Conflict Of Interest Policies Research Articles

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines. To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist. The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist. International collaboration. 44 experts. Consensus on checklist items. The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use. The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents. The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Beyond bias: Aggregate approaches to conflicts of interest research and policy in biomedical research

AbstractConsiderable efforts have been devoted to addressing the problem of conflicts of interest (COI) in health research, policy, education, and practice. An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates that conflicts associate with deleterious outcomes for the biomedical research enterprise. Nevertheless, little has changed for research, specifically, since the Institute of Medicine's landmark Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education was published over a decade ago. In this article, we draw on interdisciplinary research on manufactured controversies in science‐policy deliberation to argue that the development of meaningful COI policy has been stymied through argumentative “wedges” designed to delay consensus and policy formation. Argumentative wedges disrupt policy formation by mischaracterizing the evidence base, continuously redefining the terms of the debate and/or recommending overly narrow criteria for who should be allowed to participate in policy deliberation. In this article, we argue researchers and policymakers interested in better addressing the harmful effects of COI can improve their efforts through strategic efforts designed to disrupt the wedges of manufactured controversy. Additionally, we argue that efforts to address COI can be further enhanced through embracing a broader framework for COI inquiry. Specifically, we argue that aggregate approaches to COI can help to disrupt these wedges and provide a strong foundation for future policy.

Get familiar with who is impacted by excess benefit/self‐dealing rules

Among other things, a nonprofit board's conflict of interest policies are meant to shield the organization from fraud and malfeasance that can come as a result of self‐dealing—that is, a board member benefiting financially off the board's decisions and organizations' operations.

Conflict of interest policies at Australian medical schools.

Pharmaceutical industry exposure is widespread during medical training and may affect education and clinical decision-making. Medical faculties' conflict of interest (COI) policies help to limit this exposure and protect students against commercial influence. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence, content and strength of COI policies at Australian medical schools and changes since a previous assessment conducted in 2009. We identified policies by searching medical school and host university websites in January 2021, and contacted deans to identify any missed policies. We applied a modified version of a scorecard developed in previous studies to examine the content of COI policies. All data were coded in duplicate. COI policies were rated on a scale from 0 (no policy) to 2 (strong policy) across 11 items per medical school. Oversight mechanisms and sanctions were also assessed, and current policies were compared with the 2009 study. Of 155 potentially relevant policies, 153 were university-wide and two were specific to medical schools. No policies covered sales representatives, on-site sponsored education or free samples. Oversight of consultancies had improved substantially, with 76% of schools requiring preapproval. Disclosure policies, while usually present, were weak, with no public disclosure required. We found little indication that Australian medical students are protected from commercial influence on medical education, and there has been limited COI policy development within the past decade. More attention is needed to ensure the independence of medical education in Australia.

Professional boundaries between faculty/staff and students in UK higher education: students’ levels of comfort with personal and sexualised interactions

ABSTRACT The concept of ‘professional boundaries’ – widely used in sectors where professional relationships between adults are regulated – has not commonly been drawn on in higher education (HE) to understand and denote appropriate relationships between faculty or staff and students. Nevertheless, in recent years the question of how to regulate sexual and romantic relationships between faculty/staff and students has been a developing policy concern within HE institutions internationally. In order to contribute to empirically-informed policy development in this area, this article explores students’ levels of comfort with different sexualised and non-sexualised behaviours from staff/faculty, drawing on data from 1492 students from a national survey carried out in the United Kingdom, initially published in the National Union of Students’ report Power in the Academy (2018). New analysis on this data is introduced, outlining scales of ‘personal’ and ‘sexualised’ interactions, which reveal the patterns of comfort and discomfort across different demographic groups of students, most notably women, LGBTQ+ students, and Black and Asian students. The analysis identifies areas of interaction with staff/faculty that are of concern to different groups of students, calling into question existing policy frameworks such as conflict of interest policies and varying levels of regulation for undergraduate and postgraduate students. In the light of these findings, the article makes two recommendations: first, that training on professional boundaries should be included in higher education teaching qualifications, and second, for the development of shared norms around professional boundaries within academic departments and professional societies.

Flashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES JCO Flashback: Predictive Value of KRAS Mutations on the Outcomes of Panitumumab Monotherapy in Colorectal Cancer. June 14, 2023 Wild-Type KRAS Is Required for Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer. June 14, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00221 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print June 14, 2023 PMID: 37315388 Flashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Andrew H. Ko, MD1,2xAndrew H. KoSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2University of California San Francisco Cancer Center, San Francisco, CA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00221 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYIn 2008, Amado et al1 published a biomarker analysis demonstrating the negative predictive value of KRAS mutations for outcome of antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. These findings guide treatment decision making for colorectal cancer that continues up to the present time and also informed further discoveries relating to treatment resistance and approaches to monitoring for this disease.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: KRAS Is a Selection Marker for Panitumumab Benefit in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Andrew H. KoThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Honoraria: Research to Practice, Clinical Care Options, Medscape, BioAscent, MJH Life Sciences, Gerson Lehrman GroupConsulting or Advisory Role: ERYTECH Pharma, Imugene, SynCoreBio, Roche/Genentech, Ipsen, Five Prime Therapeutics, Tyme, Turning Point Therapeutics, Signatera, Syros PharmaceuticalsSpeakers' Bureau: Clinical Care OptionsResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AbGenomics International (Inst), Apexigen (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Leap Therapeutics (Inst), BioMed Valley Discoveries (Inst), CrystalGenomics (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion JCO Flashback: Predictive Value of KRAS Mutations on the Outcomes of Panitumumab Monotherapy in Colorectal Cancer Wild-Type KRAS Is Required for Panitumumab Efficacy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Rationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer.

Article Tools UNDERSTANDING THE PATHWAY Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Randomized Phase II Trial of Ficlatuzumab With or Without Cetuximab in Pan-Refractory, Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer. March 28, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00460 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print June 15, 2023 PMID: 37319388 Rationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer Stéphanie Kermorgant, PhD1xStéphanie KermorgantSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Spatial Signalling Group, Barts Cancer Institute–a CR-UK Centre of Excellence, Queen Mary University of London, John Vane Science Centre, London, United Kingdom https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00460 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTSupported by Rosetrees Trust (M314 and M346), Barts Charity (MGU0511, G-001868, G-002205), and the MRC (MR/R009732/1).AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTRationale for Cotargeting Hepatocyte Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).No potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Randomized Phase II Trial of Ficlatuzumab With or Without Cetuximab in Pan-Refractory, Recurrent/Metastatic Head and Neck Cancer

Financial conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical companies and executive board members of internal medicine subspecialty societies in Japan between 2016 and 2020.

Pharmaceutical companies make payments to physicians such as compensations for lecturing or consulting. Of particular, financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and leaders of professional medical societies are concern in medical community. However, little was known about them in Japan. This study aimed to evaluate the magnitude and prevalence of personal payments to executive board members (EBMs)of 15 medical associations representing different subspecialties within the Japanese Society of Internal Medicine. All EBMs of 15 medical associations representing internal medicine subspecialties were collected from each association webpage. Payments to the EBMs were extracted from the pharmaceutical companies belonging to the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association between 2016 and 2020. We performed descriptive analysis on the payment data. Of the 353 different EBMs identified, 350 (99.2%) received one or more personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies over the 5 years. 99.2% (350) and 97.2% (343) of all EBMs received personal payments 3 years before and in the year of their board membership. A total of $70,796,014 were made to the EBMs over the 5 years. The median 5-year combined personal payments per EBM was $150,849 (interquartile range [IQR]:$73,412-$282,456). EBMs who were chairman or vice chairman of executive board received significantly larger median personal payments than those who were not ($225,685 vs. $143,885, p = 0.01 in the U test). Among the 15 societies, there were 12 (80.0%) societies with all (100%) EBMs receiving personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies. Although every society has their own conflicts of interest policy, none publicly discloses the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and their EBMs due to their privacy. This study demonstrated that nearly all EBMs of 15 medical associations representing internal medicine subspecialties had substantial financial relationships with the pharmaceutical companies in Japan over the past 5 years.

Microsatellite Instability Detection: The Current Standards, Limitations, and Misinterpretations.

