Citations

Abstract RATIONALE: 4G4G/4G5G SERPINE1 genotypes produce high concentrations of plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 and are associated with worse asthma outcomes. A secondary analysis of the American Lung Association (ALA) SOYA trial showed that soy isoflavones significantly reduced asthma exacerbations versus placebo among patients with 4G4G/4G5G SERPINE1 genotypes. We hypothesized that baseline characteristics predict optimal responders to soy isoflavones among this subgroup. METHODS: ALA-SOYA was a randomized controlled trial that tested the efficacy of soy isoflavones vs. placebo for reducing asthma exacerbations among adolescents and adults with symptomatic asthma. In this responder analysis among participants with 4G4G/4G5G SERPINE1 genotypes, baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were tested for effect modification of the treatment assignment (soy/placebo) on the primary outcome of annualized number of asthma exacerbations using interaction terms in negative binomial regression models, with a significance threshold of p-interaction=0.15. RESULTS: Data were available for n=168 participants. Soy reduced the annualized number of asthma exacerbations relative to placebo among patients with 4G4G/4G5G SERPINE1 genotypes (incident rate ratio (IRR)=0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.15-0.90, p=0.028). Self-reported adherence to baseline controller therapy was the only significant effect modifier of this association (interaction p=0.115), with those using inhaled corticosteroid (ICS)/long-acting beta-agonist (LABA) controller therapy at least twice weekly experiencing reductions in asthma exacerbations with soy versus placebo (IRR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09-0.69; p= 0.007) but not among those using ICS/LABA controller therapy less frequently (IRR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.22-8.02; p= 0.757). CONCLUSION: Soy isoflavones reduce asthma exacerbations among patients with the 4G4G/4G5G SERPINE1 genotypes and are most effective in those with greater adherence to asthma controller therapy regimens.

ObjectiveThe objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis.MethodsThe Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation.ResultsWe present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response.ConclusionThis guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

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 Richter transformation (RT) is defined as an aggressive lymphoma emerging in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia/small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL). Despite novel therapeutics developed in CLL, RT is associated with poor outcomes. In light of recent progress regarding the diagnostic procedures and therapeutic concepts of RT, an international group of experts, under the coordination of the European Research Initiative on CLL, has developed consensus recommendations for clinical procedures and future research on this disease. Patients with RT typically present with a rapid clinical decline, worsening B-symptoms, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, and/or rapidly enlarging lymphadenopathy. Workup should include a positron emission tomography–computed tomography scan for patients with suspected RT. An excisional biopsy should be taken from an accessible lesion, preferably with the highest fluorodeoxyglucose avidity, and analyzed for the presence of aggressive lymphoma. The molecular relationship to the original CLL clone(s) should be defined. Because no effective standard treatment for RT exists, patients should be treated in a clinical trial. Response of both RT and CLL should be assessed at an early time point, and survival end points should be prioritized in trial design. We hope that these recommendations can help to harmonize clinical and translational research and improve outcomes for patients with RT.

BACKGROUND: Data registries lack a definitive classification system that distinguishes different locations of colon cancer from one another. OBJECTIVE: To establish an international consensus on the definition of primary colon cancer segment locations. DESIGN: Between December 2022 and June 2023, Delphi survey study was conducted to seek opinions from relevant international experts and eventually develop a consensus definition of each colon cancer segment. SETTING: Three-round online-based Delphi survey study. INTERVENTIONS: Online survey included 17 questions. In the first two rounds, participating experts were asked to rank each statement on a scale of 1–9 (9 is the most relevant). Consensus statements and definitions were revised according to results, obtaining a consensus score of 7–9. During the third round and online meeting, definitions and statements reached a moderate or high consensus(above 4 in more than 70% of participants) were included. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Primary goal of our project was focused on precisely localizing the specific segment affected by primary colon cancer, rather than to identify surgical treatment or type of resection needed for particular segment. RESULTS: The first round included 331 experts, 301 (91%) completed the second round, and 295 (98%) completed the final round. Experts strongly supported the use of a “10 cm rule” to describe colon cancer sites at the flexures and anatomical landmarks for other segments. Regarding the definition of rectosigmoid cancer, experts from America and Europe reached a high consensus that the term rectosigmoid as a colon cancer location must be abolished in contrast to experts from Asia. Description of cancers overlapping segments achieved a consensus of 64%. LIMITATIONS: Subjective decisions are based on individual expert clinical experience. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi survey, the first internationally conducted consensus study, achieved a remarkable level of consensus among a panel of global experts. Ambiguity still exists regarding overlapping lesions. See Video Abstract .

