Invasive candidiasis (IC) ranks among the primary causes of deadly fungal infections. The frequency of IC rises alongside increasing number of patients with altered immune systems, critically ill, chronic diseases, and various medical procedures. The disease causes high morbidity and mortality, as well as prolonged stay and increases hospital costs. The diagnosis and management of IC in Indonesia is still a challenge. Laboratory facilities in identifying pathogenic fungi and susceptibility tests to antifungals are still limited. Clinical awareness and financial support from health policymakers are also insufficient. Early diagnosis is essential for proper treatment to reduce morbidity and mortality rates. Initiated by the Indonesian Pulmonary Mycoses Centre (IPMC), several expert representatives from six medical professional organizations in Indonesia have agreed to set up a meeting series to prepare a joint draft on the diagnosis and management of IC. The expert panel aimed to achieve a consensus on the clinical practice guidelines for diagnosing and treating IC in Indonesia.

The Script Concordance Tests (SCTs) are an examination modality introduced by decree in the French National Ranking Exam for medical students in 2024. Their objective is to evaluate clinical reasoning in situations of uncertainty. In practice, SCTs assess the impact of new information on the probability of a hypothesis formulated a priori based on an authentic clinical scenario. This approach resembles probabilistic (or Bayesian) reasoning. Due to the uncertainty associated with the explored clinical situation, SCTs do not compare the student\'s response to an expected one in a theoretical knowledge reference. Instead, the distribution of responses from a panel of experienced physicians is used to establish the question\'s scoring scale. Literature data suggest that physicians, even experienced ones, like most humans, often exhibit biased intuitive probabilistic reasoning. These biases raise questions about the relevance of using expert panel responses as scoring scales for SCTs.

Cancer precision medicine (genome-based individualized treatment for cancer patients) has already been introduced for solid tumors, and involves identifying driver genes in the development and progression of tumors and suggesting optimal treatments targeting those genes. So far, many patients have received this style of treatment. Meanwhile, preparations for cancer genomic medicine based on cancer gene panel testing are also underway for hematopoietic tumors. In this article, I would like to share fundamental information about the main genetic mutations in malignant lymphomas and their clinical significance, and discuss how this information should be utilized in cancer genomic medicine in the future.

The proposed expert opinion aimed to address the current knowledge on conceptual, clinical, and therapeutic aspects of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) and to provide a guidance document to assist clinicians for the best practice in DPN care. The participating experts consider the suspicion of the disease by clinicians as a key factor in early recognition and diagnosis, emphasizing an improved awareness of the disease by the first-admission or referring physicians. The proposed \"screening and diagnostic\" algorithm involves the consideration of DPN in a patient with prediabetes or diabetes who presents with neuropathic symptoms and/or signs of neuropathy in the presence of DPN risk factors, with careful consideration of laboratory testing to rule out other causes of distal symmetric peripheral neuropathy and referral for a detailed neurological work-up for a confirmative test of either small or large nerve fiber dysfunction in atypical cases. Although, the first-line interventions for DPN are currently represented by optimized glycemic control (mainly for type 1 diabetes) and multifactorial intervention (mainly for type 2 diabetes), there is a need for individualized pathogenesis-directed treatment approaches for DPN. Alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) seems to be an important first-line pathogenesis-directed agent, given that it is a direct and indirect antioxidant that works with a strategy targeted directly against reactive oxygen species and indirectly in favor of endogenous antioxidant capacity for improving DPN conditions. There is still a gap in existing research in the field, necessitating well-designed, robust, multicenter clinical trials with sensitive endpoints and standardized protocols to facilitate the diagnosis of DPN via a simple and effective algorithm and to track progression of disease and treatment response. Identification of biomarkers/predictors that would allow an individualized approach from a potentially disease-modifying perspective may provide opportunities for novel treatments that would be efficacious in early stages of DPN, and may modify the natural course of the disease. This expert opinion document is expected to increase awareness among physicians about conceptual, clinical, and therapeutic aspects of DPN and to assist them in timely recognition of DPN and translating this information into their clinical practice for best practice in the management of patients with DPN.

