Search

Large language models (LLMs) may facilitate and expedite systematic reviews, although the approach to integrate LLMs in the review process is unclear. This study evaluates GPT-4 agreement with human reviewers in assessing the risk of bias using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and proposes a framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews. The case study demonstrated that raw per cent agreement was the highest for the ROBINS-I domain of 'Classification of Intervention'. Kendall agreement coefficient was highest for the domains of 'Participant Selection', 'Missing Data' and 'Measurement of Outcomes', suggesting moderate agreement in these domains. Raw agreement about the overall risk of bias across domains was 61% (Kendall coefficient=0.35). The proposed framework for integrating LLMs into systematic reviews consists of four domains: rationale for LLM use, protocol (task definition, model selection, prompt engineering, data entry methods, human role and success metrics), execution (iterative revisions to the protocol) and reporting. We identify five basic task types relevant to systematic reviews: selection, extraction, judgement, analysis and narration. Considering the agreement level with a human reviewer in the case study, pairing artificial intelligence with an independent human reviewer remains required., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

It is well known that patients with liver metastasis from metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer have poor or only transient responses to many forms of systemic therapy. Data on outcomes after treatment with [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 (LuPSMA) are scarce. The VISION trial reports a hazard ratio for overall survival (OS) in the subgroup of patients with liver metastasis without disclosing the absolute duration of survival. Using real-world clinical data, we examined this important subgroup of patients, describing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response and OS. Methods: A single-institution database was assembled to include all patients receiving LuPSMA at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, for whom treatment was initiated between March 2022 and March 2023. Baseline clinicopathologic and imaging characteristics were abstracted. Patients were then categorized by presence or absence of liver metastasis on pretreatment prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) PET. PSA response and OS for the 2 groups (liver metastasis vs. no liver metastasis) were compared using χ 2 testing and the Kaplan-Meier method, respectively. A multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed, including established prognostic factors. Finally, those with pretreatment circulating tumor DNA as determined in an 83-gene panel were assessed for the presence of pathogenic and likely pathogenic alterations. These findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared between the 2 cohorts using the Fisher exact test. Results: The overall cohort consisted of 273 patients, including 43 (15.75%) with liver metastasis on pretreatment PSMA PET/CT. The median number of cycles received was 3 (range, 1-6) for patients with liver metastasis and 5 (range, 1-6) for those without hepatic involvement. The 50% or greater reduction in PSA from baseline response rate was lower for those with liver metastasis than for those without (30.23% [13/43] vs 49.77% [106/213], P = 0.019). At a median follow-up of 10 mo (interquartile range, 9-13 mo), there was a significant difference in median OS (8.35 mo vs. not reached, P < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, the presence of liver metastasis was independently associated with shorter survival (hazard ratio, 4.06; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our data suggest that the presence of liver metastasis predicts poorer outcomes in patients receiving LuPSMA treatment. Alternative and combination approaches should be explored to maximize the antitumor activity of radiopharmaceutical therapy in the liver., (© 2024 by the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.)

Objectives: To explore the use of prediction interval (PI) for the simultaneous evaluation of the imprecision and inconsistency domains of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation using stakeholder-provided decision thresholds., Study Design and Setting: We propose transforming the PI of a meta-analysis from a relative risk scale to an absolute risk difference using an appropriate baseline risk. The transformed PI is compared to stakeholder-provided thresholds on an absolute scale. We applied this approach to a large convenience sample of meta-analyses extracted from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and compared it against the traditional approach of rating imprecision and inconsistency separately using confidence intervals and statistical measures of heterogeneity, respectively. We used empirically derived thresholds following Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, and Evaluation guidance., Results: The convenience sample consisted of 2516 meta-analyses (median of 7 studies per meta-analysis; interquartile range: 5-11). The main analysis showed the percentage of meta-analyses in which both approaches had the same number of certainty levels rated down was 59%. The PI approach led to more levels of rating down (lower certainty) in 27% and to fewer levels of rating down (higher certainty) in 14%. Multiple sensitivity analyses using different thresholds showed similar results, but the PI approach had particularly increased width with a larger number of included studies and higher I 2 values., Conclusion: Using the PI for simultaneous evaluation of imprecision and inconsistency seems feasible and logical but can lead to lower certainty ratings. The PI-based approach requires further testing in future systematic reviews and guidelines using context-specific thresholds and evidence-to-decision criteria., Plain Language Summary: The prediction interval (PI) addresses both the imprecision and inconsistency domains of certainty. In this study, we applied this PI approach to simultaneously judge both domains and compared this to the traditional approach of making these separate judgments. The 2 approaches had moderate agreement. The PI-based approach requires further testing in future systematic reviews and guidelines using context-specific thresholds and evidence-to-decision criteria., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest There are no competing interests for any author., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world two-reviewer process., Materials and Methods: A dataset of 10 clinical trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n=5) and held-out test sets (n=17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the two LLMs were compared for concordance. In instances with discordance, original responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Evaluation metrics, including accuracy, were used to assess performance against the manually curated gold standard., Results: In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, with an increase in accuracy to 0.76., Discussion: Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy., Conclusion: Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, two-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly 'living' systematic reviews., Competing Interests: Irbaz bin Riaz, Muhammad Ali Khan, Umair Ayub, Syed Arsalan Ahmed Naqvi, Kaneez Zahra Rubab Khakwani, Zaryab bin Riaz Sipra, Ammad Raina, Sihan Zou, Huan He, Seyyed Amir Hossein, Hasan Bashar, R. Bryan Rumble, Jia Zou, Kenneth L. Kehl, Jeanne Palmer, M. Hassan Murad and Chitta Baral do not have any relevant competing interests to disclose. Danielle S. Bitterman (DSB): Editorial, unrelated to the submitted work: Associate Editor of Radiation Oncology, HemOnc.org (no financial compensation); Advisory and consulting, unrelated to the submitted work: MercurialAI Jeremy L. Warner (JLW): Reports funding from AACR, NIH, Brown Physicians Incorporated, unrelated to the submitted work; consulting with Wested and The Lewin Group, unrelated to the submitted work; ownership in HemOnc.org LLC, unrelated to the submitted work Amye J. Tevaarwerk (AJT): Family member at Epic Systems, unrelated to the submitted work Konstantinos Leventakos (KL): Reports consulting activities (honoraria to institution) with Amgen, AstraZeneca Interdisciplinary Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Janssen Biotech, Novartis, unrelated to the submitted work; advisory boards (honoraria to institution) with AstraZeneca, Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Mirati Therapeutics, Regeneron, Takeda, and Targeted Oncology, unrelated to the submitted work; CME activities (honoraria to institution) with OncLive and MJH Life Sciences, MD Outlook and Targeted Oncology, unrelated to the submitted work; Research support (to institution) from AstraZeneca and Mirati Therapeutics, unrelated to the submitted work.

