Search

Inertial Confinement Fusion and Magnetic Confinement Fusion (ICF and MCF) follow different paths toward goals that are largely common. In this paper, the claim is made that progress can be accelerated by learning from each other across the two fields. Examples of successful cross-community knowledge transfer are presented that highlight the gains from working together, specifically in the areas of high-resolution x-ray imaging spectroscopy and neutron spectrometry. Opportunities for near- and mid-term collaboration are identified, including in chemical vapor deposition diamond detector technology, using gamma rays to monitor fusion gain, handling neutron-induced backgrounds, developing radiation hard technology, and collecting fundamental supporting data needed for diagnostic analysis. Fusion research is rapidly moving into the igniting and burning regimes, posing new opportunities and challenges for ICF and MCF diagnostics. This includes new physics to probe, such as alpha heating; increasingly harsher environmental conditions; and (in the slightly longer term) the need for new plant monitoring diagnostics. Substantial overlap is expected in all of these emerging areas, where joint development across the two subfields as well as between public and private researchers can be expected to speed up advancement for all., (© 2024 Author(s). All article content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

The scattered-light time-history diagnostic (SLTD) suite measures time-resolved scattered light in three wavelength bands: stimulated Brillouin scattering (350-352 nm), stimulated Raman scattering (430-760 nm), and plasma emission at half the laser frequency (695-735 nm), at 15 locations around the National Ignition Facility (NIF) target chamber. The SLTD, along with the full-aperture backscatter station (FABS), collects scattered light from direct- and indirect-drive inertial confinement fusion experiments. The SLTD calibration was revisited after a discrepancy between FABS and SLTD measurements was observed on NIF polar direct-drive [Skupsky et al., Phys. Plasmas 11, 2763 (2004)] experiments. An integrated calibration of the SLTD was performed for the first time, and individual components were also calibrated for the wavelengths of 351, 527, and 532 nm. The optical transmission of the instrument was measured to be (1.12 ± 0.04) × 10-7 and (1.96 ± 0.11) × 10-7 for the wavelengths of 351 and 532 nm, respectively. The revised calibration at 351 nm brings the SLTD measured scattered energy in agreement with the FABS measured scattered energy after additionally accounting for the degradation of an optical element in FABS. This decreased the inferred absorption by 7% for a representative experiment. However, discrepancies remain between FABS and SLTD measurements in the SRS band (532 nm)., (© 2024 Author(s). Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.)

Background: Controlled trials have consistently demonstrated the efficacy of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPis) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and BRCA1 or BRCA2 alterations (BRCAalt). However, the reported efficacy of PARPi for alterations in other homologous recombination repair (HRR) genes is less consistent. We sought to evaluate the routine practice effectiveness of PARPi between and within these groups., Design: Patient-level data from a deidentified nationwide (USA-based) cancer clinico-genomic database between January 2011 and September 2023 were extracted. Patients with mCRPC and comprehensive genomic profiling by liquid biopsy [circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA)] or tissue (tumor) biopsy and who received single-agent PARPi were included and grouped by BRCAalt, ATMalt, other HRR, or no HRR. We further subcategorized BRCAalt into homozygous loss (BRCAloss) and all other deleterious BRCAalt (otherBRCAalt)., Results: A total of 445 patients met inclusion criteria: 214 with tumor and 231 with ctDNA. BRCAalt had more favorable outcomes to PARPi compared with ATM, other HRR, and no HRR groups. Within the BRCAalt subgroup, compared with other BRCAalt, BRCAloss had a more favorable time to next treatment (median 9 versus 19.4 months, P = 0.005), time to treatment discontinuation (median 8 versus 14 months, P = 0.006), and routine practice overall survival (median 14.7 versus 19.4 months, P = 0.016). Tumor BRCAloss prevalence (3.1%) was similar to ctDNA prevalence in liquid biopsy specimens with high tumor fraction (>20%). BRCAloss was not detected in orthogonal germline testing., Conclusions: PARPi routine practice effectiveness between groups mirrors prospective trials. Within the BRCAalt group, BRCAloss had the best outcomes. Unless the ctDNA tumor fraction is very high, somatic tissue testing (archival or metastatic) should be prioritized to identify patients who may benefit most from PARPi. When tissue testing is not clinically feasible, sufficient ctDNA tumor fraction levels for detection are enriched at clinical timepoints associated with tumor progression., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A rapid calibration system is under development for the Near Backscatter Imager (NBI) in use at the National Ignition Facility (NIF). NBI is an optical diagnostic that quantifies the stimulated Brillouin and Raman backscatter produced by NIF's targets. Specifically, NBI measures the light that does not fall directly back into the laser aperture, which is measured by the Full Aperture Backscatter System (FABS). When working in tandem with FABS, NBI allows for the full characterization of backscattered light. This informs Hohlraum laser coupling, optical damage, and laser-plasma interaction models. NBI uses a large Spectralon plate covered by a protective glass layer and is mounted inside the target chamber where it is exposed to high energy backscatter, neutrons, and build-up debris left over from the exploded targets. This gradually alters the reflectivity of the plate, meaning that NBI needs to be calibrated regularly. Described here is NIF's design for a system capable of rapid in situ calibration of NBI that is to be installed in FY25., (© 2024 Author(s). Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.)

