Conversion of Magnetic Energy to Plasma Kinetic Energy During Guide Field Magnetic Reconnection in the Laboratory.

We present laboratory measurements showing the two-dimensional (2D) structure of energy conversion during magnetic reconnection with a guide field over the electron and ion diffusion regions, resolving the separate energy deposition on electrons and ions. We find that the electrons are energized by the parallel electric field at two locations, at the X line and around the separatrices. On the other hand, the ions are energized ballistically by the perpendicular electric field in the vicinity of the high-density separatrices. An energy balance calculation by evaluating the terms of the Poynting theorem shows that 40% of the magnetic energy is converted to particle energy, 2/3 of which is transferred to ions and 1/3 to electrons. Further analysis suggests that the energy deposited on particles manifests mostly in the form of thermal kinetic energy in the diffusion regions.

The CNS Relapse in T-Cell Lymphoma Index Predicts CNS Relapse in Patients with T- and NK-Cell Lymphomas.

Little is known about risk factors for central nervous system (CNS) relapse in mature T- and NK-cell neoplasms (MTNKN). We aimed to describe the clinical epidemiology of CNS relapse in patients with MTNKN and developed the CNS relapse In T-cell lymphoma Index (CITI) to predict patients at highest risk of CNS relapse. We reviewed data from 135 patients with MTNKN and CNS relapse from 19 North American institutions. After exclusion of leukemic and most cutaneous forms of MTNKN, patients were pooled with non-CNS relapse control patients from a single institution to create a CNS relapse-enriched training set. Using a complete case analysis (N=182), of whom 91 had CNS relapse, we applied a LASSO Cox regression model to select weighted clinicopathologic variables for the CITI score, which we validated in an external cohort from the Swedish Lymphoma Registry (N=566). CNS relapse was most frequently observed in patients with PTCL, NOS (25%). Median time to CNS relapse and median overall survival after CNS relapse was 8.0 months and 4.7 months, respectively. We calculated unique CITI risk scores for individual training set patients and stratified them into risk terciles. Validation set patients with low-risk (N=158) and high-risk (N=188) CITI scores had a 10-year cumulative risk of CNS relapse of 2.2% and 13.4%, respectively (HR 5.24, 95%CI 1.50-18.26, P=0.018). We developed an open-access web-based CITI calculator (https://redcap.link/citicalc) to provide an easy tool for clinical practice. The CITI score is a validated model to predict patients with MTNKN at highest risk of developing CNS relapse.

Anomalous Resistivity and Electron Heating by Lower Hybrid Drift Waves during Magnetic Reconnection with a Guide Field.

The lower hybrid drift wave (LHDW) has been a candidate for anomalous resistivity and electron heating inside the electron diffusion region of magnetic reconnection. In a laboratory reconnection layer with a finite guide field, quasielectrostatic LHDW (ES-LHDW) propagating along the direction nearly perpendicular to the local magnetic field is excited in the electron diffusion region. ES-LHDW generates large density fluctuations (δn_{e}, about 25% of the mean density) that are correlated with fluctuations in the out-of-plane electric field (δE_{Y}, about twice larger than the mean reconnection electric field). With a small phase difference (∼30°) between two fluctuating quantities, the anomalous resistivity associated with the observed ES-LHDW is twice larger than the classical resistivity and accounts for 20% of the mean reconnection electric field. After we verify the linear relationship between δn_{e} and δE_{Y}, anomalous electron heating by LHDW is estimated by a quasilinear analysis. The estimated electron heating is about 2.6±0.3 MW/m^{3}, which exceeds the classical Ohmic heating of about 2.0±0.2 MW/m^{3}. This LHDW-driven heating is consistent with the observed trend of higher electron temperatures when the wave amplitude is larger. Presented results provide the first direct estimate of anomalous resistivity and electron heating power by LHDW, which demonstrates the importance of wave-particle interactions in magnetic reconnection.

Dietary interventions in cancer: a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all RCTs investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results. METHODS: This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted prior to January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers). RESULTS: 252 RCTs were identified involving 31,067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight/body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were a primary endpoint in 20 (8%) and seven (3%) studies respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer. CONCLUSION: Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure non-clinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care.

