Effects of vitamin D supplementation on a deep learning-based mammographic evaluation in SWOG S0812.

Deep learning-based mammographic evaluations could noninvasively assess response to breast cancer chemoprevention. We evaluated change in a convolutional neural network-based breast cancer risk model applied to mammograms among women enrolled in SWOG S0812, which randomly assigned 208 premenopausal high-risk women to receive oral vitamin D3 20 000 IU weekly or placebo for 12 months. We applied the convolutional neural network model to mammograms collected at baseline (n = 109), 12 months (n = 97), and 24 months (n = 67) and compared changes in convolutional neural network-based risk score between treatment groups. Change in convolutional neural network-based risk score was not statistically significantly different between vitamin D and placebo groups at 12 months (0.005 vs 0.002, P = .875) or at 24 months (0.020 vs 0.001, P = .563). The findings are consistent with the primary analysis of S0812, which did not demonstrate statistically significant changes in mammographic density with vitamin D supplementation compared with placebo. There is an ongoing need to evaluate biomarkers of response to novel breast cancer chemopreventive agents.

Increasing power in screening trials by testing control-arm specimens: Application to multicancer detection screening.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening trials have required large sample-sizes and long time-horizons to demonstrate cancer mortality reductions, the primary goal of cancer screening. We examine assumptions and potential power gains from exploiting information from testing control-arm specimens, which we call the "Intended Effect" (IE) analysis that we explain in detail herein. The IE analysis is particularly suited to tests that can be conducted on stored specimens in the control-arm, such as stored blood for multicancer detection (MCD) tests. METHODS: We simulated hypothetical MCD screening trials to compare power and sample-size for the standard vs IE analysis. Under two assumptions that we detail herein, we projected the IE analysis for 3 existing screening trials (National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study (MINN-FOBT-A), and Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial-colorectal component (PLCO-CRC)). RESULTS: Compared to the standard analysis for the 3 existing trials, the IE design could have reduced cancer-specific mortality p-values 5-fold (NLST), 33-fold (MINN-FOBT-A), or 14,160-fold (PLCO-CRC), or alternately, reduced sample-size (90% power) by 26% (NLST), 48% (MINN-FOBT-A), or 59% (PLCO-CRC). For potential MCD trial designs requiring 100,000 subjects per-arm to achieve 90% power for multi-cancer mortality for the standard analysis, the IE analysis achieves 90% power for only 37,500-50,000 per arm, depending on assumptions concerning control-arm test-positives. CONCLUSIONS: Testing stored specimens in the control arm of screening trials to conduct the IE analysis could substantially increase power to reduce sample-size or accelerate trials, and provide particularly strong power gains for MCD tests.

Cancer screening with multicancer detection tests: A translational science review.

Multicancer detection (MCD) tests use a single, easily obtainable biospecimen, such as blood, to screen for more than one cancer concurrently. MCD tests can potentially be used to improve early cancer detection, including cancers that currently lack effective screening methods. However, these tests have unknown and unquantified benefits and harms. MCD tests differ from conventional cancer screening tests in that the organ responsible for a positive test is unknown, and a broad diagnostic workup may be necessary to confirm the location and type of underlying cancer. Among two prospective studies involving greater than 16,000 individuals, MCD tests identified those who had some cancers without currently recommended screening tests, including pancreas, ovary, liver, uterus, small intestine, oropharyngeal, bone, thyroid, and hematologic malignancies, at early stages. Reported MCD test sensitivities range from 27% to 95% but differ by organ and are lower for early stage cancers, for which treatment toxicity would be lowest and the potential for cure might be highest. False reassurance from a negative MCD result may reduce screening adherence, risking a loss in proven public health benefits from standard-of-care screening. Prospective clinical trials are needed to address uncertainties about MCD accuracy to detect different cancers in asymptomatic individuals, whether these tests can detect cancer sufficiently early for effective treatment and mortality reduction, the degree to which these tests may contribute to cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment, whether MCD tests work equally well across all populations, and the appropriate diagnostic evaluation and follow-up for patients with a positive test.

GWAS Explorer: an open-source tool to explore, visualize, and access GWAS summary statistics in the PLCO Atlas.

The Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial is a prospective cohort study of nearly 155,000 U.S. volunteers aged 55-74 at enrollment in 1993-2001. We developed the PLCO Atlas Project, a large resource for multi-trait genome-wide association studies (GWAS), by genotyping participants with available DNA and genomic consent. Genotyping on high-density arrays and imputation was performed, and GWAS were conducted using a custom semi-automated pipeline. Association summary statistics were generated from a total of 110,562 participants of European, African and Asian ancestry. Application programming interfaces (APIs) and open-source software development kits (SKDs) enable exploring, visualizing and open data access through the PLCO Atlas GWAS Explorer website, promoting Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Re-usable (FAIR) principles. Currently the GWAS Explorer hosts association data for 90 traits and >78,000,000 genomic markers, focusing on cancer and cancer-related phenotypes. New traits will be posted as association data becomes available. The PLCO Atlas is a FAIR resource of high-quality genetic and phenotypic data with many potential reuse opportunities for cancer research and genetic epidemiology.

Study design considerations for trials to evaluate multicancer early detection assays for clinical utility.

Blood-based assays using various technologies and biomarkers are in commercial development for the purpose of detecting multiple cancer types concurrently at an early stage of disease. These multicancer early detection (MCED) assays have the potential to improve the detection of cancers, particularly those for which no current screening modality exists. However, the unknown clinical benefits and harms of using MCED assays for cancer screening necessitate the development and implementation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to ascertain their clinical effectiveness. This was the consensus of experts at a National Cancer Institute-hosted workshop to discuss initial design concepts for such a trial. Using these assays to screen simultaneously for multiple cancers poses novel uncertainties for patient care compared with conventional screening tests for single cancers, such as establishing the diagnostic workup to confirm the presence of cancer at any organ site; clarifying appropriate follow-up for a positive assay for which there is no definitive diagnosis; identifying potential harms such as overdiagnosis of indolent disease; determining clinically effective and efficient strategies for disseminating MCED screening in real-world practice; and understanding the ethical implications, such as potentially alleviating or exacerbating existing health disparities. These assays present new and complex challenges for designing an RCT. Issues that emerged from the meeting centered around the need for a flexibly designed, clinical utility RCT to rigorously capture the evidence required to fully understand the net benefit of this promising technology. Specific topic areas were endpoints, screening protocols, recruitment, diagnostic pathway, pilot phase, data elements, specimen collection, and ethical considerations.

Clinician and Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials: Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® to Provide Two Distinct and Complementary Perspectives.

Inclusion of the patient perspective in the reporting of symptomatic adverse events provides different and complementary information to clinician reporting using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) is designed for patients to self-report their symptomatic adverse events in a manner that complements CTCAE reporting. Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE together offers the potential to refine our understanding of the prevalence and trajectory of lower grade AEs that can lead to elective discontinuation of therapy and diminished quality of life. This review addresses the development of PRO-CTCAE with an emphasis on the differences between PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE severity grades. This distinction is important when evaluating, grading and reporting toxicity and tolerability in cancer clinical trials.

Comparison of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waiting List Control in the Treatment of Aromatase Inhibitor-Related Joint Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proven efficacy for the treatment of hormone-sensitive breast cancer; however, arthralgias (pain and stiffness) contribute to nonadherence with therapy for more than 50% of patients. Objective: To examine the effect of acupuncture in reducing AI-related joint pain through 52 weeks. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted at 11 sites in the US from May 1, 2012, to February 29, 2016, with a scheduled final date of follow-up of September 5, 2017, to compare true acupuncture (TA) with sham acupuncture (SA) or waiting list control (WC). Women with early-stage breast cancer were eligible if they were taking an AI and scored 3 or higher on the Brief Pain Inventory Worst Pain (BPI-WP) item (score range, 0-10; higher scores indicate greater pain). Analysis was conducted for data received through May 3, 2021. Interventions: Participants were randomized 2:1:1 to the TA (n = 110), SA (n = 59), or WC (n = 57) group. The TA and SA protocols were composed of 6 weeks of intervention at 2 sessions per week (12 sessions overall), followed by 6 additional weeks of intervention with 1 session per week. Participants randomized to WC received no intervention. All participants were offered 10 acupuncture sessions to be used between weeks 24 and 52. Main Outcomes and Measures: In this long-term evaluation, the primary end point was the 52-week BPI-WP score, compared by study group using linear regression, adjusted for baseline pain and stratification factors. Results: Among 226 randomized women (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [8.6] years; 87.7% White; mean [SD] baseline BPI-WP score, 6.7 [1.5]), 191 (84.5%) completed the trial. In a linear regression, 52-week mean BPI-WP scores were 1.08 (95% CI, 0.24-1.91) points lower in the TA compared with the SA group (P = .01) and were 0.99 (95% CI, 0.12-1.86) points lower in the TA compared with the WC group (P = .03). In addition, 52-week BPI pain interference scores were statistically significantly lower in the TA compared with the SA group (difference, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.00-1.16; P = .05). Between 24 and 52 weeks, 12 (13.2%) of TA, 6 (11.3%) of SA, and 5 (10.6%) of WC patients reported receipt of acupuncture. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, women with AI-related joint pain receiving 12 weeks of TA had reduced pain at 52 weeks compared with controls, suggesting long-term benefits of this therapy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01535066.

