Michael Shusterman, MD
1.4K posts

Michael Shusterman, MD
@guildsman
Gastrointestinal Medical Oncologist @Perlmutter_CC, Associate Program Director @nyulisom_HemOnc. Tweets my own. #Meded









The Effect of Losartan in Preventing Paclitaxel‐Induced Peripheral Neuropathy in Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Controlled Study - Mahmoud - 2026 - Pharmacotherapy: The Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy - Wiley Online Library accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.10…





Quite surprised this study made NEJM. It’s a negative study to say the least and a very toxic regimen that does not help people live longer. Neoadjuvant treatment is here to stay and is the way forward in BTCs, but “GOLP” won’t and shouldn’t be it.





We are recruiting @Perlmutter_CC ! Feel free to DM/contact me for details! Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Faculty Physician - focused at our NYU Langone Hospital – Long Island campus in Mineola NY. Fantastic opportunity to join growing program, including new GI Cancer Center.

What are the key issues that have emerged on the @NatureMedicine time-of-day IO paper? 1. The clinical trial protocol uploaded to Nature was v1 dated Jan 2, 2022; however, the protocol includes references published in 2024. This calls into question when the protocol was written and if/when it was amended. 2. The clinicaltrials.gov record is concerning and calls into question whether the study was actually randomized. a. In the first record 9/2022, although the study was noted as randomized, the inclusion/exclusion criteria read as though it was a retrospective study, e.g., “First-line patients received immunological monotherapy or immunological combined chemotherapy” as an inclusion criteria and “Lack of clinical diagnosis and treatment information or loss of follow-up” as an exclusion criteria. b. In the first record, the primary endpoint, sample size, treatment and ECOG criteria do not match what was in the protocol dated Jan 2, 2022. c. On 3/19/2024, the study was changed from randomized/interventional to an observational case-control study d. It was not until 3/30/2024 (2 months before end of randomization) that the study was changed to the design described in the manuscript. 3. The OS K-M curve presented at ASCO had errors – i.e., the censor marks do not match the at-risk table. This raises concerns about the integrity of statistical analyses. 4. The shape of the PFS does not match expectations. With a 6-week scan schedule, one would expect a stair-step drop every 6 weeks when patients have their scheduled imaging. Their PFS curve does not – it is smooth. Of note, in an observational study, a PFS curve generally does not have a staircase look because scans are not performed on a regular set schedule. 5. The 95% CI for the lower bound of the median OS in the manuscript is NE. This is not possible as the median was estimated. There are inconsistencies in the p-values in Table 1 (Baseline Characteristics) Credit to Daniel Brickman, Amanda Nottke and David Swank for creating this list — and to @houndcl for first identifying several of these issues.

Impressive job of post-publication Twitter peer review on this paper! With the effect size appearing inexplicably massive, plus the many inconsistencies in study conduct and reporting, it’s safe to assume the “time-of-day IO” question still fully open. nature.com/articles/s4159…

Study on timing cancer treatments to the morning comes under fire statnews.com/2026/02/20/can…

We are recruiting @Perlmutter_CC ! Feel free to DM/contact me for details! Gastrointestinal Medical Oncology Faculty Physician - focused at our NYU Langone Hospital – Long Island campus in Mineola NY. Fantastic opportunity to join growing program, including new GI Cancer Center.