Background/Objectives: This study aimed to establish the clinical utility of a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-supported, model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) approach (precision-guided dosing [PGD]) by assessing the impact of pharmacokinetic (clearance [CL]) and clinical laboratory parameters on adalimumab (ADA) dosage adjustments during maintenance therapy for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Methods: In the EMPOWER study, blood was collected at any time post-ADA injection. Pharmacokinetic (PK) testing was conducted in an accredited lab. Inputs for the PGD test included ADA concentrations, antibodies to ADA, albumin levels, and the current dosing regimen. CL was calculated using nonlinear mixed-effect models. Results were reported to health care providers (HCPs) within 3 days. HCPs’ treatment decisions were recorded and classified as treatment reduction, continuation, intensification, or ADA discontinuation. The physician global assessment (PGA) of disease activity was collected. Relationships between drug concentrations, CL, disease activity, and physician decision-making were assessed using logistic regression. Results: A total of 213 cases were assessed by 21 HCPs. ADA treatment was intensified in 24% and discontinued in 13% of cases. An ADA concentration ≤ 10 μg/mL was associated with a 23.7-fold and 3.0-fold higher likelihood of therapy intensification and PGA > 0, respectively, compared to concentrations > 10 μg/mL. An ADA concentration < 5 μg/mL was associated with a 3.3-fold higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation. CL ≥ 0.318 L/day was associated with a 10.4-fold higher likelihood of therapy intensification. Higher CL (>0.8 L/day) was associated with a 3.5-fold and 4.2-fold higher likelihood of treatment discontinuation and PGA > 0, respectively. Conclusions: PGD enables earlier and precise optimization of ADA dosing by predicting trough levels at any time during the therapy cycle. Optimized dosing to achieve target ADA concentrations and low clearance is crucial to mitigate therapy discontinuation and active disease in IBD patients.

Objective The objective is to provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis. Methods The Core Team developed clinical questions for screening, treatment, and management of lupus nephritis using the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were completed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess the quality of evidence and to formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus ≥70% on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present 28 graded recommendations (7 strong, 21 conditional) and 13 ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the screening and management of lupus nephritis. Our recommendations focus on the unifying principle that lupus nephritis therapy is continuous and ongoing, rather than consisting of discrete induction/initial and maintenance/subsequent therapies. Therapy should include pulse glucocorticoids followed by oral glucocorticoid taper and two additional immunosuppressive agents for 3–5 years for those achieving complete renal response. Conclusion This guideline provides direction for clinicians regarding screening and treatment decisions for management of lupus nephritis. These recommendations should not be used to limit or deny access to therapies, as treatment decisions may vary due to the unique clinical situation and personal preferences of each individual patient.

Context.— In 2018, an evidence-based guideline was published by the College of American Pathologists to develop recommendations for the testing, application, interpretation, and reporting of high-risk human papillomavirus and surrogate marker tests in head and neck carcinomas. Substantial new evidence has prompted a review, including data on human papillomavirus (HPV) in nonoropharyngeal anatomic sites, HPV global rates, p16 immunohistochemistry, and HPV testing performance in cytology specimens, and performance of p16 immunohistochemistry as a surrogate marker. Objective.— To assess research published since the release of the original 2018 guideline and to update evidence-based recommendations for HPV testing in head and neck carcinomas. Design.— The College of American Pathologists convened a panel of experts to update the guideline following the standards established by the National Academy of Medicine for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The expert panel defined the key questions and performed a systematic review of the literature. Using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, recommendations were updated on the basis of available evidence, certainty of that evidence, and key judgments. Results.— Seven strong recommendations, 4 conditional recommendations, and 5 good practice statements are offered in the guideline update. Conclusions.— The updated guideline statements provide direction on the nature of HPV testing in various head and neck specimens (including key updates based on new research on sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma) and expanded guidance on specific scenarios and practice settings. The goal is to improve and standardize, where possible, HPV testing across diverse pathology practice settings and different countries.