Citations

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. 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 person with SLE.

Objective To provide evidence‐based and expert guidance for the treatment and management of non‐renal systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE); treatment and management of lupus nephritis are addressed in a separate guideline. Methods Clinical questions for treatment and management of SLE were developed in the PICO format (population, intervention, comparator, and outcome). Systematic literature reviews were developed for each PICO question, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality and formulate recommendations. The Voting Panel achieved a consensus of ≥70% agreement on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of each recommendation. Results We present recommendations and ungraded, consensus‐based good practice statements for the treatment and management of SLE that are applicable to pediatric and adult patients. Recommendations emphasize uniform treatment with hydroxychloroquine, limiting duration of glucocorticoid use, and early introduction of conventional and/or biologic immunosuppressive therapies to achieve and maintain control of SLE inflammation (remission or a low level of disease activity), reduce SLE‐related morbidity and mortality, and minimize medication‐related toxicities. Conclusion This guideline presents direction regarding treatment and management of SLE and provides a foundation for well‐informed, shared clinician–patient decision‐making. 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 person with SLE.

Abstract Clinical flow cytometry laboratories are facing rising test volumes, greater assay complexity, and increasing requirements for quality control and assay validation. In response, the International Clinical Cytometry Society (ICCS) conducted a workload survey in early 2023 to gather updated information on assay volumes, complexity, staffing, and technology. Data analysis focused on identifying correlations between length of time to introduce new assays and other factors as a means to gain insight about laboratories that seem to be either adapting or struggling. Flow cytometry assays were categorized into 3 levels of technical/interpretative complexity: high (e.g., measurable/minimal residual disease (MRD assays)), moderate (e.g., leukemia/lymphoma assays (Assays L&L ), excluding MRD assays), and low (e.g., CD4 count). Annual assays per staff member were calculated according to staff involved in case sign‐out (Staff Signout ) or other laboratory operations (Staff LabOps ). Respondents were from 101 laboratories in the United States (69.3%), Canada (4.0%), and other countries (26.7%). Low, moderate, and high technical/interpretative complexity assays were performed in 85.1%, 97.0%, and 47.5% of all laboratories, respectively. Median annual total assays (Assays Total ) per laboratory were 3515 and, based on complexity, were 1518.5 (low), 1808.8 (moderate), and 350 (high). Among all laboratories, the median time (interquartile range) to introduce new Assays L&L was 6 mos. (4–12 mos.), to introduce MRD assays was 11 mos. (5–12 mos.), and to validate/go‐live with new cytometers was 8 mos. (4–12 mos.); these times positively correlated with each other. This study confirmed significantly increased workload since the prior ICCS 2013 workload survey with a concurrent decrease in Staff LabOps . Faster introduction of new assays correlated with other successes, including quicker validation of and going live with new cytometers. Among all laboratories, those that performed myeloid MRD assays versus those that did not were also found to be faster to introduce new assays. The need for sufficient staffing has been emphasized because laboratories with both higher annual volumes of myeloma MRD assays and higher ratios of Assays Total per Staff LabOps were slower to introduce new assays. “Lack of staff and/or time dedicated or protected for assay development” and, more generally, “staff number” were the most commonly identified major barriers for new assay development, with the former specifically linked to slower introduction of new assays among all laboratories.

Abstract Purpose: Polatuzumab vedotin (polatuzumab) was approved for up-front treatment of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma in combination with chemoimmunotherapy (Pola-R-CHP) based on the POLARIX trial. However, when stratified by cell of origin (COO), polatuzumab seems to have greater efficacy in activated B-cell than germinal center B-cell (GCB) subtype disease. Most studies of polatuzumab used RNA expression to assess COO, whereas in routine clinical practice, the immunohistochemistry-based Hans algorithm is used. Experimental Design: To assess the impact of COO by immunohistochemistry on polatuzumab efficacy, we conducted a multicenter real-world study of adults with large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL) receiving polatuzumab from 2015 to 2024, split by receipt of polatuzumab in first-line versus relapsed/refractory settings. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) to polatuzumab-based treatment in GCB versus non-GCB relapsed/refractory LBCL. Results: Of 740 patients, 305 received polatuzumab in the first-line setting and 435 in the relapsed/refractory setting. In the relapsed/refractory cohort, the ORR in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL was 59.7% versus 36.3% [OR, 2.6; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.77–3.84; P < 0.0001], with a complete response rate of 35.7% versus 17.7% (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.66–4.02; P < 0.0001). Progression-free survival was longer for patients with non-GCB versus GCB COO (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.5–0.83; P = 0.0006). In the first-line cohort, ORR, complete response rate, and progression-free survival were similar in non-GCB versus GCB LBCL, as hypothesized based on outcomes in the Pola-R-CHP arm of POLARIX, suggesting that the addition of polatuzumab overcomes the adverse risk of non-GCB COO in patients receiving R-CHOP. Conclusions: Based on these data, COO classification by the Hans algorithm is a strong predictor of polatuzumab efficacy in LBCL, informing real-world treatment decisions.

