Citations

ABSTRACT Background One in five emergency department (ED) visits is by older adults aged 65+ years. Clinical practice guidelines are needed to optimize patient care by translating the best available evidence into actionable recommendations to guide person‐centered management for this medically complex and growing patient population. Our objective was to understand contributors' experiences and share best practices to inform other guideline working groups. Methods We conducted a qualitative study based on thematic analysis with an interpretivist paradigm in June–July 2025, using semi‐structured interviews of Geriatric Emergency Department (GED) Guidelines 2.0 contributors to understand their experiences. Interviews were transcribed, independently reviewed by team members, and reflexively coded to identify themes. Results We interviewed 18 participants. Four main themes emerged: (1) motivations for participation, (2) varying opportunities to be involved, (3) personal benefits, and (4) challenges for improvement. Participants contrasted the strengths of shared learning and development with the burdens of organization and coordination. Conclusion Contributors to the GED Guidelines 2.0 reported a positive experience. They joined because they wanted to contribute to better care of older patients and to achieve personal and professional goals. Many cited that their roles aligned with their strengths and expertise. They also gained skills and knowledge on systematic reviews and benefited from networking. Future groups planning a similar process should consider having multiple levels of leadership, experts in systematic reviews, regular reminders, and creative incentives to improve the process and foster improved networking opportunities within their disciplines.

Abstract Introduction: Acquired ESR1 mutations (mutESR1) after long-term endocrine therapy drive treatment resistance, metastasis, and poor prognosis for patients (pts) with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Lasofoxifene (LAS), a selective estrogen receptor modulator, alone or with a CDK4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i) reduced tumor growth better than fulvestrant (Fulv) in mutESR1 BC xenograft models. ELAINE 1 is a randomized trial of LAS vs Fulv in pts with mutESR1 and prior progression on aromatase inhibitor and CDK4/6i. Preliminary results (ESMO 2022) showed that LAS prolonged median progression-free survival (mPFS) compared with Fulv with a favorable safety profile. Here, we report changes in ESR1 ctDNA mutant allele frequency (MAF) from baseline to 8 wks and their associations with clinical benefit (CB) and mPFS. Methods: ELAINE 1 pts were randomized to oral LAS 5 mg daily or IM Fulv 500 mg on days 1, 15, and 29, then every 4 wks, until disease progression or severe toxicity. ctDNA mutESR1 mutations (baseline and 8 wks) were assessed using the Sysmex Inostics OncoBeam or SafeSeq assays—which detect mutESR1 at low allele fractions. MAF changes from baseline to wk 8 were characterized as decreased (decrease in ESR1 MAF or fully cleared), increased (increase in MAF), or equivocal (polyclonal patients [>1 mutESR1] with some increasing and decreasing MAF trends); correlations with PFS and CB were explored. Efficacy measures included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and CB at 24 wks (CB defined as response or stable disease ≥24 wks). Results: 103 pts received LAS (n=52) or Fulv (n=51). Most common baseline ESR1 variants detected were D538G (56%), Y537S (39%), Y537N (29%), E380Q (22%); 56 (54%) pts were polyclonal. Of the 61 pts with evaluable baseline and wk 8 ctDNA, LAS decreased mutESR1 MAF in 29/35 pts (83% [11 complete clearance]) while Fulv decreased mutESR1 MAF in 16/26 pts (61.5% [6 complete clearance]) (Table). mPFS with LAS was 8 and 4 mos for pts with decreased/cleared MAF and increased MAF, respectively, and with Fulv was 4.5 and 2.8 mos, respectively (Table). LAS decreased the common mutESR1 variants more frequently than Fulv (median relative change -87.1% vs -14.7%). In pts with decreased MAF, CB was observed in 16/29 LAS pts (55%) and 4/16 Fulv pts (25%). The predictiveness of ESR1 MAF clearance for CB was also explored. Of 11 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking LAS, 10 achieved CB, yielding a positive predictive value (PPV) of 90.9%. In contrast, 2/6 pts with ESR1 MAF clearance taking Fulv had CB for a PPV of 33.3%. Sensitivity for predicting CB based on direction of ESR1 MAF change was 94% with LAS and 80% with Fulv. In pts with Y537S MAF (n=33), LAS decreased Y537S in 13/15 (87%), with a median relative MAF decrease of 89%. In marked contrast, Fulv increased Y537S MAF in 11/18 pts (61%), corresponding to an MAF relative increase of 82%. LAS and Fulv resulted in complete clearance of Y537S MAF in 33% and 6% of pts, respectively. Conclusion: Our data demonstrate that LAS more effectively decreased or cleared mutESR1 than Fulv. Further, mutESR1 clearance was associated with prolonged PFS and more CB in LAS but not Fulv pts, suggesting that LAS results in robust mutESR1 target engagement. Taken together, our data suggest mutESR1 as a potential liquid biomarker for predicting response to LAS in mutESR1, endocrine-resistant mBC pts. Table. Change from baseline to week 8 in ESR1 MAF and clinical benefit at 24 weeks. CI, confidence interval; MAF, mutant allele fraction; ND, none detected; PFS, progression-free survival. Citation Format: Matthew P. Goetz, Einav Gal-Yam, Daniel Stover, Sarah L. Sammons, Stephanie L. Graff, Grace Wang, Massimo Cristofanilli, Gary Riordan, Hillary S. Sloane, Dominic Carroll, Paul V. Plourde, David J Portman. Estrogen receptor 1 (ESR1) mutations in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with ER+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with lasofoxifene or fulvestrant in the ELAINE 1 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-05-04.

OBJECTIVE—We sought to systematically ascertain the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS—We identified the 10 most recently published trials as of 31 October 2003 in each of six general medical, five diabetes, and five metabolism and nutrition journals and further enriched our sample with 10 additional RCTs from each of five journals that published the most eligible RCTs in a year. We explored the association between trial characteristics and reporting quality using univariate analyses and a preplanned multivariate regression model. RESULTS—After excluding redundant reports of included trials and one trial that measured outcomes on the health system and not on patients, we included 199 RCTs: 119 assessed physiological and other laboratory outcomes, 42 assessed patient-important outcomes (e.g., morbidity and mortality, quality of life), and 38 assessed surrogate outcomes (e.g., disease progression or regression, HbA1c, cholesterol). Fifty-three percent were of low methodological quality, as were one-third (36–40%) of trials reporting patient-important or surrogate outcomes and two-thirds (64%) of laboratory investigations. Independent predictors of low quality were nonprofit funding source (odds ratio 3.1 [95% CI 1.5–6.2]), measure of physiological and laboratory outcomes (2.3 [1.2–4.4]), and cross-over design (2.3 [1.1–4.8]), all characteristics of laboratory clinical investigations. CONCLUSIONS—There is ample room for improving the quality of diabetes trials. To enhance the practice of evidence-based diabetes care, trialists need to pay closer attention to the rigorous implementation and reporting of important methodological safeguards against bias in randomized trials.