Introduction: Real-world evidence is receiving considerable attention as a way to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical products for substance use disorders (SUDs). However, the feasibility of using real-world data (RWD) to emulate clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs is uncertain. The aim of this study is to identify the number of clinical trials evaluating treatments for SUDs with reported results that could be feasibly emulated using observational data from contemporary insurance claims and/or electronic health record (EHR) data., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, all phase 2-4 trials evaluating treatments for SUDs registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results were identified. Each trial was evaluated to determine if the indications, interventions, at least 80% of eligibility criteria, comparators, and primary end points could be ascertained using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data., Results: There were 272 SUD trials on ClinicalTrials.gov with reported results. Of these, when examining feasibility using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data, 262 (96.3%) had indications that were ascertainable; 194 (71.3%) had interventions that were ascertainable; 21 (7.7%) had at least 80% of eligibility criteria that were ascertainable; 17 (6.3%) had active comparators that were ascertainable; and 61 (22.4%) had primary end points that were ascertainable. In total, there were no trials for which all 5 characteristics were ascertainable using contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data. When considering placebo comparators as ascertainable, there were 6 (2.2%) trials that had all 5 key characteristics classified as ascertainable from contemporarily available administrative claims and/or structured EHR data., Conclusions: No trials evaluating treatments for SUDs could be feasibly emulated using contemporarily available RWD, demonstrating a need for an increase in the resolution of data capture within a public health system to facilitate trial emulation., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the differential times of submission and approval of CFTR modulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU)., Methods: By collecting publicly available data from the websites of the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, we quantified differential times in submission, review duration, and approvals of initial marketing authorization and variation of indications of CFTR modulators in the US and the EU by December 31, 2023., Results: Applications regarding marketing of 4 CFTR modulators were submitted 103 (SD ±143) days later in the EU than in the US: 31 (SD ±39) days later for initial approval, and 124 (SD ±155) days for supplemental indications. The regulatory review process was completed in 181 days [IQR, 179 - 182] in the US and 325 days [IQR, 276 - 382] in the EU: 167 days [IQR, 102 - 232] in the US and 346 days [IQR, 302 - 400] in the EU for first approvals, 181 days [IQR, 181 - 182] in the US and 324 days [IQR, 264 - 382] in the EU for supplemental indication approvals. CFTR modulators were approved 267 (SD 143) days later in the EU than in the US: 220 (SD ±76) days for initial approval and 280 (SD ±157) days for supplemental indications., Conclusion: We found significant differences in times of submission and for approval of CFTR modulators between the US and EU, whereby initial approvals and subsequent indication approvals were always first granted in the US., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Enrico Costa - Member of the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) at the EMA. The views expressed in this article are personal views and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the EMA. Silvia Girotti - None. Clément Mathieu - None. Carlo Castellani – Dr. Castellani has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers or educational events from Vertex Pharmaaceuticals and Chiesi, and he has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Vertex Pharmaaceuticals and Chiesi. Joseph S. Ross - Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; formerly received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST) and from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644); and in addition, Dr. Ross was an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled September 2022. Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar - In the last 36 months, unrelated to this work, she has received grants to her institution from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Eloxx, and 4DMT; has received fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated related to consultation on clinical research design and participation on advisory boards; and has provided clinical trial design consultation for 4DMT. She served on a DMC for AbbVie. She serves as the adult patient care representative to the CFF Board of Trustees, and on the CF Foundation's Clinical Research Executive Committee, Clinical Research Advisory Board, and as immediate past chair of the CF TDN's Sexual Health, Reproduction and Gender Research Working Group, on the scientific advisory board for Emily's Entourage, and on the ATS Respiratory Health Awards Committee and is the ICC Chair-elect and served previously on the ATS Scientific Grant Review and Clinical Problems Assembly Programming Committees. She is also a member of the International Advisory Board for Lancet Respiratory Medicine and the Editorial Board for the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Hubert G. M. Leufkens - None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Objective: There has been a recent surge in the development of agents for bacillus Calmette-Guérin-unresponsive (BCG-U) non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). Critical assessment of these agents and practical recommendations for optimal selection of patients and therapies are urgently needed, especially in the absence of randomized trials on bladder-sparing treatment (BST) options., Methods: A global committee of bladder cancer experts was assembled to develop recommendations on BST for BCG-U NMIBC. Working groups reviewed the literature and developed draft recommendations, which were then voted on by International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG) members using a modified Delphi process. During a live meeting in August 2023, voting results and supporting evidence were presented, and recommendations were refined on the basis of meeting discussions. Final recommendations achieved >75% agreement during the meeting, and some were further refined via web conferences and e-mail discussions., Key Findings and Limitations: There is currently no single optimal agent for patients with BCG-U disease who seek to avoid radical cystectomy (RC). BST selection should be personalized, taking into account individual patient characteristics and preferences, tumor attributes, and efficacy/toxicity data for the agents available. For patients with BCG-U carcinoma in situ (CIS), gemcitabine/docetaxel (GEM/DOCE), nadofaragene firadenovec (NFF), and nogapendekin alfa inbakicept-pmln (NAI) + BCG are recommended; because of its systemic toxicity, pembrolizumab should only be offered after other options are exhausted. For patients with BCG-U papillary-only tumors, GEM/DOCE, NFF, NAI + BCG, single-agent chemotherapy, hyperthermic mitomycin C, and pembrolizumab are recommended. Given the modest efficacy of available options, clinical trial participation is encouraged. For unapproved agents with reported data, IBCG recommendations await the final results of pivotal trials., Conclusions and Clinical Implications: The IBCG consensus recommendations provide practical guidance on BST for BCG-U NMIBC., (Copyright © 2024 European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with unfavourable subset cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis when treated with standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Whether first-line treatment guided by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can improve outcomes is unknown. The CUPISCO trial was designed to inform a molecularly guided treatment strategy to improve outcomes over standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of molecularly guided therapy (MGT) versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. This was to determine whether the inclusion of CGP in the initial diagnostic work-up leads to improved outcomes over the current standard of care. We herein report the primary analysis., Methods: CUPISCO was a phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre trial done at 159 sites in 34 countries outside the USA. Patients with central eligibility review-confirmed disease (acceptable histologies included adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, evaluated by CGP, who reached disease control after three cycles of standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:1 via a block-stratified randomisation procedure to MGT versus chemotherapy continuation for at least three further cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498521, and follow-up is ongoing., Findings: From July 10, 2018, to Dec 9, 2022, 636 (42%) of 1505 screened patients were enrolled. Median follow-up in the treatment period was 24·1 months (IQR 11·6-35·6). Of 438 patients who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, 436 were randomly assigned: 326 (75%) to the MGT group and 110 (25%) to the chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·7-6·5) in the MGT group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·56-0·92]; p=0·0079). Related adverse event rates per 100-patient-years at risk were generally similar or lower with MGT versus chemotherapy., Interpretation: In patients with previously untreated, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, CGP with subsequent MGTs resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard platinum-based chemotherapy. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CGP is performed at initial diagnosis in patients with unfavourable CUP., Funding: F Hoffmann-La Roche., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests All authors received research funding in the form of third-party medical writing assistance from F Hoffmann-La Roche. AK reports research funding for a clinical trial in CUP from Bristol Myers Squibb; research funding for a clinical trial in CUP from Molecular Health; and consulting fees, support for attending meetings or travel, or both, participation in a data safety monitoring board or advisory board from F Hoffmann-La Roche. TB was study oncologist for the CUPISCO trial for F Hoffman-La Roche and received remuneration for this work for the benefit of employer, and support for attending meetings or travel, or both. CP reports travel, accommodation, or expenses and additional costs linked to the study (paid to institution), and investigator fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche. K-KS reports grants or contracts (paid to institution for running trials) from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, AstraZeneca, and Merck; consulting fees (personal) from Nouscom; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Servier, Seagen, and Nouscom; support for attending meetings or travel (personal), or both, from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, and Merck; and an advisory board (personal) for Mirati Therapeutics. NCo reports honoraria, advisory board membership, support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from F Hoffman-La Roche; a patent pending, application number GB2317261.2; an advisory or leadership role for CUP Foundation (Jo's Friends; unpaid); and research support to team from AstraZeneca, Orion, F Hoffmann-La Roche, Taiho, GSK, Novartis, Starpharma, Bayer, Eisai, UCB, Redx Pharmaceuticals, Stemline Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, AstraZeneca, Cancer Research UK, Orion, and LOXO-Oncology. JJdM reports support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Bristol Myers Squibb. RAP-C reports medical writing and processing fees from Astellas, Ipsen, Roche, BeiGene, and Bristol Myers Squibb; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Eisai, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas, Roche, Amgen, and Eli Lilly; payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, and Bristol Myers Squibb; support for attending meetings or travel, or both, from Roche, Lilly, Astellas, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for AstraZeneca, Roche, and Ipsen. FL reports grants or contracts from Lilly and Merck Sharp & Dohme; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Lilly, Merck, Sanofi, and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel, or both from Lilly, Merck, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. DGJR reports consulting fees from Merck, Pfizer, and Astellas; payment for honoraria, lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Gilead and Merck Sharp & Dohme; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen and AstraZeneca. JT reports consulting fees from Servier and Bristol Myers Squibb; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Servier, Bayer, and Ipsen; and reports support for attending meetings or travel, or both (American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2022), from Zentiva and Roche. CA reports research grants from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, AstraZeneca, Nektar, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Amgen, Incyte, and Bayer; advisory boards for Novartis, Merck, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Teva, Astellas, and Bristol Myers Squibb; and peakers bureaus for Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Teva, Amgen, and Bayer. MÖ reports an advisory board, honoraria, and travel support from Janssen; additional costs linked to the study (paid to institution), investigator fees, and honoraria from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory board and honoraria from Sanofi; an advisory board and honoraria for Astellas; honoraria from Novartis; travel support from Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel support and speaker support from AstraZeneca. MS reports honoraria for lectures F Hoffmann-La Roche. FB reports additional costs linked to the study and investigator fees from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory board for AstraZeneca, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Bristol Myers Squibb; speakers bureaus for AstraZeneca and Bristol Myers Squibb; and travel support or accommodation from Takeda, Merck Sharp & Dohme. SYK reports research funding (paid to institution; principal investigator since 2019) from F Hoffmann-La Roche; honorarium for lecture (May, 2023) from LG Chem; honorarium for lecture (August, 2023) from Merck Sharp & Dohme Korea; an advisory board (December, 2021) for Ono Korea; and an advisory board (December, 2022) for Guardant Health. YN reports research funding (paid to institution) from AbbVie, Ono, Daiichi Sankyo, Taiho, Pfizer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Chugai, and Bayer; payment for honoraria, lectures, presentations, speakers’ bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events (personal) from AstraZeneca, Eisai, Ono, Gardant, Takeda, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Chugai, PDR pharma, Nihon Kayaku, Taiho, Bristol Myers Squibb, Bayer, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. AI reports additional costs linked to the study, investigator fees, advisory role, honoraria, and research funding from F Hoffmann-La Roche; an advisory role and honoraria from Daiichi Sankyo; an advisory role for Immune Design; an advisory role and honoraria from Epizyme; an advisory role and honoraria from Bayer and Lilly; patents, royalties, or intellectual property from Bristol Myers Squibb; honoraria from Novartis and Ipsen; and research funding from AstraZeneca–MedImmune, PharmaMar, Merck Sharp & Dohme Oncology, and Merck Serono. NCh reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. GD-P reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. CM reports being an employee of F Hoffmann-La Roche. JS reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche. MT reports being an employee and holding stocks or shares at F Hoffmann-La Roche, and patents planned, issued, or pending (antibodies against human CSF-1R and uses thereof; modulators for HER2 signalling in HER2 expressing patients with gastric cancer) from F Hoffmann-La Roche. JSR reports being an employee of Foundation Medicine; and holding stocks or shares at Roche Holdings. HM reports research funding (paid to institution), consulting fees, and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for F Hoffmann-La Roche; and an advisory role and honoraria for lectures from Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Merck, Stemline Therapeutics. LM reports additional costs linked to the CUPISCO trial (paid to institution), support for the presentation of the CUPISCO trial results and associated publication; and travel and accommodation expenses to attend the 2023 European Society for Medical Oncology meeting and present the CUPISCO trial results from F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Although both urachal (U) and nonurachal (NU) bladder adenocarcinomas (adenoCas) share several histologic similarities, they differ in location and sometimes in therapeutic options. We analyzed the differences in genomic alterations (GAs) between these tumor entities, with the aim of identifying potential therapeutic targets for clinical trials., Materials and Methods: Overall, 133 U and 328 NU adenoCas were analyzed. Hybrid capture-based comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed to evaluate all classes of GA. Germline status of GA was predicted using a validated somatic-germline computational method. CGP was performed using the FoundationOne and FoundationOne CDx assays (Foundation Medicine, Inc)., Results: The most frequent GA in both U and NU cohorts included TP53 (86.5% v 81.1%) and KRAS (34.6% v 27.7%). GAs characteristic of colorectal adenoCa, such as SMAD4 ( P = .069) and GNAS ( P = .071), were more common in U versus NU. Conversely, TERT ( P < .01) and RB1 ( P = .071) were more prevalent in NU adenoCa. Notably, both U and NU adenoCas exhibited possibly targetable GA in PIK3CA (7.5% v 7.9%) and ERBB2 (6.8% v 7.6%). Biomarkers associated with potential benefit from anti-PD-1/L1 were infrequent. Median tumor mutational burden was 2.6 and 3.5 mutations per megabase for U and NU, respectively, and PD-L1 expression >1% was rare. Genomic ancestry and genomic signature distribution were similar in both tumor types. GAs were most commonly of somatic nature. Limitations include lack of clinical data, tumor heterogeneity, and retrospective nature., Conclusion: U and NU adenoCAs revealed differences in GA, with PIK3CA and ERBB2 being identified as putative therapeutic targets. Biomarkers of response to anti-PD-(L)1 were uncommon. Results highlight the potential of CGP to personalize treatment options of bladder adenoCa and inform clinical trial designs.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awards the breakthrough therapy designation to expedite development and review of therapeutics intended to treat serious conditions when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates potential substantial improvement over existing therapies on clinically significant end points. Under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, the FDA is required to publish and routinely update a list of surrogate markers to provide industry sponsors with indication-specific information about end points that were or may be considered for approval. Therapeutics that are granted breakthrough therapy designation can receive accelerated or traditional approval; however, little is known about those approved through the latter pathway, where postmarketing confirmatory studies are typically not required, regardless of the end point used., Objective: To evaluate the primary end points used in premarket pivotal trials supporting FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals and to determine whether postmarketing studies confirming efficacy were required for approvals based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the Drugs@FDA database for all original breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from inception to December 31, 2023, in the US. The first designation was approved on November 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed in January 2024., Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses were used to characterize the breakthrough therapy-designated indication approval pathways, the primary end points of pivotal efficacy trials, and their postmarketing requirements or commitments., Results: From 2013 to 2023, the FDA approved 157 original indications with breakthrough therapy designation. Of these, 52 (33%) were granted accelerated approval and 105 (67%) were granted traditional approval. All accelerated approvals were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points and had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy. Of these 52 indications, 51 (98%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table of surrogate end points for the same indication. Among traditional approvals, 61 (58%) were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points, of which 4 (7%) had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy and 39 (64%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table for the same indication., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of original FDA breakthrough therapy-designated approvals from 2013 to 2023, trials supporting these approvals often used surrogate markers as primary end points (even when not approved via accelerated approval) and lacked FDA-required postmarketing studies to verify clinical benefit. These findings suggest that requiring postmarketing studies for breakthrough therapy-designated indications approved based on surrogate markers, regardless of approval pathway, may increase patient and clinician certainty of the expected clinical benefit.