Use of subjective minimizing language at hematology and oncology conferences: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subjective minimizing language in oncology conferences may undermine patient-centered care and hinder comprehensive treatment strategies. Subjective terms like "safe," "tolerable," and "well-tolerated" can vary in interpretation among individuals, making it difficult to compare results across trials and potentially downplaying significant risks and limitations associated with treatments. METHODS: This study evaluates subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences and its use in adverse event reporting. We conducted a search of three electronic databases, ASCO, ASH, and ESMO, for published abstracts from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2021. This study included prospective cohort studies or clinical trials in humans that used safety terms like "safe," "well-tolerated," "tolerable," "no new safety signal," or "no new safety concern" in the abstract text. RESULTS: Out of 34,975 reviewed records, 5299 (15.2%) abstracts used subjective minimizing language terms. The analysis included 2797 (52.8%) abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria. The majority of studies were Phase 1 trials (45.5%), followed by Phase 2 (29.6%) and Phase 3 trials (7.4%). Solid tumors accounted for the most common disease category (56.5%), followed by malignant hematology following (37.1%). Subjective minimizing terms like "safe" (69.2%), "well-tolerated" (53.2%), "tolerable" (25.6%), and "no new safety signal/concerns" (10%) were used frequently. Of the abstracts using subjective minimizing language (n = 2797), 81.9% reported data on any grade adverse events (AEs). Grade I/II AEs were reported in 62.6% of abstracts, Grade III/IV AEs in 78%, and Grade V AEs (death related to AEs) in 8.8%. Discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11.4% (SD 9.5%) of studies using subjective minimizing language terms. CONCLUSIONS: Frequent use of subjective minimizing language in major oncology conferences' abstracts may obscure interpretation of study results and the safety of novel treatments. Researchers and clinicians should provide precise and standardized information to avoid overstatement of benefits and understand the true impact of interventions on patients' safety and well-being.

Interlaboratory comparison of centrifugal ultrafiltration with ICP-MS detection in a first-step towards methods to screen for nanomaterial release during certification of drinking water contact materials.

A key requirement for evaluating the safety of nano-enabled water treatment devices is measuring concentrations of insoluble nanomaterials released from devices into water that may be ingested by consumers. Therefore, there is a need for simple technique that uses commonly available commercial laboratory techniques to discriminate between nanoparticles and dissolved by-products of the nanomaterial (e.g., ionic metals). Such capabilities would enable screening for particulate or dissolved metals released into water from nanomaterial-containing drinking water contact materials (e.g., paint coatings) or devices (e.g., filters). This multi-laboratory study sought to investigate the use of relatively inexpensive centrifugal ultrafilters to separate nanoparticulate from ionic metal in combination with inductively-coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) detection. The accuracy, precision, and reproducibility for the proposed method were assessed using mixtures of nanoparticulate and ionic gold (Au) in a standard and widely utilized model water matrix (NSF International Standard 53/61). Concentrations for both ionic and nanoparticulate gold based upon measurements of Au mass in the initial solutions and Au permeating the centrifugal ultrafilters. Results across different solution compositions and different participating labs showed that ionic and nanoparticulate Au could be consistently discriminated with ppb concentrations typically resulting in <10 % error. A mass balance was not achieved because nanoparticles were retained on membranes embedded in plastic holders inside the centrifuge tubes, and the entire apparatus could not be acid and/or microwave digested. This was a minor limitation considering the ultrafiltration method is a screening tool, and gold concentration in the permeate indicates the presence of ionic metal rather than nanoforms. With further development, this approach could prove to be an effective tool in screening for nanomaterial release from water-system or device materials as part of third-party certification processes of drinking water compatible products.

