Citations

ASCO Guidelines provide recommendations with comprehensive review and analyses of the relevant literature for each recommendation, following the guideline development process as outlined in the ASCO Guidelines Methodology Manual . ASCO Guidelines follow the ASCO Conflict of Interest Policy for Clinical Practice Guidelines . Clinical Practice Guidelines and other guidance (“Guidance”) provided by ASCO is not a comprehensive or definitive guide to treatment options. It is intended for voluntary use by clinicians and should be used in conjunction with independent professional judgment. Guidance may not be applicable to all patients, interventions, diseases or stages of diseases. Guidance is based on review and analysis of relevant literature, and is not intended as a statement of the standard of care. ASCO does not endorse third-party drugs, devices, services, or therapies and assumes no responsibility for any harm arising from or related to the use of this information. See complete disclaimer in Appendix 1 and 2 (online only) for more . PURPOSE To provide evidence-based recommendations for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS An Expert Panel including patient representation completed a systematic review of the evidence and made recommendations. RESULTS Depending upon prior treatment received, androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs: enzalutamide, abiraterone with prednisone), poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi), chemotherapeutic agents (docetaxel, cabazitaxel), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223, 177 Lu-prostate-specific membrane antigen [PSMA]-617), and sipuleucel-T have demonstrated an overall survival (OS) benefit for patients with mCRPC. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI, the combination of PARPi and ARPI (talazoparib + enzalutamide, olaparib and/or niraparib + abiraterone) has shown clinical benefit. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI or ARPI followed by docetaxel, olaparib showed OS benefit. In select patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient, pembrolizumab showed clinical efficacy. RECOMMENDATIONS Prior systemic therapy for castration-sensitive prostate cancer will determine subsequent therapy used for mCRPC. Continue androgen-deprivation therapy for patients with mCRPC indefinitely. Early adoption of somatic genetic testing and palliative care is recommended. Patients with mCRPC and bony metastases should receive a bone-protective agent. The panel recommends the combination of ARPI with PARPi in patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who did not receive prior ARPI. For patients who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends docetaxel chemotherapy. The panel recommends 177 Lu-PSMA-617 or cabazitaxel chemotherapy for patients who receive prior ARPI and docetaxel chemotherapy. For patients with BRCA1 / 2 alterations who received prior ARPI, the panel recommends PARPi monotherapy. Radium 223 is recommended for patients with symptomatic bone–only disease. Evidence for optimal sequencing for mCRPC regimens is lacking. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

Abstract Introduction Case reports and series are critical to guide initial decision-making in a pandemic, but may have lower rigor because of the need to publish them quickly. This meta-epidemiologic study compares the methodological quality of case series that described the acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020 versus those that described long-haul cases. Methods We conducted a systematic review in multiple databases for long-haul case series and reports. We identified early cases of acute COVID-19 synthesized in published systematic reviews. We evaluated the methodological quality by pairs of independent reviewers using a tool dedicated for appraising case series. Results We included 239 original case series (81 published in the first year of the pandemic and 158 published later describing long-haul COVID). The methodological quality of both groups of case series was very good (80–100% of series satisfying quality items) except for two items, the selection approach of cases included in the series and ruling out other causes that can explain the main finding described in the series. The appraisal tool demonstrated high agreement and reliability between reviewers. Conclusion The methodological quality of modern case series is high, except for two quality items that represent an area for potential for improvement for authors of case series describing future pandemics.

INTRODUCTION: Current guidelines recommend endoscopic surveillance of Barrett's esophagus (BE) but do not account for competing mortality unrelated to esophageal cancer (EC). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate EC and non-EC mortality risk in BE patients. METHODS: We searched multiple databases for studies reporting mortality in BE. We included population-based studies providing standardized mortality ratio (SMR). The primary outcome was SMR from all causes and EC and non-EC etiologies. SMR was calculated by dividing the observed mortality over the expected mortality. Logarithmic form of SMRs was pooled using random-effects model. RESULTS: Our search yielded 2,826 articles, of which 7 studies (n = 34,454) were included. All-cause mortality was elevated in BE patients compared with population controls (pooled SMR 1.24, 95% confident interval [CI] 1.01–1.53) driven in part by increased EC mortality risk (SMR 8.98, 95 CI 5.12–15.77). The mortality risk was still increased but attenuated after excluding EC mortality (SMR 1.21, 95% CI 1–1.46). There was no increased mortality risk of non-EC malignancies (SMR 1.22, 95% CI 0.82–1.82) or mortality due to noncancer etiologies (SMR 1.13, 95% CI 0.90–1.43). Death due to cardiovascular diseases was higher in BE (SMR 1.16, 95% CI 1.02–1.33). BE patients were 10 times more likely to die from noncancer etiologies than EC (risk ratio 10.71, 95% CI 5.98–19.16). Subgroup analysis of studies that excluded prevalent EC at baseline (3 studies) also showed increased all-cause (SMR 1.12, 95% CI 1.07–1.18) and EC mortality (SMR 4.7, 95% CI 3.58–6.17) among BE patients. DISCUSSION: BE patients exhibit a higher all-cause mortality, driven in part by risk of EC mortality. A personalized approach to surveillance, mitigating risk of EC while recognizing the broader mortality risks, is warranted.

