Citations

Agentic artificial intelligence marks a shift from large language models to autonomous, goal-driven clinical assistants. The framework presented in this report outlines implementation in radiology workflows and addresses cybersecurity, bias, and accountability challenges.

Importance Molecular analyses of biospecimens collected from study participants are essential for identifying biomarkers that can tailor treatments to specific subsets of patients who are most likely to benefit. Sharing of data and biospecimens from clinical trials enables personalized, patient-centric use of cancer therapies and accelerates the development of new treatments. Objective To describe obstacles to sharing data and biospecimens and to propose strategies to enhance access and collaboration. Evidence Review This is a Special Communication authored by 53 academic investigators and patient representatives from the breast cancer community with extensive experience in conducting clinical and translational research. The article also evaluates the impact of biomarker research on specifying responsive subpopulations in the 29 registrational clinical trials that have led to approval of a new drug for treatment of breast cancer between 2017 and 2024. Findings Clinical trial participants are increasingly asked to provide tissue and/or body fluid biospecimens for biomarker research that is typically controlled by the sponsoring pharmaceutical company, but published biomarker studies are rare. Among 29 breast cancer registrational studies reported in the past 8 years, none resulted in biomarker research that restricted a drug’s approved indication. Herein, strategies to maximize the value of clinical data and biospecimens contributed by participants are proposed, thereby supporting the shared goals of the pharmaceutical industry and academia to improve patient care. These strategies include (1) establishing coleadership structures involving academia and patients in clinical trial design and conduct, (2) ensuring that informed consent forms state that data and biospecimens will be shared with academia for future research, (3) requiring the sharing of clinical data as a condition for regulatory approval, and (4) enabling access to biospecimens and translational research data for independent studies on biomarkers that may indicate drug efficacy and toxicity. Conclusions and Relevance Data and biospecimen sharing from registrational trials has been suboptimal. Improving clinical data, biospecimens, and biospecimens’ related data sharing requires concrete actions and a multidimensional stakeholder approach to accelerate the impact of clinical cancer research on the quality of patient care.

Importance Primary mitral regurgitation (MR) is a prevalent valvular lesion. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines include class I recommendations for intervention for severe primary MR at the onset of symptoms, significant left ventricular (LV) enlargement (end-systolic dimension ≥40 mm), or dysfunction (ejection fraction ≤60%), with a class IIA recommendation for mitral valve repair when performed at an experienced surgical center. Recent data suggest a survival penalty when waiting for class I surgical guideline indications, and novel markers of decompensation are under investigation. Observations Comprehensive assessment of MR severity using echocardiography is critical, and when warranted, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) is complementary. Assessment of LV size and function, as well as serial changes in both, is crucial for determining timing of surgery. New-onset atrial fibrillation, left atrial enlargement, pulmonary hypertension, and exercise-induced changes in LV function should also be considered in borderline scenarios. The roles of LV volumes, global longitudinal strain, CMR-derived measures of myocardial dysfunction, and cardiac biomarkers are worthy of further investigation regarding consideration for early surgical intervention. Conclusions and Relevance A more refined approach incorporating assessment of extravalvular cardiac injury, novel imaging markers, and biomarkers is needed to optimize surgical timing in primary MR. Further research is warranted to validate these emerging parameters and refine guidelines to improve patient outcomes.

