Citations

Introduction: Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors are a class of drugs that inhibit B-cell receptor (BCR) and are increasingly used in B-cell lymphoproliferative neoplasms, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), and Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia. Ibrutinib, a first-generation BTK inhibitor has been associated with increased risk of cardiovascular adverse events (AEs), including atrial fibrillation (AF), hypertension (HTN) and bleeding. These unique AEs are thought to be due to off-target effects. Acalabrutinib, a second-generation BTK inhibitor is characterized by less off-target effects, and is thought to be associated with a decreased risk of cardiovascular and other AEs. However, a head to head comparison of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib has not been conducted. Herein, we conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of AEs from prospective clinical trials of ibrutinib and acalabrutinib in B-cell lymphoproliferative disorders to compare their safety profile. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception through November 15th 2019. Only full-text articles were included. Other inclusion criteria included prospective trials (single arm or randomized) with ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, or acalabrutinib as investigational agents. Trials investigating BTK inhibitor plus chemotherapy were excluded. When updated results of prospective trials were available, data were extracted from the most recent publication with the longest follow-up. Reports of 17 AEs of interest, including number of events (any grade and grade 3 or higher) were documented. Rate of discontinuation was investigated. Results: Twenty-seven prospective clinical trials, 12 multicenter single-arm, 9 multicenter randomized, 5 single center single-arm, and 1 single center randomized, were included. Data from 29 study arms including 3207 patients were analyzed in 3 groups - ibrutinib, ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody, and acalabrutinib with augmented Bayesian network meta-analysis and meta-regression implemented in R including packages gemtc and rjags. The most common any grade AEs (>20%) with ibrutinib were diarrhea (46%, 95% CI 36-55%), myalgias/arthralgias (37%, 95%CI 28-46%), fatigue (33%, 95% CI 24-42%), cough (26%, 95% 17-36%), anemia (23%, 95% 15-30%), thrombocytopenia (22%, 95% 15-30%), and pyrexia (21%, 95% 13-30%). The most common any grade AEs with acalabrutinib were headache (37%, 95%CI 26-48%), diarrhea (30%, 95% 20-41%), peripheral edema (21%, 95% 15-28%), fatigue (20%, 95% 11-29%), and myalgias/arthralgias (16%, 95% 8-24%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with ibrutinib were bleeding/bruising (32%, 95% 23-41%), HTN (23%, 95% 15-32%), AF (9%, 95% 3-15%). The most common any grade cardiovascular AEs with acalabrutinib were bleeding/bruising (41%, 95% CI 30-52%), and HTN (6%, 95% 1-11%). The rate of AEs with ibrutinib compared to ibrutinib plus anti-CD20 antibody were similar so the data was pooled. Of all AEs of interest, there was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring ibrutinib for headache (12% vs. 37%), and infections (35% vs 57%). There was a significant difference in any grade AEs favoring acalabrutinib for myalgias/arthralgias (16% vs. 37%), anemia (6% vs. 23%), thrombocytopenia (5% vs. 22%), and HTN (6% vs. 23%). After adjusting for median follow-up and age, there was no significant difference in rates of bleeding/bruising and any grade infections between ibrutinib and acalabrutinib. However, there was a significant difference favoring acalabrutinib for any grade HTN (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17-0.40) p<0.0001, grade 3 HTN (OR 0.15, 95% 0.08-0.27) p<0.0001, any grade AF (OR 0.35, 95% 0.18-0.66), p=0.0012, grade 3 AF (OR 0.04, 95% 0.01-0.25) p=0.0009, and grade 3 infections (OR 0.62, 95% 0.46-0.85),p=0.003. Conclusions: Acalabrutinib appears to have an overall improved safety profile compared to ibrutinib. This is particularly true for anemia, thrombocytopenia, and cardiovascular AEs, including AF and HTN. Figure 1 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Introduction: Among the most challenging complications of hemophilia A is inhibitor formation. A T-cell dependent B-cell response to exogenous factor VIII (FVIII), inhibitors result in a high burden of disease, with poorly controlled bleeding, twice the hospitalizations, 10-fold the cost, and 3.5-fold the mortality of non-inhibitor patients. Thus, a major goal of hemophilia management is to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. With the availability of novel therapies, including eloctate, a recombinant Fc-fusion protein (rFVIII-Fc) which induces regulatory T cells to promote FVIII tolerance, and emicizumab, a bispecific monoclonal FVIII mimetic, we designed the INHIBIT Clinical Trials Platform (X01HL143024), Fig.1. The platform is composed of two linked randomized phase III trials, the Inhibitor Prevention Trial (NCT04303559), comparing rFVIII-Fc vs emicizumab prophylaxis to prevent inhibitors, and the Inhibitor Eradication Trial (NCT04303572), comparing rFVIII-Fc immune tolerance induction (ITI) plus emicizumab vs rFVIII-Fc