BACKGROUND: Locally advanced (unresectable) or metastatic dedifferentiated liposarcoma (DDLPS) is a common presentation of liposarcoma. Despite established diagnostic and treatment guidelines for DDLPS, critical clinical gaps remain driven by diagnostic challenges, symptom burden and the lack of targeted, safe and effective treatments. The objective of this study was to gather expert opinions from Europe and the United States on the management, unmet needs and expectations for clinical trial design as well as the value of progression-free survival (PFS) in this disease. Other aims included raising awareness and educate key stakeholders across healthcare systems.
METHODS: An international panel of 12 sarcoma key opinion leaders (KOLs) was recruited. The study consisted of two rounds of surveys with pre-defined statements. Experts scored each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus agreement was defined as ≥75% of experts scoring a statement with ≥7. Revised statements were discussed in a consensus meeting.
RESULTS: Consensus was reached on 43 of 55 pre-defined statements across disease burden, treatment paradigm, unmet needs, value of PFS and its association with overall survival (OS), and cross-over trial design. Twelve statements were deprioritised or merged with other statements. There were no statements where experts disagreed.
CONCLUSIONS: This study constitutes the first international Delphi panel on DDLPS. It aimed to explore KOL perception of the disease burden and unmet need in DDLPS, the value of PFS, and its potential translation to OS benefit, as well as the relevance of a cross-over trial design for DDLPS therapies. Results indicate an alignment across Europe and the United States regarding DDLPS management, unmet needs, and expectations for clinical trials. Raising awareness of critical clinical gaps in relation to DDLPS can contribute to improving patient outcomes and supporting the development of innovative treatments.

Robust time-to-event endpoint definitions are crucial for the assessment of treatment effect and the clinical value of trial interventions. Here, the Head and Neck Cancer International Group investigated endpoint use in phase 3 trials and trials considered potentially practice-changing published between 2008 and 2021 in the curative-intent setting for patients with mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Of the 92 trials reviewed, we show that all core components of endpoint reporting were heterogeneous, including definitions of common terms, such as overall survival and progression-free survival. Our report highlights the urgent need for harmonisation of fundamental components of clinical trial endpoints and the engagement of all stakeholders to ensure the transparent reporting of endpoint details.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of consensus cluster analysis based on CT radiomics in stratifying risk and predicting postoperative progression-free survival (PFS) in patients diagnosed with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESC).
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study involving 546 patients diagnosed with ESC between January 2016 and March 2021. All patients underwent preoperative enhanced CT examinations. From the enhanced CT images, radiomics features were extracted, and a consensus clustering algorithm was applied to group the patients based on these features. Statistical analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the clustering results and gene protein expression, histopathological features, and patients\' 3-year PFS. We applied the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous data, chi-square or Fisher\'s exact tests for categorical data, and the log-rank test for PFS.
RESULTS: This study identified four groups: Cluster 1 (n = 100, 18.3%), Cluster 2 (n = 197, 36.1%), Cluster 3 (n = 205, 37.5%), and Cluster 4 (n = 44, 8.1%). The cancer gene Breast Cancer Susceptibility Gene 1 (BRCA1) was most highly expressed in Cluster 4 (75%), showing significant differences between the four subtypes with a P-value of 0.035. The expression of programmed death-1 (PD-1) was highest in Cluster 1 (51%), with a P-value of 0.022. Vascular invasion occurred most frequently in Cluster 2 (28.9%), with a P-value of 0.022. The majority of patients with stage T3-4 were in Cluster 2 (67%), with a P-value of 0.003. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significant differences in PFS between the four groups (P = 0.013). Among them, patients in Cluster 1 had the best prognosis, while those in Cluster 2 had the worst.
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the effectiveness of consensus clustering analysis based on enhanced CT radiomics features in identifying associations between radiomics features, histopathological characteristics, and prognosis in different clusters. These findings provide valuable insights for clinicians in accurately and effectively evaluating the prognosis of esophageal cancer.

