Mead‐Harvey, Carolyn

Abstract Purpose Bevacizumab is an effective treatment for radiation necrosis; dose dependent radiographic and edema response data are lacking. Methods Multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult patients with primary central nervous system tumors or brain metastases who received bevacizumab for radiation necrosis between June 2021 and July 2024. Patients were grouped by bevacizumab dose (7.5 mg/kg vs 10 mg/kg administered every three weeks). Primary outcome was edema response, assessed by a blinded neuro-oncologist. Secondary outcomes included contrast enhancing disease response, clinical response, adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing for recurrent radiation necrosis. Analyses were performed with and without adjustment for tumor type. Results 104 patients were included (7.5 mg/kg, n = 53; 10 mg/kg, n = 51). Edema response differed between dosing groups in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.032), favoring the 7.5 mg/kg cohort; however, this association was attenuated after adjustment for tumor type. Contrast enhancing disease response did not differ between groups in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses (p = 0.43). Clinical response was higher in the 7.5 mg/kg group (65.2% vs 37.8%, p = 0.013). Tumor type differed significantly between cohorts (p < 0.001), with more primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg group. Rates of adverse events, treatment discontinuation, and re-dosing were similar. Conclusions While lower-dose bevacizumab was associated with greater edema reduction in unadjusted analyses, this effect was attenuated after accounting for tumor type. Importantly, 7.5 mg/kg dosing appeared sufficient for achieving edema control and contrast enhancing disease response. These findings support an individualized approach to bevacizumab dosing in radiation necrosis and highlight the need for prospective, tumor-stratified studies.

Abstract Background Bevacizumab is a treatment for radiation necrosis; the optimal dosing remains inadequately studied. Methods Retrospective review of adult patients with primary central nervous system (CNS) tumors or brain metastasis treated with bevacizumab for radiation necrosis from 6/29/2021 to 7/31/2024. Primary outcome was to compare edema response with two different bevacizumab doses: 7.5 mg/kg and 10 mg/kg. Edema response was classified according to the following groups: (1) increase of edema, &gt;105% of baseline; (2) constant edema, 75%-105% of baseline; (3) slight decrease of edema, 25%-75% of baseline; (4) large decrease of edema, &lt;25% of baseline. Results 104 patients were evaluated (median age 59 years, 56% male); 53 patients in the 7.5 mg/kg group and 51 patients in the 10 mg/kg group. Tumor type varied significantly across dosing groups (p &lt; 0.001). In the 7.5 mg/kg group, tumor type was primary CNS (n = 23, 43%), lung (n = 14, 26%), breast (n = 8, 15%), melanoma (n = 4, 8%) and other (n = 4, 8%). In the 10 mg/kg group, tumor type was primary CNS (n = 43, 84%), lung (n = 2, 4%), melanoma (n = 2, 4%) and other (n = 4, 8%). Median number of bevacizumab doses administered was 4. There was a statistically significant difference in distribution of edema response across all response levels favoring bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (p = 0.032). When edema response was dichotomized (large decrease vs other), the difference remained statistically significant (p = 0.015). Conclusion Bevacizumab 10 mg/kg was more efficacious in terms of edema response; this result is impacted by the significantly higher incidence of primary CNS tumors in the 10 mg/kg dosing group.

Background: Shared Decision Making in palliative care encompassing patient-clinician collaboration has shown potential for improved patient outcomes. However, the impact of decision aids intended to support palliative care decision making discussions across clinical care settings remains uncertain. Aim: To assess the impact of shared of decision aids on decision making, clinical outcomes, and quality of life for patients with palliative care needs and their caregivers. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, reported according to PRISMA, with overall evidence quality assessed using GRADE. Data sources: Ovid MEDLINE (all segments), EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, from inception through September 20, 2024, without restrictions on publication date, sample size, or language. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adult patients with palliative care needs or their caregivers, using any form of decision aids. Outcomes encompassed decision-related, clinical, and quality of life measures. Results: Sixteen randomized controlled trials were included. Participant ages ranged from 44 to 85 years. Predominant decision aids were videos or printed materials addressing goals of care and treatment options, with aims that included improving understanding of prognosis and supporting values clarification. Decision aids significantly improved decision-related knowledge (SMD: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.14–0.67, p = 0.003) and lowered preference for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (OR: 0.28, 95% CI: 0.20–0.40, p < 0.001). They showed no significant impact on decisional conflict, satisfaction, or regret. Conclusion: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of decision aids in palliative care decision making is limited and of low overall quality, with observed improvements primarily in patient knowledge and changes in stated treatment preferences rather than established improvements in decision quality or values-concordant care. Future research should prioritize integration into comprehensive shared decision making frameworks, cultural adaptations, and larger-scale studies to enhance patient-centered outcomes.