Adverse Event Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials for Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: Cancer treatment can result in burdensome toxic effects that profoundly affect patient quality of life. In seeking to emphasize the efficacy of tested treatments, clinical trial reports may use subjective or minimizing terms to describe adverse events (AEs). Objective: To evaluate patterns of AE reporting in multiple myeloma (MM) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and early 2023. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this cohort study, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to assess the prevalence of minimizing terms in MM RCTs published between January 1, 2015, and March 1, 2023. Minimizing terms were defined as subjective terms used to favorably describe the safety profile of the intervention. The terms searched included convenient, manageable, acceptable, expected, well-tolerated, tolerable, favorable, and safe. Final data analysis was performed on July 21, 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least 1 minimizing term in an article. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between the presence of at least 1 minimizing term and the actual incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs, serious AEs, or grade 5 AEs. Results: Of the 65 RCTs included, 56 (86%) used minimizing terms when describing treatment-emergent AEs. The most frequently used minimizing terms were well-tolerated or tolerable in 29 trials (45%), manageable in 18 (28%), and acceptable in 16 (25%). Grade 3 or 4 AE rate in the examined RCTs ranged from 23% to 94%, with a median of 75% (IQR, 59%-82%). A univariate regression analysis demonstrated no association between the use of minimizing terms and grade 3 or 4 AE rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 0.88-2.10] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .17) or grade 5 AE rates (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 0.27-12.7] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .45). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that trial investigators and sponsors regularly use minimizing terms to describe toxic effects in MM trials, and use of this terminology may not reflect actual AE rates in these studies. Instead of using these terms, trial investigators should highlight event rates and patient-reported outcomes, to allow clinicians and patients to better evaluate the true tolerability of AEs.

Characteristics of post hoc subgroup analyses of oncology clinical trials: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Subgroup analyses in clinical trials assess intervention effects on specific patient subgroups, ensuring generalizability. However, they are usually only able to generate hypotheses rather than definitive conclusions. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of post hoc subgroup analysis in oncology. METHODS: We systematically reviewed published subgroup analyses from 2000 to 2022. We included articles presenting secondary, post hoc, or subgroup analyses of interventional clinical trials in oncology, cancer survivorship, or cancer screening, published separately from the original clinical trial publication. We collected cancer type, year of publication, where and how subgroup analyses were reported, and funding. RESULTS: Out of 16 487 screened publications, 1612 studies were included, primarily subgroup analyses of treatment trials for solid tumors (82%). Medical writers contributed to 31% of articles, and 58% of articles reported conflicts of interest. Subgroup analyses increased significantly over time, with 695 published between 2019 and 2022, compared to 384 from 2000 to 2014. Gastrointestinal tumors (25%) and lymphoid lineage tumors (39%) were the most frequently studied solid and hematological malignancies, respectively. Industry funding and reporting of conflicts of interest increased over time. Subgroup analyses often neglected to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Most authors were from high-income countries, most commonly North America (45%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the rapidly growing use of post hoc subgroup analysis of oncology clinical trials, revealing that the majority are supported by pharmaceutical companies, and they frequently fail to indicate their secondary nature in the title. Given the known methodological limitations of subgroup analyses, caution is recommended among authors, readers, and reviewers when conducting and interpreting these studies.

Outcomes of Chimeric Antigen Receptor (CAR) T-Cell Therapy in Patients with Large B-Cell Lymphoma (LBCL): A Single-Institution Experience.

Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR T-cell) therapy has revolutionized the treatment of relapsed/refractory (R/R) large B-cell lymphoma (LBCL). We describe the real-world baseline characteristics, efficacy, safety, and post-relapse outcomes of adult patients with R/R LBCL who received CAR T-cell therapy at the University of California San Diego. A total of 66 patients with LBCL were treated with tisagenlecleucel or axicabtagene ciloleucel. The median age was 59.5, and 21% were over 70 years old. Additionally, 20% of the patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score of ≥2. Cytokine release syndrome incidence was 88%; immune effector cell-associated neurotoxicity syndrome incidence was 56%. All-grade infection occurred in 48% of patients and in 79% of patients > 70 years old. Complete response (CR) was achieved in 53% and partial response in 14%. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.3 months; median overall survival (OS) was 28.4 months. Patients who relapsed post-CAR T-cell therapy had poor outcomes, with a median OS2 of 4.8 months. Upon multivariate analysis, both ECOG (HR 2.65, 95% CI: 1.30-5.41; p = 0.007) and ≥2 sites of extranodal involvement (HR 2.22, 95% CI: 1.15-4.31; p = 0.018) were significant predictors of PFS. Twenty-six patients were R/R to CAR T-cell therapy; six patients were in remission at the time of data cut off, one of whom received allogeneic transplant. Overall, older patients can safely undergo CAR T-cell therapy, despite the increased risk of all-grade infection. In our cohort, ECOG performance score and ≥2 sites of extranodal disease are significant predictors of PFS.

