Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of drugs used to constrict patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in newborns < 28 weeks.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of the multi-center PDA-TOLERATE trial (NCT01958320). Infants with moderate-to-large PDAs were randomized 1:1 at 8.1 ± 2.1 days to either Drug treatment (n = 104) or Conservative management (n = 98). Drug treatments were assigned by center rather than within center (acetaminophen: 5 centers, 27 infants; ibuprofen: 7 centers, 38 infants; indomethacin: 7 centers, 39 infants).

Results

Indomethacin produced the greatest constriction (compared with spontaneous constriction during Conservative management): RR (95% CI) = 3.21 (2.05-5.01)), followed by ibuprofen = 2.03 (1.05-3.91), and acetaminophen = 1.33 (0.55-3.24). The initial rate of acetaminophen-induced constriction was 27%. Infants with persistent moderate-to-large PDA after acetaminophen were treated with indomethacin. The final rate of constriction after acetaminophen ± indomethacin was 60% (similar to the rate in infants receiving indomethacin-alone (62%)).

Conclusion

Indomethacin was more effective than acetaminophen in producing ductus constriction.

The PDA: TO LEave it alone or Respond And Treat Early trial compared the effects of 2 strategies for treatment of patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) in infants <28^0/7 weeks of gestation; however 137 potentially eligible infants were not recruited and received treatment of their PDA outside the PDA-TOLERATE trial due to "lack-of-physician-equipoise" (LPE). Despite being less mature and needing more respiratory support, infants with LPE had lower rates of mortality than enrolled infants. Infants with LPE treated before day 6 had lower rates of late respiratory morbidity than infants with LPE treated ≥day 6. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01958320.

Five years ago, the Melanoma Research Foundation (MRF) conducted an assessment of the challenges and opportunities facing the melanoma research community and patients with melanoma. Since then, remarkable progress has been made on both the basic and clinical research fronts. However, the incidence, recurrence, and death rates for melanoma remain unacceptably high and significant challenges remain. Hence, the MRF Scientific Advisory Council and Breakthrough Consortium, a group that includes clinicians and scientists, reconvened to facilitate intensive discussions on thematic areas essential to melanoma researchers and patients alike, prevention, detection, diagnosis, metastatic dormancy and progression, response and resistance to targeted and immune-based therapy, and the clinical consequences of COVID-19 for patients with melanoma and providers. These extensive discussions helped to crystalize our understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the broader melanoma community today. In this report, we discuss the progress made since the last MRF assessment, comment on what remains to be overcome, and offer recommendations for the best path forward.

Objective

To compare early routine pharmacologic treatment of moderate-to-large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) at the end of week 1 with a conservative approach that requires prespecified respiratory and hemodynamic criteria before treatment can be given.

Study design

A total of 202 neonates of <28 weeks of gestation age (mean, 25.8 ± 1.1 weeks) with moderate-to-large PDA shunts were enrolled between age 6 and 14 days (mean, 8.1 ± 2.2 days) into an exploratory randomized controlled trial.

Results

At enrollment, 49% of the patients were intubated and 48% required nasal ventilation or continuous positive airway pressure. There were no differences between the groups in either our primary outcome of ligation or presence of a PDA at discharge (early routine treatment [ERT], 32%; conservative treatment [CT], 39%) or any of our prespecified secondary outcomes of necrotizing enterocolitis (ERT, 16%; CT, 19%), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) (ERT, 49%; CT, 53%), BPD/death (ERT, 58%; CT, 57%), death (ERT,19%; CT, 10%), and weekly need for respiratory support. Fewer infants in the ERT group met the rescue criteria (ERT, 31%; CT, 62%). In secondary exploratory analyses, infants receiving ERT had significantly less need for inotropic support (ERT, 13%; CT, 25%). However, among infants who were ≥26 weeks gestational age, those receiving ERT took significantly longer to achieve enteral feeding of 120 mL/kg/day (median: ERT, 14 days [range, 4.5-19 days]; CT, 6 days [range, 3-14 days]), and had significantly higher incidences of late-onset non-coagulase-negative Staphylococcus bacteremia (ERT, 24%; CT,6%) and death (ERT, 16%; CT, 2%).

Conclusions

In preterm infants age <28 weeks with moderate-to-large PDAs who were receiving respiratory support after the first week, ERT did not reduce PDA ligations or the presence of a PDA at discharge and did not improve any of the prespecified secondary outcomes, but delayed full feeding and was associated with higher rates of late-onset sepsis and death in infants born at ≥26 weeks of gestation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01958320.

In the PDA-TOLERATE trial, persistent (even for several weeks) moderate to large patent ductus arteriosus (PDA) was not associated with an increased risk of BPD when the infant required <10 days of intubation. However, in infants requiring intubation for ≥10 days, prolonged PDA exposure (≥11 days) was associated with an increased risk of moderate/severe BPD.

Importance

Use of prognostic gene expression profile (GEP) testing in cutaneous melanoma (CM) is rising despite a lack of endorsement as standard of care.

