Race and Ethnicity Representation in Phase 2/3 Oncology Clinical Trial Publications: A Systematic Review.

Importance: The five 1997 Office of Management and Budget races in the US include American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White, with Hispanic ethnicity. Despite the Affordable Care Act mandating Office of Management and Budget-based collecting and reporting standards, race and ethnicity publishing in medical journals is inconsistent, despite being necessary to achieve health equity. Objective: To quantify race and ethnicity reporting rates and calculate representation quotients (RQs) in published oncology clinical trials. Evidence Review: In this systematic review, PubMed and Embase were queried for phase 2/3 clinical trials of the 6 most common noncutaneous solid cancers, published between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2022, in 4 high-impact journals. Trial characteristics were recorded. The RQs for each race and ethnicity were calculated by dividing the percent of representation in each clinical trial publication by the percent of year-matched, site-specific incident cancers in the US, compared with Kruskal-Wallis tests with Bonferroni correction (BC). Reporting was compared between journal publications and ClinicalTrials.gov. Findings: Among 1202 publications evaluated, 364 met inclusion criteria: 16 JAMA, 241 Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19 Lancet, and 88 New England Journal of Medicine. Publications included 268 209 patients (171 132 women [64%]), with a median of 356 (IQR, 131-800) patients per publication. Reported race and ethnicity included American Indian or Alaska Native in 52 (14%) publications, Asian in 196 (54%), Black or African American in 215 (59%), Hispanic in 67 (18%), Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander in 28 (8%), and White in 254 (70%). Median RQ varied across race (P < .001 BC), with 1.04 (IQR, 0.09-4.77) for Asian, 0.98 (IQR, 0.86-1.06) for White, 0.42 (IQR, 0.12-0.75) for Black or African American, and 0.00 (IQR, 0.00-0.00) for both American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander patients. Sensitivity analyses showed similar findings on subset analysis for US-only clinical trials. There was significantly less race and ethnicity reporting in the clinical trial publications compared with ClinicalTrials.gov documentation for American Indian or Alaska Native (14% vs 45%; P < .001 per McNemar χ2 test with continuity correction [MC]) and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (8% vs 43%; P < .001 MC). Conclusions and Relevance: While most phase 2/3 oncology clinical trials published in high-impact journals report race and ethnicity, most did not report American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander racial categories. Our findings support a call to action for consistent journal policies and transparent race and ethnicity reporting, in alignment with Affordable Care Act-concordant race and ethnicity federal reporting requirements.

The combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates in the treatment of urogenital tumors: a review insights from phase 2 and 3 studies.

With the high incidence of urogenital tumors worldwide, urinary system tumors are among the top 10 most common tumors in men, with prostate cancer ranking first and bladder cancer fourth. Patients with resistant urogenital tumors often have poor prognosis. In recent years, researchers have discovered numerous specific cancer antigens, which has led to the development of several new anti-cancer drugs. Using protein analysis techniques, researchers developed immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and antibody-conjugated drugs (ADCs) for the treatment of advanced urogenital tumors. However, tumor resistance often leads to the failure of monotherapy. Therefore, clinical trials of the combination of ICIs and ADCs have been carried out in numerous centers around the world. This article reviewed phase 2 and 3 clinical studies of ICIs, ADCs, and their combination in the treatment of urogenital tumors to highlight safe and effective methods for selecting individualized therapeutic strategies for patients. ICIs activate the immune system, whereas ADCs link monoclonal antibodies to toxins, which can achieve a synergistic effect when the two drugs are combined. This synergistic effect provides multiple advantages for the treatment of urogenital tumors.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms. Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications. Evidence Review: All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting. Findings: Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