Spectrum of National Institutes of Health-Funded Research in Cardio-Oncology: A Basic, Clinical, and Observational Science Perspective.

Advances in cancer treatments have led to nearly 17 million survivors in the US today. Cardiovascular complications attributed to cancer treatments are the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer survivors. In response, NCI and NHLBI held 2 workshops and issued funding opportunities to strengthen research on cardiotoxicity. A representative portfolio of NIH grants categorizing basic, interventional, and observational projects is presented. Compared with anthracyclines, research on radiation therapy and newer treatments is underrepresented. Multidisciplinary collaborative research that considers the cardiotoxicity stage and optimizes the balance between cardiovascular risk and cancer-treatment benefit might support continued improvements in cancer outcomes.

Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.

The Division of Cancer Prevention in the NCI sponsored a Roundtable with primary care providers (PCP) to determine barriers for integrating cancer prevention within primary care and discuss potential opportunities to overcome these barriers. The goals were to: (i) assess the cancer risk assessment tools available to PCPs; (ii) gather information on use of cancer prevention resources; and (iii) understand the needs of PCPs to facilitate the implementation of cancer prevention interventions beyond routine screening and interventions. The Roundtable discussion focused on challenges and potential research opportunities related to: (i) cancer risk assessment and management of high-risk individuals; (ii) cancer prevention interventions for risk reduction; (iii) electronic health records/electronic medical records; and (iv) patient engagement and information dissemination. Time constraints and inconsistent/evolving clinical guidelines are major barriers to effective implementation of cancer prevention within primary care. Social determinants of health are important factors that influence patients' adoption of recommended preventive interventions. Research is needed to determine the best means for implementation of cancer prevention across various communities and clinical settings. Additional studies are needed to develop tools that can help providers collect clinical data that can enable them to assess patients' cancer risk and implement appropriate preventive interventions.

Reaching beyond maximum grade: progress and future directions for modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies.

Remarkable improvements in outcomes for many haematological malignancies have been driven primarily by a proliferation of novel therapeutics over the past two decades. Targeted agents, immune and cellular therapies, and combination regimens have adverse event profiles distinct from conventional finite cytotoxic chemotherapies. In 2018, a Commission comprising patient advocates, clinicians, clinical investigators, regulators, biostatisticians, and pharmacists representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examined issues of adverse event evaluation in the context of both newer and existing therapies for haematological cancers. The Commission proposed immediate actions and long-term solutions in the current processes in adverse event assessment, patient-reported outcomes in haematological malignancies, toxicities in cellular therapies, long-term toxicity and survivorship in haematological malignancies, issues in regulatory approval from an international perspective, and toxicity reporting in haematological malignancies and the real-world setting. In this follow-up report, the Commission describes progress that has been made in these areas since the initial report.

Multi-Cancer Early Detection Tests: Current Progress and Future Perspectives.

