Citations

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) offers unique, real-time advantages for assessing liver disease, benefiting both health care providers and patients. It has been shown to enhance patient care and satisfaction across a variety of medical specialties. Although liver POCUS is practiced widely in many parts of the world, its use in the United States remains limited. Liver POCUS enables rapid assessment of specific hepatic conditions, including both vascular and parenchymal abnormalities, and can play a key role in timely management decision-making—such as guiding the use of diuretics or volume expanders. Once liver POCUS is established, ultrasonography-enabled procedures, such as procedure guidance and shear wave elastography, may be adopted and enrich the practice of hepatology in the future. This paper serves as a summary of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases' (AASLD) current position on liver POCUS, offering proposed imaging protocols, recommendations for training and credentialing, and practical guidelines for implementation in clinical settings.

Background: Accurate identification of patients with metabolic dysfunction–associated steatohepatitis (MASH) at risk of disease progression (at-risk MASH) is critical for guiding resmetirom and semaglutide therapy. Inconsistent definitions of at-risk MASH complicate clinical risk classification and comparisons across studies. This study aimed to standardize the definition of at-risk MASH and propose optimized MRE-based liver stiffness (LS-MRE) cutoffs to improve noninvasive risk stratification and better guide pharmacotherapy. Methods: In this prospective study, 413 patients with suspected or diagnosed MASLD from two medical centers underwent liver biopsy and MRE. Results: A simplified definition of at-risk MASH (MASH with fibrosis stage≥2) identified a broader group of patients requiring clinical attention than a stricter definition requiring NAFLD Activity Score≥4 with ≥1 point in steatosis, inflammation, and ballooning (n=122 vs. 77). LS-MRE alone showed the highest diagnostic accuracy for identifying at-risk MASH using the simplified definition (AUC 0.91 [0.87, 0.95]) and cirrhosis (AUC 0.93 [0.88, 0.99]), compared with FIB-4 and individual laboratory parameters (AST, ALT, and platelet count) ( p <0.01 for all, paired DeLong tests). Optimized LS-MRE cutoffs (2.8–6.4 kPa) captured 25 additional biopsy-proven pharmacotherapy candidates (28% of all eligible patients) compared to AASLD guidelines–recommended cutoffs (3.1–4.4 kPa), improving sensitivity (80% vs. 50%) with acceptable specificity (73% vs. 88%). Conclusions: A simplified definition of at-risk MASH enables broader identification of treatment candidates. LS-MRE demonstrates excellent diagnostic performance and improves noninvasive risk stratification when paired with optimized cutoffs. These findings support the use of MRE to guide resmetirom and semaglutide eligibility and improve access to emerging therapies.

Amyloid-targeting therapies (ATTs), including donanemab and lecanemab, are FDA-approved disease-modifying therapies for Alzheimer’s disease in the mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stages. Early initiation is important for optimal outcomes. This article summarizes practical strategies for implementing ATTs in clinical practice, focusing on leadership alignment and infrastructure development, as well as patient identification, diagnosis, and monitoring protocols. Key recommendations include establishing appropriate patient tracking systems, infusion and imaging protocols, and interprofessional collaboration. Approaches for systematic patient routing (e.g., hub-and-spoke models, fast-track mechanisms) and biomarker-integrated assessments are critical to facilitating timely diagnosis and treatment. Education for patients, care partners, and clinicians is crucial for managing the risks associated with amyloid-related imaging abnormalities. Successful ATT implementation requires coordinated systems, timely diagnosis, and robust safety monitoring. These measures can enable frameworks for ATT administration to optimize outcomes for patients, care partners, and health systems.

Background : Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality. Optimal treatment decisions are challenging, and existing treatment allocation frameworks may not fully reflect the evolving therapeutic landscape or contemporary clinical practices in North America. Methods : Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 20 North American experts in hepatology, medical oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a consensus-based treatment framework for HCC, termed the BEACON-HCC system. The framework was informed by current evidence and expert opinion through iterative discussion and voting. In a pilot study using 29 real-world patient cases, we assessed concordance between external expert recommendations and BEACON-HCC recommendations and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 2025 treatment recommendations. Results : The BEACON-HCC treatment allocation framework diverges from prior frameworks by incorporating nuanced clinical features such as degree of intrahepatic tumor burden and vascular invasion, and adverse tumor prognostic markers, to align treatment allocation with tumor biology and therapeutic potential. Key innovations include the incorporation of emerging modalities such as external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic-locoregional combination therapies. In the pilot exercise, expert treatment decisions showed 96.6% concordance with BEACON-HCC recommendations and 72.4% concordance with BCLC recommendations. Conclusions : BEACON-HCC is a consensus-based framework for treatment allocation that incorporates the expanding range of therapeutic options available to patients in the North American HCC population. Expert treatment decisions showed a high concordance with the BEACON-HCC system; further validation using empiric clinical data is planned through the HCC-Live Consortium.