Efficacy and safety of tirofiban in patients with acute branch atheromatous disease-related stroke (BRANT): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Branch atheromatous disease (BAD)-related stroke is increasingly becoming a clinical entity and prone to early neurological deterioration (END) and poor prognosis. There are no effective regimens to reduce the disability caused by BAD-related stroke in acute phase. Recent studies have indicated the efficacy of tirofiban in acute ischaemic stroke; however, its efficacy has not been validated in patients with BAD-related stroke. Thus, we aim to test whether intravenous tirofiban initiated within 48 hours after the onset would improve the functional outcome in patients with acute BAD-related stroke, in comparison with the standard antiplatelet therapy based on the current guideline. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRANT is a multicentre, randomised, open-label, blinded endpoint, parallel-controlled, phase III trial conducted in 21 hospitals in China. Participants aged 18-75 years with acute BAD-related stroke within 48 hours after the stroke onset are randomised in a 1:1 ratio to the tirofiban or control group. The treatment period is 48 hours in both groups. The primary outcome is the excellent functional outcome (modified Rankin Scale Score: 0-1) at 90 days. The secondary outcomes include END, major bleeding, stroke, death, functional status, serious adverse events and change in bleeding-related markers. Assuming the rates of the primary outcome to be 74% in the tirofiban group and 62% in the control group, a total of 516 participants are needed for 0.8 power (two-sided 0.05 alpha). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BRANT study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital (I-23PJ1242). Written informed consent is required for all the patients before enrolment. The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06037889).

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A matching-adjusted indirect comparison vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate, atomoxetine hydrochloride, and viloxazine extended-release.

BACKGROUND: Head-to-head trials comparing centanafadine, an investigational therapy for adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), with other treatment options are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To compare safety and efficacy outcomes of centanafadine sustained-release vs lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine hydrochloride (atomoxetine), and viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine ER), respectively, using matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). METHODS: This MAIC included patient-level data pooled from 2 centanafadine trials (NCT03605680 and NCT03605836) and published aggregate data from comparable trials of 3 comparators-lisdexamfetamine (NCT00334880), atomoxetine (NCT00190736), and viloxazine ER (NCT04016779)-in adult patients with ADHD. Propensity score weighting was used to match characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials to aggregate baseline characteristics from the respective comparator trials. Safety outcomes were rates of adverse events for which information was available in the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. Efficacy outcome was mean change from baseline in the Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score (ADHD Rating Scale [ADHD-RS] was used as proxy in the comparison with lisdexamfetamine). Anchored indirect comparisons were conducted across matched populations of the centanafadine and respective comparator trials. RESULTS: After matching, baseline characteristics in the centanafadine trials were the same as those in the respective comparator trials. Compared with lisdexamfetamine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of lack of appetite (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: 23.42), dry mouth (19.27), insomnia (15.35), anxiety (5.21), nausea (4.90), feeling jittery (3.70), and diarrhea (3.47) (all P < 0.05) but a smaller reduction in the AISRS/ADHD-RS score (6.58-point difference; P < 0.05). Compared with atomoxetine, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of nausea (RD in percentage points: 18.64), dry mouth (17.44), fatigue (9.21), erectile dysfunction (6.76), lack of appetite (6.71), and urinary hesitation (5.84) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. Compared with viloxazine ER, centanafadine was associated with a significantly lower risk of fatigue (RD in percentage points: 11.07), insomnia (10.67), nausea (7.57), and constipation (4.63) (all P < 0.05) and no statistically significant difference in the change in AISRS score. CONCLUSIONS: In an anchored MAIC, centanafadine showed a significantly better short-term safety profile than lisdexamfetamine, atomoxetine, and viloxazine ER; efficacy was lower than with lisdexamfetamine and comparable (ie, nondifferent) with atomoxetine and viloxazine ER. This MAIC provides important insights on the relative safety and efficacy of common treatment options to help inform treatment decisions in adults with ADHD. Safety assessment was limited to rates of adverse events reported in both trials of a given comparison. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03605680, NCT03605836, NCT00334880, NCT00190736, and NCT04016779.

