Risk Of Severe Adverse Events Research Articles

Safety and tolerability of radiotherapy in combination with systemic targeted therapies for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a narrative review.

Palliative radiotherapy (RT) and systemic immuno- or targeted therapy both play significant roles in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Concurrent application of these therapies is increasing, however, no guidelines exist regarding the combination of systemic therapy with RT. This narrative review summarises the existing literature reporting toxicity observed after concurrent treatment with RT and immuno- or targeted therapeutic agents commonly used in HCC. The PubMed database was searched for studies published between 2011 and 2023 reporting toxicity data on patients treated concurrently with RT and targeted agents used in HCC. Due to the paucity of relevant literature in HCC, the inclusion criteria were expanded to include non-HCC cohorts treated with targeted therapies commonly used in advanced HCC. Sixty-seven articles were included in this review. Twenty-two articles reported combined RT with sorafenib, one with regorafenib, 22 with bevacizumab, three with lenvatinib and 19 with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Significant findings include a high rate severe hepatotoxicity with combination RT and sorafenib, ranging from 0-19% with liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and 3-18% with conventionally fractionated liver RT. Severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities including perforation and ulceration were seen with combination bevacizumab and RT, ranging from 0-27% in the acute setting and 0-23% in the late setting. The safety profile of combination immune checkpoint blockade agents and RT was similar to that seen in monotherapy. Existing data suggests that combination RT and targeted therapy given the risk of severe adverse events including hepatotoxicity and GI toxicity. There is an urgent need for future studies specifically examining the impact of combination therapy in HCC patients to guide clinical decision-making in the evolving landscape of immune- and targeted therapies.

Dedicated Echoendoscope for Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasound: Comparison with a Conventional Echoendoscope.

Background/Objective: Interventional endoscopic ultrasound (I-EUS) is technically difficult and has risks of severe adverse events due to the scarcity of dedicated endoscopes and tools. A new EUS scope was developed for I-EUS and was modified to increase the puncture range, reduce the blind area, and overcome guidewire difficulties. We evaluated the usefulness and safety of a new EUS scope compared to a conventional EUS scope. Methods: All I-EUS procedures were performed at Juntendo University Hospital from April 2020 to April 2022. The primary outcomes included the procedure time and fluoroscopy time. The secondary outcomes included the technical success rate and the rates of procedure-related adverse events. Clinical data were retrospectively reviewed and statistically analyzed between the new and conventional EUS scopes. Results: In total, 143 procedures in 120 patients were analyzed. The procedure time was significantly shorter with the new EUS scope, but the fluoroscopy time was not different. Among the patients only undergoing EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), 79 procedures in 74 patients were analyzed. Both the procedure time and fluoroscopy time were significantly shorter with the new EUS scope. Multivariate analysis revealed that a new EUS scope and use of covered metal stents could reduce the fluoroscopy time. The technical success rate and the adverse event rate were not significantly different between the total I-EUS and the EUS-BD only groups. However, the conventional scope showed stent deviation during stent placement, which did not happen with the new scope. Conclusions: The new EUS scope reduced procedure time for total I-EUS and fluoroscopy time for EUS-BD compared to a conventional EUS scope because of the improvement suitable for I-EUS.

Healthcare professionals' experiences with the use of antipsychotics in dementia

BackgroundAntipsychotics are commonly administered to nursing home residents with dementia, despite the associated risk of severe adverse events. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore healthcare professionals' experiences in caring for nursing home residents with dementia, with a focus on rationales behind the use of antipsychotics. MethodTwelve semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals' from Danish nursing homes were conducted and analyzed using the method Systematic Text Condensation. ResultsNonpharmacological interventions were reported as the primary approach to care and the first-choice treatment for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD). Use of antipsychotics was considered to serve as a last resort, reserved for residents with severe symptoms. However, most informants preferred a more limited use. The study identified four main barriers to reduce the use of antipsychotics: “Scarcity of resources”, “Perceiving antipsychotic use to provide relieve”, “Reluctance towards deprescribing” and “Limited access to medical counseling”, and three potential enablers: “Updating knowledge and nonpharmacological competencies”, “Management support and clear procedures” and “Regularity in interdisciplinary collaboration”. ConclusionThe treatment and care were reported as primarily following guidelines in BPSD. Several barriers were perceived to challenge the healthcare professionals' preference of limited use of antipsychotics. To further reduce the use, this study highlights the importance of understanding the adverse effects caused by limited resources, enhancing employee knowledge and competencies and ensuring regular interprofessional collaboration for assessing and reassessing the need to use antipsychotics.

Efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant immunotherapy plus chemotherapy followed by adjuvant immunotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a meta-analysis of phase 3 clinical trials.

At present, several important trials have been published show that perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy can improve the prognosis of patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer, which further optimizes treatment options. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy in resectable non-small cell lung cancer. The following databases were searched for relevant studies: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library (updated 12 October 2023). All randomized trials comparing perioperative immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in resectable non-small cell lung cancer were eligible for inclusion. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane collaboration software). Primary outcomes and measures included overall survival (OS), event-free survival (EFS), pathological complete response (pCR), major pathological response (MPR), R0 resection rate, rate of underwent surgery and adverse events (AEs). A total of 2912 patients (1453 receiving perioperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy and 1459 receiving chemotherapy alone) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The result showed that compared with chemotherapy alone, combined therapy significantly improved OS (HR = 0.68;95% CI: 0.56-0.83), EFS (HR = 0.58;95% CI: 0.51-0.65), pCR (OR = 7.53;95% CI: 4.63-12.26), MPR (OR = 5.03;95% CI: 3.40-7.44), R0 resection (OR = 1.58;95% CI: 1.152.18) and rate of underwent surgery (OR = 1.25;95% CI: 1.04-1.49). However, combination therapy was associated with higher risk of severe adverse event (OR = 1.46;95% CI: 1.19-1.78; P=0.0002), grade 3 and higher treatment-related adverse event (TRAE) (OR = 1.25;95% CI: 1.06-1.49; P=0.010), TRAE that led to interruption (OR = 1.90;95% CI: 1.34-2.68; P=0.0003) and immune-related adverse event (OR = 2.78;95% CI: 2.18-3.55; P<0.00001). Significant benefits were observed across most subgroups of EFS and pCR. However, no statistical differences were observed for EFS of never smoked (HR= 0.73;95% CI: 0.51-1.05) and EGFR-mutation positive (HR = 0.35;95% CI: 0.04-3.03). This systematic review and meta-analysis found superior efficacy associated with perioperative immunotherapy plus chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone in both tumor regression and prolonged survival in resectable NSCLC, but increased the risk of TRAE, so monitoring for adverse events is warranted. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, identifier (CRD42023476786).

Patient Preferences in the Treatment of Moderate-to-severe Atopic Dermatitis.

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, inflammatory skin disease. A variety of systemic treatments are available for patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis. The efficacy, safety and administration profile of these treatments vary, and determining the optimal treatment strategy may require weighing the benefits and drawbacks of therapies with diverse characteristics. This study used an online discrete choice experiment survey to investigate treatment preferences among adults with atopic dermatitis from Denmark, France, the UK, or Canada. Participants were identified through existing online panels. The survey included questions regarding different treatment attributes, defined based on currently approved treatments for moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Treatment preferences were measured as the relative importance of different treatment attributes. A total of 713 respondents met the inclusion criteria and completed the survey. The discrete choice experiment identified a significant preference for avoiding the risk of severe adverse events, and for oral pill every day compared with biweekly injections. The time to full effect was not rated as being important. These findings suggest that patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis prioritize safety as most important, followed by ease of administration in their treatment preferences, while time to full effect and monitoring requirements were the least important attributes.

