University of Ulsan

This document is an international evidence-based guideline on the diagnosis and management of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and is a collaborative effort of the American Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Japanese Respiratory Society, and the Latin American Thoracic Association. It represents the current state of knowledge regarding idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and contains sections on definition and epidemiology, risk factors, diagnosis, natural history, staging and prognosis, treatment, and monitoring disease course. For the diagnosis and treatment sections, pragmatic GRADE evidence-based methodology was applied in a question-based format. For each diagnosis and treatment question, the committee graded the quality of the evidence available (high, moderate, low, or very low), and made a recommendation (yes or no, strong or weak). Recommendations were based on majority vote. It is emphasized that clinicians must spend adequate time with patients to discuss patients' values and preferences and decide on the appropriate course of action.

Gastric cancer is a leading cause of cancer deaths, but analysis of its molecular and clinical characteristics has been complicated by histological and aetiological heterogeneity. Here we describe a comprehensive molecular evaluation of 295 primary gastric adenocarcinomas as part of The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project. We propose a molecular classification dividing gastric cancer into four subtypes: tumours positive for Epstein–Barr virus, which display recurrent PIK3CA mutations, extreme DNA hypermethylation, and amplification of JAK2, CD274 (also known as PD-L1) and PDCD1LG2 (also known as PD-L2); microsatellite unstable tumours, which show elevated mutation rates, including mutations of genes encoding targetable oncogenic signalling proteins; genomically stable tumours, which are enriched for the diffuse histological variant and mutations of RHOA or fusions involving RHO-family GTPase-activating proteins; and tumours with chromosomal instability, which show marked aneuploidy and focal amplification of receptor tyrosine kinases. Identification of these subtypes provides a roadmap for patient stratification and trials of targeted therapies. The Cancer Genome Atlas reports on molecular evaluation of 295 primary gastric adenocarcinomas and proposes a new classification of gastric cancers into 4 subtypes, which should help with clinical assessment and trials of targeted therapies. This contribution from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) project describes the molecular evaluation of 295 primary gastric adenocarcinomas. Based on the results, the authors propose a novel classification separating gastric cancers into four subtypes according to: Epstein–Barr virus positive status, microsatellite instability, chromosomal instability or genomic stability. Given the histologic and etiologic heterogeneity of gastric cancer identification of these subtypes, using a schema that can readily be applied to patient samples should help with patient stratification and trials of targeted therapies.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is thatthere is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the completeprocess including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increasedautophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in manycases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as forreviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multipleassays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagyrelated protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.

The development of noninvasive methods to detect and monitor tumors continues to be a major challenge in oncology. We used digital polymerase chain reaction-based technologies to evaluate the ability of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to detect tumors in 640 patients with various cancer types. We found that ctDNA was detectable in >75% of patients with advanced pancreatic, ovarian, colorectal, bladder, gastroesophageal, breast, melanoma, hepatocellular, and head and neck cancers, but in less than 50% of primary brain, renal, prostate, or thyroid cancers. In patients with localized tumors, ctDNA was detected in 73, 57, 48, and 50% of patients with colorectal cancer, gastroesophageal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast adenocarcinoma, respectively. ctDNA was often present in patients without detectable circulating tumor cells, suggesting that these two biomarkers are distinct entities. In a separate panel of 206 patients with metastatic colorectal cancers, we showed that the sensitivity of ctDNA for detection of clinically relevant KRAS gene mutations was 87.2% and its specificity was 99.2%. Finally, we assessed whether ctDNA could provide clues into the mechanisms underlying resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor blockade in 24 patients who objectively responded to therapy but subsequently relapsed. Twenty-three (96%) of these patients developed one or more mutations in genes involved in the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway. Together, these data suggest that ctDNA is a broadly applicable, sensitive, and specific biomarker that can be used for a variety of clinical and research purposes in patients with multiple different types of cancer.

Characterization of the molecular function of the human genome and its variation across individuals is essential for identifying the cellular mechanisms that underlie human genetic traits and diseases. The Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project aims to characterize variation in gene expression levels across individuals and diverse tissues of the human body, many of which are not easily accessible. Here we describe genetic effects on gene expression levels across 44 human tissues. We find that local genetic variation affects gene expression levels for the majority of genes, and we further identify inter-chromosomal genetic effects for 93 genes and 112 loci. On the basis of the identified genetic effects, we characterize patterns of tissue specificity, compare local and distal effects, and evaluate the functional properties of the genetic effects. We also demonstrate that multi-tissue, multi-individual data can be used to identify genes and pathways affected by human disease-associated variation, enabling a mechanistic interpretation of gene regulation and the genetic basis of disease.