The incidence of lymph node (LN) involvement and its prognostic value based on radiological imaging in stage IIB cervical cancer (CC) remains unclear, and evidence regarding oncological outcomes of patients with stage IIB CC with LN metastases is limited. In this study we retrospectively reviewed the incidence and prognostic significance of pretreatment radiologic LN status in 72 patients with clinical stage IIB CC (FIGO 2009), with or without radiologic evidence of LN enlargement. An enlarged LN was defined as a diameter > 10 mm on CT/MRI. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Radiologic LN enlargement of >10 mm was observed in 45.8% of patients with stage IIB CC. PFS (p = 0.0088) and OS rates (p = 0.0032) were significantly poorer in the LN group (n = 33) than in the non-LN group (n = 39). Univariate Cox analysis revealed that LN > 10 mm contributed to a higher rate of recurrence and mortality. In conclusion, nearly half of the patients with clinical stage IIB CC had enlarged LNs (>10 mm) identified during pretreatment radiologic evaluation, which negatively impacted prognosis. Our findings highlight the need to incorporate CT- or MRI-based LN assessment before treatment for stage IIB CC.

A recent systematic review reported that trials involving patients with marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) show marked heterogeneity both in the choice and definitions of primary and secondary endpoints, thus hampering comparability between trials. The main objective of this study was to reach consensus, through a Delphi process, on the definitions of four time-to-event endpoints in MZL trials, by surveying clinicians and methodologists involved in the conduct of clinical trials including patients with MZL. We polled a panel of leading international experts involved in MZL trials by means of self-administered sequential questionnaires in 2021. Of these 105 experts, 62 responded to the Round 1 questionnaire regarding the definitions of progression-free survival (PFS), event-free survival (EFS), time-to-failure (TTF), and time-to-next-treatment (TTNT). Afterward, we therefore focused the Round 2 and 3 questionnaires among principal investigators, coinvestigators, and trial methodologists. Consensus was reached when there was a >80% agreement on all potential events (11 choices) of each endpoint. Participants in our survey reached consensus on three of the four time-to-event endpoints definitions. Consensus was reached on the definitions of PFS and TTNT after Round 1, of TTF after Round 2, and was not reached for EFS after Round 3. The disagreement concerned the event \"treatment discontinuation\" in EFS definition. The main interest of our study was to elicit investigator\'s interest in the importance of consistently defining endpoints in MZL trials and to highlight that composite endpoints should not be encouraged. Fifteen years after the last consensus statement on time-to-event endpoints definitions issued in Lugano (2007), both the review of literature and survey of international investigators agree on the inconsistency of endpoints definitions used within the MZL community. Hopefully, revised standardized definitions of endpoints shall be provided at the upcoming International Conference on Malignant Lymphoma in 2023.

Older adults account for 70% of cancer-related deaths, but previous studies have shown that they are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. We sought to analyze the representation and outcomes of older adults in trials conducted in the era of novel targeted therapy and immunotherapy.
We searched the 2020 NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology and retrieved trials from the past 10 years leading to category 1 recommendations in the first-line metastatic setting for the 5 most common causes of cancer death. We categorized trials by cancer type, single-agent versus multiagent approach, and therapeutic class. We described the percentage of older adults (according to each trial\'s definition) and used a Mantel-Haenszel random-effects meta-analysis model to compare overall and progression-free survival by age.
We identified 30 trials consisting of 24,416 patients. Across all trials, 44% of enrolled patients were older adults. Representation of older adults by cancer type within trials was 49% prostate cancer, 38% pancreatic cancer, 37% breast cancer, and 34% non-small cell lung cancer. Representation of older adults also varied by therapeutic class: 20% received immunotherapy, 44% received cytotoxic chemotherapy, 54% received targeted/hormonal therapy, and 34% received combination therapy (P<.001 for all comparisons). For each year since 2010, the percentage of older adults enrolled in trials increased by 1.9%, although this difference was not significant. We observed no difference in overall or progression-free survival between older and younger adults. In our analysis of practice-changing clinical trials, we found that 44% of clinical trial participants were older adults. Trials that included immunotherapy or a combination of therapeutic classes had a lower representation of older adults (<40%).
We found that >40% of patients in practice-changing trials are older adults. Although they remain underrepresented in clinical trials compared with the general population, older adults in practice-changing trials seem to be better represented than in previously reported analyses of cooperative group trials.

The rapid innovation of the treatment and diagnostic procedures in advanced prostate cancer has led to improved outcomes, though uncertainty remains regarding the best management approach in many clinical situations. The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2019 addressed these areas of uncertainty with a multidisciplinary, international expert panel. A total of 57 experts voted on 123 carefully prepared questions. The primary analysis of the APCCC 2019 showed consensus (≥ 75% agreement on one answer) for 33 questions. Here we investigate whether agreement with the consensus answers differed according to medical discipline and region of practice. Overall there was no compelling evidence for group differences of agreement with the consensus answers, i.e. expert sub-groups differed no more than could be expected by chance due to differences between individual experts. All questions that achieved consensus, had at least 50% agreement of each expert sub-group. Furthermore, the set of consensus questions changed only moderately if one of the sub-groups was excluded from the panel. The identification of consensus questions and answers at APCCC 2019 appeared to be robust to the composition of the panel and well supported.

