SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “tumor grading”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

381 records · Page 22Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

Durvalumab and tremelimumab, with or without lenvatinib, combined with transarterial chemoembolisation in participants with embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (EMERALD-3): a global, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE), a standard treatment for embolisation-eligible hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), induces tumour immune responses. Single tremelimumab regular interval durvalumab (STRIDE) is a standard treatment in advanced HCC. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed the efficacy and safety of STRIDE, with or without lenvatinib, plus TACE, in participants with embolisation-eligible HCC. METHODS: EMERALD-3 is a phase 3, randomised, open-label, sponsor-blinded study, conducted at 177 medical sites in 21 countries. Eligible participants were 18 years or older (aged ≥21 years in Egypt or Singapore) at screening and had confirmed HCC (by imaging or histopathologically from biopsy specimen, surgery, or both) not amenable to curative surgery, curative ablation, or transplantation but amenable to TACE. Participants had Child-Pugh class A liver function, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and at least one measurable target intrahepatic lesion per modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. Participants were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, STRIDE plus TACE, or TACE until each group reached its preplanned enrolment target of 175 participants. After the STRIDE plus TACE group reached its enrolment target, randomisation was adjusted to continue in a 1:1 ratio between the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group and TACE group until approximately 275 participants were enrolled in each of these two groups. Randomisation used a centrally assigned interactive response technology system, stratified by region, baseline tumour burden, and previous palliative embolisation. In the STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE group, on the first day, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab intravenously, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab plus oral lenvatinib (8 mg for <60 kg bodyweight or 12 mg for ≥60 kg bodyweight); participants then received 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks plus once-daily lenvatinib for up to 36 cycles. In the STRIDE plus TACE group, participants were given 300 mg tremelimumab and 1500 mg durvalumab intravenously on the first day, followed by 1500 mg durvalumab every 4 weeks. The technique and number of TACE procedures were at the investigators' discretion, with the first procedure administered at least 7 days after the first dose of durvalumab in the two investigation treatment groups and within 7 days of random allocation in the TACE group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE. Key secondary endpoints were overall survival for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus TACE and progression-free survival and overall survival for STRIDE plus TACE versus TACE. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05301842), with enrolment completed. FINDINGS: From March 28, 2022, to Nov 20, 2024, 1124 participants were screened. The full analysis set comprised 760 participants, who were randomly allocated to STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (n=293), STRIDE plus TACE (n=175), or TACE (n=292). 633 (83%) participants were male and 127 (17%) were female; 548 (72%) were Asian. At the first data cutoff (Sept 2, 2025); the overall median follow-up for progression-free survival was 10·0 months (IQR 4·6-17·2); median follow-up for progression-free survival was 11·0 months (IQR 4·8-18·4) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 8·3 months (4·1-15·5) for TACE. Median progression-free survival was 13·0 months (95% CI 12·2-16·7) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE versus 9·8 months (8·0-11·4) for TACE (HR 0·70 [95% CI 0·57-0·86]; p=0·0007). At the second data cutoff (Feb 23, 2026) and a median follow-up for overall survival of 24·6 months (IQR 16·5-31·5) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 22·9 months (14·9-30·2) for TACE, median overall survival was 39·5 months (95% CI 34·1-not reached) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE and 34·7 months (28·8-not reached) for TACE (HR 0·84 [95% CI 0·65-1·09]; p=0·18). At this data cutoff, median progression-free survival was 12·9 months (95% CI 10·2-15·9) for STRIDE plus TACE and 8·1 months (6·5-10·2) for the first 175 participants randomised to TACE (HR 0·71 [95% CI 0·56-0·91]), with median follow-up of 10·3 months (IQR 4·6-23·7) for STRIDE plus TACE and 7·7 months (3·0-18·5) for the first 175 participants randomly allocated to TACE. The most common adverse events of maximum grade 3 or 4 were hypertension (34 [12%] of 287) for STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, post-embolisation syndrome and anaemia (ten [6%] of 175 each) for STRIDE plus TACE, and post-embolisation (17 [6%] of 290) for TACE. 184 (64%) participants receiving STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE, 89 (51%) receiving STRIDE plus TACE, and 68 (23%) receiving TACE had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events with an outcome of death during the treatment-emergent period occurred in seven (2%) of 287 participants who received STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE (two for myocarditis; and one each for hepatic failure, haemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis, septic shock, cardiac failure, and unknown cause), none of 175 participants who received STRIDE plus TACE, and two (1%) of 290 participants who received TACE (one each for acute myocardial infarction and unknown cause). INTERPRETATION: STRIDE plus lenvatinib plus TACE showed a statistically significant progression-free survival improvement versus TACE. These findings support a STRIDE-based regimen as a potential new treatment option for people with embolisation-eligible HCC; additional follow-up is being conducted for final analysis of overall survival across treatment groups. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Adult↗

PubMed2026

Pharmacological therapies for the prevention of fractures in men.