Comparison of daptomycin and glycopeptide efficacy and safety for the treatment of Gram-positive infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The indications of daptomycin have been extended to off-label indications including prosthesis-related infection, and bone and joint infection (BJI). However, efficacy and safety have not been thoroughly demonstrated compared with the standard of care. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the treatment effect of daptomycin and glycopeptides for complicated infections. MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing daptomycin and standard of care for Gram-positive infections, published until 30 June 2021. The primary outcome was defined as all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were clinical and microbiological success. The main safety outcome was any severe adverse event (SAE) (grade ≥3). Overall, eight RCTs were included in the meta-analysis, totalling 1095 patients. Six (75%) were in complicated skin and soft-structure infections, one (12.5%) in bacteraemia and one (12.5%) in a BJI setting. Six RCTs used vancomycin as a comparator and two used either vancomycin or teicoplanin. All-cause mortality and clinical cure were not different between groups. The microbiological cure rate was superior in patients who received daptomycin [risk ratio (RR) = 1.17 (95% CI: 1.01-1.35)]. The risk of SAEs [RR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.36-0.90)] was lower in the daptomycin arm. While daptomycin is associated with a significantly lower risk of SAEs and a better microbiological eradication, substantial uncertainty remains about the best treatment strategy in the absence of good-quality evidence, especially in bacteraemia and endocarditis where further RCTs should be conducted.

Assessment of Variables Related to the Risk of Severe Adverse Events in Cutaneous Melanoma Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

Malignant melanoma is a prevalent and aggressive cancer, with globally increasing incidences. While immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have prolonged the survival of patients with advanced melanoma over the last decade, this improvement comes with the risk of severe immune-related adverse events (irAEs). This systematic review investigates patient baseline characteristics (BCs) as predictive factors for developing severe gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pulmonary irAEs in patients treated with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) and/or nivolumab/pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1). A systematic literature search was conducted in the Ovid databases MEDLINE and EMBASE on 22 April 2022, following the PRISMA guidelines. Out of 1694 articles, 13 were included in the final analysis. We analyzed BCs and the occurrence of severe colitis, hepatitis, and pneumonitis in 22 treatment arms and 3 treatment groups: anti-CTLA-4 (n = 2904), anti-PD-1 (n = 1301), or combination therapy (n = 822). However, missing data preclude a direct comparison of individual BCs and the association to specific irAEs between studies. Descriptive analysis did not identify any significant association between median age, gender distribution, or performance status and severe colitis, hepatitis, or pneumonitis for any of the three treatment groups. We call for greater transparency and standardization in the reporting of patient-specific irAEs.

Morbidity of Transrectal MRI-Fusion Targeted Prostate Biopsy at a Tertiary Referral Academic Centre: An Audit to Guide the Transition to the Transperineal Approach.

Despite transrectal prostate biopsy (TRPB) being still widespread globally, the EAU Guidelines strongly recommend the transperineal approach, due to the reported lower infectious risk. Our study aims to evaluate the impact of a standardized clinical pathway for TRPB on post-operative complications. We prospectively collected data from all patients undergoing mpMRI-targeted TRPB at our Academic Centre from January 2020 to December 2022. All patients followed a standardized, structured multistep pathway. Post-procedural complications were collected and classified according to the Clavien-Dindo (CD) Classification. Among 458 patients, post-procedural adverse events were reported by 203 (44.3%), of which 161 (35.2%) experienced CD grade 1 complications (hematuria [124, 27.1%], hematochezia [22, 4.8%], hematospermia [14, 3.1%], or a combination [20, 4.4%]), and 45 (9.0%) reported CD grade 2 complications (acute urinary retention or hematuria needing catheterization, as well as urinary tract infections, of which 2 cases required hospitalization). No major complications, including sepsis, were observed. At uni- and multivariable analysis, age > 70 years and BMI > 25 kg/ m2 for patients were identified as predictors of post-operative complications. The results of our study confirm that TRPB is a safe and cost-effective procedure with a low risk of severe adverse events in experienced hands and following a standardized pathway.

