Search

The increasing prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), and gestational diabetes (GDM) among pregnant women has risen dramatically worldwide. The antihyperglycemic drug metformin is the most common drug for T2DM treatment in non-pregnant individuals; nevertheless, it is increasingly being used for diabetes-complicated pregnancies. Studies on the long-term metabolic effects of this drug in offspring remain scarce. This work aimed to determine the effect of metformin exposure during pregnancy and lactation on the offspring of a model of diet-induced maternal hyperglycemia. Cohorts of pregnant mice were fed a 46% fat diet (HFD) or a control standard diet (SD). A group of dams were exposed to metformin during pregnancy and lactation. After weaning, the offspring were fed SD for 8 weeks and then challenged with a 46% HFD after puberty for 12 weeks. Irrespective of the maternal diet, offspring of metformin-exposed mothers had a lower body weight and reduced inguinal white adipose tissue (iWAT) mass after HFD challenge. This was associated with increased expression of Pparg, Fabp4, Glut4, Srebp1, and Fasn in the iWAT during adulthood in the metabolically impaired dams exposed to metformin, suggesting increased adipogenesis and de novo lipogenesis. Increased expression of Fasn associated with decreased methylation levels at its promoter and proximal coding region in the iWAT was found. These results suggest that metformin modulates gene expression levels by epigenetic mechanisms in maternal metabolic-impaired conditions., 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. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

In 2014 the California legislature passed Senate Bill 1004 (SB 1004) that was designed to expand access to specialty palliative care for individuals served by California's Medicaid (known as Medi-Cal) Managed Care Plans (MCPs). The California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) operationalized the legislation by developing minimum requirements for palliative care programs that all MCPs must meet or exceed. 7 Quality and utilization data specific to California's Medicaid population are needed for stakeholders to identify care deficiencies and disparities, describe the end of life experience and utilization patterns of MCP members, compare these patterns to Medicare beneficiaries or other populations, and set appropriate targets to help monitor progress. We evaluated the feasibility of using Medicaid claims data and encounter data either by partnering with MCPs or by obtaining statewide data from DHCS to measure the quality of palliative care and end of life care. In a concurrent but separate effort, we analyzed administrative data supplied by three MCPs as part of a prospective pilot of standards for home-based palliative care in California, including care delivered to Medicaid beneficiaries under SB 1004. Beyond the practical challenges of allowing time for data access and approvals, both projects revealed several limitations to using administrative data to assess quality of palliative and end of life care for a Medicaid population. We describe these challenges that undermined our confidence in analysis results and propose solutions to measuring the quality of palliative and end of life care for Medicaid patients and suggested next steps., Competing Interests: Disclosures and Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Katherine Santos for her administrative work on this paper. Dr. Zingmond, Dr. Walling, Dr. Wenger (awards G-30966 and G-31311), Dr. Cassel, and Ms. Kerr (awards G-20493, and G-20495) were supported by the California Health Care Foundation. The contents do not represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government. Funding: Dr. Garcia-Jimenez has nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background Aims: Regulatory T cells (Tregs) are the main mediators of peripheral tolerance. Treg-directed therapy has shown promising results in preclinical studies of diverse immunopathologies. At present, the clinical applicability of adoptive Treg transfer is limited by difficulties in generating Tregs at sufficient cell dose and purity., Methods: We developed a Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) compliant method based on closed-system multiparametric Fluorescence-Activated Cell Sorting (FACS) to purify Tregs, which are then expanded in vitro and gene-marked with a clinical grade retroviral vector to enable in vivo fate tracking. Following small-scale optimization, we conducted four clinical-scale processing runs., Results: We showed that Tregs could be enriched to 87- 92% purity following FACS-sorting, and expanded and transduced to yield clinically relevant cell dose of 136-732×10 6 gene-marked cells, sufficient for a cell dose of at least 2 × 10 6 cells/kg. The expanded Tregs were highly demethylated in the FOXP3 Treg-specific demethylated region (TSDR), consistent with bona fide natural Tregs. They were suppressive in vitro, but a small percentage could secrete proinflammatory cytokines, including interferon-γ and interleukin-17A., Conclusions: This study demonstrated the feasibility of isolating, expanding and gene-marking Tregs in clinical scale, thus paving the way for future phase I trials that will advance knowledge about the in vivo fate of transferred Tregs and its relationship with concomitant Treg-directed pharmacotherapy and clinical response., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Following the approval of the first antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) in the early 2000s, development has increased dramatically, with 14 ADCs now approved and >100 in clinical development. In lung cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan (T-DXd) is approved in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-mutated, unresectable or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer, with ADCs targeting HER3 (patritumab deruxtecan), trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2 [datopotamab deruxtecan and sacituzumab govitecan (SG)] and mesenchymal-epithelial transition factor (telisotuzumab vedotin) in late-stage clinical development. In breast cancer, several agents are already approved and widely used, including trastuzumab emtansine, T-DXd and SG, and multiple late-stage trials are ongoing. Thus, in the coming years, we are likely to see significant changes to treatment algorithms. As the number of available ADCs increases, biomarkers (of response and resistance) to better select patients are urgently needed. Biopsy sample collection at the time of treatment selection and incorporation of translational research into clinical trial designs are therefore critical. Biopsy samples taken peri- and post-ADC treatment combined with functional genomics screens could provide insights into response/resistance mechanisms as well as the impact of ADCs on tumour biology and the tumour microenvironment, which could improve understanding of the mechanisms underlying these complex molecules. Many ADCs are undergoing evaluation as combination therapy, but a high bar should be set to progress clinical evaluation of any ADC-based combination, particularly considering the high cost and potential toxicity implications. Efforts to optimise ADC dosing/duration, sequencing and the potential for ADC rechallenge are also important, especially considering sustainability aspects. The ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation are driving strong collaborations in this field and promoting the generation/sharing of databases, repositories and registries to enable greater access to data. This will allow the most important research questions to be identified and prioritised, which will ultimately accelerate progress and help to improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: Disclosure SP reports receipt of institutional educational grants and honoraria (all fees to institution) for consultation, attending advisory boards and/or providing lectures for the following organisations: consultation/advisory role: AbbVie, AiCME, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, BerGenBio, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, F-Star, Fishawack, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, IQVIA, Incyte, Ipsen, iTeos, Janssen, Medscape, Medtoday, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck Serono, Merrimack, Mirati, Novartis, Novocure, OncologyEducation, Pharma Mar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, PER, Peerview, Pfizer, Regeneron, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Vaccibody; Board of Director role: Galenica SA; presentation at a company-organised public event: AiCME, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Foundation Medicine, GSK, Illumina, Imedex, Ipsen, Medscape, MSD, Mirati, Novartis, PER, Peerview, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi, Takeda; receipt of grants/research support: principal investigator in trials (institutional financial support for clinical trials) sponsored by Amgen, AstraZeneca, Beigene, BMS, GSK, MSD, Roche/Genentech. SL reports receipt of research funding to institution from Novartis, BMS, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Puma Biotechnology, Eli Lilly, Nektar Therapeutics, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics; has acted as consultant (not compensated) to Seattle Genetics, Novartis, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Gilead Therapeutics, Nektar Therapeutics, PUMA Biotechnologies, Roche-Genentech; has acted as consultant (paid to institution) to Novartis, GSK, Roche-Genentech, AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences, Seattle Genetics, MSD, Eli Lilly, BMS. FA reports research grants (compensated to the hospital) from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Owkin, Novartis, Guardant Health; honoraria (compensated to the hospital) for advisory board participation or speaker activities from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Roche, Lilly, Pfizer, Owkin, Novartis, Guardant Health, N-Power Medicine, SERVIER, Gilead, Boston Pharmaceutics; personal honoraria for advisory board participation from Lilly. SC reports receipt of personal consulting fees from Novartis, AstraZeneca, Nuvalent, Genesis Therapeutics, Effector Therapeutics, SAGA Diagnostics, Prelude Therapeutics, Gerson Lehman Group; stock options from Effector Therapeutics, Odyssey Biosciences; research funding from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo. EF reports receipt of personal speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Genentech, Janssen, Medical Trends, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Peervoice, Pfizer, Sanofi, Takeda, Touch Oncology; personal honoraria for advisory board participation from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Gilead, GSK, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Takeda, Turning Point, Daiichi Sankyo; financial support for meeting attendance and/or travel from AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche. SPF reports receipt of personal honoraria for advisory board participation from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Illumina, Pfizer; honoraria to institution for advisory board participation from Roche; personal speaker honoraria from Takeda; holds personal stocks/shares in Revolution Medicines. PAJ reports receipt of grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim; personal fees from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology; grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly; personal fees from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Voronoi; grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees from Biocartis, Novartis, Sanofi, Scorpion Therapeutics, Merus, Frontier Medicines, Hongyun Biotechnology, Duality Biologics, Blueprint