ITI alone to eradicate inhibitors. The platform uses adaptive design to incorporate historical data (Bayesian priors) on inhibitor formation to increase power and promote efficient use of rare data. Yet, there is equipoise regarding the optimal approach to inhibitor prevention and eradication, and, as clinical practice is changing, we aimed to test the feasibility of the INHIBIT trial design. Methods: To establish design feasibility, we conducted interviews with 30 hemophilia treatment center (HTC) physicians participating in the INHIBIT trials, to determine prophylaxis and tolerance regimens they prescribe and perceived barriers to the INHIBIT trials design. A 4-question survey was subsequently emailed to these physicians to ascertain the initial prophylaxis regimens they prescribe in previously untreated patients (PUPs) with severe hemophilia A, and the initial immune tolerance induction (ITI) they prescribe in high-responding inhibitor patients with severe hemophilia A; if new inhibitors had been observed during emicizumab prophylaxis, and willingness to participate in post-trial surveillance. Results: In interviews, HTC physicians indicated the issues that influenced choice of prophylaxis/ ITI regimen were patient preference, family history of inhibitors, infusion frequency, IV access, port requirement, and family fatigue. In the absence of clinical trials data in PUPs, there was general agreement that emicizumab prophylaxis, with it simpler subcutaneous (SQ) administration, might delay or potentially prevent inhibitors. Survey findings in Table 1 indicated 75% of physicians prescribe extended half-life (EHL) FVIII in a once-weekly prophylaxis regimen, as planned in the Prevention Trial, despite the persistent 27% inhibitor rate (ALong PUPs Trial, Königs et al, ISTH 2020) and potential risks with port use. There was support for the 1:3 preferential randomization to emicizumab in the Prevention Trial due to the simpler SQ route, despite concern it might delay rather than prevent inhibitor formation, although no inhibitors were reported by physician survey with emicizumab use alone. There was also concern that breakthrough bleeds requiring FVIII during emicizumab prophylaxis, might lead to immune activation and inhibitor formation. There was strong agreement, however, in 29 (97%) of physicians to participate in post-trial surveillance for long-term inhibitor outcomes. FVIII ITI was considered essential to eradicate inhibitors, despite the intensity of the infusion regimen. Notably, 60% prescribe emicizumab with FVIII ITI, as planned in the Eradicate Trial, although the every-other-day infusion was considered a potential barrier to participation. Omitting FVIII ITI was not favored due to the risk of inhibitor anamnesis if FVIII treatment was subsequently required for surgery or acute hemorrhages. Despite these concerns, there was agreement to participate in the trials. Discussion: Physician interviews and surveys confirm there is heterogeneity in current hemophilia clinical practice, specifically in initial prophylaxis regimens and in initial immune tolerance regimens, including agent choice and duration. However, there is physician consensus with the INHIBIT trial aims and with the proposed INHIBIT trial regimens to prevent and eradicate inhibitors. Disclosures Ragni: Bioverativ: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Alnylam/Sanofi: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; BioMarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; ATHN: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding. Seaman:Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy. Acharya:Novonordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BPL: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer Pharma Inc.: Research Funding. Wheeler:Novo Nordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Biomarin: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; UniQure: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Tarango:Takeda/Shire: Honoraria, Other; Bayer: Consultancy, Other; Sanofi: Honoraria, Other. Dunn:ATHN: Research Funding; Spire: Honoraria; Medscape: Honoraria; World Federation of Hemophilia USA: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Research Funding; BioMarin: Research Funding; uniQure: Consultancy; Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy; Nationwide Children's Hospital: Current Employment. Kulkarni:Sanofi/ Bioverativ, Bayer, Biomarin, Shire/Takeda, Novo Nordisk, Freeline: Other: clinical trial research grants ; Bioverativ/Sanofi, BPL, Genentech, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Octapharma, Pfizer, Takeda, Catalyst Bioscience Bayer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Ahuja:Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Honoraria; XaTek, Inc.: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Chitlur:Takeda: Honoraria; Biovertiv: Honoraria; Agios Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Consultancy, Honoraria. Pipe:Apcintex, Bayer, BioMarin, Catalyst Biosciences, CSL Behring, HEMA Biologics, Freeline, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc., Sangamo Therapeutics, Sanofi, Takeda, Spark Therapeutics, uniQure: Consultancy; Siemens: Research Funding; Medical and Scientific Advisory