Prevalence and Impact of Bypassing or Overriding Phase 2 Trials in Neurologic Drug Development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pivotal trials for neurologic drugs in clinical development are often initiated without a phase 2 trial ("bypass") or despite a negative phase 2 efficacy result ("override"). Such practices may degrade the risk/benefit ratio of phase 3 trials. The aim of this study is to estimate the proportion of phase 3 trials for 10 neurologic diseases started without a positive phase 2 trial, to identify factors associated with this practice, and to investigate any association with unfavorable phase 3 trial outcomes. METHODS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 trials completed during 2011-2021, with at least 1 research site in the United States, Canada, the European Union, the United Kingdom, or Australia, and investigating drugs or biologics for treatment of 10 neurologic conditions. Our primary objective was to assess the prevalence of phase 2 bypass/override by searching for preceding phase 2 trials. We used Fisher exact tests to determine whether phase 3 trial characteristics and trial results were associated with phase 2 bypass/override. RESULTS: Of the 1,188 phase 3 trials captured in our search, 113 met eligibility for inclusion. Of these, 46% were not preceded by a phase 2 trial that was positive on an efficacy endpoint (31% bypassed and 15% overrode phase 2 trial). Phase 2 bypass/override was not associated with industry funding (77% vs 89%, 95% CI 0.75-7.55, p = 0.13) or testing already approved interventions (23% vs 15%, 95% CI 0.60-5.14, p = 0.33). Overall, phase 3 trials based on phase 2 bypassed/override were statistically significantly less likely to be positive on their primary outcome (31% vs 57%, respectively, 95% CI 1.21-6.92, p = 0.01). This effect disappeared when indications characterized by nearly universal positive or negative results were excluded. Trials that bypassed/overrode phase 2 trials were not statistically significantly more likely to be terminated early because of safety or futility (29% vs 15%, respectively, 95% CI 0.15-1.18, p = 0.11) and did not show increased risk of adverse events in experimental arms (RR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.19-1.79, vs RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.10-1.69, respectively, p = 0.65). DISCUSSION: Almost half of the neurologic disease phase 3 trials were initiated without the support of a positive phase 2 trial. Although our analysis does not establish harm with bypass/override, its prevalence and the scientific rationale for phase 2 trial testing favor development of criteria defining when phase 2 bypass/override is justified.

A phase 3 randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial of mirtazapine as a pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine use disorder: a study protocol for the Tina Trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no approved pharmacotherapies for methamphetamine use disorder. Two preliminary phase 2 randomised controlled trials have found mirtazapine, a tetracyclic antidepressant, to be effective in reducing methamphetamine use. The proposed Tina Trial is the first phase 3 placebo-controlled randomised trial to examine the effectiveness and safety of mirtazapine as an outpatient pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine use disorder. METHODS: This is a multi-site phase 3 randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel trial. Participants are randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either mirtazapine (30 mg/day for 12 weeks) or matched placebo, delivered as a take-home medication. The target population is 340 people aged 18-65 years who have moderate to severe methamphetamine use disorder. The trial is being conducted through outpatient alcohol and other drug treatment clinics in Australia. The primary outcome is measured as self-reported days of methamphetamine use in the past 4 weeks at week 12. Secondary outcomes are methamphetamine-negative oral fluid samples, depressive symptoms, sleep quality, HIV risk behaviour and quality of life. Other outcomes include safety (adverse events), tolerability, and health service use. Medication adherence is being monitored using MEMS® Smart Caps fitted to medication bottles. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide information on the safety and effectiveness of mirtazapine as a pharmacotherapy for methamphetamine use disorder when delivered as an outpatient medication in routine clinical practice. If found to be safe and effective, this trial will support an application for methamphetamine use disorder to be included as a therapeutic indication for the prescription of mirtazapine. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12622000235707. Registered on February 9, 2022.

Application of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to assess the clinical benefit of antibody drug conjugates in solid cancer: a systematic descriptive analysis of phase III and pivotal phase II trials.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit value of approved antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for solid tumours using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) V.1.1. DESIGN: Systematic descriptive analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for publications from 1 January 2000 to 18 October 2023. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included the phase III randomised controlled trials or phase II pivotal trials leading to approval of ADCs in solid tumours. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus in the presence of a third investigator. RESULTS: ESMO-MCBS Scores were calculated for 16 positive clinical trials of eight ADCs, which were first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the China National Medical Products Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency for solid cancers. Among 16 trials, 4 (25%) met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade, while 12 (75%) of the regimens did not meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. 5 (31%) of the 16 trials had no published scorecard on the ESMO website due to the approval by other jurisdictions but not by the FDA or EMA. Discrepancies between our results and the ESMO scorecard were observed in 4 (36%) of 11 trials, mostly owing to integration of more recent data. CONCLUSIONS: ESMO-MCBS is an important tool for assessing the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, but not all drugs met the meaningful benefit threshold.

