UNASSIGNED: To assess the quality and alignment of ChatGPT\'s cancer treatment recommendations (RECs) with National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines and expert opinions.
UNASSIGNED: Three urologists performed quantitative and qualitative assessments in October 2023 analyzing responses from ChatGPT-4 and ChatGPT-3.5 to 108 prostate, kidney, and bladder cancer prompts using two zero-shot prompt templates. Performance evaluation involved calculating five ratios: expert-approved/expert-disagreed and NCCN-aligned RECs against total ChatGPT RECs plus coverage and adherence rates to NCCN. Experts rated the response\'s quality on a 1-5 scale considering correctness, comprehensiveness, specificity, and appropriateness.
UNASSIGNED: ChatGPT-4 outperformed ChatGPT-3.5 in prostate cancer inquiries, with an average word count of 317.3 versus 124.4 (p < 0.001) and 6.1 versus 3.9 RECs (p < 0.001). Its rater-approved REC ratio (96.1% vs. 89.4%) and alignment with NCCN guidelines (76.8% vs. 49.1%, p = 0.001) were superior and scored significantly better on all quality dimensions. Across 108 prompts covering three cancers, ChatGPT-4 produced an average of 6.0 RECs per case, with an 88.5% approval rate from raters, 86.7% NCCN concordance, and only a 9.5% disagreement rate. It achieved high marks in correctness (4.5), comprehensiveness (4.4), specificity (4.0), and appropriateness (4.4). Subgroup analyses across cancer types, disease statuses, and different prompt templates were reported.
UNASSIGNED: ChatGPT-4 demonstrated significant improvement in providing accurate and detailed treatment recommendations for urological cancers in line with clinical guidelines and expert opinion. However, it is vital to recognize that AI tools are not without flaws and should be utilized with caution. ChatGPT could supplement, but not replace, personalized advice from healthcare professionals.

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with anticancer drugs are common and can significantly affect efficacy and toxicity of treatment. Therefore, a Dutch Multidisciplinary Expert group is assessing the clinical significance of DDIs in oncology and provides recommendations for the management of these DDIs. We present an overview of methodology and outcome of an evidence- and consensus-based assessment of DDIs between anticancer drugs and non-anticancer drugs. A literature search was performed through PubMed and EMA and FDA assessment reports, to identify potential DDI\'s involving anticancer drugs. For each potential DDI a concept report for risk analysis and practical advice for management was created. Subsequently, this risk analysis and the corresponding advice were assessed and weighed. A total of 290 potential DDIs have been identified in the literature thus far. Of these 290 potential DDIs, the Expert Group has identified 94 (32%) DDIs as clinically relevant, with a need for an automated alert and a suggested intervention. Furthermore, 110 DDIs have been identified as clinically not relevant. For 86 potential DDIs evidence supporting a relevant DDI was insufficient and in these cases neither an alert nor advice regarding a suggested intervention were formulated. A transparent risk analysis is presented for identification of clinically relevant DDIs with anticancer drugs. Integration of DDI guidelines into the national electronic prescribing system is essential to achieve optimal efficacy and minimal toxicity in patients receiving anticancer therapy. A clear overview of clinically relevant DDIs with anticancer therapy provides clinicians with a structured, evidence-based and consensus-built tool for anticancer therapy surveillance.

The occurrence of neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions in a wide range of tumor types presents an attractive opportunity for using a tropomyosin receptor kinase (TRK) inhibitor as cancer therapy. Recent clinical studies have demonstrated highly efficacious outcomes associated with the use of TRK inhibitors, such as larotrectinib and entrectinib in NTRK fusion-bearing cancers, in both adult and pediatric populations. While NTRK gene fusions are commonly found in some uncommon adult and pediatric malignancies, they are also found, albeit rarely, in a wide range of more common malignancies. The potential value of testing for NTRK gene fusions in practically all advanced malignancies is underpinned by the remarkable therapeutic outcomes that TRK inhibitors offer. This requirement presents practical and financial challenges in real-world oncological practice. Furthermore, different testing platforms exist to detect NTRK gene fusions, each with its advantages and disadvantages. It is, therefore, imperative to develop strategies for NTRK gene fusion testing in an attempt to optimize the use of limited tissue specimen and financial resources, and to minimize the turnaround time. A multidisciplinary task force of Singapore medical experts in both public and private sectors was convened in late 2020 to propose testing algorithms for adult colorectal tumors, sarcomas, non-small cell lung cancer, and pediatric cancers, with particular adaptation to the Singapore oncological practice. The recommendations presented here highlight the heterogeneity of NTRK-fusion positive cancers, and emphasize the need to customize the testing methods to each tumor type to optimize the workflow.