Article Tools REVIEW ARTICLES Diagnostics Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.23.00010 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2300010. Published online June 14, 2023. PMID: 37315263 Microsatellite Instability Detection: The Current Standards, Limitations, and Misinterpretations Valentina Yakushina , PhD1,2xValentina YakushinaSearch for articles by this author; Alexandra Kavun , MSc1xAlexandra KavunSearch for articles by this author; Egor Veselovsky, MSc1,3xEgor VeselovskySearch for articles by this author; Tatiana Grigoreva , MSc1,4xTatiana GrigorevaSearch for articles by this author; Ekaterina Belova , PhD1,5xEkaterina BelovaSearch for articles by this author; Alexandra Lebedeva , MSc1xAlexandra LebedevaSearch for articles by this author; Vladislav Mileyko , MSc1xVladislav MileykoSearch for articles by this author; and Maxim Ivanov , PhD1,6xMaxim IvanovSearch for articles by this author Show More 1OncoAtlas LLC, Moscow, Russian Federation2Laboratory of Epigenetics, Research Centre for Medical Genetics, Moscow, Russian Federation3Department of Evolutionary Genetics of Development, Koltzov Institute of Developmental Biology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation4Shemyakin-Ovchinnikov Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation5Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russian Federation6Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, Moscow, Russian Federation https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.23.00010 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyCONTEXTKey ObjectiveAccurate microsatellite instability (MSI) assessment is critical for Lynch syndrome diagnostics, prognosis of disease progression, and success of chemotherapy and immunotherapy. In immunotherapy, false-positive MSI testing prevents putative responding patients from receiving effective treatment, and false-negative MSI testing leads to the prescription of ineffective therapy with its adverse effects.Knowledge GeneratedThis article provides the main advantages and limitations of the standard MSI testing methods and novel approaches in clinical practice, assesses possible sources of errors, discusses best practices and guidelines, and highlights the unsolved questions that remain sources of incorrect interpretation.RelevanceAmong novel approaches, next-generation sequencing (NGS) is considered one of the most promising; its advantages include high accuracy, an expanded spectrum of microsatellites analyzed, and simultaneous assessment of a comprehensive spectrum of clinically significant markers. In liquid biopsy, NGS-based approaches demonstrate outstanding results.SUPPORTSupported by the Russian Science Foundation (project No. 22-75-10154; https://rscf.ru/project/22-75-10154/).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Valentina Yakushina, Vladislav Mileyko, Maxim IvanovData analysis and interpretation: Alexandra Kavun, Egor Veselovsky, Tatiana Grigoreva, Ekaterina Belova, Alexandra LebedevaManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Valentina YakushinaEmployment: Atlas OncodiagnosticsAlexandra KavunEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCEgor VeselovskyEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCTatiana GrigorevaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCEkaterina BelovaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCAlexandra LebedevaEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCVladislav MileykoEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCLeadership: OncoAtlas LLCStock and Other Ownership Interests: OncoAtlasResearch Funding: I-pharmMaxim IvanovEmployment: OncoAtlas LLCNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Flashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer. May 05, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02804 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print May 5, 2023 PMID: 37146425 Flashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Thomas E. Stinchcombe , MD1,2xThomas E. StinchcombeSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Duke Cancer Institute, Division of Medical Oncology, Durham, NC2Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02804 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYThis phase III, noninferiority study1 investigated the novel chemotherapy combination of cisplatin and pemetrexed compared with the standard combination of cisplatin and gemcitabine demonstrating that survival was noninferior between the two platinum-based combinations, and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and febrile neutropenia was observed with cisplatin and pemetrexed. However, cisplatin and pemetrexed demonstrated a superior survival in patients with adenocarcinoma and large cell histologies and inferior survival in patients with squamous histology, and after this trial, the use of pemetrexed was restricted to patients with nonsquamous histology.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Cisplatin/Pemetrexed in Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Thomas E. StinchcombeThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, G1 Therapeutics, Spectrum PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Phase III Study Comparing Cisplatin Plus Gemcitabine With Cisplatin Plus Pemetrexed in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Advanced-Stage Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

A Case of Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in Metaplastic Breast Cancer

Article Tools CASE REPORTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.22.00506 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2200506. Published online May 17, 2023. PMID: 37196220 A Case of Pathologic Complete Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Pembrolizumab in Metaplastic Breast Cancer Anita Gul , MD1xAnita GulSearch for articles by this author; J. Jaime Alberty-Oller , MD, FACS2xJ. Jaime Alberty-OllerSearch for articles by this author; Jagbir Sandhu, MD1xJagbir SandhuSearch for articles by this author; Everick Ayala-Bustamante, MD2xEverick Ayala-BustamanteSearch for articles by this author; and Sylvia Adams , MD3xSylvia AdamsSearch for articles by this author Show More 1New York Medical College, Metropolitan Hospital, New York, NY2SUNY Downstate Health Sciences Center, Kings County Hospital, Brooklyn, NY3Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00506 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyDATA SHARING STATEMENTAll the data supporting the findings in this case report are contained within the text.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Anita Gul, Jagbir Sandhu, Sylvia AdamsCollection and assembly of data: Anita Gul, J. Jaime Alberty-Oller, Jagbir Sandhu, Everick Ayala-BustamanteData analysis and interpretation: Anita Gul, Jagbir Sandhu, Everick Ayala-Bustamante, Sylvia AdamsManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).J. Jaime Alberty-OllerHonoraria: HologicConsulting or Advisory Role: HologicTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: HologicSylvia AdamsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Merck (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Novartis (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Response to Repotrectinib After Development of NTRK Resistance Mutations on First- and Second-Generation TRK Inhibitors.

