Several drugs are associated with weight change of varying magnitude. Data are provided to guide the choice of drug when several options exist and institute preemptive weight loss strategies when obesogenic drugs are prescribed.

The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has recently changed and become relatively confusing. Head-to-head comparisons between most of the available agents have not been performed and are less likely to be examined in a prospective fashion in the future. Therefore, a network meta-analysis (NMA) is helpful to compare different agents from across different trials.OBJECTIVE To evaluate comparative effectiveness of different systemic treatments in advanced patients with HCC across lines of therapy.DATA SOURCES We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through March 2020.STUDY SELECTION We included phase 3 trials evaluating different vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFis), checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs), or their combinations in advanced HCC, in the first-line or refractory setting. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISThe reporting of this systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Outcomes of interest included overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).FINDINGS Fourteen trials (8 in the first-line setting and 6 in the second-line setting) at low risk of bias were included. The 8 trials in the first-line setting encompassed a total of 6290 patients, with an age range of 18 to 89 years. The 5 trials included in the second-line analysis encompassed a total of 2653 patients, with an age range of 18 to 91 years. Network meta-analysis showed the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was superior in patients with HCC treated in the first-line setting compared with lenvatinib (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.44-0.89), sorafenib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.80), and nivolumab (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.98). In the refractory setting, NMA showed that all studied drugs had PFS benefit compared with placebo. However, this only translated into OS benefit with regorafenib (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.51-0.75) and cabozantinib (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63-0.92) compared with placebo. In the NMA of patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP) levels of 400 ng/mL or greater, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed PFS and OS benefit compared with placebo with no superiority of an active drug compared with any others.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This systematic review and NMA of 14 trials found that atezolizumab and bevacizumab in combination is now considered the standard of care in the first-line setting in patients with advanced HCC. Regorafenib and cabozantinib are preferred options in refractory patients, with ramucirumab as an additional option in those with levels of AFP of 400 ng/mL or higher. Future trials should focus on other potential combinations and best treatment strategy in patients with prior VEGFi/CPI exposure.

Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the common malignancies in the United States. RCC incidence and mortality have been changing due to many reasons. We provide a thorough investigation of incidence and mortality trends of RCC in the US using the surveillance, epidemiology and end results (SEER) database. Methods: The SEER 13 registries were accessed for RCC cases diagnosed between 1992 and 2015. Incidence and mortality were calculated by demographic and tumor characteristics. We calculated annual percent changes (APC) of these rates. Rates were expressed by 100,000 personyears. Results: A total of 104,584 RCC cases were reviewed with 47,561 deaths. The overall incidence was 11.281 per 100,000 person-years. Incidence increased by 2.421% per year (95% CI, 2.096-2.747, p<.001) but later became stable since 2008. However, the incidence of clear-cell subtype continued to increase (1.449%; 95% CI, 0.216-2.697, P=.024). RCC overall mortality rates have been declining since 2001. However, mortality associated with distant RCC only started to decrease in 2012 with APC of −18.270% (−28.775-6.215, P = .006)

Background: Patients with solid organ transplants (SOTs) have been excluded from programmed death protein-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitor clinical trials due to concern for allograft rejection. The use of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy remains controversial in transplant patients. Methods: A retrospective pilot evaluation was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of PD-1 inhibitors in patients with liver transplantation (LT). The primary endpoint was the rate of allograft rejection. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Translational objectives included evaluation of tumor PD-L1, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) and allograft PD-L1 expression. Results: Seven metastatic cancer patients with a history of LT who received PD-1 inhibitor therapy were included [hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), n=5; melanoma, n=2]. Rejection was observed in 2 of 7 patients. When rejection occurs it appears to be an early event with a median time to rejection of 24 days in our cohort. One patient achieved a complete response (CR), 3 patients had progressive disease (PD) and 3 patients discontinued therapy prior to restaging assessments. Two of five patients with available tissue had PD-L1 expression in the allograft and both developed rejection. One of five evaluable patients had abundant TILs. Two of five evaluable patients had PD-L1 tumor staining. The single patient with both abundant TILs and PD-L1 staining obtained a response. The median OS and PFS were 1.1 (0.3-21.1) and 1.8 (0.7-21.1) months, respectively. Conclusions: In this pilot evaluation both preliminary efficacy (1 of 4) and allograft rejection (2 of 7) were exhibited in evaluable patients. Larger, prospective trials are needed to elucidate optimal patient selection.