Background: The application of precision medicine in clinical practice implies a thorough evaluation of actionable genomic alterations to streamline therapeutic decision making. Comprehensive genomic profiling of tumor via next-generation sequencing (NGS) represents a great opportunity but also several challenges. During the 2023 San Raffaele Retreat, we aimed to provide expert recommendations for the optimal use of NGS in urothelial carcinoma (UC)., Materials and Methods: A modified Delphi method was utilized, involving a panel of 12 experts in UC from European and United States centers, including oncologists, urologists, pathologists, and translational scientists. An initial survey, conducted before the meeting, delivered 15 statements to the panel. A consensus was defined when ≥70% agreement was reached for each statement. Statements not meeting the consensus threshold were discussed during the meeting., Results: Nine of the 15 statements covering patient selection, cancer characteristics, and type of NGS assay, achieved a consensus during the survey. The remaining six statements addressing the optimal timing of NGS use, the ideal source of tumor biospecimen for NGS testing, and the subsequent need to evaluate the germline nature of certain genomic findings were discussed during the meeting, leading to unanimous agreement at the end of the conference., Conclusion: This consensus-building effort addressed multiple unanswered questions regarding the use of NGS in UC. The opinion of experts was in favor of broader use of NGS. In a setting where recommendations/guidelines may be limited, these insights may aid clinicians to provide informed counselling and raise the bar of precision and personalized therapy., Competing Interests: Disclosure Andrea Necchi: Honoraria: Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Foundation Medicine, BMS, Astellas. Consulting or Advisory role: MSD, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Incyte, Seattle Genetics/Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Rainier Therapeutics, Bycicle Therapeutics, GlaxoSmithKline, Basilea Pharmaceutica, Catalym. Research Funding (Institution): MSD, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, Gilead. Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, MSD, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Rainer Therapeutics, Pfizer. Employment and Stock Ownership (spouse): Bayer. Jeffrey S. Ross: employee of Foundation Medicine; equity owner of Roche Holdings, Celsius therapeutics and Tango Therapeutics. Petros Grivas: consulting for MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, EMD Serono, SeaGen, Pfizer, Janssen, Roche, Astellas, Gilead, Fresenius Kabi, Strata Oncology, Abbvie; research funding: Acrivon Therapeutics, ALX Oncology, BMS, Genentech, Gilead, EMD Serono, MSD, QED Therapeutics. Philippe E. Spiess: no financial disclosures to report, only leadership positions: president of the Global Society of Rare Genitourinary Tumors, vice-chair of the NCCN bladder and penile cancer panel, member of the ASCO/EAU panel on penile cancer. Ewan A. Gibb: employee of Veracyte Inc. Ashish M. Kamat: Grants or Contracts: FKD Therapies (now Ferring), Patient Centered Outcomes, Research Institute (PCORI), Photocure, Seagen, EnGene, Arquer Diagnostics, SWOG. Advisory Board/Consulting Fees: Astellas Pharma, Biological Dynamics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CG Oncology, Cystotech, Eisai, EnGene, Ferring, Imagin Medical, Imvax, Incyte, Janssen, Medac, Merck, Nonagen Bioscience, Pfizer, Photocure, Protara Therapeutics, Roche, Seagen, Sessen Bio, Theralase, Urogen Pharma, US Biotest, Vivet Therapeutics. Patents: CyPRIT (Cytokine Predictors of Response to Intravesical Therapy), Joint patent with MD Anderson Cancer Center. Leadership or fiduciary role in other board, society, committee or advocacy group: European Urology Oncology, International Bladder Cancer Group (IBCG), International Bladder Cancer Network (IBCN), Journal of Urology, UroToday. Shilpa Gupta: consulting for for Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Bayer, Pfizer, EMD Sorono, Seattle Genetics, Gilead Sciences, Foundation Medicine, Guardant, and Astellas; Speaker bureau for Seattle Genetics, Bristol Myers Squibb and Gilead Sciences; and is a shareholder of Moderna, Nektar Therapeutics and BioNTech. Lars Dyrskjøt: sponsored research agreements with C2i Genomics, Natera, AstraZeneca, Photocure, and Ferring; advisory/consulting role at Ferring, MSD and UroGen; received speaker honoraria from AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Roche and received travel support from MSD. Board member at BioXpedia. Neeraj Agarwal: No personal COIs since April 15, 2021. Consultancy to Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Aveo, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Clovis, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Gilead, Janssen, Merck, MEI Pharma, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, and Seattle Genetics. Research funding to Neeraj Agarwal's institution: Arnivas, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bavarian Nordic, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Calithera, Celldex, Clovis, Crispr, Eisai, Eli Lilly, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech, Gilead, Glaxo Smith Kline, Immunomedics, Janssen, Lava, Medivation, Merck, Nektar, Neoleukin, New Link Genetics, Novartis, Oric, Pfizer, Prometheus, Rexahn, Roche, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Takeda, Telix, and Tracon., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The aims of this study are (1) to analyze the references cited by retracted papers originated from paper mills; (2) to analyze the citations received by retracted papers originated from paper mills; and (3) to analyze the potential relationships existing between paper mill papers and their references and their citations., Study Design and Setting: This study was a cross-sectional study. All original papers retracted in 2022 identified as having originated from paper mills and had been published at least 12 months before their retraction (hereinafter "source-retracted papers") were included. The Retraction Watch database was used to identify the source-retracted papers and Web of Science was used to identify the references contained within them and the citations received by them. We described the characteristics of the papers and journals. Additionally, 2 networks of source-retracted papers mutually interconnected via their citations and references were built: 1 with only retracted references and retracted citations and the other with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted)., Results: A total of 416 paper mill papers retracted in 2022 (sourced retracted papers) were identified, with a median of 1247 (interquartilic range, 907.8-1673.5) days between publication and retraction. Of all authors identified, 92.3% were affiliated with Chinese institutions. There were 14,411 references contained in the source-retracted papers and 8479 citations received by them; the median number of references and citations was 35 (29-40) and 16 (9-25), respectively. In total, 473 references and citations had also been retracted for being paper mill papers. Among the 416 sourced-retracted papers, 169 (41.9%) and 178 (42.8%) were referenced or were cited by at least another retracted paper, the majority of which also originated from paper mills. The first network analysis, which included source-retracted papers along with their retracted references and citations, found 3 clusters of 53, 48, and 44 retracted papers that were mutually interconnected. The second network analysis, with all references and citations (retracted or unretracted) identified a large cluster of 2530 interconnected papers., Conclusion: Retracted papers originating from paper mills frequently reference and are cited by papers that are later retracted for having originated from paper mills, displaying inter-relationships. Detecting these inter-relationships can serve as an indicator for identifying potentially fraudulent publications., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; in addition, Dr Ross is an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc and is a Deputy Editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association. There are no competing interests for any other author., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Male breast cancer (MaBC) has limited data on genomic alterations. We aimed to comprehensively describe and compare MaBC's genomics with female breast cancer's (FBC) across subtypes., Methods: Using genomic data from Foundation Medicine, we categorized 253 MaBC into estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative (n = 210), ER-positive/HER2-positive (n = 22) and triple-negative (n = 20). One ER-negative/HER2-positive case was excluded due to n-of-1. The genomics of the final MaBC cohort (n = 252) were compared to a FBC cohort (n = 2708) stratified by molecular subtype, with adjusted p-values. In the overall MaBC and FBC cohorts, we compared mutational prevalence in cancer susceptibility genes (CSG) (ATM/BRCA1/BRCA2/CHEK2/PALB2)., Results: Comparing ER-positive/HER2-negative cases, MaBc had increased alterations in GATA3 (26.2% vs. 15.9%, p = 0.005), BRCA2 (13.8% vs. 5.3%, p < 0.001), MDM2 (13.3% vs. 6.14%, p = 0.004) and CDK4 (7.1% vs. 1.8%, p < 0.001); and decreased frequency of TP53 (11.0% vs. 42.6%, p < 0.001) and ESR1 mutations (5.7% vs. 14.6%, p < 0.001). Comparing ER-positive/HER2-positive cases, MaBC had increased short variants in ERBB2 (22.7% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.002), GATA3 (36.3% vs. 6.2%, p = 0.004), and MDM2 (36.3% vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002); decreased frequency of TP53 alterations was seen in MaBC versus FBC (9.1% vs. 61.7%, p < 0.001). Within triple-negative cases, MaBC had decreased alterations in TP53 compared to FBC (25.0% vs. 84.4%, p < 0.001). MaBC had higher frequency of CSG variants than FBC (22.6% vs. 14.6%, p < 0.05), with increased BRCA mutations in MaBC (14.6% vs. 9.1%, p < 0.05)., Conclusions: Although MaBC and FBC share some common alterations, our study revealed several important differences relevant to tumor biology and implications for targeted therapies., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objective: To develop a reference standard based on US Food and Drug Administration and stakeholder guidance for pharmaceutical companies' policies on diversity in clinical trials and to assess these policies., Design: Development of a reference standard and structured audit for clinical trial diversity policies., Setting: 50 pharmaceutical companies selected from the top 500 by their market capitalizations in 2021 (the 25 largest companies and 25 non-large companies, randomly selected from the remaining 475 companies)., Population: Data from pharmaceutical company websites and annual reports. Policy guidance from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, Biotechnology Industry Organization, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and World Health Organization, up to 15 May 2023., Main Outcome Measures: Multicomponent measure based on distinct themes derived from FDA and stakeholder guidance., Results: Reviewing FDA and stakeholder guidance identified 14 distinct themes recommended for improving diversity in clinical trials, which were built into a reference standard: (1) enrollment targets that reflect the prevalence of targeted conditions in populations, (2) broad eligibility criteria for trials, (3) diversity in the workforce, (4) identification and remedy of barriers to trial recruitment and retention, (5) incorporation of patient input into trial design, (6) health literacy, (7) multidimensional approaches to diversity, (8) sites with diverse providers and patient populations, (9) data collection after product approval, (10) diverse enrollment in every country where trials are conducted, (11) diverse enrollment should be a focus for all phases of clinical trials, not just later stage or pivotal trials, (12) varied trial design, (13) expanded access, and (14) public reporting of the personal characteristics of participants in trials. Applying this reference standard, 48% (24/50) of companies had no public policy on diversity in clinical trials; among those with policies, content varied widely. Large companies were more likely to have a public policy than non-large companies (21/25, 84% v 5/25, 20%, P<0.001). Large companies most frequently committed to using epidemiological based trial enrollment targets representing the prevalence of indicated conditions in various populations (n=15, 71%), dealing with barriers to trial recruitment (n=15, 71%), and improving patient awareness of trial opportunities (n=14, 67%). The location of the company was not associated with having a public diversity policy (P=0.17). The average company policy had five of the 14 commitments (36%, range 0-8) recommended in FDA and stakeholder guidance., Conclusions: The findings of the study showed that many pharmaceutical companies did not have public policies on diversity in clinical trials, although policies were more common in large than non-large companies. Policies that were publicly available varied widely and lacked important commitments recommended by stakeholder guidance. The results of the study suggest that corporate policies can be better leveraged to promote representation and fair inclusion in research, and implementation of FDA and stakeholder guidance., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: no support from any organization for the submitted work; JM serves as a board member of Bioethics International and as an advisor for Galatea Bio, and receives grant funding from the the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Arnold Ventures outside the submitted work; RR reports receiving consultancy fees from ReAct Action on Antibiotic Resistance Strategic Policy Program, grants from the Stavros Niarchos Foundations for a project on public research and development, grants from the FDA outside the submitted work, and serving in volunteer unpaid positions on the board for the non-profit organization Universities Allied for Essential Medicines, North America and as chair of the Doctors for America FDA Task Force; CG reports receiving grants from Johnson & Johnson and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (AstraZeneca), and personal fees from Genentech outside the submitted work; JS reports receiving grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH) during the conduct of the study; JSR reports receiving grants from the FDA, Johnson & Johnson, Medical Devices Innovation Consortium, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and Arnold Ventures, and having been an expert witness at the request of relator’s attorney, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam lawsuit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (Copyright © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the UK Medical Research Council for the submitted work. SB is a member of the NICE Decision Support Unit and NICE Guidelines Technical Support Unit; has served as a paid consultant, providing methodological advice, to NICE, Roche, IQVIA, and RTI Health Solutions; received payments for educational events from Roche; and has received research funding from European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations and Johnson & Johnson. MOu works for and has shares in AstraZeneca. JSR is a deputy editor at JAMA, was formerly an associate editor at The BMJ, and is co-founder (unpaid) of medRxiv; has received research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures; was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. NJB has received consulting fees from Nobias Therapeutics. AA and YR are associate editors at BMC Trials. OC is an associate editor for Value in Health and has received consulting fees from MSD and Janssen. RC is a founding member of the OMERACT Technical Advisory Group, which might be perceived as a possible conflict of interest. RH has shares in Johnson & Johnson. JHP has been a consultant for AdaptivePhage, Arrevus, Atheln, BavariaNordic, Cellularity, Eicos, Evofem, Eyecheck, Gilead, GSK, Mustang, OPKO, Otsuka, Resolve, Romark, SpineBioPPharma, and UTIlity,Vir. GSC is a statistics editor for The BMJ, and director of the UK EQUATOR Centre. CJW has undertaken consultancy for AB Science, for which his institution has received a fee. DD is an associate editor of Value in Health.

