Changes in circulating tumor DNA reflect clinical benefit across multiple studies of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

PURPOSE: As immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) become increasingly used in frontline settings, identifying early indicators of response is needed. Recent studies suggest a role for circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in monitoring response to ICI, but uncertainty exists in the generalizability of these studies. Here, the role of ctDNA for monitoring response to ICI is assessed through a standardized approach by assessing clinical trial data from five independent studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patient-level clinical and ctDNA data were pooled and harmonized from 200 patients across five independent clinical trials investigating the treatment of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer with programmed cell death-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1)-directed monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy. CtDNA levels were measured using different ctDNA assays across the studies. Maximum variant allele frequencies were calculated using all somatic tumor-derived variants in each unique patient sample to correlate ctDNA changes with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: We observed strong associations between reductions in ctDNA levels from on-treatment liquid biopsies with improved OS (OS; hazard ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.62 to 3.20; CONCLUSION: In this pooled analysis of five independent clinical trials, consistent and robust associations between reductions in ctDNA and outcomes were found across multiple end points assessed in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer treated with an ICI. Additional tumor types, stages, and drug classes should be included in future analyses to further validate this. CtDNA may serve as an important tool in clinical development and an early indicator of treatment benefit

Estrategias docentes para integrar inteligencias múltiples y estilos de aprendizaje

This study highlights the relationship between Howard Gardner's theory of multiple intelligences and individual learning styles, underscoring the importance of adaptive pedagogical strategies for effective and inclusive education. By analyzing the perceptions of 50 teachers from various educational levels, general knowledge about Gardner's theory was evidenced, but also notable deficiencies in its practical application in the classroom. Teachers expressed a marked interest in trainings that would enable them to incorporate these theories into their pedagogical practices more effectively. In addition, a positive attitude towards the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to personalize learning was observed, and the adaptation of assessments to reflect the diversity of learning styles was valued for its positive impact on student achievement. This analysis underlines the need for continuous teacher training and the implementation of educational policies that foster a student-centered pedagogical approach adapted to individual learning needs.Este estudio destaca la relación entre la teoría de inteligencias múltiples de Howard Gardner y los estilos de aprendizaje individuales, subrayando la importancia de estrategias pedagógicas adaptativas para una educación efectiva e inclusiva. Al analizar las percepciones de 50 docentes de varios niveles educativos, se evidenció conocimiento general sobre la teoría de Gardner, pero también notables deficiencias en su aplicación práctica en el aula. Los docentes expresaron un marcado interés en capacitaciones que les permitan incorporar estas teorías en sus prácticas pedagógicas de manera más efectiva. Además, se observó una actitud positiva hacia la utilización de tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC) para personalizar el aprendizaje, y la adaptación de evaluaciones para reflejar la diversidad de estilos de aprendizaje fue valorada por su impacto positivo en el rendimiento estudiantil. Este análisis subraya la necesidad de formación docente continua y la implementación de políticas educativas que fomenten un enfoque pedagógico centrado en el estudiante y adaptado a sus necesidades individuales de aprendizaje

Treatment with tocilizumab or corticosteroids for COVID-19 patients with hyperinflammatory state: a multicentre cohort study (SAM-COVID-19)

Objectives: The objective of this study was to estimate the association between tocilizumab or corticosteroids and the risk of intubation or death in patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) with a hyperinflammatory state according to clinical and laboratory parameters. Methods: A cohort study was performed in 60 Spanish hospitals including 778 patients with COVID-19 and clinical and laboratory data indicative of a hyperinflammatory state. Treatment was mainly with tocilizumab, an intermediate-high dose of corticosteroids (IHDC), a pulse dose of corticosteroids (PDC), combination therapy, or no treatment. Primary outcome was intubation or death; follow-up was 21 days. Propensity score-adjusted estimations using Cox regression (logistic regression if needed) were calculated. Propensity scores were used as confounders, matching variables and for the inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTWs). Results: In all, 88, 117, 78 and 151 patients treated with tocilizumab, IHDC, PDC, and combination therapy, respectively, were compared with 344 untreated patients. The primary endpoint occurred in 10 (11.4%), 27 (23.1%), 12 (15.4%), 40 (25.6%) and 69 (21.1%), respectively. The IPTW-based hazard ratios (odds ratio for combination therapy) for the primary endpoint were 0.32 (95%CI 0.22-0.47; p < 0.001) for tocilizumab, 0.82 (0.71-1.30; p 0.82) for IHDC, 0.61 (0.43-0.86; p 0.006) for PDC, and 1.17 (0.86-1.58; p 0.30) for combination therapy. Other applications of the propensity score provided similar results, but were not significant for PDC. Tocilizumab was also associated with lower hazard of death alone in IPTW analysis (0.07; 0.02-0.17; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Tocilizumab might be useful in COVID-19 patients with a hyperinflammatory state and should be prioritized for randomized trials in this situatio

Modernizing clinical trial eligibility criteria: Recommendations of the ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Prior Therapies Work Group

PURPOSE: Restrictive eligibility criteria induce differences between clinical trial and real-world treatment populations. Restrictions based on prior therapies are common; minimizing them when appropriate may increase patient participation in clinical trials. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: A multi-stakeholder working group developed a conceptual framework to guide evaluation of prevailing practices with respect to using prior treatment as selection criteria for clinical trials. The working group made recommendations to minimize restrictions based on prior therapies within the boundaries of scientific validity, patient centeredness, distributive justice, and beneficence. RECOMMENDATIONS: (i) Patients are eligible for clinical trials regardless of the number or type of prior therapies and without requiring a specific therapy prior to enrollment unless a scientific or clinically based rationale is provided as justification. (ii) Prior therapy (either limits on number and type of prior therapies or requirements for specific therapies before enrollment) could be used to determine eligibility in the following cases: a) the agents being studied target a specific mechanism or pathway that could potentially interact with a prior therapy; b) the study design requires that all patients begin protocol-specified treatment at the same point in the disease trajectory; and c) in randomized clinical studies, if the therapy in the control arm is not appropriate for the patient due to previous therapies received. (iii) Trial designers should consider conducting evaluation separately from the primary endpoint analysis for participants who have received prior therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial sponsors and regulators should thoughtfully reexamine the use of prior therapy exposure as selection criteria to maximize clinical trial participation

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Erratum: The Cancer Genome Atlas Comprehensive Molecular Characterization of Renal Cell Carcinoma (Cell Reports (2018) 23(1) (313–326.e5) (S2211124718304364) (10.1016/j.celrep.2018.03.075))

(Cell Reports 23, 313–326; April 3, 2018) In the originally published version of this article, the author list contained two errors. Specifically, David J. Kwiatkowski was misspelled as David J. Kwaitkowski, and William Y. Kim was inadvertently written as William T. Kim. Both names have been corrected online. The authors regret this error