Presbyterian Hospital

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

This Executive Summary of the Global Strategy for the Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention of COPD, Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 report focuses primarily on the revised and novel parts of the document. The most significant changes include: (1) the assessment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has been refined to separate the spirometric assessment from symptom evaluation. ABCD groups are now proposed to be derived exclusively from patient symptoms and their history of exacerbations; (2) for each of the groups A to D, escalation strategies for pharmacologic treatments are proposed; (3) the concept of deescalation of therapy is introduced in the treatment assessment scheme; (4) nonpharmacologic therapies are comprehensively presented; and (5) the importance of comorbid conditions in managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is reviewed.

BACKGROUND: Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), with or without targeted biopsy, is an alternative to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy for prostate-cancer detection in men with a raised prostate-specific antigen level who have not undergone biopsy. However, comparative evidence is limited. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, we assigned men with a clinical suspicion of prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously to undergo MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, or standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. Men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group underwent a targeted biopsy (without standard biopsy cores) if the MRI was suggestive of prostate cancer; men whose MRI results were not suggestive of prostate cancer were not offered biopsy. Standard biopsy was a 10-to-12-core, transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy. The primary outcome was the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically significant cancer. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of men who received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer. RESULTS: A total of 500 men underwent randomization. In the MRI-targeted biopsy group, 71 of 252 men (28%) had MRI results that were not suggestive of prostate cancer, so they did not undergo biopsy. Clinically significant cancer was detected in 95 men (38%) in the MRI-targeted biopsy group, as compared with 64 of 248 (26%) in the standard-biopsy group (adjusted difference, 12 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4 to 20; P=0.005). MRI, with or without targeted biopsy, was noninferior to standard biopsy, and the 95% confidence interval indicated the superiority of this strategy over standard biopsy. Fewer men in the MRI-targeted biopsy group than in the standard-biopsy group received a diagnosis of clinically insignificant cancer (adjusted difference, -13 percentage points; 95% CI, -19 to -7; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of risk assessment with MRI before biopsy and MRI-targeted biopsy was superior to standard transrectal ultrasonography-guided biopsy in men at clinical risk for prostate cancer who had not undergone biopsy previously. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and the European Association of Urology Research Foundation; PRECISION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02380027 .).

BACKGROUND: A significant number of patients with COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms, known as Long COVID. Few systematic studies have investigated this population, particularly in outpatient settings. Hence, relatively little is known about symptom makeup and severity, expected clinical course, impact on daily functioning, and return to baseline health. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of people with suspected and confirmed COVID-19, distributed via COVID-19 support groups (e.g. Body Politic, Long COVID Support Group, Long Haul COVID Fighters) and social media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook). Data were collected from September 6, 2020 to November 25, 2020. We analyzed responses from 3762 participants with confirmed (diagnostic/antibody positive; 1020) or suspected (diagnostic/antibody negative or untested; 2742) COVID-19, from 56 countries, with illness lasting over 28 days and onset prior to June 2020. We estimated the prevalence of 203 symptoms in 10 organ systems and traced 66 symptoms over seven months. We measured the impact on life, work, and return to baseline health. FINDINGS: For the majority of respondents (>91%), the time to recovery exceeded 35 weeks. During their illness, participants experienced an average of 55.9+/- 25.5 (mean+/-STD) symptoms, across an average of 9.1 organ systems. The most frequent symptoms after month 6 were fatigue, post-exertional malaise, and cognitive dysfunction. Symptoms varied in their prevalence over time, and we identified three symptom clusters, each with a characteristic temporal profile. 85.9% of participants (95% CI, 84.8% to 87.0%) experienced relapses, primarily triggered by exercise, physical or mental activity, and stress. 86.7% (85.6% to 92.5%) of unrecovered respondents were experiencing fatigue at the time of survey, compared to 44.7% (38.5% to 50.5%) of recovered respondents. 1700 respondents (45.2%) required a reduced work schedule compared to pre-illness, and an additional 839 (22.3%) were not working at the time of survey due to illness. Cognitive dysfunction or memory issues were common across all age groups (~88%). Except for loss of smell and taste, the prevalence and trajectory of all symptoms were similar between groups with confirmed and suspected COVID-19. INTERPRETATION: Patients with Long COVID report prolonged, multisystem involvement and significant disability. By seven months, many patients have not yet recovered (mainly from systemic and neurological/cognitive symptoms), have not returned to previous levels of work, and continue to experience significant symptom burden. FUNDING: All authors contributed to this work in a voluntary capacity. The cost of survey hosting (on Qualtrics) and publication fee was covered by AA's research grant (Wellcome Trust/Gatsby Charity via Sainsbury Wellcome center, UCL).