Article Tools CASE REPORTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.22.00697 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2200697. Published online June 1, 2023. PMID: 37262390 Response to Repotrectinib After Development of NTRK Resistance Mutations on First- and Second-Generation TRK Inhibitors Monica F. Chen , MD1,2xMonica F. ChenSearch for articles by this author; Soo-Ryum Yang, MD3xSoo-Ryum YangSearch for articles by this author; Jinru Shia , MD3xJinru ShiaSearch for articles by this author; Jeffrey Girshman , MD4xJeffrey GirshmanSearch for articles by this author; Sippy Punn, RN5xSippy PunnSearch for articles by this author; Clare Wilhelm , PhD1xClare WilhelmSearch for articles by this author; Mark G. Kris, MD1xMark G. KrisSearch for articles by this author; Emiliano Cocco , PhD6xEmiliano CoccoSearch for articles by this author; Alexander Drilon , MD1,2xAlexander DrilonSearch for articles by this author; and Nitya Raj , MD5xNitya RajSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Thoracic Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY2Early Drug Development Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY3Department of Pathology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY4Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY5Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY6Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology/Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL*M.F.C. and S.-R.Y. contributed equally to this work as cofirst authors. A.D. and N.R. contributed equally to this work as cosenior authors. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00697 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTSupported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (R01CA226864 to E.C. and A.D; and P30CA008748 to M.F.C., S.-R.Y., J.S., J.G., M.G.K., A.D., N.R.); and Nonna’s Garden Foundation (to A.D.).AUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Monica F. ChenStock and Other Ownership Interests: NordiskSoo-Ryum YangHonoraria: Prime EducationConsulting or Advisory Role: InVitaeJinru ShiaConsulting or Advisory Role: PAIGE.AIMark G. KrisConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Janssen, Merus, BerGenBioTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Genentech, AstraZenecaOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/markgkris/summaryEmiliano CoccoEmployment: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Entos Pharmaceuticals, Institutional Biosafety CommitteeResearch Funding: Innocare, Erasca IncAlexander DrilonStock and Other Ownership Interests: Treeline BiosciencesHonoraria: Pfizer, Loxo/Bayer/Lilly, IASLC, Helsinn Therapeutics, BeiGene, Remedica, TP Therapeutics, Verastem, Ignyta/Genentech/Roche, AstraZeneca, Liberum, Lungevity, NIH, PER, OncLive/MJH Life Sciences, Clinical Care Options/NCCN, Lung Cancer Research Foundation, Associazione Italiana Oncologia Toracica (AIOT), Chugai Pharma, Sirio Libanes Hospital, Answers in CME, Research to Practice, i3 Health, RV MaisConsulting or Advisory Role: Ignyta, Loxo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Blueprint Medicines, Genentech/Roche, BeiGene, Hengrui Therapeutics, Exelixis, Bayer, Tyra Biosciences, Takeda/Millennium, BerGenBio, MORE Health, Lilly, AbbVie, 14ner Oncology/Elevation Oncology, Monopteros Therapeutics, Novartis, EMD Serono/Merck, Repare Therapeutics, Melendi, Archer, Nuvalent, Inc, Janssen, Amgen, Merus, Axis Pharma, Medscape, Liberum, Med Learning, PeerView, EPG Health, Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Ology Medical Education, Ology Medical Education, Clinical Care Options, touchIME, Entos, Prelude Therapeutics, Applied Pharmaceutical Science, Treeline Biosciences, Monte Rosa TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Foundation MedicinePatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Wolters Kluwer (Royalties for Pocket Oncology)Other Relationship: Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, Teva, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, PharmaMar, Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Merus, Boehringer IngelheimNitya RajConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, HRA Pharma, Advanced Accelerator Applications/Novartis, ProgenicsResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Xencor (Inst), Corcept Therapeutics (Inst), ITM Isotope Technologies Munich (Inst), Camarus AB (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Exceptional Response to Dual Colony-Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor/PD-L1 Targeting After Primary Resistance to PD-1 Inhibition in a Patient With a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma.

