Citations

Abstract Follicular lymphoma (FL) is the most common indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Although patients with FL have high response rates to therapy, most develop increasingly resistant disease. In addition, transformation into an aggressive lymphoma is associated with unfavorable outcomes. Many novel agents are under investigation, and early clinical data are encouraging. Aligning treatment with the underlying tumor biology and sequencing of therapies remain key clinical challenges. At the Lymphoma Research Foundation’s biannual 2024 Follicular Lymphoma Scientific Workshop, experts convened to discuss the role of chemotherapy in the context of new therapies, the impact of early progression on treatment sequencing, novel end points in clinical trials, disease biology and the tumor microenvironment, and new treatments on the horizon. This report focuses on updates in FL biology, first-line treatment, the role of progression of disease in 24 months, clinical trial design, and redefining cure in FL.

Background Delayed aneurysm rupture (DAR) is a potentially devastating complication after flow-diverters (FD) deployment and their exact mechanisms are still unclear. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to synthesize the latest evidence on DAR after FD treatment and identify predictive factors. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to established protocols. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to June 2024 using variations of “aneurysm “and “delayed aneurysm rupture” terms. Original studies reporting DAR and including more than five patients were included. All analyses were conducted in R software (version 4.4.2), employing the “meta” and “tableone” packages. Results 64 studies with 9820 patients were included, large aneurysm size (OR=1.08, 95% CI (1.02, 1.14), P value=0.008), intra-aneurysmal thrombus (OR=1.05, 95% CI (1.01, 1.09), P value=0.010) and posterior circulation location (OR=1.02, 95% CI (1.00, 1.04), P value=0.014) were significant risk factors for DAR. The pooled prevalence of DAR was 1.40%, with a rate of 1.18% after removing outliers. DAR occurred within 30 days in 66.7% of cases, with a mortality rate of 73.3% at discharge. Conclusion DAR following flow diversion treatment is an uncommon but devastating complication and remains a limitation of the technique. It is influenced by factors such as large aneurysm size, intra-aneurysmal thrombosis, and posterior circulation involvement. The first 30 days post-procedure represent a particularly high-risk period. Despite advancements in FD technology, significant gaps remain, highlighting the need for further research to improve risk assessment and treatment strategies.

Background Advancement in neurointervention is frequently driven by the introduction of new technology and devices that improve procedural efficacy and patient outcomes. For physician-innovators, customer discovery—or the process of directly engaging with end users to explore workflows and associated challenges—offers a structured way to identify meaningful problems and guide early innovation. This primer aims to outline stepwise guidance for conducting customer discovery within neurointervention to characterize key areas of unmet need. Methods We detail stepwise guidance for conducting customer discovery founded on foundational business literature. To illustrate this process, we conducted five interviews with expert neurointerventionalists engaged in clinical innovation. Interview transcripts were reviewed and analyzed to track emerging themes, and responses were synthesized into a neurointerventionalist customer profile. Results Responses from interviewed neurointerventionalists suggested that safer vascular access, tools to support treatment prognostication, and condition-specific device design are unmet areas of need. Moreover, interviews revealed broader concerns about stagnation in device innovation and barriers within regulatory and institutional pathways. Conclusions Structured customer discovery identifies unmet needs that may be overlooked when device development is solely driven by technical breakthroughs or published outcomes. By outlining an actionable framework for customer discovery in neurointervention, we provide a practical model for aligning future innovation with real-world clinical challenges.

Introduction Registrational trials are clinical trials which are used to justify regulatory approval of a new medication by the FDA. However, clinical trials may not be designed around patient-centred outcomes, like overall survival (OS) or quality of life. This disconnect raises concerns about whether current trial designs are truly aligned with the long-term needs and priorities of patients. A comprehensive analysis of trial designs and endpoints is necessary to ensure that future oncological therapies deliver meaningful clinical improvements. Our objective was to describe types of clinical trial design and primary endpoints used for registrational trials, and their trends over time. Research design and methods In this cohort study, the HemOnc database was used to identify registrational trials supporting cancer drug approval from 2004 through 2023. Clinical trial design (escalation, de-escalation, in-class switch, out-of-class switch) and primary endpoint (OS; time-to-event including progression-free survival; response-based endpoint) were characterized. Results Escalation trial designs were more common than in-class switches or out-of-class switches. De-escalation and mixed designs were exceedingly rare. The most common primary endpoint was a composite time-to-event endpoint. Conclusion Most clinical trials leading to FDA approval for cancer-directed therapies employ escalation designs with composite time-to-event endpoints. Designs reflecting paradigm shifts in therapy (in-class switches and out-of-class switches) are sparsely used. This approach raises the concern that trials may increase therapeutic toxicity without delivering meaningful improvements in OS or quality of life.

Key Points Genetic testing in CKD showed diagnostic and clinical utility in the year following reporting of test results. Genetic testing was helpful for or changed management in 86% of patients with a positive finding and 42% with a negative finding. Clinical utility was seen across 12 clinical cohorts, including CKD of unknown etiology and hypertension or diabetes-related nephropathy. Background CKD is a significant public health burden, affecting >800 million people worldwide with significant cost to the health care system. CKD is a disease process with substantial genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity that can obscure a definitive diagnosis, resulting in suboptimal management. Recent guidelines support greater adoption of genetic testing in CKD. We assessed the diagnostic and clinical utility in the year following broad-panel CKD genetic testing. Methods The Renasight Clinical Application, Review, and Evaluation (RenaCARE) study (NCT05846113) was a single-arm, interventional, prospective, multicenter study evaluating the utility of genetic testing with a 385-gene panel on the diagnosis and management of CKD. Clinical history was collected before testing, and nephrologists responded to questionnaires at both 1 month and 1 year after testing. The impact of genetic testing on CKD diagnosis and management were assessed in active study patients at the 1-year time point. Results In a cohort of 1388 CKD patients with 13 pretest clinical categories of CKD, 335 (24%) patients had a positive genetic finding; 1174 had a questionnaire completed at 1 year and were included in the analysis. Genetic testing was reported helpful for clinical management and/or led to a change in management in 86% of patients with a positive test finding and 42% of patients with a negative test finding. In addition, genetic testing resulted in a change in the physician estimation of the 5-year prognosis for 55% of patients with a positive test finding and 18% of those with a negative test finding. Conclusions Supporting the previous results of the RenaCARE study at 1 month, this report demonstrated that genetic testing was helpful in the clinical management and estimated prognosis of patients with CKD. Clinical Trial registry name and registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05846113.

Suzetrigine is a unique, nonopioid oral analgesic that selectively inhibits voltage-gated sodium channels in peripheral nerves. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved it, and we present the first successful use of suzetrigine in a 16-year-old boy with hereditary neuropathy who underwent foot reconstruction surgery. His postoperative pain management plan included a sciatic nerve catheter, a 14-day course of suzetrigine, opioids, and home medications. His pain was well controlled with no side effects. Within 24 hours of stopping suzetrigine, the patient’s pain rapidly intensified, suggesting suzetrigine’s effectiveness in postoperative pain management in an adolescent patient with neuropathy.