Citations

Epithelial ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death from gynecologic cancer in the United States and is the country’s fifth most common cause of cancer mortality in women. A major challenge in treating ovarian cancer is that most patients have advanced disease at initial diagnosis. These NCCN Guidelines discuss cancers originating in the ovary, fallopian tube, or peritoneum, as these are all managed in a similar manner. Most of the recommendations are based on data from patients with the most common subtypes─high-grade serous and grade 2/3 endometrioid. The NCCN Guidelines also include recommendations specifically for patients with less common ovarian cancers, which in the guidelines include the following: carcinosarcoma, clear cell carcinoma, mucinous carcinoma, low-grade serous, grade 1 endometrioid, borderline epithelial, malignant sex cord-stromal, and malignant germ cell tumors. This manuscript focuses on certain aspects of primary treatment, including primary surgery, adjuvant therapy, and maintenance therapy options (including PARP inhibitors) after completion of first-line chemotherapy.

Hematological malignancies comprise a genetically heterogeneous spectrum of diseases caused by abnormal proliferation or maturation of a variety of hematological cell lineages. Genomic abnormalities including chromosomal translocations, copy number variations and sequence level gene mutations underlie the pathogenesis of these disorders and frequently serve as important diagnostic, prognostic and/or therapeutic markers. However, the substantial discrepancy in interpretation and reporting of these genomic abnormalities among testing labs creates challenges for patient management. Therefore, standardizing the curation, clinical interpretation and reporting of somatic alterations within the context of their diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic significance in hematological cancers is critical. In January 2020, the ClinGen Somatic Cancer Clinical Domain working group formed the Hematological Cancer Taskforce (HCT) with a goal to undertake systematic curation and evidence-based clinical interpretation of genes/somatic variants associated with hematological malignancies. The HCT has recruited 32 multi-disciplinary experts including oncologists, molecular pathologists, clinical lab directors, genomic scientists and biocurators with expertise in hematological malignancies. In collaboration with the Clinical Interpretation of Variants in Cancer (CIViC) (civicdb.org) knowledgebase, variants from peer-reviewed publications are curated with editor review for clinical utility as evidence items. Monthly discussions based on these evidence items lead to the creation of summary variant assertions using the AMP/ASCO/CAP guidelines (Li M, et al., Journal of Molecular Diagnostics, 2017). The HCT is currently focused on expert curation and clinical interpretation of somatic variants in FLT3 (internal tandem duplication, tyrosine kinase domain and non tyrosine kinase domain variants) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Expert curation of gene fusions in Philadelphia chromosome-like acute lymphoblastic leukemia (Ph-like ALL) in collaboration with the ClinGen somatic pediatric cancer taskforce is currently underway. To date, the HCT has curated 45 evidence items from clinical and pre-clinical studies on the aforementioned genes/variants. In addition, three AMP Tier I, level A variant assertions of FLT3-ITD, D835 and I836, which predict response to Gilteritinib, an FDA-approved drug for relapsed or refractory AML, have been curated. In the future, the HCT plans to extend its focus on curation of BCR-ABL1 kinase domain mutations in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Based on the initial pilot curation phase, the HCT will develop gene-specific recommendations to standardize the reporting and interpretation of somatic variants to better assist clinical decisions and apply to become official ClinGen Somatic Expert Panels in each of these gene-disease domains. Disclosures Blombery: Novartis: Consultancy; Invivoscribe: Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy; Janssen: Honoraria.

