Citations

Background and Aims: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare but aggressive malignancy with poorly understood genetic susceptibility. To date, genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigating germline variants associated with CCA risk remain limited. We aimed to identify genetic risk loci for CCA and its clinical subtypes through comprehensive GWAS and post-GWAS analyses. Approach and Results: We conducted a GWAS of 2366 CCA cases and 11,750 controls of European ancestry. Genome-wide significant loci ( p <5×10 −8 ) were identified and further examined through fine-mapping, functional annotation, and HLA imputation. Subgroup analyses were conducted by CCA subtypes and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) status. Cross-trait linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian randomization were employed to investigate the shared genetic architecture and potential causal relationships with a diverse range of traits. We identified 1 new genome-wide significant variant, rs535777 (OR=1.44), near HLA-DRB1/DQA1 associated with CCA, and 2 variants associated with extrahepatic CCA: rs116224263 (OR=0.17) in LINC02506 at 4p15.1 and rs6914950 (OR=1.63) near HLA-DRB1/DQB1 . Stratified analyses revealed rs2395184 (OR=3.51) near HLA-DRA/DRB5 associated with PSC-related CCA, and rs142674434 (OR=2.98) in THSD7A at 7p21.3 associated with non-PSC-related CCA. HLA imputation uncovered new amino acid residues associated with disease risk. Cross-trait analyses identified shared genetic signals between CCA and anthropometric, lipidemic, lifestyle, and medical traits. Mendelian randomization supported putative causal associations for 12 traits with CCA or its subtypes. Conclusions: Our large-scale GWAS highlights new genetic variants and HLA-linked mechanisms underlying CCA susceptibility. Integrating multi-step post-GWAS approaches enhances understanding of CCA pathogenesis and may facilitate the development of risk biomarkers for early detection and precision prevention strategies.

PURPOSE There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

BACKGROUND: Spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD) is an increasingly recognized cause of acute coronary syndrome, predominantly affecting women. Psychological distress is common pre- and post-SCAD, yet sex-specific patterns remain understudied. This cross-sectional study aimed to examine sex differences in the psychological distress of patients with SCAD. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with SCAD within the past 3 years, confirmed by coronary angiography, were recruited from 6 Canadian hospitals between April 2022 and January 2025. Participants completed questionnaires assessing sociodemographics and validated measures of psychological distress: Patient Health Questionnaire-9 for depression, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 for generalized anxiety, Cardiac Anxiety Questionnaire for cardiac-related anxiety, and PTSD Checklist-5 for posttraumatic stress symptoms. Sex differences were analyzed using t tests for continuous variables and χ 2 tests for categorical variables. Multivariable linear regression models assessed the association between sex and psychological distress, adjusting for age, pre-SCAD mental health diagnosis, and employment status. RESULTS: Among 326 patients (92.9% women; mean age=53.3±11.1 years), women reported higher rates of preexisting mental health conditions (29.2% versus 8.7%; P =0.035). Post-SCAD women reported higher mean scores than men on the Patient-Health-Questionnaire-9, Cardiac-Anxiety-Questionnaire, and PTSD Checklist-5 (all P <0.05). Female sex was associated with greater depressive (B=2.94; P =0.010), cardiac anxiety (B=7.09; P =0.008), and posttraumatic stress symptoms (B=5.94; P =0.048) after adjustment. Clinically significant symptoms were more common in women versus men: 25.1% versus 0% (depression), 21.5% versus 4.4% (anxiety), 54.8% versus 26.1% (cardiac anxiety), and 15.5% versus 0% (posttraumatic stress). CONCLUSIONS: Both women and men experience clinically significant cardiac anxiety following SCAD, but women report a greater psychological burden, including more preexisting mental health conditions and twice the distress after SCAD. These results underscore the importance of routine psychological screening and timely intervention to support mental health and recovery outcomes, particularly among women.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Small Cell Lung Cancer provide recommendations for diagnostic workup, staging, and treatment. These NCCN Guidelines Insights highlight recent updates, with a particular focus on changes to systemic therapies and radiation treatment in the NCCN Guidelines for Small Cell Lung Cancer.

The treatment landscape for multiple myeloma (MM) is evolving rapidly and includes several new options. The management must be tailored to the individual. The NCCN Guidelines for MM provide a framework to base decisions regarding diagnosis, workup, treatment, and follow-up of both newly diagnosed and previously treated relapsed/refractory MM. This manuscript outlines the recommendations from NCCN Guidelines for MM specific to newly diagnosed MM (NDMM).