The year 2024 is the 20th anniversary of the discovery of activating epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Since then, tremendous advances have been made in the treatment of NSCLC based on this discovery. Some of these studies have led to seismic changes in the concept of oncology research and spurred treatment advances beyond NSCLC, leading to a current true era of precision oncology for all solid tumors. We now routinely molecularly profile all tumor types and even plasma samples of patients with NSCLC for multiple actionable driver mutations, independent of patient clinical characteristics nor is profiling limited to the advanced incurable stage. We are increasingly monitoring treatment responses and detecting resistance to targeted therapy by using plasma genotyping. Furthermore, we are now profiling early-stage NSCLC for appropriate adjuvant targeted treatment leading to an eventual potential \"cure\" in early-stage EGFR+ NSCLC which have societal implication on implementing lung cancer screening in never-smokers as most EGFR+ NSCLC patients are never-smokers. All these advances were unfathomable in 2004 when the five papers that described \"discoveries\" of activating EGFR mutations (del19, L858R, exon 20 insertions, and \"uncommon\" mutations) were published. To commemorate this 20th anniversary, we assembled a global panel of thoracic medical oncology experts to select the top 20 papers (publications or congress presentation) from the 20 years since this seminal discovery with December 31, 2023 as the cutoff date for inclusion of papers to be voted on. Papers ranked 21 to 30 were considered \"honorable mention\" and also annotated. Our objective is that these 30 papers with their annotations about their impact and even all the ranked papers will serve as \"syllabus\" for the education of future thoracic oncology trainees. Finally, we mentioned potential practice-changing clinical trials to be reported. One of them, LAURA was published online on June 2, 2024 was not included in the list of papers to be voted on but will surely be highly ranked if this consensus survery is performed again on the 25th anniversay of the discovery EGFR mutations (i.e. top 25 papers on the 25 years since the discovery of activating EGFR mutations).

The increasing burden of type 2 diabetes (T2D), in relation to alarming rise in the prevalence; challenges in the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment; as well as the substantial impact of disease on longevity and quality of life, is a major concern in healthcare worldwide. Sulfonylureas (SUs) have been a cornerstone of T2D pharmacotherapy for over 60 years as oral antidiabetic drugs (OADs), while the newer generation SUs, such as gliclazide modified release (MR), are known to be associated with low risk of hypoglycemia in addition to the cardiovascular neutrality. This scoping review aimed to specifically address the current position of gliclazide MR among other SUs in the contemporary treatment paradigm for T2D and to provide a practical guidance document to assist clinicians in using gliclazide MR in real-life clinical practice. The main topics addressed in this paper include the role of early and sustained glycemic control and use of SUs in T2D management, the properties of gliclazide MR in relation to its effectiveness and safety, the use of gliclazide therapy in special populations, and the place of SUs as a class and gliclazide MR specifically in the current T2D treatment algorithm.

OBJECTIVE: Recent clinical trials have shown improvement in progression-free survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) treated with combination poly-ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors (PARPi) and novel hormonal therapy (NHT). Regulatory bodies in the USA, Canada, Europe, and Japan have recently approved this combination therapy for mPC. Common adverse events (AEs) include fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and anemia. Nuanced AE management guidance for these combinations is lacking. The panel objective was to develop expert consensus on AE management in patients with mPC treated with the combination PARPi + NHT.
METHODS: The RAND/University of California Los Angeles modified Delphi Panel method was used. AEs were defined using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Twelve experts (seven medical oncologists, one advanced practice registered nurse, three urologists, and one patient advocate) reviewed the relevant literature; independently rated initial AE management options for the agent suspected of causing the AE for 419 patient scenarios on a 1-9 scale; discussed areas of agreement (AoAs) and disagreement (AoDs) at a March 2023 meeting; and repeated these ratings following the meeting. Second-round ratings formed the basis of guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: AoDs decreased from 41% to 21% between the first and second round ratings, with agreement on at least one management strategy for every AE. AoAs included the following: (1) continue therapy with symptomatic treatment for patients with mild AEs; (2) for moderate fatigue, recommend nonpharmacologic treatment, hold treatment temporarily, and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; (3) for severe nausea or any degree of vomiting where symptomatic treatment fails, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose when symptoms resolve; and (4) for hemoglobin 7.1-8.0 g/dl and symptoms of anemia, hold treatment temporarily and restart at a reduced dose after red blood cell transfusion.
CONCLUSIONS: This expert guidance can support management of AEs in patients with mPC receiving combination PARPi + NHT therapy.
RESULTS: A panel of experts developed guidelines for adverse event (AE) management in patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated with a combination of poly-ADP ribose polymerase inhibitors and novel hormonal therapy. For mild AEs, continuation of cancer therapy along with symptomatic treatment is recommended. For moderate or severe AEs, cancer therapy should be stopped temporarily and restarted at the same or a reduced dose when AE resolves.