Medicines, Phanes Therapeutics; grants and personal fees from Takeda Oncology; personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, Transcenta, Silicon Therapeutics, Syndax, Nuvalent, Bayer, Eisai, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, AbbVie; grants from Revolution Medicines; grants from PUMA; grants from Astellas, outside the submitted work. In addition, PAJ is a co-inventor on a DFCI patent on EGFR mutations and receives post-marketing royalties from Lab Corp. KMK reports receipt of personal consultancy fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda, Ventana; personal speaker honoraria from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Janssen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Mirati, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Ventana, Medscape, Mirati, Prime Oncology, PeerVoice, PER. EM reports receipt of personal honoraria for consulting/advisory roles to Exact Sciences, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Seagen, Ipsen; reimbursement of travel, accommodation and expenses from Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre. AP reports receipt of personal honoraria for consulting or an advisory role for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly, GSK, Janssen, MSD, Mundipharma, Novartis, Roche; speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Janssen, MSD, Medscape, PeerVoice, touchONCOLOGY. MP reports receipt of personal honoraria for consultancy to Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, BMS, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Gritstone, Sanofi, GSK, Amgen, AbbVie, Ipsen, Esaï, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, AnHeart Therapeutics, Novocure; lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Takeda, MSD, Chugai, Illumina, Sanofi, Janssen; research grants (paid to institution) from Roche, AstraZeneca, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim. EFS reports consultancy fees (paid to institution) from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche Sanofi, Takeda; personal honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing or educational events from Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board for DSI. CS reports grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Pfizer, Roche-Ventana, Invitae (previously Archer Dx Inc.), Ono Pharmaceutical, Personalis; is Chief Investigator and Steering Committee Chair for the AZ MeRmaiD 1 and 2 clinical trials; is Co-Chief Investigator of the NHS Galleri trial funded by GRAIL and a paid member of GRAIL’s Scientific Advisory Board; has received consultancy fees from Achilles Therapeutics (also SAB member), Bicycle Therapeutics (also SAB member), Genentech, Medicxi, China Innovation Centre of Roche (CICoR) formerly Roche Innovation Centre—Shanghai, Metabomed (until July 2022), Relay Therapeutics SAB member, Saga Diagnostics SAB member, the Sarah Cannon Research Institute; has received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, GSK, Illumina, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche-Ventana; has previously held stock options in Apogen Biotechnologies and GRAIL, currently has stock options in Epic Bioscience and Bicycle Therapeutics, and has stock options and is co-founder of Achilles Therapeutics; declares a patent application (PCT/US2017/028013) for methods to lung cancer, targeting neoantigens (PCT/EP2016/059401), identifying patent response to immune checkpoint blockade (PCT/EP2016/071471), methods for lung cancer detection (US20190106751A1), identifying patients who respond to cancer treatment (PCT/GB2018/051912), determining HLA LOH (PCT/GB2018/052004), predicting survival rates of patients with cancer (PCT/GB2020/050221), methods for systems and tumour monitoring (PCT/EP2022/077987); is an inventor on a European patent application (PCT/GB2017/053289) relating to assay technology to detect tumour recurrence—this patent has been licensed to a commercial entity and under their terms of employment, he is due a share of any revenue generated from such license(s). GV reports receipt of honoraria for consulting and participation in advisory boards from Roche, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Pfizer and Agilent. RAS reports receipt of personal speaker honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche; honoraria for advisory board participation from AstraZeneca, Eisai, GSK, Guardant, Janssen, Merck, MSD, Novocure, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Roche; financial compensation for his role as Editor for CTR and Editor in Chief for Lung Cancer; receipt of institutional research grants for ETOP and/or IBCSG studies from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche; is an ETOP IBCSG Partners Foundation Member and President of the Board of Directors (uncompensated)., (Copyright © 2024 European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pathologic response has been proposed as an early clinical trial end point of survival after neoadjuvant treatment in clinical trials of NSCLC. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) published recommendations for pathologic evaluation of resected lung cancers after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study was to assess pathologic response interobserver reproducibility using IASLC criteria., Methods: An international panel of 11 pulmonary pathologists reviewed hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides from the lung tumors of resected NSCLC from 84 patients who received neoadjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors in six clinical trials. Pathologic response was assessed for percent viable tumor, necrosis, and stroma. For each slide, tumor bed area was measured microscopically, and pre-embedded formulas calculated unweighted and weighted major pathologic response (MPR) averages to reflect variable tumor bed proportion., Results: Unanimous agreement among pathologists for MPR was observed in 68 patients (81%), and inter-rater agreement (IRA) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.76-0.92) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.93) for unweighted and weighted averages, respectively. Overall, unweighted and weighted methods did not reveal significant differences in the classification of MPR. The highest concordance by both methods was observed for cases with more than 95% viable tumor (IRA = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1) and 0% viable tumor (IRA = 0.94, 95% CI: 0.89-0.98). The most common reasons for discrepancies included interpretations of tumor bed, presence of prominent stromal inflammation, distinction between reactive and neoplastic pneumocytes, and assessment of invasive mucinous adenocarcinoma., Conclusions: Our study revealed excellent reliability in cases with no residual viable tumor and good reliability for MPR with the IASLC recommended less than or equal to 10% cutoff for viable tumor after neoadjuvant therapy., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Biomarker tests in lung cancer have been traditionally ordered by the treating oncologist upon confirmation of an appropriate pathological diagnosis. The delay this introduces prolongs yet further what is already a complex, multi-stage, pre-treatment pathway and delays the start of first-line systemic treatment, which is crucially informed by the results of such analysis. Reflex testing, in which the responsibility for testing for an agreed range of biomarkers lies with the pathologist, has been shown to standardise and expedite the process. Twelve experts discussed the rationale and considerations for implementing reflex testing as standard clinical practice., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for NVALT (Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose). KMK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for IASLC (International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MSD, MiRXES, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd., Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd., Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd., Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd., HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd. and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology), ATORG (Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group), CLCRF (Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited), CSCO (Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology), HKCF (Hong Kong Cancer Fund), HKCTS (Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with AIOM (Italian Association of Medical Oncology) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, e-cancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, PER, Pfizer, PRIME, RMEI, Roche/Genentech, RTP, Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice-President of SAMO (Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology), Vice-President of Lung Group for SAKK (Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for ETOP (European Thoracic Oncology Platform)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/IBCSG Partners (International Breast Cancer Study Group); member of AACR (American Association for Cancer Research), ASCO, ASMAC/VSAO (Association of Swiss Interns and Residents), FMH (Association of Swiss Physicians) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. EFS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from AIRC (Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Competing Interests: Disclosure LEH reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Benecke, Medtalks and VJOncology; personal fees for participation in mentorship programme funded by AstraZeneca; personal fees for travel support from Roche; personal fees as member of the committee that revised the Dutch guidelines on NSCLC, brain metastases and leptomeningeal metastases; fees paid to her institution for an educational webinar from Janssen; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Takeda; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Bayer, high5oncology, Lilly and MSD; fees paid to her institution for interview sessions from Roche; fees paid to her institution for podcast appearance from Takeda; institutional research grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer and Merck; institutional funding as a local principal investigator (PI) from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Takeda; non-remunerated roles as chair for metastatic NSCLC of the lung cancer group for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and as the secretary of the studies foundation for Nederlandse Vereniging van Artsen voor Longziekten en Tuberculose (NVALT). KK reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Medscape, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; personal fees for consultancy and advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Janssen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana; non-remunerated roles as the past Pathology Committee Chair for International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and member of the UK Lung Cancer Consortium. JM reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, MSD and Roche; fees paid to her institution for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and MSD; fees paid to her institution for travel expenses from Ipsen. TSM reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Daz Group, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, InMed Medical Communication, Janssen, Jiahui Holdings Co., LiangYiHui Healthcare, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., MD Health, Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, MIRXES, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, PeerVoice, PER, Permanyer SL, Pfizer, Prime Oncology, Research to Practice, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Takeda