Citations

Background Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in cancer survivors. Predicting CVD risk in this population remains challenging. Risk prediction models that use machine learning algorithms could provide an objective method for accurate risk prediction to facilitate the prevention and management of CVD in cancer survivors. We evaluated previously tested machine learning algorithms and logistic regression (regularized by machine learning methods), in addition to testing and validating newer, more complex machine learning algorithms, for CVD prediction in cancer survivors. Methods This multicenter study used a database of 3835 multiracial cancer survivors with 89 clinical, laboratory, and echocardiographic features over 20 years. Models were trained using repeated random and time‐split samples and tested on a separate cohort of 329 patients. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Results Regularized logistic regression achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.845 (heart failure), 0.783 (atrial fibrillation), 0.792 (coronary artery disease), and 0.806 (composite CVD). These are comparable to 0.837 and 0.848 for heart failure, using Bayesian additive regression tree and random forest as more advanced machine learning models, respectively. De novo composite CVD (post‐cancer diagnosis) was also predicted with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.826 using regularized logistic regression, compared with 0.735 and 0.802 using decision tree and random forest, respectively. Conclusions Regularized logistic regression and advanced machine learning models demonstrated similar predictive performance, with institutional transferability. These tools may support risk stratification and prevention strategies in cardio‐oncology using longitudinal data. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05377320.

8501 Background: TROPION-Lung02 (NCT04526691) evaluated the TROP2-directed antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) Dato-DXd plus pembro combination with or without Pt-CT in aNSCLC. Here we report primary analyses of pts receiving combination therapy in the 1L setting. Methods: Pts across 6 cohorts were dosed with Dato-DXd (4 or 6 mg/kg) plus pembro 200 mg alone (doublet) or with pembro plus Pt-CT (triplet; cisplatin 75 mg/m 2 or carboplatin AUC 5) Q3W. PD-L1 expression (tumor proportion score) was assessed locally by immunohistochemistry (22C3 assay). Primary objectives were safety and tolerability; efficacy was a secondary objective. Results: As of Apr 29, 2024, 96 pts received either the doublet (n=42) or triplet (n=54) combination as 1L therapy; 29% and 15% of pts were ongoing, respectively. Median ages were 65 (doublet) and 64 years (triplet). Median treatment durations were 9.7 and 5.8 months, respectively. Stomatitis (doublet, 57%; triplet, 33%) and nausea (doublet, 42%; triplet, 48%), primarily Gr 1–2, were the most common adverse events (AEs) across both regimens. Treatment related serious AEs occurred in 5 (12%) and 12 (22%) pts in each cohort and no deaths related to study drug were seen. Efficacy outcomes, including by histology, are summarized in the Table. Biomarker analyses, including efficacy by PD-L1 status, will be presented. Conclusions: In this largest data set to date evaluating an ADC combined with an anti-PD-1/L1 agent in the 1L setting, the combination of Dato-DXd plus pembro treatment both with and without Pt-CT elicited durable antitumor activity in pts with aNSCLC. Tolerability of the combinations was as expected, based on known profiles of the individual agents. Clinical trial information: NCT04526691 . All 1L (n=96) 1L, Nonsquamous (n=75) 1L, Squamous (n=21) Response, n (%) Doublet (n=42) Triplet (n=54) Doublet (n=33) Triplet (n=42) Doublet (n=9) Triplet (n=12) Confirmed objective response rate 23 (55) 30 (56) 17 (52) 24 (57) 6 (67) 6 (50) Complete response 1 (2) 2 (4) 1 (3) 2 (5) 0 0 Partial response 22 (52) 28 (52) 16 (49) 22 (52) 6 (67) 6 (50) Stable disease 14 (33) 18 (33) 12 (36) 14 (33) 2 (22) 4 (33) Progressive disease 3 (7) 2 (4) 3 (9) 1 (2) 0 1 (8) Disease control rate a 37 (88) 48 (89) 29 (88) 38 (91) 8 (89) 10 (83) Median duration of response, mo (95% CI) 20.1 (9.7–NE) 13.7 (5.7–NE) 24.9 (9.7–NE) 18.0 (8.0–NE) 12.0 (5.5–NE) 5.5 (4.1–NE) Median PFS, mo (95% CI) 11.2 b (8.2–21.3) 6.8 c (5.5–11.1) 11.2 (6.1–21.3) 10.8 (5.5–17.3) 10.2 (0.4–NE) 6.7 (1.0–8.2) a Proportion of pts with confirmed CR + PR + SD at 12 wks. b.c Median (95% CI) PFS follow-up, mo: b 17.3 (11.3−26.8); c 23.5 (17.3−27.9). mo, months; NE, not evaluable.