Advances in cancer screening and early detection methodologies may lead to the detection of precancerous lesions or early-stage cancer. The development of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests may aid in this challenge. Furthermore, MCED tests have the potential to address early detection gaps for cancers with and without screening modalities and lessen cancer disparities, but many unknowns remain. In this issue, Clarke and colleagues describe stage- and cancer-specific incidence and survival, derived from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program Data, stratified by race/ethnicity and sex. The investigators discuss the potential to identify earlier-stage cancers (stage shift) that could improve overall patient outcomes. In a simulation model, the authors found fewer cancer-related deaths when cancers were down-staged at the time of diagnosis. In this commentary, we discuss some unanswered questions in using MCED tests for screening, as well as what stage shifting may actually mean for patient outcomes. See related article by Clarke et al., p. 521.

Sex Differences in Risk of Severe Adverse Events in Patients Receiving Immunotherapy, Targeted Therapy, or Chemotherapy in Cancer Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Women have more adverse events (AEs) from chemotherapy than men, but few studies have investigated sex differences in immune or targeted therapies. We examined AEs by sex across different treatment domains. METHODS: We analyzed treatment-related AEs by sex in SWOG phase II and III clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2019, excluding sex-specific cancers. AE codes and grade were categorized using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; laboratory-based or observable/measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic v nonhematologic). Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, race, and disease prognosis. Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined. RESULTS: In total, N = 23,296 patients (women, 8,838 [37.9%]; men, 14,458 [62.1%]) from 202 trials experiencing 274,688 AEs were analyzed; 17,417 received chemotherapy, 2,319 received immunotherapy, and 3,560 received targeted therapy. Overall, 64.6% (n = 15,051) experienced one or more severe (grade ≥ 3) AEs. Women had a 34% increased risk of severe AEs compared with men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.42; P < .001), including a 49% increased risk among those receiving immunotherapy (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.78; P < .001). Women experienced an increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs among all treatments, especially immunotherapy (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01; P < .001). Women receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy experienced increased severe hematologic AE. No statistically significant sex differences in risk of nonhematologic AEs were found. CONCLUSION: The greater severity of both symptomatic AEs and hematologic AEs in women across multiple treatment modalities indicates that broad-based sex differences exist. This could be due to differences in AE reported, pharmacogenomics of drug metabolism/disposition, total dose received, and/or adherence to therapy. Particularly large sex differences were observed for patients receiving immunotherapy, suggesting that studying AEs from these agents is a priority.

"When Offered to Participate": A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Patient Agreement to Participate in Cancer Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Patient participation in clinical trials is vital for knowledge advancement and outcomes improvement. Few adult cancer patients participate in trials. Although patient.decision-making about trial participation has been frequently examined, the participation rate for patients actually offered a trial is unknown. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis using 3 major search engines was undertaken. We identified studies from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2020, that examined clinical trial participation in the United States. Studies must have specified the numbers of patients offered a trial and the number enrolled. A random effects model of proportions was used. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: We identified 35 studies (30 about treatment trials and 5 about cancer control trials) among which 9759 patients were offered trial participation. Overall, 55.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.4% to 60.5%) of patients agreed to enroll. Participation rates did not differ between treatment (55.0%, 95% CI = 48.9% to 60.9%) and cancer control trials (55.3%, 95% CI = 38.9% to 71.1%; P = .98). Black patients participated at similar rates (58.4%, 95% CI = 46.8% to 69.7%) compared with White patients (55.1%, 95% CI = 44.3% to 65.6%; P = .88). The main reasons for nonparticipation were treatment choice or lack of interest. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of all cancer patients offered a clinical trial do participate. These findings upend several conventional beliefs about cancer clinical trial participation, including that Black patients are less likely to agree to participate and that patient decision-making is the primary barrier to participation. Policies and interventions to improve clinical trial participation should focus more on modifiable systemic structural and clinical barriers, such as improving access to available trials and broadening eligibility criteria.