The predicted implosion performance of deuterium-tritium fuel capsules in indirect-drive inertial confinement fusion experiments relies on precise calculations of the x-ray drive in laser-heated cavities (hohlraums). This requires accurate, spectrally dependent simulations of laser to x-ray conversion efficiencies and x-ray absorption losses to the hohlraum wall. A set of National Ignition Facility experiments have identified a cause for the long-standing hohlraum "drive deficit" as the overprediction of gold emission at ∼2.5 keV in nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium coronal plasma regions within the hohlraum. Reducing the emission and absorption opacity in this spectral region by ∼20% brings simulations into agreement with measured x-ray fluxes and spectra.

Background: Surgeons have come under increased scrutiny for postoperative pain management, particularly for opioid prescribing. To decrease opioid use but still provide pain control, nonopioid medications such as muscle relaxants are being used, which can be harmful in older adults. However, the prevalence of muscle relaxant prescribing, trends in use over time, and risk of prolonged use are unknown., Study Design: Using a 20% representative Medicare sample, we conducted a retrospective analysis of muscle relaxant prescribing to patients ≥ 65 years of age. We merged patient data from Medicare Carrier, MedPAR, and Outpatient Files with Medicare Part D for the years 2013-2018. A total of 14 surgical procedures were included to represent a wide range of anatomic regions and specialties., Results: The study cohort included 543,929 patients. Of the cohort, 8111 (1.5%) received a new muscle relaxant prescription at discharge. Spine procedures accounted for 12% of all procedures but 56% of postoperative prescribing. Overall, the rate of prescribing increased over the time period (1.4-2.0%, p < 0.001), with increases in prescribing primarily in the spine (7-9.6%, p < 0.0001) and orthopedic procedure groups (0.9-1.4%, p < 0.0001). Of patients discharged with a new muscle relaxant prescription, 10.7% had prolonged use., Conclusions: The use of muscle relaxants in the postoperative period for older adults is low, but increasing over time, especially in ortho and spine procedures. While pain control after surgery is crucial, surgeons should carefully consider the risks of muscle relaxant use, especially for older adults who are at higher risk for medication-related problems., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: One of the most common sporadic homozygous deletions in cancers is 9p21 loss, which includes the genes methylthioadenosine phosphorylase (MTAP), CDKN2A, and CDKN2B, and has been correlated with worsened outcomes and immunotherapy resistance. MTAP-loss is a developing drug target through synthetic lethality with MAT2A and PMRT5 inhibitors. The purpose of this study is to investigate the prevalence and genomic landscape of MTAP-loss in advanced gastrointestinal (GI) tumors and investigate its role as a prognostic biomarker., Materials and Methods: We performed next-generation sequencing and comparative genomic and clinical analysis on an extensive cohort of 64 860 tumors comprising 5 GI cancers. We compared the clinical outcomes of patients with GI cancer harboring MTAP-loss and MTAP-intact tumors in a retrospective study., Results: The prevalence of MTAP-loss in GI cancers is 8.30%. MTAP-loss was most prevalent in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) at 21.7% and least in colorectal carcinoma (CRC) at 1.1%. MTAP-loss tumors were more prevalent in East Asian patients with PDAC (4.4% vs 3.2%, P = .005) or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHCC; 6.4% vs 4.3%, P = .036). Significant differences in the prevalence of potentially targetable genomic alterations (ATM, BRAF, BRCA2, ERBB2, IDH1, PIK3CA, and PTEN) were observed in MTAP-loss tumors and varied according to tumor type. MTAP-loss PDAC, IHCC, and CRC had a lower prevalence of microsatellite instability or elevated tumor mutational burden. Positive PD-L1 tumor cell expression was less frequent among MTAP-loss versus MTAP-intact IHCC tumors (23.2% vs 31.2%, P = .017)., Conclusion: In GI cancers, MTAP-loss occurs as part of 9p21 loss and has an overall prevalence of 8%. MTAP-loss occurs in 22% of PDAC, 15% of IHCC, 8.7% of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, 2.4% of hepatocellular carcinoma, and 1.1% of CRC and is not mutually exclusive with other targetable mutations., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)