Abstract BACKGROUND Volumetric analysis of brain metastatic lesions is of great relevance in neuro-oncology. Since manual annotation of a lesion is a laborious and time-consuming task, utilizing artificial intelligence (AI) tools for automated segmentation of brain metastases has shown promising potential, but published algorithms are not incorporated into clinical practice because of poor generalizability across institutions. Large publicly available and well-annotated datasets from across the world are critical for further clinical translation. MATERIAL AND METHODS The Brain Tumor Segmentation - Metastases (BraTS-METS) 2025 Lighthouse Challenge provides a competitive environment where scientists from various disciplines can benchmark their AI-based algorithms for automatic segmentation of pre- and post-treatment brain metastases on a well-curated publicly available brain metastasis dataset comprising 1,778 multiparametric brain MRI cases. Each case consists of T1-weighed, T1 post-contrast and FLAIR sequences. The cases were retrospectively obtained from 8 institutions in the USA and overseas, and underwent 3D nnU-Net pre-segmentation, followed by manual refinements performed by medical students and neuroradiologists, and a final approval by two independent board-certified neuroradiologists. A testing dataset was prepared through four rounds of annotation: two completed ‘from scratch’ and two following 3D nnU-Net pre-segmentation, all conducted by two independent neuroradiologists, with the segmentation process screen recorded for future analysis. This allowed us to establish inter- and intra-rater variability in brain metastases segmentation and create a reference standard dataset that will be publicly available after the conclusion of the challenge. The model performance of the participating teams in the challenge will be assessed via the following metrics: Dice Similarity Coefficient (DSC), Normalized Surface Distance (NSD), sensitivity, and precision of the model. RESULTS A multi-annotator testing dataset of 75 MRI cases of brain metastases and 300 segmentations (150 created ‘from scratch’ and 150 from 3D nnU-Net pre-segmentations of the cases) was developed as a new reference standard. The mean intra- and inter-rater DSC for the segmentations ‘from scratch’ were 0.68 and 0.59, respectively. The mean intra- and inter-rater DSC for the segmentations built upon 3D nnU-Net pre-segmentations were 0.88 and 0.77, respectively. CONCLUSION The BraTS-METS 2025 Lighthouse Challenge is a key initiative designed to advance the use of AI to improve characterization of brain metastases by providing algorithms for automatic segmentation of all lesions and peritumoral edema that are measured against a novel reference standard based on rigorous multi-annotator brain MRI segmentations.

Abstract Objective To evaluate available evidence for the efficacy and safety of topical analgesics for neuropathic pain and to offer treatment guidance. Methods An expert panel searched PubMed (Medline) and reference lists of published articles for available literature assessing 8 categories of topical analgesics used to treat various neuropathic pain conditions. The panel rated the level of analgesic efficacy evidence for each treatment and considered safety, ease of use, and cost. The degree of consensus on the recommendations among the panelists was measured. Results There was strong evidence and high consensus that capsaicin 8% is effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia and that lidocaine is effective for postherpetic neuralgia. There was strong evidence and moderate consensus that capsaicin 8% could be effective for HIV-induced neuropathy. There was moderate evidence and high consensus that lidocaine is likely effective for diabetic peripheral neuropathy, idiopathic neuropathy, and postsurgical neuropathy and that capsaicin 8% might be effective for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy and complex regional pain syndrome. Evidence was weak for other topical medications, though the panel strongly agreed that antidepressants might help with postherpetic neuralgia, complex regional pain syndrome, postsurgical neuropathy, and post-traumatic neuropathy; that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs could help with postsurgical neuropathy; and that gabapentin might benefit vulvodynia. There was less agreement about whether antidepressants might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, and vulvodynia and whether capsaicin 8% could be effective for postsurgical neuropathy. Conclusions Recommendations were based on a survey and grading of existing literature and, when strong evidence was lacking, the collective clinical expertise of panelists.

