Citations

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

Abstract BACKGROUND Embolization of brain arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) using ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer (Onyx) embolization may influence the treatment effects of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) differently than other embolysates. OBJECTIVE To compare the outcomes of pre-SRS AVM embolization with vs without Onyx through a multicenter, retrospective matched cohort study. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed International Radiosurgery Research Foundation AVM databases from 1987 to 2018. Embolized AVMs treated with SRS were selected and categorized based on embolysate usage into Onyx embolization (OE + SRS) or non-Onyx embolization (NOE + SRS) cohorts. The 2 cohorts were matched in a 1:1 ratio using de novo AVM features for comparative analysis of outcomes. RESULTS The matched cohorts each comprised 45 patients. Crude AVM obliteration rates were similar between the matched OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (47% vs 51%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.837, P = .673). Cumulative probabilities of obliteration were also similar between the OE + SRS vs NOE + SRS cohorts (subhazard ratio = 0.992, P = .980). Rates of post-SRS hemorrhage, all-cause mortality, radiation-induced changes, cyst formation, and embolization-associated complications were similar between the matched cohorts. Sensitivity analysis for AVMs in the OE + SRS cohort embolized with Onyx alone revealed a higher rate of asymptomatic embolization-associated complications in this subgroup compared to the NOE + SRS cohort (36% vs 15%; OR = 3.297, P = .034), but the symptomatic complication rates were similar. CONCLUSION Nidal embolization using Onyx does not appear to differentially impact the outcomes of AVM SRS compared with non-Onyx embolysates. The embolic agent selected for pre-SRS AVM embolization should reflect both the experience of the neurointerventionalist and target of endovascular intervention.

Abstract Advances in treatment of oligodendroglioma represent arguably the most significant recent development in the treatment of brain tumors, with multiple clinical trials demonstrating that median survival is approximately doubled in patients with World Health Organization grade II and III 1p/19q codeleted gliomas (ie, oligodendrogliomas) treated with procarbazine, lomustine, vincristine chemotherapy and radiation vs radiation alone. However, chemoradiotherapy itself is not without morbidity, including both short-term toxicities primarily related to chemotherapy and longer-term cognitive issues likely due to radiation. Patients and physicians both desire maximally effective therapy with minimal toxicity, and it remains unclear whether some patients with macroscopic residual disease after surgery can safely delay therapy, to avoid or delay toxicity, while simultaneously preserving the full benefits of treatment. In this article, experts in the field discuss the rationale for the approaches of up-front treatment with chemoradiotherapy and initial observation, respectively.

Introduction: Multikinase inhibitors have clinical activity in radioactive iodine refractory (RAIR) differentiated thyroid cancers (DTCs) but are not curative; optimal management and salvage therapies remain unclear. This study assessed clinical effects of pazopanib therapy in RAIR-DTC patients with progressive disease, examining in parallel biomarker that might forecast/precede therapeutic response. Methods: Assessment of responses and toxicities and of any association between thyroglobulin (Tg) changes cycle 1 and RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumors) response to pazopanib therapy were prospectively undertaken in Tg antibody negative RAIR-DTC patients. RECIST progressive metastatic disease <6 months preceding enrollment was required. With a sample size of 68 (assuming 23 attaining partial response [PR]), there would be 90% chance of detecting a difference of >30% when the proportion of patients attaining PR whose Tg values decrease by >50% is >50% cycle 1 (one-sided α = 0.10, two sample test of proportions). Mean corpuscular volume (MCV) change or mutational status or pretreatment were also explored as early correlates of eventual RECIST response. Results: From 2009 to 2011, 60 individuals were treated and evaluated; (one additional patient withdrew; another was found ineligible before therapy initiation); 91.7% had previous systemic therapy beyond RAI. Adverse events included one death (thromboembolic) deemed possibly pazopanib associated. Twenty-two confirmed RECIST PRs resulted (36.7%, confidence interval; CI [24.6–50.1]); mean administered 4-week cycles was 10. Among 44 fully accessible patients, the Tg nadir was greater among the 20 attaining PR (median: −86.8%; interquartile range [IQR]: −90.7% to −70.9%) compared with the 28 who did not (median: −69.0%; IQR: −78.1% to −27.7%, Wilcoxon rank-sum test: p = 0.002). However, the difference in the proportion of PRs among those whose Tg fell ≥50% after cycle 1 versus those that did not were not significantly correlated (−23.5% [CI: −55.3 to 8.3]; Fisher's exact test p -value = 0.27). RECIST response was also not correlated with/predicted by early MCV change, receipt of prior therapy, or tumor mutational status. Conclusions: This trial prospectively confirmed pazopanib to have clinical activity and manageable toxicities in patients with progressive RAIR-DTC. Response to pazopanib, however, was not robustly forecast by early associated changes in Tg or MCV, by prior therapy, or by tumor mutational status. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00625846.