The Chinese Invasive Fungal Infection Working Group published the first edition of guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of IFD in patients with hematological disorders and cancers in 2005, and has been revised several editions thereafter. Recently, new treatments such as targeted therapy have emerged in the field of hematological cancers. These advances are modifying the definition of high-risk IFD, the epidemiology of IFD, and the strategies in IFD diagnosis and treatment. Meanwhile, diagnostic methods of IFD were evaluated in a lot of clinical studies. Therefore, the Chinese Working Group of Invasive Fungal Infections issued the latest Chinese guideline, based on Infectious Diseases Group of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC-IDG) and the American Mycoses Study Group (MSG) standards, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) guidelines and the European Conference on Infections in Leukemia (ECIL) guidelines. The IFD is still classified as Proven, Probable, Possible and Undefined; the management strategies include prophylaxis, empirical antifungal therapy, diagnostic-driven antifungal therapy and targeted anti-fungal therapy. The major revisions include the epidemiology of IFD, in vitro susceptibility tests of anti-fungal drugs, and therapeutic drug concentration monitoring.
中国侵袭性真菌感染工作组在2005年首次制定了血液病/恶性肿瘤患者侵袭性真菌病（IFD）的诊断标准及治疗原则，并先后经历多次修订。近年来, 血液肿瘤领域出现了很多新治疗手段（如靶向治疗等），使得IFD的高危人群、IFD的流行病学、IFD诊治策略都发生了一些变化；同时IFD的诊断方法累积了更多的临床研究数据。基于这些变化，中国侵袭性真菌感染工作组经反复讨论，参照欧洲癌症研究和治疗组织-感染性疾病协作组（EORTC-IDG）和美国真菌病研究组（MSG）标准、美国抗感染学会（IDSA）指南及欧洲白血病抗感染委员会（ECIL）指南对我国原有IFD的诊断标准与治疗原则进行了再次修订。本版诊治原则对流行病学部分进行了相应修订；诊断体系上保留了确诊、临床诊断、拟诊及未确定的诊断分层；治疗方面则仍按预防治疗、经验治疗、诊断驱动治疗及目标治疗的策略进行修订；新增体外药敏试验、治疗性药物浓度监测相关内容。.

Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses have been increasingly used to seek evidence of causal associations. This systematic review aims at characterizing and evaluating the reporting of MR analyses in oncological studies.
The PubMed database was searched to identify MR cancer studies until December 31, 2017. Two of the authors independently selected and evaluated reporting quality of the studies. Reporting quality in MR studies before 2016 and in 2016/17 was compared.
Cancer studies with MR analyses in 2016 and 2017 accounted for 55.8% of the total number of studies identified. In the 77 eligible articles, 39 (50.6%) did not report subjects\' characteristics, 53 (68.8%) did not conduct power estimation, 40 (51.9%) did not state all of the first three MR assumptions (i.e., genetic instrument is associated with exposure, is not associated with confounders, and acts on outcome only through exposure), and 31 (40.3%) did not exclude SNPs that diverged from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. More studies estimated power in 2016/2017 than before 2016 (p = 0.028).
Some MR cancer studies did not sufficiently report essential information, posing obstacles for critical appraisal. This study proposes for MR analysis a guideline/checklist for future publications in cancer and other biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: The current status and adoption of cancer-related clinical practice guidelines in Japan has not been elucidated yet. The purpose of this study was to propose roles and suggestions to develop future cancer-related clinical guidelines.
METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of four domains with a total of 17 questions was developed. We distributed the questionnaire to 28 specific academic organizations in Japan which have developed any cancer-related clinical practice guidelines and which were funded by the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare.
RESULTS: Most organizations have investigated nationwide dissemination and adoption of clinical practice guidelines. The rate of adoption in clinical practice was estimated at approximately ≥ 70%. However, organizations with smaller budgets reported surveying approximately 60% of the time, whereas the ones with larger budgets reported approximately 100% success in surveying about their guidelines. The presidents of the organizations agreed that a new organization operated directly by the national government was necessary.
CONCLUSIONS: In Japan, to develop cancer-related clinical practice guidelines, a study of clinical validation is necessary. Sufficient funds must be available to support the project to maintain and revise the guidelines. Furthermore, legal and ethical issues should be solved before establishing any registry system.