Background/Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a promising field in the era of personalized oncology due to its potential to save time and workforce while serving as a supportive tool in patient management decisions. Although several studies in the literature have explored the integration of AI into oncology practice across different tumor types, available data remain limited. In our study, we aimed to evaluate the role of AI in the management of complex cancer cases by comparing the decisions of an in-house tumor board and ChatGPT-4o for patients with various tumor types. Methods: A total of 102 patients with diverse cancer types were included. Treatment and follow-up decisions proposed by both the tumor board and ChatGPT-4o were independently evaluated by two medical oncologists using a 5-point Likert scale. Results: Analysis of agreement levels showed high inter-rater reliability (κ = 0.722, p < 0.001 for tumor board decisions; κ = 0.794, p < 0.001 for ChatGPT decisions). However, concordance between the tumor board and ChatGPT was low, as reflected in the assessments of both raters (Rater 1: κ = 0.211, p = 0.003; Rater 2: κ = 0.376, p < 0.001). Both raters more frequently agreed with the tumor board decisions, and a statistically significant difference between tumor board and AI decisions was observed for both (Rater 1: Z = +4.548, p < 0.001; Rater 2: Z = +3.990, p < 0.001). Conclusions: These findings suggest that AI, in its current form, is not yet capable of functioning as a standalone decision-maker in the management of challenging oncology cases. Clinical experience and expert judgment remain the most critical factors in guiding patient care.

Aims: Hypercalcemia is a malignancy-associated oncologic emergency, and evaluating short-term mortality in hospitalized patients is critical for predicting prognosis and guiding treatment. This study assessed 30-, 60-, and 90-day mortality rates in patients hospitalized for hypercalcemia and compared short-term survival according to the corrected calcium (dCa) level determined by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on 90-day mortality. Methods: A total of 135 patients were included. ROC analysis was performed to identify the optimal dCa cutoff for predicting 90-day mortality. Patients were divided into low and high dCa groups, and survival was compared using the Kaplan–Meier method. A p-value

Background/Objectives: Datopotamab deruxtecan was approved in 2025 for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and for EGFR-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC); its safety profile in routine use has not been described. We characterized adverse event reporting for the agent and asked whether the events reported most disproportionately are those that carry the reported harm. Methods: Reports naming datopotamab deruxtecan as a primary suspect in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS, 2025Q1–2026Q1) were stratified by recorded indication and compared with all other reports recording the same indication. A signal required at least three reports and pre-specified frequentist (reporting odds ratio (ROR), proportional reporting ratio, chi-square), Bayesian (lower credibility bound of the information component, IC₀₂₅), and multiplicity-adjusted thresholds. Sacituzumab govitecan served as a within-class comparator, reference pools were pruned of agents causing the same event, and outcomes were recalculated after excluding reports coding disease progression. Results: Among 416 reports (196 breast, 118 NSCLC), mucosal and ocular events dominated: the ROR for stomatitis was 21.50 (95% CI: 15.04–30.74) and 17.72 (9.93–31.63), with keratitis, oral candidiasis, and dry eye also qualifying. Against sacituzumab govitecan, stomatitis persisted (19.75), while myelosuppressive and gastrointestinal terms were markedly less reported. Interstitial lung disease met the Evans criteria but not the Bayesian or multiplicity threshold in the breast stratum (2.51), and did not meet any criterion in the lung stratum (2.09) or against the comparator; the reports carrying it nevertheless recorded the heaviest harm, with eighteen out of nineteen being serious (94.7%, 95% CI: 74.0–99.9) and five out of nineteen being fatal (26.3%, 95% CI: 9.1–51.2), while no fatal outcome remained among the 66 progression-free mucosal reports. Trastuzumab deruxtecan supplied 30.3% of pulmonary reports in the breast reference pool; removing it raised the estimate to 3.70 with an IC₀₂₅ of 0.41. Conclusions: Reporting for datopotamab deruxtecan is dominated by mucosal and ocular toxicity, whereas interstitial lung disease is reported less often but in reports recording a far higher proportion of serious and fatal outcomes. Its absence from the primary signal lists reflects a comparison base containing agents that cause the same event rather than an absence of risk, and monitoring intensity should not follow the magnitude of disproportionality. Spontaneous reports are subject to under-reporting, stimulated reporting, and incomplete data, and disproportionality describes patterns of reporting rather than incidence or risk.