Abstract Paratesticular rhabdomyosarcoma (PT‐RMS) carries a favorable prognosis, but questions persist regarding optimal management. Our goal was to determine the importance of primary tumor resection and surgical assessment of retroperitoneal lymph nodes during staging in patients with PT‐RMS. We analyzed patients with localized PT‐RMS enrolled onto one of four Children's Oncology Group studies (D9602, ARST0331, D9803 or ARST0531). Surgical resection of the primary tumor prior to chemotherapy and radiotherapy was encouraged when possible with retroperitoneal lymph node dissection (RPLND) recommended for patients ≥10 years of age. Among 279 patients (median 8.1 years old), most tumors were resected with negative margins (78.5%) and most patients did not have radiographic enlargement of regional lymph nodes (90.3%). In patients older than 10 years, imaging alone will miss over 51.5% of nodal disease. Five‐year event‐free survival (EFS) was 92.0% (95% CI 88.4%‐95.6%). Sampling ≥7 to 12 retroperitoneal lymph nodes appeared optimal for detecting positive nodes; while there was a trend toward improved EFS among those undergoing template RPLND, this was not statistically significant ( P = .068). Age ( P = .28), N‐stage ( P = .39), T‐stage ( P = .11) and pathologic node involvement ( P = .53) were not associated with overall survival. However, older age and larger tumor size had an additive impact on EFS ( P = .027) though not overall survival ( P = .13). In conclusion, outcomes for patients with PT‐RMS are excellent. Reliance on imaging to detect nodal involvement will miss pathologic node involvement and may result in undertreatment. Surgical nodal staging requires at least 7 to 12 nodes to accurately identify patients with regional nodal disease.

Background Vascularized gastroepiploic lymph node flaps have become a popular option to treat patients with extremity lymphedema. Overall, 2 surgical approaches to harvest this flap have been described: laparoscopic and open. In this study, we analyzed complications, harvesting time, and patient satisfaction scores, comparing these 2 techniques. Methods Between 2012– and 2018, all patients with extremity lymphedema and candidates for the gastroepiploic flap harvest were included. Two groups were compared: open and laparoscopic approaches. Flap harvest time, postoperative pain, complications, return of gastrointestinal motility, time to discharge, and patient satisfaction scores were assessed. Results A total of 177 patients were included, of which 126 underwent laparoscopic harvest and 51 patients underwent open approach. Only 2 patients in the laparoscopic group had prior abdominal surgery not related to cancer treatment compared with 7 patients in the open approach (P < 0.01). Average surgical completion time for the laparoscopic versus open approach was 136 and 102 minutes, respectively (P < 0.02). Postoperative complications for the laparoscopic versus open were as follows: 1 patient developed pancreatitis and 2 developed ileus in the laparoscopic approach, whereas 3 patients developed ileus, 1 developed small bowel obstruction, 2 developed superficial site infection, and 1 developed minor wound dehiscence in the open approach. No patient required further surgical intervention. Average return of gastrointestinal function was 1 day (laparoscopic) and 2 days (open), respectively. On a pain scale, pain scores at postoperative day 1 and upon discharge were on average 3 versus 7 and 2 versus 5, respectively (P < 0.05). Lengths of hospital stay were on average 2 days in the laparoscopic group and 5 days in the open group (P < 0.001). Patient satisfaction scores based on pain and scars were significantly better in the laparoscopic group versus open group (P < 0.03). Conclusions These data support that a minimal invasive approach is ideal and efficient when resources are available. In addition, the lower complication rate and high patient satisfaction scores give promising feedback to continue offering this technique.

