Transforming the oncology data paradigm by creating, capturing, and retrieving structured cancer data at the point of care: A Mayo Clinic pilot.

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

Optimal systemic therapy in men with low-volume prostate cancer.

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

Low PSA radiographic disease progression on C11-choline PET.

Background: For men with prostate cancer, radiographic progression may occur without a concordant rise in prostate-specific antigen (PSA). Our study aimed to assess the prevalence of radiographic progression using C-11 choline positron emission tomography (PET) imaging in patients achieving ultra-low PSA values and to evaluate clinical outcomes in this patient population. Methods: In a single institution study, we reviewed the prospectively maintained Mayo Clinic C-11 Choline PET metastatic prostate cancer registry to identify patients experiencing radiographic disease progression (rDP) on C-11 choline PET scan while the PSA value was less than 0.5 ng/mL. Disease progression was confirmed by tissue biopsy or response to subsequent therapy. Clinicopathologic variables were abstracted by trained research personnel. Overall survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Intergroup differences were assessed using the log-rank test. A univariate and multivariate Cox regression model was performed to investigate variables associated with poor survival after rDP. Results: A total of 1323 patients within the registry experienced rDP between 2011 and 2021, including 220 (16.6%) men with rDP occurring at low PSA level. A median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 54.7 (19.7-106.9) months elapsed between the time of prostate cancer diagnosis and low PSA rDP, during which 173 patients (78%) developed castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Sites of low PSA rDP included local recurrence (n = 17, 8%), lymph node (n = 90, 41%), bone (n = 94, 43%) and visceral metastases (n = 19, 9%). Biopsy at the time of rDP demonstrated small-cell or neuroendocrine features in 21% of patients with available tissue. Over a median (IQR) follow-up of 49.4 (21.3-95.1) months from the time of low PSA rDP, 46% (n = 102) of patients died. Factors associated with poorer survival outcomes include advanced age at rDP, CRPC status, bone and visceral metastasis (p value <0.05). Visceral metastases were associated with decreased overall survival (p = 0.009 by log-rank) as compared with other sites of rDP. Conclusions: Men with prostate cancer commonly experience metastatic progression at very low or even undetectable PSA levels. Periodic imaging, even at low absolute PSA values, may result in more timely identification of disease progression.

Empirical evaluation of language modeling to ascertain cancer outcomes from clinical text reports.

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

Comparative Effectiveness of Anticoagulants in Patients With Cancer-Associated Thrombosis.

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

Partial breast irradiation compared with whole breast irradiation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review.

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

First-line Systemic Treatment Options for Metastatic Castration-Sensitive Prostate Cancer: A Living Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

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

Disparities in the Inclusion of Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups and Older Adults in Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials: A Meta-analysis.

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

Survival Implications of Thrombus Recurrence or Bleeding in Cancer Patients Receiving Anticoagulation for Venous Thromboembolism Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Study aims were to analyze prospectively collected data from patients with cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) to determine the impact of VTE recurrence and anticoagulant-related bleeding on all-cause mortality. PATIENTS/METHODS: Consecutive cancer patients with acute VTE treated with anticoagulants (March 1, 2013-November 30, 2021) were included in this analysis. Anticoagulant therapy-associated VTE recurrences, major bleeding, and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (CRNMB) were assessed for their impact on all-cause mortality outcomes. RESULTS: This study included 1,812 cancer patients with VTE. Of these, there were 97 (5.4%) with recurrent VTE, 98 (5.4%) with major, and 104 (5.7%) with CRNMB while receiving anticoagulants. Recurrent VTE (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16-2.00; p = 0.0028), major bleeding (HR: 1.82; 95% CI: 1.41-2.31; p = 0.006), and CRNMB (HR; 1.38; 95% CI: 1.05-1.81; p = 0.018) each adversely influenced mortality outcomes. Deep vein thrombosis as the incident thrombotic event type was associated with VTE recurrence (HR: 1.78; 95% CI: 1.08-2.89; p = 0.02). Neither cancer type nor stage, chemotherapy, or Ottawa risk category influenced VTE recurrence. Higher body weights (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.00-1.01; p = 0.005) were associated with increased major bleeding, while high Ottawa scores (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.46-0.96; p = 0.03) and apixaban treatment (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.45-0.84; p = 0.002) were associated with fewer major bleeding outcomes. CONCLUSION: Among cancer patients receiving anticoagulant therapy for VTE, adverse outcomes such as VTE recurrence, major bleeding, or CRNMB increase mortality risk by 40 to 80%. Identifying variables predicting these outcomes may help risk-stratify patients with poor prognosis.