Background/Objectives: Hypertension is a recognized risk factor for renal cell carcinoma; however, the impact of antihypertensive therapy AHT on clinical outcomes in patients with established RCC remains insufficiently understood. This study aimed to evaluate the association between antihypertensive therapy use and clinical outcomes, particularly overall survival, in patients diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 100 patients with renal cell carcinoma treated at a single center. Antihypertensive medications were evaluated according to both the presence of therapy and the number of agents used. Overall survival was defined as the time from renal cell carcinoma diagnosis to death from any cause or last follow-up. Survival outcomes were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier methods and Cox proportional hazards regression. Results: Hypertension was present in 66% of patients, all of whom were receiving antihypertensive therapy. Kaplan–Meier analysis demonstrated significantly longer overall survival among AHT users compared with non-users (log-rank p = 0.0007), with median overall survival 17.1 months in the non-AHT group and 112.2 months in the AHT group. After propensity score adjustment, antihypertensive therapy remained associated with improved survival (HR 0.35, 95% CI 0.13–0.94, p = 0.036). Antihypertensive therapy was not associated with tumor size, stage, or metastasis at diagnosis. Conclusions: Antihypertensive therapy use at diagnosis was associated with improved overall survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma. This association was not observed for tumor size, stage at diagnosis, or metastasis status, although nodal involvement was less frequent among patients receiving antihypertensive therapy. Because antihypertensive therapy exposure overlapped with hypertension status and baseline differences existed between groups, the observed survival advantage should be interpreted cautiously and considered hypothesis-generating rather than evidence of a causal relationship.

Background: Sorafenib remains an important treatment option for patients with radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAI-R DTC). This study evaluated real-world outcomes and prognostic factors in patients treated with sorafenib. Materials and Methods: This retrospective multicenter study included 176 patients with RAI-R DTC treated with sorafenib between 2000 and 2024 across sixteen centers. Clinical, pathological and treatment-related variables, including metastatic sites, radiotherapy, dose reduction, inflammatory markers (neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio [NLR] and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio [PLR]) and pretreatment thyroglobulin (Tg), were analyzed. Progression-free survival (PFS) was evaluated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Prognostic factors were assessed using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Results: The median follow-up duration was 24 months and the median PFS was 21 months (95% CI: 15.5–26.5). Partial response was observed in 82 patients (46.6%), stable disease in 55 (31.3%) and progressive disease in 35 (19.9%). Patients who underwent dose reduction had longer PFS than those without dose reduction (42 vs. 19 months, p = 0.030), and absence of dose reduction remained independently associated with progression risk. Patients who received radiotherapy had shorter PFS than those who did not receive radiotherapy (16 vs. 37 months, p = 0.002), and radiotherapy-related variables remained independent predictors of progression. Patients with PLR values >138.2 had shorter PFS than those with PLR values ≤ 138.2 (19 vs. 34 months, p = 0.047), although this association was not maintained in Cox regression analysis. Similarly, associations between NLR and Tg values and PFS did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.112 and p = 0.072, respectively). Hand–foot syndrome was the most common toxicity, occurring in 59 patients (33.5%), while Grade 3 hand–foot syndrome was observed in 7 patients (4.0%). Conclusions: Sorafenib provided meaningful disease control with a median PFS of 21 months in this real-world cohort. Dose reduction was associated with longer PFS, whereas radiotherapy requirement appeared to reflect a higher-risk subgroup. Toxicities were generally manageable.