Citations

AbstractBackgroundProton pump inhibitors (PPIs) negatively impact fluoropyrimidine‐based chemotherapy efficacy in colorectal cancer. This study assessed PPI impact on major pathologic response (mPR) rates of pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients receiving fluoropyrimidine‐based chemotherapy.MethodsAn institutional retrospective review of resected PDAC patients receiving neoadjuvant fluoropyrimidine‐based chemotherapy (98% FOLFIRINOX) from 2011 to 2021 was conducted. Outcomes were stratified by use or nonuse of PPIs within 6 months of neoadjuvant chemotherapy initiation. Primary outcome was mPR defined as complete or near complete response.ResultsAmong 540 patients included, the median age was 64 (IQR: 60–70) years, 297 (55%) were male, and 202 (37%) were PPI users. 170 (31%) patients had mPR with similar rates among PPI users and nonusers (29% vs. 33%, p = 0.38). No difference in mPR was seen between PPI users and nonusers receiving chemoradiation (35% vs. 36%, p = 0.89) or ≥8 cycles of NAC (33% vs. 36%, p = 0.55). Median OS for PPI users was 30.9 versus 31.7 months for nonusers (p = 0.62). On multivariable analysis, PPI therapy was not associated with decreased survival.ConclusionPPI usage did not significantly influence mPR or OS following neoadjuvant fluoropyrimidine‐based chemotherapy in resected PDAC patients. Further analysis of all patients, not just those who underwent resection, is required.

Abstract Objective To estimate the number needed to treat and cost per additional responder for atogepant and rimegepant versus placebo for the preventive treatment of episodic migraine (EM) in the United States. Background Migraine has an enormous impact on a person's daily activities and quality of life, and results in significant clinical and economic burden to both individuals and society. It is important to understand the comparative efficacy and economic value of oral calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonists (gepants) for preventive treatment of EM. Currently, atogepant and rimegepant are US Food and Drug Administration approved for preventive treatment of migraine (rimegepant for EM and atogepant for EM and for chronic migraine). In the absence of head‐to‐head trials, we utilized an indirect treatment comparison on efficacy data from clinical trials conducted for the preventive treatment of EM. We estimated number needed to treat, a valuable metric used in clinical practice to compare treatment efficacy, and cost per additional responder, which can be used to establish the cost effectiveness of a treatment. Methods An indirect treatment comparison was conducted to compare the efficacy of atogepant 60 mg once daily and rimegepant 75 mg once every other day as preventive treatments for EM using published data from the registrational trials of atogepant (ADVANCE) and rimegepant (BHV3000‐305). The efficacy outcome of interest was ≥50% reduction from baseline in mean monthly migraine/headache days (≥50% responder rate), which was variably defined for a base case and two scenario analyses. Number needed to treat and cost per additional responder versus placebo were calculated and compared between both treatments (weeks 9–12 in the base case analysis; weeks 1–12 and 9–12 for atogepant and during weeks 9–12 for rimegepant in the scenario analyses). Results In the base case analysis, ≥50% responder rates were 64.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 53.9–74.5) for atogepant and 51.8% (95% CI, 42.9–60.6) for rimegepant, compared to 44.1% (95% CI, 39.4–49.0) for placebo. The median number needed to treat versus placebo in the base case scenario was 4.8 (95% CI, 3.1–9.0) for atogepant compared to 13.0 (95% CI, 5.9–75.1) for rimegepant. The cost per additional responder versus placebo in the base case scenario was estimated to be $15,823 (95% CI, $11,079–$29,516) for atogepant compared to $73,029 (95% CI, $32,901–$422,104) for rimegepant. Results of the two scenario analyses were consistent with the base case analysis. Conclusions Atogepant had substantially lower numbers needed to treat and costs per additional responder versus placebo than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM across all evaluated scenarios. These analyses suggest that atogepant may be more cost effective than rimegepant for the preventive treatment of EM. Limitations include differences in inclusion/exclusion criteria and in reporting of the ≥50% responder rates between trials.