Objective

To develop guidelines within the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group (MPWG) on integration of GEP testing into the management of patients with CM, including (1) review of published data using GEP tests, (2) definition of acceptable performance criteria, (3) current recommendations for use of GEP testing in clinical practice, and (4) considerations for future studies.

Evidence review

The MPWG members and other international melanoma specialists participated in 2 online surveys and then convened a summit meeting. Published data and meeting abstracts from 2015 to 2019 were reviewed.

Findings

The MPWG members are optimistic about the future use of prognostic GEP testing to improve risk stratification and enhance clinical decision-making but acknowledge that current utility is limited by test performance in patients with stage I disease. Published studies of GEP testing have not evaluated results in the context of all relevant clinicopathologic factors or as predictors of regional nodal metastasis to replace sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB). The performance of GEP tests has generally been reported for small groups of patients representing particular tumor stages or in aggregate form, such that stage-specific performance cannot be ascertained, and without survival outcomes compared with data from the American Joint Committee on Cancer 8th edition melanoma staging system international database. There are significant challenges to performing clinical trials incorporating GEP testing with SLNB and adjuvant therapy. The MPWG members favor conducting retrospective studies that evaluate multiple GEP testing platforms on fully annotated archived samples before embarking on costly prospective studies and recommend avoiding routine use of GEP testing to direct patient management until prospective studies support their clinical utility.

Conclusions and relevance

More evidence is needed to support using GEP testing to inform recommendations regarding SLNB, intensity of follow-up or imaging surveillance, and postoperative adjuvant therapy. The MPWG recommends further research to assess the validity and clinical applicability of existing and emerging GEP tests. Decisions on performing GEP testing and patient management based on these results should only be made in the context of discussion of testing limitations with the patient or within a multidisciplinary group.

Recent progress in the treatment of advanced melanoma has led to unprecedented improvements in overall survival and, as these new melanoma treatments have been developed and deployed in the clinic, much has been learned about the natural history of the disease. Now is the time to apply that knowledge toward the design and clinical evaluation of new chemoprevention agents. Melanoma chemoprevention has the potential to reduce dramatically both the morbidity and the high costs associated with treating patients who have metastatic disease. In this work, scientific and clinical melanoma experts from the national Melanoma Prevention Working Group, composed of National Cancer Trials Network investigators, discuss research aimed at discovering and developing (or repurposing) drugs and natural products for the prevention of melanoma and propose an updated pipeline for translating the most promising agents into the clinic. The mechanism of action, preclinical data, epidemiological evidence, and results from available clinical trials are discussed for each class of compounds. Selected keratinocyte carcinoma chemoprevention studies also are considered, and a rationale for their inclusion is presented. These data are summarized in a table that lists the type and level of evidence available for each class of agents. Also included in the discussion is an assessment of additional research necessary and the likelihood that a given compound may be a suitable candidate for a phase 3 clinical trial within the next 5 years.

Importance

Therapy for advanced melanoma has transformed during the past decade, but early detection and prognostic assessment of cutaneous melanoma (CM) remain paramount goals. Best practices for screening and use of pigmented lesion evaluation tools and gene expression profile (GEP) testing in CM remain to be defined.

Objective

To provide consensus recommendations on optimal screening practices and prebiopsy diagnostic, postbiopsy diagnostic, and prognostic assessment of CM.

Evidence review

Case scenarios were interrogated using a modified Delphi consensus method. Melanoma panelists (n = 60) were invited to vote on hypothetical scenarios via an emailed survey (n = 42), which was followed by a consensus conference (n = 51) that reviewed the literature and the rationale for survey answers. Panelists participated in a follow-up survey for final recommendations on the scenarios (n = 45).

Findings

The panelists reached consensus (≥70% agreement) in supporting a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening in clinical settings and public screening events, screening personnel recommendations (self/partner, primary care provider, general dermatologist, and pigmented lesion expert), screening intervals, and acceptable appointment wait times. Participants also reached consensus that visual and dermoscopic examination are sufficient for evaluation and follow-up of melanocytic skin lesions deemed innocuous. The panelists reached consensus on interpreting reflectance confocal microscopy and some but not all results from epidermal tape stripping, but they did not reach consensus on use of certain pigmented lesion evaluation tools, such as electrical impedance spectroscopy. Regarding GEP scores, the panelists reached consensus that a low-risk prognostic GEP score should not outweigh concerning histologic features when selecting patients to undergo sentinel lymph node biopsy but did not reach consensus on imaging recommendations in the setting of a high-risk prognostic GEP score and low-risk histology and/or negative nodal status.

Conclusions and relevance

For this consensus statement, panelists reached consensus on aspects of a risk-stratified approach to melanoma screening and follow-up as well as use of visual examination and dermoscopy. These findings support a practical approach to diagnosing and evaluating CM. Panelists did not reach consensus on a clearly defined role for GEP testing in clinical decision-making, citing the need for additional studies to establish the clinical use of existing GEP assays.