Purpose of Review: This review underscores the critical role and challenges associated with the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence in cancer care to enhance disease management, streamline clinical processes, optimize data retrieval of health information, and generate and synthesize evidence., Recent Findings: Advancements in artificial intelligence models and the development of digital biomarkers and diagnostics are applicable across the cancer continuum from early detection to survivorship care. Additionally, generative artificial intelligence has promised to streamline clinical documentation and patient communications, generate structured data for clinical trial matching, automate cancer registries, and facilitate advanced clinical decision support. Widespread adoption of artificial intelligence has been slow because of concerns about data diversity and data shift, model reliability and algorithm bias, legal oversight, and high information technology and infrastructure costs., Summary: Artificial intelligence models have significant potential to transform cancer care. Efforts are underway to deploy artificial intelligence models in the cancer practice, evaluate their clinical impact, and enhance their fairness and explainability. Standardized guidelines for the ethical integration of artificial intelligence models in cancer care pathways and clinical operations are needed. Clear governance and oversight will be necessary to gain trust in artificial intelligence-assisted cancer care by clinicians, scientists, and patients., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: BRCA2 mutations in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) confer sensitivity to poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. However, additional factors predicting PARP inhibitor efficacy in mCRPC are needed. Preclinical studies support a relationship between speckle-type POZ protein (SPOP) inactivation and PARP inhibitor sensitivity. We hypothesized that SPOP mutations may predict enhanced PARP inhibitor response in BRCA2-altered mCRPC., Methods: We conducted a multicenter retrospective study involving 13 sites. We identified 131 patients with BRCA2-altered mCRPC treated with PARP inhibitors, 14 of which also carried concurrent SPOP mutations. The primary efficacy endpoint was prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (≥50% PSA decline). The secondary endpoints were biochemical progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), clinical/radiographic progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). These were compared by multivariable Cox proportional hazard models adjusting for age, tumor stage, baseline PSA level, Gleason sum, prior therapies, BRCA2 alteration types, and co-occurring mutations., Key Findings and Limitations: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. PSA responses were observed in 60% (70/117) of patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease and in 86% (12/14) of patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease (p = 0.06). The median time on PARP inhibitor treatment was 24.0 mo (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2 mo to not reached) in this group versus 8.0 mo (95% CI 6.1-10.9 mo) in patients with BRCA2 mutation alone (p = 0.05). In an unadjusted analysis, patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease experienced longer PSA-PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33 [95% CI 0.15-0.72], p = 0.005) and clinical/radiographic PFS (HR 0.4 [95% CI 0.18-0.86], p = 0.02), and numerically longer OS (HR 0.4 [95% CI 0.15-1.12], p = 0.08). In a multivariable analysis including histology, Gleason sum, prior taxane, prior androgen receptor pathway inhibitor, stage, PSA, BRCA2 alteration characteristics, and other co-mutations, patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut disease experienced longer PSA-PFS (HR 0.16 [95% CI 0.05-0.47], adjusted p = 0.001), clinical/radiographic PFS (HR 0.28 [95% CI 0.1-0.81], adjusted p = 0.019), and OS (HR 0.19 [95% CI 0.05-0.69], adjusted p = 0.012). In a separate cohort of patients not treated with a PARP inhibitor, there was no difference in OS between patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut versus BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease (HR 0.97 [95% CI 0.40-2.4], p = 0.94). In a genomic signature analysis, Catalog of Somatic Mutations in Cancer (COSMIC) SBS3 scores predictive of homologous recombination repair (HRR) defects were higher for BRCA2mut/SPOPmut than for BRCA2mut/SPOPwt disease (p = 0.04). This was a retrospective study, and additional prospective validation cohorts are needed., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: In this retrospective analysis, PARP inhibitors appeared more effective in patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPmut than in patients with BRCA2mut/SPOPwt mCRPC. This may be related to an increase in HRR defects in coaltered disease., Patient Summary: In this study, we demonstrate that co-alteration of both BRCA2 and SPOP predicts superior clinical outcomes to treatment with poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors than BRCA2 alteration without SPOP mutation., (Copyright © 2023 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Many patients use artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots as a rapid source of health information. This raises important questions about the reliability and effectiveness of AI chatbots in delivering accurate and understandable information., Purpose: To evaluate and compare the accuracy, conciseness, and readability of responses from OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard to patient inquiries concerning the novel 177 Lu-PSMA-617 therapy for prostate cancer., Materials and Methods: Two experts listed the 12 most commonly asked questions by patients on 177 Lu-PSMA-617 therapy. These twelve questions were prompted to OpenAI ChatGPT-4 and Google Bard. AI-generated responses were distributed using an online survey platform (Qualtrics) and blindly rated by eight experts. The performances of the AI chatbots were evaluated and compared across three domains: accuracy, conciseness, and readability. Additionally, potential safety concerns associated with AI-generated answers were also examined. The Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests were utilized to compare the performances of AI chatbots., Results: Eight experts participated in the survey, evaluating 12 AI-generated responses across the three domains of accuracy, conciseness, and readability, resulting in 96 assessments (12 responses x 8 experts) for each domain per chatbot. ChatGPT-4 provided more accurate answers than Bard (2.95 ± 0.671 vs 2.73 ± 0.732, p =0.027). Bard's responses had better readability than ChatGPT-4 (2.79 ± 0.408 vs 2.94 ± 0.243, p =0.003). Both ChatGPT-4 and Bard achieved comparable conciseness scores (3.14 ± 0.659 vs 3.11 ± 0.679, p =0.798). Experts categorized the AI-generated responses as incorrect or partially correct at a rate of 16.6% for ChatGPT-4 and 29.1% for Bard. Bard's answers contained significantly more misleading information than those of ChatGPT-4 ( p = 0.039)., Conclusion: AI chatbots have gained significant attention, and their performance is continuously improving. Nonetheless, these technologies still need further improvements to be considered reliable and credible sources for patients seeking medical information on 177 Lu-PSMA-617 therapy., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Belge Bilgin, Bilgin, Childs, Orme, Burkett, Packard, Johnson, Thorpe, Riaz, Halfdanarson, Johnson, Sartor and Kendi.)

The landscape of prostate cancer care has rapidly evolved. We have transitioned from the use of conventional imaging, radical surgeries, and single-agent androgen deprivation therapy to an era of advanced imaging, precision diagnostics, genomics, and targeted treatment options. Concurrently, the emergence of large language models (LLMs) has dramatically transformed the paradigm for artificial intelligence (AI). This convergence of advancements in prostate cancer management and AI provides a compelling rationale to comprehensively review the current state of AI applications in prostate cancer care. Here, we review the advancements in AI-driven applications across the continuum of the journey of a patient with prostate cancer from early interception to survivorship care. We subsequently discuss the role of AI in prostate cancer drug discovery, clinical trials, and clinical practice guidelines. In the localized disease setting, deep learning models demonstrated impressive performance in detecting and grading prostate cancer using imaging and pathology data. For biochemically recurrent diseases, machine learning approaches are being tested for improved risk stratification and treatment decisions. In advanced prostate cancer, deep learning can potentially improve prognostication and assist in clinical decision making. Furthermore, LLMs are poised to revolutionize information summarization and extraction, clinical trial design and operations, drug development, evidence synthesis, and clinical practice guidelines. Synergistic integration of multimodal data integration and human-AI integration are emerging as a key strategy to unlock the full potential of AI in prostate cancer care.

Clinical trials of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted radiopharmaceuticals have shown encouraging results. Some agents, like lutetium-177 [177Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 ([ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617), are already approved for late line treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Projections are for continued growth of this treatment modality; [ 177 Lu]Lu-PSMA-617 is being studied both in earlier stages of disease and in combination with other anti-cancer therapies. Further, the drug development pipeline is deep with variations of PSMA-targeting radionuclides, including higher energy alpha particles conjugated to PSMA-honing vectors. It is safe to assume that an increasing number of patients will be exposed to PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals during the course of their cancer treatment. In this setting, it is important to better understand and mitigate the most commonly encountered toxicities. One particularly vexing side effect is xerostomia. In this review, we discuss the scope of the problem, inventories to better characterize and monitor this troublesome side effect, and approaches to preserve salivary function and effectively palliate symptoms. This article aims to serve as a useful reference for prescribers of PSMA-targeted radiopharmaceuticals, while also commenting on areas of missing data and opportunities for future research., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Prostate cancer lung metastasis represents a clinical conundrum due to its implications for advanced disease progression and the complexities it introduces in treatment planning. As the disease progresses to distant sites such as the lung, the clinical management becomes increasingly intricate, requiring tailored therapeutic strategies to address the unique characteristics of metastatic lesions. This review seeks to synthesize the current state of knowledge surrounding prostate cancer metastasis to the lung, shedding light on the diverse array of clinical presentations encountered, ranging from subtle radiological findings to overt symptomatic manifestations. By examining the diagnostic modalities utilized in identifying this metastasis, including advanced imaging techniques and histopathological analyses, this review aims to provide insights into the diagnostic landscape and the challenges associated with accurately characterizing lung metastatic lesions in prostate cancer patients. Moreover, this review delves into the nuances of therapeutic interventions employed in managing prostate cancer lung metastasis, encompassing systemic treatments such as hormonal therapies and chemotherapy, as well as metastasis-directed therapies including surgery and radiotherapy.

