Citations

Abstract Background Cardiomyopathy is a leading cause of pregnancy-related mortality and represents the number one cause of death in the late postpartum period. Purpose The goal of this study was to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of an artificial intelligence-based electrocardiogram (AI-ECG) and a point-of-care artificial intelligence-enhanced digital stethoscope for cardiomyopathy screening among pregnant and postpartum women. Methods We conducted a single-arm prospective study of pregnant and postpartum women (up to 12 months following delivery) enrolled at three sites between October 2021 and October 2022. Study participants completed a standard 12-lead ECG, ECG + phonocardiogram recordings with a digital stethoscope, a demographic questionnaire, and a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within a 24-hour period. Diagnostic performance of the AI-ECG and digital stethoscope for cardiomyopathy detection, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 45%, was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) and standard measures of diagnostic performance. Results We included 100 consecutive pregnant and postpartum women who provided informed consent and had at least one ECG recorded, completed the questionnaire, and had an echocardiogram performed. All participants self-identified as female, and 41% were recruited from a federally qualified health center. The median age of participants was 31 years (Q1: 27, Q3: 34). Thirty-eight percent identified as non-Hispanic White, 32% as non-Hispanic Black, 21% as Hispanic or Latino, 6% as Asian, and 3% as Other (1 Native Hawaiian and 2 multiracial). Five percent (5/100) had LVEF <45%. The 12-lead AI-ECG model demonstrated close to perfect discrimination (accuracy 99%; AUC 1.00, sensitivity 100%) for detection of cardiomyopathy with 1 false positive screen (LVEF 49%), Figure 1A. The digital stethoscope (angled position) had an AUC of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.00) for detection of LVEF <45%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the digital stethoscope were 60%, 98%, 60% and 98%, respectively for detection of LVEF <45% (Figure 1B & 1C). Conclusions In this small prospective study, we found that 5% of pregnant and postpartum women had cardiomyopathy, a potentially life-threatening condition, and that a rapid, inexpensive, ubiquitous, massively scalable point-of-care test - the ECG - showed promising results, identifying it with an AUC > 0.98 with the application of artificial intelligence.Figure 1

ABSTRACT The rapid pace of name changes of medically important fungi is creating challenges for clinical laboratories and clinicians involved in patient care. We describe two sources of name change which have different drivers, at the species versus the genus level. Some suggestions are made here to reduce the number of name changes. We urge taxonomists to provide diagnostic markers of taxonomic novelties. Given the instability of phylogenetic trees due to variable taxon sampling, we advocate to maintain genera at the largest possible size. Reporting of identified species in complexes or series should where possible comprise both the name of the overarching species and that of the molecular sibling, often cryptic species. Because the use of different names for the same species will be unavoidable for many years to come, an open access online database of the names of all medically important fungi, with proper nomenclatural designation and synonymy, is essential. We further recommend that while taxonomic discovery continues, the adaptation of new name changes by clinical laboratories and clinicians be reviewed routinely by a standing committee for validation and stability over time, with reference to an open access database, wherein reasons for changes are listed in a transparent way.

Importance Gestational diabetes is a common complication of pregnancy and the optimal management is uncertain. Objective To test whether early initiation of metformin reduces insulin initiation or improves fasting hyperglycemia at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Design, Setting, and Participants Double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 2 centers in Ireland (one tertiary hospital and one smaller regional hospital). Participants were enrolled from June 2017 through September 2022 and followed up until 12 weeks’ postpartum. Participants comprised 510 individuals (535 pregnancies) diagnosed with gestational diabetes based on World Health Organization 2013 criteria. Interventions Randomized 1:1 to either placebo or metformin (maximum dose, 2500 mg) in addition to usual care. Main Outcomes And Measures The primary outcome was a composite of insulin initiation or a fasting glucose level of 5.1 mmol/L or greater at gestation weeks 32 or 38. Results Among 510 participants (mean age, 34.3 years), 535 pregnancies were randomized. The primary composite outcome was not significantly different between groups and occurred in 150 pregnancies (56.8%) in the metformin group and 167 pregnancies (63.7%) in the placebo group (between-group difference, −6.9% [95% CI, −15.1% to 1.4%]; relative risk, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.78-1.02]; P = .13). Of 6 prespecified secondary maternal outcomes, 3 favored the metformin group, including time to insulin initiation, self-reported capillary glycemic control, and gestational weight gain. Secondary neonatal outcomes differed by group, with smaller neonates (lower mean birth weights, a lower proportion weighing >4 kg, a lower proportion in the >90% percentile, and smaller crown-heel length) in the metformin group without differences in neonatal intensive care needs, respiratory distress requiring respiratory support, jaundice requiring phototherapy, major congenital anomalies, neonatal hypoglycemia, or proportion with 5-minute Apgar scores less than 7. Conclusion and relevance Early treatment with metformin was not superior to placebo for the composite primary outcome. Prespecified secondary outcome data support further investigation of metformin in larger clinical trials. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02980276 ; EudraCT: 2016-001644-19