Autoimmune HLA Alleles and Neoepitope Presentation Predict Post-Allogenic Transplant Relapse.

Introduction: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT) can cure patients with high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML). However, many patients relapse or develop debilitating graft-versus-host disease. Transplant restores T-cell reactivity against tumor cells, implicating patient human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-dependent antigen presentation via the major histocompatibility complex as a determinant of response. We sought to identify characteristics of the HLA genotype that influence response in allo-HSCT patients. Methods: We collected HLA genotype and panel-based somatic mutation profiles for 55 patients with AML and MDS and available data treated at the University of California San Diego Moores Cancer Center between May 2012 and January 2019. We evaluated characteristics of the HLA genotype relative to relapse-free time and overall survival (OS) post-allo-HSCT using univariable and multivariable regression. Results: In multivariable regression, the presence of an autoimmune allele was significantly associated with relapse-free time (hazard ratio [HR], 0.25; p = 0.01) and OS (HR, 0.16; p < 0.005). The better potential of the donor HLA type to present peptides harboring driver mutations trended toward better relapse-free survival (HR, 0.45; p = 0.07) and significantly correlated with longer OS (HR, 0.33; p = 0.01) though only a minority of cases had an HLA mismatch. Conclusion: In this single institution retrospective study of patients receiving allo-HSCT for relapsed AML/MDS, characteristics of an individual's HLA genotype (presence of an autoimmune allele and potential of the donor HLA to better present peptides representing driver mutations) were significantly associated with better outcomes. These findings suggest that HLA type may guide the optimal application of allo-HSCT and merit evaluation in larger cohorts. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02478931.

#MedEd: Medical Education and Knowledge Translation on Social Media.

This Viewpoint discusses the potential educational benefits of social media in the health sciences.

Randomised controlled trials evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers: an overview of global research activity.

Background: Design, results, and interpretation of oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have changed substantially over the past decade. In this study, we describe all RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies in haematological cancers published globally during 2014-2017 with comparisons with solid tumours RCTs. Methods: A PubMed literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs of anticancer therapy for haematological cancers and solid tumours published globally during 2014-2017. Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests and the Kruskal-Wallis test were used to compare RCT design results, and output between haematological cancers and solid tumours as well as for different haematological cancer subtypes. Results: 694 RCTs were identified; 124 in haematological cancers and 570 in solid tumours. Overall survival (OS) was the primary endpoint in only 12% (15/124) of haematological cancer trials compared to 35% (200/570) in solid tumours (p < 0.001). Haematological cancer RCTs evaluated the systemic novel therapy more often than the solid tumour RCT (98% versus 84%, p = 0.002). Use of surrogate endpoints like progression-free survival (PFS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) were more common in haematological cancers than solid tumours (47% versus 31%, p < 0.001). Within haematological cancers, the use of PFS and TTF was more prevalent in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia and multiple myeloma as compared to others (80%-81% versus 0%-41%, p < 0.001). Seventy-eight percent of haematologic trials were funded by industry as compared to 70% of solid tumour trials. Only 4% (5/124) of haematologicalcancer trials were led by investigators in upper-middle and lower-middle-income countries as compared to the 9% of solid tumour trials. Conclusion: The fact that only 12% of haematological cancer RCTs are designed to show improvements in OS is of grave concern for the field and the care of future patients. This is further compounded by the highly prevalent use of alternative primary endpoints that are rarely valid surrogates for OS in haematological cancers.