CCTG CLC.2/Alliance A041202 demonstrated superior progression-free survival at 2 years with ibrutinib alone (87%; HR 0.39) or ibrutinib-rituximab (IR 88%; HR 0.38) compared to chemo-immunotherapy with bendamustine-rituximab (BR 74%) in treatment-naïve patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) who were 65 or older (Woyach NEJM 2018). We hypothesized that ibrutinib-based therapies would be more costly than BR but that costs would be offset by less toxicity and improved quality of life (QOL). We completed a prospective trial-based economic analysis to study the direct medical costs and quality-adjusted benefit associated with ibrutinib-based therapies compared to BR in the Canadian (CDN) subset of patients enrolled in CLC.2/Alliance 041202. All CDN pts were invited to participate in the companion analysis. Health utilities were collected using the EuroQOL EQ-5D and calculated using CDN population valuations (Bansback PLOS One 2012). Resource utilization forms were administered to collect off-protocol health care encounters. The planned analysis was a cost-utility analysis from the perspective of a public healthcare system, examining the costs and outcomes (quality-adjusted life years or QALYs) of ibrutinib-based therapy compared to BR. Unit costs were applied to resource data based on publicly available provincial/national databases; all costs were expressed in 2019 US dollars (1 CDN = 0.75 US dollar). Total and disaggregated direct medical costs are presented descriptively. Mean survival was calculated using the restricted mean survival method from randomization to the study time-horizon of 24 months; derived utilities were used to calculate QALYs. A discount rate for costs and benefits (r=0.05) was applied. The analysis was based on estimation (with bootstrapping) of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) and/or direct medical costs. A total of 55 pts were enrolled; two pts who did not receive any treatment were censored at day 1 and 3 after randomization and excluded from analysis. Of the 53 analysed, pt demographics were well balanced between treatments and were reflective of the entire population: mean age was 71.6 (SD 6.34) in pts receiving ibrutinib alone (n=17), 72.2 (SD 3.85) in pts receiving IR (n=18), and 71.7 (SD 4.1) in pts receiving BR (n=18). A total of 3 pts, one in each arm, had 17p deletion. Progression-free survival at 2 years for CDN pts was 94% (95% CI 65-99%) for ibrutinib, 100% (95% CI 100-100%) for IR, and 72% (95% CI 45-87%) for BR (Figure 1). At 24 months, 1 pt on the BR arm had crossed over to ibrutinib (as per protocol); there was no overall survival difference between the three arms. On-protocol costs (including protocol treatment, ambulatory care, and imaging) and off-protocol costs (including hospitalizations, concomitant medications, and ambulatory care) are highlighted in Figure 2. On-protocol costs were higher for pts receiving ibrutinib (mean $142,001 USD; SD 48,417) and IR ($164,931; SD 46,208) compared to BR ($38,509; SD 10,351), driven by higher drug acquisition costs associated with ibrutinib (list price $6422 for 420mg/30 days). In contrast, off-protocol costs were modestly higher for pts on BR (mean $3050; SD 3812) compared to the ibrutinib ($2460; SD 3863) or IR ($2890; SD 4206); hospitalizations were the key off-protocol cost drivers and were highest for pts on IR and BR. Overall mean costs over the 2-year time horizon were $144,461 (SD 47,910) for pts on ibrutinib, $167,820 (SD 46,830) for pts on IR, and $41,560 (SD 11,849) for pts on BR. Discounted QALYs were similar between the three treatment arms: 1.66 (0.16) for ibrutinib alone, 1.65 (0.24) for IR, and 1.66 (0.17) for BR. Given the similar quality-adjusted survival between arms at the time of this analysis, a formal ICER was not calculated. Direct medical costs are substantially higher for pts receiving continuous ibrutinib-based therapies, compared to chemo-immunotherapy of fixed duration, in frontline CLL management; the key cost driver is the cost of ibrutinib. The PFS benefit with ibrutinib-based therapy has not translated into an advantage in quality-adjusted survival to date; further follow-up may be required to demonstrate any cost or QOL benefits associated with fewer progression events for those on ibrutinib. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U10CA180863 and #704970 CCTG. https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01886872 Figure Disclosures Owen: AbbVie, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Astrazeneca, Merck, Servier, Novartis, Teva: Honoraria. Lam:Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Crump:Servier: Consultancy; Kite/Gilead: Consultancy; Roche: Consultancy. Sperlich:Lundbeck Canada: Honoraria. Woyach:Pharmacyclics, Janssen, Morphosys, Karyopharm, Verastem, Abbvie, Lox: Research Funding; Janssen, Pharmacyclics, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Arqule: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company, AbbVie, Janssen, AstraZeneca, ArQule: Honoraria. Prica:astra zeneca: Honoraria; seattle genetics: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria. Hay:Roche: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding.