11539 Background: Ripretinib is a novel switch-control TKI that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling. In INVICTUS (NCT03353753), a randomized, double-blind, placebo (PBO)-controlled trial of ripretinib in ≥4th-line advanced GIST, ripretinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 85% vs PBO with a favorable overall safety profile. Common ( > 20%) adverse events (AEs) included, but were not limited to, alopecia and PPES. Exploratory analyses evaluated the impact of alopecia and PPES on quality of life (QoL). Methods: Patients (pts) with advanced GIST previously treated with at least imatinib, sunitinib, and regorafenib were randomized (2:1) to ripretinib 150 mg QD or PBO. AEs were graded using CTCAE v4 and PROs collected using EQ-5D-5L (EQ5D) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (C30). Repeated measures (RM) models assessed the impact of alopecia and PPES on 5 PROs (EQ5D visual analogue scale; and C30 physical functioning, role functioning, and the overall health and overall QoL questions) within the ripretinib arm. Fixed effects were sex, alopecia/PPES, and ECOG scores at baseline. Results: 128/129 randomized pts received treatment (85 ripretinib 150 mg QD; 43 PBO). Alopecia, regardless of causality, occurred in 44 (51.8%) on ripretinib (34 [40.0%] grade 1; 10 [11.8%] grade 2) and 2 (4.7%) on PBO (both grade 1). PPES occurred in 18 (21.2%) on ripretinib (11 [12.9%] grade 1; 7 [8.2%] grade 2); none on PBO. The median times in days to first occurrence and worst severity grade with ripretinib were 57.0 and 62.5 for alopecia; 56.5 and 57.0 for PPES. The RM models showed a slight trend towards improvement in PRO score over time for pts with alopecia; the only association reaching a P-value of < 0.05 was between alopecia and increased overall QoL. None of the associations between PPES and PRO scores reach P < 0.05. All PRO p-values are nominal, and no statistical significance is being claimed. Conclusions: Ripretinib had a favorable overall safety and tolerability profile. When stratified by alopecia and PPES, patient-reported assessments of function, overall health, and overall QoL were maintained over time. For both alopecia and PPES, onset and maximum severity occurred almost simultaneously, indicating that these events generally did not progressively worsen. These results suggest that alopecia and PPES are manageable and do not have a negative effect on function, overall health, and QoL. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753 .