Lomustine with or without reirradiation for first progression of glioblastoma, LEGATO, EORTC-2227-BTG: study protocol for a randomized phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy with lomustine is widely considered as standard treatment option for progressive glioblastoma. The value of adding radiotherapy to second-line chemotherapy is not known. METHODS: EORTC-2227-BTG (LEGATO, NCT05904119) is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic (PRECIS-2 score: 34 out of 45), randomized, multicenter phase III trial in patients with first progression of glioblastoma. A total of 411 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to lomustine (110 mg/m2 every 6 weeks) or lomustine (110 mg/m2 every 6weeks) plus radiotherapy (35 Gy in 10 fractions). Main eligibility criteria include histologic confirmation of glioblastoma, isocitrate dehydrogenase gene (IDH) wild-type per WHO 2021 classification, first progression at least 6 months after the end of prior radiotherapy, radiologically measurable disease according to RANO criteria with a maximum tumor diameter of 5 cm, and WHO performance status of 0-2. The primary efficacy endpoint is overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, response rate, neurocognitive function, health-related quality of life, and health economic parameters. LEGATO is funded by the European Union's Horizon Europe Research program, was activated in March 2024 and will enroll patients in 43 sites in 11 countries across Europe with study completion projected in 2028. DISCUSSION: EORTC-2227-BTG (LEGATO) is a publicly funded pragmatic phase III trial designed to clarify the efficacy of adding reirradiation to chemotherapy with lomustine for the treatment of patients with first progression of glioblastoma. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05904119. Registered before start of inclusion, 23 May 2023.

Adult and pediatric relapsing multiple sclerosis phase II and phase III trial design and their primary end points: A systematic review.

No systematic review of trial designs in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was reported. This systematic review was conducted on the trial designs and primary end points (PEs) of phase II and III trials intended to modify the natural course of the disease in patients with RMS. The purpose of the study is to explore trends/topics and discussion points in clinical trial design and PE, comparing them to regulatory guidelines and expert recommendations. Three trial registration systems, ClinicalTrials.gov, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, were used and 60 trials were evaluated. The dominant clinical trial design was a randomized controlled parallel-arms trial and other details were as follows: in adult phase III confirmatory trials (n = 32), active-controlled double-blind trial (DBT) (53%) and active-controlled open-label assessor-masking trial (16%); in adult phase II dose-finding trials (n = 9), placebo- and active-controlled DBT (44%), placebo-controlled DBT (22%), and placebo-controlled add-on DBT (22%); and in pediatric phase III confirmatory trials (n = 8), active-controlled DBT (38%) and active-controlled open-label non-masking trial (25%). The most common PEs were as follows: in adult confirmatory trials, annual relapse rate (ARR) (56%) and no evidence of disease activity-3 (NEDA-3) (13%); in adult dose-finding trials, the cumulative number of T1 gadolinium-enhancing lesions (56%), combined unique active lesions (22%), and overall disability response score (22%); and in pediatric confirmatory trials, ARR (38%) and time to first relapse (25%). It was suggested that some parts of the regulatory guidelines and expert recommendations need to be revised.

Long-Term Efficacy of Tildrakizumab in the Treatment of Psoriasis.

The pathogenesis of psoriasis has been linked to autoimmune and autoinflammatory traits that result in atypical cytokine and keratinocyte activation and proliferation. Many cytokine pathways are involved in the development of inflammation with interleukin-23 (IL-23) playing a significant role in plaque-type psoriasis. Biologic agents that target specific cytokines have shown to be effective therapies in the treatment of plaque-type psoriasis over other conventional treatments such as systemic retinoids. Tildrakizumab is an immunoglobulin G1-kappa monoclonal antibody that inhibits the IL-23/IL-17 pathway and has demonstrated through two three-part randomized Phase 3 clinical trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) and their extension trials to be an efficacious and safe therapy for the targeted treatment of moderate-to-severe plaque-type psoriasis.