This ISPOR Good Practices report provides a framework for assessing the suitability of electronic health records data for use in health technology assessments (HTAs). Although electronic health record (EHR) data can fill evidence gaps and improve decisions, several important limitations can affect its validity and relevance. The ISPOR framework includes 2 components: data delineation and data fitness for purpose. Data delineation provides a complete understanding of the data and an assessment of its trustworthiness by describing (1) data characteristics; (2) data provenance; and (3) data governance. Fitness for purpose comprises (1) data reliability items, ie, how accurate and complete the estimates are for answering the question at hand and (2) data relevance items, which assess how well the data are suited to answer the particular question from a decision-making perspective. The report includes a checklist specific to EHR data reporting: the ISPOR SUITABILITY Checklist. It also provides recommendations for HTA agencies and policy makers to improve the use of EHR-derived data over time. The report concludes with a discussion of limitations and future directions in the field, including the potential impact from the substantial and rapid advances in the diffusion and capabilities of large language models and generative artificial intelligence. The report's immediate audiences are HTA evidence developers and users. We anticipate that it will also be useful to other stakeholders, particularly regulators and manufacturers, in the future., Competing Interests: Author Disclosures Author disclosure forms can be accessed below in the Supplemental Material section., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Disparities in opioid prescribing by race/ethnicity have been described in many healthcare settings, with White patients being more likely to receive an opioid prescription than other races studied. As surgeons increase prescribing of nonopioid medications in response to the opioid epidemic, it is unknown whether postoperative prescribing disparities also exist for these medications, specifically gabapentinoids., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a 20% Medicare sample for 2013-2018. We included patients ≥66 years without prior gabapentinoid use who underwent one of 14 common surgical procedures. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed gabapentinoids at discharge among racial and ethnic groups. Secondary outcomes were days' supply of gabapentinoids, opioid prescribing at discharge, and oral morphine equivalent (OME) of opioid prescriptions. Trends over time were constructed by analyzing proportion of postoperative prescribing of gabapentinoids and opioids for each year. For trends by year by racial/ethnic groups, we ran a multivariable logistic regression with an interaction term of procedure year and racial/ethnic group., Results: Of the 494,922 patients in the cohort (54% female, 86% White, 5% Black, 5% Hispanic, mean age 73.7 years), 3.7% received a new gabapentinoid prescription. Gabapentinoid prescribing increased over time for all groups and did not differ significantly among groups (P = 0.13). Opioid prescribing also increased, with higher proportion of prescribing to White patients than to Black and Hispanic patients in every year except 2014., Conclusions: We found no significant prescribing variation of gabapentinoids in the postoperative period between racial/ethnic groups. Importantly, we found that despite national attention to disparities in opioid prescribing, variation continues to persist in postoperative opioid prescribing, with a higher proportion of White patients being prescribed opioids, a difference that persisted over time., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Liquid biopsy (LBx)-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) of circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) can facilitate molecular profiling of haematopoietic neoplasms (HNs), particularly when tissue-based NGS is infeasible., Methods and Results: We studied HN LBx samples tested with FoundationOne Liquid CDx, FoundationOne Liquid, or FoundationACT between July 2016 and March 2022. We identified 271 samples: 89 non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), 43 plasma-cell neoplasm (PCN), 41 histiocytoses, 27 myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), 25 diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), 22 myeloproliferative neoplasm (MPN), 14 Hodgkin lymphoma (HL), and 10 acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Among 73.4% with detectable pathogenic alterations, median maximum somatic allele frequency (MSAF) was 16.6%, with AML (36.2%), MDS (19.7%), and MPN (44.5%) having higher MSAFs than DLBCL (3.9%), NHL (8.4%), HL (1.5%), PCN (2.8%), and histiocytoses (1.8%) (P = 0.001). LBx detected characteristic alterations across HNs, including in TP53, KRAS, MYD88, and BTK in NHLs; TP53, KRAS, NRAS, and BRAF in PCNs; IGH in DLBCL; TP53, ATM, and PDCD1LG2 in HL; BRAF and MAP2K1 in histiocytoses; TP53, SF3B1, DNMT3A, TET2, and ASXL1 in MDS; JAK2 in MPNs; and FLT3, IDH2, and NPM1 in AML. Among 24 samples, the positive percent agreement by LBx was 75.7% for variants present in paired buffy coat, marrow, or tissues. Also, 75.0% of pairs exhibited alterations only present on LBx. These were predominantly subclonal (clonal fraction of 3.8%), reflecting the analytical sensitivity of LBx., Conclusion: These data demonstrate that LBx can detect relevant genomic alterations across HNs, including at low clonal fractions, suggesting a potential clinical utility for identifying residual or emerging therapy-resistant clones that may be undetectable in site-specific tissue biopsies., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Myxofibrosarcoma (MFS) is a common soft tissue sarcoma of the elderly that typically shows low tumor mutational burden, with mutations in TP53 and in genes associated with cell cycle checkpoints ( RB1 , CDKN2A ). Unfortunately, no alterations or markers specific to MFS have been identified and, as a consequence, there are no effective targeted therapies. The receptor tyrosine kinase AXL, which drives cellular proliferation, is targetable by new antibody-based therapeutics. Expression of AXL messenger RNA is elevated in a variety of sarcoma types, with the highest levels reported in MFS, but the pathogenic significance of this finding remains unknown. To assess a role for AXL abnormalities in MFS, we undertook a search for AXL genomic alterations in a comprehensive genomic profiling database of 463,546 unique tumors (including 19,879 sarcomas, of which 315 were MFS) interrogated by targeted next-generation DNA and/or RNA sequencing. Notably, the only genomic alterations recurrent in a specific sarcoma subtype were AXL W451C (n = 8) and AXL W450C (n = 2) mutations. The tumors involved predominantly older adults (age: 44 to 81 [median: 72] y) and histologically showed epithelioid and spindle-shaped cells in a variably myxoid stroma, with 6 cases diagnosed as MFS, 3 as undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS), and 1 as low-grade sarcoma. The AXL W451C mutation was not identified in any non-sarcoma malignancy. A review of publicly available data sets revealed a single AXL W451C-mutant case of UPS that clustered with MFS/UPS by methylation profiling. Functional studies revealed a novel activation mechanism: the W451C mutation causes abnormal unregulated dimerization of the AXL receptor tyrosine kinase through disulfide bond formation between pairs of mutant proteins expressing ectopic cysteine residues. This dimerization triggers AXL autophosphorylation and activation of downstream ERK signaling. We further report sarcomas of diverse histologic subtypes with AXL gene amplifications, with the highest frequency of amplification identified in MFS cases without the W451C mutation. In summary, the activating AXL W451C mutation appears highly specific to MFS, with a novel mechanism to drive unregulated signaling. Moreover, AXL gene amplifications and messenger RNA overexpression are far more frequent in MFS than in other sarcoma subtypes. We conclude that these aberrations in AXL are distinct features of MFS and may aid diagnosis, as well as the selection of available targeted therapies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: E.A.W., D.A.M., M.C.H., and J.S.R. are employees/consultants of Foundation Medicine, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Roche Holdings, Inc. and Roche Finance Ltd.; these employees have an equity interest in an affiliate of these Roche entities. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and declare the following: RG receives research support through Johns Hopkins University from the Opioid Document Industry Archive. He also has received personal fees from Alosa Health and Sunday Health for unrelated work. RR receives research support through Yale University from Arnold Ventures, Stavros Niarchos Foundation, and the US Food and Drug Administration. She was a consultant for the ReAct-Action on Antibiotic Resistance Strategic Policy Program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health funded by the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida). JSR receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the FDA for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures. He was a paid expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled September 2022, and is an unpaid member of the Alosa Health Board of Directors.