11535 Background: Ripretinib is a novel switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that broadly inhibits KIT and PDGFRA kinase signaling through a dual mechanism of action. In INVICTUS (NCT03353753), a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of ripretinib in ≥4th-line advanced GIST, ripretinib reduced the risk of disease progression or death by 85% vs placebo and had a favorable overall safety profile in patients previously treated with ≥3 prior TKIs. Methods: As part of the INVICTUS trial, patient reported outcome (PRO) measures were collected using EQ-5D-5L (EQ5D) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (C30). In prespecified and additional analyses, ANCOVA models were built to compare changes from baseline to cycle 2 day 1 (C2D1) for PRO measures within the ripretinib and placebo arms and determine the difference between treatment arms. PRO measures included the EQ5D visual analogue scale (VAS) and the C30 physical functioning (PF) and role functioning (RF) scales (all scores range from 0–100; higher scores are better). The C30 overall health and overall QoL questions were also assessed (scores range from 1–7; higher scores are better). Fixed effects included treatment arm, number of previous anticancer treatments (3 vs ≥4), and ECOG score at baseline (0 vs 1/2). Results: Overall, 129 patients were randomized and 128 received treatment (85 to ripretinib 150 mg QD; 43 to placebo). All PRO p-values are nominal, and no statistical significance is being claimed. VAS scores improved an average 3.7 points from baseline to C2D1 with ripretinib vs an average decline of 8.9 with placebo (P = 0.004; improvement or no change, 67% vs 41% of patients, respectively). Similarly, the average PF score improved 1.6 points with ripretinib and decreased 8.9 with placebo (P = 0.004; improvement or no change, 68% vs 44%). RF scores also improved an average of 3.5 points with ripretinib vs a decrease of 17.1 with placebo (P = 0.001; improvement or no change, 77% vs 50%). For the overall health and overall QoL questions, scores increased with ripretinib an average of 0.20 and 0.28, respectively, and decreased 0.78 and 0.76 with placebo (both P = 0.001; improvement or no change, 74% vs 47% and 79% vs 59%, respectively). Conclusions: Based on the 5 PRO measures assessed, when compared with placebo and best supportive care, ripretinib provided patient-benefit in advanced GIST with PRO measures of role and physical function, VAS, overall health, and overall QoL remaining stable. Clinical trial information: NCT03353753 .

6016 Background: The role of HIPEC for recurrent EOC is not well defined. The aim of this phase II study was to determine the proportion of pts without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS +/- intraoperative carboplatin HIPEC. Methods: After SCS to ≤ 0.5 cm residual visible disease pts were intraoperatively randomized to carboplatin HIPEC (800mg/m2 for 90 minutes) or no HIPEC. The HIPEC arm received 5 additional and the standard arm received 6 postoperative cycles of IV platinum-based chemotherapy without maintenance treatment. Based on an exact binomial single stage “pick the winner” design, each arm is considered “winner” if ≥ 17/49 pts are without evidence of disease progression at 24 months post SCS. Secondary objectives include postoperative grade ≥ 3 toxicity and complications within 4 weeks post SCS, and pharmacokinetics of carboplatin HIPEC. Results: Of 98 pts, 49 (50%) were randomized to the HIPEC arm. The arms were well balanced for age, stage, histology, BRCA mutation status, prior chemotherapy, and disease-free interval. Complete gross SCS was achieved in 94% of the standard and 82% of the HIPEC arm (p = 0.12). Bowel resection was performed more frequently in the standard (65%) compared to the HIPEC arm (37%; p = 0.008). Median operative time was shorter in the standard (296 minutes) compared to the HIPEC arm (475 minutes; p < 0.001). There was no perioperative mortality and no difference in use of ostomies, length of stay or postoperative toxicity. At a median follow-up of 27.7 months (range: 8.8-81.8 months) 70 of 98 pts progressed and 26 died with a median progression free survival (PFS) of 14.3 months (12.1-16 months) and a median overall survival (OS) of 55.2 months (47.7-not reached). At 24 months post SCS 32 pts progressed within 24 months in the standard versus 35 in the HIPEC arm. There was no statistically significant difference in median PFS (15.4 vs 12.3 months, p = 0.173) or median OS (69.2 vs 53.1 months, p = 0.317) between arms. These are preliminary efficacy estimates as 83/98 pts have a minimum of 24 months follow-up. Conclusions: The HIPEC arm did not reach the predefined “winner” endpoint; the standard arm is still undetermined as 6 pts did not reach 24 months follow-up. No perioperative mortality, and no increased perioperative morbidity or toxicity was seen with HIPEC. SCS with carboplatin HIPEC followed by 5 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was not superior to SCS without HIPEC followed by 6 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT01767675.