Comparison of target agent treatment strategies for platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare 7 newer immunotherapies and targeted therapies for platinum-resistant relapsed ovarian cancer. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library electronic databases for phase III trials involving platinum-resistant recurrent ovarian cancer (PRrOC) patients treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy in combination with chemotherapy. The quality of the included trials was assessed using the GRADE method. The primary outcome of comparison was progression-free survival, and secondary outcomes included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: This analysis included 7 randomized phase III controlled trials, encompassing 2485 PRrOC patients. Combining bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and lurbinectedin demonstrated statistically significant differences in progression-free survival compared to all other regimens of interest. However, no statistically significant differences were observed in the overall survival. Nivolumab and mirvetuximab exhibited fewer serious adverse events than the other regimens of interest. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy and lurbinectedin monotherapy has significant efficacy in patients with PRrOC. For patients with PRrOC who have exhausted treatment options, nivolumab and mirvetuximab may be considered as alternatives because of their better safety profiles.

Irritable bowel syndrome: low dose antidepressant improves symptoms.

The studyFord AC, Wright-Hughes A, Alderson SL, et al. Amitriptyline at low-dose and titrated for irritable bowel syndrome as second-line treatment in primary care (ATLANTIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2023;402:1773-85.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/irritable-bowel-syndrome-low-dose-antidepressant-improves-symptoms/.

State of the art and upcoming trends in claudin-directed therapies in gastrointestinal malignancies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Claudins, components of tight cell junctions in epithelial and endothelial cells, have emerged as a therapeutic target in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, particularly claudin 18.2 (CLDN18.2). RECENT FINDINGS: Zolbetuximab, a chimeric anti-CLDN18.2 monoclonal antibody (mAb), is currently under FDA review and may emerge as the first claudin targeted therapy approved. Phase 3 trials show that zolbetuximab in combination with front-line fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin improves survival in advanced CLDN18.2 positive (≥75% of tumor cells) gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC) patients. Many other therapies (mAbs; CART; bispecific; ADCs) are under investigation. SUMMARY: CLDN18.2 will be an important target in GAC. Early understanding of how to target CLDN18.2 based on the level of expression (high, moderate, low) will be the key to success in this area. Studying these as separate entities should be considered. Resistance patterns, loss of CLDN18.2 expression, role in the refractory setting, and if any role in localized disease are questions that remain. Other targets for claudin that target claudin six and four are under investigation. Their role in GI malignancies will soon be further clarified.

The optimal threshold of PD-L1 combined positive score to predict the benefit of PD-1 antibody plus chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative gastric adenocarcinoma: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) combined with chemotherapy have become the first-line treatment of metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GEACs). This study aims to figure out the optimal combined positive score (CPS) cutoff value. METHODS: We searched for randomized phase III trials to investigate the efficacy of ICIs plus chemotherapy for metastatic GEACs compared with chemotherapy alone. Pooled analyses of hazard ratios (HRs) based on PD-L1 expression were performed. RESULTS: A total of six trials (KEYNOTE-062, KEYNOTE-590, KEYNOTE-859, ATTRACTION-04, CheckMate 649, and ORIENT-16) were included, comprising 5,242 patients. ICIs plus chemotherapy significantly improved OS (HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.72-0.86 in global patients; HR: 0.75, 95% CI 0.57-0.98 in Asian patients) and PFS (HR: 0.74, 95% CI 0.68-0.82 in global patients; HR: 0.64, 95% CI 0.56-0.73 in Asian patients) compared with chemotherapy alone. The differences in OS (ratio of HR: 1.05, 95% CI 0.79-1.40; predictive value: - 5.1%) and PFS (ratio of HR: 1.16, 95% CI 0.98-1.36; predictive value: - 13.5%) were not statistically significant between the global and Asian patients. Subgroup analyses indicated that the optimal CPS threshold was at ≥ 5 for OS and ≥ 10 for PFS with the highest predictive values. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit derived from ICIs plus chemotherapy is similar between Asian and global GEAC patients. However, those with a PD-L1 CPS < 5 or CPS < 10 may not have significant benefits from ICIs therapy. Therefore, it is advisable to routinely assess PD-L1 expression in GEAC patients considered for ICIs treatment.