RATIONALE: Pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention usually target osteoporosis, a skeletal disorder characterised by compromised bone mass or quality (or both). As most participants in osteoporosis trials are women, a review of pharmacological therapies for fracture prevention in men was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of bisphosphonates, parathyroid (PTH) or parathyroid-related protein (PTHrP) analogues, denosumab, and romosozumab therapy for the prevention of fractures in men. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP) until 14 October 2025, with no restrictions on date or language of publication. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared bisphosphonates, PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab (alone or with calcium or vitamin D, or both) with placebo, other drugs, or non-pharmacological therapies in men aged 50 years or older. Our primary comparison was bisphosphonates versus placebo. OUTCOMES: Critical outcomes were incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, other (not hip or vertebral) fractures, disability, participants with adverse events, study withdrawals due to adverse events, and participants with serious adverse events. Our primary time point was the final time point reported in the trials. RISK OF BIAS: We used Cochrane's RoB 2 tool to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We used a random-effects model for meta-analysis employing the Mantel-Haenszel approach, and the DerSimonian and Laird method to estimate between-trial variance. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. INCLUDED STUDIES: Seventeen trials (4132 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 52 to 73 years. Twelve trials used a placebo comparator versus bisphosphonate (7 trials, 2548 participants), PTH or PTHrP analogues (4 trials, 569 participants), denosumab (1 trial, 240 participants), and romosozumab (1 trial, 244 participants). For the other planned comparisons, a bisphosphonate was compared to vitamin D/vitamin D analogues (2 trials, 434 participants), to calcitonin (1 trial, 32 participants), to PTH or PTHrP analogues (1 trial, 19 participants), or to another bisphosphonate (1 trial, 301 participants), and one trial compared a bisphosphonate plus calcium to calcium tablets alone (46 participants). SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Placebo-controlled trials were largely susceptible to bias in selection of the reported result (83%), while most trials without a placebo control were also susceptible to bias arising from the randomisation process (100%) and in measurement of the outcome (80%). We are very uncertain about the effect of bisphosphonates on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to placebo at the final follow-up (up to two years). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, twice for imprecision (very low event rates), and once for suspected publication bias. The certainty of evidence for incidence of other fractures was further downgraded for indirectness, as it was unclear if hip fractures were also included in the outcome. At up to two years, 2/875 participants (2 per 1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported hip fractures compared with 2/760 (3 per 1000) in the placebo group (risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 8.51; I² = 36%; 4 trials, 1635 participants); 5/1021 (4/1000) participants in the bisphosphonate group had a symptomatic vertebral fracture compared to 7/855 (8/1000) participants in the placebo group (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.74; I² = 0%; 5 trials, 1876 participants); 25/1130 participants (16/1000) in the bisphosphonate group reported other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures compared to 19/913 participants (21/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.45; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2043 participants). Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events: 1024/1374 participants (746/1000) receiving bisphosphonates reported adverse events compared to 826/1174 participants (704/1000) receiving placebo (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.19; I² = 75%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or serious adverse events: 329/1329 participants (272/1000) receiving bisphosphonate reported serious adverse events compared to 323/1128 participants (286/1000) receiving placebo (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.08; I² = 0%; 6 trials, 2457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once due to potential bias for adverse events and serious adverse events. We are very uncertain if bisphosphonates result in more withdrawals due to adverse events: 41/1374 participants (25/1000) in the bisphosphonate group withdrew due to adverse events compared with 43/1174 participants (37/1000) in the placebo group (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.18; I² = 37%; 7 trials, 2548 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of evidence once for risk of bias, once for indirectness, and once for imprecision. No trial reported disability. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab compared to placebo on fracture outcomes. We are very uncertain about the effects of PTH/PTHrP analogues on total adverse events, withdrawals due to adverse events, and serious adverse events. Denosumab may not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events compared to placebo, while the evidence for withdrawals due to adverse events is very uncertain. Romosozumab probably does not increase the risk of adverse events and may not increase the risk of serious adverse events or result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the effects of bisphosphonates compared to placebo on the incidence of hip fractures, symptomatic vertebral fractures, or other (non-hip non-vertebral) fractures in men at up to two years of use. Bisphosphonates probably do not increase the risk of adverse events or serious adverse events, and we are very uncertain if they result in more withdrawals due to adverse events. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for indirectness, imprecision (low event rate), and serious risk of bias in selection of the reported result, as it was unclear if all studies fully reported every fracture. We found similar results for PTH or PTHrP analogues, denosumab, or romosozumab versus placebo. Larger, longer placebo-controlled studies are needed to determine whether pharmacological therapies are beneficial for reducing fractures in men. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol (2021): https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD014707.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Cardiorespiratory training for people with stroke.