Patients With Down Syndrome and Total Hip and Total Knee Arthroplasty: Outcome Measures Show Increased Risk of Perioperative Complications.

Patients with Down syndrome (DS) are being considered for total joint arthroplasty. There is limited literature regarding outcomes of patients with DS after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Data were abstracted from the 2010 to 2021 Q1 PearlDiver M151 database. THA and TKA osteoarthritis adult patients with and without DS were identified. Patients were matched 1:10. Ninety-day postoperative events and 2-year revision rates were compared. For THA, 154 patients with DS were matched with 1,532 patients without DS. For TKA, 150 patients with DS were matched with 1,495 patients without DS. On multivariable logistic regression, THA and TKA patients with DS were at markedly greater odds of postoperative events including any adverse event, sepsis, minor adverse event, urinary tract infection (UTI), acute kidney injury (AKI), and pneumonia. For both THA and TKA, 2-year revision rates were not increased for those with DS. This study represents the largest cohorts for matched patients with DS undergoing THA or TKA through 90 days postoperatively. For both procedures, DS patients were found to have greater risk of several adverse events, but not 2-year revisions. These findings may help guide perioperative risk assessment, patient/family counseling, and care pathways.

Exposure-safety relationship for patients with primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis treated with emapalumab.

Primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (pHLH) is an immune-mediated, hyperinflammatory disorder. Interferon-γ (IFNγ) plays a key role in the pathophysiology of pHLH. Emapalumab, a fully human, anti-IFNγ monoclonal antibody neutralizes both free and receptor-bound IFNγ. However, inhibiting IFNγ-mediated signaling could result in immune dysfunction and immunosuppression. This exploratory exposure-safety analysis investigated the relationship between emapalumab and the incidence of adverse events in patients with pHLH. Increased exposure to emapalumab was not associated with an increased predicted risk of severe adverse events, infection, or infusion-related reactions. Emapalumab was associated with a favorable and manageable safety profile across all assessed doses and treatment durations.

Intraventricular Lavage vs External Ventricular Drainage for Intraventricular Hemorrhage

Intraventricular lavage has been proposed as a minimally invasive method to evacuate intraventricular hemorrhage. There is little evidence to support its use. To evaluate the safety and potential efficacy of intraventricular lavage treatment of intraventricular hemorrhage. This single-blinded, controlled, investigator-initiated 1:1 randomized clinical trial was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital and Odense University Hospital in Denmark from January 13, 2022, to November 24, 2022. Follow-up duration was 90 days. The trial was set to include 58 patients with intraventricular hemorrhage. Prespecified interim analysis was performed for the first 20 participants. Data were analyzed from February to April 2023. Participants were randomized to receive either intraventricular lavage or standard drainage. The main outcome was risk of catheter occlusions. Additional safety outcomes were catheter-related infections and procedure time, length of stay at the intensive care unit, duration of treatment, and 30-day mortality. The main outcome of the prespecified interim analysis was risk of severe adverse events. Efficacy outcomes were hematoma clearance, functional outcome, overall survival, and shunt dependency. A total of 21 participants (median [IQR] age, 67 [59-82] years; 14 [66%] male) were enrolled, with 11 participants randomized to intraventricular lavage and 10 participants randomized to standard drainage; 20 participants (95%) had secondary intraventricular hemorrhage. The median (IQR) Graeb score was 9 (5-11), and the median (IQR) Glasgow Coma Scale score was 6.5 (4-8). The study was terminated early due to a significantly increased risk of severe adverse events associated with intraventricular lavage at interim analysis (risk difference for control vs intervention, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .04; incidence rate ratio for control vs intervention, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.38-26.1; P = .01). The rate of catheter occlusion was higher for intraventricular lavage compared with drainage (6 of 16 patients [38%] vs 2 of 13 patients [7%]; hazard ratio, 4.4 [95% CI, 0.6-31.2]; P = .14), which met the prespecified α = .20 level. Median (IQR) procedure time for catheter placement was 53.5 (33-75) minutes for intraventricular lavage vs 12 (4-20) minutes for control (P < .001). This randomized clinical trial of intraventricular lavage vs standard drainage found that intraventricular lavage was encumbered with a significantly increased number of severe adverse events. Caution is recommended when using the device to ensure patient safety. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05204849.

