METHODS: The KGOG 1047/DEBULK trial is a phase III, multicenter, randomized clinical trial involving patients with bulky or multiple LN metastases in cervical cancer IIICr. This study will include patients with a short-axis diameter of a pelvic or para-aortic LN ≥2 cm or ≥3 LNs with a short-axis diameter ≥1 cm and for whom CCRT is planned. The treatment arms will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either receive CCRT (control arm) or undergo surgical debulking of bulky or multiple LNs before CCRT (experimental arm). CCRT consists of extended-field external beam radiotherapy/pelvic radiotherapy, brachytherapy and LN boost, and weekly chemotherapy with cisplatin (40 mg/m²), 4-6 times administered intravenously. The primary endpoint will be 3-year progression-free survival rate. The secondary endpoints will be 3-year overall survival rate, treatment-related complications, and accuracy of radiological diagnosis of bulky or multiple LNs.

METHODS: In this double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 556 patients with previously untreated, EGFR mutation-positive (exon 19 deletion or L858R) advanced NSCLC in a 1:1 ratio to receive either osimertinib (at a dose of 80 mg once daily) or a standard EGFR-TKI (gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg once daily or erlotinib at a dose of 150 mg once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival.

RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was significantly longer with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (18.9 months vs. 10.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.57; P<0.001). The objective response rate was similar in the two groups: 80% with osimertinib and 76% with standard EGFR-TKIs (odds ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.90; P=0.24). The median duration of response was 17.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to 22.0) with osimertinib versus 8.5 months (95% CI, 7.3 to 9.8) with standard EGFR-TKIs. Data on overall survival were immature at the interim analysis (25% maturity). The survival rate at 18 months was 83% (95% CI, 78 to 87) with osimertinib and 71% (95% CI, 65 to 76) with standard EGFR-TKIs (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.88; P=0.007 [nonsignificant in the interim analysis]). Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were less frequent with osimertinib than with standard EGFR-TKIs (34% vs. 45%).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were 18 years and older with no previous systemic anticancer therapy. Neurologically stable patients with CNS metastases were allowed. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to lazertinib 240 mg once daily orally or gefitinib 250 mg once daily orally, stratified by mutation status and race. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.

RESULTS: Overall, 393 patients received double-blind study treatment across 96 sites in 13 countries. Median PFS was significantly longer with lazertinib than with gefitinib (20.6 v 9.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58; P < .001). The PFS benefit of lazertinib over gefitinib was consistent across all predefined subgroups. The objective response rate was 76% in both groups (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.59). Median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI, 16.6 to 24.9) with lazertinib versus 8.3 months (95% CI, 6.9 to 10.9) with gefitinib. Overall survival data were immature at the interim analysis (29% maturity). The 18-month survival rate was 80% with lazertinib and 72% with gefitinib (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.08; P = .116). Observed safety of both treatments was consistent with their previously reported safety profiles.

METHODS: The phase 3 LASER301 study evaluated lazertinib efficacy and safety in treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated (exon 19 deletion or L858R) locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. Patients were randomized one-to-one and received either lazertinib or gefitinib. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate, duration of response, and safety.

RESULTS: Between February 13, 2020, and July 29, 2022, among 258 patients of Asian descent, the median progression-free survival was significantly longer with lazertinib than gefitinib (20.6 versus 9.7 mo; hazard ratio: 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.34-0.63, p < 0.001), and the benefit was consistent across predefined subgroups (exon 19 deletion, L858R, baseline central nervous system metastases). Objective response rate and disease control rates were similar between treatment groups. The median duration of response was 19.4 months (95% CI: 16.6-24.9) versus 9.6 months (95% CI: 6.9-12.4) in the lazertinib versus gefitinib group. Adverse event rates in Asian patients were comparable with the overall LASER301 population. Adverse events leading to discontinuation in the lazertinib and gefitinib groups were 13% and 12%, respectively.

METHODS: Treatment-naive patients with EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized one-to-one to lazertinib (240 mg/d) or gefitinib (250 mg/d). Patients with asymptomatic or stable CNS metastases were included if any planned radiation, surgery, or steroids were completed more than 2 weeks before randomization. For patients with CNS metastases confirmed at screening or subsequently suspected, CNS imaging was performed every 6 weeks for 18 months, then every 12 weeks. End points assessed by blinded independent central review and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 included intracranial progression-free survival, intracranial objective response rate, and intracranial duration of response.

