The Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, also known as the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute and commonly abbreviated as Peter Mac, is an Australian oncology research institute, cancer treatment and professional oncologist training centre located in Melbourne, Victoria. The centre is named in honour of Sir Peter MacCallum. Since June 2016, the centre has been located within the Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre (VCCC) in Parkville.The centre is Australia's first public hospital dedicated to cancer treatment, research and education.Research programs at the centre include the Australian Cancer Research Foundation (ACRF) Cancer Cell Biology Program and the ACRF Victorian Centre for Functional Genomics in Cancer.
To compare perioperative, oncological, and survival outcomes of total gastrectomy (TG) versus subtotal gastrectomy (SG) in patients with locally advanced distal diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy. Diffuse distal gastric cancer is characterized by infiltrative growth patterns and early nodal metastasis. Whilst radical resection remains the cornerstone of curative treatment, the optimal extent of surgery with TG or SG, remains debated. This international multicenter cohort study analyzed data from patients with histologically confirmed diffuse gastric adenocarcinoma, located > 5 cm from the gastroesophageal junction. Endpoints included surgical margin status, nodal yield, perioperative morbidity, recurrence patterns, time-to-recurrence (TTR), and overall survival (OS). Outcomes were compared using multivariate analyses. In total, 188 (39.0
LBA109 Background: Although PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus chemo have expanded treatment options for previously untreated PD-L1–positive advanced TNBC, there still remains a critical unmet need to improve outcomes. SG previously demonstrated significant clinical benefit in pretreated metastatic TNBC (mTNBC). We report results from the ASCENT-04/KEYNOTE-D19 study in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive (CPS ≥ 10; 22C3 assay) locally advanced unresectable or mTNBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to SG (10 mg/kg IV, day 1 & 8) + pembro (200 mg, day 1, max 35 cycles) in 21-day cycles or chemo (gemcitabine + carboplatin, paclitaxel, nab-paclitaxel) + pembro until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomization was stratified by curative treatment-free interval, geography, and prior exposure to anti–PD-(L)1 therapy in the curative setting. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Key secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS); objective response rate (ORR) and duration of response (DOR) by BICR; and safety. Results: 443 patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio: 221 to SG + pembro and 222 to chemo + pembro. The median follow-up was 14 mo. SG + pembro showed a significant improvement in PFS by BICR compared with chemo + pembro (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.84; P = .0009; Table). Median DOR was 16.5 mo for SG + pembro vs 9.2 mo for chemo + pembro (Table). Although OS data were immature, a positive early trend in OS improvement was also noted. The most frequent (≥ 10% of patients) grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) with SG + pembro were neutropenia (43%) and diarrhea (10%); and with chemo + pembro were neutropenia (45%), anemia (16%), and thrombocytopenia (14%). Conclusions: SG + pembro led to a statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in PFS vs chemo + pembro with durable responses, no new safety concerns for SG or pembro, and a lower rate of treatment discontinuation due to TEAEs in patients with previously untreated, PD-L1–positive advanced TNBC. These data support the use of SG + pembro as a potential new standard of care treatment in this patient population. Clinical trial information: NCT05382286 . Efficacy, BICR, intent-to-treat SG + pembro(n = 221) Chemo + pembro(n = 222) Median PFS (95% CI), mo 11.2 (9.3-16.7) 7.8 (7.3-9.3) HR (95% CI); P -value (adjusted for randomization stratification factors) 0.65 (0.51-0.84); P = .0009 ORR (95% CI), % 59.7 (52.9-66.3) 53.2 (46.4-59.9) Median DOR (95% CI), mo 16.5 (12.7-19.5) 9.2 (7.6-11.3) Safety (TEAEs), all treated, n (%) n = 221 n = 220 Any grade; grade ≥ 3 220 (> 99); 158 (71) 219 (> 99); 154 (70) Led to dose reduction 78 (35) 96 (44) Led to any treatment discontinuation 26 (12) 68 (31)
Measurable residual disease (MRD) monitoring has become a critical component in the management of acute myeloid leukemia (AML), to inform prognosis, guide therapy, and serve as a key endpoint in clinical trials. The 2025 update of the MRD guideline provides a comprehensive and refined framework for MRD assessment, aligned with the ELN 2022 genetic risk classification. Developed by members of the ELN-DAVID consortium, the guidelines incorporate expert consensus determined through a two-stage Delphi round. They address the clinical implementation of MRD methodologies, technical considerations, integration into clinical trials, and future directions. Importantly, MRD recommendations are tailored to individual prognostic and genetic subgroups. A new qualitative MRD response category, designated as optimal, warning, or high risk of treatment failure, has been introduced to facilitate contextual interpretation of the MRD burden and its clinical relevance. Notably, ultrahigh-sensitivity (UHS) NGS-based MRD assessment is now recommended for FLT3-ITD-mutated AML following intensive chemotherapy and prior to allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. A total of 56 recommendations were formulated, with 53 achieving a high level of consensus (≥90%). These updated guidelines represent a major step forward toward harmonizing MRD assessments in AML and enhancing its clinical utility across diverse treatment settings.
Background Health interventions delivered by digital platforms are gaining popularity and are evolving to address the needs of patients with chronic diseases. The heterogeneity of chronic diseases requires that digital health platforms vary in their approaches to chronic disease management. Objective This review aimed to explore the characteristics of digital health platforms and the corresponding digital interventions developed to support patients with chronic diseases. This includes those platforms’ design, development, and the metrics by which any incremental benefits they provide are assessed. Methods We searched electronic databases including Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore, MEDLINE, and Embase. Relevant articles published from January 2013 to November 2024 were extracted. Extracted data were then synthesized using qualitative content analysis and presented in narrative form with relevant tables. Results In total, we identified 69 digital health platforms supporting the management of 20 chronic diseases. Most platforms were mobile apps (n=22) or a combination of web and mobile apps (n=15). Most of the platforms (n=44) were tailored to support self-management of chronic diseases. These platforms also provided a web-based portal where health care providers could review and manage the information recorded by patients. In 77% (53/69) of the studies, patients reported that the digital interventions delivered by the platform improved their quality of life, their health, and their ability to self-manage their chronic diseases. In addition, health care providers reported positive outcomes, including improved clinical utility and patient communication. While short-term health outcomes of the digital health interventions were largely positive, long-term health outcomes remain unknown. This was because most of the studies were short-term pilots and often formative in nature (n=42). Many had limited sample sizes, limited participant uptake of the digital platforms, and technical issues. In many cases, further personalization of platforms was required to meet patients’ self-management needs. Conclusions Digital health interventions can be beneficial in the management of chronic disease. The adoption of digital interventions in combination with regular clinical care can improve health outcomes, support self-management, and enhance communication between patients and health care providers. However, long-term user engagement is the major barrier to their long-term success. High dropout rates, often resulting from a lack of motivation or technical issues, testify to the need for adaptive, low-burden interventions that function seamlessly in users’ daily lives. Adopting user-centered and co-design approaches that engage both clinicians and patients in designing digital health platforms may enhance the usability and uptake of such platforms.