Purpose of Review: Low-volume prostate cancer is an established prognostic category of metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. However, the term is often loosely used to reflect the low burden of disease across different prostate cancer states. This review explores the definitions of low-volume prostate cancer, biology, and current evidence for treatment. We also explore future directions, including the impact of advanced imaging modalities, particularly prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) scans, on refining patient subgroups and treatment strategies for patients with low-volume prostate cancer., Recent Findings: Recent investigations have attempted to redefine low-volume disease, incorporating factors beyond metastatic burden. Advanced imaging, especially PSMA PET, offers enhanced accuracy in detecting metastases, potentially challenging the conventional definition of low volume. The prognosis and treatment of low-volume prostate cancer may vary by the timing of metastatic presentation. Biomarker-directed consolidative therapy, metastases-directed therapy, and de-escalation of systemic therapies will be increasingly important, especially in patients with metachronous low-volume disease., Summary: In the absence of validated biomarkers, the management of low-volume prostate cancer as defined by CHAARTED criteria may be guided by the timing of metastatic presentation. For metachronous low-volume disease, we recommend novel hormonal therapy (NHT) doublets with or without consolidative metastasis-directed therapy (MDT), and for synchronous low-volume disease, NHT doublets with or without consolidative MDT and prostate-directed radiation. Docetaxel triplets may be a reasonable alternative in some patients with synchronous presentation. There is no clear role of docetaxel doublets in patients with low-volume disease. In the future, a small subset of low-volume diseases with oligometastases selected by genomics and advanced imaging like PSMA PET may achieve long-term remission with MDT with no systemic therapy., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Structured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy)., Methods: A tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free-text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go-live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden., Results: Pre-intervention (5-weeks before go-live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre-intervention. During a 6-month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post-intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%-82% for the other data categories post-intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture., Conclusions: Structured data can be captured (1) in real-time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note-based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching., (© 2024 American Cancer Society.)

Background: For men with prostate cancer, radiographic progression may occur without a concordant rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of radiographic progression using C-11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients achieving ultra-low PSA values and to evaluate clinical outcomes in this patient population., Methods: In a single institution study, we reviewed the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic C-11 Choline PET metastatic prostate cancer registry to identify patients experiencing radiographic disease progression (rDP) on C-11 choline PET scan while the PSA value was less than 0.5 ng/mL. Disease progression was confirmed by tissue biopsy or response to subsequent therapy. Clinicopathologic variables were abstracted by trained research personnel. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Intergroup differences were assessed using the log-rank test. A univariate and multivariate Cox regression model was performed to investigate variables associated with poor survival after rDP., Results: A total of 1323 patients within the registry experienced rDP between 2011 and 2021, including 220 (16.6%) men with rDP occurring at low PSA level. A median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 54.7 (19.7-106.9) months elapsed between the time of prostate cancer diagnosis and low PSA rDP, during which 173 patients (78%) developed castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Sites of low PSA rDP included local recurrence ( n  = 17, 8%), lymph node ( n  = 90, 41%), bone ( n  = 94, 43%) and visceral metastases ( n  = 19, 9%). Biopsy at the time of rDP demonstrated small-cell or neuroendocrine features in 21% of patients with available tissue. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 49.4 (21.3-95.1) months from the time of low PSA rDP, 46% ( n  = 102) of patients died. Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes include advanced age at rDP, CRPC status, bone and visceral metastasis ( p value <0.05). Visceral metastases were associated with decreased overall survival ( p  = 0.009 by log-rank) as compared with other sites of rDP., Conclusions: Men with prostate cancer commonly experience metastatic progression at very low or even undetectable PSA levels. Periodic imaging, even at low absolute PSA values, may result in more timely identification of disease progression., Competing Interests: This manuscript has no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© 2023 The Authors. BJUI Compass published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International Company.)

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Early-stage breast cancer is among the most common cancer diagnoses. Adjuvant radiotherapy is an essential component of breast-conserving therapy, and several options exist for tailoring its extent and duration. This study assesses the comparative effectiveness of partial-breast irradiation (PBI) compared with whole-breast irradiation (WBI)., Methods: A systematic review was completed to identify relevant randomized clinical trials and comparative observational studies. Independent reviewers working in pairs selected studies and extracted data. Randomized trial results were pooled using a random effects model. Prespecified main outcomes were ipsilateral breast recurrence (IBR), cosmesis, and adverse events (AEs)., Results: Fourteen randomized clinical trials and 6 comparative observational studies with 17 234 patients evaluated the comparative effectiveness of PBI. PBI was not statistically significantly different from WBI for IBR at 5 years (RR = 1.34, 95% CI = 0.83 to 2.18; high strength of evidence [SOE]) and 10 years (RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.91; high SOE). Evidence for cosmetic outcomes was insufficient. Statistically significantly fewer acute AEs were reported with PBI compared with WBI, with no statistically significant difference in late AEs. Data from subgroups according to patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics were insufficient. Intraoperative radiotherapy was associated with higher IBR at 5, 10, and over than 10 years (high SOE) compared with WBI., Conclusions: Ipsilateral breast recurrence was not statistically significantly different between PBI and WBI. Acute AEs were less frequent with PBI. This evidence supports the effectiveness of PBI among selected patients with early-stage, favorable-risk breast cancer who are similar to those represented in the included studies., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Longitudinal data on key cancer outcomes for clinical research, such as response to treatment and disease progression, are not captured in standard cancer registry reporting. Manual extraction of such outcomes from unstructured electronic health records is a slow, resource-intensive process. Natural language processing (NLP) methods can accelerate outcome annotation, but they require substantial labeled data. Transfer learning based on language modeling, particularly using the Transformer architecture, has achieved improvements in NLP performance. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of NLP model training strategies on the extraction of cancer outcomes from unstructured text., Results: We evaluated the performance of nine NLP models at the two tasks of identifying cancer response and cancer progression within imaging reports at a single academic center among patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We trained the classification models under different conditions, including training sample size, classification architecture, and language model pre-training. The training involved a labeled dataset of 14,218 imaging reports for 1112 patients with lung cancer. A subset of models was based on a pre-trained language model, DFCI-ImagingBERT, created by further pre-training a BERT-based model using an unlabeled dataset of 662,579 reports from 27,483 patients with cancer from our center. A classifier based on our DFCI-ImagingBERT, trained on more than 200 patients, achieved the best results in most experiments; however, these results were marginally better than simpler "bag of words" or convolutional neural network models., Conclusion: When developing AI models to extract outcomes from imaging reports for clinical cancer research, if computational resources are plentiful but labeled training data are limited, large language models can be used for zero- or few-shot learning to achieve reasonable performance. When computational resources are more limited but labeled training data are readily available, even simple machine learning architectures can achieve good performance for such tasks., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Importance: Patterns of clinical utilization and comparative effectiveness of anticoagulants for cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) remain largely unexplored., Objectives: To assess patterns of and factors associated with anticoagulant use and to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of contemporary anticoagulants in patients with active cancer in a clinical setting., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study obtained deidentified OptumLabs electronic health record claims data from January 1, 2012, to September 30, 2019. Adult patients (≥18 years of age) with a primary cancer diagnosis (except skin cancer) during at least 1 inpatient or 2 outpatient visits within 6 months before the venous thromboembolism (VTE) date were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to September 2021., Exposures: The patients were grouped according to the anticoagulant prescribed: (1) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), (2) low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), and (3) warfarin., Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds ratios (ORs) were used to present the association between factors of interest and utilization of anticoagulants. Main efficacy outcomes included risk of VTE recurrence and all-cause mortality. Main safety outcomes included the risk of hospitalization due to major bleeding. Relative treatment effect estimates were expressed as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs., Results: This study included 5100 patients (mean [SD] age, 66.3 [12.3] years; 2670 [52.4%] women; 799 [15.7%] Black, 389 [7.6%] Hispanic, and 3559 [69.8%] White individuals). Overall, 2512 (49.3%), 1488 (29.2%), and 1460 (28.6%) filled prescriptions for DOACs, LMWH, and warfarin, respectively. The median (IQR) treatment duration was 3.2 (1.0-6.5) months for DOACs, 3.1 (1.0-6.8) months for warfarin, and 1.8 (0.9-3.8) months for LWMH. Patients with lung (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.12-3.65), urological (OR, 1.94; 95% CI,1.08-3.49), gynecological (OR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.31-7.82), and colorectal (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.20-4.32) cancer were associated with increased prescriptions for LMWH compared with DOACs. LMWH (HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.14-1.90) and warfarin (HR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.13-1.87) were associated with an increased risk of VTE recurrences compared with DOACs. LMWH was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (HR, 2.27; 95% CI, 1.62-3.20) and higher all-cause mortality (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.15-2.25) compared with DOACs., Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of claims-based data, patients with CAT received anticoagulation for a remarkably short duration in clinical settings. DOACs was associated with a lower risk of VTE recurrence, major bleeding, and mortality. Warfarin may still be considered for patients with contraindications to DOACs and those with poor persistence on LMWH.