Preclinical evaluation of alternatives to oral immunotherapy for food allergies.

The increasing food allergy incidence has led to significant interest in developing therapies for allergic diseases. Oral allergen-specific immunotherapy (OIT) is a recently FDA-approved therapeutic to treat peanut allergies. OIT utilizes daily allergen dosing to reduce allergic reactions to peanuts. However, there is diminished enthusiasm for daily OIT, potentially due to the strict regimen required to induce desensitization and the risks of severe adverse events. Thus, there remains a need for safe and effective food allergy treatments that are well-received by allergic individuals. Preclinical research studies investigate methods to induce allergen desensitization in animals and support clinical studies that address the limitations of current food allergy OIT. Because allergic reactions are triggered by allergen doses above an individual's activation threshold, immunotherapy regimens that induce allergen desensitization with lower allergen doses or without the requirement of daily administrations may expand the use of food allergy immunotherapy. Administering allergen immunotherapy by alternative routes is a strategy to induce desensitization using lower allergen doses than OIT. Several animal models have evaluated oral, sublingual, epicutaneous, and intranasal immunotherapy routes to treat food allergies. Each immunotherapy route may require different allergen doses, formulations, and treatment schedules to induce desensitization. This article will discuss scientific findings from food allergy immunotherapy animal studies that utilize various immunotherapy routes to induce allergen desensitization to support future clinical studies that enhance the safety and efficacy of allergen immunotherapy to treat food allergies.

Comparative Risks of Potential Adverse Events Following COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Among Older US Adults

Head-to-head safety comparisons of the mRNA vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are needed for decision making; however, current evidence generalizes poorly to older adults, lacks sufficient adjustment, and inadequately captures events shortly after vaccination. Additionally, no studies to date have explored potential variation in comparative vaccine safety across subgroups with frailty or an increased risk of adverse events, information that would be useful for tailoring clinical decisions. To compare the risk of adverse events between mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 (mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2) overall, by frailty level, and by prior history of the adverse events of interest. This retrospective cohort study was conducted between December 11, 2020, and July 11, 2021, with 28 days of follow-up following the week of vaccination. A novel linked database of community pharmacy and Medicare claims data was used, representing more than 50% of the US Medicare population. Community-dwelling, fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 66 years or older who received mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 as their first COVID-19 vaccine were identified. Data analysis began on October 18, 2022. Dose 1 of mRNA-1273 vs BNT162b2 vaccine. Twelve potential adverse events (eg, pulmonary embolism, thrombocytopenia purpura, and myocarditis) were assessed individually. Frailty was measured using a claims-based frailty index, with beneficiaries being categorized as nonfrail, prefrail, and frail. The risk of diagnosed COVID-19 was assessed as a secondary outcome. Generalized linear models estimated covariate-adjusted risk ratios (RRs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% CIs. This study included 6 388 196 eligible individuals who received the mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2 vaccine. Their mean (SD) age was 76.3 (7.5) years, 59.4% were women, and 86.5% were White. A total of 38.1% of individuals were categorized as prefrail and 6.0% as frail. The risk of all outcomes was low in both vaccine groups. In adjusted models, the mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with a lower risk of pulmonary embolism (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-1.00]; RD, 9 [95% CI, 1-16] events per 100 000 persons) and other adverse events in subgroup analyses (eg, 11.0% lower risk of thrombocytopenia purpura among individuals categorized as nonfrail). The mRNA-1273 vaccine was also associated with a lower risk of diagnosed COVID-19 (RR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.83-0.87]), a benefit that was attenuated by frailty level (frail: RR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99]). In this cohort study of older US adults, the mRNA-1273 vaccine was associated with a slightly lower risk of several adverse events compared with BNT162b2, possibly due to greater protection against COVID-19. Future research should seek to formally disentangle differences in vaccine safety and effectiveness and consider the role of frailty in assessments of COVID-19 vaccine performance.