Council to the National Hemophilia Foundation; Medical Advisory Board to World Federation of Hemophilia: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Malec:Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; CSL: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; SOBI: Consultancy. Leissinger:Bayer: Consultancy; Kedrion: Consultancy; CSL Behring: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Genentech: Consultancy; HEMA Biologics: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy; Uniqure: Consultancy; Spark: Consultancy. Carpenter:Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Society: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; American Academy of Pediatrics: Other: PREP Heme/Onc editorial board; Kedrion: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria; Genentech, Inc.: Honoraria; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; CSL Behring: Research Funding; Shire: Research Funding. Knoll:NovoNordisk: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Wang:Bioverativ Inc: Honoraria; Bayer: Honoraria; CSL Behring: Honoraria; Biomarin: Honoraria; Genentech: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria. Young:Genentech/Roche, Grifols, and Takeda: Research Funding; Bayer, CSL Behring, Freeline, UniQure: Consultancy; BioMarin, Freeline, Genentech/Roche, Grifols, Kedrion, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi Genzyme, Spark, Takeda, and UniQure: Honoraria. Thornburg:Genentech: Speakers Bureau; Spark Therapeutics: Consultancy; Bluebird Bio: Consultancy; Ironwood Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board; American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network: Research Funding; Sanofi Genzyme: Consultancy, Other: Data Safety Monitoring Board, Research Funding; NovoNordisk: Research Funding; Biomarin: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bayer Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; National Hemophilia Foundation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Lucas:CRISPR Therapeutics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Hwang:Shire: Honoraria; Takeda: Honoraria.

Introduction The molecular basis for the clinical heterogeneity observed in DLBCL was initially elucidated with gene expression profiling, identifying three distinct subgroups with prognostic relevance based on COO namely activated B-cell like (ABC), germinal center B-cell like (GCB) and a type 3 subtype. Shortly afterwards the Han's algorithm was developed allowing for widespread applicability and correlation of gene expression with protein expression. GCB profile at diagnosis is generally associated with superior long term outcomes compared to non-GCB in patients treated with conventional chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with relapsed/refractory disease (R/R) after front-line therapy undergo salvage treatment and, upon demonstration of objective response, proceed with high dose therapy and autologous transplantation (auto-HCT). Whether COO by Han's algorithm retains its prognostic significance post auto-HCT in patients with R/R DLBCL is not well established. Methods A retrospective analysis was carried out using the Mayo database across all three sites. It included all patients between 18-75 years of age who were diagnosed with de-novo DLBCL and underwent first auto-HCT for R/R disease. Patients must have received salvage treatment and shown chemotherapy sensitive disease. Patients with transformed DLBCL or other variants and those who underwent auto-HCT in first complete remission for high risk disease were excluded. Patients who had less than a partial response at time of transplantation and still underwent auto-HCT were also excluded. Primary endpoints included overall survival (OS); relapse and relapse-free survival (RFS). Continuous variables were summarized as mean (standard deviation) and median (range). Categorical variables were reported as frequency (percentage). Continuous baseline variables were compared between GCB and non-GCB using Wilcoxon rank sum test and categorical baseline variables were compared with Chi-squared test. Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate 5 and 10-year rates of freedom from long-term events and draw corresponding survival curves. Multivariate Cox regression models were used to evaluate the impact of cell of origin on long-term survival after adjusting for baseline factors. All tests were two-sided with alpha level set at 0.05 for statistical significance. Results A total of 357 patients underwent auto-HCT between 2005 and 2018. Cell of origin was determined for 284 patients and these were included in the analysis. Median age was 61 (range: 19-78) years, and 64% patients were male. GCB and non-GCB patients did not differ significantly with regards to baseline factors (Table 1). During a median follow up of 1.7 years, 139 patients died, 151 had relapse and 175 either died or had relapse. Five year OS for GCB patients versus (vs) non-GCB was at 44% vs 64% (p=0.004) (Figure 1); relapse was at 67% vs 49% (p=0.012) and RFS was at 28% vs 50% (p=0.003). The difference between GCB and non-GCB groups remained statistically significant in multivariate analysis, with GCB patients 60% more likely to die and 50% more likely to