Abstract Background This secondary analysis of a phase I clinical trial illustrates integrated summary and visualization of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) data and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) data at baseline and through the first cycle of treatment for tolerability review during dose-cohort evaluation in a phase I trial. Methods This study uses data from a phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed a summary of cycle 1 PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data for the first dose-level cohort. This summary is intended to demonstrate reporting that would be reviewed to inform a decision about proceeding to the next dose level in a dose escalation trial. Results Cycle 1 CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE data for 4 patients enrolled in the first dose cohort are summarized as narrative and tabular summaries and visualized using swimmer and butterfly plots. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one CTCAE grade 3 or higher adverse event, and all 4 (100%) patients had at least one PRO-CTCAE composite score of 3 during cycle 1. All 4 (100%) patients had at least one symptom for which PRO-CTCAE suggested greater symptom burden than was reflected in CTCAE. Conclusions In this illustrative summary of a dose cohort, PRO-CTCAE complemented CTCAE reporting by capturing patient-reported symptomatic burden that was not always fully reflected by clinician-graded adverse events. Reviewing PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data together during dose-cohort evaluation may enrich discussions on safety and tolerability in phase I trials.

Abstract Background Isocitrate dehydrogenase-1 (IDH-1) inhibitor ivosidenib and dual-IDH1/2 inhibitor vorasidenib have demonstrated clinical activity in the treatment of IDH-mutant gliomas. We evaluated the efficacy of vorasidenib in patients with prior exposure to ivosidenib. Methods Retrospective review of patients with IDH-mutant glioma treated with vorasidenib who had prior treatment with ivosidenib. Previous treatments, radiographic response, and adverse events were collected and analyzed descriptively. Results Twenty-nine patients (median age 42, 34% female) were evaluated. Tumor types included IDH-mutant astrocytoma (grade 2 n = 9, 31%; grade 3 n = 3, 10%; grade 4 n = 3, 10%) and oligodendroglioma (grade 2 n = 10, 34%; grade 3 n = 4, 14%). Treatments received prior to ivosidenib included surgical resection (n = 23, 79%), radiation (n = 16, 55%), temozolomide (n = 15, 52%), procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine (PCV, n = 2, 7%), bevacizumab (n = 3, 10%), lomustine (n = 2, 7%), and pembrolizumab (n = 1, 3%). Four patients received additional treatment in between ivosidenib and vorasidenib treatment. Ten of 16 (63%) patients who experienced disease progression on ivosidenib achieved stable disease and remain on vorasidenib, while 6 (37%) had continued progression. Eleven patients with stable disease on ivosidenib transitioned to vorasidenib following FDA approval and remained without progression. Two patients who transitioned to vorasidenib due to ivosidenib-related adverse effects (diarrhea and fatigue) experienced symptom resolution and maintained disease stability. Conclusions Vorasidenib demonstrated clinical efficacy in patients with IDH-mutant gliomas previously treated with ivosidenib. Notably, stable patients who transitioned maintained disease stability, while some of those with progressive disease achieved stabilization with vorasidenib. These findings support vorasidenib as a viable therapeutic option following ivosidenib exposure.

INTRODUCTION: Online patient education materials are essential in improving access to and understanding of clinical information. Artificial intelligence (AI), specifically ChatGPT, offers a novel way to synthesize complex information and is increasingly being used for patient education, including in obstetrics and gynecology. This study compares the understandability and actionability of patient education materials about hysterectomy and uterine fibroids generated by ChatGPT with those published by the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG). METHODS: In a randomized cross-sectional study, participants were allocated to one of four groups: ACOG–Fibroids, ChatGPT–Fibroids, ACOG–Hysterectomy, or ChatGPT–Hysterectomy. The ACOG groups reviewed the corresponding ACOG FAQ webpage, while the ChatGPT groups reviewed responses generated by ChatGPT to the same FAQs. Participants then completed demographic questions and the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). The primary outcome was the equivalence of PEMAT scores between ACOG and ChatGPT. RESULTS: Equivalence was not demonstrated between ChatGPT and ACOG for either topic. For fibroid material, ACOG was rated higher on both understandability (86.3 versus 82.6 points, P =.039) and actionability (65.4 versus 53.2 points, P =.003) on superiority testing. For hysterectomy content, no significant difference was observed. No interaction was found between material type and either education level or personal history of fibroids/hysterectomy. CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: PEMAT scores for ACOG were superior to ChatGPT for fibroid content, but neither equivalent nor superior for hysterectomy content. While ChatGPT offers a responsive, iterative source of information, its understandability and actionability may depend on topic-specific factors, highlighting both the promise and limitations of AI for patient education.