Abstract Purpose: Mutant IDH1 (mIDH1) defines a therapeutically targetable subtype of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), with the mIDH1 inhibitor ivosidenib approved for advanced disease. A subset of patients experiences prolonged disease stabilization; however, the molecular basis for eventual progression remains poorly defined. Experimental Design: We performed molecular profiling of matched baseline and postprogression circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) samples from patients with mIDH1 ICC enrolled in the ClarIDHy phase III trial. Functional studies were conducted to characterize candidate resistance mechanisms. Results: Longitudinal ctDNA analysis of 18 patients treated with ivosidenib for &gt;6 months revealed emergent genomic alterations in multiple cases. Acquired mutations in mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway genes (KRAS, NRAS, MAP2K1, NF1) were identified in five cases, with instances of concurrent alterations and/or high variant allele fractions (VAF). Additional candidate resistance events included a secondary IDH1 mutation and a hotspot IDH2 mutation, detected at low VAF in the same patient. Functional studies showed that these IDH mutations conferred sustained 2-hydroxyglutarate production and ivosidenib resistance, whereas MAPK activation blunted gene expression induced by ivosidenib plus IFNγ, a key therapeutic output of mIDH1 inhibition. In parallel, baseline ctDNA profiling of 81 patients revealed that ARID1A mutations and elevated mIDH1 VAF were associated with reduced clinical benefit. Conclusions: MAPK pathway alterations represent a recurrent mechanism of resistance to mIDH1 inhibition in ICC, whereas emergent IDH1/IDH2 mutations appear infrequent. Functional data suggest that MAPK-mediated resistance may involve impaired IFN signaling. These results support MAPK-directed combination strategies and highlight the utility of ctDNA profiling to identify predictive and resistance biomarkers in mIDH1-driven ICC.

Abstract Background Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) is a prevalent form of dementia associated with neuronal alpha‐synuclein aggregates (Lewy bodies). Symptoms include cognitive impairment, fluctuations, neuropsychiatric features including psychosis, sleep disorders, and dysautonomia. DLB is the most expensive form of dementia, and there are currently no treatments approved by the US FDA. Given the advent of sensitive and specific in vivo biomarkers for synuclein aggregation, drug developers are increasingly interested in DLB. FDA instituted Patient‐Focused Drug Development (PFDD) meetings in 2012 with the purpose of ensuring that patients’ experiences, perspectives, needs, and preferences are captured and meaningfully incorporated into drug development and evaluation. Method In October 2024, the Lewy Body Dementia Association (LBDA) and the Alzheimer’s Association (ALZ) co‐hosted an externally‐led PFDD (EL‐PFDD) meeting on DLB. Thirty days before the event, LBDA solicited public comment on the lived experience of DLB, the current state of treatment, and what people with DLB value in potential future therapies. During the live meeting, people with DLB, care partners and family members described their experiences and responded to live polling questions. Result The EL‐PFDD was attended by 347 people with DLB and care partners, drug developers (both industry and academic), FDA staff, and NIH staff. Preliminary analysis of the discussion content and survey responses shows several themes emerging from the meeting. The most bothersome and impactful symptoms varied over the course of the disease, but included cognitive impairment and fluctuations, neuropsychiatric symptoms, and sleepiness. Concerns for the future included progressive decline in cognition, changes in behavior/mood, and cost of care. Limitations to current treatments included lack of FDA‐approved medications, and side effects and lack of efficacy associated with “off label” medications. Priorities for future treatments included symptomatic treatments that do not worsen other DLB symptoms, slowing disease progression, accessibility/insurance coverage, and avoiding side effects. Conclusion The EL‐PFDD on DLB provided valuable information for drug developers and regulators to understand the lived experience of people with DLB and care partners. The results will be documented in a “Voice of the Patient” report that will be hosted at www.lbda.org/el‐pfdd .

Abstract Background To date, no scoring system has adequately defined clinical efficacy of erectile dysfunction (ED) therapies when evaluating differences between cohorts or in meta-analytic studies. Aim To outline the minimal criteria required for any therapy to be considered clinically effective in the treatment of ED. Methods An analytic review was performed of standardized ED questionnaires, with a particular emphasis placed on the International Index of Erectile Function, Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EFD), and the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) concept. The data were used to create a societal position statement and recommendations on best practices within clinical trials to determine treatment efficacy. Outcomes The SMSNA provided 6 key statements and recommendations to suggest best practices and define minimal thresholds for improvements required for an ED therapy to be considered clinically effective. Results The IIEF-EFD currently represents the preferred standardized questionnaire to evaluate for changes in erectile function post-treatment and is the only questionnaire adequate to assess primary outcomes. To claim efficacy, investigational treatments must demonstrate MCID between cohorts (eg, 2-, 5-, or 7-point median improvements between groups among mild, moderate, or severe ED cohorts) in prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, and adequately powered studies. In studies employing mixed-severity ED populations, a method of calculating an adjusted MCID was proposed based on statistical weighting principles. Similarly, a novel method for analyzing differences between cohorts in meta-analytic studies was presented to incorporate the concept of MCID. Based on these principles, the SMSNA would not support efficacy of a therapy based on statistical significance in a meta-analytic study alone. Similarly, studies claiming efficacy utilizing responder approaches (ie, statistically higher percentage of men achieving MCID between cohorts) would not be acceptable unless the median difference between groups on the IIEF-EFD achieved MCID. Clinical Implications The current position statement provides important, evidence-based data and scientific principles to help define what may be considered as an effective therapy in the treatment of ED. This framework provides a basis that decision-makers, clinicians, and patients may use to help differentiate clinically effective therapies. Strengths & Limitations The published literature is limited by a lack of validated instruments and data defining MCID for ED therapies between cohorts and with meta-analytic studies. The current position statement provides important guidance on these areas of ambiguity pending further, definitive data. Conclusion The current position statement provides detailed guidance on key criteria required to conclude efficacy of therapies used to treat ED.

Abstract Background Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.