The 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists (ASCO/CAP) guideline on HER2 testing in breast cancer permits reclassification of cases with HER2-equivocal results by FISH. The impact of such reclassification is unclear. We sought to determine the proportion of HER2-equivocal cases that are reclassified as HER2-negative and the impact of anti-HER2 therapy on survival in HER2-equivocal cases.
We reviewed medical records of breast cancer patients who had HER2 testing by fluorescence in stitu hybridization (FISH) and immunohistochemistry (IHC) performed or verified at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center during April 2014 through March 2018 and had equivocal results according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline. The population was divided into 2 cohorts according to whether the biopsy specimen analyzed came from primary or from recurrent or metastatic disease. HER2 status was reclassified according to the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. Overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the relationship between anti-HER2 therapy and clinical outcomes was assessed.
We identified 139 cases with HER2-equivocal results according to the 2013 ASCO/CAP guideline: 90 cases of primary disease and 49 cases of recurrent/metastatic disease. Per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline, these cases were classified as follows: overall, HER2-negative 112 cases (80%), HER2-positive 1 (1%), and unknown 26 (19%); primary cohort, HER2-negative 85 (94%), HER2-positive 1 (1%), unknown 4 (4%); and recurrent/metastatic, HER2-negative 27 (55%) and unknown 22 (45%). Five patients in the primary-disease cohort and 1 patient in the recurrent/metastatic-disease cohort received anti-HER2 therapy. There was no significant association between anti-HER2 therapy and OS or EFS in either cohort (primary disease: OS, p = 0.67; EFS, p = 0.49; recurrent/metastatic-disease, OS, p = 0.61; EFS, p = 0.78.
The majority of HER2-equivocal breast cancer cases were reclassified as HER2-negative per the 2018 ASCO/CAP guideline. No association between anti-HER2 therapy and OS or EFS was observed. HER2-equivocal cases seem to have clinical behavior similar to that of HER2-negative breast cancers.

To follow the revision of the fourth edition of WHO classification and the recent progress on the management of diffuse gliomas, the joint guideline committee of Chinese Glioma Cooperative Group (CGCG), Society for Neuro-Oncology of China (SNO-China) and Chinese Brain Cancer Association (CBCA) updated the clinical practice guideline. It provides recommendations for diagnostic and management decisions, and for limiting unnecessary treatments and cost. The recommendations focus on molecular and pathological diagnostics, and the main treatment modalities of surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. In this guideline, we also integrated the results of some clinical trials of immune therapies and target therapies, which we think are ongoing future directions. The guideline should serve as an application for all professionals involved in the management of patients with adult diffuse glioma and also a source of knowledge for insurance companies and other institutions involved in the cost regulation of cancer care in China and other countries.

The ischemic/bleeding trade-off of continuing dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) beyond 1 year after PCI for patients with high thrombotic risk (HTR) as endorsed by 2018 ESC/EACTS myocardial revascularization guidelines remain unknown.
Patients undergoing coronary stenting between January 2013 and December 2013 from the prospective Fuwai registry were defined as HTR if they met at least 1 ESC/EACTS guideline-endorsed HTR criteria. A total of 4578 patients who were at HTR and were events free at 1 year after the index procedure were evaluated. The primary efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke).
Median follow-up period was 2.4 years. > 1-year DAPT with clopidogrel and aspirin significantly reduced the risk of MACCE compared with ≤ 1-year DAPT (1.9% vs. 4.6%; hazard ratio (HR): 0.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.27-0.54; P < 0.001), driven by a reduction in all-cause death (0.2% vs. 3.0%; HR, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.15). Cardiac death and definite/probable stent thrombosis also occurred less frequently in prolonged DAPT group. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding occurred similarly between both groups (1.1% vs. 0.9%; HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.58-2.13; P = 0.763). Similar results were found using multivariable Cox model, propensity score-matched, and inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.
Among patients with ESC-endorsed HTR who were free from major ischemic or bleeding events 1 year after coronary stenting, continued DAPT beyond 1 year might offer better effectiveness in terms of atherothrombotic events and comparable safety in terms of clinically relevant bleeding compared with ≤ 1-year DAPT. ESC-HTR criteria is an important parameter to take into account in tailoring DAPT prolongation.