Abstract Background/rationale Primary myelofibrosis (PMF) and post-polycythemia vera/essential thrombocythemia (Post-PV/ET MF) (collectively termed MF) are chronic hematopoietic malignancies with progressive bone marrow collagen fibrosis, peripheral cytopenias, extramedullary hematopoiesis, splenomegaly, debilitating constitutional symptoms and heightened risk of transformation to acute leukemia. The only currently approved therapies for MF are JAK inhibitors (JAKi) which can provide significant improvements in splenomegaly and systemic symptoms but do not fundamentally change the pathogenesis of the disease. As a result, additional non-JAKi therapies for patients with MF after JAKi failure represent an important translational focus. Reparixin is a novel, potent and specific inhibitor of the chemokine CXCL8 (IL)-8. IL-8 is a member of a class of cytokines involved in leukocyte recruitment and activation in tissues. There are two known types of CXCL8 receptors – CXCR1 and CXCR2, which are expressed in neutrophils (Baggiolini M, Adv Immunol 1994). IL-8/CXCR1/2 signaling has been shown to be a key mediator of inflammatory signaling in MF patients. Hematopoietic stem/progenitor cells from patients with MF are enriched for a CXCL8/CXCR2 gene signature and display enhanced proliferation and fitness in response to an exogenous CXCL8 ligand in vitro. Genetic deletion or a small molecule inhibitor of CXCR2 in MF mouse adoptive transfer models ameliorates fibrosis, extends overall survival and improves hematologic parameters (Dunbar A, Blood 2023). This pre-clinical data validates targeting this pathway in clinical investigations. Study design This is an open-label, phase II study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of reparixin in patients with Dynamic International Prognostic Scoring System (DIPSS) intermediate-2, or high-risk PMF, post ET/PV MF either after prior treatment with, or those who are ineligible for treatment with a JAKi. Patients will receive oral reparixin 1200 mg three times daily on a four-week cycle for a core study period of 24 weeks. Patients who achieve at least clinical improvement (CI) or stable disease (SD) with one grade improvement in bone marrow fibrosis by International Working Group-Myeloproliferative Neoplasms Research and Treatment (IWG-MRT) criteria at the Cycle 7 response assessment may continue receiving reparixin until loss of response, disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, patients/physician withdrawal, or termination of study by sponsor. The study monitors both efficacy and toxicity using a Bayesian Optimal Phase 2 (BOP2) design. If response is observed in at least one patient out of 10 and safety is confirmed at the interim analysis, the trial will proceed to full enrollment of 26 patients. If more than three responses are observed in the total cohort, then a signal of activity is confirmed. Primary Objective: To estimate the efficacy of reparixin treatment in DIPSS intermediate-2 or high-risk subjects with PMF, post PV-MF, or post ET-MF. Secondary Objectives: To assess the efficacy of reparixin as determined by response assessment using IWG-MRT/ELN criteria at the end of Cycle 6 and Cycle 12. To assess the change in bone marrow fibrosis grade at the end of Cycle 6 and Cycle 12 with reparixin. To assess the safety of reparixin as measured by the adverse event profile of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0. To assess spleen volume reduction by imaging after Cycle 6 and Cycle 12 as compared to baseline spleen volume. Key Exploratory Objectives: To evaluate changes in quality of life and patient-reported outcomes To conduct correlative studies to measure biomarkers of reparixin activity, such as Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) levels, bone marrow microvessel density, megakaryocyte number and peripheral blood CD34+ cell number, and patients with and without IL-8 secretion. Key inclusion criteria: Have a pathologically confirmed diagnosis of PMF, post-ET-MF, or post-PV-MF as per the WHO diagnostic criteria with intermediate-2 or higher risk disease by DIPSS Be refractory/resistant to or intolerant of/inappropriate for JAKi therapy Have adequate liver and kidney function Platelet count ≥ 25 x 109/L Bone marrow and peripheral blood blast count &lt; 10% ANC ≥ 1000 mm3. MPN Research Consortium (MPN-RC) 120 is currently enrolling patients through the MPN-RC clinical sites throughout the United States. Clinical Trial Identifier NCT05835466