Background The focus on noncancer causes of death in patients with breast cancer (BC) remains superficial. The objective of the current study was to assess and quantify causes of death after BC diagnosis. Methods In total, 754,270 women with BC in the United States who were diagnosed during 2000 through 2015 and retrieved from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program were studied. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for causes of death were calculated. Results Of the included patients, 183,002 (24.3%) died during the follow‐up period. The greatest proportion of deaths (46.2%) occurred within 1 to 5 years after diagnosis. Most deaths occurred from BC itself or from other cancers, and the number of BC deaths decreased as more years passed after diagnosis. The most common noncancer causes of death within <10 years after diagnosis were heart diseases followed by cerebrovascular diseases. However, >10 years after diagnosis, the most common noncancer causes of death were heart diseases followed by Alzheimer disease. Patients had a statistically significant higher risk of death from chronic liver diseases within 5 to 10 years after diagnosis compared with the general population (SMR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.09‐1.38) and had statistically significant higher risks of death from Alzheimer disease (SMR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.14‐1.29) and from diseases of the heart (SMR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.02‐1.09) >10 years after diagnosis. Conclusions Although BC remains the most common cause of death after BC diagnosis, other non‐BC causes of death (mainly heart and cerebrovascular diseases) represent a significant number of deaths among patients with BC. These findings provide important insight into how BC survivors should be counselled regarding future health risks.

The JAK family and JAK/STAT pathway The Janus family of kinases (JAK) include JAK1, JAK2, JAK3 and TYK2, and are required for the physiologic signaling of cytokines and growth factors that intrinsically lack kinase activity Comprehensive review of JAK inhibitors in myeloproliferative neoplasmsMohamad Bassam Sonbol, Belal Firwana, Ahmad Zarzour, Mohammad Morad, Vishal Rana and Ramon V. Tiu Abstract: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are clonal hematopoietic stem-cell disorders, characterized phenotypically by the abnormal accumulation of mature-appearing myeloid cells. Polycythemia vera, essential thrombocythemia, primary myelofibrosis (also known as 'BCR-ABL1-negative' MPNs), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) are the primary types of MPNs. After the discovery of the BCR-ABL1 fusion protein in CML, several oncogenic tyrosine kinases have been identified in 'BCR-ABL1-negative' MPNs, most importantly, JAK2V617F mutation. The similarity in the clinical characteristics of the BCR-ABL1-negative MPN patients along with the prevalence of the Janus kinase mutation in this patient population provided a strong rationale for the development of a new class of pharmacologic inhibitors that target this pathway. The first of its class, ruxolitinib, has now been approved by the food and drug administration (FDA) for the management of patients with intermediate-to high-risk myelofibrosis. Ruxolitinib provides significant and sustained improvements in spleen related and constitutional symptoms secondary to the disease. Although noncurative, ruxolitinib represents a milestone in the treatment of myelofibrosis patients. Other types of JAK2 inhibitors are being tested in various clinical trials at this point and may provide better efficacy data and safety profile than its predecessor. In this article, we comprehensively reviewed and summarized the available preclinical and clinical trials pertaining to JAK inhibitors.

IMPORTANCE To date, an empirical evaluation of the quality of control arms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken. OBJECTIVE We sought to estimate the percentage of RCTs that used a control arm deemed suboptimal and led to FDA approval of anticancer drugs from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This quality improvement study included 143 anticancer drug approvals granted by the FDA from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. All approvals based on single-arm studies (48 approvals) were excluded. Approvals based on RCTs were further investigated and each trial was analyzed for design, time of patient accrual, control arm, and primary end point. Standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of trial enrollment. The percentage of approvals based on RCTs that used suboptimal control arms was then calculated. The quality of the control arm was deemed suboptimal if the choice of control agent was restricted to exclude a recommended agent, the control arm was specified but the recommended agent was unspecified, and if prior RCT data had demonstrated that the control agent was inferior to an available alternative. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Estimated percentage of RCTs that used suboptimal control arms that led to FDA approval of anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. RESULTS A total of 145 studies that led to 143 drug approvals between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2018, were included. Of these studies, 48 single-arm studies were excluded. The remaining 97 studies led to 95 drug approvals. Of these 95 approvals, 16 (17%) were based on RCTs with suboptimal control arms; 15 were international trials, and 1 was conducted in the United States. The type of approval was regular in 15 trials and accelerated in 1 trial. When categorized by the nature of suboptimal control, 4 (25%) trials omitted active treatment in control arm by limiting investigator's choice, 11 (63%) trials omitted active treatment in the control arm by using a control agent known to be inferior to other available agents or not allowing combinations, and 1 (13%) trial used a previously used treatment in the control arm with a known lack of benefit associated with reexposure. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although anticancer drug approvals are increasing, a proportion of these drugs are reaching the market without proven superiority to what is considered the standard of care at the time of patient enrollment in pivotal trials. The choice of control arm should be optimized to ensure that new anticancer agents being marketed are truly superior to what most clinicians would prescribe outside a clinical trial setting.

At least moderate-quality evidence supports compression over no compression, multicomponent systems over single component systems, and systems with an elastic component over those without. We did not find significant differences with respect to ulcer healing outcomes for other comparisons. Low-quality evidence supports the effect of compression on ulcer recurrence.