Peer Review Research Articles

Safety and efficacy of odronextamab in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma

BackgroundOdronextamab, a CD20×CD3 bispecific antibody that engages cytotoxic T cells to destroy malignant B cells, has demonstrated encouraging activity across multiple subtypes of relapsed/refractory (R/R) B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Patients and MethodsThis phase II study (ELM-2; NCT03888105) evaluated odronextamab in patients with R/R follicular lymphoma (FL) after ≥2 lines of systemic therapy. Patients received intravenous odronextamab in 21-day cycles, with step-up dosing in Cycle 1 to help mitigate the risk of cytokine release syndrome (CRS), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by independent central review. ResultsAmong 128 patients evaluated, 95% completed Cycle 1, and 85% completed ≥4 cycles. At 20.1 months’ efficacy follow-up, ORR was 80.0% and complete response rate was 73.4%. Median duration of complete response was 25.1 months. Median progression-free survival was 20.7 months, and median overall survival was not reached. Discontinuation of odronextamab due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 16% of patients. The most common treatment-emergent AEs were CRS (56%; grade ≥3 1.7% [1/60] with 0.7/4/20 mg step-up), neutropenia (39%), and pyrexia (38%). ConclusionsOdronextamab achieved high complete response rates with generally manageable safety in patients with heavily pretreated R/R FL.

Adverse Pregnancy Outcomes in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

Transplant recipients experience high rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes; however, contemporary estimates of the association between solid organ transplantation and adverse pregnancy outcomes are lacking. To evaluate the association between solid organ transplantation and adverse pregnancy outcomes and to quantify the incidence of allograft rejection and allograft loss during pregnancy. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Scopus databases were searched from January 1, 2000, to June 20, 2024, and reference lists were manually reviewed. Cohort and case-control studies that reported at least 1 adverse pregnancy outcome in pregnant women with solid organ transplantation vs without solid organ transplant or studies that reported allograft outcomes in pregnant women with solid organ transplantation were included following independent dual review of abstracts and full-text articles. Two investigators abstracted data and independently appraised risk of bias using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was used to calculate overall pooled estimates using the DerSimonian-Laird estimator. Reporting followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guideline. Primary pregnancy outcomes were preeclampsia, preterm birth (<37 weeks), and low birth weight (<2500 g). Secondary pregnancy outcomes were live birth rate, gestation, very preterm birth (<32 weeks), very low birth weight (<1500 g), and cesarean delivery. Allograft outcomes were allograft loss and rejection during pregnancy. Data from 22 studies and 93 565 343 pregnancies (4786 pregnancies in solid organ transplant recipients) were included; 14 studies reported adverse pregnancy outcomes, and 13 studies provided data for allograft outcomes. Pregnancies in organ transplant recipients were associated with significantly increased risk of preeclampsia (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 5.83 [95% CI, 3.45-9.87]; I2 = 77.4%), preterm birth (aOR, 6.65 [95% CI, 4.09-12.83]; I2 = 81.8%), and low birth weight (aOR, 6.51 [95% CI, 2.85-14.88]; I2 = 90.6%). The incidence of acute allograft rejection was 2.39% (95% CI, 1.20%-3.96%; I2 = 68.5%), and the incidence of allograft loss during pregnancy was 1.55% (95% CI, 0.05%-4.44%; I2 = 69.2%). In this systematic review and meta-analysis, pregnancies in recipients of a solid organ transplant were associated with a 4 to 6 times increased risk of preeclampsia, preterm birth, and low birth weight during pregnancy. There was a low overall risk of graft rejection or loss during pregnancy.

Final analysis data and exploratory biomarker analysis of a randomized phase II study of osimertinib plus bevacizumab versus osimertinib monotherapy for untreated patients with non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer harboring EGFRmutations: the WJOG9717L study

INTRODUCTIONEGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been a standard treatment for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have sensitive EGFR mutations. This study showed final analysis survival data, biomarkers and resistance mechanisms of osimertinib plus bevacizumab or osimertinib monotherapy in previously untreated patients with advanced EGFR-positive non-squamous NSCLC. METHODSWe previously reported the primary results of a randomized, open-label, phase II study comparing osimertinib plus bevacizumab with osimertinib monotherapy for this population. In this exploratory analysis using tissue and plasma samples, we evaluated gene profiles at baseline and disease progression or the last dose using targeted deep sequencing. RESULTSThe median progression-free survival (PFS) by the blinded independent central reviewer (BICR) were 22.1 months for the osimertinib plus bevacizumab arm and 20.2 months for the osimertinib arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.864, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.549–1.359). The 3-year overall survival was not different between the two arms (osimertinib plus bevacizumab: 57.1%; osimertinib monotherapy: 65.0%; HR, 95% CI, 0.727–2.233). Ninety-four patients had evaluable plasma samples at baseline and 40 had evaluable pretreatment tissue samples. EGFR mutations (76.6%) and TP53 mutations (44.7%) were detected in plasma samples at baseline. In patients with plasma TP53 mutations (N = 42), the median PFS by BICR was 19.8 months for the osimertinib plus bevacizumab arm and 20.2 months for the osimertinib arm (HR, 1.107, 95% CI, 0.534–2.297). CONCLUSIONSThere was also no significant difference in the PFS between the two arms, even in patients with TP53 mutations.