Abstract Background Multi-modality therapy has improved survival for many patients with brain metastases. However, neurocognitive sequelae remain a challenge. While advances in radiotherapy have reduced toxicity, the potential interaction with targeted therapy and immunotherapy and the consequent impact on neurocognitive outcomes remain poorly defined. We appraised the current evidence on neurocognitive outcomes in the era of modern combined-modality therapy. Methods This systematic review adhered to PRISMA guidelines and included clinical trials reporting neurocognitive outcomes in patients with brain metastases receiving radiotherapy ± concurrent systemic therapies. Studies published through December 31, 2024 were identified through PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and Web of Science using pre-defined MeSH term-based search strings. Results 39 studies from 1997-2024 involving 6,617 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 27 whole-brain radiotherapy [WBRT]; n = 12 radiosurgery), including six studies evaluating combined-modality therapy in 1,161 patients. Baseline cognitive evaluation was performed inconsistently, but neurocognitive deficits were frequently observed prior to treatment. Most randomized trials reported improved cognitive outcomes and quality of life with advanced radiotherapy techniques (e.g., hippocampal avoidance, radiosurgery) vs WBRT. Among 20 randomized trials comparing radiotherapy with or without a concurrent investigational systemic therapy, only four included neurocognitive assessments. There was no evidence of cognitive sequelae with combined-modality therapy, though evaluable trials were limited due to inconsistent reporting of neurocognitive functioning. Conclusion As survival improves in patients with brain metastases, preserved cognition is an important outcome measure. The lack of neurocognitive endpoints in pivotal brain metastasis trials represents a critical evidence gap. The interaction between radiotherapy and novel systemic therapies, and their combined effects on neurocognition, remain unknown. To address this, we recommend 1) integrating sensitive, pragmatic, and tailored neurocognitive assessments into oncology trials to quantify additive toxicity, 2) early and systematically incorporating neuropsychology into care pathways, 3) expanding radiation dose-sparing and radioprotective strategies, and 4) evaluating the utility of cognitive rehabilitation programs.

Abstract Introduction As the incidence of metastatic spine disease (MSD) increases, treatments to manage refractory pain, pathologic vertebral body fractures, and spinal cord compression are becoming increasingly common. Given the palliative nature of surgical intervention used to achieve tumor control and thus mitigate loss of neurologic function and compromised ambulatory function, it is essential to mitigate the risk of such procedures. Methods The AO Spine Knowledge Forum Tumor’s Metastatic Tumor Research and Outcomes Network (MTRON), an international, prospective registry for patients with spinal metastases, was used for this query. Prospective collection included baseline health and demographic information, oncologic data (including Spinal Instability Neoplastic Score (SINS) score and Bilksy epidural compression classification), and baseline functional status (preoperative American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) and ECOG scores). Health related quality of life (HRQoL) data included Spine Oncology Study Group Outcomes Questionnaire (SOSGOQ2.0) and Euro-QoL measures. Surgery related adverse events (AE’s) were collected using the Spine Adverse Events Severity (SAVES V2) framework. Kaplan-Meir curves were used to assess survival. Results The cohort consisted of 1267 patients, 701 male (55.3%). A total of 245 (19.3%) experienced at least one postoperative AE, the majority of which were considered minor (grade 3 or less). Among the most common were deep wound infections (3.2%), wound dehiscence (2.5%), and urinary infections (2.4%). A multivariate analysis demonstrated that age, smoking status, ECOG performance, prior radiotherapy, presence of multiple metastases at other sites, and multiple spine metastases were significant risk factors for a postoperative AE. Postoperative AE’s (p = 0.049) and major postoperative AE’s (p = 0.0038) were found to be related to survival as well as a significant change in HRQoL scores (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion Postoperative AE’s are extremely relevant to the care of patients with MSD and impact both HRQoL and survival.