BACKGROUND: Nintedanib (formerly known as BIBF 1120) is an intracellular inhibitor that targets multiple tyrosine kinases. A phase 2 trial suggested that treatment with 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily reduced lung-function decline and acute exacerbations in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. METHODS: We conducted two replicate 52-week, randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trials (INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 150 mg of nintedanib twice daily as compared with placebo in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. The primary end point was the annual rate of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC). Key secondary end points were the time to the first acute exacerbation and the change from baseline in the total score on the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire, both assessed over a 52-week period. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were randomly assigned in a 3:2 ratio to receive nintedanib or placebo. The adjusted annual rate of change in FVC was -114.7 ml with nintedanib versus -239.9 ml with placebo (difference, 125.3 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], 77.7 to 172.8; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-1 and -113.6 ml with nintedanib versus -207.3 ml with placebo (difference, 93.7 ml; 95% CI, 44.8 to 142.7; P<0.001) in INPULSIS-2. In INPULSIS-1, there was no significant difference between the nintedanib and placebo groups in the time to the first acute exacerbation (hazard ratio with nintedanib, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.54 to 2.42; P=0.67); in INPULSIS-2, there was a significant benefit with nintedanib versus placebo (hazard ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.77; P=0.005). The most frequent adverse event in the nintedanib groups was diarrhea, with rates of 61.5% and 18.6% in the nintedanib and placebo groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-1 and 63.2% and 18.3% in the two groups, respectively, in INPULSIS-2. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, nintedanib reduced the decline in FVC, which is consistent with a slowing of disease progression; nintedanib was frequently associated with diarrhea, which led to discontinuation of the study medication in less than 5% of patients. (Funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; INPULSIS-1 and INPULSIS-2 ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01335464 and NCT01335477.).

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma that progresses after platinum-based chemotherapy have a poor prognosis and limited treatment options. METHODS: In this open-label, international, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 542 patients with advanced urothelial cancer that recurred or progressed after platinum-based chemotherapy to receive pembrolizumab (a highly selective, humanized monoclonal IgG4κ isotype antibody against programmed death 1 [PD-1]) at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or the investigator's choice of chemotherapy with paclitaxel, docetaxel, or vinflunine. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, which were assessed among all patients and among patients who had a tumor PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) combined positive score (the percentage of PD-L1-expressing tumor and infiltrating immune cells relative to the total number of tumor cells) of 10% or more. RESULTS: The median overall survival in the total population was 10.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.0 to 11.8) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 7.4 months (95% CI, 6.1 to 8.3) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.91; P=0.002). The median overall survival among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 12.3) in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 7.4) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.88; P=0.005). There was no significant between-group difference in the duration of progression-free survival in the total population (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.19; P=0.42) or among patients who had a tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of 10% or more (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.28; P=0.24). Fewer treatment-related adverse events of any grade were reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (60.9% vs. 90.2%); there were also fewer events of grade 3, 4, or 5 severity reported in the pembrolizumab group than in the chemotherapy group (15.0% vs. 49.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer overall survival (by approximately 3 months) and with a lower rate of treatment-related adverse events than chemotherapy as second-line therapy for platinum-refractory advanced urothelial carcinoma. (Funded by Merck; KEYNOTE-045 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02256436 .).

BACKGROUND: Programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade has clinical benefit in microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors after previous therapy. The efficacy of PD-1 blockade as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for MSI-H-dMMR advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label trial, 307 patients with metastatic MSI-H-dMMR colorectal cancer who had not previously received treatment were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil-based therapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab) every 2 weeks. Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab therapy after disease progression. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: At the second interim analysis, after a median follow-up (from randomization to data cutoff) of 32.4 months (range, 24.0 to 48.3), pembrolizumab was superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival (median, 16.5 vs. 8.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.80; P = 0.0002). The estimated restricted mean survival after 24 months of follow-up was 13.7 months (range, 12.0 to 15.4) as compared with 10.8 months (range, 9.4 to 12.2). As of the data cutoff date, 56 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 69 in the chemotherapy group had died. Data on overall survival were still evolving (66% of required events had occurred) and remain blinded until the final analysis. An overall response (complete or partial response), as evaluated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was observed in 43.8% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and 33.1% in the chemotherapy group. Among patients with an overall response, 83% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 35% of patients in the chemotherapy group, had ongoing responses at 24 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 66% (including one patient who died) in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy when received as first-line therapy for MSI-H-dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer, with fewer treatment-related adverse events. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme and by Stand Up to Cancer; KEYNOTE-177 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02563002.).

