confirm these outcomes between the 2 ER techniques.

Importance Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are rapidly integrating into cancer care. Understanding stakeholder views on ethical issues associated with the implementation of AI in oncology is critical to optimal deployment. Objective To evaluate oncologists’ views on the ethical domains of the use of AI in clinical care, including familiarity, predictions, explainability (the ability to explain how a result was determined), bias, deference, and responsibilities. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional, population-based survey study was conducted from November 15, 2022, to July 31, 2023, among 204 US-based oncologists identified using the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was response to a question asking whether participants agreed or disagreed that patients need to provide informed consent for AI model use during cancer treatment decisions. Results Of 387 surveys, 204 were completed (response rate, 52.7%). Participants represented 37 states, 120 (63.7%) identified as male, 128 (62.7%) as non-Hispanic White, and 60 (29.4%) were from academic practices; 95 (46.6%) had received some education on AI use in health care, and 45.3% (92 of 203) reported familiarity with clinical decision models. Most participants (84.8% [173 of 204]) reported that AI-based clinical decision models needed to be explainable by oncologists to be used in the clinic; 23.0% (47 of 204) stated they also needed to be explainable by patients. Patient consent for AI model use during treatment decisions was supported by 81.4% of participants (166 of 204). When presented with a scenario in which an AI decision model selected a different treatment regimen than the oncologist planned to recommend, the most common response was to present both options and let the patient decide (36.8% [75 of 204]); respondents from academic settings were more likely than those from other settings to let the patient decide (OR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.19-5.51). Most respondents (90.7% [185 of 204]) reported that AI developers were responsible for the medico-legal problems associated with AI use. Some agreed that this responsibility was shared by physicians (47.1% [96 of 204]) or hospitals (43.1% [88 of 204]). Finally, most respondents (76.5% [156 of 204]) agreed that oncologists should protect patients from biased AI tools, but only 27.9% (57 of 204) were confident in their ability to identify poorly representative AI models. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional survey study, few oncologists reported that patients needed to understand AI models, but most agreed that patients should consent to their use, and many tasked patients with choosing between physician- and AI-recommended treatment regimens. These findings suggest that the implementation of AI in oncology must include rigorous assessments of its effect on care decisions as well as decisional responsibility when problems related to AI use arise.

Abstract Background Metabolic syndrome (MetS), which can be induced or exacerbated by the current class of antipsychotic drugs, is highly prevalent in patients with schizophrenia and presents significant challenges to lifetime disease management. Supported by initial clinical results, trace amine‐associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists have emerged as potential novel treatments for schizophrenia. Notably, non‐clinical studies have also shown weight‐lowering and glucoregulatory effects of TAAR1 agonists, including the investigational agent ulotaront. However, the translatability of these findings to humans has not been adequately assessed. Given that delayed gastric emptying (GE) was identified as a potential mechanism contributing to the metabolic benefits of TAAR1 agonists in rodents, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of ulotaront on GE in patients with schizophrenia and concurrent MetS with prediabetes. Methods Patients with schizophrenia were randomized to receive a single oral dose of ulotaront (150 mg) and their previous antipsychotic (PA) in an open‐label, crossover, two‐sequence design (NCT05402111). Eligible participants fulfilled at least three of five MetS criteria and had prediabetes defined by elevated glycated haemoglobin (5.7‐6.4%) and/or fasting homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (i.e. ≥2.22). Following an overnight fast and 4 h post‐dose, participants ingested a 99m Tc‐sulphur colloid radiolabelled egg meal (320 kcal, 30% fat). GE was measured by scintigraphy over 4 h. Endpoints included GE of solids half‐time (T 1/2 ) and percentage gastric retention at 1, 2 and 4 h. Results Thirty‐one adults were randomized and 27 completed the study. Ulotaront significantly delayed GE of solids [median GE T 1/2 ulotaront at 139 min (119, 182) vs. the participant's PA of 124 min (109, 132), p = .006]. A significant increase in gastric retention was seen in the ulotaront versus the PA group at 1 h (80% vs. 75%, p = .015), 2 h (61% vs. 50%, p = .023) and 4 h (17% vs. 7%, p = .002) post‐meal. Conclusion Ulotaront delayed the GE of solids in patients with schizophrenia and concurrent MetS with prediabetes. Additional studies are needed to assess whether treatment with TAAR1 agonists is associated with weight loss and glucoregulatory improvement.

PURPOSE Nodular lymphocyte–predominant Hodgkin lymphoma (NLPHL) is a rare cancer, and large international cooperative efforts are needed to evaluate the significance of clinical risk factors and immunoarchitectural patterns (IAPs) for all stages of pediatric and adult patients with NLPHL. METHODS Thirty-eight institutions participated in the Global nLPHL One Working Group retrospective study of NLPHL cases from 1992 to 2021. We measured progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), transformation rate, and lymphoma-specific death rate. We performed uni- and multivariable (MVA) Cox regression stratified by management to select factors for the lymphocyte-predominant international prognostic score (LP-IPS) validated by five-fold cross-validation. RESULTS We identified 2,243 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR, 23-51). The median follow-up was 6.3 years (IQR, 3.4-10.8). Most had stage I to II (72.9%) and few B symptoms (9.9%) or splenic involvement (5.4%). IAP was scored for 916 (40.8%). Frontline management included chemotherapy alone (32.4%), combined modality therapy (30.5%), radiotherapy alone (24.0%), observation after excision (4.6%), rituximab alone (4.0%), active surveillance (3.4%), and rituximab and radiotherapy (1.1%). The PFS, OS, transformation, and lymphoma-specific death rates at 10 years were 70.8%, 91.6%, 4.8%, and 3.3%, respectively. On MVA, IAPs were not associated with PFS or OS, but IAP E had higher risk of transformation (hazard ratio [HR], 1.81; P < .05). We developed the LP-IPS with 1 point each for age ≥45 years, stage III-IV, hemoglobin <10.5 g/dL, and splenic involvement. Increasing LP-IPS was significantly associated with worse PFS (HR, 1.52) and OS (HR, 2.31) and increased risk of lymphoma-specific death (HR, 2.63) and transformation (HR, 1.41). CONCLUSION In this comprehensive study of all ages of patients with NLPHL, we develop the LP-IPS to identify high-risk patients and inform upcoming prospective clinical trials evaluating de-escalation of therapy for patients with low LP-IPS scores (<2).