This guideline has been updated. This ASCO Living Guideline is reviewed on an eight-week cycle. Please see the online dynamic version for the latest updates. Living guidelines are developed for selected topic areas with rapidly evolving evidence that drives frequent change in recommended clinical practice. Living guidelines are updated on a regular schedule by a standing expert panel that systematically reviews the health literature on a continuous basis, as described in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Living Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy Implementation for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Living Guidelines and updates are not intended to substitute for independent professional judgment of the treating clinician and do not account for individual variation among patients. See appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 , online only). Updates are published regularly and can be found on the ASCO Publications website .

Ascites development in cirrhosis reduces 5-year survival from 80% to 30%, yet substantial heterogeneity exists among patients with comparable ascites severity. This multicenter retrospective cohort study included adult liver transplant candidates with ascites at 4 United States centers (2015–2024). Latent class analysis was performed using 7 clinical variables: ascites grade, bilirubin, albumin, platelet count, estimated glomerular filtration rate, systolic blood pressure, and portal vein thrombosis. The derivation cohort (n=625) from the University of California San Francisco and Columbia University was randomly split 80/20 for model development and internal validation. External validation was performed at the University of Southern California (n=59) and Mayo Clinic (n=93). Primary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI) and waitlist mortality over 365 days. Three phenotypes emerged: “CKD-Metabolic” (30.4%, lowest eGFR 76.5 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), “Vasodilatory-Synthetic Dysfunction” (38.9%, highest bilirubin 7.03 mg/dL, lowest blood pressure 117.5 mmHg), and “PVT-Intermediate” (30.7%, severe thrombocytopenia 68.1×10 3 /μL, 24.0% PVT). In validation cohorts (n=305), phenotypes demonstrated robust classification (mean posterior probability 0.823–0.855). Vasodilatory-Synthetic Dysfunction showed increased AKI risk versus CKD-Metabolic in derivation (MELD 3.0-adjusted HR 2.95, 95% CI 2.07–4.22, p <0.001) and validation cohorts (HR 3.39, 95% CI 1.93–5.94, p <0.001). Competing risk analysis revealed no mortality differences, but Vasodilatory-Synthetic Dysfunction was associated with higher transplantation rates (validation: HR 1.63, 95% CI 1.19–2.22, p =0.002). Three reproducible clinical phenotypes of ascites were identified with distinct risk profiles. The Vasodilatory-Synthetic Dysfunction phenotype was associated with a 3-fold increase in the risk of AKI that persisted after adjustment for MELD 3.0. No differences in waitlist mortality were observed, likely reflecting effective MELD-based transplant allocation that preferentially removes the highest-acuity patients from the waitlist.

Importance Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by sterile ulcerative skin lesions. Multiple comorbidities and clinical features have been associated with PG, but no standardized guidelines exist for classifying PG phenotypes. Objective To develop an expert-established classification framework for PG phenotypes to inform treatment guidelines and future research endeavors. Evidence Review In this modified Delphi consensus study that included 23 board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG, panelists completed 5 rounds of anonymous, iterative online surveys that were administered from December 2023 through July 2025. Before the beginning of the consensus exercise, a literature review was performed by nonvoting researchers to summarize existing data on PG clinical associations and comorbidities. A PubMed search from inception to September 2023 identified observational studies, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses describing PG clinical associations and comorbidities that were published in English. Experts indicated their agreement with proposed PG phenotypes and disease modifiers with a consensus threshold of 70% or greater. Anonymous comments and aggregated results were presented in each subsequent round. In the final round, a framework of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers was proposed for agreement. Findings Twenty-three board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG completed 5 rounds of iterative surveys. Consensus was reached on the final set of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers, with 83% of experts in agreement. PG phenotypes were overall classified into 2 major groups: PG with autoinflammatory syndromes and nonsyndromic PG. Nonsyndromic PG included 4 phenotypes: inflammatory bowel disease–associated PG, PG in association with hematologic cancers and blood dyscrasias, drug-induced PG, and other (including idiopathic) PG. Disease modifiers of PG phenotype presentations included involvement of special sites (head/neck, genitals, or peristomal skin) and extracutaneous manifestations. Conclusions and Relevance This expert-established, descriptive framework provides a standardized classification system for distinct PG phenotypes and its modifiers. This nomenclature may inform upcoming clinical guidelines and allow for consistency in reporting epidemiological research and outcomes among patients with PG.