Purpose: Bladder cancer (BCa) is one of the most common cancer types worldwide and is characterized by a high rate of recurrence. In previous studies, we and others have described the functional influence of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI1) in bladder cancer development. While polymorphisms in PAI1 have been associated with increased risk and worsened prognosis in some cancers, the mutational status of PAI1 in human bladder tumors has not been well defined. Methods: In this study, we evaluated the mutational status of PAI1 in a series of independent cohorts, comprised of a total of 660 subjects. Results: Sequencing analyses identified two clinically relevant 3′ untranslated region (UTR) single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in PAI1 (rs7242; rs1050813). Somatic SNP rs7242 was present in human BCa cohorts (overall incidence of 72%; 62% in Caucasians and 72% in Asians). In contrast, the overall incidence of germline SNP rs1050813 was 18% (39% in Caucasians and 6% in Asians). Furthermore, Caucasian patients with at least one of the described SNPs had worse recurrence-free survival and overall survival (p = 0.03 and p = 0.03, respectively). In vitro functional studies demonstrated that SNP rs7242 increased the anti-apoptotic effect of PAI1, and SNP rs1050813 was related to a loss of contact inhibition associated with cellular proliferation when compared to wild type. Conclusion: Further investigation of the prevalence and potential downstream influence of these SNPs in bladder cancer is warranted.

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m 2 ) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Abstract There are many pharmacologic therapies that are being used or considered for treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), with rapidly changing efficacy and safety evidence from trials. The objective was to develop evidence-based, rapid, living guidelines intended to support patients, clinicians, and other healthcare professionals in their decisions about treatment and management of patients with COVID-19. In March 2020, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel of infectious disease clinicians, pharmacists, and methodologists with varied areas of expertise to regularly review the evidence and make recommendations about the treatment and management of persons with COVID-19. The process used a living guideline approach and followed a rapid recommendation development checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. A systematic review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature was conducted at regular intervals. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Based on the most recent search conducted on 31 May 2022, the IDSA guideline panel has made 32 recommendations for the treatment and management of the following groups/populations: pre- and postexposure prophylaxis, ambulatory with mild-to-moderate disease, and hospitalized with mild-to-moderate, severe but not critical, and critical disease. As these are living guidelines, the most recent recommendations can be found online at: https://idsociety.org/COVID19guidelines. At the inception of its work, the panel has expressed the overarching goal that patients be recruited into ongoing trials. Since then, many trials were conducted that provided much-needed evidence for COVID-19 therapies. There still remain many unanswered questions as the pandemic evolved, which we hope future trials can answer.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Abstract Despite the challenges of the pandemic, there has been substantial progress with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) therapies. Pivotal COVID-19 trials like SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, and ACCT-1 were rapidly conducted and data disseminated to support effective therapies. However, critical shortcomings remain on trial conduct, dissemination and interpretation of study results, and regulatory guidance in pandemic settings. The lessons that we learned have implications for both the current pandemic and future emerging infectious diseases. There is a need for establishing and standardizing clinical meaningful outcomes in therapeutic trials and for targeting defined populations and phenotypes that will most benefit from specific therapies. Standardized processes should be established for rapid and critical data review and dissemination to ensure scientific integrity. Clarity around the evidence standards needed for issuance of both emergency use authorization (EUA) and biologic license application (BLA) should be established and an infrastructure for executing rapid trials in epidemic settings maintained.

Abstract Given the urgent need for treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration issued emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for multiple therapies. In several instances, however, these EUAs were issued before sufficient evidence of a given therapy’s efficacy and safety were available, potentially promoting ineffective or even harmful therapies and undermining the generation of definitive evidence. We describe the strengths and weaknesses of the different therapeutic EUAs issued during this pandemic. We also contrast them to the vaccine EUAs and suggest a framework and criteria for an evidence-based, trustworthy, and publicly transparent therapeutic EUA process for future pandemics.

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.