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 146 • Number of submissions sent for review: 124 • Number of submissions accepted: 77 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 52.7 • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 16 • Contact person for queries: Name: Xuexia Ye Email: xx.ye@keoaeic.org Affiliation: AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 50 • Number of submissions sent for review: 49 • Number of submissions accepted: 27 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 54 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.0232558139534884 • Total number of reviewers involved: 13 • Contact person for queries: Name: Dr.Shaik Kabeer Ahmed Email: ctcs.nmamit@nitte.edu.in Affiliation: NMAM Institute of Technology, Nitte

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 42 • Number of submissions sent for review: 40 • Number of submissions accepted: 37 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 88.1 • Average number of reviews per paper: 3.5 • Total number of reviewers involved: 18 • Contact person for queries: Name: Vera Dian Damayanti Email: veradd@apps.ipb.ac.id Affiliation: IPB University

APPTS (Accreditation Programme for Psychological Therapies Services) – A quality improvement programme for psychological therapies services, bringing benefits to service users, services and the wider system

Declaration of interests:All authors are current or former members of the APPTS Project BoardThe first author is the clinical lead for an NHS Talking Therapies service for Anxiety and Depression that is APPTS accredited and works for a Trust that has accredited all of its NHS Talking Therapies for Anxiety and Depression servicesThis paper describes an accreditation programme for psychological therapies services. It highlights the centrality of service user involvement to the programme’s design and delivery. Advantages for service users, staff, services and commissioners are outlined with feedback from different stakeholders included. Psychological therapies services need to be aware of this option to achieve accreditation from a body specifically tailored to evaluate such services. The programme is aligned to the Care Quality Commission’s five domains, utilising a supportive model of peer review, through which participating services are encouraged to share good practice and learn from one another. The process revolves around the APPTS standards, which have been developed collaboratively with key stakeholders, staff from member services, and representatives with lived experience, and provide the framework for what a high-quality psychological therapies service should look like.

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Double Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 41 • Number of submissions sent for review: 28 • Number of submissions accepted: 27 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 65.9 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2.8518518518518516 • Total number of reviewers involved: 11 • Contact person for queries: Name: Cici Chou Email: cici@apise.org Affiliation: Sichuan University

Gender gap in agricultural productivity: evidence from Burkina Faso

PurposeWomen make a major contribution to the agricultural sector, especially in developing countries. Despite this, women still face many obstacles in carrying out their agricultural activities. These obstacles have a negative impact on their productivity and create a gender gap. This paper analyses the difference in agricultural productivity between male-headed and female-headed households in Burkina Faso.Design/methodology/approachUsing data from the Permanent Agricultural Survey (EPA), we applied the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition method to determine the size of the gender gap and identify the variables explaining this gap. In this study, we used the value of production per farm worker as a measure of productivity.FindingsThe results indicate a gender gap of 43.8 percentage points in favor of male-headed households. Around 131% of this difference is explained by differences in observable household characteristics. The factor that most explains this difference in productivity is the difference in the total area of land available to households.Practical implicationsThis finding calls for women’s access to land to be considered in the design and implementation of agricultural development policies.Originality/valueOne of the main contributions of this article in relation to previous studies lies in the unit of analysis. Rather than focusing on individual producers, as in previous studies, we have instead considered the household as the unit of analysis, since in developing countries such as Burkina Faso, production decisions are taken at household level. It contributes to inform economic policy decisions by providing decision-makers with the factors on which they can act to bring about an increase in agricultural productivity by reducing the gap between male-headed households and female-headed households.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-11-2023-0923

Preface of the proceeding of 12th International Symposium on Current Research in Hydropower Technologies

Current Research in Hydropower Technologies, CRHT-XII conference is taking place at Kathmandu University every year since 2012. It is an annual event of Turbine Testing Lab, where researchers and students in the field of hydraulic turbines and hydropower technologies share their experiences and research outcomes in a common platform. The event used to take place among the Masters and PhD students of Kathmandu University and Norwegian University of Science and Technology. However, there has also been an active participation from researchers and students around the world who are engaged in the similar fields in recent times. The conference has now taken an international recognition, as the selected papers from this conference will be published in journal proceedings. This year in the conference, 37 papers were presented in the topics of hydraulic turbines and pumps, computational and experimental techniques, hydropower and other renewable energy technologies, as well as the problems of erosion and cavitations. This year, we also saw many papers in the field of fish migration, fish passing technologies in hydropower, tunnel engineering and EV technologies, which show the broad topics covered within the hydropower. After receiving comments from the presentations and a peer review process, 24 papers have been selected for publication in this proceeding. We hope that the papers will be beneficial for the researchers and students involved in the sector of hydropower. We would like to thank all the participants, organizing team and the technical committee for the valuable contributions to make this a successful event. Editors Sailesh Chitrakar, PhD (sailesh@ku.edu.np) Prajwal Sapkota (prajwal.sapkota@ku.edu.np)