Importance: Surrogate markers are increasingly used as primary end points in clinical trials supporting drug approvals., Objective: To systematically summarize the evidence from meta-analyses, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and pooled analyses (hereafter, meta-analyses) of clinical trials examining the strength of association between treatment effects measured using surrogate markers and clinical outcomes in nononcologic chronic diseases., Data Sources: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adult Surrogate Endpoint Table and MEDLINE from inception to March 19, 2023., Study Selection: Three reviewers selected meta-analyses of clinical trials; meta-analyses of observational studies were excluded., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers extracted correlation coefficients, coefficients of determination, slopes, effect estimates, or results from meta-regression analyses between surrogate markers and clinical outcomes., Main Outcomes and Measures: Correlation coefficient or coefficient of determination, when reported, was classified as high strength (r ≥ 0.85 or R2 ≥ 0.72); primary findings were otherwise summarized., Results: Thirty-seven surrogate markers listed in FDA's table and used as primary end points in clinical trials across 32 unique nononcologic chronic diseases were included. For 22 (59%) surrogate markers (21 chronic diseases), no eligible meta-analysis was identified. For 15 (41%) surrogate markers (14 chronic diseases), at least 1 meta-analysis was identified, 54 in total (median per surrogate marker, 2.5; IQR, 1.3-6.0); among these, median number of trials and patients meta-analyzed was 18.5 (IQR, 12.0-43.0) and 90 056 (IQR, 20 109-170 014), respectively. The 54 meta-analyses reported 109 unique surrogate marker-clinical outcome pairs: 59 (54%) reported at least 1 r or R2, 10 (17%) of which reported at least 1 classified as high strength, whereas 50 (46%) reported slopes, effect estimates, or results of meta-regression analyses only, 26 (52%) of which reported at least 1 statistically significant result., Conclusions and Relevance: Most surrogate markers used as primary end points in clinical trials to support FDA approval of drugs treating nononcologic chronic diseases lacked high-strength evidence of associations with clinical outcomes from published meta-analyses.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) relies on public comments submitted in response to proposed national coverage determinations to assist the agency in determining the coverage of items and services for Medicare beneficiaries. In a cross-sectional study, we characterized the cited evidence and what funding supported the cited evidence submitted in public comments to CMS for all therapeutic medical device national coverage determinations finalized between June 2019 and June 2022. Of 681 public comments, 159 (23%) cited at least 1 identifiable published scientific journal article. Within these 159 public comments, 198 unique articles were cited, 170 (86%) of which included funding statements or author disclosures. Among these, 96 (56%) disclosed funding from manufacturers that would benefit from Medicare coverage and/or were written by author(s) who received funding from these manufacturers. In summary, most public commenters for national coverage determinations did not cite published scientific journal articles to support their positions. Among those who did, more than half of articles were directly funded by manufacturers that would benefit from coverage. Greater funding of independent, non-industry-supported research may help provide unbiased evaluations of benefits and harms to support Medicare coverage decisions., Competing Interests: Please see ICMJE form(s) for author conflicts of interest. These have been provided as supplementary materials. Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale–Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation to establish the Good Pharma Scorecard at Bioethics International; in addition, Dr. Ross was an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen, Inc., that was settled in September 2022. Drs. Ross, Ramachandran, Dhruva, and Redberg receive funding from Arnold Ventures. Dr. Ramachandran receives funding from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation. Drs. Ross and Dhruva serve on and Dr. Redberg is a former Chair of the Medicare Evidence Development & Coverage Advisory Committee. Drs. Redberg and Dhruva serve on the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review California Technology Assessment Forum., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Project HOPE - The People-To-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Importance: Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) contain several actionable molecular alterations, including FGFR2, IDH1, ERBB2 (formerly HER2), and KRAS. KRAS allelic variants are found in 20% to 30% of BTCs, and multiple KRAS inhibitors are currently under clinical investigation., Objectives: To describe the genomic landscape, co-sequence variations, immunophenotype, genomic ancestry, and survival outcomes of KRAS-mutated BTCs and to calculate the median overall survival (mOS) for the most common allelic variants., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, pooled cohort study obtained clinical and next-generation sequencing data from multiple databases between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022. These databases included Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, MD Anderson Cancer Center, Foundation Medicine, American Association for Cancer Research Project GENIE, and cBioPortal for Cancer Genomics. The cohort comprised patients with BTCs who underwent genomic testing., Main Outcome and Measure: The main outcome was mOS, defined as date of diagnosis to date of death, which was measured in months., Results: A total of 7457 patients (n = 3773 males [50.6%]; mean [SD] age, 63 [5] years) with BTCs and genomic testing were included. Of these patients, 5813 had clinical outcome data available, in whom 1000 KRAS-mutated BTCs were identified. KRAS allelic variants were highly prevalent in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (28.6%) and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (36.1%). Thirty-six KRAS allelic variants were identified, and the prevalence rates in descending order were G12D (41%), G12V (23%), and Q61H (8%). The variant G12D had the highest mOS of 25.1 (95% CI, 22.0-33.0) months compared with 22.8 (95% CI, 19.6-31.4) months for Q61H and 17.8 (95% CI, 16.3-23.1) months for G12V variants. The majority of KRAS-mutated BTCs (98.9%) were not microsatellite instability-high and had low tumor mutational burden (ranging from a median [IQR] of 1.2 (1.2-2.5) to a mean [SD] of 3.3 [1.3]). Immune profiling through RNA sequencing of KRAS and NRAS-mutated samples showed a pattern toward a more immune-inflamed microenvironment with higher M1 macrophage activation (0.16 vs 0.12; P = .047) and interferon-γ expression compared with wild-type tumors. The G12D variant remained the most common KRAS allelic variant in all patient ancestries. Patients with admixed American ancestry had the highest proportion of G12D variant (45.0%)., Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that KRAS allelic variants were relatively common and may be potentially actionable genomic alterations in patients with BTCs, especially perihilar cholangiocarcinoma and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. The findings add to the growing data on genomic and immune landscapes of KRAS allelic variants in BTCs and are potentially of value to the planning of specific therapies for this heterogeneous patient group.

Indirect Drive Inertial Confinement Fusion Experiments on the National Ignition Facility (NIF) have achieved a burning plasma state with neutron yields exceeding 170 kJ, roughly 3 times the prior record and a necessary stage for igniting plasmas. The results are achieved despite multiple sources of degradations that lead to high variability in performance. Results shown here, for the first time, include an empirical correction factor for mode-2 asymmetry in the burning plasma regime in addition to previously determined corrections for radiative mix and mode-1. Analysis shows that including these three corrections alone accounts for the measured fusion performance variability in the two highest performing experimental campaigns on the NIF to within error. Here we quantify the performance sensitivity to mode-2 symmetry in the burning plasma regime and apply the results, in the form of an empirical correction to a 1D performance model. Furthermore, we find the sensitivity to mode-2 determined through a series of integrated 2D radiation hydrodynamic simulations to be consistent with the experimentally determined sensitivity only when including alpha-heating., (© 2024. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objectives: To evaluate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations for oncology drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval, and to determine whether recommendations are updated based on the results of confirmatory trials after approval and based on status updates from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)., Design: Cross sectional study., Setting: US FDA and NCCN guidelines., Population: Oncology therapeutic indications (ie, specific oncological conditions for which the drug is recommended) that have been granted accelerated approval in 2009-18., Main Outcome Measures: NCCN guideline reporting of accelerated approval status and postapproval confirmatory trials, and guideline recommendation alignment with postapproval confirmatory trial results and FDA status updates., Results: 39 oncology drug treatments were granted accelerated approval for 62 oncological indications. Although all indications were recommended in NCCN guidelines, accelerated approval status was reported for 10 (16%) indications. At least one postapproval confirmatory trial was identified for all 62 indications, 33 (53%) of which confirmed benefit; among these indications, NCCN guidelines maintained the previous recommendation or strengthened the category of evidence for 27 (82%). Postapproval confirmatory trials failed to confirm benefit for 12 (19%) indications; among these indications, NCCN guidelines removed the previous recommendation or weakened the category of evidence for five (42%). NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to convert 30 (83%) of 36 indications from accelerated to traditional approval, of which 20 (67%) had guideline updates before the FDA's conversion decision. NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to withdraw seven (58%) of 12 indications from the market, of which four (57%) had guidelines updates before the FDA's withdrawal decision., Conclusions: NCCN guidelines always recommend drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval for oncological indications, but do not provide information about their accelerated approval status, including surrogate endpoint use and status of postapproval confirmatory trials. NCCN guidelines consistently provide information on postapproval trial results confirming clinical benefit, but not on postapproval trials failing to confirm clinical benefit. NCCN guidelines more frequently update recommendation for indications converted to traditional approval than for those approvals that were withdrawn., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: MM, JSR, JDW, and RR receive research support through Yale University from Arnold Ventures for the submitted work. APM receives research support from the National Cancer Institute (grant R37CA264563), the Department of Defense (grant W81XWH-21-1-0087), and the Commonwealth Fund and Arnold Ventures. JJS declares no competing interests. JSR receives research support through Yale University from Johnson & Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (R01HS025164, R01HL144644); and was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene law firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled in September 2022. JDW is supported by the Food and Drug Administration (U01FD005938), Johnson & Johnson through the Yale Open Data Access project, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health under award 1K01AA028258; and served as a consultant to Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and Dugan Law Firm APLC. RR reported research support from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation through Yale Law School for a “Re-envisioning Publicly Funded Biomedical Research and Development” and was a consultant for the ReAct-Action on Antibiotic Resistance Strategic Policy Program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (funded by the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency), all outside of the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death among people with type 2 diabetes 1-5 , most of whom are at moderate CVD risk 6 , yet there is limited evidence on the preferred choice of glucose-lowering medication for CVD risk reduction in this population. Here, we report the results of a retrospective cohort study where data for US adults with type 2 diabetes and moderate risk for CVD are used to compare the risks of experiencing a major adverse cardiovascular event with initiation of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA; n = 44,188), sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i; n = 47,094), dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i; n = 84,315) and sulfonylureas ( n = 210,679). Compared to DPP4i, GLP-1RA (hazard ratio (HR) 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.93) and SGLT2i (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.81-0.90) were associated with a lower risk of a major adverse cardiovascular event, whereas sulfonylureas were associated with a higher risk (HR 1.19; 95% CI 1.16-1.22). Thus, GLP-1RA and SGLT2i may be the preferred glucose-lowering agents for cardiovascular risk reduction in patients at moderate baseline risk for CVD. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT05214573.

