He, Huan

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 ). Updates are published regularly and can be found at www.asco.org/genitourinary-cancer-guidelines .

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 Objective Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. Materials and Methods A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. Results In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. Discussion Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. Conclusion Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly “living” systematic reviews.

Abstract Background Error analysis plays a crucial role in clinical concept extraction, a fundamental subtask within clinical natural language processing (NLP). The process typically involves a manual review of error types, such as contextual and linguistic factors contributing to their occurrence, and the identification of underlying causes to refine the NLP model and improve its performance. Conducting error analysis can be complex, requiring a combination of NLP expertise and domain-specific knowledge. Due to the high heterogeneity of electronic health record (EHR) settings across different institutions, challenges may arise when attempting to standardize and reproduce the error analysis process. Objectives This study aims to facilitate a collaborative effort to establish common definitions and taxonomies for capturing diverse error types, fostering community consensus on error analysis for clinical concept extraction tasks. Materials and Methods We iteratively developed and evaluated an error taxonomy based on existing literature, standards, real-world data, multisite case evaluations, and community feedback. The finalized taxonomy was released in both .dtd and .owl formats at the Open Health Natural Language Processing Consortium. The taxonomy is compatible with several different open-source annotation tools, including MAE, Brat, and MedTator. Results The resulting error taxonomy comprises 43 distinct error classes, organized into 6 error dimensions and 4 properties, including model type (symbolic and statistical machine learning), evaluation subject (model and human), evaluation level (patient, document, sentence, and concept), and annotation examples. Internal and external evaluations revealed strong variations in error types across methodological approaches, tasks, and EHR settings. Key points emerged from community feedback, including the need to enhancing clarity, generalizability, and usability of the taxonomy, along with dissemination strategies. Conclusion The proposed taxonomy can facilitate the acceleration and standardization of the error analysis process in multi-site settings, thus improving the provenance, interpretability, and portability of NLP models. Future researchers could explore the potential direction of developing automated or semi-automated methods to assist in the classification and standardization of error analysis.

Abstract Despite recent methodology advancements in clinical natural language processing (NLP), the adoption of clinical NLP models within the translational research community remains hindered by process heterogeneity and human factor variations. Concurrently, these factors also dramatically increase the difficulty in developing NLP models in multi-site settings, which is necessary for algorithm robustness and generalizability. Here, we reported on our experience developing an NLP solution for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) signs and symptom extraction in an open NLP framework from a subset of sites participating in the National COVID Cohort (N3C). We then empirically highlight the benefits of multi-site data for both symbolic and statistical methods, as well as highlight the need for federated annotation and evaluation to resolve several pitfalls encountered in the course of these efforts.

Importance The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown. Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups. Data Sources For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database’s inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a “living” auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available. Study Selection Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC. Data Extraction and Synthesis Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Results This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT. Conclusions and Relevance The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

AbstractAn increasing number of studies have reported using natural language processing (NLP) to assist observational research by extracting clinical information from electronic health records (EHRs). Currently, no standardized reporting guidelines for NLP‐assisted observational studies exist. The absence of detailed reporting guidelines may create ambiguity in the use of NLP‐derived content, knowledge gaps in the current research reporting practices, and reproducibility challenges. To address these issues, we conducted a scoping review of NLP‐assisted observational clinical studies and examined their reporting practices, focusing on NLP methodology and evaluation. Through our investigation, we discovered a high variation regarding the reporting practices, such as inconsistent use of references for measurement studies, variation in the reporting location (reference, appendix, and manuscript), and different granularity of NLP methodology and evaluation details. To promote the wide adoption and utilization of NLP solutions in clinical research, we outline several perspectives that align with the six principles released by the World Health Organization (WHO) that guide the ethical use of artificial intelligence for health.

PURPOSEThe advancement of natural language processing (NLP) has promoted the use of detailed textual data in electronic health records (EHRs) to support cancer research and to facilitate patient care. In this review, we aim to assess EHR for cancer research and patient care by using the Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), which is a community-driven effort to define a minimal set of data elements for cancer research and practice. Specifically, we aim to assess the alignment of NLP-extracted data elements with mCODE and review existing NLP methodologies for extracting said data elements.METHODSPublished literature studies were searched to retrieve cancer-related NLP articles that were written in English and published between January 2010 and September 2020 from main literature databases. After the retrieval, articles with EHRs as the data source were manually identified. A charting form was developed for relevant study analysis and used to categorize data including four main topics: metadata, EHR data and targeted cancer types, NLP methodology, and oncology data elements and standards.RESULTSA total of 123 publications were selected finally and included in our analysis. We found that cancer research and patient care require some data elements beyond mCODE as expected. Transparency and reproductivity are not sufficient in NLP methods, and inconsistency in NLP evaluation exists.CONCLUSIONWe conducted a comprehensive review of cancer NLP for research and patient care using EHRs data. Issues and barriers for wide adoption of cancer NLP were identified and discussed.

AbstractSummaryBuilding a high-quality annotation corpus requires expenditure of considerable time and expertise, particularly for biomedical and clinical research applications. Most existing annotation tools provide many advanced features to cover a variety of needs where the installation, integration and difficulty of use present a significant burden for actual annotation tasks. Here, we present MedTator, a serverless annotation tool, aiming to provide an intuitive and interactive user interface that focuses on the core steps related to corpus annotation, such as document annotation, corpus summarization, annotation export and annotation adjudication.Availability and implementationMedTator and its tutorial are freely available from https://ohnlp.github.io/MedTator. MedTator source code is available under the Apache 2.0 license: https://github.com/OHNLP/MedTator.Supplementary informationSupplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

PURPOSE Multiple large clinical trials have investigated adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and progression to metastasis in high-risk renal cell carcinoma. We sought to maintain living and interactive evidence on this topic, until a high level of certainty is reached for key clinical outcomes such that further updates become unnecessary and unlikely to change clinical practice. METHODS We created a living interactive evidence synthesis platform to maintain a continuously updated meta-analysis on TKI monotherapy in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma. We implemented an automated search strategy with weekly updates to identify randomized phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed using Analyzer Module in Living Interactive Evidence platform. For each outcome (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], and all-cause and treatment-related adverse events), we assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE approach and conducted trial sequential analysis. RESULTS This final update includes five randomized trials including recently updated data from PROTECT trial. Meta-analysis shows that adjuvant TKI monotherapy offers no benefit in OS (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.12, high certainty) or DFS (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00, high certainty) and significantly increases adverse event risk. Lack of benefit was consistent across subgroups including highest-risk patients (test for subgroup differences: P = .32). Optimal information size criteria were met, and there was high certainty of evidence for lack of DFS and OS benefit for adjuvant TKIs. CONCLUSION There is no guidance on when to stop maintaining a living review. In this example, we used trial sequential analysis and high certainty of evidence (future clinical trials unlikely to change current conclusions) as a benchmark to conclude a living review in view of convincing evidence.