Background:  Study aims were to analyze prospectively collected data from patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) to determine the impact of VTE recurrence and anticoagulant-related bleeding on all-cause mortality., Patients/methods:  Consecutive cancer patients with acute VTE treated with anticoagulants (March 1, 2013-November 30, 2021) were included in this analysis. Anticoagulant therapy-associated VTE recurrences, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were assessed for their impact on all-cause mortality outcomes., Results:  This study included 1,812 cancer patients with VTE. Of these, there were 97 (5.4%) with recurrent VTE, 98 (5.4%) with major, and 104 (5.7%) with CRNMB while receiving anticoagulants. Recurrent VTE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-2.00; p  = 0.0028), major bleeding (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.41-2.31; p  = 0.006), and CRNMB (HR; 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05-1.81; p  = 0.018) each adversely influenced mortality outcomes. Deep vein thrombosis as the incident thrombotic event type was associated with VTE recurrence (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.08-2.89; p  = 0.02). Neither cancer type nor stage, chemotherapy, or Ottawa risk category influenced VTE recurrence. Higher body weights (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.01; p  = 0.005) were associated with increased major bleeding, while high Ottawa scores (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.96; p  = 0.03) and apixaban treatment (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45-0.84; p  = 0.002) were associated with fewer major bleeding outcomes., Conclusion:  Among cancer patients receiving anticoagulant therapy for VTE, adverse outcomes such as VTE recurrence, major bleeding, or CRNMB increase mortality risk by 40 to 80%. Identifying variables predicting these outcomes may help risk-stratify patients with poor prognosis., Competing Interests: The primary author (R.D.M.) has randomized controlled trial funding from Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer Alliance to study apixaban in the context of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. The other authors have no relevant conflict of interest to disclose for this study., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Importance: The effectiveness of triplet therapy compared with androgen pathway inhibitor (API) doublets in a heterogeneous patient population with metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC) is unknown., Objective: To assess the comparative effectiveness of contemporary systemic treatment options for patients with mCSPC across clinically relevant subgroups., Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, Ovid MEDLINE and Embase were searched from each database's inception (MEDLINE, 1946; Embase, 1974) through June 16, 2021. Subsequently, a "living" auto search was created with weekly updates to identify new evidence as it became available., Study Selection: Phase 3 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing first-line treatment options for mCSPC., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted data from eligible RCTs. The comparative effectiveness of different treatment options was assessed with a fixed-effect network meta-analysis. Data were analyzed on July 10, 2022., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), grade 3 or higher adverse events, and health-related quality of life., Results: This report included 10 RCTs with 11 043 patients and 9 unique treatment groups. Median ages of the included population ranged from 63 to 70 years. Current evidence for the overall population suggests that the darolutamide (DARO) triplet (DARO + docetaxel [D] + androgen deprivation therapy [ADT]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.57-0.81), as well as the abiraterone (AAP) triplet (AAP + D + ADT; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95), are associated with improved OS compared with D doublet (D + ADT) but not compared with API doublets. Among patients with high-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may improve OS compared with D + ADT (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55-0.95) but not compared with AAP + ADT, enzalutamide (E) + ADT, and apalutamide (APA) + ADT. For patients with low-volume disease, AAP + D + ADT may not improve OS compared with APA + ADT, AAP + ADT, E + ADT, and D + ADT., Conclusions and Relevance: The potential benefit observed with triplet therapy must be interpreted with careful accounting for the volume of disease and the choice of doublet comparisons used in the clinical trials. These findings suggest an equipoise to how triplet regimens compare with API doublet combinations and provide direction for future clinical trials.

Accurate clinical staging of bladder cancer aids in optimizing the process of clinical decision-making, thereby tailoring the effective treatment and management of patients. While several radiomics approaches have been developed to facilitate the process of clinical diagnosis and staging of bladder cancer using grayscale computed tomography (CT) scans, the performances of these models have been low, with little validation and no clear consensus on specific imaging signatures. We propose a hybrid framework comprising pre-trained deep neural networks for feature extraction, in combination with statistical machine learning techniques for classification, which is capable of performing the following classification tasks: (1) bladder cancer tissue vs. normal tissue, (2) muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) vs. non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and (3) post-treatment changes (PTC) vs. MIBC.

Importance: Prostate cancer (PCa) is marked by disparities in clinical outcomes by race, ethnicity, and age. Equitable enrollment in clinical trials is fundamental to promoting health equity., Objective: To evaluate disparities in the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority groups and older adults across PCa clinical trials., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify primary trial reports from each database's inception through February 2021. Global incidence in age subgroups and US population-based incidence in racial and ethnic subgroups were acquired from the Global Burden of Disease and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results 21 incidence databases respectively., Study Selection: All phase 2/3 randomized PCa clinical trials were eligible for age disparity analyses. Trials recruiting exclusively from the US were eligible for primary racial and ethnic disparity analyses., Data Extraction and Synthesis: This study was reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. Data were pooled using a random-effects model., Main Outcomes and Measures: Enrollment incidence ratios (EIRs), trial proportions (TPs) of participants 65 years or older or members of a racial and ethnic subgroup divided by global incidence in the corresponding age group, or US population-based incidence in the corresponding racial and ethnic subgroup, were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore associations between trial characteristics and EIRs and trends in EIRs during the past 3 decades., Results: Of 9552 participants among trials reporting race, 954 (10.8%) were African American/Black, 80 (1.5%) were Asian/Pacific Islander, and 8518 (78.5) were White. Of 65 US trials, 45 (69.2%) reported race and only 9 (13.8%) reported data on all 5 US racial categories. Of 286 global trials, 75 (26.2%) reported the enrollment proportion of older adults. Outcomes by race and age were reported in 2 (3.1%) and 41 (15.0%) trials, respectively. Black (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) and Hispanic (EIR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83) patients were significantly underrepresented in US trials. There was no disparity in older adult representation (TP, 21 143 [71.1%]; EIR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.95-1.05). The representation of Black patients was lower in larger trials (meta-regression coefficient, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.02; P = .002)., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this meta-analysis suggest that Black and Hispanic men are underrepresented in trials compared with their share of PCa incidence. The representation of Black patients has consistently remained low during the past 2 decades.