Abstract Background In the TOPAZ-1, patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) and recurrence within 6 months after surgery were excluded, even if this event is frequently observed in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess if the efficacy of cisplatin-gemcitabine-durvalumab (CGD) in this population is comparable to that reported in the phase 3 trial. Methods The study cohort included patients with BTC who underwent surgery on the primary tumor, experienced disease recurrence occurring ≤6 months or >6 months after surgery or after the end of adjuvant therapy and started CGD. The primary objectives were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Results A total of 178 patients were enrolled. No significant differences were observed between early and late relapse groups in OS (23.4 months vs not reached; HR 1.26; 95% CI, 0.67-2.37; P = .45) and PFS [7.0 months vs 9.8 months; HR 1.3(95% CI, 0.9-2.1) P = .13]. Overall response rate and disease control rate (P = .33 and P = .62) were comparable between the 2 groups, as the overall safety profile. In addition, we compared survival outcomes between the selected population and a historical cohort of patients with BTC treated with cisplatin-gemcitabine (CG) and found that despite the absence of statistical significance, CGD showed an outcome trend compared with CG regardless of the time of recurrence after surgery or adjuvant chemotherapy [(CG ≤ 6 vs CGD ≤ 6 months: HR 0.59, 95%CI, 0.35-1.01, P = .05; HR 0.70; 95%CI, 0.46-1.06, P = .09, OS and PFS, respectively) and (CG > 6 vs. CGD > 6 months: HR 0.50; 95%CI, 0.29-0.88, P = 0.0165; HR 0.54; 95%CI, 0.35-0.84, P = .0068, OS and PFS, respectively)]. Conclusion Our analysis suggests that CGD retains its efficacy independently of the timing of relapse after surgery or completion of adjuvant treatment in patients with advanced BTC.

PURPOSE Imlunestrant is a next-generation oral selective estrogen receptor (ER) degrader designed to deliver continuous ER target inhibition, including in ESR1- mutant breast cancer. This phase Ia/b trial determined the recommended phase II dose (RP2D), safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of imlunestrant, as monotherapy and in combination with targeted therapy, in ER-positive (ER+) advanced breast cancer (ABC) and endometrial endometrioid cancer. The ER+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2–) ABC experience is reported here. METHODS An i3+3 dose-escalation design was used, followed by dose expansions of imlunestrant as monotherapy or in combination with abemaciclib with or without aromatase inhibitor (AI), everolimus, or alpelisib. Imlunestrant was administered orally once daily and with the combination partner per label. RESULTS Overall, 262 patients with ER+/HER2– ABC were treated (phase Ia, n = 74; phase Ib, n = 188). Among patients who received imlunestrant monotherapy (n = 114), no dose-limiting toxicities or discontinuations occurred. At the RP2D (400 mg once daily), patients (n = 51) reported grade 1-2 nausea (39.2%), fatigue (39.2%), and diarrhea (29.4%). Patients at RP2D had received previous cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor (CDK4/6i; 92.2%), fulvestrant (41.2%), and chemotherapy (29.4%) for ABC and achieved a median progression-free survival (mPFS) of 7.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 8.3). Among patients who received imlunestrant + abemaciclib (n = 42) and imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI (n = 43), most (69.4%) were treatment-naïve for ABC; all were CDK4/6i-naïve. Patients treated with imlunestrant + everolimus (n = 42)/alpelisib (n = 21) had received previous CDK4/6i (100%), fulvestrant (34.9%), and chemotherapy (17.5%) for ABC. No new safety signals or interactions with partnered drugs were observed. The mPFS was 19.2 months (95% CI, 13.8 to not available) for imlunestrant + abemaciclib and was not reached for imlunestrant + abemaciclib + AI. The mPFS with imlunestrant + everolimus/alpelisib was 15.9 months (95% CI, 11.3 to 19.1)/9.2 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 11.1). Antitumor activity was evident regardless of ESR1 mutation status. CONCLUSION Imlunestrant, as monotherapy or in combination with targeted therapy, had a manageable safety profile with evidence of preliminary antitumor activity in ER+/HER2– ABC.

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

The Human Factors (HF) track at the Annual Healthcare Distance Simulation Summit focuses on improving the effectiveness of distance simulation utilizing human factors principles. During this presentation, we will 1. review the work to-date of the HF track of the Distance Simulation Summit, 2. discuss current opportunities for collaboration between human factors practitioners and simulationists, and 3. introduce ideas for future work. The potential target audiences for this discussion are researchers and practitioners who are interested in or involved in distance simulation or simulation in healthcare generally, educators who want to learn how to use distance simulation effectively and efficiently, and healthcare professionals and students who want to enhance their skills and knowledge about distance simulation. The presentation will stimulate discussion and feedback from the audience, which can enrich the knowledge base and generate new research questions and directions for distance simulation.

Abstract Introduction: Current guidelines state the effectiveness of desmopressin to reduce hematoma expansion in antiplatelet-related intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is uncertain. This study sought to determine if desmopressin decreased hematoma expansion in ICH patients on antiplatelet agents. Methods: We conducted a multi-center, retrospective propensity-matched cohort study at 11 US emergency departments (ED) that participate in EMPHARM-NET. Adult patients ≥18 years with a primary diagnosis of spontaneous ICH on antiplatelets prior to admission from January 1, 2017 through May 1, 2021 were included. The primary endpoint was good or excellent hemostatic efficacy within the first 24 hours following ICH between patients that did and did not receive desmopressin. Brain imaging was reviewed using 3D-Slicer by blinded expert physicians. Results: Overall, 1408 patients were evaluated for inclusion. A total of 324 patients were included, of which 13.8% (n=45) received desmopressin and 86.1% (n=279) did not. After propensity matching, 35 patients receive desmopressin compared to 140 controls. Baseline hematoma volume (27.6 mL vs. 2.1 mL) and was significantly higher in the desmopressin group. The primary endpoint of good or excellent hemostatic efficacy was similar between groups (74.3% desmopressin group vs. 85% control group, -10.7% [-28.1% to 6.7%]). There was no difference in secondary outcomes. Conclusion: In this multicenter cohort, patients receiving desmopressin had higher baseline intraparenchymal hematoma volume, and did not appear to result in improved hemostatic efficacy relative to the control group. These results suggest against routine administration of desmopressin for antiplatelet-related ICH, though future study in a randomized trial design is necessary.

