Citations

Multiplex immunofluorescence and immunohistochemistry (mIF/IHC) are increasingly employed antibody-based technologies that use tissue sparingly and facilitate the detection of co-localized or neighboring biomarkers. Specifically, these platforms enable spatial analyses of the tumor microenvironment as well as extended applications, for example, describing normal tissue anatomy, autoimmunity, infectious diseases, etc. mIF/IHC has greatly enhanced biomarker discovery efforts, and a growing number of studies suggest superiority to traditional IHC. Standardization of staining approaches, reporting of image analysis strategies and resultant data is critical for facilitating cross-study comparisons, validation, deployment, and generalization of findings. To address this challenge, The Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) previously published two articles providing best practice guidelines for mIF/IHC staining, image analysis, and data sharing. Here, SITC convened stakeholders to develop the third article in the series, a consensus checklist for scientific reporting of mIF/IHC data to support and complement the best practice guidelines. The checklist includes critical components of mIF/IHC applications to be defined within publications such as detailed descriptions of analytical validation; image acquisition, selection, and registration methods; and cell clustering and spatial analysis strategies, amongst others. Such information will help with data reproducibility and comparison across studies towards future drug and assay development.

Abstract Background Eligibility criteria for clinical trials are crucial for maintaining safety and study integrity. However, overly restrictive criteria can result in unrepresentative trial populations, leading to gaps in understanding real‐world treatment efficacy. Addressing potentially modifiable exclusions (PMEs) could enhance trial accessibility and participation without compromising safety. Methods The authors retrospectively analyzed screen‐failed patients with biliary tract cancer or pancreatic cancer between August 2019 and November 2024 at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Screen‐failed patients were those who provided informed consent but did not participate for any reason. Clinical data were obtained from screening logs and electronic health records. PMEs were identified and validated by two independent medical oncologists. Results Of 585 screen‐failed patients from 18 trials, 509 were analyzed (367 with pancreatic cancer and 142 with biliary tract cancer) after excluding 76 because of incomplete data. Leading causes of screen failure were declined participation (19%), comorbidities (12%), suboptimal organ function (11%), absence of a biomarker (10%), and insufficient biospecimens (7%). Reasons for declining included preference for standard care (23%), travel (22%), and competing trials (5%). The authors identified 69 patients (13.6%) who had PMEs (primarily borderline laboratory abnormalities), including liver function (23%), kidney function (20%), platelet count (12%), hemoglobin (7%), and white blood cell count (6%) abnormalities. Other PMEs included previous or concurrent malignancies (9%) and viral hepatitis (4%). PMEs were evenly distributed across trials. Conclusions Rigid eligibility criteria exclude stable patients who might benefit from investigational treatments. Easing criteria related to incidental or asymptomatic laboratory abnormalities could broaden trial accessibility and improve enrollment in populations that are more representative of real‐world use.

The treatment landscape for soft tissue sarcomas (STS) is evolving constantly. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for STS specific to surgical management and systemic therapy recommendations for various subtypes.

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cervical Cancer provide diagnostic workup, staging, and various treatment recommendations for cervical cancer based on clinical and surgical staging. This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for cervical cancer specifically focuses on diagnosis and workup, principles of staging and surgery, and primary treatment recommendations for early-stage and advanced disease and provides a detailed overview of systemic therapy recommendations for cervical cancer.