Background: Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM., Methods: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS)., Results: Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan., Conclusions: This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Background: Altered tumor suppressor genes (TSG-alt) in prostate cancer are associated with worse outcomes. The prognostic value of TSG-alt in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (M1-HSPC) is unknown. We evaluated the effects of TSG-alt on outcomes in M1-HSPC and their prognostic impact by first-line treatment., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients with M1-HSPC at our institution treated with first-line androgen deprivation therapy plus docetaxel (ADT + D) or abiraterone acetate (ADT + A). TSG-alt was defined as any alteration in one or more TSG. The main outcomes were Kaplan-Meier-estimated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival, analyzed with the log-rank test. Clinical characteristics were compared with the χ 2 test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test. Cox regression was used for univariate and multivariable analyses., Results: We identified 97 patients with M1-HSPC: 48 (49%) with ADT + A and 49 (51%) with ADT + D. Of 96 patients with data available, 33 (34%) had 1 TSG-alt, 16 (17%) had 2 TSG-alt, and 2 (2%) had 3 TSG-alt. The most common alterations were in TP53 (36%) and PTEN (31%); 6% had RB1 alterations. Median PFS was 13.1 (95% CI, 10.3-26.0) months for patients with normal TSGs (TSG-normal) vs. 7.8 (95% CI, 5.8-10.5) months for TSG-alt (P = 0.005). Median PFS was lower for patients with TSG-alt vs TSG-normal for those with ADT + A (TSG-alt: 8.0 [95% CI, 5.8-13.8] months vs. TSG-normal: 23.2 [95% CI, 13.1-not estimated] months), but not with ADT + D (TSG-alt: 7.8 [95% CI, 5.7-12.9] months vs. TSG-normal: 9.5 [95% CI, 4.8-24.7] months). On multivariable analysis, only TSG-alt predicted worse PFS (hazard ratio, 2.37; 95% CI, 1.42-3.96; P < 0.001)., Conclusions: The presence of TSG-alt outperforms clinical criteria for predicting early progression during first-line treatment of M1-HSPC. ADT + A was less effective in patients with than without TSG-alt. Confirmation of these findings may establish the need for inclusion of molecular stratification in treatment algorithms., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: We aim to describe reporting and representation of minority patient populations in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trials and assess predictors of enrollment disparity., Methods: Trial-level data were acquired from eligible phase II and III trials. Population-based estimates were acquired from the SEER 18 and Global Burden of Disease incidence databases. Trials reporting race, age, and sex were summarized using descriptive statistics. Enrollment-incidence ratio (EIR) was used to assess representation of subgroups. Average annual percentage change (AAPC) in EIR was calculated using Joinpoint Regression Analysis. Trial-level characteristics associated with EIR were assessed using multivariable linear regression., Results: A total of 107 trials with 48,095 patients were identified. Participation of Black, White, Asian, Native American, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic participants was reported in 65 (61%), 77 (72%), 68 (64%), 40 (37%,) and 24 trials (22%), respectively. Subgroup analyses of clinical outcomes by race, age, and sex were reported in 17 (22%), 62 (78%), and 57 (57%) trials, respectively. Women (trial proportion [TP]: 32%; EIR: 0.90 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.84-0.96]), patients aged ≥65 years (TP: 42%; EIR: 0.78 [95% CI: 0.72-0.84]), Black participants (TP: 1.9%; EIR: 0.17 [95% CI: 0.13-0.22]) and Hispanics (TP: 5.9%; EIR: 0.67 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82]) were underrepresented. Representation of Black patients decreased significantly from 2009 to 2020 (AAPC: -23.13). Black participants were significantly underrepresented in phase III trials (P < .001)., Conclusion: The reporting of participation by racial or ethnic subgroup categories is inadequate. Women, older adults, as well as Black and Hispanic participants are significantly underrepresented in ICI clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the harms of proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors in people who need lipid-lowering therapy., Methods: This systematic review included randomised controlled trials that compared PCSK9 inhibitors with placebo, standard care or active lipid-lowering comparators in people who need lipid-lowering therapy with the follow-up duration of at least 24 weeks. We summarised the relative effects for potential harms from PCSK9 inhibitors using random-effect pairwise meta-analyses and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) for each outcome., Results: We included 32 trials with 65 861 participants (with the median follow-up duration of 40 weeks, ranging from 24 to 146 weeks). The meta-analysis showed an incidence of injection-site reaction leading to discontinuation (absolute incidence of 15 events (95% CI 11 to 20) per 1000 persons in a 5-year time frame, high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors do not increase the risk of new-onset diabetes mellitus, neurocognitive events, cataracts or gastrointestinal haemorrhage with high certainty evidence. PCSK9 inhibitors probably do not increase the risks of myalgia or muscular pain leading to discontinuation or any adverse events leading to discontinuation with moderate evidence certainty. Given very limited evidence, PCSK9 inhibitors might not increase influenza-like symptoms leading to discontinuation (risk ratio 1.5; 95% CI 0.06 to 36.58). We did not identify credible subgroup analyses results, including shorter versus longer follow-up duration of trials., Conclusions: PCSK9 inhibitors slightly increase the risk of severe injection-site reaction but not cataracts, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, neurocognitive events, new-onset diabetes or severe myalgia or muscular pain., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To assess comparative effectiveness of adjuvant therapies for renal cell carcinoma and quantify the absolute benefit of adjuvant treatments by clinicopathological risk groups., Methods: This 'living' review was conducted using Living Interactive Evidence (LIvE) synthesis framework., Results: The 'living' results are available on an interactive website. This network meta-analysis, including six RCTs with 7525 participants, showed that pembrolizumab (rank 1) significantly improved disease-free survival and overall survival compared with sunitinib but not when compared to pazopanib, and axitinib. The risk of treatment-related grade 3 or higher adverse events was increased with pembrolizumab as compared to placebo and axitinib but not when compared to sunitinib. The absolute benefit of adjuvant pembrolizumab increases substantially with larger tumor size, nodal positivity and higher Leibovich scores., Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that pembrolizumab delays disease progression compared to sunitinib. A risk-adapted strategy should be used in patients undergoing consideration for treatment with adjuvant pembrolizumab., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The advancement of natural language processing (NLP) has promoted the use of detailed textual data in electronic health records (EHRs) to support cancer research and to facilitate patient care. In this review, we aim to assess EHR for cancer research and patient care by using the Minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), which is a community-driven effort to define a minimal set of data elements for cancer research and practice. Specifically, we aim to assess the alignment of NLP-extracted data elements with mCODE and review existing NLP methodologies for extracting said data elements., Methods: Published literature studies were searched to retrieve cancer-related NLP articles that were written in English and published between January 2010 and September 2020 from main literature databases. After the retrieval, articles with EHRs as the data source were manually identified. A charting form was developed for relevant study analysis and used to categorize data including four main topics: metadata, EHR data and targeted cancer types, NLP methodology, and oncology data elements and standards., Results: A total of 123 publications were selected finally and included in our analysis. We found that cancer research and patient care require some data elements beyond mCODE as expected. Transparency and reproductivity are not sufficient in NLP methods, and inconsistency in NLP evaluation exists., Conclusion: We conducted a comprehensive review of cancer NLP for research and patient care using EHRs data. Issues and barriers for wide adoption of cancer NLP were identified and discussed., Competing Interests: Irbaz B. RiazThis author is a member of the JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript. Hua XuEmployment: Melax Technologies IncStock and Other Ownership Interests: Melax Technologies IncConsulting or Advisory Role: More Health Inc, Hebta LLC, Melax Technologies IncPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Receive royalties from software license from UTHealth Jeremy L. WarnerThis author is an Associate Editor for JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Stock and Other Ownership Interests: HemOnc.orgConsulting or Advisory Role: Westat, Roche, Flatiron Health, Melax TechNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: Despite routine evaluation of cytogenetics in myeloma, little is known regarding the impact of high-dose therapy (HDT) consolidation on overall survival (OS) or progression-free survival (PFS) in patients who have high-risk cytogenetics. The authors performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the heterogeneity of HDT efficacy according to cytogenetic risk., Methods: All RCTs in patients who had newly diagnosed myeloma from 2000 to 2021 that compared upfront HDT versus standard-dose therapy (SDT) consolidation were included. The primary objective was to assess the difference in HDT efficacy between standard-risk and high-risk cytogenetics in terms of the OS or PFS log(hazard ratio) (HR). The pooled OS and PFS HR was calculated according to cytogenetic-risk subgroup using a random-effects model, and heterogeneity (I 2 ) (the percentage of total observed variability explained by between-study differences) was assessed using an interaction test., Results: After screening 3307 citations, 6 RCTs were included for PFS analysis, and 4 were included for OS analysis. The median follow-up ranged from 3.1 to 7.8 years. The pooled OS HR for HDT versus SDT consolidation in patients with standard-risk and high-risk cytogenetics was 0.90 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.17; I 2 = 0%) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.45-0.97; I 2 = 0%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of OS between standard-risk and high-risk patients was statistically significant in favor of the high-risk group (P for interaction = .03). The pooled PFS HR for HDT versus SDT was 0.65 (95% CI 0.56-0.76; I 2 = 0%) versus 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33-0.83; I 2 = 55%), respectively. The difference in HDT efficacy in terms of PFS between standard-risk and high-risk patients was not significant (P for interaction = .25)., Conclusions: The magnitude of OS benefit with upfront HDT is cytogenetics-dependent. Patients with high-risk cytogenetics should preferably receive upfront rather than delayed HDT consolidation., Lay Summary: Upfront autologous stem cell transplantation improves overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed myeloma harboring high-risk cytogenetics., (© 2022 American Cancer Society.)

