Siontis, Brittany L

Traditional home-call managing after-hours pager communications remains a common component of hematology-oncology fellowship and modern practice. Little is known about these patient-related interactions and implications. This project aimed to characterize after-hours pager volumes and evaluate perceived impacts on care, physician wellbeing, and trainee education. We performed a mixed-methods study at a tertiary academic center, analyzing after-hours pager activity from 2020-2024 across Hematology Consult (HCP), Hematology Outpatient (HOP), and Medical Oncology (MOP) pagers. A survey of hematology-oncology fellows evaluated perceptions and attitudes toward the home-call experience using free-text responses and a 5-point Likert scale. After-hours pager burden was substantial and sustained. The MOP received >3,000 pages annually, with medians of 5-6 per weekday and 15-15.5 per weekend day. The HOP volume nearly doubled over the study period (960 to 1,721 annually) with median pager volumes of 1-3 per weekday and 2-7 per weekend day. The HCP volume ranged from 594-768 pages annually. Survey response rate was 58% (19/33). Only 16% of fellows endorsed educational value from patient calls on MOP or HOP, and ≤5% agreed that call tasks required physician-level expertise. Respondents reported that the pager resulted in fatigue, anxiety, and social disruptions. Free text responses revealed themes of low educational value, high non-urgent call volume, and system inefficiencies. Contemporary home-call had substantial pager burdens with limited actionability, adverse effects on wellbeing, and low educational value. Systems engineering, including triage processes and augmented patient education, could help optimize patient care, physician wellbeing, and trainee education.

Background: Localized soft tissue sarcoma (STS) is primarily treated with surgical resection with or without radiotherapy (RT), while the role of chemotherapy (CT) as a radiosensitizer remains unclear. We report our single-institution experience with combined chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) in treating localized STS. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients with localized STS treated at Mayo Clinic with mitomycin, cisplatin, and doxorubicin (MitoAP) concurrently with RT between 1/1/85 and 12/12/19. Results: We identified 179 patients (median age 58 years; median tumor size 9.5 cm), with 83.8% of tumors located in the extremities or trunk. Among them, 77.1% received perioperative CT in addition to CCRT, with 95% of those treated in the neoadjuvant setting. Median RT dose was 50 Gray. The 5-year disease-specific survival (DSS) was 77.9% (95% confidence interval, CI: 70.8–83.4%). The addition of perioperative CT to CCRT was associated with improved DSS compared with CCRT alone (p = 0.01, Hazard Ratio, HR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.27–0.85). Median post-CCRT tumor viability was 30% and did not differ by CT use (p = 0.39), but varied significantly by histology (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our institutional protocol utilizing two cycles of MitoAP with RT was well tolerated. DSS in our cohort was similar to historical data using perioperative RT alone, suggesting no clear benefit from CCRT. However, the majority of patients in our cohort were classified as high risk, which may have attenuated a potential survival benefit in the absence of appropriate comparative controls. Furthermore, additional perioperative CT to CCRT was associated with improved DSS and differential histology-specific responses in tumor viability, suggesting that a more aggressive neoadjuvant and perioperative approach may be beneficial in selected patients.

Abstract Purpose: Soft-tissue sarcomas are rare malignancies with poor prognosis and limited systemic treatment options. We conducted a phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of trabectedin and olaparib in patients with advanced disease. Patients and Methods: Patients with soft-tissue sarcoma who received ≥1 prior therapy were recruited into two cohorts. Cohort 1 included leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma; cohort 2 included other histologies. All patients received trabectedin (1.1 mg/m2 24-hour infusion every 21 days) and olaparib (150 mg twice daily continuously). The study was conducted using a Simon minimax two-stage design with a primary endpoint of objective response (OR) rate per RECIST 1.1. Results: Twenty-nine (cohort 1, 16; cohort 2, 13) patients enrolled; one patient in cohort 2 was not evaluable. There were no confirmed ORs in cohort 1; the best response was stable disease in 12 (75%) patients and progressive disease in four (25%). Two partial responses were observed in cohort 2 (n = 12). The most common adverse events were fatigue (75%), neutropenia (75%), anemia (68%), and thrombocytopenia (68%). The median progression-free survival and overall survival for all patients were 3.5 (95% confidence interval, 3.3–8.2) and 13.2 months (95% confidence interval, 10.3–20.9), respectively. Next-generation sequencing of 17 tumors revealed multiple abnormalities, most commonly in TP53, RB1, and ATRX. Conclusions: Trabectedin plus olaparib conferred high rates of toxicity and failed to demonstrate ORs in leiomyosarcoma and liposarcoma. Preliminary evidence of clinical benefit in two patients in cohort 2 suggests potential value of either or both drugs in other sarcomas.