INTRODUCTION Sepsis is life-threatening organ dysfunction caused by a dysregulated host response to infection (1). Sepsis and septic shock are major healthcare problems, impacting millions of people around the world each year and killing between one in three and one in six of those it affects (2–4). Early identification and appropriate management in the initial hours after the development of sepsis improve outcomes. The recommendations in this document are intended to provide guidance for the clinician caring for adult patients with sepsis or septic shock in the hospital setting. Recommendations from these guidelines cannot replace the clinician’s decision-making capability when presented with a unique patient’s clinical variables. These guidelines are intended to reflect best practice (Table 1). TABLE 1. - Table of Current Recommendations and Changes From Previous 2016 Recommendations Recommendations 2021 Recommendation Strength and Quality of Evidence Changes From 2016 Recommendations 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong , moderate-quality evidence (for screening) Changed from Best practice statement “We recommend that hospitals and hospital systems have a performance improvement program for sepsis including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients.” Strong , very low-quality evidence (for standard operating procedures) 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a single-screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong , moderate-quality evidence NEW 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence INITIAL RESUSCITATION 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice statement 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hr of resuscitation. Weak, low quality of evidence DOWNGRADE from Strong , low quality of evidence “We recommend that in the initial resuscitation from sepsis-induced hypoperfusion, at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid be given within the first 3 hr” 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation, over physical examination, or static parameters alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak , low quality of evidence 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak , low quality of evidence NEW MEAN ARTERIAL PRESSURE 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong , moderate-quality evidence ADMISSION TO INTENSIVE CARE 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice statement For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within hr of Strong , low quality of evidence from “We recommend that of should be as as after and within one for septic shock and sepsis Strong , very low quality of evidence , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice statement For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hr from the time when sepsis first Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend that of IV should be as as after and within hr for septic shock and sepsis , quality of evidence For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice statement NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for as compared to one Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We recommend with one or for patients with sepsis or septic shock to and or Strong , quality of evidence We on the of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for an initial over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of on and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend or a of infection that and as as and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of that are a of sepsis or septic shock after other Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest for of over using of for Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using over of Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with an initial of sepsis or septic shock and of is we suggest using clinical to when to over clinical alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using as fluid for resuscitation. Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using of for resuscitation. Weak , low quality of evidence from , low quality of “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using in patients who of Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend against using for resuscitation. Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we suggest against using for resuscitation. Weak , moderate-quality evidence from , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic For adults with septic shock, we recommend using as the over other Strong evidence evidence quality of evidence quality of evidence low-quality evidence For adults with septic shock on with mean arterial pressure we suggest of the of Weak , quality evidence For adults with septic shock and mean arterial pressure and we suggest Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest to or using alone. Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and dysfunction with hypoperfusion and arterial blood we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock, we suggest of arterial blood pressure over as as and are Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock, we suggest to mean arterial pressure a is Weak , very low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of fluid in the first hr of resuscitation in patients with sepsis and septic shock who have of hypoperfusion and after the initial resuscitation. NEW “We suggest using or for fluid resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest using over when patients with sepsis or septic Weak , low quality of evidence is evidence to a on the of in adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest the of over Weak , low quality of evidence NEW is evidence to a on the of in to for adults with sepsis-induced For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using a low over a Strong , evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using an for of 30 over higher Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with to sepsis-induced we suggest using higher over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using low as compared with Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence using we recommend against using Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we recommend using for hr Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis induced we suggest using over Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis-induced we suggest using when in with the in to Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and an for we suggest using IV Weak , moderate-quality evidence from Weak , low quality of evidence “We suggest against using IV to septic shock patients fluid resuscitation and are to for this is not we suggest IV at a of For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using Weak , low quality of evidence NEW from “We the of blood is evidence to a on the of other blood For adults with sepsis or septic shock we recommend using a Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, and who have for we suggest using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using a to Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend using low over for Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using in to over alone. Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest using or Weak , low quality of evidence adults with sepsis or septic shock and with for we suggest against using Weak , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend at a of Strong , moderate-quality evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock we suggest against using IV Weak , low quality of evidence NEW For adults with septic shock and we suggest against using to improve or to Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with septic shock and and or we suggest using Weak , low quality of evidence For adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who be we suggest of Weak , very low quality of evidence CARE For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend of and with patients and over Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest of over hr or Weak , low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on to of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we recommend that the of on clinician be the treatment when to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against for patients over on clinician Weak , low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock and we suggest to over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using a of at of over Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a on the of tool over For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend screening for and and and to these Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we suggest and sepsis and to hospital and in the setting. Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis or septic shock and we recommend the clinical provide the to in in and hospital to are and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis and septic shock and we suggest using a compared with to the Weak , very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis and septic shock, we recommend at and hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis and septic shock and we recommend including the sepsis and and after sepsis in the and hospital Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock who we recommend hospital with to and and Best practice statement For adults with sepsis or septic shock and is evidence to a on compared with For adults with sepsis or septic shock, is evidence to a for or against For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we recommend and for and after hospital Best practice statement For adult of sepsis or septic shock, we suggest to a program Weak , very low quality of evidence For adult of sepsis or septic shock for or an of we suggest to a Weak , very low quality of evidence are to in the be at for Sepsis and - Recommendation 1. For hospitals and health systems, we recommend using a performance improvement program for sepsis, including sepsis screening for acutely ill, high-risk patients and standard operating procedures for treatment. Strong quality of evidence for Strong very low-quality evidence for standard operating Sepsis performance improvement of sepsis of sepsis and for a of on the of performance improvement that these with to sepsis with a in in patients with sepsis and septic shock The of performance improvement not to be as as the of a program that sepsis screening and Sepsis screening are to identification of sepsis and of or of the health is in of these with having the of with in of clinical and are for sepsis as response of or Early or Early improve performance of screening and in a of patients from for hospital sepsis the the operating and higher for the for screening as MEWS and target patients in as or of three not a of screening is in and of sepsis screening are an of sepsis for operating procedures are a of that a response to clinical Sepsis standard operating as Early have to a standard with of the sepsis and the between of sepsis and of sepsis to hospitals in the in a and after of sepsis with a from other this time in hospitals with higher with the sepsis a of in higher with standard operating procedures compared with it in one - Recommendation 2. We recommend against using qSOFA compared with SIRS, NEWS, or MEWS as a screening tool for sepsis or septic shock. Strong moderate-quality The qSOFA three to and in patients with or suspected a a and a blood pressure mm of these are the is qSOFA to the recommendations of the on the of Sepsis qSOFA as a of in patients with or suspected to as a screening tool that time have the of the qSOFA as a screening tool for sepsis The have as to have that qSOFA is having of for identification of infection induced organ dysfunction qSOFA are screening for sepsis and the clinician to the of the that of patients a qSOFA or these patients for of have when against the Early and the Early the of a qSOFA should the clinician to the of sepsis in given the of the the a against as a screening - Recommendation 3. For adults suspected of having sepsis, we suggest measuring blood lactate. Weak low-quality The of lactate with in patients with suspected infection and sepsis is is as of the sepsis for those patients with sepsis and an elevated lactate is of the of septic shock that lactate be to for the of sepsis adult patients with suspected not have the of lactate in this The lactate an elevated from of the from with from and from the three are and an between the of lactate at and the are the of an elevated or lactate or the of a of sepsis in patients with suspected lactate is to or the on not be in we a the of serum lactate as an to the of sepsis in patients with suspected not - Recommendations 4. Sepsis and septic shock are medical emergencies, and we recommend that treatment and resuscitation begin immediately. Best practice 5. For patients with sepsis induced hypoperfusion or septic shock we suggest that at least 30 mL/kg of IV crystalloid fluid should be given within the first 3 hours of resuscitation. Weak low-quality 6. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest using dynamic measures to guide fluid resuscitation over physical or static parameters alone. Weak very low-quality parameters response to a or a fluid using pressure or 7. For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest guiding resuscitation to decrease serum lactate in patients with elevated lactate level, over not using serum lactate. Weak low-quality resuscitation, serum lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. 8. For adults with septic shock, we suggest using capillary refill time to guide resuscitation as an adjunct to other measures of perfusion. Weak low-quality fluid resuscitation is for the of sepsis-induced hypoperfusion in sepsis and septic shock. Previous guidelines recommend appropriate resuscitation of sepsis or septic shock and having a low for it in those patients sepsis is not is the evidence from this is a best practice and are that a is The 2016 a for using a of 30 mL/kg of IV in initial fluid resuscitation. of initial resuscitation on evidence are for initial resuscitation in sepsis or septic shock. of adults to an with sepsis or septic shock that to 30 mL/kg of crystalloid fluid within 3 hours of sepsis with of of and of in of including and the and the of fluid in the of 30 that this fluid in clinical practice patients require fluid initial resuscitation. to be with the of fluid and with fluid of and of the of septic patients is the for a initial and of the response to treatment. and fluid the initial resuscitation should be by of and organ perfusion. pressure and blood pressure are of fluid measures have at fluid compared with static measures with fluid against pressure or and of in response to in a and dynamic to guide fluid with to of to and of to in one other in between septic patients with a compared with standard from and a of evidence in to guide of fluid resuscitation as as the appropriate in patients with sepsis and in that resuscitation with of IV by and arterial with fluid in the first hours and higher hospital standard fluid the initial 30 mL/kg is by measures of fluid of mL/kg compared to to 3 mL/kg the of fluid and on of of or not be a in pressure that the is fluid a for lactate is an of and is not a of of septic shock in lactate as evidence of to (1). Previous of these guidelines have using lactate as a target of resuscitation in the of sepsis and septic shock, on to and of in serum lactate in with or in The that serum lactate are not in patients with septic shock, these that decrease lactate lactate should be the clinical and other of elevated lactate. with sepsis lactate not be in is not measures of organ be to the and of of the and capillary refill time have and to be of The a resuscitation a resuscitation at or lactate by hours in the first hours of septic shock the organ dysfunction as by in the and in the lactate this not the of a on using resuscitation and is and this should be by and to or fluid are of the or to the should management - Recommendation 9. For adults with septic shock on vasopressors, we recommend an initial target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mm Hg over higher MAP targets. Strong moderate-quality MAP is a of mean in is the major of and MAP in blood and the of perfusion. as the and have the to blood a to be mm are with organ with MAP Previous guidelines a MAP of 65 mm Hg for initial resuscitation. The on a in septic shock patients who given to target a MAP of mm a target of mm Hg in a a in with higher MAP patients with higher MAP with with a higher of of this that the MAP in the of on this that higher MAP not improve in septic shock to and MAP target compared a mm with a that and MAP by the in patients 65 and with septic shock The in this a mean MAP of mm compared with mm Hg in the to in the by of and in in the and the of with higher MAP and the of patients with MAP of mm the a MAP of 65 mm Hg in the initial resuscitation of patients with septic shock who require to - Recommendation 10. For adults with sepsis or septic shock who require we suggest the patients to the within Weak low-quality The of patients on of in an appropriate the septic patients are in the and hospital of patients from are with sepsis and and and hospital of on the time for to the from and an of an in of for each of to of patients in the a higher hospital for the higher to time hr and compared with the to time for of an to time hr with hospital in patients with higher of with sepsis not patients to when hours hospital the a hospital higher and higher of and of patients in hospitals in the that to to higher and on of patients to an in outcomes. is evidence of and are best in an are of patients with sepsis to an not be in in and be this and appropriate treatment should not be of of - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock we recommend and for and an of is or Best practice of these we the of a for to it is to in a a best practice we that appropriate should be in patients with suspected sepsis and septic shock it in in the of not in this as as The and of sepsis are and other is to sepsis, the cannot have a of sepsis in a with organ a or of patients with sepsis to have Best practice is to the to other are or a patient’s clinical after hospital or the of a of this be in when it is to or major is a that to on the that the is each as in and of the that by or in each in of or that the for a in the or a We not or evidence this are to a an that not from is or this is not of the should the of patients and patients that is not to - Recommendations For adults with septic shock or a for sepsis, we recommend within one of Strong low quality of evidence very low quality of evidence For adults with sepsis shock, we recommend of the of of Best practice and clinical examination, for and of and treatment for that this should be within 3 hours of that a be as to the of an of the patient’s and the of sepsis is to be For adults with sepsis shock, we suggest a of and for infection the of within 3 hours from the time when sepsis first Weak very low quality of For adults with a low of infection and shock, we suggest to the Weak very low quality of Early of appropriate is one of the to in patients with sepsis to patients with sepsis or septic shock should be as an The to provide as as be against the with to patients infection These a of as or and sepsis is as sepsis in and that first to be sepsis to be the of infection and of for each with suspected sepsis should the and of The with in patients with septic shock, have a between time to and in patients with septic shock in patients septic shock a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients for patients not on a of patients at each of time from to of with of for patients with sepsis at least one of or or organ and for patients with septic to a for sepsis and a for septic shock in a of patients in each in time from to of with of and of in patients with in patients not an between and should be that the and at of to the of with or other patients with sepsis shock, the between time to and within the first hours from is have one to a in between and the other in a in time to suggest that after hours from hospital sepsis We suggest in patients with sepsis shock as as sepsis to be the and 3 hours after sepsis first suspected for sepsis at that given the of with septic shock and the of and the a to and within one in patients with septic shock. for patients with sepsis, we recommend be 1). For patients with sepsis shock, we recommend a of and of be to within 3 should be or should be to the Recommendations on of from suggest that of in patients with sepsis and septic shock is and and of a of in The and time for by and the of and of on is to recommendations to the of in patients with sepsis and septic shock in are in with the recommendations to - Recommendation For adults with suspected sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using clinical to when to as compared to clinical alone. Weak very low quality of is in in response to in with clinical the of and of a of 30 a of and of for sepsis in patients We evidence from three that compared for of the three in to of to or of to and not in of the and on the with of the and the quality of evidence very guidelines for the management of recommend of for patients with of and in including the a against using to guide in to clinical - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we recommend using with over using Best practice For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against using with as compared with using Weak low quality of The on to an against in an treatment for sepsis and septic shock the that the patient’s infection is caused by the of with treatment for in a with and the of with treatment in a for of patients and be to The of by from in to in and by for of infection or IV of or of hospital and of on the of including in on patients with the of in patients with of hours are with in not in patients with or sepsis, including against with higher patients The with are by an between of and in patients with or to for in a with be in a be from including the of to for are and on and clinical for are - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock and for we suggest using with for treatment over one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock and low for we suggest against using for compared with one Weak very low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock, we suggest against using the and the are Weak very low quality of the of in of the world and between in and the initial of is to the at least one that is against the the and are the of on the of for and the of the and are is for patients with in a with of in or other between in adult patients with sepsis or septic shock when from the in the of of and in a low with the from the Recommendations the of one for treatment over one are given clinical including of and the of the of sepsis is to the appropriate For this we from recommendations in patients with sepsis or septic shock recommend the of on of to guide this infection or with within the of within the to a within the and within the the and are is not for patients with with and quality of evidence very and the of with the of for treatment. have an in in patients at for we suggest using for treatment to the of in patients with a low for we suggest using a for as are of using and the a of including infection and development of of is in patients at for with septic shock. - Recommendations For adults with sepsis or septic shock at of we suggest using over Weak low quality of For adults with sepsis or septic shock at low of we suggest against of Weak low quality of Sepsis and septic shock to are in and are with that of appropriate

autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field.

BACKGROUND: Among breast cancers without human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) amplification, overexpression, or both, a large proportion express low levels of HER2 that may be targetable. Currently available HER2-directed therapies have been ineffective in patients with these "HER2-low" cancers. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3 trial involving patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer who had received one or two previous lines of chemotherapy. (Low expression of HER2 was defined as a score of 1+ on immunohistochemical [IHC] analysis or as an IHC score of 2+ and negative results on in situ hybridization.) Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan or the physician's choice of chemotherapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival in the hormone receptor-positive cohort. The key secondary end points were progression-free survival among all patients and overall survival in the hormone receptor-positive cohort and among all patients. RESULTS: Of 557 patients who underwent randomization, 494 (88.7%) had hormone receptor-positive disease and 63 (11.3%) had hormone receptor-negative disease. In the hormone receptor-positive cohort, the median progression-free survival was 10.1 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.4 months in the physician's choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.51; P<0.001), and overall survival was 23.9 months and 17.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = 0.003). Among all patients, the median progression-free survival was 9.9 months in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 5.1 months in the physician's choice group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; P<0.001), and overall survival was 23.4 months and 16.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio for death, 0.64; P = 0.001). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 52.6% of the patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan and 67.4% of those who received the physician's choice of chemotherapy. Adjudicated, drug-related interstitial lung disease or pneumonitis occurred in 12.1% of the patients who received trastuzumab deruxtecan; 0.8% had grade 5 events. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients with HER2-low metastatic breast cancer, trastuzumab deruxtecan resulted in significantly longer progression-free and overall survival than the physician's choice of chemotherapy. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; DESTINY-Breast04 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03734029.).