Importance: Extramammary Paget disease (EMPD) is a rare, highly recurrent cutaneous malignant neoplasm of unclear origin. EMPD arises most commonly on the vulvar and penoscrotal skin. It is not presently known how anatomic subtype of EMPD affects disease presentation and management., Objective: To compare demographic and tumor characteristics and treatment approaches for different EMPD subtypes. Recommendations for diagnosis and treatment are presented., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Reviews CENTRAL from December 1, 1990, to October 24, 2022., Study Selection: Articles were excluded if they were not in English, reported fewer than 3 patients, did not specify information by anatomic subtype, or contained no case-level data. Metastatic cases on presentation were also excluded., Data Extraction and Synthesis: Abstracts of 1295 eligible articles were independently reviewed by 5 coauthors, and 135 articles retained. Reporting was in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The analysis was cunducted in August 2019 and updated in November 2022., Findings: Most vulvar EMPD cases were asymptomatic, and diagnosis was relatively delayed (mean, 25.1 months). Although most vulvar EMPD cases were intraepidermal (1247/1773 [70.3%]), radical surgeries were still performed in almost one-third of cases. Despite this aggressive surgical approach, 481 of 1423 (34%) recurred, commonly confined to the skin and mucosa (177/198 [89.4%]). By contrast, 152 of 1101 penoscrotal EMPD cases (14%) recurred, but more than one-third of these recurrences were regional or associated with distant metastases (54 of 152 [35.5%]). Perianal EMPD cases recurred in one-third of cases (74/218 [33.9%]), with one-third of these recurrences being regional or associated with distant metastasis (20 of 74 [27.0%]). Perianal EMPD also had the highest rate of invasive disease (50% of cases)., Conclusions and Relevance: The diagnosis and treatment of EMPD should differ based on anatomic subtypes. Considerations for updated practice may include less morbid treatments for vulvar EMPD, which is primarily epidermal, and close surveillance for local recurrence in vulvar EMPD and metastatic recurrence in perianal EMPD. Recurrences in penoscrotal subtype were less common, and selective surveillance in this subtype may be considered. Limitations of this study include the lack of replication cohorts and the exclusion of studies that did not stratify outcomes by anatomic subtype.

Purpose: Isocitrate dehydrogenase ( IDH ) 1 / 2 genomic alterations (GA) occur in 20% of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA); however, the immunogenomic landscape of IDH1-/2- mutated iCCA is largely unknown., Methods: Comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) was performed on 3,067 cases of advanced iCCA. Tumor mutational burden (TMB), PD-L1 expression (Dako 22C3), microsatellite instability (MSI), and genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) as a surrogate marker for homologous recombination deficiency were examined. RNA sequencing of 73 patient samples was analyzed for differences in stromal/immune cell infiltration, immune marker expression, and T-cell inflammation. Tissue microarray arrays were subjected to multiplex immunohistochemistry and colocalization analysis in 100 surgical samples. Retrospective clinical data were collected for 501 patients with cholangiocarcinoma to examine median overall survival (mOS) in IDH1/2 + versus IDH wt., Results: Of 3,067 iCCA cases subjected to CGP, 426 (14%) were IDH1 + and 125 (4%) were IDH2+ . IDH1 GA included R132C (69%) and R132L/G/S/H/F (16%/7%/4%/3%/<1%). IDH2 GA occurred at R172 (94.4%) and R140 (6.6%). No significant difference was seen in median gLOH between IDH1 + versus IDH wt iCCA ( P = .37), although patterns of comutations differed. MSI-High ( P = .009), TMB ≥10 mut/Mb ( P < .0001), and PD-L1 positivity were lower in IDH1/2+ versus IDHwt iCCA. Resting natural killer cell population, CD70, and programmed cell death 1 expression were significantly higher in non- IDH 1-mutated cases, whereas V-set domain containing T-cell activation inhibitor 1 (B7-H4) expression was significantly higher in IDH1 +. No significant difference in mOS was observed between IDH1/2 + versus IDH wt patients., Conclusion: Significant differences in GA and immune biomarkers are noted between IDH1 / 2 + and IDH wt iCCA. IDH1-/2 -mutated tumors appear immunologically cold without gLOH. These immunogenomic data provide insight for precision targeting of iCCA with IDH alterations.

Objectives: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are highly detailed documents that play a pivotal role in medicine approval processes. Though not historically publicly available, in recent years, major entities including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have highlighted the importance of CSR accessibility. The primary objective herein was to determine the proportion of CSRs that support medicine approvals available for public download as well as the proportion eligible for independent researcher request via the study sponsor., Study Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined the accessibility of CSRs from industry-sponsored clinical trials whose results were reported in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines of 2021. We determined (1) whether the CSRs were available for download from a public repository, and (2) whether the CSRs were eligible for request by independent researchers based on trial sponsors' data sharing policies., Results: There were 316 industry-sponsored clinical trials with results presented in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the 30 sampled medicines. Of these trials, CSRs were available for public download from 70 (22%), with 37 available at EMA and 40 at Health Canada repositories. While pharmaceutical company platforms offered no direct downloads of CSRs, sponsors confirmed that CSRs from 183 (58%) of the 316 clinical trials were eligible for independent researcher request via the submission of a research proposal. Overall, 218 (69%) of the sampled clinical trials had CSRs available for public download and/or were eligible for request from the trial sponsor., Conclusion: CSRs were available from 69% of the clinical trials supporting regulatory approval of the 30 medicines sampled. However, only 22% of the CSRs were directly downloadable from regulatory agencies, the remaining required a formal application process to request access to the CSR from the study sponsor., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A/Prof Rowland and Prof Sorich are recipients of investigator-initiated funding for research outside the scope of the current study from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, and Takeda. A/Prof Rowland is a recipient of speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim and Genentech. Professor Swain reports grant to institution from Genentech-Roche and paid non-promotional speaking, consulting, and in-kind manuscript writing from Genentech–Roche. Professor Swain also reports grants to institution from Kailos Genetics. Professor Swain reports consulting fees paid from Athenex, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Lilly Pharmaceuticals, Merck, Molecular Templates, Biotheranostics, Natera, and Exact Sciences. Professor Swain reports support for attending meetings and travel from Sanofi, Daichi Sankyo, and Roche/Genentech. Third party in-kind manuscript writing from AstraZeneca. Dr Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; formerly received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST) and from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644); and in addition, Dr Ross was an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled September 2022. Frank Rockhold receives research support from NIH, PCORI, BMS, AZ, American Regent, Gates Foundation, Eidos; Consulting for Janssen, Clover, Doctor Evidence and Intercept; DSMB for Lilly, AZ, Merck, Gilead, Novartis, Icosavax, Sanofi, UCB, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, pulmocide, Alkermes, Diurnal; nonprofit chairman of the board (unpaid) for Frontier Science Foundation; stock/stock options from GSK, Clover, Athira, Doctor Evidence, DataVant, Spencer Health Solutions, Adaptic Health. Dr Areti Angeliki Veroniki is a Statistical Associate Editor for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, but had no involvement with the peer review process or decision for publication. The author team has no other potential conflicts of interest with respect to this research and/or publication to declare., (Crown Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The micropapillary subtype of urothelial carcinoma (MPUC) of the bladder is a very aggressive histological variant of urothelial bladder cancer (UBC). A high frequency of MPUC contains activating mutations in the extracellular domain (ECD) of ERBB2. We sought to further characterize ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC to identify additional genomic alterations that have been associated with tumor progression and therapeutic response. In total, 5,485 cases of archived formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded UBC underwent comprehensive genomic profiling to identify ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC and evaluate the frequencies of genomic co-alterations. We identified 219 cases of UBC with ERBB2 ECD mutations (74% S310F and 26% S310Y), of which 63 (28.8%) were MPUC. Genomic analysis revealed that TERT, TP53, and ARID1A were the most common co-altered genes in ERBB2-mutant MPUC (82.5%, 58.7%, and 39.7%, respectively) and did not differ from ERBB2-mutant non-MPUC (86.5%, 51.9%, and 35.3%). The main differences between ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC compared with non-MPUC were KMT2D, RB1, and MTAP alterations. KMT2D and RB1 are tumor-suppressor genes. KMT2D frequency was significantly decreased in ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC (6.3%) in contrast to non-MPUC (27.6%; P < .001). RB1 mutations were more frequent in ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC (33.3%) than in non-MPUC (17.3%; P = .012). Finally, MTAP loss, an emerging biomarker for new synthetic lethality-based anticancer drugs, was less frequent in ERBB2 ECD-mutated MPUC (11.1%) than in non-MPUC (26.9%; P = .018). Characterizing the genomic landscape of MPUC may not only improve our fundamental knowledge about this aggressive morphological variant of UBC but also has the potential to identify possible prognostic and predictive biomarkers that may drive tumor progression and dictate treatment response to therapeutic approaches., (Copyright © 2024 United States & Canadian Academy of Pathology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: To reduce Medicare prescription drug expenditures, the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) allows the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to directly negotiate with drug manufacturers on Medicare prices of high-expenditure drugs (≥$200m annual spending) which meet certain eligibility criteria. However, it is unclear what proportion of high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare, and attributable annual drug spending, would typically be eligible for CMS negotiations in a given year., Methods: We used historical Medicare drug spending data to determine how many high-expenditure drugs, and attributable drug spending, would have been eligible for CMS negotiations had the IRA been in effect from 2016-2019, while also determining which of the IRA's eligibility criteria is most restrictive., Results: From 2016-2019, approximately one third (33.3% for Part B, 32.4% for Part D) of high-expenditure Medicare drugs would have been eligible for negotiation, with ineligible drugs accounting for 75.2% and 63.8% of spending on high-expenditure drugs in Medicare Part B and D, respectively. Most ineligible high-expenditure drugs were ineligible because they launched too recently. From 2016-2019, between 59 and 74 high-expenditure drugs were eligible per year, indicating that in some years there may not be enough eligible drugs for CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law., Conclusions: The IRA's current eligibility criteria may restrict CMS from being able to negotiate drug prices on approximately two-thirds of the high-expenditure drugs covered by Medicare and may not allow CMS to negotiate on the maximum number of drugs allowable by law. Congress could consider relaxing eligibility requirements for price negotiation, such as those pertaining to launch date recency, to ensure there are a sufficient number of high-expenditure drugs eligible for negotiation or make certain ineligible drugs contributing to significant annual Medicare spending eligible for negotiation on a case-by-case basis., Competing Interests: No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s)., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.)