and Touch Medical Media; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics, BeiGene, Berry Oncology, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, C4 Therapeutics, Cirina Ltd, Covidien LP, CStone Pharma, Curio Science, D3 Bio Ltd, Da Volterra, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Fishawack Facilitate, G1 Therapeutics, Gilead Sciences, Gritstone Oncology, Guardant Health, Hengrui, Ignyta, Incyte, Inivata, IQVIA, Janssen, Lakeshore Biotech, Loxo Oncology, Lucene Health Inc., Lunit USA, Inc., Medscape/WebMD, Merck Serono, Mirati Therapeutics, MiRXES, MoreHealth, MSD, Novartis, OrigiMed, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Tech, Qiming Development, Roche, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi-Aventis, SFJ Pharmaceutical Ltd, Synergy Research, Takeda, Tigermed, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Virtus Medical and Yuhan; personal fees as the Chairman for ACT Genomics-Sanomics Group; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from AstraZeneca and HutchMed; holds stocks/shares from AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Biolidics Ltd, HutchMed and Sanomics Ltd.; institutional funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Takeda and XCovery; non-remunerated roles as an invited speaker with AstraZeneca, Aurora Tele-Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc. and Sanomics Ltd and for an advisory role with geneDecode; non-remunerated leadership roles with American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Asian Thoracic Oncology Research Group (ATORG), Chinese Lung Cancer Research Foundation Limited (CLCRF), Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO), Hong Kong Cancer Fund (HKCF), Hong Kong Cancer Therapy Society (HKCTS), IASLC and St. Stephen’s College & Prep School (Hong Kong). UN reports fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from MSD; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership and a writing engagement from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a coordinating PI for Bayer; non-remunerated roles as a PI for clinical trials funded by Deutsche Krebshilfe and as a member of the board of directors and vice-chair of ‘Strahlenschutzkommission’ from the German Commission on Radiological Protection. AP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Mundipharma and Takeda; personal fees for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Pfizer and Roche; non-remunerated activities with Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) as member of the Scientific Committee for lung cancer guidelines. SP reports personal fees for an editorial role as an Associate Editor for Annals of Oncology; fees paid to her institution as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, ecancer, Eli Lilly, Fishawack, Illumina, Imedex, Medscape, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, OncologyEducation, Physician’s Education Resource (PER), Pfizer, Partnerships in International Medical Education (PRIME), RMEI Medical Education, LLC (RMEI), Roche/Genentech, Research To Practice (RTP), Sanofi and Takeda; fees paid to her institution for advisory board membership from AbbVie, Amgen, Arcus, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Bio Invent, Biocartis, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F-Star, Foundation Medicine, Genzyme, Gilead, GSK, Illumina, Incyte, IQVIA, iTeos, Janssen, Merck Serono, Mirati, MSD, Novartis, Novocure, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics, Regeneron, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody; institutional funding as a steering committee member from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, BMS, iTeos, Mirati, MSD, PharmaMar, Phosplatin Therapeutics and Roche/Genentech; institutional funding as a coordinating PI from AstraZeneca; institutional funding as a trial chair from GSK and Roche/Genentech; non-remunerated role as President and Council Member for the Ballet Béjart Lausanne Foundation; non-remunerated leadership roles as President of ESMO (2020-2022), Vice- President of Swiss Academy of Multidisciplinary Oncology (SAMO), Vice-President of Lung Group for Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK); non-remunerated role as PI involved in academic trials for European Thoracic Oncology Platform (ETOP)/EORTC/SAKK; non-remunerated role as Council Member and Scientific Committee Chair for ETOP/International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) Partners member of American Association of Cancer Research (AACR), ASCO, Association Suisse des médecines-assistant(e)s et chef(fe)s de Clinique (ASMAC)/Verband Schweizerischer Assistenz- und Oberärztinnen und- ärzte (VSAO), Fédération des médecins suisses (FMH) and IASLC. DP reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Novartis, Peer CME, Pfizer, priME Oncology and Samsung; personal fees for advisory board membership from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Samsung; institutional funding as a PI from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis. ES reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Boehringer Ingelheim and Daiichi Sankyo; personal fees for advisory board membership from Merck Serono; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Roche, Sanofi and Takeda; institutional funding as a local PI from AstraZeneca, Genmab, Gilead and Pfizer. BJS reports personal fees as an invited speaker from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen and Roche/Genentech; fees paid to his institution for advisory board membership from AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck and Novartis; fees paid to his institution for steering committee membership from Novartis, Pfizer and Roche/Genentech; personal fees as a member of the board of directors from Cancer Council Victoria and Thoracic Oncology Group of Australasia; personal fees as a consultant from Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre; royalties from UpToDate. GV reports personal fees as an invited speaker and for advisory board membership from Roche; personal fees as a consultant from Ab Medica; institutional funding as a PI from Fondazione AIRC per la ricerca sul cancro ETS (AIRC) and the Italian Ministry of Health. MR reports personal fees as an invited speaker from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Novartis, Roche and Sanofi; personal fees for advisory board membership from Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Mirati, MSD, Pfizer, Roche and Sanofi.

Objective: The endovascular aneurysm repair-2 (EVAR-2) trial suggested that EVAR in patients unfit for open surgical repair (OSR) failed to provide a significant overall survival advantage compared with conservative management. The aim is to compare survival and cost-effectiveness in patients with poor cardiopulmonary exercise test (CPET) metrics who underwent EVAR or were managed conservatively., Methods: A prospective database of all CPETs (1435 patients) performed to assess preoperative fitness for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair was maintained. A total of 350 patients deemed unfit for OSR underwent EVAR or were managed conservatively. A 1:1 propensity-matched analysis incorporating age, gender, anaerobic threshold, and aneurysm size was used to compare survival. Cost-effectiveness analysis was based on the economic model for the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence clinical guideline on abdominal aortic aneurysm treatment., Results: Propensity matching produced 122 pairs of patients in the EVAR and conservative management groups. The median overall survival for the EVAR group was significantly longer than that for the conservative management group (84 vs 30 months, P < .001). One-, three-, and five-year mortality in the EVAR group was 7%, 40%, and 68%, respectively, compared with 25%, 68%, and 82% in the conservative management group, all P < .001. The increment cost-effectiveness ratio for EVAR was £8023 (US$11,644) per quality-adjusted life year gained compared with £430,602 (US$624,967) in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline, which is based on EVAR-2 results., Conclusions: EVAR offers a survival advantage and is cost-effective in selected patients deemed unfit for OSR based on CPET compared with conservative management., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) held a virtual consensus-building process on epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutant non-small-cell lung cancer in 2021. The consensus included a multidisciplinary panel of 34 leading experts in the management of lung cancer. The aim of the consensus was to develop recommendations on topics that are not covered in detail in the current ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline and where the available evidence is either limited or conflicting. The main topics identified for discussion were: (i) tissue and biomarkers analyses; (ii) early and locally advanced disease; (iii) metastatic disease and (iv) clinical trial design, patient's perspective and miscellaneous. The expert panel was divided into four working groups to address questions relating to one of the four topics outlined above. Relevant scientific literature was reviewed in advance. Recommendations were developed by the working groups and then presented to the entire panel for further discussion and amendment before voting. This manuscript presents the recommendations developed, including findings from the expert panel discussions, consensus recommendations and a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation., Competing Interests: Disclosure AP received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Daiichi Sankyo, eCancer, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Medscape, Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD), Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Takeda, outside the submitted work. NL reports unrelated institutional research funding received from Amgen, Array, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly, EMD Serono, Guardant Health, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Takeda and unrelated personal fees (CME lectures, consulting) received from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, EMD Serono, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Genzyme. SPo reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Blueprint Medicines, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, outside the submitted work. KK reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, during the conduct of the study. MJA reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Takeda, Roche, Alpha Pharmaceutical, Amgen, Lilly, ONO, MSD, Merck, outside the submitted work. MEA reports personal fees from Biocartis, Invivoscribe, Janssen Global Services, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck, RMEI Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, PeerView Institute for medical education, outside the submitted work. OA reports personal fees from Pfizer, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Lilly, Merck, BMS, grants and personal fees from Roche, outside the submitted work. DP reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Peer CME, Roche, Samsung, AbbVie, Janssen, outside the submitted work; and clinical trials research (as principal investigator or co-investigator): AstraZeneca, AbbVie, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, MedImmune, Sanofi-Aventis, Taiho Pharma, Novocure, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen. FdM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Boehringer, personal fees from Roche, BMS, Novartis, MSD, Pfizer, Takeda, outside the submitted work. AMD reports personal fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Pharmamar, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Jansen, Chiesi, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Bayer, Sanofi, outside