Phase Ib patients [estrogen receptor positive (ER⁺) or TNBC] with AR⁺ breast cancer received 160 mg enzalutamide in combination with taselisib to determine dose-limiting toxicities and the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Phase II TNBC patients were randomized to receive either enzalutamide alone or in combination with 4 mg taselisib until disease progression. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 16 weeks.

The combination was tolerated, and the MTD was not reached. The adverse events were hyperglycemia and skin rash. Overall, CBR for evaluable patients receiving the combination was 35.7%, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.4 months. Luminal AR (LAR) TNBC subtype patients trended toward better response compared with non-LAR (75.0% vs. 12.5%, P = 0.06), and increased PFS (4.6 vs. 2.0 months, P = 0.082). Genomic analyses revealed subtype-specific treatment response, and novel FGFR2 fusions and AR splice variants.

The combination of enzalutamide and taselisib increased CBR in TNBC patients with AR⁺ tumors. Correlative analyses suggest AR protein expression alone is insufficient for identifying patients with AR-dependent tumors and knowledge of tumor LAR subtype and AR splice variants may identify patients more or less likely to benefit from AR antagonists.

We sought to quantify and assess heterogeneity of the preferences of AML patients for treatment outcomes. An AML-specific discrete choice experiment (DCE) was developed involving multiple stakeholders. Attributes included in the DCE were event-free survival (EFS), complete remission (CR), time in the hospital, short-term side effects, and long-term side effects. Continuously coded conditional, stratified, and latent-class logistic regressions were used to model preferences of 294 patients with AML.

Most patients were white (89.4%) and in remission (95.0%). A 10% improvement in the chance of CR was the most meaningful offered benefit (P < 0.001). Patients were willing to trade up to 22 months of EFS or endure 8.7 months in the hospital or a two-step increase in long-term side effects to gain a 10% increase in chance of CR. Patients diagnosed at 60 years or older (21.6%) more strongly preferred to avoid short-term side effects (P = 0.03). Latent class analysis showed significant differences of preferences across gender and insurance status.

In this national sample of mostly AML survivors, patients preferred treatments that maximized chance at remission; however, significant preference heterogeneity for outcomes was identified. Age and gender may affect patients' preferences.

Survivor preferences for outcomes can inform patient-focused drug development and shared decision-making. Further studies are necessary to investigate the use of DCEs to guide treatment for individual patients.

Five hundred twenty consecutive patients with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke (49.4% men; mean age, 72 years) who underwent CTA to evaluate large-vessel occlusion of the proximal anterior circulation were included. CTA scans were retrospectively reviewed by a consensus panel of 2 neuroradiologists. Logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate the association between several variables and missed large-vessel occlusion at the initial CTA interpretation.

The prevalence of large-vessel occlusion was 16% (84/520 patients); 20% (17/84) of large-vessel occlusions were missed at the initial CTA evaluation. In multivariate analysis, non-neuroradiologists were more likely to miss large-vessel occlusion compared with neuroradiologists (OR = 5.62; 95% CI, 1.06–29.85; P = .04), and occlusions of the M2 segment were more likely to be missed compared with occlusions of the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment (OR = 5.69; 95% CI, 1.44–22.57; P = .01). There were no calcified emboli in initially correctly identified large-vessel occlusions. However, calcified emboli were present in 4 of 17 (24%) initially missed or misinterpreted large-vessel occlusions.

Several factors may have an association with missing a large-vessel occlusion on CTA, including the CTA interpreter (non-neuroradiologists versus neuroradiologists), large-vessel occlusion location (M2 segment versus the distal internal carotid artery and/or M1 segment), and large-vessel occlusion caused by calcified emboli. Awareness of these factors may improve the accuracy in interpreting CTA and eventually improve stroke outcome.