Attrition and withdrawal in multiple myeloma randomized controlled trials: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) enrolled in randomized control trials (RCTs) discontinue treatment for various reasons; however, no prior study has analyzed reasons for discontinuation. We performed a systematic review of MM RCTs to investigate reasons for treatment discontinuation, imbalances between trial cohorts, and reporting practices. METHODS: A comprehensive search for RCTs in MM from 2015 to 2021 identified 45 studies meeting inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of 21 236 randomized patients, 10 161 (47.8%) discontinued therapy by primary endpoint ascertainment. Causes of discontinuation included progression (n = 4790; 22.6% of randomized patients); toxicity (n = 2569; 12.1%); patient/physician withdrawal (n = 1200; 5.7%) and death (n = 495; 2.3%). Of randomized patients, 20 914 (98.5%) were included in the RCT analysis. Imbalances of attrition, defined as trials with greater than 5% absolute difference in discontinuation rate for reasons other than death, progression, and toxicity between intervention and control arms, were found in 11 (24.4%) studies. CONCLUSIONS: Although progression is the most common reason for RCT treatment discontinuation in patients with MM, over 10% discontinued due to toxicity. Furthermore, 24.4% of trials showed substantial imbalances between trial cohorts; raising concern for informative censoring and emphasizes the importance of detailed characterization of withdrawal in MM RCTs.

The Landscape of Currently Enrolling Maintenance Trials in Multiple Myeloma.

Maintenance therapies in multiple myeloma improve survival after induction treatment. This study characterizes the strategies for maintenance therapy being employed in currently enrolling clinical trials for patients with multiple myeloma and highlights how high-risk myeloma patients may be assigned to maintenance strategies incongruent with current US guidelines.

Comparing Physician and Artificial Intelligence Chatbot Responses to Patient Questions Posted to a Public Social Media Forum.

Importance: The rapid expansion of virtual health care has caused a surge in patient messages concomitant with more work and burnout among health care professionals. Artificial intelligence (AI) assistants could potentially aid in creating answers to patient questions by drafting responses that could be reviewed by clinicians. Objective: To evaluate the ability of an AI chatbot assistant (ChatGPT), released in November 2022, to provide quality and empathetic responses to patient questions. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cross-sectional study, a public and nonidentifiable database of questions from a public social media forum (Reddit's r/AskDocs) was used to randomly draw 195 exchanges from October 2022 where a verified physician responded to a public question. Chatbot responses were generated by entering the original question into a fresh session (without prior questions having been asked in the session) on December 22 and 23, 2022. The original question along with anonymized and randomly ordered physician and chatbot responses were evaluated in triplicate by a team of licensed health care professionals. Evaluators chose "which response was better" and judged both "the quality of information provided" (very poor, poor, acceptable, good, or very good) and "the empathy or bedside manner provided" (not empathetic, slightly empathetic, moderately empathetic, empathetic, and very empathetic). Mean outcomes were ordered on a 1 to 5 scale and compared between chatbot and physicians. Results: Of the 195 questions and responses, evaluators preferred chatbot responses to physician responses in 78.6% (95% CI, 75.0%-81.8%) of the 585 evaluations. Mean (IQR) physician responses were significantly shorter than chatbot responses (52 [17-62] words vs 211 [168-245] words; t = 25.4; P < .001). Chatbot responses were rated of significantly higher quality than physician responses (t = 13.3; P < .001). The proportion of responses rated as good or very good quality (≥ 4), for instance, was higher for chatbot than physicians (chatbot: 78.5%, 95% CI, 72.3%-84.1%; physicians: 22.1%, 95% CI, 16.4%-28.2%;). This amounted to 3.6 times higher prevalence of good or very good quality responses for the chatbot. Chatbot responses were also rated significantly more empathetic than physician responses (t = 18.9; P < .001). The proportion of responses rated empathetic or very empathetic (≥4) was higher for chatbot than for physicians (physicians: 4.6%, 95% CI, 2.1%-7.7%; chatbot: 45.1%, 95% CI, 38.5%-51.8%; physicians: 4.6%, 95% CI, 2.1%-7.7%). This amounted to 9.8 times higher prevalence of empathetic or very empathetic responses for the chatbot. Conclusions: In this cross-sectional study, a chatbot generated quality and empathetic responses to patient questions posed in an online forum. Further exploration of this technology is warranted in clinical settings, such as using chatbot to draft responses that physicians could then edit. Randomized trials could assess further if using AI assistants might improve responses, lower clinician burnout, and improve patient outcomes.