It is important to realize that guidelines cannot always account for individual variation among patients. They are not intended to supplant physician judgment with respect to particular patients or special clinical situations. IDSA considers adherence to these guidelines to be voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding their application to be made by the physician in the light of each patient's individual circumstances.

PURPOSE: The development of computer-aided diagnostic (CAD) methods for lung nodule detection, classification, and quantitative assessment can be facilitated through a well-characterized repository of computed tomography (CT) scans. The Lung Image Database Consortium (LIDC) and Image Database Resource Initiative (IDRI) completed such a database, establishing a publicly available reference for the medical imaging research community. Initiated by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), further advanced by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH), and accompanied by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through active participation, this public-private partnership demonstrates the success of a consortium founded on a consensus-based process. METHODS: Seven academic centers and eight medical imaging companies collaborated to identify, address, and resolve challenging organizational, technical, and clinical issues to provide a solid foundation for a robust database. The LIDC/IDRI Database contains 1018 cases, each of which includes images from a clinical thoracic CT scan and an associated XML file that records the results of a two-phase image annotation process performed by four experienced thoracic radiologists. In the initial blinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed each CT scan and marked lesions belonging to one of three categories ("nodule > or =3 mm," "nodule <3 mm," and "non-nodule > or =3 mm"). In the subsequent unblinded-read phase, each radiologist independently reviewed their own marks along with the anonymized marks of the three other radiologists to render a final opinion. The goal of this process was to identify as completely as possible all lung nodules in each CT scan without requiring forced consensus. RESULTS: The Database contains 7371 lesions marked "nodule" by at least one radiologist. 2669 of these lesions were marked "nodule > or =3 mm" by at least one radiologist, of which 928 (34.7%) received such marks from all four radiologists. These 2669 lesions include nodule outlines and subjective nodule characteristic ratings. CONCLUSIONS: The LIDC/IDRI Database is expected to provide an essential medical imaging research resource to spur CAD development, validation, and dissemination in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Standard chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer is a platinum-taxane combination. The Gynecologic Oncology Group conducted a randomized, phase 3 trial that compared intravenous paclitaxel plus cisplatin with intravenous paclitaxel plus intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel in patients with stage III ovarian cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with stage III ovarian carcinoma or primary peritoneal carcinoma with no residual mass greater than 1.0 cm to receive 135 mg of intravenous paclitaxel per square meter of body-surface area over a 24-hour period followed by either 75 mg of intravenous cisplatin per square meter on day 2 (intravenous-therapy group) or 100 mg of intraperitoneal cisplatin per square meter on day 2 and 60 mg of intraperitoneal paclitaxel per square meter on day 8 (intraperitoneal-therapy group). Treatment was given every three weeks for six cycles. Quality of life was assessed. RESULTS: Of 429 patients who underwent randomization, 415 were eligible. Grade 3 and 4 pain, fatigue, and hematologic, gastrointestinal, metabolic, and neurologic toxic effects were more common in the intraperitoneal-therapy group than in the intravenous-therapy group (P< or =0.001). Only 42 percent of the patients in the intraperitoneal-therapy group completed six cycles of the assigned therapy, but the median duration of progression-free survival in the intravenous-therapy and intraperitoneal-therapy groups was 18.3 and 23.8 months, respectively (P=0.05 by the log-rank test). The median duration of overall survival in the intravenous-therapy and intraperitoneal-therapy groups was 49.7 and 65.6 months, respectively (P=0.03 by the log-rank test). Quality of life was significantly worse in the intraperitoneal-therapy group before cycle 4 and three to six weeks after treatment but not one year after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with intravenous paclitaxel plus cisplatin, intravenous paclitaxel plus intraperitoneal cisplatin and paclitaxel improves survival in patients with optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Early Lung Cancer Action Project (ELCAP) is designed to evaluate baseline and annual repeat screening by low-radiation-dose computed tomography (low-dose CT) in people at high risk of lung cancer. We report the baseline experience. METHODS: ELCAP has enrolled 1000 symptom-free volunteers, aged 60 years or older, with at least 10 pack-years of cigarette smoking and no previous cancer, who were medically fit to undergo thoracic surgery. After a structured interview and informed consent, chest radiographs and low-dose CT were done for each participant. The diagnostic investigation of screen-detected non-calcified pulmonary nodules was guided by ELCAP recommendations, which included short-term high-resolution CT follow-up for the smallest non-calcified nodules. FINDINGS: Non-calcified nodules were detected in 233 (23% [95% CI 21-26]) participants by low-dose CT at baseline, compared with 68 (7% [5-9]) by chest radiography. Malignant disease was detected in 27 (2.7% [1.8-3.8]) by CT and seven (0.7% [0.3-1.3]) by chest radiography, and stage I malignant disease in 23 (2.3% [1.5-3.3]) and four (0.4% [0.1-0.9]), respectively. Of the 27 CT-detected cancers, 26 were resectable. Biopsies were done on 28 of the 233 participants with non-calcified nodules; 27 had malignant non-calcified nodules and one had a benign nodule. Another three individuals underwent biopsy against the ELCAP recommendations; all had benign non-calcified nodules. No participant had thoracotomy for a benign nodule. INTERPRETATION: Low-dose CT can greatly improve the likelihood of detection of small non-calcified nodules, and thus of lung cancer at an earlier and potentially more curable stage. Although false-positive CT results are common, they can be managed with little use of invasive diagnostic procedures.