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.Prevention Relevance: Primary care physicians are becoming more involved in cancer prevention management, so it is important that cancer risk assessment and medical society guideline recommendations for cancer prevention are better integrated into primary care to improve appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions and help reduce cancer risk.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: Identifying the research gaps and associated changes to clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, the empiric identification of agents and interventions to mitigate chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has resulted in only 1 agent that modestly mitigates it and no agents or interventions that prevent its development. This speaks to the need for a mechanistic understanding of CIPN to develop effective interventions. METHODS: To understand the extent to which mechanistic understanding of CIPN is being translated into the development of interventions, the National Cancer Institute conducted a review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s portfolio of investigator-initiated grants, the literature regarding CIPN mechanisms, and the clinical trials listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database from January 1, 2011, to May 22, 2019. RESULTS: A total of 69 NIH-supported grants and 95 published articles were identified that evaluated mechanistic pathways of 7 different chemotherapy agents that cause CIPN. The review also identified 35 clinical trials that investigated agents or devices with which to treat CIPN. Only 3 trials incorporated a mechanistic rationale to support the choice of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, very little of the mechanistic understanding of the development of CIPN is being translated into intervention rationale in clinical trials that evaluate interventions to mitigate CIPN. Efforts to incentivize this translation are needed.

Phase II trial of bevacizumab and sorafenib in recurrent ovarian cancer patients with or without prior-bevacizumab treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether blocking multiple points of the angiogenesis pathway by addition of sorafenib, a multi-kinase inhibitor against VEGFR2/3, Raf, c-Kit, and PDGFR, to bevacizumab would yield clinical activity in ovarian cancer (OvCa). METHODS: This phase II study tested bevacizumab plus sorafenib in two cohorts; bevacizumab-naïve and bevacizumab-exposed patients. Bevacizumab (5 mg/kg IV every 2 weeks) was given with sorafenib 200 mg bid 5 days-on/2 days-off. The primary objective was response rate using a Simon two-stage optimal design. Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were the secondary endpoints. Exploratory correlative studies included plasma cytokine concentrations, tissue proteomics and dynamic contrast-enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI). RESULTS: Between March 2007 and August 2012, 54 women were enrolled, 41 bevacizumab-naive and 13 bevacizumab-prior, with median 5 (2-9) and 6 (5-9) prior systemic therapies, respectively. Nine of 35 (26%) evaluable bevacizumab-naive patients attained partial responses (PR), and 18 had stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months. No responses were seen in the bevacizumab-prior group and 7 (54%) patients had SD ≥ 4 months, including one exceptional responder with SD of 27 months. The overall median PFS was 5.5 months (95%CI: 4.0-6.8 months). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events (≥5%) included hypertension (17/54 [31%]; grade 3 in 16 patients and grade 4 in one patient) and venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism (5/54 [9%]; grade 3 in 4 patients and grade 4 in one patient). Pretreatment low IL8 concentration was associated with PFS ≥ 4 months (p = .031). CONCLUSIONS: The bevacizumab and sorafenib combination did not meet the pre-specified primary endpoint although some clinical activity was seen in heavily-pretreated bevacizumab-naive OvCa patients with platinum-resistant disease. Anticipated class toxicities required close monitoring and dose modifications.

Patient-Reported Cognitive Impairment Among Women With Early Breast Cancer Randomly Assigned to Endocrine Therapy Alone Versus Chemoendocrine Therapy: Results From TAILORx.

PURPOSE: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is common during adjuvant chemotherapy and may persist. TAILORx provided a novel opportunity to prospectively assess patient-reported cognitive impairment among women with early breast cancer who were randomly assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (CT+E) versus endocrine therapy alone (E), allowing us to quantify the unique contribution of chemotherapy to CRCI. METHODS: Women with a 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 enrolled in TAILORX were randomly assigned to CT+E or E. Cognitive impairment was assessed among a subgroup of 552 evaluable women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, administered at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The FACT-Cog included the 20-item Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, our primary end point. Clinically meaningful changes were defined a priori and linear regression was used to model PCI scores on baseline PCI, treatment, and other factors. RESULTS: FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months compared with baseline for both groups. The magnitude of PCI change scores was greater for CT+E than E at 3 months, the prespecified primary trial end point, and at 6 months, but not at 12, 24, and 36 months. Tests of an interaction between menopausal status and treatment were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant CT+E is associated with significantly greater CRCI compared with E at 3 and 6 months. These differences abated over time, with no significant differences observed at 12 months and beyond. These findings indicate that chemotherapy produces early, but not sustained, cognitive impairment relative to E, providing reassurance to patients and clinicians in whom adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated to reduce recurrence risk.