SummaryDespite the clinical and molecular heterogeneity of follicular lymphoma (FL), there remains a lack of biomarker‐directed therapeutic approaches in routine clinical practice, with the notable exception of the EZH2 inhibitor tazemetostat in EZH2‐mutant FL. Here we examined whether gene mutation status predicts response to clinical mTOR inhibitors (mTORi) in FL, by performing targeted mutational profiling of biopsies from 21 relapsed/refractory FL patients treated with mTORi everolimus or temsirolimus within clinical trials. We observed an enrichment of mutations within the catalytic histone acetyltransferase (HAT) domain of CREBBP in mTORi‐responders, and describe distinct transcriptional characteristics and co‐occurring mutations of FL harbouring these mutations; reinforcing the growing appreciation of CREBBPHAT mutation as a key biological determinant and its promise as a therapeutic biomarker in FL.

Abstract Purpose: Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into survivorship care may improve the comprehensiveness of follow-up. The objective was to engage stakeholders to develop a PRO assessment of survivors’ symptoms and concerns for use during breast cancer follow-up. Methods: We convened patient and oncologist stakeholder advisory groups to define a low-risk survivor cohort; develop an initial PRO assessment including survivorship domains of importance, measurement instruments, and clinically significant thresholds; and revise the assessment based on feedback from community focus groups and two rounds of iterative pilot testing with survivors. Results: The most commonly cited “low-risk” criteria was cancer stage. Stakeholders identified key domains and measurement instruments, including recurrence symptoms, treatment side-effects, adherence, mental health, and sexual health. Ninety-four survivors completed the PRO assessment in the initial pilot test (median age 62 years, median 2 years from diagnosis). Most (89/93) reported questions were easy to understand. The level of missingness was low. The most common threshold-level symptoms/concerns were hot flashes (46%), fatigue (35%), back pain (31%), joint pain (31%), and anxiety (30%). The PRO assessment was revised to clarify symptom causality and desire to discuss with a provider. In a follow-up pilot study with twenty survivors, the most common symptoms were chest/breast discomfort (50%) and anxiety (25%). Conclusions: We leveraged stakeholder input to develop a comprehensive PRO assessment to use to assess breast cancer survivors’ well-being. Our PRO assessment is acceptable to survivors. Future research will focus on the integration of the PRO assessment into clinical care.

Abstract Purpose: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) resistant to androgen receptor signaling inhibitors (ARSI) is often lethal. Liquid biopsy biomarkers for this deadly form of disease remain under investigation, and underpinning mechanisms remain ill-understood. Experimental Design: We applied targeted cell-free DNA (cfDNA) sequencing to 126 patients with mCRPC from three academic cancer centers and separately performed genome-wide cfDNA methylation sequencing on 43 plasma samples collected prior to the initiation of first-line ARSI treatment. To analyze the genome-wide sequencing data, we performed nucleosome positioning and differential methylated region analysis. We additionally analyzed single-cell and bulk RNA sequencing data from 14 and 80 patients with mCRPC, respectively, to develop and validate a stem-like signature, which we inferred from cfDNA. Results: Targeted cfDNA sequencing detected AR/enhancer alterations prior to first-line ARSIs that correlated with significantly worse progression-free survival (P = 0.01; HR = 2.12) and overall survival (P = 0.02; HR = 2.48). Plasma methylome analysis revealed that AR/enhancer lethal mCRPC patients have significantly higher promoter-level hypomethylation than AR/enhancer wild-type mCRPC patients (P < 0.0001). Moreover, gene ontology and CytoTRACE analysis of nucleosomally more accessible transcription factors in cfDNA revealed enrichment for stemness-associated transcription factors in patients with lethal mCRPC. The resulting stemness signature was then validated in a completely held-out cohort of 80 patients with mCRPC profiled by tumor RNA sequencing. Conclusions: We analyzed a total of 220 patients with mCRPC, validated the importance of cell-free AR/enhancer alterations as a prognostic biomarker in lethal mCRPC, and showed that the underlying mechanism for lethality involves reprogramming developmental states toward increased stemness. See related commentary by Nawfal et al., p. 7