Article Tools CASE REPORTS Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES No companion articles ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/PO.22.00363 JCO Precision Oncology no. 7 (2023) e2200363. Published online May 24, 2023. PMID: 37224427 Exceptional Response to Dual Colony-Stimulating Factor 1 Receptor/PD-L1 Targeting After Primary Resistance to PD-1 Inhibition in a Patient With a Metastatic Uveal Melanoma Stéphane Champiat , MD, PhD1,2,3xStéphane ChampiatSearch for articles by this author; Hélène Salaün, MD4xHélène SalaünSearch for articles by this author; Francesca Lucibello, MD, PhD5xFrancesca LucibelloSearch for articles by this author; Jean-Yves Scoazec , MD, PhD6xJean-Yves ScoazecSearch for articles by this author; Benjamin Besse , MD, PhD7xBenjamin BesseSearch for articles by this author; Ana Ines Lalanne, PhD8,9xAna Ines LalanneSearch for articles by this author; Etienne Rouleau , MD, PhD6xEtienne RouleauSearch for articles by this author; Nolwenn Metzger , BSc10xNolwenn MetzgerSearch for articles by this author; Mathilde Saint-Ghislain, MD4xMathilde Saint-GhislainSearch for articles by this author; Thomas Ryckewaert, MD11xThomas RyckewaertSearch for articles by this author; Sophie Gardrat, MD11,12xSophie GardratSearch for articles by this author; Raymond Barnhill , MD, PhD13xRaymond BarnhillSearch for articles by this author; Nathalie Cassoux, MD, PhD14xNathalie CassouxSearch for articles by this author; Marc-Henri Stern , MD, PhD12xMarc-Henri SternSearch for articles by this author; Olivier Lantz, MD, PhD5,8,9xOlivier LantzSearch for articles by this author; Leanne de Koning , PhD13xLeanne de KoningSearch for articles by this author; Aurélien Marabelle , MD, PhD1xAurélien MarabelleSearch for articles by this author; and Manuel Rodrigues , MD, PhD4,12xManuel RodriguesSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Drug Development Department, Gustave Roussy Comprehensive Cancer Center, Villejuif, France2Department of Translational Research, University Paris-Saclay, Inserm U1015, Villejuif, France3University Paris-Saclay, Inserm, Clinical Investigation Center (CIC-BT1428) Biotheris, Villejuif, France4Medical Oncology Department, PSL Research University, Institut Curie, Paris, France5Center for Cancer Immunotherapy, INSERM U932, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France6Department of Biopathology, University Paris-Saclay, Gustave Roussy Cancer Center, Villejuif, France7Paris Saclay University, Department of Cancer Medicine, Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France8Clinical Immunology Laboratory, Institut Curie, Paris, France9Clinical Investigation Center (CIC-BT1428), Institut Curie, Paris, France10Department of Somatic Genetics, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France11Department of Medical Oncology, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France12Unit 830 (Cancer, Heterogeneity, Instability and Plasticity) INSERM, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France13Department of Translational Research, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France14Department of Ophthalmology, Institut Curie, PSL Research University, Paris, France*S.C., H.S., and F.L. are coprimary authors. https://doi.org/10.1200/PO.22.00363 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTM.R. was supported by the Interface INSERM program. The MATCH-R trial was supported by a Natixis foundation grant, a Philanthropy Lombard-Odier foundation grant, and Gustave Roussy Foundation. MOSCATO trial was supported by Gustave Roussy Foundation (Revolution Cancer initiative), INCa-DGOS-INSERM 6043 (SIRIC SOCRATE), and ANR-10-IBHU-0001 (MMO) and received an unrestricted grant from Genentech and Sanofi.DATA SHARING STATEMENTThe data that support the findings of this study are available upon reasonable request to the corresponding author, M.R.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: Stéphane Champiat, Hélène Salaün, Jean-Yves Scoazec, Olivier Lantz, Aurélien Marabelle, Manuel RodriguesProvision of study materials or patients: Stéphane Champiat, Jean-Yves Scoazec, Etienne Rouleau, Nathalie Cassoux, Aurélien MarabelleCollection and assembly of data: Stéphane Champiat, Hélène Salaün, Francesca Lucibello, Jean-Yves Scoazec, Mathilde Saint-Ghislain, Thomas Ryckewaert, Sophie Gardrat, Nathalie Cassoux, Aurélien Marabelle, Manuel RodriguesData analysis and interpretation: Stéphane Champiat, Jean-Yves Scoazec, Benjamin Besse, Ana Ines Lalanne, Etienne Rouleau, Nolwenn Metzger, Raymond Barnhill, Marc-Henri Stern, Olivier Lantz, Leanne de Koning, Aurélien Marabelle, Manuel RodriguesManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/po/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Stéphane ChampiatHonoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Fresenius Kabi, Eisai Europe, Genmab, Janssen, Merck KGaA, Merck SeronoConsulting or Advisory Role: Alderaan Biotechnology, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Avacta Life Sciences, Celanese, Domain Therapeutics, Ellipses Pharma, Genmab, Immunicom, Nanobiotix, Oncovita, Pierre Fabre, Seagen, Tatum Bioscience, Tollys, UltraHuman8, NextCure, BioNTech SEResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Merck (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Adaptimmune (Inst), Aduro Biotech (Inst), Agios (Inst), Amgen (Inst), arGEN-X BVBA (Inst), Arno Therapeutics (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), BB Biotech Ventures (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), BioAlliance Pharma (Inst), BioNTech (Inst), Blueprint Medicines (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Boston Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Cephalon (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Cullinan Oncology (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), FORMA Therapeutics (Inst), GamaMabs Pharma (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Glenmark (Inst), H3 Biomedicine (Inst), Roche (Inst), Incyte (Inst), Innate Pharma (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Servier (Inst), Janssen-Cilag (Inst), Kura Oncology (Inst), Kyowa Hakko Kirin (Inst), Loxo (Inst), Lytix Biopharma (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Menarini (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Merrimack (Inst), Merus (Inst), Millennium (Inst), Molecular Partners (Inst), Nanobiotix (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Nerviano Medical Sciences (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Octimet (Inst), OncoEthix (Inst), OncoMed (Inst), Oncopeptides (Inst), Onyx (Inst), Orion (Inst), Oryzon Genomics (Inst), Ose Pharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Philogen (Inst), Pierre Fabre (Inst), Plexxikon (Inst), RigonTEC (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Sierra Oncology (Inst), Sotio (Inst), Syros Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Tioma Therapeutics (Inst), Wyeth (Inst), Xencor (Inst), Y's Therapeutics (Inst), Cytovation, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, ImCheck therapeutics, Molecular Partners, MSD, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Sanofi, Sotio, Transgene, Boehringer Ingelheim, AbbVie, Amgen, Adlai Nortye (Inst), AVEO (Inst), Basilea Pharmaceutical (Inst), BBB Technologies (Inst), Bicycle Therapeutics (Inst), CASI Pharmaceuticals (Inst), CellCentric (Inst), CureVac (Inst), Faron Pharmaceuticals (Inst), ITeos Therapeutics (Inst), Relay Therapeutics (Inst), Seagen (Inst), Transgene (Inst), Turning Point Therapeutics (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: T-cell immunogens derived from anti-viral proteins and methods of using same WO2010039223A2Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, OSE Immunotherapeutics, Roche, SotioOther Relationship: AstraZeneca (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Lilly (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Merck (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Roche (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), NH TherAguix (Inst)Hélène SalaünTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: PfizerBenjamin BesseResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Inivata (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Amgen (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Janssen Oncology (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Aptitude Health (Inst), Chugai Pharma (Inst), Genzyme (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Turning Point Therapeutics (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Ellipses Pharma (Inst), Genmab (Inst), Genzyme (Inst), Hedera Dx (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), PharmaMar (Inst), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Socar (Inst)Etienne RouleauHonoraria: AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche (Inst), BMS (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: AstraZenecaResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZeneca, BMSMathilde Saint-GhislainHonoraria: OncostreamNathalie CassouxTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: FCI (Inst)Marc-Henri SternHonoraria: GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: Bionano Genomics (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties on the licensing of the HRD patent included in the myChoice HRD test (Inst)Olivier LantzHonoraria: BiomunexResearch Funding: Biomunex (Inst), Transgene (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: BioLegend royalties for 3C10 antibody (Inst)Aurélien MarabelleStock and Other Ownership Interests: Shattuck Labs, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Deka Biosciences, HotSpot Therapeutics, Marengo TherapeuticsConsulting or Advisory Role: Lytix Biopharma, EISAI, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Servier, Roche, Redx Pharma, Sotio, Innate Pharma, ImCheck therapeutics, MSD, OSE Immunotherapeutics, HiFiBiO Therapeutics, Centessa Pharmaceuticals, Clover Biopharmaceuticals, Shattuck Labs, Deka Biosciences, Hotspot Therapeutics, Medicxi, Depth Charge Therapeutics, BioLineRx, Gritstone Bio, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen, Third Rock Ventures, Sanofi, PegaOne, Guidepoint Global, Neogene Therapeutics, Gray Wolf Therapeutics, AdageneResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Transgene (Inst), MSD (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Monoclonal antibodies against CD81 (Stanford University)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: SotioOther Relationship: ElsevierManuel RodriguesHonoraria: ImmunocoreConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKlineResearch Funding: Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: AstraZenecaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Flashback Foreword: Bevacizumab + Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in NSCLC