Abstract Valvular heart disease represents a significant global health burden, with an estimated prevalence of 2.5% in high-income countries and projected increases due to population ageing. Randomized controlled trials in valvular heart disease have undergone substantial evolution, shifting from mortality-focused endpoints toward comprehensive assessments integrating imaging parameters and patient-centered outcomes. Cardiovascular imaging modalities, including echocardiography, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance, have become pivotal in trial design, patient selection, and endpoint definition. Recent landmark trials in aortic stenosis, including EARLY-TAVR and EVOLVED, have challenged traditional symptom-based intervention thresholds by incorporating imaging biomarkers of subclinical myocardial dysfunction and cardiac damage staging. In aortic regurgitation, the paucity of randomized controlled trials evidence contrasts with emerging transcatheter technologies, highlighting critical knowledge gaps. Mitral regurgitation trials have demonstrated the importance of patient phenotyping, with divergent outcomes between COAPT and MITRA-FR emphasizing the role of imaging in optimal patient selection. The recent TRILUMINATE and TRISCEND trials have transformed tricuspid regurgitation management through transcatheter interventions, prioritizing quality-of-life improvements alongside traditional clinical endpoints. Future directions include standardization of imaging protocols across modalities, development of artificial intelligence-enhanced analysis, and integration of multiparametric biomarkers for personalized risk stratification. The paradigm shift toward imaging-guided, patient-centered trial design represents a fundamental reimagining of therapeutic success in valvular heart disease, moving beyond procedural outcomes toward comprehensive assessment of clinical benefit and improved patient care.

ABSTRACT Background Given the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' coverage of screening CT colonography (CTC) beginning in January 2025, we evaluated the cost‐effectiveness of CTC for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening by race (Black and White) and gender, considering real‐world screening adherence. Methods A microsimulation model compared CRC screening strategies in average‐risk adults by race and gender, incorporating 2010–2019 U.S. data on disease progression and real‐world screening adherence for colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Five strategies were compared: (1) status quo (choice between colonoscopy and FIT); (2) CTC every 5 years; (3) colonoscopy every 10 years; (4) annual FIT; and (5) multitarget stool DNA test every 3 years, plus no screening. Lifetime costs, quality‐adjusted life years gained (QALYG), and incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios were projected. A willingness‐to‐pay threshold of $100,000/QALYG was used. Results Under the status quo, Black adults showed higher CRC cases and greater utilization for FIT over colonoscopy than White adults. Compared to the status quo, the CTC strategy yielded more QALYG and fewer CRC cases among Black adults, but fewer QALYG and more CRC cases among White adults. Both status quo and CTC strategies outperformed other strategies across races. The CTC strategy was the dominant strategy for Black adults. For White adults, the status quo was cost‐effective with incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios of $34,998–$73,428/QALYG, while the CTC strategy was cost saving compared to no screening. Conclusions CTC could be cost‐effective for CRC screening in Black adults under real‐world screening adherence, supporting Medicare coverage to address specific population needs and structural barriers to screening.

Importance Treatment for cognitive dysfunction due to postacute sequelae of long COVID (ie, symptoms of fatigue, malaise, weakness, confusion that persist beyond 12 weeks after an initial COVID infection) remains a significant unmet need. Objective To test evidence-based rehabilitation strategies for improving cognitive symptoms in persons with long COVID. Design, Setting, and Participants This was a 5-arm, multicenter, randomized clinical trial of 3 remotely delivered interventions conducted between August 17, 2023, and June 10, 2024. The study took place at 22 trial sites and included the screening of individuals with cognitive long COVID. Interventions Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 arms: adaptive computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ [Posit Science]), cognitive-behavioral rehabilitation involving both group and individual counseling sessions (PASC-Cognitive Recovery [PASC-CoRE]) paired with BrainHQ, and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) paired with BrainHQ. Two comparator arms were included as follows: unstructured computer puzzles and games (active comparator) and sham tDCS paired with BrainHQ. The interventions occurred 5 times per week over 10 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures Cognitive and behavioral in-person assessments were performed at baseline, midintervention, at the end of intervention, and 3 months after the end of the intervention. The primary outcome measure was the modified Everyday Cognition Scale 2 (ECog2) completed at the end of the intervention compared to the baseline visit based on participant self-report looking back over the prior 7 days. Results A total of 378 individuals were screened, from which there were 328 participants (median [IQR] age, 48.0 [37.0-58.0] years; 241 female [73.5%]; race: 15 Asian [4.6%], 47 Black [14.3%], and 235 White [71.6%]; ethnicity: 52 Hispanic [15.9%]). None of the 3 active interventions demonstrated benefits on the modified ECog2 in the intention-to-treat population by the end of the intervention period. The adjusted differences in mean change were 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs active comparator, 0.0 (95% CI, −0.2 to 0.2) for tDCS-active + BrainHQ vs tDCS-sham + BrainHQ, and 0.1 (95% CI, −0.1 to 0.3) for PASC-CoRE + BrainHQ vs BrainHQ alone. Secondary participant-reported outcomes and neuropsychological tests showed no differential benefits for any treatment arm. All 5 arms demonstrated some improvements over time on the modified ECog2 and on secondary outcomes. There were no serious adverse events attributable to the interventions. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 2 randomized clinical trial failed to demonstrate differential benefits for online cognitive training, a structured cognitive rehabilitation program, and tDCS for cognitive long COVID. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05965739 .