ImportanceSystematic data on the association between anticancer therapies and thromboembolic events (TEEs) in patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo assess the association between anticancer therapy exposure within 3 months prior to COVID-19 and TEEs following COVID-19 diagnosis in patients with cancer.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis registry-based retrospective cohort study included patients who were hospitalized and had active cancer and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Data were accrued from March 2020 to December 2021 and analyzed from December 2021 to October 2022.ExposureTreatments of interest (TOIs) (endocrine therapy, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors/tyrosine kinase inhibitors [VEGFis/TKIs], immunomodulators [IMiDs], immune checkpoint inhibitors [ICIs], chemotherapy) vs reference (no systemic therapy) in 3 months prior to COVID-19.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMain outcomes were (1) venous thromboembolism (VTE) and (2) arterial thromboembolism (ATE). Secondary outcome was severity of COVID-19 (rates of intensive care unit admission, mechanical ventilation, 30-day all-cause mortality following TEEs in TOI vs reference group) at 30-day follow-up.ResultsOf 4988 hospitalized patients with cancer (median [IQR] age, 69 [59-78] years; 2608 [52%] male), 1869 had received 1 or more TOIs. Incidence of VTE was higher in all TOI groups: endocrine therapy, 7%; VEGFis/TKIs, 10%; IMiDs, 8%; ICIs, 12%; and chemotherapy, 10%, compared with patients not receiving systemic therapies (6%). In multivariable log-binomial regression analyses, relative risk of VTE (adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.69) but not ATE (aRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.56-1.16) was significantly higher in those exposed to all TOIs pooled together vs those with no exposure. Among individual drugs, ICIs were significantly associated with VTE (aRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.01-2.07). Also noted were significant associations between VTE and active and progressing cancer (aRR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.01-2.03), history of VTE (aRR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.38-4.04), and high-risk site of cancer (aRR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.14-1.75). Black patients had a higher risk of TEEs (aRR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.03-1.50) than White patients. Patients with TEEs had high intensive care unit admission (46%) and mechanical ventilation (31%) rates. Relative risk of death in patients with TEEs was higher in those exposed to TOIs vs not (aRR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.91-1.38) and was significantly associated with poor performance status (aRR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.30-2.40) and active/progressing cancer (aRR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.13-2.13).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, relative risk of developing VTE was high among patients receiving TOIs and varied by the type of therapy, underlying risk factors, and demographics, such as race and ethnicity. These findings highlight the need for close monitoring and perhaps personalized thromboprophylaxis to prevent morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19–related thromboembolism in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly affected cancer care worldwide, including radiation therapy (RT) for breast cancer (BC), because of risk-based resource allocation. We report the evolution of international breast RT practices during the beginning of the pandemic, focusing on differences in treatment recommendations between countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS Between July and November 2020, a 58-question survey was distributed to radiation oncologists (ROs) through international professional societies. Changes in RT decision making during the first surge of the pandemic were evaluated across six hypothetical scenarios, including the management of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), early-stage, locally advanced, and metastatic BC. The significance of changes in responses before and during the pandemic was examined using chi-square and McNemar-Bowker tests. RESULTS One thousand one hundred three ROs from 54 countries completed the survey. Incomplete responses (254) were excluded from the analysis. Most respondents were from the United States (285), Japan (117), Italy (63), Canada (58), and Brazil (56). Twenty-one percent (230) of respondents reported treating at least one patient with BC who was COVID-19–positive. Approximately 60% of respondents reported no change in treatment recommendation during the pandemic, except for patients with metastatic disease, for which 57.7% (636/1,103; P < .0005) changed their palliative practice. Among respondents who noted a change in their recommendation during the first surge of the pandemic, omitting, delaying, and adopting short-course RT were the most frequent changes, with most transitioning to moderate hypofractionation for DCIS and early-stage BC. CONCLUSION Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, significant changes in global RT practice patterns for BC were introduced. The impact of published results from the FAST FORWARD trial supporting ultrahypofractionation likely confounded the interpretation of the pandemic's independent influence on RT delivery.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that is suitable for the care of patients with cancer. It involves a collaborative conversation seeking to respond sensibly to the problematic situation of the patient, cocreating a plan of care that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally. Genetic testing to identify whether a patient has a hereditary cancer syndrome represents a prime example of the importance for SDM in oncology. SDM is important for genetic testing because not only results affect current cancer treatment, cancer surveillance, and care of relatives but also these tests generate both complex results and psychological concerns. SDM conversations should take place without interruptions, disruptions, or hurry and be supported, where available, by tools that assist in conveying the relevant evidence and in supporting plan development. Examples of these tools include treatment SDM encounter aids and the Genetics Adviser. Patients are expected to play a key role in making decisions and implementing plans of care, but several evolving challenges related to the unfettered access to information and expertise of varying trustworthiness and complexity in between interactions with clinicians can both support and complicate this role. SDM should result in a plan of care that is maximally responsive to the biology and biography of each patient, maximally supportive of each patient's goals and priorities, and minimally disruptive of their lives and loves.