Abstract Introduction While certainty of evidence assessment is key to a rigorous and transparent systematic review, it is unknown how – and how frequently – it is assessed in systematic reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the prevalence and approaches used for certainty of evidence assessment in systematic reviews published in high‐impact medicine journals over the past 11 years. Methods A PubMed search and hand‐searching of relevant journal websites identified systematic reviews published between 24 January 2013 and 23 January 2024 in any of the ten highest‐impact journals in the General and Internal Medicine category of the Journal Citation Report. Two reviewers independently selected any systematic review related to health outcomes assessing certainty of evidence using any method. We extracted data related to review characteristics, certainty of evidence and risk of bias/methodological quality assessment frameworks, and reported consideration of certainty of evidence domains. Logistic regression examined year of publication to determine whether the prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment changed over time. Results Of 1,023 included reviews, 346 (33.8%) assessed certainty of evidence. Prevalence of certainty of evidence assessment increased over time (0.16 ± 0.2; p < .001). Most (89.3%) of reviews used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess certainty of evidence. Conclusion Only one in three systematic reviews published in the highest‐impact medical journals over the past 11 years assessed certainty of evidence, though prevalence increased over time. The use of specific domains within each certainty of evidence framework was not clearly described in all reviews.

Abstract Objectives IBM is characterized by slowly progressive muscle weakness making it challenging to detect significant changes in weakness during a clinical trial. Trial participants receiving placebo may behave differently from in natural history studies. We aimed to quantify the change in muscle strength and IBM Functional Rating Scale (IBMFRS) of IBM patients receiving placebo during clinical trials. Methods Several databases were searched. Randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials without treatment intervention on the placebo group were included. Standardized mean differences (SMD) for change in muscle strength and mean differences for IBMFRS were used to calculate pooled effects, using DerSimonian-Laird continuous random effect models. Meta-regression determined change in muscle strength. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the I2 indicator. Results Eleven eligible trials were identified with 257 participants receiving placebo and a low risk of bias per the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool. Participants receiving placebo on average had a measurable decline in muscle strength with a mean effect size of –0.398 (95% CI –0.652, –0.144) (P = 0.002). SMD changed by –0.009 (–0.016, –0.002) points per week (P = 0.015). Manual muscle testing was associated with higher heterogeneity (I2 = 67.68%) compared with quantitative muscle testing (I2 = 0%). Only three studies reported IBMFRS results. The pooled change in IBMFRS at 12 months was –2.189 points (–3.893, –0.485) on this 0 to 40-point scale (P = 0.012), with relatively high heterogeneity. Conclusion Participants with IBM displayed a measurable decline in their muscle strength and IBMFRS during clinical trials, in keeping with the disease’s slowly progressive nature. These estimates can inform sample size calculations in future studies.

When one initially targets the null effect and the point estimate falls close to the null, two challenges exist in rating certainty of evidence. First, when the point estimate is near the null and the data, therefore, suggests little or no effect, rating certainty in a benefit or harm is misleading. Second, since in general the narrower the confidence interval (CI) the more precise the estimate, if the CI is narrow, rating down for imprecision due simply to crossing the null is inappropriate. This paper addresses these issues and provides a solution: to revise the target of certainty rating from a non-zero effect to a little or no effect. This solution requires estimating a range in which the minimal important difference (MID) for benefit and an MID for harm might lie, and thus establishing a range that represents little or no effect. If GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) users are confident that the point estimate represents an effect less than the smallest plausible MID, they will revise their target and rate certainty to a little or no effect. If the entire CI falls within the range of little or no effect, they will not rate down for imprecision. Otherwise (if the CI includes an important effect), they will rate down. Using the solution provided in this paper GRADE users can make an optimal choice of the target of certainty rating.

The optimal patient panel size (PPS) in primary care and the factors determining it remain unclear. We conducted a meta-narrative review of the literature to evaluate factors influencing PPS and assess its association with patient outcomes. A comprehensive search of electronic databases was performed from inception through December 2023, focusing on original studies reporting factors used to determine PPS and related outcomes (eg, clinical outcomes, process measures, and resource utilization). A total of 48 studies were included, identifying 7 key factors influencing PPS. Smaller panels were associated with improved patient satisfaction, continuity of care, and health promotion, while clinical outcomes, utilization, and costs showed minimal impact by PPS. Panel size was primarily associated with patient age, sex, comorbidities, and practice type and structure. Community-based centers typically managed smaller panels, often staffed by female clinicians and serving socioeconomically disadvantaged populations with greater health needs than hospital-based practices. Female clinicians were also independently associated with managing smaller panels, higher quality care indicators, fewer emergency department visits, and improved patient satisfaction. Determining the ideal PPS is a multifaceted process influenced by practice setting, patient demographics, and clinician characteristics. While practice-related factors showed limited association with PPS, patient-reported outcomes were more closely linked to it. Primary care practices should tailor panel sizes to their patient populations, emphasizing a patient-centered approach and ensuring adequate infrastructure support to optimize care delivery.