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer. April 26, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02790 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 26, 2023 Flashback Foreword: Bevacizumab + Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in NSCLC Thomas E. Stinchcombe , MD1,2xThomas E. StinchcombeSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02790 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYThis randomized phase II trial1 compared carboplatin and paclitaxel alone (the control arm) with carboplatin and paclitaxel with bevacizumab at two doses in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks was the dose selected for future clinical trials, and an excessive rate of toxicity was observed in the subset of patients with squamous histology, leading to the exclusion of patients with NSCLC with squamous histology from future trials of bevacizumab in NSCLC.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non–Small-Cell Lung CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Thomas E. StinchcombeThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, G1 Therapeutics, Spectrum PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Randomized Phase II Trial Comparing Bevacizumab Plus Carboplatin and Paclitaxel With Carboplatin and Paclitaxel Alone in Previously Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Perspective: Examining Conflicts of Interest for Professional Service within the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Judgments and integrity uphold professionalism. Failure to manage professional conflicts of interest (COIs) may undermine trust in an individual, practitioner, or institution. This perspective article examines standards for nutrition researchers and practitioners to manage COIs for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) process. Thereafter, this article analyzes a study published by Mialon etal. that raised concerns about the expert advisory committee selection process and management of COIs for 20 professionals appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the USDA, who served on a federal government advisory committee to review evidence for the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) 2020 scientific report. The analysis found that Mialon etal. enumerated COIs for each DGAC member with industry, removed from the original context, which prevented readers from assessing the COI risk. Moreover, the USDA ethics office concluded that "the 20 committee members were in full compliance with the federal ethics rules applicable to special government employees." I conclude that Mialon etal. could use institutional mechanisms to encourage the USDA and HHS to strengthen future COI policies and procedures, aligned with the 2022 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report recommendations to improve the DGA 2025 to 2030 process.