We report on 16 patients with relapsed or refractory B cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL) that we treated with autologous T cells expressing the 19-28z chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) specific to the CD19 antigen. The overall complete response rate was 88%, which allowed us to transition most of these patients to a standard-of-care allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-SCT). This therapy was as effective in high-risk patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive (Ph(+)) disease as in those with relapsed disease after previous allo-SCT. Through systematic analysis of clinical data and serum cytokine levels over the first 21 days after T cell infusion, we have defined diagnostic criteria for a severe cytokine release syndrome (sCRS), with the goal of better identifying the subset of patients who will likely require therapeutic intervention with corticosteroids or interleukin-6 receptor blockade to curb the sCRS. Additionally, we found that serum C-reactive protein, a readily available laboratory study, can serve as a reliable indicator for the severity of the CRS. Together, our data provide strong support for conducting a multicenter phase 2 study to further evaluate 19-28z CAR T cells in B-ALL and a road map for patient management at centers now contemplating the use of CAR T cell therapy.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, -1.8 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; ISCHEMIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01471522.).

This article is the American Cancer Society's update on female breast cancer statistics in the United States, including population-based data on incidence, mortality, survival, and mammography screening. Breast cancer incidence rates have risen in most of the past four decades; during the most recent data years (2010-2019), the rate increased by 0.5% annually, largely driven by localized-stage and hormone receptor-positive disease. In contrast, breast cancer mortality rates have declined steadily since their peak in 1989, albeit at a slower pace in recent years (1.3% annually from 2011 to 2020) than in the previous decade (1.9% annually from 2002 to 2011). In total, the death rate dropped by 43% during 1989-2020, translating to 460,000 fewer breast cancer deaths during that time. The death rate declined similarly for women of all racial/ethnic groups except American Indians/Alaska Natives, among whom the rates were stable. However, despite a lower incidence rate in Black versus White women (127.8 vs. 133.7 per 100,000), the racial disparity in breast cancer mortality remained unwavering, with the death rate 40% higher in Black women overall (27.6 vs. 19.7 deaths per 100,000 in 2016-2020) and two-fold higher among adult women younger than 50 years (12.1 vs. 6.5 deaths per 100,000). Black women have the lowest 5-year relative survival of any racial/ethnic group for every molecular subtype and stage of disease (except stage I), with the largest Black-White gaps in absolute terms for hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative disease (88% vs. 96%), hormone receptor-negative/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive disease (78% vs. 86%), and stage III disease (64% vs. 77%). Progress against breast cancer mortality could be accelerated by mitigating racial disparities through increased access to high-quality screening and treatment via nationwide Medicaid expansion and partnerships between community stakeholders, advocacy organizations, and health systems.

