Abul Hasan Shadali Abdul Khader

Background: Oncology clinical trials, regardless of success in meeting their primary endpoint, often suffer from spin—the misrepresentation of research findings. Despite dramatic improvements in myeloma outcomes, numerous recent myeloma trials have failed to meet their primary endpoints while others have amplified marginally positive findings. A thorough evaluation of reporting practices and spin in myeloma randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is needed. Materials and Methods: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of myeloma RCTs that began enrollment in January 2015 or later, with final search conducted in March 2025. Reporting of prespecified primary endpoints and sample size calculations was abstracted. Two reviewers screened for the presence of spin, defined as at least one reporting practice that could mislead readers by emphasizing benefit or minimizing unfavorable findings. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine factors associated with spin. The methods were registered on the Open Science Framework. Results: Of 82 screened studies, 71 RCTs were included. The prespecified primary endpoint was statistically significant in 46 trials (64.8%). Sample size calculations were reported in 51 trials (71.8%), and conclusions aligned with primary endpoint results in 63 trials (88.7%). Spin occurred in 25 trials (35.2%), most commonly through optimistic language and emphasis on secondary/subgroup findings. In multivariable analysis, meeting the prespecified primary endpoint was associated with lower odds of spin (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.03-0.70; P = .016). Conclusion: Spin affected one-third of contemporary myeloma RCTs and was strongly associated with nonsignificant primary endpoints, highlighting the need for primary endpoint-aligned interpretation and transparent sample size reporting.

Background/Aims: Self-expanding metallic stents (SEMS) are an alternative to emergency surgery (ES) for malignant colorectal obstruction. This study aimed to compare surgical outcomes between SEMS as a bridge to surgery (BTS) and ES in patients with malignant colorectal obstruction.Methods: A comprehensive database search was conducted until October 2023 to compare outcomes between SEMS as a BTS and ES. A subgroup analysis of results by malignancy site was performed.Results: We analyzed 57 studies, including 7,223 patients over a mean duration of 35.4 months. SEMS as a BTS showed clinical and technical success rates of 88.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 86.1%–90.1%; I2=68%) and 91.6% (95% CI, 89.7%–93.7%; I2=66%), respectively. SEMS as a BTS revealed reduced postoperative adverse events (odds ratio [OR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41–0.63; I2=70%; p<0.001) and 30-day mortality (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37–0.72; I2=10%; p<0.001) compared to ES. Subgroup analysis showed postoperative mortality of 5% and 1.5% for left- and right-sided malignancies, respectively. Adverse events were 15% and 33% for the right and left colon, respectively.Conclusions: SEMS as a BTS demonstrated a higher success rate, fewer postoperative adverse events, and a reduced 30-day mortality rate than ES, supporting its use as the preferred initial intervention for right- and left-sided obstructions and indicating broader clinical adoption.

Background: Prior systematic reviews addressing the impact of diet on cancer outcomes have focused on specific dietary interventions. In this systematic review, we assessed all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating dietary interventions for cancer patients, examining the range of interventions, endpoints, patient populations, and results. Methods: This systematic review identified all RCTs conducted before January 2023 testing dietary interventions in patients with cancer. Assessed outcomes included quality of life, functional outcomes, clinical cancer measurements (eg, progression-free survival, response rates), overall survival, and translational endpoints (eg, inflammatory markers). Results: In total, 252 RCTs were identified involving 31 067 patients. The median sample size was 71 (interquartile range 41 to 118), and 80 (32%) studies had a sample size greater than 100. Most trials (n = 184, 73%) were conducted in the adjuvant setting. Weight or body composition and translational endpoints were the most common primary endpoints (n = 64, 25%; n = 52, 21%, respectively). Direct cancer measurements and overall survival were primary endpoints in 20 (8%) and 7 (3%) studies, respectively. Eight trials with a primary endpoint of cancer measurement (40%) met their endpoint. Large trials in colon (n = 1429), breast (n = 3088), and prostate cancer (n = 478) each showed no effect of dietary interventions on endpoints measuring cancer. Conclusion: Most RCTs of dietary interventions in cancer are small and measure nonclinical endpoints. Although only a small number of large RCTs have been conducted to date, these trials have not shown an improvement in cancer outcomes. Currently, there is limited evidence to support dietary interventions as a therapeutic tool in cancer care.

Celecoxib, a selective COX-2 inhibitor, and non-selective anti-inflammatory drug, is commonly prescribed as the first-line analgesic for osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and certain acute pain cases. It is mainly preferred for its lower risk of gastrointestinal adverse effects. However, it also carries risks, including renal and liver toxicity, anaphylaxis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome. A rare but severe cutaneous adverse reaction associated with celecoxib is Acute Generalized Exanthematous Pustulosis (AGEP), characterized by extensive nonfollicular sterile pustules on an erythematous background, fever, and neutrophilic leukocytosis. AGEP is a rare condition with an incidence rate of 1-5 cases per million per year in the general population. It is primarily triggered by drugs, with antibiotics accounting for over 90 % of cases. Here, we present the case of a 44-year-old female who presented with a sudden, rapidly progressive, painful, pruritic rash all over her body with associated leukocytosis. A skin biopsy confirmed the presence of a pustular rash. The patient reported taking Celebrex (celecoxib) for worsening arthritis two weeks prior to symptom onset. The patient was diagnosed with Celecoxib-induced AGEP based on clinical and histopathological features. Treatment involved steroid therapy and discontinuation of NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Encouragingly, the patient's rash improved within three days. Our case report aims to raise awareness of AGEP as a side effect of NSAIDs. Although AGEP is not typically serious, it can be fatal in elderly patients. Therefore, prompt identification and immediate cessation of the culprit drug is crucial.