Abstract Background In patients with myelofibrosis (MF) undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT), graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis has traditionally included a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) plus methotrexate (MTX). We conducted a retrospective study comparing the safety and efficacy of post-transplant cyclophosphamide (PTCy)-based GVHD prophylaxis to CNI-based regimens. Methods This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic IRB. Patients with myelofibrosis who underwent allo-HCT after 2016 at Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Florida were included. Categorical variables were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Overall survival (OS) was defined from transplant to death, and progression-free survival (PFS) from transplant to relapse or death. OS and PFS were estimated using Kaplan-Meier methods; univariate differences were assessed with log-rank tests. The cumulative incidence of acute and chronic GVHD and time to neutrophil and platelet engraftment were analyzed using competing risk models, with death as a competing event; differences were tested using Gray's test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs). Results A total of 110 patients were included. 53 patients received PTCy-based prophylaxis (43 PTCy/Tac/MMF, 1 PTCy/CSA/MMF, 9 PTCy/Siro/MMF), while 57 received non-PTCy regimens (54 Tac/MTX +/- 39 T-cell depletion, 2 CSA/MMF, 1 Tac/MMF). Median age at transplant was 63 (range: PTCy 40-76; others 38-74) years in both groups; 59 were male (58.5% PTCy vs 49.1% others). Median Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) and HCT–Comorbidity Index (HCT-CI) in patients receiving PTCy vs non-PTCy were 90 vs 80 and 1 vs 3, respectively. Conditioning intensity was similar: 22.6% myeloablative vs 21.7%, and 77.4% reduced-intensity vs 76.7% in PTCy and non-PTCy, respectively (p=1.000). Stem cell source was peripheral blood in all patients except one in the non-PTCy group who received bone marrow. 58 patients had primary MF (54.7% PTCy vs 50.9% others), and 52 had secondary MF (45.3% PTCy vs 49.1% others), including essential thrombocythemia (28.3% PTCy vs 31.6% others), polycythemia vera (17.0% vs 15.8%), and MPN-NOS (0% vs 1.8%). Median follow-up was 26.2 months (95% CI: 20.7-52.7) in the PTCy and 60.6 months (95% CI: 53.1-70.6) in the non-PTCy cohort. CD3 and CD33 donor chimerism ≥95% at day +100 was 66.7% and 86.7% in PTCy vs 63.6% and 92.7% in others, respectively (p=0.50); day +100 driver molecular mutations were present in 32.1% of PTCy and 32.0% of others (p&gt;0.99). Rates of acute GVHD grades ≥2 and ≥3 were not statistically significant, in the PTCy group (37.7% vs 49.1% p=0.229 and 17.0% vs 22.8% p=0.445, respectively). Chronic GVHD (any grade) occurred in 42.3% of PTCy vs 38.2% of others (p=0.664), while moderate-to-severe cGVHD was lower with PTCy (21.2% vs 27.3% p=0.461). Platelet engraftment was significantly delayed in the PTCy group (median 33 vs 21 days, p=0.030). Median time to neutrophil engraftment was also delayed in the PTCy group (20 vs 17 days, adjusted p=0.025). Age-adjusted HR for time to platelet engraftment was 0.60 (95% CI: 0.41–0.90; p=0.014), and for neutrophil engraftment 0.65 (95% CI: 0.44–0.95; p=0.025), indicating significantly delayed hematopoietic recovery with PTCy. Graft failure occurred in 9.4% vs 5.3% (p = 0.48); primary 7.5% vs 3.5%, secondary 1.9% vs 1.8% in PTCy vs non-PTCy groups, respectively. Relapse or progression occurred in 11.3% of PTCy vs 17.5% of others (p=0.355); four patients in the non-PTCy group progressed to AML post-transplant, versus none in the PTCy group (p=0.119). 1-year TRM was 22.6% in the PTCy group and 14.0% in the non-PTCy group, p = 0.324. Median OS was 72.8 months in the PTCy group (95% CI: 49.9 months, upper limit not estimable [NE]) and 93.4 months in the non-PTCy group (95% CI: 48.5 months, upper limit NE), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.739). After adjusting for age and HCT-CI, there were no significant differences in PFS (adjusted HR 1.37; 95% CI: 0.73–2.56; p=0.331) or OS (adjusted HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.64–2.51; p=0.498). Conclusions In myelofibrosis patients undergoing allo-HCT, PTCy-based GVHD prophylaxis showed similar rates of grade ≥2 acute and moderate-severe chronic GVHD compared to non-PTCy regimens. Engraftment was significantly delayed, while OS and PFS were comparable. PTCy appears to be a safe and viable alternative to CNI-based prophylaxis.