Authors' conflicts of interest in Nepalese healthcare journals.

Most biomedical journals now require authors to declare their conflicts of interest (COI), especially financial ones, before they accept the manuscript for submission. This study aims to examine the COI policies of Nepalese healthcare journals. The sample constituted journals indexed in Nepal Journals Online (NepJOL) as of June 2021. Of the 68 that met our inclusion criteria, 38(55.9%) journals endorsed the COI policy of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Thirty-six (52.9%) journals had a policy for reporting the COI. Financial COI was the only type of COI mentioned. All journals in Nepal are encouraged to request the authors to declare the COI for better transparency.

Flashback Foreword: Pemetrexed and Cisplatin in Mesothelioma

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Phase III Study of Pemetrexed in Combination With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma. April 17, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02720 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 17, 2023 PMID: 37068376 Flashback Foreword: Pemetrexed and Cisplatin in Mesothelioma Thomas E. Stinchcombe , MD1,2xThomas E. StinchcombeSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Division of Medical Oncology, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, NC2Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02720 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYIn 2003, Vogelzang et al1 published a phase III trial, which demonstrated a superior overall survival, time to progression, and response rate with cisplatin and pemetrexed compared with cisplatin in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma. At the time this trial was performed, there were doubts about the efficacy of chemotherapy in this disease, and this trial validated chemotherapy as an effective treatment, and platinum-pemetrexed became the standard first-line treatment for the next 2 decades.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Pemetrexed and Cisplatin in MesotheliomaThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Thomas E. StinchcombeThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: EMD Serono, Janssen Oncology, Turning Point Therapeutics, Sanofi/Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech/Roche, Daiichi Sankyo/Astra Zeneca, Takeda, Eisai/H3 Biomedicine, G1 Therapeutics, Spectrum PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Takeda (Inst), Regeneron (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Mirati Therapeutics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Phase III Study of Pemetrexed in Combination With Cisplatin Versus Cisplatin Alone in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma

Long Noncoding RNA Signatures as Cancer Biomarkers

Article Tools UNDERSTANDING THE PATHWAY Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Long Noncoding RNA Expression Independently Predicts Outcome in Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia. February 16, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00381 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 12, 2023 PMID: 37043713 Long Noncoding RNA Signatures as Cancer Biomarkers Aina M. Mas , PhD1,2xAina M. MasSearch for articles by this author and Maite Huarte , PhD1,2xMaite HuarteSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Center for Applied Medical Research, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain2Institute of Health Research of Navarra (IdiSNA), Pamplona, Spain https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00381 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologySUPPORTSupported by PID2020-113683GB-100/funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033, La Caixa Foundation (LCF/PR/HR21/00176), European Research Council Consolidator 771425, and Worldwide Cancer Research 20-0204 grants (M.H.); and Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad REF: BES2015-074569 cofounded by FSE (A.M.M.).AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSConception and design: All authorsManuscript writing: All authorsFinal approval of manuscript: All authorsAccountable for all aspects of the work: All authorsAUTHORS' DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTLong Noncoding RNA Signatures as Cancer BiomarkersThe following represents disclosure information provided by authors of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).No potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Long Noncoding RNA Expression Independently Predicts Outcome in Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia

Flashback Foreword: Pazopanib in Renal Cell Carcinoma and Overall Survival With Sunitinib Versus Interferon-α in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial. April 05, 2023 Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. April 05, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.23.00153 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print April 5, 2023 PMID: 37018918 Flashback Foreword: Pazopanib in Renal Cell Carcinoma and Overall Survival With Sunitinib Versus Interferon-α in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Michael A. Carducci, MD1,2xMichael A. CarducciSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.23.00153 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYIn 2009, Motzer et al1 demonstrated an overall survival advantage for sunitinib over interferon-α in metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma; in 2010, Sternberg et al2 demonstrated an 8-month improvement in progression-free survival over placebo in the same patient population as sunitinib. These two reports laid the foundation for vascular endothelial growth factor tyrosine kinase inhibition therapy in renal cancer and forming the building blocks for immune checkpoint combination therapies now used in clinical practice further extending the lives of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Pazopanib in Renal Cell Carcinoma and Overall Survival With Sunitinib Versus Interferon-α in Metastatic Renal Cell CarcinomaThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Michael A. CarducciThis author is an Associate Editor for Journal of Clinical Oncology. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Acrivon Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, SanofiResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Arcus Biosciences (Inst), Merck (Inst), Celgene/Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Pazopanib in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial Overall Survival and Updated Results for Sunitinib Compared With Interferon Alfa in Patients With Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma

Flashback Foreword: Preoperative Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer and Clinical Features of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

Article Tools FLASHBACK FOREWORD Article Tools OPTIONS & TOOLS Export Citation Track Citation Add To Favorites Rights & Permissions COMPANION ARTICLES Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer. March 29, 2023 Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy and Long-Term Survival in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. March 29, 2023 ARTICLE CITATION DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02784 Journal of Clinical Oncology - published online before print March 29, 2023 PMID: 36989608 Flashback Foreword: Preoperative Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer and Clinical Features of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Clifford A. Hudis , MD1,2xClifford A. HudisSearch for articles by this author Show More 1Former Associate Editor, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA2American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.02784 First Page Full Text PDF Figures and Tables © 2023 by American Society of Clinical OncologyTHE TAKEAWAYIn 1998, with the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) B-18, Fisher et al1 demonstrated that preoperative (earlier) use of conventional postoperative adjuvant therapy did not improve or diminish overall outcomes (disease-free and overall survival) in early-stage breast cancer. In 2008, Liedtke et al2 suggested that response (specifically failure to achieve a pathologic complete response) after preoperative therapy could identify those patients with poor prognosis triple-negative disease who would have worse long-term outcomes. The impact of these studies today is that we can offer preoperative therapy where it is needed knowing it is safe and effective, and we can use this setting to help accelerate the pace of research.AUTHOR'S DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTERESTFlashback Foreword: Preoperative Therapy for Operable Breast Cancer and Clinical Features of Triple-Negative Breast CancerThe following represents disclosure information provided by the author of this manuscript. All relationships are considered compensated unless otherwise noted. Relationships are self-held unless noted. I = Immediate Family Member, Inst = My Institution. Relationships may not relate to the subject matter of this manuscript. For more information about ASCO's conflict of interest policy, please refer to www.asco.org/rwc or ascopubs.org/jco/authors/author-center.Open Payments is a public database containing information reported by companies about payments made to US-licensed physicians (Open Payments).Clifford A. HudisUncompensated Relationships: Alliance Foundation Trials, Columbia University, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/471974No other potential conflicts of interest were reported. Companion Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on the outcome of women with operable breast cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Therapy and Long-Term Survival in Patients With Triple-Negative Breast Cancer