the 2001 update of the American Heart Association (AHA)/American College of Cardiology (ACC) consensus statement on secondary prevention, 1 important evidence from clinical trials has emerged that further supports and broadens the merits of aggressive risk-reduction therapies for patients with established coronary and other atherosclerotic vascular disease, including peripheral arterial disease, atherosclerotic aortic disease, and carotid artery disease. This growing body of evidence confirms that aggressive comprehensive risk factor management improves survival, reduces recurrent events and the need for interventional procedures, and improves quality of life for these patients.

Precision medicine is a patient-specific approach that integrates all relevant clinical, genetic and biological information in order to optimise the therapeutic benefit relative to the possibility of side-effects for each individual. Recent clinical trials have shown that higher blood eosinophil counts are associated with a greater efficacy of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Blood eosinophil counts are a biomarker with potential to be used in clinical practice, to help target ICS treatment with more precision in COPD patients with a history of exacerbations despite appropriate bronchodilator treatment.The Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease (GOLD) 2017 pharmacological treatment algorithms, based on the ABCD assessment, can be applied relatively easily to treatment-naive individuals at initial presentation. However, their use is more problematic during follow-up in patients who are already on maintenance treatment. There is a need for a different system to guide COPD pharmacological management during follow-up.Recent large randomised controlled trials have provided important new information concerning the therapeutic effects of ICSs and long-acting bronchodilators on exacerbations. The new evidence regarding blood eosinophils and inhaled treatments, and the need to distinguish between initial and follow-up pharmacological management, led to changes in the GOLD pharmacological treatment recommendations. This article explains the evidence and rationale for the GOLD 2019 pharmacological treatment recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with the direct thrombin inhibitor bivalirudin, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, results in similar suppression of ischemia while reducing hemorrhagic complications in patients with stable angina and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The safety and efficacy of bivalirudin in high-risk patients are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3602 patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who presented within 12 hours after the onset of symptoms and who were undergoing primary PCI to treatment with heparin plus a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor or to treatment with bivalirudin alone. The two primary end points of the study were major bleeding and combined adverse clinical events, defined as the combination of major bleeding or major adverse cardiovascular events, including death, reinfarction, target-vessel revascularization for ischemia, and stroke (hereinafter referred to as net adverse clinical events) within 30 days. RESULTS: Anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, resulted in a reduced 30-day rate of net adverse clinical events (9.2% vs. 12.1%; relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63 to 0.92; P=0.005), owing to a lower rate of major bleeding (4.9% vs. 8.3%; relative risk, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.77; P<0.001). There was an increased risk of acute stent thrombosis within 24 hours in the bivalirudin group, but no significant increase was present by 30 days. Treatment with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, resulted in significantly lower 30-day rates of death from cardiac causes (1.8% vs. 2.9%; relative risk, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.95; P=0.03) and death from all causes (2.1% vs. 3.1%; relative risk, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.00; P=0.047). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who are undergoing primary PCI, anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, results in significantly reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding and net adverse clinical events. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00433966 [ClinicalTrials.gov].).