The use of blue light cystoscopy (BLC) has been shown to improve bladder tumor detection. However, data demonstrating the efficacy of BLC across different races are limited. Herein, we aim to evaluate heterogeneity in the characteristics of BLC for the detection of malignant lesions among various races. Clinicopathologic information was collected from patients enrolled in the multi-institutional Cysview® registry (2014–2021) who underwent transurethral resection or biopsy of bladder tumors. Outcome variables included sensitivity and negative and positive predictive values of BLC and white light cystoscopy (WLC) for the detection of malignant lesions among various races. Overall, 2379 separate lesions/tumors were identified from 1292 patients, of whom 1095 (85%) were Caucasian, 96 (7%) were African American, 51 (4%) were Asian, and 50 (4%) were Hispanic. The sensitivity of BLC was higher than that of WLC in the total cohort, as well as in the Caucasian and Asian subgroups. The addition of BLC to WLC increased the detection rate by 10% for any malignant lesion in the total cohort, with the greatest increase in Asian patients (18%). Additionally, the positive predictive value of BLC was highest in Asian patients (94%), while Hispanic patients had the highest negative predictive value (86%). Our study showed that regardless of race, BLC increases the detection of bladder cancer when combined with WLC.

AbstractBackgroundFor many patients with lung disease the only proven intervention to improve survival and quality of life is lung transplantation (LTx). Esophageal dysmotility and gastroesophageal reflux (GER) are common in patients with respiratory disease, and often associate with worse prognosis following LTx. Which, if any patients, should be excluded from LTx based on esophageal concerns remains unclear. Our aim was to understand the effect of LTx on esophageal motility diagnosis and examine how this and the other physiological and mechanical factors relate to GER and clearance of boluses swallowed.MethodsWe prospectively recruited 62 patients with restrictive (RLD) and obstructive (OLD) lung disease (aged 33–75 years; 42 men) who underwent high resolution impedance manometry and 24‐h pH‐impedance before and after LTx.Key ResultsRLD patients with normal motility were more likely to remain normal (p = 0.02), or if having abnormal motility to change to normal (p = 0.07) post‐LTx than OLD patients. Esophageal length (EL) was greater in OLD than RLD patients' pre‐LTx (p < 0.001), reducing only in OLD patients' post‐LTx (p = 0.02). Reduced EL post‐LTx associated with greater contractile reserve (r = 0.735; p = 0.01) and increased likelihood of motility normalization (p = 0.10). Clearance of reflux improved (p = 0.01) and associated with increased mean nocturnal baseline impedance (p < 0.001) in RLD but not OLD. Peristaltic breaks and thoraco‐abdominal pressure gradient impact both esophageal clearance of reflux and boluses swallowed (p < 0.05).Conclusions and InferencesRLD patients are more likely to show improvement in esophageal motility than OLD patients post‐LTx. However, the effect on GER is more difficult to predict and requires other GI, anatomical and pulmonary factors to be taken into consideration.

Background. Pancreas transplant biopsy practices for the diagnosis of rejection or other pathologies are not well described. Methods. We conducted a survey of staff at US pancreas transplant programs (March 22, 2022, to August 22, 2022) to assess current program practices and perceptions about the utility and challenges in the performance and interpretation of pancreas allograft biopsies. Results. Respondents represented 65% (76/117) of active adult pancreas transplant programs, capturing 66% of recent pancreas transplant volume in the United States. Participants were most often nephrologists (52%), followed by surgeons (46%), and other staff (4%). Pancreas allograft biopsies were performed mostly by interventional radiologists (74%), followed by surgeons (11%), nephrologists (8%), and gastroenterologists (1%). Limitations in the radiologist’s or biopsy performer’s comfort level or expertise to safely perform a biopsy, or to obtain sufficient/adequate samples were the two most common challenges with pancreas transplant biopsies. Pancreas transplant biopsies were read by local pathologists at a majority (86%) of centers. Challenges reported with pancreas biopsy interpretation included poor reliability, lack of reporting of C4d staining, lack of reporting of rejection grading, and inconclusive interpretation of the biopsy. Staff at a third of responding programs (34%) stated that they rarely or never perform pancreas allograft biopsies and treat presumed rejection empirically. Conclusions. This national survey identified significant variation in clinical practices related to pancreas allograft biopsies and potential barriers to pancreas transplant utilization across the United States. Consideration of strategies to improve program experience with percutaneous pancreas biopsy and to support optimal management of pancreas allograft rejection informed by histology is warranted.

Summary: While the current approach to precursor hematologic conditions is to “watch and wait,” this may change with the development of therapies that are safe and extend survival or delay the onset of symptomatic disease. The goal of future therapies in precursor hematologic conditions is to improve survival and prevent or delay the development of symptomatic disease while maximizing safety. Clinical trial considerations in this field include identifying an appropriate at-risk population, safety assessments, dose selection, primary and secondary trial endpoints including surrogate endpoints, control arms, and quality-of-life metrics, all of which may enable more precise benefit–risk assessment.