PURPOSE To compare patient-reported and clinical outcomes between radical cystectomy (RC) and bladder-sparing therapy (BST) in patients with recurrent high-grade non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS This pragmatic, prospective observational cohort study was designed with patients, who selected and prioritized outcomes. Eligible adults were candidates for both RC or BST, had previous induction Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG), and received their last treatment within 12 months. The primary outcome was the EORTC-QLQ-C30 physical function scale at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included other EORTC-QLQ-C30 scales, depression, anxiety, bladder cancer–specific quality of life (QOL), financial burden, and cancer-specific outcomes. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) was used to calculate average treatment effect (ATE) estimates between arms. Inverse probability weighted risk ratios (wRR) were calculated using quasi-Poisson regression. RESULTS Of 570 participants (mean age 71.4 years; 21% female), 371 selected BST and 199 selected RC. Physical function was significantly worse in the RC arm at 3 months; by 9 months, there was no difference between arms, and at 12 months, physical function did not differ (ATE, 0.9; 95% CI, –0.6 to 2.4; P = .22). RC was associated with better emotional function, generic health-related QOL, and financial burden, and lower depression and anxiety, while BST was associated with better bowel and sexual health. Cancer-specific survival was 99% for BST versus 96% for RC (wRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.01). RC was associated with a higher risk of adverse events and serious adverse events, including a 90-day mortality rate of 2.5%. CONCLUSION Most patient-prioritized outcomes were similar or better among participants who chose RC compared with BST. These findings support the continued role of RC in managing recurrent high-grade NMIBC.

Abstract Background Standardizing beam modeling in the treatment planning system is challenging due to machine‐specific configuration variations. Because of the proton therapy system (PTS) complexity and continuous development, there is no vendor's representative (“golden”) beam data like in LINACs at this stage. Purpose The primary goal of this study is to create a PTS‐specific repository of source model parameters and beam commissioning data for scanning proton therapy treatment planning systems and establish a set of reference values with associated bands of variations for this data. Methods We conducted a survey of 31 PTSs at 27 proton therapy centers to gather beam commissioning source model parameters used in their treatment planning system, ensuring a diverse selection of PTSs from major vendors: Hitachi, IBA, Varian, and Mevion. For each proton therapy center, we collected (i) beam meterset calibration in protons per MU, (ii) in‐air spot size at isocenter in terms of standard deviation in x‐ (crossline, σ x ) and y‐ (inline, σ y ) directions, (iii) in‐air angular spread at isocenter in x‐direction (θ x ) and y‐direction (θ y ) and (iv) distal falloff. For each PTS, we plotted each parameter as a function of nominal energy and performed polynomial regression analysis with optimal model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to quantify inter‐PTS variability and generated uncertainty bands representing standard deviations across PTSs for each parameter. Additionally, we computed percentage deviations of each individual PTS from the overall multi‐vendor mean to identify systematic vendor‐specific patterns and outliers across the 31 total PTSs analyzed. Results Multi‐vendor beam parameter analysis across 31 PTSs revealed systematic vendor‐specific patterns in inter‐PTS consistency and energy dependencies. Beam meterset calibration demonstrated excellent inter‐PTS consistency across most vendors (ICC: Varian ProBeam ≈ 0, IBA Proteus ONE = 0.006, Mevion S250i with HYPERSCAN = 0.015), with IBA Proteus PLUS systems showing moderate variation (ICC = 0.156 for the dedicated nozzle, ICC = 0.248, for the universal nozzle). Spot size and angular spread variability were highly vendor‐dependent, ranging from excellent consistency in IBA Proteus ONE to substantial variation in IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle (angular spread ICC = 0.566). Distal falloff maintained excellent consistency across all vendors (ICC < 0.023), indicating reliable energy spread characteristics. Uncertainty band analysis revealed characteristic energy‐dependent patterns, with most systems showing larger uncertainties at lower energies for spot size and angular spread, while IBA Proteus PLUS with the universal nozzle exhibited the largest uncertainty bands overall. Percentage deviation analysis demonstrated vendor‐specific clustering patterns, with some systems showing systematic positive or negative deviations from the multi‐vendor mean. Conclusions The reference data provided in this work will help to cross‐check the beam model during treatment planning system commissioning. Furthermore, this information is useful for Monte Carlo applications and research, where beam characteristics are required to set up phase space parameters, thereby avoiding the need to model the entire PTS. Finally, the results of this study will have indispensable educational value by providing valuable insights into the characteristics and capabilities of different PTSs.