Importance: The results of the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z0011 (ACOSOG Z0011) trial were first reported in 2005 with a median follow-up of 6.3 years. Longer follow-up was necessary because the majority of the patients had estrogen receptor-positive tumors that may recur later in the disease course (the ACOSOG is now part of the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology). Objective: To determine whether the 10-year overall survival of patients with sentinel lymph node metastases treated with breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node dissection (SLND) alone without axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) is noninferior to that of women treated with axillary dissection. Design, Setting, and Participants: The ACOSOG Z0011 phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients from May 1999 to December 2004 at 115 sites (both academic and community medical centers). The last date of follow-up was September 29, 2015, in the ACOSOG Z0011 (Alliance) trial. Eligible patients were women with clinical T1 or T2 invasive breast cancer, no palpable axillary adenopathy, and 1 or 2 sentinel lymph nodes containing metastases. Interventions: All patients had planned lumpectomy, planned tangential whole-breast irradiation, and adjuvant systemic therapy. Third-field radiation was prohibited. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival with a noninferiority hazard ratio (HR) margin of 1.3. The secondary outcome was disease-free survival. Results: Among 891 women who were randomized (median age, 55 years), 856 (96%) completed the trial (446 in the SLND alone group and 445 in the ALND group). At a median follow-up of 9.3 years (interquartile range, 6.93-10.34 years), the 10-year overall survival was 86.3% in the SLND alone group and 83.6% in the ALND group (HR, 0.85 [1-sided 95% CI, 0-1.16]; noninferiority P = .02). The 10-year disease-free survival was 80.2% in the SLND alone group and 78.2% in the ALND group (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.62-1.17]; P = .32). Between year 5 and year 10, 1 regional recurrence was seen in the SLND alone group vs none in the ALND group. Ten-year regional recurrence did not differ significantly between the 2 groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among women with T1 or T2 invasive primary breast cancer, no palpable axillary adenopathy, and 1 or 2 sentinel lymph nodes containing metastases, 10-year overall survival for patients treated with sentinel lymph node dissection alone was noninferior to overall survival for those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. These findings do not support routine use of axillary lymph node dissection in this patient population based on 10-year outcomes. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00003855.

Judgement, as one of the core tenets of medicine, relies upon the integration of multilayered data with nuanced decision making. Cancer offers a unique context for medical decisions given not only its variegated forms with evolution of disease but also the need to take into account the individual condition of patients, their ability to receive treatment, and their responses to treatment. Challenges remain in the accurate detection, characterization, and monitoring of cancers despite improved technologies. Radiographic assessment of disease most commonly relies upon visual evaluations, the interpretations of which may be augmented by advanced computational analyses. In particular, artificial intelligence (AI) promises to make great strides in the qualitative interpretation of cancer imaging by expert clinicians, including volumetric delineation of tumors over time, extrapolation of the tumor genotype and biological course from its radiographic phenotype, prediction of clinical outcome, and assessment of the impact of disease and treatment on adjacent organs. AI may automate processes in the initial interpretation of images and shift the clinical workflow of radiographic detection, management decisions on whether or not to administer an intervention, and subsequent observation to a yet to be envisioned paradigm. Here, the authors review the current state of AI as applied to medical imaging of cancer and describe advances in 4 tumor types (lung, brain, breast, and prostate) to illustrate how common clinical problems are being addressed. Although most studies evaluating AI applications in oncology to date have not been vigorously validated for reproducibility and generalizability, the results do highlight increasingly concerted efforts in pushing AI technology to clinical use and to impact future directions in cancer care.

Importance: Therapeutic options are needed for patients with advanced gastric cancer whose disease has progressed after 2 or more lines of therapy. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab in a cohort of patients with previously treated gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: In the phase 2, global, open-label, single-arm, multicohort KEYNOTE-059 study, 259 patients in 16 countries were enrolled in a cohort between March 2, 2015, and May 26, 2016. Median (range) follow-up was 5.8 (0.5-21.6) months. Intervention: Patients received pembrolizumab, 200 mg, intravenously every 3 weeks until disease progression, investigator or patient decision to withdraw, or unacceptable toxic effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were objective response rate and safety. Objective response rate was assessed by central radiologic review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, in all patients and those with programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. Expression of PD-L1 was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Secondary end points included response duration. Results: Of 259 patients enrolled, most were male (198 [76.4%]) and white (200 [77.2%]); median (range) age was 62 (24-89) years. Objective response rate was 11.6% (95% CI, 8.0%-16.1%; 30 of 259 patients), with complete response in 2.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-5.0%; 6 of 259 patients). Median (range) response duration was 8.4 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months (+ indicates that patients had no progressive disease at their last assessment). Objective response rate and median (range) response duration were 15.5% (95% CI, 10.1%-22.4%; 23 of 148 patients) and 16.3 (1.6+ to 17.3+) months and 6.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-12.8%; 7 of 109 patients) and 6.9 (2.4 to 7.0+) months in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors, respectively. Forty-six patients (17.8%) experienced 1 or more grade 3 to 5 treatment-related adverse events. Two patients (0.8%) discontinued because of treatment-related adverse events, and 2 deaths were considered related to treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: Pembrolizumab monotherapy demonstrated promising activity and manageable safety in patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer who had previously received at least 2 lines of treatment. Durable responses were observed in patients with PD-L1-positive and PD-L1-negative tumors. Further study of pembrolizumab for this group of patients is warranted. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02335411.