RATIONALE: Low levels of cardiorespiratory fitness are common after stroke and are associated with post-stroke disability and increased risk of secondary stroke. Cardiorespiratory training interventions aim to increase cardiorespiratory fitness, improve physical function, reduce disability, and help prevent future strokes. Clinical guidelines recommend exercise as part of lifestyle modification for secondary prevention, and strongly recommend exercise for rehabilitation. This review is one of three reviews that were originally a single review on physical fitness training for stroke. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to determine whether cardiorespiratory training after stroke has an effect on death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function when compared to a non-exercise control. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2025, we searched nine bibliographic databases and two trials registers to identify studies for inclusion in the review. We checked reference lists, tracked citations, and contacted experts. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials comparing cardiorespiratory training interventions with usual care, no intervention, or a non-exercise intervention in people with stroke. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were death, disability, adverse events, risk factors, fitness, walking, and indices of physical function, assessed at the end of the intervention and the end of the longest follow-up. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. SYNTHESIS METHODS: The studies evaluated different comparisons (e.g. cardiorespiratory training versus no intervention/waiting list control or versus attention control or versus usual care), which we synthesised into a single comparison: cardiorespiratory training versus control. We used random-effects meta-analysis on arm-level data (risk difference (RD) for dichotomous data, and mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). For outcome data that we did not meta-analyse, we followed Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guidance. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for critical outcomes. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 53 studies (2672 participants, with an average age of 61.9 years). Most studies recruited ambulatory participants in the early subacute (7 days to 3 months) or chronic (> 6 months) phases of recovery. Exercise duration recommendations were met in 49 studies, and frequency recommendations in 48. Twenty-eight studies lacked balanced exposure between groups. Programme duration was 12 weeks or more in 16 studies (maximum: 24 weeks). Sixteen studies had a post-intervention follow-up period (12 weeks to 12 months from baseline). One study planned a six-month follow-up but did not report it. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease deaths at the end of intervention (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; 36 studies, 1563 participants; high-certainty evidence) or the end of follow-up (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 713 participants; high-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of disability slightly at the end of intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; 17 studies, 1073 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressed using the Barthel Index (0 to 20), the equivalent effect is MD 1.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.74. It is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is +1.85). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.08; 5 studies, 347 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training does not increase or decrease the incidence of secondary cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events at the end of intervention (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.02; 8 studies, 544 participants; high-certainty evidence) and probably does not affect them at the end of follow-up (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.04; 4 studies, 412 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is very uncertain whether cardiorespiratory training affects systolic blood pressure (mmHg) at the end of intervention (MD -2.12, 95% CI -5.81 to 1.57; 9 studies, 535 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (MCID -2 mmHg) or follow-up (MD 0.93, 95% CI -4.30 to 6.16; 3 studies, 155 participants; very low-certainty evidence); the 95% CIs include the MCID. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight improvement in cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2 ml/kg/min) at the end of intervention (MD 2.37, 95% CI 1.39 to 3.36; 13 studies, 608 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); it is unclear if the effect is clinically meaningful (MCID +3.5 ml/kg/min). The effect may be similar at the end of follow-up (MD 2.76, 95% CI 1.36 to 4.16; 5 studies, 237 participants; low-certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis favoured longer interventions. Cardiorespiratory training probably results in a slight increase in comfortable walking speed (metres per second) at the end of intervention (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.12; 16 studies, 647 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but the effect is not clinically meaningful (MCID +0.13). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 3 studies, 182 participants; low-certainty evidence). Cardiorespiratory training may improve indices of balance at the end of intervention (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.47; 18 studies, 772 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. Re-expressing using the Berg Balance Scale, the equivalent effect is MD 2.09, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.07; and it is unclear if it is clinically meaningful (MCID of +2). The effect is unclear at the end of follow-up (MD 0.90, 95% CI -1.32 to 3.12; 6 studies, 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Overall, our certainty about the evidence is limited for most outcomes by imprecision (small number of studies and participants) or risks of bias (e.g. imbalanced exposure doses) or both. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Cardiorespiratory training after stroke does not affect mortality or the incidence of secondary events at the end of the aerobic exercise training programme or end of follow-up. It may increase fitness, reduce disability, increase walking speed, and improve balance at the end of intervention, but it is unclear if these improvements are clinically meaningful. Further well-designed randomised trials are needed to fully understand the potential benefits and long-term effects of cardiorespiratory training and the optimal exercise prescription. FUNDING: No dedicated funding REGISTRATION: Protocol (and previous versions) available via DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD003316.

Humans↗