BACKGROUND: In a single-group, phase 1b trial, avelumab plus axitinib resulted in objective responses in patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma. This phase 3 trial involving previously untreated patients with advanced renal-cell carcinoma compared avelumab plus axitinib with the standard-of-care sunitinib. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients in a 1:1 ratio to receive avelumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight) intravenously every 2 weeks plus axitinib (5 mg) orally twice daily or sunitinib (50 mg) orally once daily for 4 weeks (6-week cycle). The two independent primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival among patients with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive tumors. A key secondary end point was progression-free survival in the overall population; other end points included objective response and safety. RESULTS: A total of 886 patients were assigned to receive avelumab plus axitinib (442 patients) or sunitinib (444 patients). Among the 560 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (63.2%), the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months with avelumab plus axitinib, as compared with 7.2 months with sunitinib (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47 to 0.79; P<0.001); in the overall population, the median progression-free survival was 13.8 months, as compared with 8.4 months (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001). Among the patients with PD-L1-positive tumors, the objective response rate was 55.2% with avelumab plus axitinib and 25.5% with sunitinib; at a median follow-up for overall survival of 11.6 months and 10.7 months in the two groups, 37 patients and 44 patients had died, respectively. Adverse events during treatment occurred in 99.5% of patients in the avelumab-plus-axitinib group and in 99.3% of patients in the sunitinib group; these events were grade 3 or higher in 71.2% and 71.5% of the patients in the respective groups. CONCLUSIONS: Progression-free survival was significantly longer with avelumab plus axitinib than with sunitinib among patients who received these agents as first-line treatment for advanced renal-cell carcinoma. (Funded by Pfizer and Merck [Darmstadt, Germany]; JAVELIN Renal 101 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02684006.).