The Role of Systemic Therapy in Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

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

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe with or without statin therapy for cardiovascular risk reduction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of ezetimibe and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors on cardiovascular outcomes in adults taking maximally tolerated statin therapy or who are statin intolerant. DESIGN: Network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library up to 31 December 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised controlled trials of ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors with ≥500 patients and follow-up of ≥6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We performed frequentist fixed-effects network meta-analysis and GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation) to assess certainty of evidence. Results included relative risks (RR) and absolute risks per 1000 patients treated for five years for non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), non-fatal stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality. We estimated absolute risk differences assuming constant RR (estimated from network meta-analysis) across different baseline therapies and cardiovascular risk thresholds; the PREDICT risk calculator estimated cardiovascular risk in primary and secondary prevention. Patients were categorised at low to very high cardiovascular risk. A guideline panel and systematic review authors established the minimal important differences (MID) of 12 per 1000 for MI and 10 per 1000 for stroke. RESULTS: We identified 14 trials assessing ezetimibe and PCSK9 inhibitors among 83 660 adults using statins. Adding ezetimibe to statins reduced MI (RR 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.80 to 0.94)) and stroke (RR 0.82 (0.71 to 0.96)) but not all-cause mortality (RR 0.99 (0.92 to 1.06)) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.97 (0.87 to 1.09)). Similarly, adding PCSK9 inhibitor to statins reduced MI (0.81 (0.76 to 0.87)) and stroke (0.74 (0.64 to 0.85)) but not all-cause (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)) or cardiovascular mortality (0.95 (0.87 to 1.03)). Among adults with very high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor was likely to reduce MI (16 per 1000) and stroke (21 per 1000) (moderate to high certainty); whereas adding ezetimibe was likely to reduce stroke (14 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (11 per 1000) (moderate certainty) did not reach MID. Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statin may reduce stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction of MI (9 per 1000) (low certainty) did not reach MID. Adding PCSK9 inhibitors to statins and ezetimibe may reduce MI (14 per 1000) and stroke (17 per 1000) (low certainty). Among adults with high cardiovascular risk, adding PCSK9 inhibitor probably reduced MI (12 per 1000) and stroke (16 per 1000) (moderate certainty); adding ezetimibe probably reduced stroke (11 per 1000), but the reduction in MI did not achieve MID (8 per 1000) (moderate certainty). Adding ezetimibe to PCSK9 inhibitor and statins did not reduce outcomes beyond MID, while adding PCSK9 inhibitor to ezetimibe and statins may reduce stroke (13 per 1000). These effects were consistent in statin-intolerant patients. Among moderate and low cardiovascular risk groups, adding PCSK9 inhibitor or ezetimibe to statins yielded little or no benefit for MI and stroke. CONCLUSIONS: Ezetimibe or PCSK9 inhibitors may reduce non-fatal MI and stroke in adults at very high or high cardiovascular risk who are receiving maximally tolerated statin therapy or are statin-intolerant, but not in those with moderate and low cardiovascular risk.

PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe for the reduction of cardiovascular events: a clinical practice guideline with risk-stratified recommendations.

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

Quantifying absolute benefit for adjuvant treatment options in renal cell carcinoma: A living interactive systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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

Evaluation of Information Theoretic Network Meta-analysis to Rank First-Line Anticancer Regimens for Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer.

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

Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Dalteparin for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To maintain living, interactive evidence (LIvE) on the benefits and harms of different treatment options in adults with cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT). METHODS: We have used a novel LIvE synthesis framework to maintain this living, interactive systematic review since September 19, 2018. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) compared with low-molecular-weight heparin for CAT are included in this analysis. Details of LIvE synthesis framework are available at the website https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com. RESULTS: The results are constantly updated as new information becomes available (https://cat.network-meta-analysis.com/CAT.html). The living, interactive systematic review currently includes 4 randomized controlled trials (N=2894). Direct comparisons show that DOACs significantly decrease recurrent venous thromboembolism (VTE) events compared with dalteparin (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.86; I2, 25%) without significantly increasing major bleeding (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.83 to 2.18; I2, 28%). Mixed treatment comparisons show that apixaban (OR, 0.41; 95% credible interval [CrI], 0.16 to 0.95) and rivaroxaban (OR, 0.58; 95% CrI, 0.37 to 0.90) significantly decrease VTE recurrent events compared with dalteparin. Edoxaban significantly increases major bleeding compared with dalteparin (OR, 1.73; 95% CrI, 1.04 to 3.16), and rivaroxaban significantly increases clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding compared with dalteparin and other DOACs. There are no significant differences between DOACs in terms of VTE recurrences and major bleeding. CONCLUSION: DOACs should be considered a standard of care for the treatment of CAT except in patients with a high risk of bleeding. Current evidence favors the use of apixaban for the treatment of CAT among other DOACs. REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/dth86).

Artificial intelligence-aided clinical annotation of a large multi-cancer genomic dataset.

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

Adjuvant Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Concluded Living Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

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

Janus Kinase Inhibitors and Risk of Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients treated with Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a literature search of Ovid MEDLINE and ePub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, and Daily; Ovid EMBASE; Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; and Scopus, from inception to December 4, 2019, for randomized, placebo-controlled trials with JAK inhibitors as an intervention and reported adverse events. Odds ratio with 95% CI was calculated to estimate the VTE risk using a random effects model. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess certainty in estimated VTE risk. RESULTS: We included 29 trials (13,910 patients). No statistically significant association was found between use of JAK inhibitors and risk of VTE (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.47; P=.70; I2=0; low certainty because of serious imprecision). Results using Bayesian analysis were consistent with those of the primary analysis. Results of stratified and meta-regression analyses suggested no interaction by dose of drug, indication for treatment, or length of follow-up. CONCLUSION: We found insufficient evidence to support an increased risk of JAK inhibitor-associated VTE based on currently available data.