the submitted work. RD reports personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Foundation Medicine, Karyopharm, outside the submitted work. CFF reports grants and other from AstraZeneca, other from MSD, grants and other from Elekta, during the conduct of the study. JF reports personal fees from Blueprint Medicines, Novartis, Janssen, AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. EF reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Medscape, Merck KGaA, MSD, Novartis, PeerVoice, Pfizer, prIME Oncology, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Sanofi Genzyme, Springer, Takeda, Touch Medical, grants from Grant for Oncology Innovation (GOI), grants from Fundación Merck Salud, personal fees from CME Outfitters, BeiGene, Medical Trends, Peptomyc, Regeneron, from Syneos Health, outside the submitted work; and Grifols: independent member of the board. GC reports consultation fees from Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Daichii Sankyo, Seagen, Gilead, Novartis, Lilly, Ellipsis, Merck. RH reports consultation fees from AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, ARMO Biosciences, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bolt Biotherapeutics, BMS, Candel Therapeutics, Inc., Checkpoint Therapeutics, Cybrexa Therapeutics, DynamiCure Biotechnology, LLC, eFFECTOR Therapeutics, Inc., Eli Lilly and Company, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Inc., Genentech/Roche, Genmab, Gilead, Halozyme Therapeutics, Heat Biologics, HiberCell, Inc., I-Mab Biopharma, Immune-Onc Therapeutics, Immunocore, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson, Loxo Oncology, Merck and Company, Mirati Therapeutics, Nektar, Neon Therapeutics, NextCure, Novartis, Ocean Biomedical, Inc., Oncocyte Corp., Oncternal Therapeutics, Pfizer, Refactor Health, Inc., Ribbon Therapeutics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Shire PLC, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, STCube Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Symphogen, Takeda, Tesaro, Tocagen, Ventana Medical Systems, Inc., WindMIL Therapeutics, Xencor, Inc., research support from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Genentech/Roche, Merck and Company, and participation on board of Immunocore Holdings Limited, Junshi Pharmaceuticals. PAJ reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, personal fees from Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Loxo Oncology, grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, personal fees from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, Voronoi, grants and personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, personal fees from Biocartis, Novartis, Sanofi, grants and personal fees from Takeda Oncology, personal fees from Mirati Therapeutics, Transcenta, Silicon Therapeutics, Syndax, Nuvalent, Bayer, Eisai, Allorion Therapeutics, Accutar Biotech, AbbVie, grants from Revolution Medicines, grants from PUMA, grants from Astellas, outside the submitted work. In addition, PAJ is a co-inventor on a DFCI patent on EGFR mutations and receives postmarketing royalties from Lab Corp. TJ reports personal fees from Pfizer, AstraZeneca, BMS, Merck, MSD, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, Ignyta, Novartis, Bayer, Amgen, Gilead, Puma Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. TM reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, personal fees from Pfizer, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from BMS, grants and personal fees from Ono, MSD, personal fees from Novartis, grants and personal fees from Taiho, personal fees from Takeda, Amgen, Invitae, Merck Biopharma, Thermo Fisher, grants from Bridge Biotherapeutics, grants and personal fees from Ethicon, outside the submitted work. TM reports personal fees and other from AbbVie, Inc., ACEA Pharma, Alpha Biopharma Co. Ltd, Amgen, Amoy Diagnostics Co. Ltd, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, grants, personal fees and other from BMS, personal fees and other from Blueprint Medicines Corporation, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Fishawack Facilitate Ltd, other from geneDecode, personal fees and other from Gritstone Oncology Inc., Guardant Health, Hengrui Therapeutics, Ignyta Inc., Incyte Corporation, personal fees from InMed Medical Communication, personal fees and other from Janssen, Lilly, Loxo Oncology, Lunit USA, Inc., personal fees from MD Health (Brazil), Medscape/WebMD, grants, personal fees and other from Merck Serono, MSD, personal fees and other from Mirati Therapeutics Inc., personal fees from MoreHealth, grants, personal fees and other from Novartis, personal fees and other from OrigiMed, personal fees from PeerVoice, Physicians' Education Resource, P. Permanyer SL, grants, personal fees and other from Pfizer, Inc., personal fees from PrIME Oncology, personal fees and other from Puma Biotechnology Inc., personal fees from Research to Practice, grants, personal fees and other from Roche, personal fees and other from Sanofi-Aventis R&D, grants, personal fees and other from Takeda, personal fees from Touch Medical Media, other from Virtus Medical Group, personal fees and other from Yuhan Corporation, other from AstraZeneca PLC, Hutchison Chi-Med, Sanomics Ltd, grants from Clovis Oncology, grants, personal fees and other from SFJ Pharmaceuticals, grants from Xcovery, personal fees and other from Curio Science, personal fees from Inivata, Berry Oncology, grants and personal fees from G1 Therapeutics Inc., other from Aurora, personal fees from Qiming Development (HK) Ltd, Daz Group, Lucence Health Inc., Merck Pharmaceuticals HK Ltd, Shanghai BeBirds Translation & Consulting Co., Ltd, Liangyihui Network Technology Co., Ltd, Taiho, personal fees and other from Gilead Sciences, Inc, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Covidien LP, outside the submitted work. NN reports personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Qiagen, Biocartis, Incyte, Roche, BMS, Merck, Thermo Fisher, AstraZeneca, personal fees from Sanofi, Eli Lilly, Bayer, ArcherDx, grants and personal fees from Illumina, personal fees from Amgen, outside the submitted work. LPA reports grants from MSD, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, BMS, personal fees from Lilly, MSD, Roche, Pharmamar, Merck, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Servier, Amgen, Pfizer, Ipsen, Sanofi, Bayer, Blueprint, BMS, Mirati, Janssen, other from Genomica, Altum sequencing, outside the submitted work. SR reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BMS, Amgen, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Takeda, Eisai, Lilly, outside the submitted work. LS reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants from Novartis, personal fees from Janssen, grants and personal fees from Genentech, personal fees from Takeda, Pfizer, grants from Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. JV reports honoraria for invited speaker from AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, and Novartis; participation on advisory board of AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daichi Sankyo, MSD, Pfizer, and Roche; grant from MSD. IIW reports grants and personal fees from Genentech/Roche, Bayer, BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, HTG Molecular, personal fees from Asuragen, grants and personal fees from Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Guardant Health, personal fees from Flame, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Sanofi, personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, grants and personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Oncocyte, MSD, Platform Health, grants from Adaptive, Adaptimmune, EMD Serono, Takeda, Karus, Johnson & Johnson, 4D, Iovance, Akoya, outside the submitted work. JW reports personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint, grants and personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, Ignyta, grants and personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Lilly, Loxo, MSD, grants and personal fees from Novartis, Pfizer, personal fees from Roche, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, outside the submitted work. YLW reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Novartis, Takeda; grants from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Hengrui and Roche, outside the submitted work. JCHY reports personal fees and other from Amgen, grants, personal fees and other from AstraZeneca, personal fees and other from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, other from Eli Lilly, personal fees and other from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, MSD, Novartis, personal fees from Ono Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, personal fees and other from Roche/Genentech, Takeda Oncology, Yuhan Pharmaceuticals, other from Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo, Puma Technology, outside the submitted work. YY reports and contracted studies with ArcherDx, Chugai Pharma and Thermo Fisher Science; honoraria for lectures from MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Roche/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, Thermo Fisher Science, ArcherDx, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Amgen and Sysmex; participation on advisory board of MSD, Chugai Pharma, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Amgen, Takeda and Daiichi-Sankyo. GP reports grants from Amgen, grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck, grants and non-financial support from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Roche, BMS, grants from Lilly, grants and personal fees from MSD, Novartis, outside the submitted work. SPe received education grants, provided consultation, attended advisory board meetings and/or provided lectures for AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, BioInvent, Blueprint Medicines Corporation, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Clovis, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Eli Lilly, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Foundation Medicine, Illumina, Janssen, MSD, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Novartis, PharmaMar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda and Vaccibody, from whom she received honoraria (all fees to institution). All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 European Society for Medical Oncology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Healthcare policy makers should ensure optimal patient access to medical nutrition (MN) as part of the management of nutrition-related disorders and conditions. Questions remain whether current healthcare policies reflect the clinical and economic benefits of MN. The objective of this article is to characterize coverage and reimbursement of MN, defined as food for special medical purposes/medical food for a diverse set of countries, including Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Hong Kong, Italy, Japan, The Netherlands, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States., Methods: Data sources included published literature and online sources. ISPOR's Nutrition Economics Special Interest Group developed a data collection form to guide data extraction that included reimbursement coverage, years that reimbursement policies were established, and presence of a formal health technology assessment (HTA) for MN technologies., Results: Reimbursement coverage of MN technologies varied across the countries that were reviewed. All but 3 countries limited coverage to specific formulations of products, regardless of demonstrated clinical benefit. The year that reimbursement policies were established varied across countries (ranging from 1984 to 2017), and only 