This review explores how multimodal foundation models (MFMs) are transforming biliary tract cancer (BTC) research. BTCs are aggressive malignancies with poor prognosis, presenting unique challenges due to difficult diagnostic methods, molecular complexity, and rarity. Importantly, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA), and distal bile duct cholangiocarcinoma (dCCA) represent fundamentally distinct clinical entities, with iCCA presenting as mass-forming lesions amenable to biopsy and targeted therapies, while pCCA manifests as infiltrative bile duct lesions with challenging diagnosis and primarily palliative management approaches. MFMs offer potential to advance research by integrating radiological images, histopathology, multi-omics profiles, and clinical data into unified computational frameworks, with applications tailored to these distinct BTC subtypes. Key applications include enhanced biomarker discovery that identifies previously unrecognizable cross-modal patterns, potential for improving currently limited diagnostic accuracy—though validation in BTC-specific cohorts remains essential—accelerated drug repurposing, and advanced patient stratification for personalized treatment. Despite promising results, challenges such as data scarcity, high computational demands, and clinical workflow integration remain to be addressed. Future research should focus on standardized data protocols, architectural innovations, and prospective validation studies. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI)-based methodologies offers new solutions for these historically challenging malignancies. However, current evidence for BTC-specific applications remains largely theoretical, with most studies limited to proof-of-concept designs or related cancer types. Comprehensive clinical validation studies and prospective trials demonstrating patient benefit are essential prerequisites for clinical implementation. The timeline for evidence-based clinical adoption likely extends 7–10 years, contingent on successful completion of validation studies addressing current evidence gaps.

Abstract Endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) techniques for large (≥20 mm) nonpedunculated colorectal polyps (LNPCPs) have expanded with the introduction of ablation and cold EMR. This study assessed adverse events (AEs) for the newer EMR techniques, including cold EMR, compared with hot EMR. We conducted a secondary analysis of four prospective multicenter studies of consecutive patients with LNPCPs undergoing EMR from 2019 to 2024. The primary outcome was serious AEs (SAEs) with cold and hot EMR. Secondary outcomes included SAEs in the hot EMR subgroups (no ablation [hEMR], margin ablation [hEMR-m], margin and base ablation [hEMR-mb]). 1762 patients (mean age 65.8; 1890 LNPCPs) were included: 522 cold and 1368 hot EMRs (368 hEMR, 770 hEMR-m, 230 hEMR-mb). SAEs were higher with hot EMR (4.7%, 95%CI 3.6%–5.9%) vs. cold EMR (1.9%, 95%CI 0.9%–3.5%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (6.0%, 95%CI 3.8%–8.9%), hEMR-m (3.9%, 95%CI 2.6%–5.5%), and hEMR-mb (5.2%, 95%CI 2.7%–8.9%). Serious postendoscopic bleeding (PEB) was numerically higher with hot EMR (2.3%, 95%CI 1.6%–3.3%) vs. cold EMR (1.3%, 95%CI 0.5%–2.7%), also for the subgroups of hEMR (3.0%, 95%CI 1.5%–5.3%), hEMR-m (1.9%, 95%CI 1.1%–3.2%), and hEMR-mb (2.6%, 95%CI 1.0%–5.6%). Perforation, intraprocedural and post-procedural, was numerically higher with hot EMR (1.2%, 95%CI 0.7%–2.0%) vs. cold EMR (0.2%, 95%CI 0.0%–1.1%). hEMR-m and hEMR-mb with clipping had lower rates of serious and overall PEB than no clipping. Cold EMR demonstrated lower rates of SAEs, serious PEB, and perforation compared with hot EMR. Perforation and mortality occurred almost exclusively after hot EMR. Hot EMR with margin +/− base ablation did not increase SAEs compared with hot EMR without ablation.

ABSTRACTBackgroundPancreatic cysts are increasingly discovered on imaging studies performed for unrelated conditions. Currently, surveillance of these lesions poses a substantial burden on patients, and health care recourses. We hypothesized that individuals with small and stable cysts have a diminutive risk of progressing to high‐grade dysplasia (HGD) or pancreatic cancer (PC) that is similar to that in the general population.MethodsThis nested PACYFIC‐study is a collaboration among 44 centers in Europe and Northern‐America, and investigates the risk of HGD and PC for different cyst sizes and growth rates in participants without baseline worrisome features (WF) or high‐risk stigmata (HRS).ResultsOf the 2369 PACYFIC participants, 975 met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 67 years (SD 13) and 65% being female. Of these, 438 individuals (45%) had a baseline small cyst size (< 15 mm), and 885 (91%) individuals had a slow growth rate (< 2.5 mm/year). During a median follow‐up of 45 months (IQR 27), 20 individuals (2.1%) developed HGD, or PC. Individuals with small cysts had a 1.5‐fold lower risk of developing WF or HRS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.7 [0.5–1.0], p = 0.03) than those with larger cysts but a similar risk of developing HGD or PC (p > 0.05). Slow growth was protective against the development of WF or HRS (HR 0.4 [0.2–0.6], p < 0.001) and HGD or PC (HR 0.04 [95% CI 0.02–0.12], p < 0.001). Individuals with small, stable sized cysts without baseline WF or HRS did not have a higher risk of HGD or PC than the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] 1.13 [95% CI 0.01–6.30]).ConclusionCyst size < 15 mm and growth rate < 2.5 mm/year appear to be “reassuring” features associated with a negligible risk of developing WF or HRS and HGD or PC. For cysts with these characteristics—and without baseline WF or HRS—less intensive surveillance (than currently recommended) or even cessation may be appropriate.