Importance Many patients are diagnosed with benign breast lesions; however, evidence- and consensus-based guidelines for the management of benign breast disease (BBD) are limited. Observations The American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS) and the Society of Breast Imaging (SBI) developed guidelines for the management of benign fibroepithelial lesions (FELs) using a modified Delphi consensus methodology and public comment. There was strong consensus that core biopsy–proven concordant fibroadenomas without atypia only require excision if they were symptomatic, patient preferred, attained a certain size, or demonstrated substantive growth over time on clinical examination. There was strong consensus that when removing a fibroadenoma, complete excision without transection of the mass is recommended and surgeons should consider aesthetics, sensation, and other factors when selecting incision placement. Patients with core biopsy–proven concordant fibroadenomas do not require imaging follow-up and may return to age-appropriate screening. Many benign phyllodes tumors (BPTs) present as an FEL on core biopsy, and these lesions along with any lesions with suspicion of or concern for phyllodes tumors (PTs) require surgical excisional biopsy with complete excision of the mass. Re-excision of a BPT is not required for patients with a positive margin for BPT, but a margin re-excision may be considered if the mass was transected or there is concern of residual disease after excisional biopsy. Patients with BPT who have undergone excision do not require follow-up imaging and may return to age-appropriate screening. Conclusions and Relevance Evidence-informed, consensus and expert opinion-based guidelines for the management of benign FELs of the breast were developed. These guidelines provide clarification on the controversial management of benign FELs of the breast. Any practicing clinicians who treat patients with benign FELs should integrate these guidelines into treatment of their patients.

BACKGROUND: Significant disparities persist in timely, guideline-concordant breast cancer treatment across the US, impacting cancer outcomes. The influence of both patient-level and facility-level socioeconomic status (SES) on adherence to Commission on Cancer quality measures remains incompletely understood. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Cancer Database to assess associations between patient and facility SES and concordance with timeliness of 3 Commission on Cancer breast cancer quality measures: surgery, multiagent chemotherapy, and radiotherapy, among patients diagnosed from 2018 to 2022. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate predictors of concordant care, including a composite measure of facility-level social risk. RESULTS: The analytic cohorts included 471,425 patients for surgery, 82,734 for chemotherapy, and 311,523 for radiotherapy. Black race, uninsured status, and lower educational attainment were each independently associated with lower odds of receiving guideline-concordant care across all measures. Patients treated at low-SES facilities had higher odds of receiving timely surgery (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.31) but lower odds of receiving timely chemotherapy (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.91) and radiotherapy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.92 to 0.97) compared with those at other institutions. Facility type, fragmented care, and comorbidities also contributed to variation in concordance. CONCLUSIONS: Significant disparities in guideline-concordant breast cancer care persist by race, insurance, education, and facility-level social risk, highlighting intervention opportunities to improve outcomes for these already vulnerable populations. These findings highlight the importance of policy and institutional strategies that address both patient- and facility-level barriers to ensure equitable access to high-quality multidisciplinary treatment.