Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Purpose: Cancer poses a significant global health challenge, demanding precise genomic testing for individualized treatment strategies. Targeted-panel sequencing (TPS) has improved personalized oncology but often lacks comprehensive coverage of crucial cancer alterations. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) addresses this gap, offering extensive genomic testing. This study demonstrates the medical potential of WGS. Materials and Methods: This study evaluates target-enhanced WGS (TE-WGS), a clinical-grade WGS method sequencing both cancer and matched normal tissues. Forty-nine patients with various solid cancer types underwent both TE-WGS and TruSight Oncology 500 (TSO500), one of the mainstream TPS approaches. Results: TE-WGS detected all variants reported by TSO500 (100%, 498/498). A high correlation in variant allele fractions was observed between TE-WGS and TSO500 (r=0.978). Notably, 223 variants (44.8%) within the common set were discerned exclusively by TE-WGS in peripheral blood, suggesting their germline origin. Conversely, the remaining subset of 275 variants (55.2%) were not detected in peripheral blood using the TE-WGS, signifying them as bona fide somatic variants. Further, TE-WGS provided accurate copy number profiles, fusion genes, microsatellite instability, and homologous recombination deficiency scores, which were essential for clinical decision-making. Conclusion TE-WGS is a comprehensive approach in personalized oncology, matching TSO500’s key biomarker detection capabilities. It uniquely identifies germline variants and genomic instability markers, offering additional clinical actions. Its adaptability and cost-effectiveness underscore its clinical utility, making TE-WGS a valuable tool in personalized cancer treatment.

Purpose: Panic disorder (PD) and PD with comorbid agoraphobia (PDA) share similar clinical characteristics but possess distinct symptom structures. However, studies specifically investigating the differences between PD and PDA are rare. Thus, the present study conducted a network analysis to examine the clinical networks of PD and PDA, focusing on panic symptom severity, anxiety sensitivity, anticipatory fear, and avoidance responses. By comparing the differences in network structures between PD and PDA, with the goal of identifying the central and bridge, we suggest clinical implications for the development of targeted interventions. Materials and Methods: A total sample (n=147; 55 male, 92 female) was collected from the psychiatric outpatient clinic of the university hospital. We conducted network analysis to examine crucial nodes in the PD and PDA networks and compared the two networks to investigate disparities and similarities in symptom structure. Results The most influential node within the PD network was Anxiety Sensitivity Index-Revised (ASI-R1; fear of respiratory symptom), whereas Panic Disorder Severity Scale (PDSS5; phobic avoidance of physical sensations) had the highest influence in the PDA network. Additionally, bridge centrality estimates indicated that each of the two nodes met the criteria for “bridge nodes” within their respective networks: ASI-R1 (fear of respiratory symptom) and Albany Panic and Phobic Questionnaire (APPQ3; interoceptive fear) for the PD group, and PDSS5 (phobic avoidance of physical sensation) and APPQ1 (panic frequency) for the PDA group Conclusion: Although the network comparison test did not reveal statistical differences between the two networks, disparities in community structure, as well as central and bridging symptoms, were observed, suggesting the possibility of distinct etiologies and treatment targets for each group. The clinical implications derived from the similarities and differences between PD and PDA networks are discussed.

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinumresistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoidreceptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol’s antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy’s efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population. Methods ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nabpaclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18

Background: Ovarian cancer has the highest mortality among gynecologic cancers, primarily because it typically is diagnosed at a late stage and because of the development of chemoresistance in recurrent disease. Improving outcomes in women with platinumresistant ovarian cancer is a substantial unmet need. Activation of the glucocorticoidreceptor (GR) by cortisol has been shown to suppress the apoptotic pathways used by cytotoxic agents, limiting their efficacy. Selective GR modulation may be able to counteract cortisol’s antiapoptotic effects, enhancing chemotherapy’s efficacy. A previous phase 2 study has shown that adding intermittently dosed relacorilant, a selective GR modulator, to nab-paclitaxel improved outcomes, including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), with minimal added toxicity, in women with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer. The ROSELLA study aims to confirm and expand on these findings in a larger population. Methods ROSELLA is a phase 3, randomized, 2-arm, open-label, global multicenter study in women with recurrent, platinum-resistant, high-grade serous epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube cancer. Eligible participants have received 1 to 3 lines of prior systemic anticancer therapy, including ≥1 prior line of platinum therapy and prior treatment with bevacizumab, with documented progressive disease or intolerance to the most recent therapy. There is no biomarker-based requirement for participant selection. Participants are randomized 1:1 to receive intermittently dosed relacorilant in combination with nabpaclitaxel or nab-paclitaxel monotherapy. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint is PFS as assessed by blinded independent central review. Secondary efficacy endpoints include OS, investigator-assessed PFS, objective response rate, best overall response, duration of response, clinical benefit rate at 24 weeks, and cancer antigen 125 response. The study is also evaluating safety and patient-reported outcomes.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05257408; European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database Identifier: 2022-000662-18