Safe Blood Donation from Donors Using Antihypertensive Medication. A Multi-Center Retrospective Quality Study from South-East Norway.

In Norway, blood donors using antihypertensive medication were deferred until 2015. Following revision of the national directive, these donors could be allowed, providing stable dose for at least 3 months, adequate blood pressure control and no adverse effects caused by the therapy. The new practice was evaluated by a quality study where the major aim was to establish whether donations from blood donors on antihypertensive medication pose a risk to the donor. The risk was assessed by counting the number and categorizing the adverse events related to blood donation. In addition, the quantitative effect of including these donors was calculated. In this retrospective quality study, blood donors on antihypertensive therapy were recruited from four different blood centers to fill out a questionnaire. A total of 265 donors answered questions regarding their health status, type of medication used, and adverse events connected to blood donation both before and after starting the therapy. No severe adverse events were observed in donors on antihypertensive medications. The amount of mild adverse events, as exhibited by only 7 persons (0.46%) in this donor population, was the same as for donors without hypertensive treatment. Blood donation from persons on antihypertensive therapy poses no extra risk of severe adverse events, given the use of screening criteria to identify and bleed only low-risk donors.

Adverse Events of Cannabidiol Use in Patients With Epilepsy

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurologic disorders globally. Cannabidiol (CBD) has been approved for the treatment of epilepsy, but its use has been associated with several different adverse events (AEs). To investigate the frequency and risk of AEs developing in patients with epilepsy who are using CBD. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched for relevant studies published from database inception up to August 4, 2022. The search strategy included a combination of the following keywords: (cannabidiol OR epidiolex) AND (epilepsy OR seizures). The review included all randomized clinical trials that investigated at least 1 AE from the use of CBD in patients with epilepsy. Basic information about each study was extracted. I2 statistics were calculated using Q statistics to assess the statistical heterogeneity among the included studies. A random-effects model was used in cases of substantial heterogeneity, and a fixed-effects model was used if the I2 statistic for the AEs was lower than 40%. This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. Frequency of each AE and risk of developing each AE in patients with epilepsy using CBD. Nine studies were included. Overall incidences of 9.7% in the CBD group and 4.0% in the control group were found for any grade AEs. The overall risk ratios (RRs) for any grade and severe grade AEs were 1.12 (95% CI, 1.02-1.23) and 3.39 (95% CI, 1.42-8.09), respectively, for the CBD group compared with the control group. Compared with the control group, the CBD group had a greater risk for incidence of serious AEs (RR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.83-3.88), AEs resulting in discontinuation (RR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.86-8.37), and AEs resulting in dose reduction (RR, 9.87; 95% CI, 5.34-14.40). Because most of the included studies had some risk of bias (3 raised some concerns and 3 were at high risk of bias), these findings should be interpreted with some caution. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials, the use of CBD to treat patients with epilepsy was associated with an increased risk of several AEs. Additional studies are needed to determine the safe and effective CBD dosage for treating epilepsy.

Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer in general population and high-risk population: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Many nutritional supplements and pharmacological agents have been reported to show preventive effects on colorectal adenoma and colorectal cancer (CRC). We performed a network meta-analysis to summarize such evidence and assess the efficacy and safety of these agents. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English until October 31, 2021 that fit our inclusion criteria. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of candidate agents (low-dose aspirin [Asp], high-dose Asp, cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors [coxibs], calcium, vitamin D, folic acid, ursodeoxycholic acid [UDCA], estrogen, and progesterone, alone or in combination) for preventing colorectal adenoma and CRC. Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was employed to evaluate the quality of each included study. Thirty-two randomized controlled trials (278,694 participants) comparing 13 different interventions were included. Coxibs significantly reduced the risk of colorectal adenoma (risk ratio [RR]: 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.44-0.79, six trials involving 5486 participants), advanced adenoma (RR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.43-0.92, four trials involving 4723 participants), and metachronous adenoma (RR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.43-0.79, five trials involving 5258 participants) compared with placebo. Coxibs also significantly increased the risk of severe adverse events (RR: 1.29, 95% CI: 1.13-1.47, six trials involving 7109 participants). Other interventions, including Asp, folic acid, UDCA, vitamin D, and calcium, did not reduce the risk of colorectal adenoma in the general and high-risk populations compared with placebo. Considering the balance between benefits and harms, regular use of coxibs for prevention of colorectal adenoma was not supported by the current evidence. Benefit of low-dose Asp for chemoprevention of colorectal adenoma still requires further evidence. PROSPERO, No. CRD42022296376.

Cancer researchers' perceptions of the importance of the sex of cell lines, animals, and human samples for cancer biology research.

Sex differences in cancer risk and outcome are currently a topic of major interest in clinical oncology. It is however unknown to what extent cancer researchers consider sex as a biological variable for their research. We conducted an international survey among 1243 academic cancer researchers and collected both quantitative and qualitative data. Although most of the participants indicated that they were familiar with the concept of studying sex differences in cancer biology, they did not think it was important to investigate sex differences in every context of cancer research nor in all tumor types. This is in stark contrast to the current recommendations and guidelines and illustrates the need for increased awareness among cancer researchers regarding the potential impact of the sex of cell lines, animals, and human samples in their studies.

Abstract P1-03-05: Overview of the management and factors associated with outcomes of metastatic breast cancer among elderly patients

Abstract Background: Management of metastatic breast cancer (mBC) in elderly patients (pts) faces some challenges since some pts are frail or have functionality impairment, with higher risk of severe adverse events from oncologic therapy. We aimed to assess the treatment patterns for elderly pts with MBC and evaluate factors associated with outcomes in this population. Methods: This retrospective study evaluated pts 70 years and older with mBC treated in a tertiary cancer center from 2009 to 2022. Charlson index (ChI) was used to measure comorbidities. Endpoints were proportion and type of first-line systemic therapy, rates of treatment discontinuation due to toxicities, overall survival (OS) and prognostic factors. The Kaplan-Meier method was used for survival analyses. Hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using Cox regression. Results: 460 pts with mBC were evaluated. Median age was 78 years (IQR 70-96). Most pts (n=331; 72%) had hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative (HR+HER2-) BC, while 11% (n=50) had HER2-positive (HER2+) BC and 14% (n=64) triple-negative (TN) BC. Most pts has de novo metastatic disease (n=316; 69%); ECOG-PS 3-4 (n=313, 68%), and ChI ≤ 7 (n=354; 77%). Forty-five pts (10%) did not receive systemic therapy for metastatic BC; this proportion was higher among TNBC (34%) than other subtypes (HR+HER2-: 5%; HER2+: 6%) (P&amp;lt; 0.001). The proportion not receiving systemic therapy was also higher among pts with ECOG-PS 3-4 (13%, P&amp;lt; 0.001), older than 90 years (19%; P=0.069), and with ChI &amp;gt; 7 (15%; P=0.088). Among 165 pts who received first-line endocrine therapy, 2% discontinued due to toxicity. Ninety pts received first-line chemotherapy and 18% discontinued due to toxicity. Breast cancer was the main cause of death (94%) in the cohort. Factors associated with increased risk of death were HER2+BC (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.04 – 2.09; P=0.027), TNBC (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.05 – 2.20; P=0.025), age group 80-90 years (HR 1.30, 95% CI 1.02-1.64; P=0.028), ECOG-PS 3-4 (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.73-3.15, P&amp;lt; 0.001), and not receiving systemic therapy (HR 4.48, 95% CI 2.88-6.98, P&amp;lt; 0.001). Median OS was 29 months for pts treated with systemic therapy, and 2.3 months for those who did not receive it (P&amp;lt; 0.001). Conclusions: Many factors influence the prognosis and the treatment decision for elderly pts with mBC. The rates of pts who do not receive systemic therapy are higher among TNBC, which points to the need for better tolerated therapies for this group. Citation Format: Sofia Vidaurre Mendes, Bruna Zanin Orsi, Jessica Monteiro Vasconcellos, Augusto Araujo Neto, Erika Andrade Rocha, Ana Paula Messias, Otavio Noschang Moreira, Pedro José Galvão Freire, Leticia Vecchi Leis, Mauricio Baptista Pereira, Vanessa Petry, Renata Colombo Bonadio, Laura Testa. Overview of the management and factors associated with outcomes of metastatic breast cancer among elderly patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-03-05.

COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines: A Cameo Role for Headache

Headache is a very frequent symptom in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. Many studies have emphasized its clinical diagnostic and prognostic importance on the one hand, as in many cases these aspects have been completely ignored. It is therefore opportune to go back over these lines of research in order to gather what usefulness the headache symptom may or may not represent for the clinician dealing with COVID-19 or performing or following up on the clinical course following vaccination for SARS-CoV-2. The clinical evaluation of headache in COVID-19 is not fundamental in the diagnostic and prognostic process of the emergency departments; however, the risk of severe adverse events, although very rare, must be taken into account by the clinicians. For subjects presenting with severe, drug-resistant, and delayed-onset post-vaccination headache, it could represent a possible sign of central venous thrombosis or other thrombotic complications. Thus, a re-reading of the role of headache in COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination seems clinically useful.

Understanding drivers of treatment preferences in locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma: A qualitative interview study with patients, caregivers, and physicians.

492 Background: The development and selection of treatments for locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (la/mUC) have historically focused on clinical outcomes while stakeholder preferences are often considered less frequently. To facilitate the consideration of various perspectives, this study explored factors that may influence preferences of patients, caregivers, and physicians around aspects of la/mUC treatments. Methods: Interview guides elicited perspectives on disease impact (symptoms, health-related quality of life [HRQOL], survival), therapy goals and unmet needs and were conducted with patients with la/mUC, their caregivers, and medical oncologists in the US. Qualitative semi-structured data were collected on symptoms, treatment expectations, and hypothetical treatments that required trade-offs between overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), cancer pain, and the risk of severe adverse events (SAEs). Participant’s willingness to accept AEs was also explored. Results: Thirty participants, including: 10 patients (mean age 58 years; 60% female, ineligible for cisplatin: 50%), 10 caregivers (mean age 50 years; 70% female), and 10 physicians (mean 17 years treating la/mUC; 30% female) were interviewed. The most frequently reported symptom at diagnosis was pain (patients 90%, caregivers 90%) and blood in urine (physicians 100%). All three groups reported emotional impacts with depression/sadness the most common. Patients (n=7) and caregivers (n=7) relied on physicians for decision-making but felt that alternative treatments were not discussed (patients: n=5; caregivers: n=3). All groups were willing to accept some level of risk of experiencing an AE, but the accepted risk of SAEs varied (patients: 0-50% risk of SAEs; caregivers: 5-100%; physicians: 3-30%). Physicians focused treatment discussions on AEs (n=8), and overall response rate (ORR; n=6), and rarely discussed survival (n=3). All three groups described PFS and treatment response as very or most relevant to them. In the hypothetical choice tasks, all would make trade-offs between OS, PFS, pain reduction and risk of SAEs; consistent with an approach that weighs benefits and risks in treatment selection. Conclusions: Patients likely may benefit from shared, informed decision-making to identify the most appropriate treatment option for them based on clinical outcomes, AEs, HRQOL, and pain control. All groups were willing to make benefit-risk trade-offs but preferences were heterogeneous. While this study included a relatively small number of patients, planned research informed by these results will expand and further identify which treatment attributes are most important to patients.