Abstract Purpose: Epithelioid hemangioendothelioma (EHE) is a rare vascular cancer with pathogenic TAZ–CAMTA1 (calmodulinbinding transcription activator 1) operating as an oncogenic driver through activation of the MAPK pathway. Trametinib is an inhibitor of MEK, a critical kinase in the MAPK pathway. We sought to evaluate the effect of trametinib in patients with EHE. Patients and Methods: A phase 2 trial of trametinib was conducted in patients with locally advanced or metastatic EHE. Eligibility requirements included evidence of tumor progression or presence of EHE-related pain requiring opiates for management before enrollment. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) as per RECIST1.1 in cases with TAZ– CAMTA1 confirmed by fusion-FISH. Secondary objectives were to estimate ORR for all patients, median progression-free survival (PFS), 2-year overall survival (OS) rate, patient safety, and change in patient-reported global health and pain scores per PROMIS questionnaires. Results: 44 patients enrolled and 42 started trametinib. TAZ– CAMTA1 was detected in 27 tumor samples. TheORRwas 3.7%[95% confidence interval (CI), 0.094–19.0], median PFS was 10.4 months (95%CI, 7.1–NA), and 2-year OS rate was 33.3%(95%CI, 19.1–58.2) in the target population. Median pain intensity and interference scores improved significantly after 4 weeks of trametinib in patients using opiates. Common adverse events related to trametinib were rash, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea/constipation, alopecia, and edema; one grade 5 ARDS/pneumonitis was related to trametinib. Conclusions: Trametinib was associated with reduction in EHE-related pain and median PFS of more than 6 months, providing palliative benefit in patients with advanced EHE, but the trial did not meet the ORR goal. See related commentary by Van Tine and Haarberg, p. 4552

Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the impact of trimodality treatment versus monotherapy or dual therapy for radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAASB) after prior breast cancer treatment. Experimental Design: With Institutional Review Board approval, we identified patients diagnosed with RAASB and abstracted data on disease presentation, treatment, and oncologic outcomes. Trimodality therapy included (i) taxane induction, (ii) concurrent taxane/radiation, and then (iii) surgical resection with wide margins. Results: A total of 38 patients (median age 69 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixteen received trimodality therapy and 22 monotherapy/dual therapy. Skin involvement and disease extent were similar in both groups. All trimodality patients required reconstructive procedures for wound closure/coverage, compared with 48% of monotherapy/dual therapy patients (P &lt; 0.001). Twelve of 16 (75%) patients receiving trimodality therapy had a pathologic complete response (pCR). With median follow-up of 5.6 years, none had local recurrence, 1 patient (6%) had distant recurrence, and no patients died. Among 22 patients in the monotherapy/dual therapy group, 10 (45%) had local recurrence, 8 (36%) had distant recurrence, and 7 (32%) died of disease. Trimodality therapy demonstrated significantly better 5-year recurrence-free survival [RFS; 93.8% vs. 42.9%; P = 0.004; HR, 7.6 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.3–44.2)]. Combining all patients with RAASB regardless of treatment, local recurrence was associated with subsequent distant recurrence (HR, 9.0; P = 0.002); distant recurrence developed in 3 of 28 (11%) patients without local recurrence compared with 6 of 10 (60%) with local recurrence. The trimodality group had more surgical complications that required reoperation or prolonged healing. Conclusions: Trimodality therapy for RAASB was more toxic but is promising, with a high rate of pCR, durable local control, and improved RFS.