4 countries regularly update policies. France and Brazil are the only countries with a formal HTA process for MN technologies., Conclusions: Most countries have limited MN reimbursement, have not updated reimbursement policies, and lack HTA for MN technologies. These limitations may lead to suboptimal access to MN technologies where they are indicated to manage nutrition-related disorders and conditions, with the potential of negatively affecting patient and healthcare system outcomes., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Aims: The Gulf War Illness programs (GWI) of the United States Department of Veteran Affairs and the Department of Defense Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program collaborated with experts to develop Common Data Elements (CDEs) to standardize and systematically collect, analyze, and share data across the (GWI) research community., Main Methods: A collective working group of GWI advocates, Veterans, clinicians, and researchers convened to provide consensus on instruments, case report forms, and guidelines for GWI research. A similar initiative, supported by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) was completed for a comparative illness, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and provided the foundation for this undertaking. The GWI working group divided into two sub-groups (symptoms and systems assessment). Both groups reviewed the applicability of instruments and forms recommended by the NINDS ME/CFS CDE to GWI research within specific domains and selected assessments of deployment exposures. The GWI CDE recommendations were finalized in March 2018 after soliciting public comments., Key Findings: GWI CDE recommendations are organized in 12 domains that include instruments, case report forms, and guidelines. Recommendations were categorized as core (essential), supplemental-highly recommended (essential for specified conditions, study types, or designs), supplemental (commonly collected, but not required), and exploratory (reasonable to use, but require further validation). Recommendations will continually be updated as GWI research progresses., Significance: The GWI CDEs reflect the consensus recommendations of GWI research community stakeholders and will allow studies to standardize data collection, enhance data quality, and facilitate data sharing., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: This phase III OAK trial (NCT02008227) subgroup analysis (data cutoff, January 9, 2019) evaluated the predictive value of 2 PD-L1 IHC tests (VENTANA SP142 and Dako 22C3) for benefit from atezolizumab versus docetaxel by programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status in patients with previously treated metastatic non-small cell lung cancer., Methods: PD-L1 expression was assessed prospectively with SP142 on tumor cells (TC) and tumor-infiltrating immune cells (IC) and retrospectively with 22C3 using a tumor proportion score (TPS) based on TC membrane staining. Efficacy was assessed in the 22C3 biomarker-evaluable population (22C3-BEP) (n = 577; 47.1% of SP142-intention-to-treat population) and non-22C3-BEP (n = 648) in PD-L1 subgroups (high, low, and negative) and according to selection by 1 or both assays., Results: In the 22C3-BEP, overall survival benefits with atezolizumab versus docetaxel were observed across PD-L1 subgroups; benefits were greatest in SP142-defined PD-L1-high (TC3 or IC3: hazard ratio [HR], 0.39 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.25-0.63]) and 22C3-defined PD-L1-high (TPS ≥ 50%: HR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.38-0.82]) and low (TPS, 1% to < 50%: HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.37-0.82]) groups. Progression-free survival improved with increasing PD-L1 expression for both assays. SP142 and 22C3 assays identified overlapping and unique patient populations in PD-L1-high, positive, and negative subgroups. Overall survival and progression-free survival benefits favored atezolizumab over docetaxel in double PD-L1-positive and negative groups; patients with both SP142- and 22C3-positive tumors derived the greatest benefit., Conclusions: Despite different scoring algorithms and differing sensitivity levels, the SP142 and 22C3 assays similarly predicted atezolizumab benefit at validated PD-L1 thresholds in patients with non-small cell lung cancer., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Gadgeel reports personal fees from Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Daichii-Sanyko, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Xcovery, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Pfizer, and Janssen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Hirsch reports scientific advisory board for Genentech/Roche, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, AstraZeneca/Daiichi, Regeneron/Sanofi, and Amgen, outside the submitted work. Dr. Kerr reports personal fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Archer Diagnostics, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Debiopharm, Diaceutics, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Roche, and Roche Diagnostics/Ventana, outside the submitted work. Dr. Barlesi reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly Oncology, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Novartis, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Takeda, outside the submitted work. Dr. Park has nothing to disclose. Dr. Rittmeyer reports grants from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, and Novartis, outside the submitted work. Dr. Zou reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Bhatia reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koeppen reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Paul reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. David Shames reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Yi reports employment and spousal employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. Matheny reports employment from Genentech, during the conduct of the study, and employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ballinger reports employment from Genentech and stock ownership from Roche, outside the submitted work. Dr. McCleland reports employment from Genentech, outside the submitted work. Dr. Gandara reports personal fees and institutional grants from Genentech, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: This study evaluated the consequences in Europe of the COVID-19 outbreak on pathology laboratories orientated toward the diagnosis of thoracic diseases., Materials and Methods: A survey was sent to 71 pathology laboratories from 21 European countries. The questionnaire requested information concerning the organization of biosafety, the clinical and molecular pathology, the biobanking, the workload, the associated research into COVID-19, and the organization of education and training during the COVID-19 crisis, from 15 March to 31 May 2020, compared with the same period in 2019., Results: Questionnaires were returned from 53/71 (75%) laboratories from 18 European countries. The biosafety procedures were heterogeneous. The workload in clinical and molecular pathology decreased dramatically by 31% (range, 3%-55%) and 26% (range, 7%-62%), respectively. According to the professional category, between 28% and 41% of the staff members were not present in the laboratories but did teleworking. A total of 70% of the laboratories developed virtual meetings for the training of residents and junior pathologists. During the period of study, none of the staff members with confirmed COVID-19 became infected as a result of handling samples., Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a strong impact on most of the European pathology laboratories included in this study. Urgent implementation of several changes to the organization of most of these laboratories, notably to better harmonize biosafety procedures, was noted at the onset of the pandemic and maintained in the event of a new wave of infection occurring in Europe., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest. Data sharing Anonymized participant-level data are available for investigators. Ethical approval The study complied with the law of January 1978 (78-17) relating to computing, data, and freedom known as ‘computing and freedoms’ and with rules 2016/679 of the European Parliament (of 25 May 2018) concerning the general data protection regulation (GDPR; MR004). The study was registered by the Nice University Hospital (R04-39) and filed on the Health Data Hub website (7 July 2020) (www.health-data-hub.fr/depot)., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Access to targeted therapies for lung cancer depends on the accurate identification of patients' biomarkers through molecular testing. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) conducted an international survey to evaluate perceptions on current practice and barriers to implementation of molecular testing., Methods: We distributed the survey to IASLC members and other health care professionals around the world. The survey included a seven-question introduction for all respondents, who then answered according to one of three tracks: (1) requesting tests and treating patients, (2) performing and interpreting assays, or (3) tissue acquisition. Barriers to implementing molecular testing were provided in free-response fields. The chi-square test was used for regional comparisons., Results: A total of 2537 respondents from 102 countries participated. Most respondents who test and treat patients believe that less than 50% of patients with lung cancer in their country receive molecular testing, but reported higher rates within their own practice. Although many results varied by region, the five most frequent barriers cited in all regions were cost, quality and standards, access, awareness, and turnaround time. Many respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current state of molecular testing for lung cancer, including 41% of those performing and interpreting assays. Issues identified included trouble understanding results (37%) and the quality of the samples (23% reported >10% rejection rate). Despite concerns regarding the quality of testing, 47% in the performing and interpreting track stated there is no policy or strategy to improve quality in their country. In addition, 33% of respondents who request tests and treat patients were unaware of the most recent College of American Pathologists, IASLC, and Association for Molecular Pathology guidelines for molecular testing., Conclusions: Adoption of molecular testing for lung cancer is relatively low across the world. Barriers include cost, access, quality, turnaround time, and lack of awareness., (Copyright © 2020 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Histologic subtypes of malignant pleural mesothelioma are a major prognostic indicator and decision denominator for all therapeutic strategies. In an ambiguous case, a rare transitional mesothelioma (TM) pattern may be diagnosed by pathologists either as epithelioid mesothelioma (EM), biphasic mesothelioma (BM), or sarcomatoid mesothelioma (SM). This study aimed to better characterize the TM subtype from a histological, immunohistochemical, and molecular standpoint. Deep learning of pathologic slides was applied to this cohort., Methods: A random selection of 49 representative digitalized sections from surgical biopsies of TM was reviewed by 16 panelists. We evaluated BAP1 expression and CDKN2A (p16) homozygous deletion. We conducted a comprehensive, integrated, transcriptomic analysis. An unsupervised deep learning algorithm was trained to classify tumors., Results: The 16 panelists recorded 784 diagnoses on the 49 cases. Even though a Kappa value of 0.42 is moderate, the presence of a TM component was diagnosed in 51%. In 49% of the