Serial evaluation of circulating tumor DNA may allow noninvasive assessment of drivers of resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced urothelial cancer (aUC). We used a novel, amplicon-based next-generation sequencing assay to identify genomic alterations (GAs) pre- and post-therapy in 39 patients with aUC receiving ICI and 6 receiving platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC). One or more GA was seen in 95% and 100% of pre- and post-ICI samples, respectively, commonly in TP53 (54% and 54%), TERT (49% and 59%), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (33% and 33%). Clearance of ≥1 GA was seen in 7 of 9 patients responding to ICI, commonly in TP53 (n = 4), PIK3CA (n = 2), and BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 2). A new GA was seen in 17 of 20 patients progressing on ICI, frequently in BRCA1/BRCA2 (n = 6), PIK3CA (n = 3), and TP53 (n = 3), which seldom emerged in patients receiving PBC. These findings highlight the potential for longitudinal circulating tumor DNA evaluation in tracking response and resistance to therapy., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Clinical Question: In adults with low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels >1.8 mmol/L (>70 mg/dL) who are already taking the maximum dose of statins or are intolerant to statins, should another lipid-lowering drug be added, either a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor or ezetimibe, to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events? If so, which drug is preferred? Having decided to use one, should we add the other lipid-lowering drug?, Current Practice: Most guidelines emphasise LDL cholesterol targets in their recommendations for prescribing PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe in adults at high risk of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event. However, to achieve these goals in very high risk patients with statins alone is almost impossible, so physicians are increasingly considering other lipid-lowering drugs solely for achieving LDL cholesterol treatment goals rather than for achieving important absolute cardiovascular risk reduction. Most guidelines do not systematically assess the cardiovascular benefits of adding PCSK9 inhibitors and/or ezetimibe for all risk groups across primary and secondary prevention, nor do they report, in accordance with explicit judgments of assumed patients' values and preferences, absolute benefits and harms and potential treatment burdens., Recommendations: The guideline panel provided mostly weak recommendations, which means we rely on shared decision making when applying these recommendations. For adults already using statins, the panel suggests adding a second lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but recommends against adding it in people at low cardiovascular risk. For adults who are intolerant to statins, the panel recommends using a lipid-lowering drug in people at very high and high cardiovascular risk but against adding it in those at low cardiovascular risk. When choosing to add another lipid-lowering drug, the panel suggests ezetimibe in preference to PCSK9 inhibitors. The panel suggests further adding a PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe for adults already taking statins at very high risk and those at very high and high risk who are intolerant to statins., How This Guideline Was Created: An international panel including patients, clinicians, and methodologists produced these recommendations following standards for trustworthy guidelines and using the GRADE approach. The panel identified four risk groups of patients (low, moderate, high, and very high cardiovascular risk) and primarily applied an individual patient perspective in moving from evidence to recommendations, though societal issues were a secondary consideration. The panel considered the balance of benefits and harms and burdens of starting a PCSK9 inhibitor and/or ezetimibe, making assumptions of adults' average values and preferences. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids accompany multi-layered recommendations, developed in an online authoring and publication platform (www.magicapp.org) that also allows re-use and adaptation., The Evidence: A linked systematic review and network meta-analysis (14 trials including 83 660 participants) of benefits found that PCSK9 inhibitors or ezetimibe probably reduce myocardial infarctions and stroke in patients with very high and high cardiovascular risk, with no impact on mortality (moderate to high certainty evidence), but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk. PCSK9 inhibitors may have similar effects to ezetimibe on reducing non-fatal myocardial infarction or stroke (low certainty evidence). These relative benefits were consistent, but their absolute magnitude varied based on cardiovascular risk in individual patients (for example, for 1000 people treated with PCSK9 inhibitors in addition to statins over five years, benefits ranged from 2 fewer strokes in the lowest risk to 21 fewer in the highest risk). Two systematic reviews on harms found no important adverse events for these drugs (moderate to high certainty evidence). PCSK9 inhibitors require injections that sometimes result in injection site reactions (best estimate 15 more per 1000 in a 5 year timeframe), representing a burden and harm that may matter to patients. The MATCH-IT decision support tool allows you to interact with the evidence and your patients across the alternative options: https://magicevidence.org/match-it/220504dist-lipid-lowering-drugs/., Understanding the Recommendations: The stratification into four cardiovascular risk groups means that, to use the recommendations, physicians need to identify their patient's risk first. We therefore suggest, specific to various geographical regions, using some reliable risk calculators that estimate patients' cardiovascular risk based on a mix of known risk factors. The largely weak recommendations concerning the addition of ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors reflect what the panel considered to be a close balance between small reductions in stroke and myocardial infarctions weighed against the burdens and limited harms.Because of the anticipated large variability of patients' values and preferences, well informed choices warrant shared decision making. Interactive evidence summaries and decision aids linked to the recommendations can facilitate such shared decisions. The strong recommendations against adding another drug in people at low cardiovascular risk reflect what the panel considered to be a burden without important benefits. The strong recommendation for adding either ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors in people at high and very high cardiovascular risk reflect a clear benefit.The panel recognised the key uncertainty in the evidence concerning patient values and preferences, namely that what most people consider important reductions in cardiovascular risks, weighed against burdens and harms, remains unclear. Finally, availability and costs will influence decisions when healthcare systems, clinicians, or people consider adding ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations interest disclosure form and a detailed, contextualised description of all disclosures is reported in web appendix 1. As with all BMJ Rapid Recommendations, the executive team and The BMJ judged that no panel member had any financial conflict of interest. Professional and academic interests were minimised as much as possible, while maintaining necessary expertise on the panel to make fully informed decisions., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Purpose of Review: To summarize the role of chemotherapy and offer some guidance regarding the selection of chemotherapy in mPC., Recent Findings: Patients with mHSPC have varied prognoses with testosterone suppression alone (androgen deprivation therapy, ADT) and differential responses to docetaxel with ADT. Patients with de novo and metachronous high-volume disease have a robust survival benefit with the addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapies. Patients with synchronous low-volume disease have a more modest survival benefit from docetaxel and there is no evidence of survival benefit with docetaxel in patients with metachronous low-volume disease. Integration of biomarkers may refine treatment selection regardless of volume of disease. Docetaxel and cabazitaxel also impart an OS benefit in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). The choice of chemotherapy in mCRPC depends on treatment received in mHSPC setting. Docetaxel remains the first line chemotherapy in castration-resistant patients who have not received it in mHSPC followed by cabazitaxel, otherwise cabazitaxel can be deployed without docetaxel retreatment., Summary: Chemotherapy is a key class of therapy for selected patients with mHSPC and mCRPC., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recurrence is common after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radical treatment for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We investigated the effect of adding nintedanib to neoadjuvant chemotherapy on response and survival in muscle-invasive bladder cancer., Methods: NEOBLADE was a parallel-arm, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy with nintedanib or placebo in locally advanced muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, were recruited from 15 hospitals in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to nintedanib or placebo using permuted blocks with random block sizes of two or four, stratified by centre and glomerular filtration rate. Treatments were allocated using an interactive web-based system, and patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation throughout the study. Patients received oral nintedanib (150 mg or 200 mg twice daily for 12 weeks) or placebo, in addition to usual neoadjuvant chemotherapy with intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous cisplatin 70 mg/m 2 on day 1 of a 3-weekly cycle. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate, assessed at cystectomy or at day 8 of cyclde 3 (plus or minus 7 days) if cystectomy did not occur. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered with EudraCT, 2012-004895-01, and ISRCTN, 56349930, and has completed planned recruitment., Findings: Between Dec 4, 2014, and Sept 3, 2018, 120 patients were recruited and were randomly allocated to receive nintedanib (n=57) or placebo (n=63). The median follow-up for the study was 33·5 months (IQR 14·0-44·0). Pathological complete response in the intention-to-treat population was reached in 21 (37%) of 57 patients in the nintedanib group and 20 (32%) of 63 in the placebo group (odds ratio [OR] 1·25, 70% CI 0·84-1·87; p=0·28). Grade 3 or worse toxicities were observed in 53 (93%) of 57 participants who received nintedanib and 50 (79%) of 63 patients in the placebo group (OR 1·65, 95% CI 0·74-3·65; p=0·24). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were thromboembolic events (17 [30%] of 57 patients in the nintedanib group vs 13 [21%] of 63 patients in the placebo group [OR 1·63, 95% CI 0·71-3·76; p=0·29]) and decreased neutrophil count (22 [39%] in the nintedanib group vs seven [11%] in the placebo group [5·03, 1·95-13·00; p=0·0006]). 45 treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in the nintedanib group and 43 occurred in the placebo group. One treatment-related death occurred in the placebo group, which was due to myocardial infarction., Interpretation: The addition of nintedanib to chemotherapy was safe but did not improve the rate of pathological complete response in muscle-invasive bladder cancer., Funding: Boehringer Ingelheim., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SAH reports fees for consulting or honoraria from Janssen, Roche, Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Astellas, GlaxoSmithKline, and Eisai; grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Janssen, and AstraZeneca; and support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, AstraZeneca, and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD) Oncology. SJC reports fees for consulting from Astellas, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, and Pfizer; grants from AstraZeneca, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Roche, and Clovis Oncology; speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, and Astellas; payment for expert testimony from MSD and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel from BMS, MSD, and Roche. RAH reports leading the Cancer Centre London; honoraria from Janssen Oncology; fees for consulting or an advisory role from BMS, Janssen Oncology, MSD, Nektar, and Roche; speakers' bureau fees from MSD and Roche; research funding from BMS, Janssen, MSD, and Roche; royalties from Janssen; and payment for travel, accommodation, and expenses from MSD and Roche. NV reports grants or contracts from BMS; consulting fees from Merck Serono and 4D Pharma; and honoraria: EUSA Pharma, IPSEN, and BMS. AJB reports consulting fees from Janssen, Merck, Pfizer, Astellas, and BMS; honoraria from Janssen, Pfizer, Astellas, Roche, and MSD; support for attending meetings or travel from Janssen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen, Astellas, Merck, and Pfizer. MDL reports grants or contracts from BMS, Shionogi, and AstraZeneca; consulting fees from BioNTech, Bicycle Therapeutics, Janssen, Merck Sorano, Pfizer, and ADC Therapeutics; honoraria from AstraZeneca and Pfizer; and support for attending meetings or travel from MSD, Janssen, and Bayer. IBR reports support for attending meetings or travel from the American Society of Clinical Oncology; and a patent planned, issued, or pending for a Living Evidence Synthesis platform for creating living systematic reviews and meta-analysis. JWFC reports grants or contracts from Roche; consulting fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Gilead, QED Therapeutics, Roche, Ferring, Steba Biotech, UroGen, Janssen, and Photocure; payment or honoraria from BMS, AstraZeneca, and Roche; and a leadership or fiduciary role in Fight Bladder Cancer UK. TP reports grants or contracts from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, BMS, Exelixis, Ipsen, Incyte, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Merck Serono, Astellas, Johnson & Johnson, and Eisai; and payment for travel, accommodation, or expenses from Roche, Pfizer, MSD, AstraZeneca, and Ipsen. RJJ reports consulting fees from Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Serono, MSD, Roche, Ipsen, and BMS; research grants from Exelixis, Astellas, Clovis, and Bayer; speaker honoraria from Janssen, Astellas, Bayer, Pfizer, Merck, Serono, MSD, Roche, Ipsen, BMS; support for travel and attending meetings from Bayer; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2/neu)-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC) is treated with targeted therapy, endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, or combinations of these modalities; however, evaluating the increasing number of treatment options is challenging because few regimens have been directly compared in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), and evidence has evolved over decades. Information theoretic network meta-analysis (IT-NMA) is a graph theory-based approach for regimen ranking that takes effect sizes and temporality of evidence into account., Objective: To examine the performance of an IT-NMA approach to rank HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC treatment regimens., Data Sources: HemOnc.org, a freely available medical online resource of interventions, regimens, and general information relevant to the fields of hematology and oncology, was used to identify relevant RCTs., Study Selection: All primary and subsequent reports of RCTs of first-line systemic treatments for HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC that were referenced on HemOnc.org and published between 1974 and 2019 were included. Additional RCTs that were evaluated by a prior traditional network meta-analysis on HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC were also included., Data Extraction and Synthesis: RCTs were independently extracted from HemOnc.org and a traditional NMA by separate observers. This study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline for NMA with several exceptions: the risk of bias within individual studies and inconsistency in the treatment network were not assessed., Main Outcomes and Measures: Regimen rankings generated by IT-NMA based on clinical trial variables, including primary end point, enrollment number per trial arm, P value, effect size, years of enrollment, and year of publication., Results: A total of 203 RCTs with 63 629 patients encompassing 252 distinct regimens were compared by IT-NMA, which resulted in 151 rankings as of 2019. Combinations of targeted and endocrine therapy were highly ranked, especially the combination of endocrine therapy with cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors. For example, letrozole plus palbociclib was ranked first and letrozole plus ribociclib, third. Older monotherapies that continue to be used in RCTs in comparator groups, such as anastrozole (251 of 252) and letrozole (252), fell to the bottom of the rankings. Many regimens gravitated toward indeterminacy by 2019., Conclusions and Relevance: In this network meta-analysis study, combination therapies appeared to be associated with better outcomes than monotherapies in the treatment of HR-positive, ERBB2-negative MBC. These findings suggest that IT-NMA is a promising method for longitudinal ranking of anticancer regimens from RCTs with different end points, sparse interconnectivity, and decades-long timeframes.

