Delphi consensus project on prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-targeted surgery-outcomes from an international multidisciplinary panel.

PURPOSE: Prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) is increasingly considered as a molecular target to achieve precision surgery for prostate cancer. A Delphi consensus was conducted to explore expert views in this emerging field and to identify knowledge and evidence gaps as well as unmet research needs that may help change practice and improve oncological outcomes for patients. METHODS: One hundred and five statements (scored by a 9-point Likert scale) were distributed through SurveyMonkey®. Following evaluation, a consecutive second round was performed to evaluate consensus (16 statements; 89% response rate). Consensus was defined using the disagreement index, assessed by the research and development project/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method. RESULTS: Eighty-six panel participants (72.1% clinician, 8.1% industry, 15.1% scientists, and 4.7% other) participated, most with a urological background (57.0%), followed by nuclear medicine (22.1%). Consensus was obtained on the following: (1) The diagnostic PSMA-ligand PET/CT should ideally be taken < 1 month before surgery, 1-3 months is acceptable; (2) a 16-20-h interval between injection of the tracer and surgery seems to be preferred; (3) PSMA targeting is most valuable for identification of nodal metastases; (4) gamma, fluorescence, and hybrid imaging are the preferred guidance technologies; and (5) randomized controlled clinical trials are required to define oncological value. Regarding surgical margin assessment, the view on the value of PSMA-targeted surgery was neutral or inconclusive. A high rate of "cannot answer" responses indicates further study is necessary to address knowledge gaps (e.g., Cerenkov or beta-emissions). CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi consensus provides guidance for clinicians and researchers that implement or develop PSMA-targeted surgery technologies. Ultimately, however, the consensus should be backed by randomized clinical trial data before it may be implemented within the guidelines.

Centers for disease control and prevention expert panel meetings on prevention and treatment of anthrax in adults.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened panels of anthrax experts to review and update guidelines for anthrax postexposure prophylaxis and treatment. The panels included civilian and military anthrax experts and clinicians with experience treating anthrax patients. Specialties represented included internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics, infectious disease, emergency medicine, critical care, pulmonology, hematology, and nephrology. Panelists discussed recent patients with systemic anthrax; reviews of published, unpublished, and proprietary data regarding antimicrobial drugs and anthrax antitoxins; and critical care measures of potential benefit to patients with anthrax. This article updates antimicrobial postexposure prophylaxis and antimicrobial and antitoxin treatment options and describes potentially beneficial critical care measures for persons with anthrax, including clinical procedures for infected nonpregnant adults. Changes from previous guidelines include an expanded discussion of critical care and clinical procedures and additional antimicrobial choices, including preferred antimicrobial drug treatment for possible anthrax meningitis.

Face to face among different chemo-immunotherapy combinations in the first line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Results of an international expert panel meeting by the italian association of thoracic oncology (AIOT).

BACKGROUND: The combination of platinum-based chemotherapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is a standard of care option in the front-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Positive efficacy and safety results have been demonstrated with different chemo-ICI combinations in the corresponding clinical trials, however no randomized prospective comparison is available and there is no evidence on how to choose among the available regimens. METHODS: A virtual International Expert Panel took place in July 2023 to review data on chemo-ICI regimens available in the first-line setting in patients with NSCLC, and reach common considerations both in clinical practice and in research setting. RESULTS: Overall, all panelists agreed that safety of the chemo-immunotherapy combination regimens is supported by reviewed data, showing no additional toxicity concerns over those of the individual components of each regimen and highlighting differences in toxicity profile based on ICI component (single anti-PD-1 versus double anti-PD-1 and anti-CTLA-4). Among disease characteristics, PD-L1 value (<1%) but not histology was considered a potential selection factor in favor of the combination with dual ICI. With regards to clinical features, the panelists agreed that chemotherapy, whichever the ICI combination regimen, remains the backbone to counteract disease-related symptoms included those conditioning worse performance status. The panelists defined high, medium, and low priorities in clinical research. High priority was attributed to prospectively evaluating the impact of the addition of anti-CTLA-4 on brain metastasis, biomarker subgroups, and the optimal duration and schedule of combination regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, the panelists reached common considerations on strengths and differences between chemotherapy plus single agent ICI and chemotherapy plus double agent ICIs in patients with advanced NSCLC. In the absence of direct comparison, different toxicity profile and subgroup analysis by PD-L1 are considered as the main potential features to select among the two regimens, however to be confirmed by recommended prospective randomized clinical research.

Regulation Catches Up to Reality.

The FDA recently conducted an Advisory Panel meeting to evaluate the safety, efficacy, and benefits of granting a nonadjunctive label claim for the DEXCOM G5 Mobile continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) system. If approved, this claim will allow users to make day-to-day treatment decisions, including insulin dosing directly from the glucose values and rate of changes arrows generated by the CGM device, without the requirement of a confirmatory measurement with a self-monitoring blood glucose (SMBG) meter. Sporadic SMBG testing gives limited data, while CGM gives a value every 5 minutes and has alerts, alarms, trending information and allows caregivers to follow the user in real time 24/7. This indication will lead to more wide spread use of CGM and improve overall care with protection of hypoglycemia.