Browse

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) may be a risk factor for development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The association between risk of developing HCC and treatment with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) versus dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP4i) is currently unknown. This study aimed to compare the risk of new-onset HCC in patients treated with SGLT2i versus DPP4i. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with T2DM in Hong Kong receiving either SGLT2i or DPP4i between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2020. Patients with concurrent DPP4i and SGLT2i use were excluded. Propensity score matching (1:1 ratio) was performed by using the nearest neighbor search. Multivariable Cox regression was applied to identify significant predictors. Results: A total of 62,699 patients were included (SGLT2i, n=22,154; DPP4i, n=40,545). After matching (n=44,308), 166 patients (0.37%) developed HCC: 36 in the SGLT2i group and 130 in the DPP4i group over 240,269 person-years. Overall, SGLT2i use was associated with lower risks of HCC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.42; 95% CI, 0.28–0.79) compared with DPP4i after adjustments. The association between SGLT2i and HCC development remained significant in patients with cirrhosis or advanced fibrosis (HR, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.04–0.41), hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection (HR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.17–0.59), or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.22–0.80). The results were consistent in different risk models, propensity score approaches, and sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: SGLT2i use was associated with a lower risk of HCC compared with DPP4i use after adjustments, and in the context of cirrhosis, advanced fibrosis, HBV infection, and HCV infection.

Mastocytosis is a heterogeneous group of disorders comprising cutaneous mastocytosis, systemic mastocytosis, and mast cell sarcoma. It is associated with a variety of symptoms related to the release of mast cell mediators and mast cell tissue infiltration. Referral to specialized centers with expertise in the management of mastocytosis and multidisciplinary collaboration with subspecialists (eg, allergists for the management of anaphylaxis and drug hypersensitivities, anesthesiologists for invasive procedures or surgery, high-risk obstetrician for pregnancy) is recommended. The NCCN Guidelines for Systemic Mastocytosis provide evidence- and consensus-based recommendations for the diagnosis and comprehensive care of patients with systemic mastocytosis. The multidisciplinary panel of experts convenes at least once a year to review requested changes to the guidelines from both internal and external entities as well as to discuss data on existing and new therapies. These NCCN Guidelines Insights focus on some of the recent updates to the guidelines.

Background: Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) survivors experience significant psychological distress and low levels of positive psychological well-being, which can undermine patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as quality of life (QoL). Hence, we conducted a pilot randomized clinical trial to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a telephone-delivered positive psychology intervention (Positive Affect for the Transplantation of Hematopoietic stem cells intervention [PATH]) for improving well-being in HSCT survivors. Methods: HSCT survivors who were 100 days post-HSCT for hematologic malignancy at an academic institution were randomly assigned to either PATH or usual care. PATH, delivered by a behavioral health expert, entailed 9 weekly phone sessions on gratitude, personal strengths, and meaning. We defined feasibility a priori as >60% of eligible participants enrolling in the study and >75% of PATH participants completing ≥6 of 9 sessions. At baseline and 9 and 18 weeks, patients self-reported gratitude, positive affect, life satisfaction, optimism, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), QoL, physical function, and fatigue. We used repeated measures regression models and estimates of effect size (Cohen’s d) to explore the preliminary effects of PATH on outcomes. Results: We enrolled 68.6% (72/105) of eligible patients (mean age, 57 years; 50% female). Of those randomized to PATH, 91% completed all sessions and reported positive psychology exercises as easy to complete and subjectively useful. Compared with usual care, PATH participants reported greater improvements in gratitude (β = 1.38; d = 0.32), anxiety (β = −1.43; d = −0.40), and physical function (β = 2.15; d = 0.23) at 9 weeks and gratitude (β = 0.97; d = 0.22), positive affect (β = 2.02; d = 0.27), life satisfaction (β = 1.82; d = 0.24), optimism (β = 2.70; d = 0.49), anxiety (β = −1.62; d = −0.46), depression (β = −1.04; d = −0.33), PTSD (β = −2.50; d = −0.29), QoL (β = 7.70; d = 0.41), physical function (β = 5.21; d = 0.56), and fatigue (β = −2.54; d = −0.33) at 18 weeks. Conclusions: PATH is feasible, with promising signals for improving psychological well-being, QoL, physical function, and fatigue in HSCT survivors. Future multisite trials that investigate PATH’s efficacy are needed to establish its effects on PROs in this population.

A panel of experts in artificial intelligence (AI) and clinical informatics discussed the current applications and future potential of AI in oncology. The panelists shared insights into ongoing AI projects at their respective institutions, ranging from drug design and patient education to clinical decision support and administrative tasks. Key areas of focus included the use of AI for radiology and pathology, ambient listening during patient visits, and patient engagement through intelligent interfaces. The speakers also addressed the challenges of regulatory oversight, data quality, and the need for ethical and responsible AI design. The panel concluded that although AI has the potential to transform various aspects of oncology care, careful consideration must be given to patient preferences, clinical workflows, and validation of AI models in oncology-specific settings.

The trend of moving oncology care to the outpatient setting is driven by clinical and patient-centered aspects, financial benefits, and the lack of inpatient bed space. At the NCCN 2024 Annual Conference, a panel of experts discussed challenges and opportunities in providing high-quality outpatient oncology care, including resource allocation, leadership recognition, and involving all stakeholders in the decision-making process. Speakers also highlighted the difficulties in providing adequate outpatient cancer care, such as limited lodging options, adapting treatment for elderly patients, and managing infection risk. Strategies for improving patient satisfaction, reducing costs, and enhancing quality of care centered on proactive risk assessment, standardization of policies and procedures, and creative solutions such as curbside clinics.