BACKGROUND: Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and biliopancreatic diversion can markedly ameliorate diabetes in morbidly obese patients, often resulting in disease remission. Prospective, randomized trials comparing these procedures with medical therapy for the treatment of diabetes are needed. METHODS: In this single-center, nonblinded, randomized, controlled trial, 60 patients between the ages of 30 and 60 years with a body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 35 or more, a history of at least 5 years of diabetes, and a glycated hemoglobin level of 7.0% or more were randomly assigned to receive conventional medical therapy or undergo either gastric bypass or biliopancreatic diversion. The primary end point was the rate of diabetes remission at 2 years (defined as a fasting glucose level of <100 mg per deciliter [5.6 mmol per liter] and a glycated hemoglobin level of <6.5% in the absence of pharmacologic therapy). RESULTS: At 2 years, diabetes remission had occurred in no patients in the medical-therapy group versus 75% in the gastric-bypass group and 95% in the biliopancreatic-diversion group (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Age, sex, baseline BMI, duration of diabetes, and weight changes were not significant predictors of diabetes remission at 2 years or of improvement in glycemia at 1 and 3 months. At 2 years, the average baseline glycated hemoglobin level (8.65±1.45%) had decreased in all groups, but patients in the two surgical groups had the greatest degree of improvement (average glycated hemoglobin levels, 7.69±0.57% in the medical-therapy group, 6.35±1.42% in the gastric-bypass group, and 4.95±0.49% in the biliopancreatic-diversion group). CONCLUSIONS: In severely obese patients with type 2 diabetes, bariatric surgery resulted in better glucose control than did medical therapy. Preoperative BMI and weight loss did not predict the improvement in hyperglycemia after these procedures. (Funded by Catholic University of Rome; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00888836.).

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic lymphoid leukemia (CLL) or small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), a short duration of response to therapy or adverse cytogenetic abnormalities are associated with a poor outcome. We evaluated the efficacy of ibrutinib, a covalent inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase, in patients at risk for a poor outcome. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned 391 patients with relapsed or refractory CLL or SLL to receive daily ibrutinib or the anti-CD20 antibody ofatumumab. The primary end point was the duration of progression-free survival, with the duration of overall survival and the overall response rate as secondary end points. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 9.4 months, ibrutinib significantly improved progression-free survival; the median duration was not reached in the ibrutinib group (with a rate of progression-free survival of 88% at 6 months), as compared with a median of 8.1 months in the ofatumumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the ibrutinib group, 0.22; P<0.001). Ibrutinib also significantly improved overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.43; P=0.005). At 12 months, the overall survival rate was 90% in the ibrutinib group and 81% in the ofatumumab group. The overall response rate was significantly higher in the ibrutinib group than in the ofatumumab group (42.6% vs. 4.1%, P<0.001). An additional 20% of ibrutinib-treated patients had a partial response with lymphocytosis. Similar effects were observed regardless of whether patients had a chromosome 17p13.1 deletion or resistance to purine analogues. The most frequent nonhematologic adverse events were diarrhea, fatigue, pyrexia, and nausea in the ibrutinib group and fatigue, infusion-related reactions, and cough in the ofatumumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib, as compared with ofatumumab, significantly improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rate among patients with previously treated CLL or SLL. (Funded by Pharmacyclics and Janssen; RESONATE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578707.).

PURPOSE: Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups. METHODS: An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations. RESULTS: PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials. CONCLUSION: PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.