High-precision stereotactic irradiation for focal drug-resistant epilepsy versus standard treatment: a randomized waitlist-controlled trial (the PRECISION trial).

INTRODUCTION: The standard treatment for patients with focal drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) who are not eligible for open brain surgery is the continuation of anti-seizure medication (ASM) and neuromodulation. This treatment does not cure epilepsy but only decreases severity. The PRECISION trial offers a non-invasive, possibly curative intervention for these patients, which consist of a single stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT) treatment. Previous studies have shown promising results of SRT in this patient population. Nevertheless, this intervention is not yet available and reimbursed in the Netherlands. We hypothesize that: SRT is a superior treatment option compared to palliative standard of care, for patients with focal DRE, not eligible for open surgery, resulting in a higher reduction of seizure frequency (with 50% of the patients reaching a 75% seizure frequency reduction at 2 years follow-up). METHODS: In this waitlist-controlled phase 3 clinical trial, participants are randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either receive SRT as the intervention, while the standard treatments consist of ASM continuation and neuromodulation. After 2-year follow-up, patients randomized for the standard treatment (waitlist-control group) are offered SRT. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with focal DRE and a pretreatment defined epileptogenic zone (EZ) not eligible for open surgery will be included. The intervention is a LINAC-based single fraction (24 Gy) SRT treatment. The target volume is defined as the epileptogenic zone (EZ) on all (non) invasive examinations. The seizure frequency will be monitored on a daily basis using an electronic diary and an automatic seizure detection system during the night. Potential side effects are evaluated using advanced MRI, cognitive evaluation, Common Toxicity Criteria, and patient-reported outcome questionnaires. In addition, the cost-effectiveness of the SRT treatment will be evaluated. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomized trial comparing SRT with standard of care in patients with DRE, non-eligible for open surgery. The primary objective is to determine whether SRT significantly reduces the seizure frequency 2 years after treatment. The results of this trial can influence the current clinical practice and medical cost reimbursement in the Netherlands for patients with focal DRE who are not eligible for open surgery, providing a non-invasive curative treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT05182437. Registered on September 27, 2021.

Peroperative administration of tranexamic acid in Roux-en-Y and one-anastomosis gastric bypass to reduce haemorrhage in patients with morbid obesity: protocol for randomised controlled trial (PATRY trial).

INTRODUCTION: By implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Bariatric Surgery protocols and day-care surgery, early discharge poses a challenge if excessive bleeding occurs after bariatric surgery. Tranexamic acid (TXA) has demonstrated efficacy in other surgical fields and in bariatric pilot studies. This trial aims to assess the efficacy of peroperative administration of TXA in reducing haemorrhage in patients undergoing gastric bypass surgery. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This is a multicentre, phase III, double-blind randomised controlled trial in six high-volume bariatric centres in the Netherlands. A total of 1524 eligible patients, aged 18 years or older, undergoing primary gastric bypass surgery (either Roux-en-Y gastric bypass or one-anastomosis gastric bypass) will be randomised between TXA and placebo (1:1, variable block, stratified for centre, day-care/overnight stay and type of surgery) after obtaining informed consent (2.5% less haemorrhage, power 80%, 2-sided-α 0.05 and 10% dropout). Exclusion criteria are pregnancy, amedical history of acute bleeding (without cause), venous thrombotic events (VTEs), epilepsy, anticoagulant use and iatrogenic bleeding during surgery (aside from staple line). The primary outcome is postoperative haemorrhage requiring intervention within 30 days postoperatively. Secondary outcome measures are staple line reinforcement, blood loss, duration of surgery, postoperative haemoglobin, vital parameters, minor and major complications, side effects of TXA (nausea, hypotension and VTE), length of hospital stay and directly made costs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants. The protocol has been approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committees United, Nieuwegein, on 7 February 2023 (registration number: R22.102). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05464394.