RESULTS: Of the 393 patients enrolled in LASER301, 86 (lazertinib, n = 45; gefitinib, n = 41) had measurable and or non-measurable baseline CNS metastases. The median intracranial progression-free survival in the lazertinib group was 28.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.8-28.2) versus 8.4 months (95% CI: 6.7-not reached [NR]) in the gefitinib group (hazard ratio = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.89, p = 0.02). Among patients with measurable CNS lesions, the intracranial objective response rate was numerically higher with lazertinib (94%; n = 17) versus gefitinib (73%; n = 11, p = 0.124). The median intracranial duration of response with lazertinib was NR (8.3-NR) versus 6.3 months (2.8-NR) with gefitinib. Tolerability was similar to the overall LASER301 population.

METHODS: Eligible Asian patients (enrolled at Asian sites) who were at least 18 years of age (≥20 years in Japan) and had untreated EGFR-mutated advanced NSCLC were randomized 1:1 to receive osimertinib (80 mg, orally once daily) or an SoC EGFR TKI (gefitinib, 250 mg, or erlotinib, 150 mg, orally once daily). The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS). The key secondary end points were overall survival, objective response rate, central nervous system efficacy, and safety.

RESULTS: The median PFS was 16.5 versus 11.0 months for the osimertinib and SoC EGFR TKI groups, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.54, 95% confidence interval: 0.41-0.72, p < 0.0001). The overall survival data were immature (24% maturity). The objective response rates were 80% for osimertinib and 75% for an SoC EGFR TKI. The median central nervous system PFS was not calculable for the osimertinib group and was 13.8 months for the SoC EGFR TKI group (hazard ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-1.17, p = 0.118). Fewer adverse events of grade 3 or higher (40% versus 48%) and fewer adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (15% versus 21%) were reported with osimertinib versus with an SoC EGFR TKI, respectively.

Methods: We collected information on legal measures and governance from both general citizens and workers regarding infection risks such as COVID-19 from industrial hygiene professionals in nine countries (Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) using a structured questionnaire.

Results: A governmental body overseeing public health and welfare was in charge of containing the spread and occurrence of infectious diseases under an infectious disease control and prevention act or another special act, although the name of the pertinent organizations and legislation vary among countries. Unlike in the case of other traditional hazards, there have been no specific articles or clauses describing the means of mitigating virus risk in the workplace that are legally required of employers, making it difficult to define the responsibilities of the employer. Each country maintains own legal systems regarding access to the duration, administration, and financing of paid sick leave. Many workers may not have access to paid sick leave even if it is legally guaranteed.

METHODS: All participants (n = 968) completed an online survey which included the Perceived Weight Stigma Questionnaire, Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire, Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scale-21, and Yale Food Addiction Scale Version 2.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients diagnosed with osteoporotic hip fracture admitted to Sarawak General Hospital from June 2019 to March 2021 were recruited, and demographic data and clinical features were obtained.

RESULTS: There were 140 patients with osteoporotic hip fracture, and 40 were men (28.6%). The mean age for males was 74.1 ± 9.5 years, while the mean age for females was 77.4 ± 9.1 years (p=0.06). The types of fracture consisted of neck of femur=78, intertrochanteric=61 and subtrochanteric=1. More men were active smokers (15% vs 1%, p<0.001). There were 20 men with secondary osteoporosis (50%), while 13 women (13%) had secondary osteoporosis (p<0.001). The causes of secondary osteoporosis among the men were hypogonadism, COPD, glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis, renal disease, androgen deprivation therapy, thyroid disorder, prostate cancer and previous gastrectomy. There were two deaths among the men and four deaths among the women during the inpatient and 3 months follow-up period. There was no statistical significance between the mortality rates between male patients (5%) and female patients (4%) (p=0.55).

METHODS: A multi-country web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted utilizing the 22-item IES-R. A total of 1020 participants enrolled in our survey, of whom 999 were included in the analyses. Data were analyzed using Rasch modeling and multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA).

RESULTS: The Rasch modeling results of the IES-R demonstrated that the IES-R is a satisfactory instrument with the five-point Likert scale, asserting that its 22 items are significant contributors to assessing PTSD as a unidimensional construct covered by the items of the IES-R. The MCFA confirmed that the 22-item IES-R, with its three factors, including intrusion, avoidance, and hyperarousal, demonstrates adequate construct validity at the within- and among-country levels. However, the results of the Akaike information criterion (AIC) model determined that the 16-item IES-R is better than the 22-item IES-R.