histological evaluation, the reviewers classified the lesion as EM in 53%, SM in 33%, or BM in 14%. Median survival was 6.7 months. Loss of BAP1 observed in 44% was less frequent in TM than in EM and BM. p16 homozygous deletion was higher in TM (73%), followed by BM (63%) and SM (46%). RNA sequencing unsupervised clustering analysis revealed that TM grouped together and were closer to SM than to EM. Deep learning analysis achieved 94% accuracy for TM identification., Conclusion: These results revealed that the TM pattern should be classified as non-EM or at minimum as a subgroup of the SM type., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Currently, there is no established guidance on how to process and evaluate resected lung cancer specimens after neoadjuvant therapy in the setting of clinical trials and clinical practice. There is also a lack of precise definitions on the degree of pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response. For other cancers such as osteosarcoma and colorectal, breast, and esophageal carcinomas, there have been multiple studies investigating pathologic assessment of the effects of neoadjuvant therapy, including some detailed recommendations on how to handle these specimens. A comprehensive mapping approach to gross and histologic processing of osteosarcomas after induction therapy has been used for over 40 years. The purpose of this article is to outline detailed recommendations on how to process lung cancer resection specimens and to define pathologic response, including major pathologic response or complete pathologic response after neoadjuvant therapy. A standardized approach is recommended to assess the percentages of (1) viable tumor, (2) necrosis, and (3) stroma (including inflammation and fibrosis) with a total adding up to 100%. This is recommended for all systemic therapies, including chemotherapy, chemoradiation, molecular-targeted therapy, immunotherapy, or any future novel therapies yet to be discovered, whether administered alone or in combination. Specific issues may differ for certain therapies such as immunotherapy, but the grossing process should be similar, and the histologic evaluation should contain these basic elements. Standard pathologic response assessment should allow for comparisons between different therapies and correlations with disease-free survival and overall survival in ongoing and future trials. The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer has an effort to collect such data from existing and future clinical trials. These recommendations are intended as guidance for clinical trials, although it is hoped they can be viewed as suggestion for good clinical practice outside of clinical trials, to improve consistency of pathologic assessment of treatment response., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: Anticoagulant therapy (ACT) after traumatic intracranial hemorrhage may lead to progression of hemorrhage, but in the presence of thromboembolic events, the clinician must decide if the benefits outweigh the risks. Currently, no data exist to guide therapy in the acute setting., Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients admitted to our institution with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage that received intravenous heparin, full-dose enoxaparin, or warfarin during their initial hospitalization over a 3-year period. We reviewed their demographics, hospital course, clinical indication and timing for initiation of ACT, and complications., Results: A total of 112 patients were identified. The median age and Glasgow Coma Scale score of these patients was 50.5 years and 9.5, respectively. Twenty-two patients required neurosurgical procedures for their presenting injury, including intracranial pressure monitors and/or open surgeries. Fifty-four patients had deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism prior to initiation, and the remaining 20 patients had preexisting conditions or other indications for initiating ACT. The median time from injury to starting ACT was 8 days. Immediate complications occurred in 6 patients; however, none of these patients required a neurosurgical intervention. Delayed complications included progression of acute to chronic subdural hematoma that required intervention in 2 patients. One patient died from delayed hemorrhage., Conclusions: For this patient population, the risk of immediate and delayed intracranial hemorrhages from initiating ACT therapy in intracranial injury must be weighed against the morbidity of delaying treatment. Although further studies are needed, our review provides the first rates of complications for this patient population., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The 2015 WHO classification of tumors categorized malignant mesothelioma into epithelioid, biphasic (BMM), and sarcomatoid (SMM) for prognostic relevance and treatment decisions. The survival of BMM is suspected to correlate with the amount of the sarcomatoid component. The criteria for a sarcomatoid component and the interobserver variability between pathologists for identifying this component are not well described. In ambiguous cases, a "transitional" (TMM) subtype has been proposed but was not accepted as a specific subtype in the 2015 WHO classification. The aims of this study were to evaluate the interobserver agreement in the diagnosis of BMM, to determine the nature and the significance of TMM subtype, and to relate the percentage of sarcomatoid component with survival. The value of staining for BRCA-1-associated protein (BAP1) and CDKN2A(p16) fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) were also assessed with respect to each of the tumoral components., Methods: The study was conducted by the International Mesothelioma Panel supported by the French National Cancer Institute, the network of rare cancer (EURACAN) and in collaboration with the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC). The patient cases include a random group of 42 surgical biopsy samples diagnosed as BMM with evaluation of SMM component by the French Panel of MESOPATH experts was selected from the total series of 971 BMM cases collected from 1998 to 2016. Fourteen international pathologists with expertise in mesothelioma reviewed digitally scanned slides (hematoxylin and eosin - stained and pan-cytokeratin) without knowledge of prior diagnosis or outcome. Cases with at least 7 of 14 pathologists recognizing TMM features were selected as a TMM group. Demographic, clinical, histopathologic, treatment, and follow-up data were retrieved from the MESOBANK database. BAP1 (clone C-4) loss and CDKN2A(p16) homozygous deletion (HD) were assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH, respectively. Kappa statistics were applied for interobserver agreement and multivariate analysis with Cox regression adjusted for age and gender was performed for survival analysis., Results: The 14 panelists recorded a total of 544 diagnoses. The interobserver correlation was moderate (weighted Kappa = 0.45). Of the cases originally classified as BMM by MESOPATH, the reviewers agreed in 71% of cases (385 of 544 opinions), with cases classified as pure epithelioid in 17% (93 of 544), and pure sarcomatoid in 12% (66 of 544 opinions). Diagnosis of BMM was made on morphology or IHC alone in 23% of the cases and with additional assessment of IHC in 77% (402 of 544). The median overall survival (OS) of the 42 BMM cases was 8 months. The OS for BMM was significantly different from SMM and epithelioid malignant mesothelioma (p < 0.0001). In BMM, a sarcomatoid component of less than 80% correlated with a better survival (p = 0.02). There was a significant difference in survival between BMM with TMM showing a median survival at 6 months compared to 12 months for those without TMM (p < 0.0001). BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 42) of the total cases and in both components in 26%. We also compared the TMM group to that of more aggressive patterns of epithelioid subtypes of mesothelioma (solid and pleomorphic of our large MESOPATH cohort). The curve of transitional type was persistently close to the OS curve of the sarcomatoid component. The group of sarcomatoid, transitional, and pleomorphic mesothelioma were very close to each other. We then considered the contribution of BAP1 immunostaining and loss of CDKN2A(p16) by FISH. BAP1 loss was observed in 50% (21 of 41) of the total cases and in both component in 27% of the cases (11 of 41). There was no significant difference in BAP1 loss between the TMM and non-TMM groups. HD CDKN2A(p16) was detected in 74% of the total cases with no significant difference between the TMM and non-TMM groups. In multivariate analysis, TMM morphology was an indicator of poor prognosis with a hazard ratio = 3.2; 95% confidence interval: 1.6 - 8.0; and p = 0.003 even when compared to the presence of HD CDKN2A(p16) on sarcomatoid component (hazard ratio = 4.5; 95% confidence interval: 1.2 - 16.3, p = 0.02)., Conclusions: The interobserver concordance among the international mesothelioma and French mesothelioma panel suggests clinical utility for an updated definition of biphasic mesothelioma that allows better stratification of patients into risk groups for treatment decisions, systemic anticancer therapy, or selection for surgery or palliation. We also have shown the usefulness of FISH detection of CDKN2A(p16) HD compared to BAP1 loss on the spindle cell component for the separation in ambiguous cases between benign florid stromal reaction from true sarcomatoid component of biphasic mesothelioma. Taken together our results further validate the concept of transitional pattern as a poor prognostic indicator., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Background: Upregulated expression and aberrant activation of the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) are found in lung cancer, making EGFR a relevant target for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Treatment with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is associated with modest improvement in overall survival in patients with squamous cell lung cancer (SqCLC) who have a significant unmet need for effective treatment options. While there is evidence that using EGFR gene copy number, EGFR mutation, and EGFR protein expression as biomarkers can help select patients who respond to treatment, it is important to consider biomarkers for response in patients treated with combination therapies that include EGFR mAbs., Design: Randomized trials of EGFR-directed mAbs cetuximab and necitumumab in combination with chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or antiangiogenic therapy in patients with advanced NSCLC, including SqCLC, were searched in the literature. Results of associations of potential biomarkers and outcomes were summarized., Results: Data from phase III clinical trials indicate that patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein (H-score of ≥200) and/or gene copy numbers of EGFR (e.g. ≥40% cells with ≥4 EGFR copies as detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization; gene amplification in ≥10% of analyzed cells) derive greater therapeutic benefits from EGFR-directed mAbs. Biomarker data are limited for EGFR mAbs used in combination with immunotherapy and are absent when used in combination with antiangiogenic agents., Conclusions: Therapy with EGFR-directed mAbs in combination with chemotherapy is associated with greater clinical benefits in patients with NSCLC, including SqCLC, whose tumors express high levels of EGFR protein and/or have increased EGFR gene copy number. These data support validating the role of these as biomarkers to identify those patients who derive the greatest clinical benefit from EGFR mAb therapy. However, data on biomarkers for EGFR-directed mAbs combined with immunotherapy or antiangiogenic agents remain limited.