BACKGROUND: The anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) humanized monoclonal antibody trastuzumab improves the outcome in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. However, most cases of advanced disease eventually progress. Pertuzumab, an anti-HER2 humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits receptor dimerization, has a mechanism of action that is complementary to that of trastuzumab, and combination therapy with the two antibodies has shown promising activity and an acceptable safety profile in phase 2 studies involving patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 808 patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer to receive placebo plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel (control group) or pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel (pertuzumab group) as first-line treatment until the time of disease progression or the development of toxic effects that could not be effectively managed. The primary end point was independently assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, progression-free survival as assessed by the investigator, the objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.4 months in the control group, as compared with 18.5 months in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.75; P<0.001). The interim analysis of overall survival showed a strong trend in favor of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel. The safety profile was generally similar in the two groups, with no increase in left ventricular systolic dysfunction; the rates of febrile neutropenia and diarrhea of grade 3 or above were higher in the pertuzumab group than in the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of pertuzumab plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, as compared with placebo plus trastuzumab plus docetaxel, when used as first-line treatment for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, significantly prolonged progression-free survival, with no increase in cardiac toxic effects. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00567190.).

BACKGROUND: Cabozantinib inhibits tyrosine kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, MET, and AXL, which are implicated in the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma and the development of resistance to sorafenib, the standard initial treatment for advanced disease. This randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial evaluated cabozantinib as compared with placebo in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: A total of 707 patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib (60 mg once daily) or matching placebo. Eligible patients had received previous treatment with sorafenib, had disease progression after at least one systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma, and may have received up to two previous systemic regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and the objective response rate. RESULTS: At the second planned interim analysis, the trial showed significantly longer overall survival with cabozantinib than with placebo. Median overall survival was 10.2 months with cabozantinib and 8.0 months with placebo (hazard ratio for death, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.92; P=0.005). Median progression-free survival was 5.2 months with cabozantinib and 1.9 months with placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.52; P<0.001), and the objective response rates were 4% and less than 1%, respectively (P=0.009). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 68% of patients in the cabozantinib group and in 36% in the placebo group. The most common high-grade events were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (17% with cabozantinib vs. 0% with placebo), hypertension (16% vs. 2%), increased aspartate aminotransferase level (12% vs. 7%), fatigue (10% vs. 4%), and diarrhea (10% vs. 2%). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, treatment with cabozantinib resulted in longer overall survival and progression-free survival than placebo. The rate of high-grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was approximately twice that observed in the placebo group. (Funded by Exelixis; CELESTIAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01908426 .).

BACKGROUND: In patients with metastatic breast cancer that is positive for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), progression-free survival was significantly improved after first-line therapy with pertuzumab, trastuzumab, and docetaxel, as compared with placebo, trastuzumab, and docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly improved with pertuzumab in an interim analysis without the median being reached. We report final prespecified overall survival results with a median follow-up of 50 months. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous chemotherapy or anti-HER2 therapy for their metastatic disease to receive the pertuzumab combination or the placebo combination. The secondary end points of overall survival, investigator-assessed progression-free survival, independently assessed duration of response, and safety are reported. Sensitivity analyses were adjusted for patients who crossed over from placebo to pertuzumab after the interim analysis. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 56.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 49.3 to not reached) in the group receiving the pertuzumab combination, as compared with 40.8 months (95% CI, 35.8 to 48.3) in the group receiving the placebo combination (hazard ratio favoring the pertuzumab group, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84; P<0.001), a difference of 15.7 months. This analysis was not adjusted for crossover to the pertuzumab group and is therefore conservative. Results of sensitivity analyses after adjustment for crossover were consistent. Median progression-free survival as assessed by investigators improved by 6.3 months in the pertuzumab group (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.80). Pertuzumab extended the median duration of response by 7.7 months, as independently assessed. Most adverse events occurred during the administration of docetaxel in the two groups, with long-term cardiac safety maintained. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and docetaxel, as compared with the addition of placebo, significantly improved the median overall survival to 56.5 months and extended the results of previous analyses showing the efficacy of this drug combination. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech; CLEOPATRA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00567190.).

