Citations

Abstract Objectives Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) are conducted as part of routine clinical care and therefore use data collected from real-world data sources, such as electronic health record systems and administrative claims. A common approach for using these types of data across all phases of trial conduct is to create a computable phenotype (an explicitly defined data query data, including specified data types, data codes, and logical parameters) to capture patients with a clinical condition, exposure, symptom, characteristic, treatment, or outcome of interest. Materials and Methods The Electronic Health Record (EHR) Core Working Group of the NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory captured the experiences of investigators in developing, adapting, and applying computable phenotype definitions in their studies. Results Four case studies describe different approaches to developing and using computable phenotypes in pragmatic trials. Discussion We recommend: (1) developing computable phenotypes as part of a team with multiple areas of expertise; (2) appropriate validation; (3) dissemination of salient details regarding phenotype creation; and (4) capturing and reporting any modifications made to phenotypes during the conduct of the trial. Conclusion A range of issues and decisions influence how computable phenotypes are developed and used in pragmatic clinical trials. Multidisciplinary teams that understand the context of the data, including the reason the data are collected and potential sources of bias, are best suited for the development and validation of phenotypes for ePCTs.

Background Reductions in blood pressure (BP) control among patients with hypertension were observed early in the COVID‐19 pandemic. The degree to which BP control may have returned to prepandemic levels is unknown. Methods Individuals aged 18 to 85 years with hypertension from 17 health systems participating in the National Patient‐Centered Clinical Research Network were identified using electronic health record data collected as part of routine care. BP control (percentage of patients whose most recent BP measurement was <140/<90 mm Hg) was estimated in a series of 12‐month rolling measurement periods from 2017 through 2022 (January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017; April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018; … January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022). Differences in average BP control between 2022 (January 1, 2022 through December 31, 2022) and 2019 (January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019) were estimated overall (adjusted for age, sex, and race and ethnicity) and by race and ethnicity (adjusted for age and sex). Results Our sample included 1 193 314 persons with hypertension in 2019 (48.9% aged 65–85 years, 52.9% men, 66.2% non‐Hispanic White) and 1 499 418 individuals in 2022 (50.6% aged 65–85 years, 47.1% men, 62.7% non‐Hispanic White). The weighted average BP control dropped from 65.3% in 2019 to 61.8% in 2020 and then partially recovered to 62.6% in 2022 (adjusted mean difference, −2.6 percentage points [95% CI, −5.0 to −0.2]). Non‐Hispanic Asian individuals experienced the largest temporal drop in BP control, declining from 68.4% in 2019 to 63.9% in 2022. Conclusions BP control was disrupted during the COVID‐19 pandemic and had not fully rebounded to prepandemic levels by the end of 2022. Continued surveillance is needed to determine whether the decline in BP control will persist and will result in future adverse cardiovascular events.

There are few reports confirming the validity of sentinel lymph biopsy in patients with a background of lymphoproliferative disease. We reviewed nine cases of women who underwent sentinel lymph node (SLN) surgery for staging of primary breast cancer with a diagnosis of lymphoproliferative disease. SLN identification rate was 100 per cent with a background of lymphoma in the sentinel node in eight of the nine patients. With a mean follow-up of 37 months, there have been no axillary recurrences in any of these patients. These cases illustrate that SLN staging is feasible and provides axillary staging information in women with breast cancer despite synchronous lymphoproliferative disease.

PURPOSE: Recent studies have suggested that the sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is an accurate alternative staging procedure for women with breast cancer. The goal of this study was to identify a subset of breast cancer patients in whom metastatic disease was confined only to the SLN. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From two institutions, we recruited 222 women with breast cancer for SLN biopsy. A SLN biopsy was performed in each patient, followed by an axillary dissection in 182 patients. Histologic and immunohistochemical cytokeratin stains were used on all SLNs. RESULTS: The SLN was identified in 220 (97.8%) of the 225 biopsies. Evidence of metastatic breast cancer in the SLN was found in 60 (27.0%) of the 222 patients. Of these patients, 32 (53.3%) had evidence of tumor in the SLN only. By multivariate analysis, two factors were found to be significantly associated with a higher likelihood of tumor involvement in the non-SLNs: primary tumor size larger than 2.0 cm (P = .0004) and macrometastasis (> 2.0 mm) in the SLN (P = .002). Additional analysis revealed that none (0%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 18.5%) of the 18 patients with primary tumors ≤ 2.0 cm and micrometastasis to the SLN had remaining axillary lymph node involvement. CONCLUSION: The primary tumor size and metastasis size in the SLN are independent factors in predicting the incidence of tumor in the non-SLNs. Therefore, the SLN biopsy alone may be adequate for staging and/or therapy decision making in patients with primary breast tumors ≤ 2.0 cm and micrometastasis in the SLN.

Key Points HSCT after PD-1 blockade is feasible, although may be associated with increased early immune toxicity. PD-1 blockade may cause persistent depletion of PD1+ T cells and alterations in T-cell differentiation impacting subsequent treatment.

Fibroepithelial lesions with cellular stroma are frequently termed cellular fibroadenomas although criteria for distinguishing them from a phyllodes tumor are vague and subjective. However, the clinical implications and surgical management for these 2 lesions may be different. We randomly selected 21 cases of fibroepithelial lesions sent in consultation to the senior author that were challenging to classify as cellular fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. One to 2 representative slides of each case along with patient age were sent to 10 pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. The World Health Organization criteria for phyllodes tumors and a diagnosis form were included with the study set. For the purposes of data reporting, fibroadenoma and cellular fibroadenoma are considered together. In only 2 cases was there uniform agreement as to whether the tumor represented a fibroadenoma or phyllodes tumor. Of the remaining 19 cases, if the diagnoses of fibroadenoma and benign phyllodes tumor were combined and separated from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors, there was 100% agreement in 53% of cases and 90% agreement in 79% of cases. This study highlights the difficulty that exists in distinguishing some cellular fibroadenomas from phyllodes tumors even for pathologists who specialize in breast pathology. However, there appears to be considerable agreement when cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors are distinguished from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors. Further studies are needed to determine if there is a clinically significant difference between cellular fibroadenomas and benign phyllodes tumors and how to better distinguish them from borderline and malignant phyllodes tumors.