PURPOSE Low-grade serous carcinoma (LGSOC) of the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum is a hormonally driven, relatively chemoresistant malignancy with limited treatment options in the recurrent setting. Given frequent estrogen receptor (ER) expression and dysregulation of the cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6)–p16–Rb pathway, features shared with hormone receptor–positive breast cancer, dual endocrine, and CDK4/6 inhibition is a biologically rational strategy. This phase II trial evaluated ribociclib plus letrozole in recurrent LGSOC. METHODS This open-label, single-arm, multicenter phase II study enrolled women with measurable, recurrent LGSOC. Patients received ribociclib (600 mg orally, once daily, days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle) and letrozole (2.5 mg orally, once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST 1.1. Secondary end points included clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Of 74 patients screened, 51 were enrolled and 49 treated. The confirmed ORR was 30.6% (90% CI, 19.9 to 43.2), including one complete and 14 partial responses. Among responders, the median duration of response was 21.2 months. The CBR was 84% (90% CI, 72.5 to 91.6). The median PFS was 14.5 months (90% CI, 10.1 to 28.8), and the median OS was 44.5 months (90% CI, 31.8 to not reached). The most common grade ≥3 adverse event (AE) was neutropenia (47%), managed with dose modifications. Three grade 5 events (6%) occurred but were unrelated to treatment. Treatment discontinuation because of AEs occurred in 4%. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. CONCLUSION Ribociclib plus letrozole met the primary end point, achieving meaningful response rates and durable disease control in recurrent LGSOC. The safety profile was consistent with prior CDK4/6 inhibitor studies. This combination represents a therapeutic option in this rare and genomically distinct subtype.

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 Appendix 2 (online only) for more. PURPOSE To provide guidance on the recommended management of cancer in pregnant patients. METHODS A multidisciplinary Expert Panel convened and conducted a systematic review of the literature. RESULTS The systematic review identified 450 eligible studies. Much of the evidence consisted of observational data, case series, and case reports. RECOMMENDATIONS Management of cancer during pregnancy should be grounded in a values-based informed-consent process outlining maternal and fetal risks and anticipated benefits. Diagnostic evaluation should follow the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle, with timing of diagnostic studies individualized based on urgency of cancer detection, potential dangers of delay, and the balance of risks to both the pregnant patient and her embryo or fetus. Due to significant risk of harm to the developing embryo and/or fetus, systemic therapy should be deferred until the second trimester. Methotrexate, hormonal therapies, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–targeted agents, vascular endothelial growth factor and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, antibody-drug conjugates, and all cellular therapies are contraindicated during pregnancy, regardless of gestational age. For patients who wish to continue their pregnancy, delivery should be planned at or after 37 weeks, with the final chemotherapy dose scheduled 2-4 weeks before birth. Referral to psychosocial support services is essential to address emotional and practical challenges, reduce distress, and support shared decision making. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

Abstract The benefit of rituximab maintenance after first-line (1L) bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in patients with mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) remains uncertain, with inconsistent results from the phase 2 MAINTAIN trial and several retrospective studies. We conducted a large retrospective study at 27 US and Canadian academic centers to examine the benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR. A total of 911 patients received 1L BR between 2010 and 2020, and 703 had an objective response and no evidence of disease progression at the 3-month post-BR landmark. Among those, 394 (56%) received rituximab maintenance and 309 (44%) did not, with largely similar baseline patient and disease characteristics. In the landmark analysis, rituximab maintenance was associated with improved event-free survival (EFS; median, 49.9 vs 29.7 months; P&lt; .001) as well as overall survival (OS; median, 109.5 vs 74.2 months; P&lt; .001). The EFS and OS benefits were observed across most of the subgroups. EFS and OS differences were statistically significant in those who achieved a complete response to 1L BR (n = 590; median EFS, 62.7 vs 31.1 months [P&lt; .001]; median OS, 136.1 vs 75.3 months [P&lt; .001]), but the analysis among those who achieved a partial response to 1L BR was limited by the small sample size. These results provide additional evidence for the survival benefit of rituximab maintenance after BR in MCL and support its use in clinical trial design and routine practice.