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, fibroblast growth factor receptors 1 through 4, platelet-derived growth factor receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed clinical activity in a phase 2 study involving patients with differentiated thyroid cancer that was refractory to radioiodine (iodine-131). METHODS: In our phase 3, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study involving patients with progressive thyroid cancer that was refractory to iodine-131, we randomly assigned 261 patients to receive lenvatinib (at a daily dose of 24 mg per day in 28-day cycles) and 131 patients to receive placebo. At the time of disease progression, patients in the placebo group could receive open-label lenvatinib. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 18.3 months in the lenvatinib group and 3.6 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.21; 99% confidence interval, 0.14 to 0.31; P<0.001). A progression-free survival benefit associated with lenvatinib was observed in all prespecified subgroups. The response rate was 64.8% in the lenvatinib group (4 complete responses and 165 partial responses) and 1.5% in the placebo group (P<0.001). The median overall survival was not reached in either group. Treatment-related adverse effects of any grade, which occurred in more than 40% of patients in the lenvatinib group, were hypertension (in 67.8% of the patients), diarrhea (in 59.4%), fatigue or asthenia (in 59.0%), decreased appetite (in 50.2%), decreased weight (in 46.4%), and nausea (in 41.0%). Discontinuations of the study drug because of adverse effects occurred in 37 patients who received lenvatinib (14.2%) and 3 patients who received placebo (2.3%). In the lenvatinib group, 6 of 20 deaths that occurred during the treatment period were considered to be drug-related. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib, as compared with placebo, was associated with significant improvements in progression-free survival and the response rate among patients with iodine-131-refractory thyroid cancer. Patients who received lenvatinib had more adverse effects. (Funded by Eisai; SELECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01321554.).

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab deruxtecan (DS-8201) is an antibody-drug conjugate composed of an anti-HER2 (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2) antibody, a cleavable tetrapeptide-based linker, and a cytotoxic topoisomerase I inhibitor. In a phase 1 dose-finding study, a majority of the patients with advanced HER2-positive breast cancer had a response to trastuzumab deruxtecan (median response duration, 20.7 months). The efficacy of trastuzumab deruxtecan in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine requires confirmation. METHODS: In this two-part, open-label, single-group, multicenter, phase 2 study, we evaluated trastuzumab deruxtecan in adults with pathologically documented HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer who had received previous treatment with trastuzumab emtansine. In the first part of the study, we evaluated three different doses of trastuzumab deruxtecan to establish a recommended dose; in the second part, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the recommended dose. The primary end point was the objective response, according to independent central review. Key secondary end points were the disease-control rate, clinical-benefit rate, duration of response and progression-free survival, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 184 patients who had undergone a median of six previous treatments received the recommended dose of trastuzumab deruxtecan (5.4 mg per kilogram of body weight). In the intention-to-treat analysis, a response to therapy was reported in 112 patients (60.9%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 53.4 to 68.0). The median duration of follow-up was 11.1 months (range, 0.7 to 19.9). The median response duration was 14.8 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 16.9), and the median duration of progression-free survival was 16.4 months (95% CI, 12.7 to not reached). During the study, the most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were a decreased neutrophil count (in 20.7% of the patients), anemia (in 8.7%), and nausea (in 7.6%). On independent adjudication, the trial drug was associated with interstitial lung disease in 13.6% of the patients (grade 1 or 2, 10.9%; grade 3 or 4, 0.5%; and grade 5, 2.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Trastuzumab deruxtecan showed durable antitumor activity in a pretreated patient population with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. In addition to nausea and myelosuppression, interstitial lung disease was observed in a subgroup of patients and requires attention to pulmonary symptoms and careful monitoring. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca; DESTINY-Breast01 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03248492.).

BACKGROUND: Patients who have residual invasive carcinoma after the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer have poor prognoses. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients remains unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned 910 patients with HER2-negative residual invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (containing anthracycline, taxane, or both) to receive standard postsurgical treatment either with capecitabine or without (control). The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival. RESULTS: The result of the prespecified interim analysis met the primary end point, so this trial was terminated early. The final analysis showed that disease-free survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (74.1% vs. 67.6% of the patients were alive and free from recurrence or second cancer at 5 years; hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.92; P=0.01). Overall survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (89.2% vs. 83.6% of the patients were alive at 5 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.90; P=0.01). Among patients with triple-negative disease, the rate of disease-free survival was 69.8% in the capecitabine group versus 56.1% in the control group (hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87), and the overall survival rate was 78.8% versus 70.3% (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.90). The hand-foot syndrome, the most common adverse reaction to capecitabine, occurred in 73.4% of the patients in the capecitabine group. CONCLUSIONS: After standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy containing anthracycline, taxane, or both, the addition of adjuvant capecitabine therapy was safe and effective in prolonging disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with HER2-negative breast cancer who had residual invasive disease on pathological testing. (Funded by the Advanced Clinical Research Organization and the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group; CREATE-X UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000000843 .).

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.