Ultra-low-dose non-contrast CT and CT angiography can be used interchangeably for assessing maximal abdominal aortic diameter

BACKGROUND: Routine CT scans may increasingly be used to document normal aortic size and to detect incidental abdominal aortic aneurysms. PURPOSE: To determine whether ultra-low-dose non-contrast CT (ULDNC-CT) can be used instead of the gold standard CT angiography (CTA) for assessment of maximal abdominal aortic diameter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 50 patients who underwent CTA and a normal-dose non–contrast CT for suspected renal artery stenosis. ULDNC-CT datasets were generated from the normal-dose non–contrast CT datasets using a simulation technique. Using the centerline technique, radiology consultants (n = 4) and residents (n = 3) determined maximal abdominal aortic diameter. The limits of agreement with the mean (LOAM) was used to access observer agreement. LOAM represents how much a measurement by a single observer may plausibly deviate from the mean of all observers on the specific subject. RESULTS: Observers completed 1400 measurements encompassing repeated CTA and ULDNC-CT measurements. The mean diameter was 24.0 and 25.0 mm for CTA and ULDNC-CT, respectively, yielding a significant but minor mean difference of 1.0 mm. The 95% LOAM reproducibility was similar for CTA and ULDNC-CT (2.3 vs 2.3 mm). In addition, the 95% LOAM and mean diameters were similar for CTA and ULDNC-CT when observers were grouped as consultants and residents. CONCLUSIONS: Ultra-low-dose non–contrast CT exhibited similar accuracy and reproducibility of measurements compared with CTA for assessing maximal abdominal aortic diameter supporting that ULDNC-CT can be used interchangeably with CTA in the lower range of aortic sizes

The MedSeq Project: a randomized trial of integrating whole genome sequencing into clinical medicine

Background: Whole genome sequencing (WGS) is already being used in certain clinical and research settings, but its impact on patient well-being, health-care utilization, and clinical decision-making remains largely unstudied. It is also unknown how best to communicate sequencing results to physicians and patients to improve health. We describe the design of the MedSeq Project: the first randomized trials of WGS in clinical care. Methods/Design This pair of randomized controlled trials compares WGS to standard of care in two clinical contexts: (a) disease-specific genomic medicine in a cardiomyopathy clinic and (b) general genomic medicine in primary care. We are recruiting 8 to 12 cardiologists, 8 to 12 primary care physicians, and approximately 200 of their patients. Patient participants in both the cardiology and primary care trials are randomly assigned to receive a family history assessment with or without WGS. Our laboratory delivers a genome report to physician participants that balances the needs to enhance understandability of genomic information and to convey its complexity. We provide an educational curriculum for physician participants and offer them a hotline to genetics professionals for guidance in interpreting and managing their patients’ genome reports. Using varied data sources, including surveys, semi-structured interviews, and review of clinical data, we measure the attitudes, behaviors and outcomes of physician and patient participants at multiple time points before and after the disclosure of these results. Discussion The impact of emerging sequencing technologies on patient care is unclear. We have designed a process of interpreting WGS results and delivering them to physicians in a way that anticipates how we envision genomic medicine will evolve in the near future. That is, our WGS report provides clinically relevant information while communicating the complexity and uncertainty of WGS results to physicians and, through physicians, to their patients. This project will not only illuminate the impact of integrating genomic medicine into the clinical care of patients but also inform the design of future studies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT0173656

Nationwide Survival Benefit after Implementation of First-Line Immunotherapy for Patients with Advanced NSCLC—Real World Efficacy

SIMPLE SUMMARY: The expected change in overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after the clinical implementation of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy (ICI) has not been substantially investigated in large real-world cohorts outside randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this nationwide study, we compared OS before and after the implementation of ICI and found that 3-year OS tripled from 6% to 18%. Patients receiving ICI had a lower OS than demonstrated in RCTs, except for patients with performance status (PS) 0. More than a fifth of the patients progressed early within the first six ICI cycles. Adverse prognostic factors were PS ≥ 1 and metastases to the bone and liver. ABSTRACT: Background The selection of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) for immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment remains challenging. This real-world study aimed to compare the overall survival (OS) before and after the implementation of ICIs, to identify OS prognostic factors, and to assess treatment data in first-line (1L) ICI-treated patients without epidermal growth factor receptor mutation or anaplastic lymphoma kinase translocation. Methods Data from the Danish NSCLC population initiated with 1L palliative antineoplastic treatment from 1 January 2013 to 1 October 2018, were extracted from the Danish Lung Cancer Registry (DLCR). Long-term survival and median OS pre- and post-approval of 1L ICI were compared. From electronic health records, additional clinical and treatment data were obtained for ICI-treated patients from 1 March 2017 to 1 October 2018. Results The OS was significantly improved in the DLCR post-approval cohort (n = 2055) compared to the pre-approval cohort (n = 1658). The 3-year OS rates were 18% (95% CI 15.6–20.0) and 6% (95% CI 5.1–7.4), respectively. On multivariable Cox regression, bone (HR = 1.63) and liver metastases (HR = 1.47), performance status (PS) 1 (HR = 1.86), and PS ≥ 2 (HR = 2.19) were significantly associated with poor OS in ICI-treated patients. Conclusion OS significantly improved in patients with advanced NSCLC after ICI implementation in Denmark. In ICI-treated patients, PS ≥ 1, and bone and liver metastases were associated with a worse prognosis

Navigating the path of progress: The OMERACT 2023 emerging leaders program

Objectives: The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Emerging Leaders Program (ELP) aims to cultivate a cohort of skilled leaders within the OMERACT community empowering them with expertise and knowledge to help shape and steer the organization into the future. This publication highlights the significance of the ELP in driving leadership excellence, its impact on OMERACT's evolution, and the outcomes and learnings from the OMERACT 2023 ELP. Methods: Insights from the 2018 ELP report informed 2023 program improvements. Engagement was measured by attendance and WhatsApp interactions. Positive program aspects, areas for improvement and ideas for enhancing future ELPs were captured via anonymous survey and participant focus groups. Results: Engagement with the ELP was high with 9 participants, 96 % attendance at all workshops, 154 WhatsApp interactions. All program components were highly rated, with the highest being the ‘Psychological Safety’ and ‘Methodology/Process/Politics’ workshops. Future enhancements included creating further networking, connection and support activities, practical leadership and methodological skill development opportunities, and a new stream focussing on organisational advancement. Conclusions: The 2023 OMERACT ELP was well received and successfully addressed areas previously identified as requiring improvement. New educational enhancements were valued, and the importance of fostering psychological safety at all levels was highlighted. The ELP fortifies OMERACT by nurturing a diverse array of skilled leaders who embody OMERACTs core values. Continuing to refine and evolve the ELP over time will help OMERACT sustain its global influence in patient-centered outcome research