experience relapse compared to non-GCB patients. The only other factor that retained significance in multivariate analysis for both endpoints was response at the time of transplant (Table 2A-C). Conclusions In this analysis, GCB DLBCL results in worse OS and higher relapse vs. non-GCB DLBCL following an auto-HCT. It is unclear if relapse/progression of GCB subtype after front-line therapy alters its natural history into a more aggressive disease. Disclosures Ansell: Trillium: Research Funding; ADC Therapeutics: Research Funding; Affimed: Research Funding; Bristol Myers Squibb: Research Funding; AI Therapeutics: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Regeneron: Research Funding. Foran:Xencor: Research Funding; Trillium: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding. Tun:Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding. Kharfan-Dabaja:Daiichi Sankyo: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Introduction: With a median overall survival (OS) measured in months, successful treatment of Richter's transformation (RT) of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) to diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains a major unmet medical need. While targeted agents, such as Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitor (BTKi) monotherapy, have greatly improved outcomes for patients (pts) with CLL and some B-cell lymphomas, available BTKi therapies have been ineffective for RT, as well as for large cell transformation of indolent B-cell lymphomas and relapsed/refractory (r/r) DLBCL, which rapidly develop mechanisms of resistance by activation of downstream targets of BTKi or upregulation of alternative/parallel pathways. Focusing on a synthetic lethality approach via in vitro and in vivo studies, we discovered that concurrent inhibition of BTK & mTOR targets plus an IMiD synergistically kill malignant B-cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized oral triple combination of a novel irreversible BTKi DTRMWXHS-12 (DTRM-12), everolimus (EV) and pomalidomide (POM). This once daily therapy was tested in a stepwise, phase I, multicenter study in pts with the greatest unmet medical needs. Here we present results for this novel combination therapy in pts with RT, and r/r DLBCL. Methods: We conducted a phase I (3+3 design), first in human trial exploring DTRM-555 in adult pts with B-cell lymphomas with no available standard therapies (NCT02900716) at 6 US cancer centers. Our goal was to determine the optimal dose for DTRM-555. In phase Ia, an MTD was not reached for DTRM-12 monotherapy; In phase Ib and expansion cohorts, we evaluated double (DTRM-12/EV at 200mg/5mg or 300mg/5mg) and triple combinations (DTRM-12/EV/POM at 200mg/5mg/2mg or 300mg/5mg/2mg) administered once daily for 21 days of a 28-day cycle, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was safety and the dose limiting toxicity (DLT) period was cycle 1 (28 days). Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR; Cheson 2014), duration of response (DOR), and DTRM-12 pharmacokinetics. The trial began on 9/27/2016 and completed enrollment with evaluable follow-up data cut-off date on 08/06/2020. Results: 39 pts were enrolled and treated, including 24 with RT (n=12) or r/r DLBCL (n=12). The safety analyses included all 39 pts treated with combination therapies while efficacy analyses were focused on RT and r/r DLBCL. Baseline characteristics (n=39): 66% male, median age 71 years (range 43-94) and 94% white. For the entire study cohort, median number of prior therapies was 3 (range 1-10), 49% had been treated with prior BTKi monotherapy,13% prior CAR-T or stem cell transplant (SCT) and 59% ≥1 prior small molecule targeted agent. For pts with RT and r/r DLBCL (n=24), median prior therapies were 5 (range 1-10) and 2 (range 10), respectively. Table 1 summarizes prior therapies for the 24 RT and r/r DLBCL pts. Table 2 describes Grade 3 and 4 related AEs for 39 pts treated with the combination therapies. AEs were manageable and similar to known AEs for BTKi, EV or POM, with a total of 4 DLTs observed with combination therapies. The most common AEs were hematological events; specifically, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and anemia. The MTD of DTRM-555 was determined to be DTRM-12 200mg, EV 5mg, & POM 2mg. For 11 evaluable RT pts, ORR was 45% (1 CR, 4 PR); 1 RT pt has not undergone first response assessment. For 10 evaluable DLBCL pts, ORR was 60% (2 CR, 4 PR). Responders with RT or r/r DLBCL have durable responses (Figure 1). Kaplan Meier estimated median duration of response for RT and DLBCL pts was 15 months as of the cut-off. Dose dependent DTRM-12 drug plasma levels were observed in all arms with minimal inter-pt variability. Conclusions: This clinical trial met its primary endpoint. The once-daily oral triple combination therapy DTRM-555 has an acceptable safety profile. Encouraging clinical activity was observed in several high-risk, multi-refractory pts with RT (median 5 prior therapies, ORR 45%) or r/r DLBCL (median 2 prior therapies, ORR 60%), including pts previously treated with targeted therapies, cellular therapies, checkpoint inhibitors and other experimental agents. A phase II US expansion study is underway targeting pts with RT, r/r DLBCL, r/r