Background: Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among adults with type 2 diabetes. Currently, available MACE prediction models have important limitations, including reliance on data that may not be routinely available, narrow focus on primary prevention, limited patient populations, and longtime horizons for risk prediction., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to derive and internally validate a claims-based prediction model for 1-year risk of MACE in type 2 diabetes., Methods: Using medical and pharmacy claims for adults with type 2 diabetes enrolled in commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Medicare fee-for-service plans between 2014 and 2021, we derived and internally validated the annualized claims-based MACE estimator (ACME) model to predict the risk of MACE (nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and all-cause mortality). The Cox proportional hazards model was composed of 30 covariates, including patient age, sex, comorbidities, and medications., Results: The study cohort comprised 6,623,526 adults with type 2 diabetes, mean age 68.1 ± 10.6 years, 49.8% women, and 73.0% Non-Hispanic White. ACME had a concordance index of 0.74 (validation index range: 0.739-0.741). The predicted 1-year risk of the study cohort ranged from 0.4% to 99.9%, with a median risk of 3.4% (IQR: 2.3%-6.5%)., Conclusions: ACME was derived in a large usual care population, relies on routinely available data, and estimates short-term MACE risk. It can support population risk stratification at the health system and payer levels, participant identification for decentralized clinical trials of cardiovascular disease, and risk-stratified observational studies using real-world data., Competing Interests: Research reported in this work was funded through a 10.13039/100006093Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (PCS-1409-24099). In the last 36 months, Dr McCoy has received support from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) of the National Institute of Health (NIH), the National Institute on Aging (NIA) of the NIH, and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) for projects unrelated to this work; and serves as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) on developing patient education materials related to diabetes. Dr Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program, from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH, and from Arnold Ventures; and he is an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc; all unrelated to this work. Dr Galindo is supported in part by grants from NIDDK and received unrestricted research support (to Emory University) from Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom; and consulting fees from Sanofi, Novo Nordisk, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Boehringer, Bayer, and Weight Watchers; all of which are unrelated to this work. Dr Umpierrez is partly supported by research grants from the Clinical and Translational Science Award program and NIDDK and has received research support (to Emory University) from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Abbott, and Dexcom, all of which are unrelated to this work. Dr Borah has received consulting fees from Boehringer-Ingelheim and Exact Sciences on projects unrelated to this work. Dr Herrin has received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop measures of quality, from the NIH, NIA, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), National Institutes of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), and PCORI for projects unrelated to this work. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have the following interests to declare: RR receives research support through Yale University from Arnold Ventures as well as the Stavros Niarchos Foundation. She was a consultant for the ReAct-Action on Antibiotic Resistance Strategic Policy Program at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health funded by the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida). JSR receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST), from the FDA for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) programme (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644), and from Arnold Ventures. He was an expert witness in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen that was settled September 2022. Provenance and peer review: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Background: While many molecular assays can detect mutations at low tumor purity and variant allele frequencies, complex biomarkers such as tumor mutational burden (TMB), microsatellite instability (MSI), and genomic loss of heterozygosity (gLOH) require higher tumor purity for accurate measurement. Scalable, quality-controlled, tissue-conserving methods to increase tumor nuclei percentage (TN%) from tumor specimens are needed for complex biomarkers and hence necessary to maximize patient matching to approved therapies or clinical trial enrollment. We evaluated the clinical utility and performance of precision needle-punch enrichment (NPE) compared with traditional razor blade macroenrichment of tumor specimens on molecular testing success., Methods: Pathologist-directed NPE was performed manually on formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded (FFPE) blocks. Quality control of target capture region and quantity of residual tumor in each tissue block was determined via a post-enrichment histologic slide recut. Resultant tumor purity and biomarker status were determined by the computational analysis pipeline component of the FDA-approved next-generation sequencing (NGS) assay, FoundationOne ® CDx. Following NPE implementation for real-world clinical samples, assay performance and biomarker (MSI, TMB, gLOH) detection were analyzed., Results: In real-world clinical samples, enrichment rate via NPE was increased to ~50% over a 2.5-year period, exceeding the prior use of razor blade macro-enrichment (<30% of cases) prior to NPE implementation due to proven efficacy in generating high quality molecular results from marginal samples and the ease of use for both pathologist and histotechnologists. NPE was associated with lower test failures, higher computational tumor purity, and higher rates of successful TMB, MSI and gLOH determination when stratified by pre-enriched (incipient) tumor nuclei percentage. In addition, challenging cases in which tumor content was initially insufficient for testing were salvaged for analysis of biomarker status, gene amplification/deletion, and confident mutant or wild-type gene status determination., Conclusions: Pathologist-directed precision enrichment from tissue blocks (aka NPE) increases tumor purity, and consequently, yields a greater number of successful tests and complex biomarker determinations. Moreover, this process is rapid, safe, inexpensive, scalable, and conserves patient surgical pathology material. NPE may constitute best practice with respect to enriching tumor cells from low-purity specimens for biomarker detection in molecular laboratories., Competing Interests: Authors DL, RH, IL, RK, NP, SL, BD, TJ, DM, JR, J-AV, JE, and JK are employed by Foundation Medicine, Inc. and stockholders of Roche. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationship that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Lin, Huang, Ladas, Keller, Patel, Lakis, Decker, Janovitz, Mata, Ross, Vergilio, Elvin, Herbst, Mack and Killian.)

Objective: To better understand the state of research on the effects of climate change on human health, including exposures, health conditions, populations, areas of the world studied, funding sources, and publication characteristics, with a focus on topics that are relevant for populations at risk., Design: Cross sectional study., Data Sources: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences climate change and human health literature portal, a curated bibliographical database of global peer reviewed research and grey literature was searched. The database combines searches of multiple search engines including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and includes added-value expert tagging of climate change exposures and health impacts., Eligibility Criteria: Inclusion criteria were peer reviewed, original research articles that investigated the health effects of climate change and were published in English from 2012 to 2021. After identification, a 10% random sample was selected to manually perform a detailed characterisation of research topics and publication information., Results: 10 325 original research articles were published between 2012 and 2021, and the number of articles increased by 23% annually. In a random sample of 1014 articles, several gaps were found in research topics that are particularly relevant to populations at risk, such as those in the global south (134 countries established through the United Nations Office for South-South Cooperation) (n=444; 43.8%), adults aged 65 years or older (n=195; 19.2%), and on topics related to human conflict and migration (n=25; 2.5%) and food and water quality and security (n=148; 14.6%). Additionally, fewer first authors were from the global south (n=349; 34.4%), which may partly explain why research focusing on these countries is disproportionally less., Conclusions: Although the body of research on the health effects of climate change has grown substantially over the past decade, including those with a focus on the global south, a disproportionate focus continues to be on countries in the global north and less at risk populations. Governments are the largest source of funding for such research, and governments, particularly in the global north, need to re-orient their climate and health research funding to support researchers in the global south and to be more inclusive of issues that are relevant to the global south., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: JDW is supported by the FDA, Arnold Ventures, Johnson and Johnson; JSR is supported by the FDA, Arnold Ventures, Johnson and Johnson, AHRQ, and NHLBI and was an expert witness at the request of Relator’s attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled in September 2022; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)