Context: In 2013, an evidence-based guideline was published by the College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology to set standards for the molecular analysis of lung cancers to guide treatment decisions with targeted inhibitors. New evidence has prompted an evaluation of additional laboratory technologies, targetable genes, patient populations, and tumor types for testing., Objective: To systematically review and update the 2013 guideline to affirm its validity; to assess the evidence of new genetic discoveries, technologies, and therapies; and to issue an evidence-based update., Design: The College of American Pathologists, the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, and the Association for Molecular Pathology convened an expert panel to develop an evidence-based guideline to help define the key questions and literature search terms, review abstracts and full articles, and draft recommendations., Results: Eighteen new recommendations were drafted. The panel also updated 3 recommendations from the 2013 guideline., Conclusions: The 2013 guideline was largely reaffirmed with updated recommendations to allow testing of cytology samples, require improved assay sensitivity, and recommend against the use of immunohistochemistry for EGFR testing. Key new recommendations include ROS1 testing for all adenocarcinoma patients; the inclusion of additional genes (ERBB2, MET, BRAF, KRAS, and RET) for laboratories that perform next-generation sequencing panels; immunohistochemistry as an alternative to fluorescence in situ hybridization for ALK and/or ROS1 testing; use of 5% sensitivity assays for EGFR T790M mutations in patients with secondary resistance to EGFR inhibitors; and the use of cell-free DNA to "rule in" targetable mutations when tissue is limited or hard to obtain., (Copyright © 2018 College of American Pathologists, International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer, Association for Molecular Pathology, and American Society for Investigative Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The reported prevalence of ALK receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangement in NSCLC ranges from 2% to 7%. The primary standard diagnostic method is fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Recently, immunohistochemistry (IHC) has also proved to be a reproducible and sensitive technique. Reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) has also been advocated, and most recently, the advent of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) for ALK and other fusions has become possible. This study compares anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) evaluation with all four techniques in resected NSCLC from the large European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape cohort., Methods: A total of 96 cases from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape iBiobank, with any ALK immunoreactivity were examined by FISH, central RT-PCR, and NGS. An H-score higher than 120 defines IHC positivity. RNA was extracted from the same formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues. For RT-PCR, primers covered the most frequent ALK translocations. For NGS, the Oncomine Solid Tumour Fusion Transcript Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA) was used. The concordance was assessed using the Cohen κ coefficient (two-sided α ≤ 5%)., Results: NGS provided results for 77 of the 95 cases tested (81.1%), whereas RT-PCR provided results for 77 of 96 (80.2%). Concordance occurred in 55 cases of the 60 cases tested with all four methods (43 ALK negative and 12 ALK positive). Using ALK copositivity for IHC and FISH as the criterion standard, we derived a sensitivity for RT-PCR/NGS of 70.0%/85.0%, with a specificity of 87.1%/79.0%. When either RT-PCR or NGS was combined with IHC, the sensitivity remained the same, whereas the specificity increased to 88.7% and 83.9% respectively., Conclusion: NGS evaluation with the Oncomine Solid Tumour Fusion transcript kit and RT-PCR proved to have high sensitivity and specificity, advocating their use in routine practice. For maximal sensitivity and specificity, ALK status should be assessed by using two techniques and a third one in discordant cases. We therefore propose a customizable testing algorithm. These findings significantly influence existing testing paradigms and have clear clinical and economic impact., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Multiple tumor nodules are seen with increasing frequency in clinical practice. On the basis of the 2015 WHO classification of lung tumors, we assessed the reproducibility of the comprehensive histologic assessment to distinguish second primary lung cancers (SPLCs) from intrapulmonary metastases (IPMs), looking for the most distinctive histologic features. An international panel of lung pathologists reviewed a scanned sequential cohort of 126 tumors from 48 patients and recorded an agreed set of histologic features, including tumor typing and predominant pattern of adenocarcinoma, thereby opining whether the case was SPLC, IPM, or a combination thereof. Cohen κ statistics of 0.60 on overall assessment of SPLC or IPM indicated a good agreement. Likewise, there was good agreement (κ score 0.64, p < 0.0001) between WHO histologic pattern in individual cases and SPLC or IPM status, but the proportions diversified for histologic pattern and SPLC or IPM status (McNemar test, p < 0.0001). The strongest associations for distinguishing between SPLC and IPM were observed for nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, mitotic rate, nuclear inclusions, intraalveolar clusters, and necrosis. Conversely, the associations for lymphocytosis, mucin content, lepidic growth, vascular invasion, macrophage response, clear cell change, acute inflammation keratinization, and emperipolesis did not reach significance with tumor extent. Comprehensive histologic assessment is recommended for distinguishing SPLC from IPM with good reproducibility among lung pathologists. In addition to main histologic type and predominant patterns of histologic subtypes, nuclear pleomorphism, cell size, acinus formation, nucleolar size, and mitotic rate strongly correlate with pathologic staging status., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Reported prevalence of driver gene mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is highly variable and clinical correlations are emerging. Using NSCLC biomaterial and clinical data from the European Thoracic Oncology Platform Lungscape iBiobank, we explore the epidemiology of mutations and association to clinicopathologic features and patient outcome (relapse-free survival, time-to-relapse, overall survival)., Methods: Clinically annotated, resected stage I-III NSCLC FFPE tissue was assessed for gene mutation using a microfluidics-based multiplex PCR platform. Mutant-allele detection sensitivity is >1% for most of the ∼150 (13 genes) mutations covered in the multiplex test., Results: Multiplex testing has been carried out in 2063 (76.2%) of the 2709 Lungscape cases (median follow-up 4.8 years). FFPE samples mostly date from 2005 to 2008, yet recently extracted DNA quality and quantity was generally good. Average DNA yield/case was 2.63 µg; 38 cases (1.4%) failed QC and were excluded from study; 95.1% of included cases allowed the complete panel of mutations to be tested. Most common were KRAS, MET, EGFR and PIK3CA mutations with overall prevalence of 23.0%, 6.8%, 5.4% and 4.9%, respectively. KRAS and EGFR mutations were significantly more frequent in adenocarcinomas: PIK3CA in squamous cell carcinomas. MET mutation prevalence did not differ between histology groups. EGFR mutations were found predominantly in never smokers; KRAS in current/former smokers. For all the above mutations, there was no difference in outcome between mutated and non-mutated cases., Conclusion: Archival FFPE NSCLC material is adequate for multiplex mutation analysis. In this large, predominantly European, clinically annotated stage I-III NSCLC cohort, none of the mutations characterized showed prognostic significance., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: The current WHO classification of lung cancer states that a diagnosis of SCLC can be reliably made on routine histological and cytological grounds but immunohistochemistry (IHC) may be required, particularly (1) in cases in which histologic features are equivocal and (2) in cases in which the pathologist wants to increase confidence in diagnosis. However, reproducibility studies based on hematoxylin and eosin-stained slides alone for SCLC versus large cell neuroendocrine carcinoma (LCNEC) have shown pairwise κ scores ranging from 0.35 to 0.81. This study examines whether judicious use of IHC improves diagnostic reproducibility for SCLC., Methods: Nineteen lung pathologists studied interactive digital images of 79 tumors, predominantly neuroendocrine lung tumors. Images of resection and biopsy specimens were used to make diagnoses solely on the basis of morphologic features (level 1), morphologic features along with requested IHC staining results (level 2), and all available IHC staining results (level 3)., Results: For the 19 pathologists reading all 79 cases, the rate of agreement for level 1 was 64.7%, and it increased to 73.2% and 77.5% in levels 2 and 3, respectively. With IHC, κ scores for four tumor categories (SCLC, LCNEC, carcinoid tumors, and other) increased in resection samples from 0.43 to 0.60 and in biopsy specimens from 0.43 to 0.64., Conclusions: Diagnosis using hematoxylin and eosin staining alone showeds moderate agreement among pathologists in tumors with neuroendocrine morphology, but agreement improved to good in most cases with the judicious use of IHC, especially in the diagnosis of SCLC. An approach for IHC in the differential diagnosis of SCLC is provided., (Copyright © 2017 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Despite the efficacy of a number of first-line treatments, most patients with advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience disease progression that warrants further treatment. In this review, we examine the role of novel active agents for patients who progress after first-line therapy and who are not candidates for targeted therapies. More therapeutic options are needed for the management of patients with NSCLC after failure of first-line chemotherapy. A PubMed search was performed for articles from January 2012 to May 2015 using the keywords NSCLC, antiangiogenic, immunotherapy, second-line, novel therapies and English language articles only. Relevant papers were reviewed; papers outside that period were considered on a case-by-case basis. A search of oncology congresses was performed to identify relevant abstracts over this period. In recent years, antiangiogenic agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been added to our armamentarium to treat patients with advanced NSCLC who have progressed on first-line chemotherapy. These include nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor; ramucirumab, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 antibody; and nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, just three of a growing list of antibodies targeting the programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/PD ligand-1 pathway. Predictive and prognostic factors in NSCLC treatment will help to optimise treatment with these novel agents. The approval of new treatments for patients with NSCLC after the failure of first-line chemotherapy has increased options after a decade of few advances, and holds promise for future evolution of the management of NSCLC., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FC has received advisory board and/or lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Clovis Oncology. LC has received honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb and AstraZeneca. RD has received advisory board and/or lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis and Clovis Oncology. DE is a consultant for ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Genentech, Golden Biotech, Helsinn Therapeutics and Sandoz. DF has received consultant fees from Eli Lilly and speaker bureau fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb. KK has received advisory board and/or lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Clovis Oncology, Bristol-Myers Squibb and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. TLC has received advisory board and/or lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi and Synta. NL is a researcher for the University Health Network, which received a research grant from Novartis. CM has received honoraria for expert study advice and travel support from Boehringer Ingelheim. MP has received research grants from Novartis and honoraria from Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer and Clovis Oncology. LP-A has given scientific advice to Pfizer, Clovis Oncology, Roche, Boehringer Ingelheim, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Bristol-Myers Squibb. MP has received honoraria for advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Roche and Boehringer Ingelheim. RP has received speaker's fees and honoraria for advisory boards from Boehringer Ingelheim, and honoraria for data safety monitoring board membership from Synta Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme. EQ participated in clinical trials involving nivolumab, pembrolizumab, nintedanib, ramucirumab and ganetespib. MR has received compensated consultant fees from Hoffmann-La Roche, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer Ingelheim and Samsung, and honoraria for lectures from Hoffmann-La Roche, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. ES has received honoraria for participating in advisory boards and lecture fees from Boehringer Ingelheim. EV has received consultant/advisory fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Celgene, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Eli Lilly, GeneCentric, Genentech, Merck, Synta, Transgene and VentiRx. CZ has received honoraria from Hoffmann-La Roche, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim and AstraZeneca.