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Single anonymous Conference submission management system: Morressier Number of submissions received: 131 Number of submissions sent for review: 113 Number of submissions accepted: 31 Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 23.6 % Average number of reviews per paper: 1.00 Total number of reviewers involved: 12 Contact person for queries: Name: Komil Astanakulov Affiliation: National Research University - Tashkent Institute of Irrigation and Agricultural Mechanization Engineers Email: komil.university@gmail.com

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 46 • Number of submissions sent for review: 46 • Number of submissions accepted: 40 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 87 • Average number of reviews per paper: 2 • Total number of reviewers involved: 34 • Contact person for queries: Name: Avetik Sahakyan Email: avsahakyan@gmail.com Affiliation: National Academy of Sciences of Armenia - Institute of Mechanics

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 24 • Number of submissions sent for review: 25 • Number of submissions accepted: 19 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 79.2 • Average number of reviews per paper: 1.0555555555555556 • Total number of reviewers involved: 11 • Contact person for queries: Name: Kasturi Mukherjee Email: kasturi.mukherjee@adamasuniversity.ac.in Affiliation: Sachis Kiron Roy Memorial Trust - Adamas University

What's the point of peer review?

What's the point of peer review?

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. Type of peer review: Double Anonymous Conference submission management system: Morressier Number of submissions received: 85 Number of submissions sent for review: 85 Number of submissions accepted: 23 Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 27 Average number of reviews per paper: 2 Total number of reviewers involved: 79 Contact person for queries: Name: Lam Quang Vinh Email: lqvinh@vnuhcm.edu.vn Affiliation: Department of Science and Technology, Viet Nam National University-Ho Chi Minh City

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. • Type of peer review: Single Anonymous • Conference submission management system: Morressier • Number of submissions received: 87 • Number of submissions sent for review: 65 • Number of submissions accepted: 43 • Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 49.4 • Average number of reviews per paper: 3 • Total number of reviewers involved: 10 • Contact person for queries: Name: Xuexia Email: xx.ye@keoaeic.org Affiliation: AEIC Academic Exchange Information Centre

AI-Assisted Academia: Navigating the Nuances of Peer Review With ChatGPT 4.

AI-Assisted Academia: Navigating the Nuances of Peer Review With ChatGPT 4.

Peer Review Statement

All papers published in this volume have been reviewed through processes administered by the Editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal published by IOP Publishing. 1. Type of peer review: Double anonymous 2. Conference submission management system: Morressier 3. Number of submissions received: 55 4. Number of submissions sent for review: 39 5. Number of submissions accepted: 28 6. Acceptance Rate (Submissions Accepted / Submissions Received × 100): 50.9 % 7. Average number of reviews per paper: 2.58 8. Total number of reviewers involved: 66 9. Contact person for queries: Name: Nguyen Nhat Huy Affiliation: Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology (HCMUT) Email: nnhuy@hcmut.edu.vn * means value has been edited

A developmental neurotoxicity adverse outcome pathway (DNT-AOP) with voltage gate sodium channel (VGSC) inhibition as a molecular initiating event (MiE).

The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework serves as a practical tool for organising scientific knowledge that can be used to infer cause-effect relationships between stressor events and toxicity outcomes in intact organisms. However, a major challenge in the broader application of the AOP concept within regulatory toxicology is the development of a robust AOPs that can withstand peer review and acceptance. This is mainly due to the considerable amount of work required to substantiate the modular units of a complete AOP, which can take years from inception to completion. The methodology used here consisted of an initial assessment of a single chemical hazard using the Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) framework. An evidence-based approach was then used to gather empirical evidence combining systematic literature review methods with expert knowledge to ensure the effectiveness of the AOP development methodology. The structured framework used assured transparency, objectivity and comprehensiveness, and included expert knowledge elicitation for the evaluation of key event relationships (KERs). This stepwise approach led to the development of an AOP that begins with binding of chemicals to Voltage Gate Sodium Channels (VGSC/Nav) during mammalian development leading to adverse consequences in neurodevelopment evidenced as deficits in cognitive functions. Disruption of the formation of precise neural circuits by alterations in VGSC kinetics during the perinatal stages of brain development may also underlie neurodevelopmental disorders. Gaps in our understanding include the specific critical developmental windows and the quantitative relationship of binding to VGSC and subsequent disruption and cognitive function. Despite the limited quantitative information at all KER levels, regulatory applications of this AOP for DNT assessment have been identified.

A non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial of atezolizumab or atezolizumab plus tiragolumab for programmed death-ligand 1-positive recurrent cervical cancer (SKYSCRAPER-04)

ObjectiveTo evaluate tiragolumab (anti-TIGIT) and atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) as second- or third-line therapy for PD-L1-positive persistent/recurrent cervical cancer.MethodsIn the open-label, non-comparative, randomized phase II SKYSCRAPER-04 trial (NCT04300647), patients with PD-L1-positive (SP263...