transformed follicular lymphoma and BTKi/BCL2 inhibitor exposed r/r CLL pts. Disclosures Mato: Adaptive: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: DSMB, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy; LOXO: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding. Schuster:AlloGene, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Juno/Celgene, Loxo Oncology, Nordic Nanovector, Novartis, Tessa Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis, Genentech, Inc./ F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Brander:Tolero: Research Funding; NCCN: Other; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other; NCCN: Other; Verastem: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Other; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Other, Research Funding; Juno/Celgene/BMS: Other, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; DTRM: Other, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other, Research Funding; BeiGene: Other, Research Funding; Ascentage: Other, Research Funding; ArQule: Consultancy, Other, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other, Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Other. Tun:Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Mundipharma: Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Acrotech: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding. He:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Kearney:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Gui:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. McKinlay:DTRM Biopharma LLC: Current Employment. Roeker:American Society of Hematology: Research Funding; AbbVie: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest ; Abbott Laboratories: Other: spouse with minority ownership interest . Huntington:Pharmacyclics: Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; DTRM: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy; Astrazeneca: Honoraria; Bayer: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

Background and objectives Presymptomatic testing is available for early diagnosis of hereditary autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD). However, the complex ethical and psychosocial implications can make decision-making challenging and require an understanding of patients’ values, goals and priorities. This study aims to describe patient and caregiver beliefs and expectations regarding presymptomatic testing for ADPKD. Design, setting and participants 154 participants (120 patients and 34 caregivers) aged 18 years and over from eight centres in Australia, France and Korea participated in 17 focus groups. Transcripts were analysed thematically. Results We identified five themes: avoiding financial disadvantage (insecurity in the inability to obtain life insurance, limited work opportunities, financial burden); futility in uncertainty (erratic and diverse manifestations of disease limiting utility, taking preventive actions in vain, daunted by perplexity of results, unaware of risk of inheriting ADPKD); lacking autonomy and support in decisions (overwhelmed by ambiguous information, medicalising family planning, family pressures); seizing control of well-being (gaining confidence in early detection, allowing preparation for the future, reassurance in family resilience); and anticipating impact on quality of life (reassured by lack of symptoms, judging value of life with ADPKD). Conclusions For patients with ADPKD, presymptomatic testing provides an opportunity to take ownership of their health through family planning and preventive measures. However, these decisions can be wrought with tensions and uncertainty about prognostic implications, and the psychosocial and financial burden of testing. Healthcare professionals should focus on genetic counselling, mental health and providing education to patients’ families to support informed decision-making. Policymakers should consider the cost burden and risk of discrimination when informing government policies. Finally, patients are recommended to focus on self-care from an early age.

Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a complex disorder that can have a significant impact on the quality of life of a person with this syndrome. The diagnosis and treatment of CRPS are often difficult as there is no one confirmatory test and no one definitive treatment. Currently, the most widely accepted clinical diagnostic criteria are the Budapest criteria, which were developed by expert consensus. Though no one single treatment has been found to be universally effective, early detection and an interdisciplinary approach to treatment appear to be key in treating CRPS. This review aims to present up-to-date clinical information regarding the diagnosis and management of CRPS and highlight the potential issues with diagnosis in the neurological population. Ultimately, more research is needed to identify the exact etiology of CRPS in order to help target appropriate therapies. In addition, more randomized controlled trials need to be performed in order to test new therapies or combinations of therapies, including pharmacological, interventional, and behavioral therapies, to determine the best treatment options for this potentially debilitating disorder.