TPS5634 Background: The prognosis for women with recurrent or persistent EC after progressing on first-line chemotherapy is poor, with a median overall survival (OS) of 12 months, highlighting the need for more efficacious therapies for this population. Immune checkpoint inhibitors either as monotherapy or when combined with kinase inhibitors have recently demonstrated encouraging response rates in pts with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) and MS-stable (MSS)/MMR-proficient (MMRp) EC, respectively. Atezo is a humanized monoclonal anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitor that has demonstrated monotherapy antitumor activity with an acceptable safety profile in relapsed recurrent EC. Atezo has shown compelling clinical efficacy for pts with certain solid tumors (e.g., urothelial, NSCLC, triple negative breast cancer) as monotherapy and as part of combinatorial therapy. The AFT-50 EndoMAP trial is a platform trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Atezo in combination with biomarker-defined targeted agents in pts with recurrent or persistent EC. Recognizing pts may have either progressed through or received a checkpoint inhibitor in a prior line of therapy, a non atezo cohort will also be open to enrollment. Methods: This is a phase IB/II non-randomized, multicenter, multicohort, biomarker-driven platform study consisting of two cohorts: A (atezo containing) and B (non atezo). Eligible pts have recurrent or persistent EC and have received no more than 2 prior lines of therapy. FoundationOne CDx (F1CDx) NGS assay will be used for genomic tumor profiling. In cohort A, pts may be eligible for one of the following doublets: Atezo+ipatasertib (PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT1-altered cancers), Atezo+talazoparib (tumors with genomic loss of heterozygosity (LOH) ≥16%), Atezo+Trastuzumab emtansine (ERBB2/HER2 mutated and/or amplified tumors), Atezo+Tiragolumab (MSI-H and/or TMB>10 mut/MB), and Atezo+bevacizumab (biomarker unmatched). Pts will receive Atezo in addition to the targeted agent (at the study approved dosing schedule) until progression, unacceptable toxicity, pt or physician decision to withdraw from the study, death, or study termination. Pts in cohort B, will be eligible for inavolisib (PIK3CA/PTEN/AKT1-altered cancers) + letrozole. Each cohort will enroll ~20 pts; however, the exact size of the cohort may be adjusted. The primary endpoint for Cohort A is confirmed overall response rate (ORR) for each cohort, and for Cohort B is progression free survival at 6 months. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, duration of response, OS, safety and tolerability, 6-month PFS (cohort A). As a platform study, additional arms may be added, as supported by evolving understanding of EC and molecular targets. EndoMAP is actively enrolling at 17 sites in the US with a target of 25 sites nationwide. Clinical trial information: NCT04486352 .