BACKGROUND: The new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places greater importance on the role of clinical evidence to establish safety and performance. Article 54 of the MDR calls for expert committees to independently review the scientific, technical, and clinical evidence supporting the market authorization of certain novel devices independently from the established process of Notified Body reviews. These experts provide a review and opinion that ultimately is taken into consideration alongside the information reviewed by the Notified Body during the review process. Four expert committees (General and Plastic Surgery and Dentistry; Orthopaedics, Traumatology, Rehabilitation, Rheumatology; Circulatory System; and Neurology) have published at least one Scientific Opinion (SO) under the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) in 2021-2022.
METHODS: The four expert committees with published CECP opinions were reviewed to assess the academic backgrounds and professional expertise of each member with respect to clinical, technical, and biological domains on a 0-2 scale for each domain. A content review was conducted on the 10 CECP opinions published by these committees to assess their consistency with the goals and outcome expectations set by the MDR. The extent of content related to each of the clinical, technical, and biological domains was also assessed on a 0-2 scale.
RESULTS: All committees were composed primarily by members with strong clinical expertise, but only a few had strong technical and biological expertise. Across committees, the average scores of members related to academic background and professional expertise both ranged from 1.64 to 2.00 in the clinical domain, but only 0-0.15 and 0.15-0.69, respectively, in the biological domain, and 0.12-0.55 and 0.23-0.73, respectively, in the technical domain. A content review for the 10 SOs showed that all opinions focused exclusively or primarily on the clinical evidence. Three contained a modest amount of additional text directed at technical/engineering issues and five at biological issues.
CONCLUSIONS: Expert committees are composed predominantly of expert clinical reviewers but have many fewer members with significant technical or biological expertise. This may limit the ability of the committees to evaluate the significant technical and biological risks that are often best understood by preclinical testing. Broadening the expertise across the committees may improve the depth of their benefit/risk critiques.

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a \"Policy Profile\" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Accurate assessments of symptoms and diagnoses are essential for health research and clinical practice but face many challenges. The absence of a single error-free measure is currently addressed by assessment methods involving experts reviewing several sources of information to achieve a more accurate or best-estimate assessment. Three bodies of work spanning medicine, psychiatry, and psychology propose similar assessment methods: The Expert Panel, the Best-Estimate Diagnosis, and the Longitudinal Expert All Data (LEAD). However, the quality of such best-estimate assessments is typically very difficult to evaluate due to poor reporting of the assessment methods and when it is reported, the reporting quality varies substantially. Here we tackle this gap by developing reporting guidelines for such studies, using a four-stage approach: 1) drafting reporting standards accompanied by rationales and empirical evidence, which were further developed with a patient organization for depression, 2) incorporating expert feedback through a two-round Delphi procedure, 3) refining the guideline based on an expert consensus meeting, and 4) testing the guideline by i) having two researchers test it and ii) using it to examine the extent previously published articles report the standards. The last step also demonstrates the need for the guideline: 18 to 58% (Mean = 33%) of the standards were not reported across fifteen randomly selected studies. The LEADING guideline comprises 20 reporting standards related to four groups: The Longitudinal design; the Appropriate data; the Evaluation - experts, materials, and procedures; and the Validity group. We hope that the LEADING guideline will be useful in assisting researchers in planning, reporting, and evaluating research aiming to achieve best-estimate assessments.