Objective: To maintain living, interactive evidence (LIvE) on the benefits and harms of different treatment options in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT)., Methods: We have used a novel LIvE synthesis framework to maintain this living, interactive systematic review since September 19, 2018. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for CAT are included in this analysis. Details of LIvE synthesis framework are available at the website https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com., Results: The results are constantly updated as new information becomes available (https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com/CAT.html). The living, interactive systematic review currently includes 4 randomized controlled trials (N=2894). Direct comparisons show that DOACs significantly decrease recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events compared with dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86; I 2 , 25%) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.18; I 2 , 28%). Mixed treatment comparisons show that apixaban (OR, 0.41; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16 to 0.95) and rivaroxaban (OR, 0.58; 95% CrI, 0.37 to 0.90) significantly decrease VTE recurrent events compared with dalteparin. Edoxaban significantly increases major bleeding compared with dalteparin (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.04 to 3.16), and rivaroxaban significantly increases clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding compared with dalteparin and other DOACs. There are no significant differences between DOACs in terms of VTE recurrences and major bleeding., Conclusion: DOACs should be considered a standard of care for the treatment of CAT except in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Current evidence favors the use of apixaban for the treatment of CAT among other DOACs., Registration: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dth86)., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

To accelerate cancer research that correlates biomarkers with clinical endpoints, methods are needed to ascertain outcomes from electronic health records at scale. Here, we train deep natural language processing (NLP) models to extract outcomes for participants with any of 7 solid tumors in a precision oncology study. Outcomes are extracted from 305,151 imaging reports for 13,130 patients and 233,517 oncologist notes for 13,511 patients, including patients with 6 additional cancer types. NLP models recapitulate outcome annotation from these documents, including the presence of cancer, progression/worsening, response/improvement, and metastases, with excellent discrimination (AUROC > 0.90). Models generalize to cancers excluded from training and yield outcomes correlated with survival. Among patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors, we confirm that high tumor mutation burden is associated with superior progression-free survival ascertained using NLP. Here, we show that deep NLP can accelerate annotation of molecular cancer datasets with clinically meaningful endpoints to facilitate discovery., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Context: Identifying the most effective first-line treatment for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is challenging as rapidly evolving data quickly outdate the existing body of evidence, and current approaches to presenting the evidence in user-friendly formats are fraught with limitations., Objective: To maintain living evidence for contemporary first-line treatment for previously untreated mRCC., Evidence Acquisition: We have created a living, interactive systematic review (LISR) and network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of mRCC using data from randomized controlled trials comparing contemporary treatment options with single-agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We applied an advanced programming and artificial intelligence-assisted framework for evidence synthesis to create a living search strategy, facilitate screening and data extraction using a graphical user interface, automate the frequentist network meta-analysis, and display results in an interactive manner., Evidence Synthesis: As of October 22, 2020, the LISR includes data from 14 clinical trials. Baseline characteristics are summarized in an interactive table. The cabozantinib + nivolumab combination (CaboNivo) is ranked the highest for the overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival, whereas ipilimumab + nivolumab (NivoIpi) is ranked the highest for achieving a complete response (CR). NivoIpi, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AteBev) were ranked highest (lowest toxicity) and CaboNivo ranked lowest for treatment-related adverse events (AEs). Network meta-analysis results are summarized as interactive tables and plots, GRADE summary-of-findings tables, and evidence maps., Conclusions: This innovative living and interactive review provides the best current evidence on the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatment options for patients with untreated mRCC. Trial-level comparisons suggest that CaboNivo is likely to cause more AEs but is ranked best for all efficacy outcomes, except NivoIpi offers the best chance of CR. Pembrolizumab + axitinib and NivoIpi are acceptable alternatives, except NivoIpi may not be preferred for patients with favorable risk. Although network meta-analysis provides rankings with statistical adjustments, there are inherent biases in cross-trial comparisons with sparse direct evidence that does not replace randomized comparisons., Patient Summary: It is challenging to decide the best option among the several treatment combinations of immunotherapy and targeted treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic kidney cancer. We have created interactive evidence summaries of multiple treatment options that present the benefits and harms and evidence certainty for patient-important outcomes. This evidence is updated as soon as new studies are published., (Copyright © 2021 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in clinical trials., Patients and Methods: We performed a literature search of Ovid MEDLINE and ePub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Scopus, from inception to December 4, 2019, for randomized, placebo-controlled trials with JAK inhibitors as an intervention and reported adverse events. Odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated to estimate the VTE risk using a random effects model. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty in estimated VTE risk., Results: We included 29 trials (13,910 patients). No statistically significant association was found between use of JAK inhibitors and risk of VTE (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.47; P=.70; I 2 =0; low certainty because of serious imprecision). Results using Bayesian analysis were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Results of stratified and meta-regression analyses suggested no interaction by dose of drug, indication for treatment, or length of follow-up., Conclusion: We found insufficient evidence to support an increased risk of JAK inhibitor-associated VTE based on currently available data., (Copyright © 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advances in technology have reshaped the practice of medicine. These changes have greatly benefited our patients. However, in the setting of these advances, the importance of basic clinical tools is more pertinent than ever. Despite the growing reliance on technology, the physical exam remains valuable and cost effective, often enabling the well-trained clinician to arrive at the diagnosis, rapidly and accurately. The physical exam must not become a relic of a distant past. We aim to investigate current competency and proficiency, proposals for change in teaching curriculums, and the relationship with technology such as hand-held echocardiography. A skillful exam provides both emotional and intellectual satisfaction. It may be a lost art but it is well worth the effort to restore., Competing Interests: Conflict of Interests The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Primary care physicians are in a favorable position to curb the growing burden of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This review aims to provide an overview of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma from a primary care perspective, with a specific focus on risk factors, selection of high-risk individuals for screening, patient presentation at the primary-care clinic, and the role of the internist in supportive care. Overall, the internist is an essential member of the multidisciplinary care team with respect to optimizing patients' quality of life across various stages of the pancreatic cancer., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Multiple large clinical trials have investigated adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and progression to metastasis in high-risk renal cell carcinoma. We sought to maintain living and interactive evidence on this topic, until a high level of certainty is reached for key clinical outcomes such that further updates become unnecessary and unlikely to change clinical practice., Methods: We created a living interactive evidence synthesis platform to maintain a continuously updated meta-analysis on TKI monotherapy in adjuvant renal cell carcinoma. We implemented an automated search strategy with weekly updates to identify randomized phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. Study selection, appraisal, and data extraction were done in duplicate. Cumulative meta-analysis was performed using Analyzer Module in Living Interactive Evidence platform. For each outcome (overall survival [OS], disease-free survival [DFS], and all-cause and treatment-related adverse events), we assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE approach and conducted trial sequential analysis., Results: This final update includes five randomized trials including recently updated data from PROTECT trial. Meta-analysis shows that adjuvant TKI monotherapy offers no benefit in OS (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.12, high certainty) or DFS (hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.00, high certainty) and significantly increases adverse event risk. Lack of benefit was consistent across subgroups including highest-risk patients (test for subgroup differences: P = .32). Optimal information size criteria were met, and there was high certainty of evidence for lack of DFS and OS benefit for adjuvant TKIs., Conclusion: There is no guidance on when to stop maintaining a living review. In this example, we used trial sequential analysis and high certainty of evidence (future clinical trials unlikely to change current conclusions) as a benchmark to conclude a living review in view of convincing evidence., Competing Interests: Jeremy L. WarnerStock and Other Ownership Interests: HemOnc.orgConsulting or Advisory Role: Westat, IBMTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: IBM Manish KohliHonoraria: Advanced Accelerator ApplicationsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: CelgeneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Importance: The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials., Objective: To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy., Data Sources: We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020., Study Selection: We included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting., Data Extraction and Synthesis: The reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model., Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS)., Findings: Fourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others., Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.

Background: Anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy has shown remarkable activity in patients with refractory or relapsed acute lymphocytic leukaemia. Various anti-CD19 CAR T-cell constructs have been trialled and responses vary widely among different studies. We aimed to systematically analyse the outcomes of patients with acute lymphocytic leukaemia treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells and identify factors associated with differences in outcomes., Methods: We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished clinical trials that reported data on the outcomes of adult or paediatric patients that were treated with anti-CD19 CAR T cells for relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphocytic leukaemia, reported between Jan 1, 2012, and April 14, 2020. Studies with two patients or fewer were excluded and summary data were extracted from the reports. The primary outcome was the number of patients who had complete remission at any time after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell infusion. This study is not registered in PROSPERO., Findings: From 1160 studies, we identified 40 potentially appropriate studies, 35 (88%) of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in the final analysis (n=953 patients). The pooled complete remission was 80% (95% CI 75·5-84·8) and heterogeneity between studies was moderate (I 2 =56·96%). In the prespecified subgroup analyses, 195 (75% [95% CI 66·9-82·9, I 2 =35·22%]) of 263 patients in adult studies and 242 (81% [72·9-87·2, I 2 =54·45%]) of 346 patients in paediatric studies achieved complete remission, p=0·24. The pooled complete remission did not significantly differ with anti-CD19 CAR T-cell construct type or single-chain variable fragment clone, but was higher with autologous T-cell origin (727 [83%, 78·5-86·5, I 2 =44·34%] of 901 patients), compared with allogeneic T-cell origin (29 [55%, 30·6-79·0, I 2 =62·64%] of 52 patients; p=0·018). 242 (26% [95% CI 18·5-34·1]) of 854 patients developed grade 3 or worse cytokine release syndrome and 97 (12% [6·6-19·2]) of 532 developed grade 3 or worse neurotoxicity. There was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved complete remission or who had cytokine release syndrome or neurotoxicity between different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell constructs. The risk of bias was assessed as low in 17 studies and moderate in 18 studies., Interpretation: The high response rates after anti-CD19 CAR T-cell therapy can be used to guide the use of therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory acute lymphocytic leukaemia. Comparison studies are required to further determine differences in efficacy between different anti-CD19 CAR T-cell constructs in the setting of relapsed or refractory acute lymphocytic leukaemia., Funding: National Cancer Institute, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Mayo Clinic K2R Research Pipeline, and Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Population-level data regarding incidences of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) are lacking. This study evaluated the frequencies of irAEs among patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who received immune checkpoint inhibitors., Patients and Methods: Administrative claims data from a large United States commercial insurance database (OptumLabs Data Warehouse) were used to retrospectively identify patients with NSCLC between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2017 who received a programmed death-ligand 1/programmed cell death protein-1 (PD(L)-1) inhibitor. Cumulative risks for irAEs were estimated at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after initiation of a PD-(L)1 inhibitor. Additionally, associations between patient characteristics and frequency of irAEs were investigated utilizing multivariate logistic modeling., Results: The risk of developing any irAE was 52.5% (95% confidence interval, 49.9%-55.2%) after 12 months in 3164 patients with NSCLC who initiated a PD-(L)1 inhibitor (median age, 69.0 years; 1763 [55.7%] males; 1401 [44.3%] females). Cumulative risks of irAEs increased over time: pneumonitis was recorded in 2.5% of patients 1 month after initiation of treatment, and increased to 14.3% after 9 months. Risks of hypophysitis and pericarditis were 3.6% and 1.7% at 9 months, respectively. Patients who received PD-(L)1 inhibitors in the first line had lower frequencies of irAEs (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.87)., Conclusion: Our findings suggest that the frequencies of some irAEs may be higher than the rates reported in the pivotal trials that led to United States Food and Drug Administration approvals for PD-(L)1 inhibitors. These real-world data refine provider and patient expectations for outcomes in a broader population beyond what is observed in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Source Citation: Agnelli G, Becattini C, Meyer G, et al. Apixaban for the treatment of venous thromboembolism associated with cancer. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1599-607. 32223112.