Introduction: Diagnostic immunohistochemistry (IHC) is increasingly accepted as a screening method for anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK) rearrangements in NSCLC. We have sought to establish an ongoing robust external quality assessment process to gauge quality of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) IHC, which can have an impact on interpretation of patient samples., Methods: Unstained tissue and cell line samples were distributed on a quarterly basis to participating laboratories from 30 countries. Participants stained the slide using their routine diagnostic ALK IHC method and returned the slide along with their in-house control and methodology details. Slides were assessed by a team of pathologists and scientists., Results: Overall, there was a mean pass rate of 83% (range 71%-98%), with 38 variations in staining protocol. Methods included the following: the Roche D5F3 assay (65% of users, pass rate 93%); Novocastra 5A4 (15% of users, pass rate 65%); Cell Signaling Technology D5F3 (7% of users, pass rate 91%), and Dako ALK1 (5% of users, pass rate 50%). Choice of methodology directly affected final interpretation of distributed ALK-positive and ALK-negative NSCLC cases, which were correctly identified by 89% and 88% of participants, respectively. Antibody detection method was a contributing factor in false-negative staining results. The choice of laboratory controls was found to be unsuitable, and as such, in-house control recommendations are also provided., Conclusions: ALK IHC is a robust screening technique, but there is concern that some diagnostic laboratories are using inadequate staining methods, which has a direct impact on final interpretation. External assessment helps provide laboratories with continued confidence in their ALK IHC testing., (Copyright © 2016 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Modern disposable diapers are complex products and ubiquitous globally. A robust safety assessment for disposable diapers include two important exposure parameters, i) frequency of diaper use & ii) constituent transfer from diaper to skin from direct and indirect skin contact materials. This article uses published information and original studies to quantify the exposure parameters for diapers. Using growth tables for the first three years of diapered life, an average body weight of 10-11 kg can be calculated, with a 10th percentile for females (8.5-8.8 kg). Data from surveys and diary studies were conducted to determine the frequency of use of diapers. The overall mean in the US is 4.7 diapers per day with a 75th, 90th, and 95th percentile of 5.0, 6.0, and 7.0 respectively. Using diaper topsheet-lotion transfer as a model, direct transfer to skin from the topsheet was 3.0-4.3% of the starting amount of lotion. Indirect transfer of diaper core materials as a measure of re-wetting of the skin via urine resurfacing back to the topsheet under pressure was estimated at a range of 0.32-0.66% averaging 0.46%. As described, a thorough data-based understanding of exposure is critical for a robust exposure based safety assessment of disposable diapers., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The evolution of personalised medicine in lung cancer has dramatically impacted diagnostic pathology. Current challenges centre on the growing demands placed on small tissue samples by molecular diagnostic techniques. In this review, expert recommendations are provided regarding successful identification of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-rearranged non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Steps to correctly process and conserve tumour tissue during diagnostic testing are essential to ensure tissue availability. For example, storing extra tissue sections ready for molecular diagnostic steps allows faster testing and preserves tissue. Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) is commonly used to detect ALK rearrangements, with most laboratories favouring screening by immunohistochemistry followed by a confirmatory FISH assay. Reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction can also identify ALK fusion gene mRNA transcripts but can be limited by the quality of RNA and the risk that rare fusion variants may not be captured. Next-generation sequencing (NGS) technology has recently provided an alternative method for detecting ALK rearrangements. While current experience is limited, NGS is set to become the most efficient approach as an increasing number of genetic abnormalities is required to be tested. Upfront, reflex testing for ALK gene rearrangement should become routine as ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy moves into the first-line setting. Guidelines recommend that EGFR and ALK tests are carried out in parallel on all confirmed and potential adenocarcinomas, and this is more efficient in terms of tissue usage and testing turnaround time for both of these actionable gene alterations. The practice of sequential testing is not recommended. Identification of ALK rearrangements is now essential for the diagnosis of NSCLC, underpinned by the benefits of ALK inhibitors. As scientific understanding and diagnostic technology develops, ALK testing will continue to be an evolving and challenging paradigm., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: To evaluate the risk of hemorrhagic complications associated with starting anti-platelet therapy (APT) after acute traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (tICH) and to examine the frequency of thrombotic complications., Patients and Methods: We retrospectively identified all patients admitted to our institution with tICH that received APT during their initial hospitalization over a three-year period. We reviewed their demographics, hospital course, clinical indication and timing for initiation of APT, and complications., Results: A total of 222 patients were identified. The median age and Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 61 and 21, respectively. Fifty (23%) patients required neurosurgical procedures. APTs were initiated due to a history of APT use in 91 patients (41%) and blunt cerebrovascular injury in 86 patients (38.6%). The median time from injury to starting APT was 4 days. Immediate complications including new or worsening hemorrhage occurred in 1 (<1%) patient. Delayed hemorrhagic complications occurred in 6 (4.7%) patients. Thrombotic events occurred in 21 (9.4%) patients prior to starting APT. Thirteen (5.8%) of these were potentially preventable., Conclusion: The risk of immediate and delayed intracranial hemorrhages from initiating APT after tICH must be weighed against the morbidity of delaying indicated thrombotic prophylaxis. Our initial data indicates that hemorrhagic complications are infrequent, and thrombotic complications can have significant clinical consequences. Our retrospective review provides the first rates of complications for this patient population., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The European, multicentre, quarterly point-prevalence study of community-acquired diarrhoea (EUCODI) analysed stool samples received at ten participating clinical microbiology laboratories (Austria, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Romania, and the UK) in 2014. On four specified days, each local laboratory submitted samples from ≤20 consecutive patients to the Austrian Study Centre for further testing with the FilmArray GI Panel (BioFire Diagnostics, Salt Lake City, UT, USA). Of the 709 samples from as many patients received, 325 (45.8%) tested negative, 268 (37.8%) yielded only one organism, and 116 (16.4%) yielded multiple organisms. Positivity rates ranged from 41% (30 of 73 samples) in France to 74% (59 of 80 samples) in Romania. With the exception of Entamoeba histolytica and Vibrio cholerae, all of the 22 targeted pathogens were detected at least once. Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli, Campylobacter species, toxigenic Clostridium difficile, enteroaggregative E. coli, norovirus and enterotoxigenic E. coli were the six most commonly detected pathogens. When tested according to local protocols, seven of 128 positive samples (5.5%) yielded multiple organisms. Overall, the FilmArray GI Panel detected at least one organism in 54.2% (384/709) of the samples, as compared with 18.1% (128/709) when testing was performed with conventional techniques locally. This underlines the considerable potential of multiplex PCR to improve routine stool diagnostics in community-acquired diarrhoea. Classic culture methods directed at the isolation of specific pathogens are increasingly becoming second-line tools, being deployed when rapid molecular tests give positive results. This optimizes the yield from stool examinations and dramatically improves the timeliness of diagnosis., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To complement the existing treatment guidelines for all tumour types, ESMO organises consensus conferences to focus on specific issues in each type of tumour. The Second ESMO Consensus Conference on Lung Cancer was held on 11-12 May 2013 in Lugano. A total of 35 experts met to address several questions on management of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in each of four areas: pathology and molecular biomarkers, early stage disease, locally advanced disease and advanced (metastatic) disease. For each question, recommendations were made including reference to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. This consensus paper focuses on recommendations for pathology and molecular biomarkers in relation to the diagnosis of lung cancer, primarily non-small-cell carcinomas., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Genome-wide association studies have identified several genetic loci associated with variation in resting heart rate in European and Asian populations. No study has evaluated genetic variants associated with heart rate in African Americans., Objective: To identify novel genetic variants associated with resting heart rate in African Americans., Methods: Ten cohort studies participating in the Candidate-gene Association Resource and Continental Origins and Genetic Epidemiology Network consortia performed genome-wide genotyping of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and imputed 2,954,965 SNPs using HapMap YRI and CEU panels in 13,372 participants of African ancestry. Each study measured the RR interval (ms) from 10-second resting 12-lead electrocardiograms and estimated RR-SNP associations using covariate-adjusted linear regression. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to combine cohort-specific measures of association and identify genome-wide significant loci (P≤2.5×10(-8))., Results: Fourteen SNPs on chromosome 6q22 exceeded the genome-wide significance threshold. The most significant association was for rs9320841 (+13 ms per minor allele; P = 4.98×10(-15)). This SNP was approximately 350 kb downstream of GJA1, a locus previously identified as harboring SNPs associated with heart rate in Europeans. Adjustment for rs9320841 also attenuated the association between the remaining 13 SNPs in this region and heart rate. In addition, SNPs in MYH6, which have been identified in European genome-wide association study, were associated with similar changes in the resting heart rate as this population of African Americans., Conclusions: An intergenic region downstream of GJA1 (the gene encoding connexin 43, the major protein of the human myocardial gap junction) and an intragenic region within MYH6 are associated with variation in resting heart rate in African Americans as well as in populations of European and Asian origin., (Copyright © 2013 Heart Rhythm Society. All rights reserved.)