Study Rationale: At present there are no effective therapies for patients with primary or secondary myelofibrosis (MF) after the failure of the JAK inhibitory class of therapies. Furthermore, patients with monocytosis, thrombocytopenia, accelerated phase, or high-risk genetic features fare poorly with JAK inhibitors (JAKi), as intolerance, resistance, and/or ineligibility often limit treatment options. Median overall survival in most studies post-JAKi demonstrate poor outcomes (14-28 months) among patients with MF. Consequently, there is a considerable need in identifying new therapeutic targets beyond JAK-STAT inhibition. One potential cancer target is CD123, aberrantly expressed on leukemia stem cells and aberrant/malignant microenvironmental plasmacytoid dendritic cells (pDC) in certain myeloid cancers including MF. Tagraxofusp (TAG), a CD123-targeted therapy FDA-approved for patients with blastic plasmacytoid dendritic cell neoplasm, a pDC-derived malignancy, has demonstrated preclinical proof-of-concept in MF. We now report the updated results of an ongoing study of TAG monotherapy in patients with relapsed/refractory MF, or who were unable to tolerate currently approved JAKi. (NCT02268253) Experimental Design: A multicenter Phase 1/2 trial with TAG administered as a daily IV infusion at 7, 9, or 12 mcg/kg on days 1-3 every 21 days (cycle 1-4), 28 days (cycles 5-7), and 42 days (cycles 8+) in stage 1, and 12 mcg/kg every 21 days (C1-4), 28 days (C5+) in the currently ongoing stage 2. Results: Thirty-five patients (pts) with a median age 69 years (range: 54-87) have been treated thus far: 26% had baseline monocytosis and 69% had baseline thrombocytopenia, which impacts optimal dosing of JAKi, including 37% with platelets <50x109/L including 7 pts with platelets ≤20; 75% had baseline palpable splenomegaly. Baseline genomic analysis in 35 pts revealed: JAK2 V617F (n=21); CALR (n=3); MPL (n=2); 7 of 21 pts who had comprehensive NGS, had an ASXL1 mutation. Most common treatment-related adverse events (incidence ≥15%) include hypoalbuminemia (23%), headache (17%), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (17%). Notably, capillary leak syndrome (CLS) was reported in 3 pts (1 was grade 4). Twenty-one pts (60%) achieved stable disease (SD) by IWG-MRT revised 2013 criteria, including 4 who had substantial clinical benefits; SD was noted in 7 of 9 (78%) with monocytosis, 7 of 13 (54%) with baseline platelets ≤50x109/L, including 3 of 7 (43%) with baseline platelets ≤20x109/L, and 2 of 3 (67%) pts with accelerated phase. At week 24, spleen responses by palpation were observed in 10 (45%), including 2 with >50% spleen reduction; 12 of 26 (46%) had symptom burden reduction, including 3 pts who met the IWG-MRT criteria. There have been three deaths, all deemed to be unrelated to study drug, occurring in cycles 1, 6, 13, respectively. The median overall survival of our cohort was 31 months (range: 0.6-42 months). Conclusions: Interim results demonstrate clinical efficacy and safety of TAG monotherapy in JAKi relapse/refractory/intolerant MF patients, including those associated with recognized poor-risk biological and clinical features, such as monocytosis. Some patients have experienced clinical benefit, including reduction in splenomegaly and improvement in quality of life and enrollment continues. Disclosures Pemmaraju: Celgene: Honoraria; DAVA Oncology: Honoraria; Roche Diagnostics: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; MustangBio: Honoraria; SagerStrong Foundation: Other: Grant Support; Pacylex Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; LFB Biotechnologies: Honoraria; Stemline Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Plexxikon: Research Funding; Cellectis: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Honoraria; Affymetrix: Other: Grant Support, Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Samus Therapeutics: Research Funding. Gupta:Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Bristol MyersSquibb: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy; Incyte: Honoraria, Research Funding. Ali:Incyte Corporation: Consultancy. Yacoub:Hylapharm: Current equity holder in private company; Incyte: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support; Dynavax: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Ardelyx: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Cara Therapeutics: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Wang:PTC Therapeutics: Consultancy; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Macrogenics: Consultancy; Astellas: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pfizer: Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Bristol Meyers Squibb (Celgene): Consultancy. Lee:Roche Molecular Systems: Consultancy; Jazz: Consultancy; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Helsinn: Other: Member -DSMB; BMS: Consultancy. Schiller:Pfizer: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; Regimmune: Research Funding; Samus: Research Funding; Sangamo: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Trovagene: Research Funding; Kaiser Permanente: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company; Jazz Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Geron: Research Funding; Genentech-Roche: Research Funding; Gamida: Research Funding; FujiFilm: Research Funding; Forma: Research Funding; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding; DeltaFly: Research Funding; Deciphera: Research Funding; Daiichi Sankyo: Research Funding; Cyclacel: Research Funding; Constellation: Research Funding; Celator: Research Funding; Astellas Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Ariad: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Stemline: Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Speakers Bureau; Agios: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Ono Pharma: Consultancy; Celgene: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Karyopharm: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Research Funding; Mateon: Research Funding; MedImmune: Research Funding; Onconova: Research Funding. Brooks:Stemline: Current Employment. Rupprecht:Stemline: Current Employment. Talpaz:Takeda: Research Funding; IMAGO: Consultancy; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Research Funding. Mughal:Stemline: Current Employment. Verstovsek:PharmaEssentia: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Research Funding; ItalPharma: Research Funding; Incyte Corporation: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Promedior: Research Funding; CTI Biopharma Corp: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Blueprint Medicines Corp: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sierra Oncology: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; NS Pharma: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Protagonist Therapeutics: Research Funding.

MYC gene amplification and somatic mutations are frequent in both adult and pediatric AML although how MYC drives and contributes to the development and maintenance of AML has not been resolved. Transcription factor EB (TFEB) is a master regulator of genes that control autophagy and lysosome biogenesis, a central catabolic recycling pathway that regulates cell survival. Given the oncogenic effects of MYC in AML and that the induction of autophagy compromises AML cell growth and survival, we tested if the oncogenic effect of MYC depends on its suppression of TFEB transcription programs in AML. In support of this hypothesis, inducible MYC expression in K562 and THP-1 leukemia cells was sufficient to suppress expression of TFEB and its target genes. Further and conversely, MYC knockdown in NB4 AML cells provoked increased expression of TFEB mRNA and protein, as well as increased expression of TFEB target genes. Notably, dose response studies demonstrated that expression of TFEBS211A, constitutively nuclear form of TFEB that is refractory to control by mTORC1 signaling, dramatically impairs proliferation of HL60, OCI-AML2 and OCI-AML3 AML cells. In addition, induction of TFEBS211A provoked rampant apoptosis. Of important, overexpression of TFEBS211A in HL-60 and OCI-AML3 cells was also sufficient to promote monocytic and granulocytic differentiation, as judged by morphological changes and the acquisition of mature monocytic and granulocytic markers including CD11b, Gr1, and CD15. To identify TFEB targets that might contribute to myeloid/granulocytic differentiation, we performed RNA-seq analysis of HL60 leukemia cells engineered to inducibly express the TFEBS211A transgene. Using a cut-off of fold change>4 with q<0.01, a total of 1152 genes were differentially regulated following the induction of TFEBS211A in HL60 cells. As expected, this included the robust induction of nearly all TFEB target genes associated with the autophagy-lysosome pathway, but also of STAT1, KLF4, KLF6, CEBPB, CSF1 and GATA2 genes that are necessary and/or sufficient to provoke terminal monocytic and granulocytic differentiation of AML cells. Surprisingly, among genes induced by TFEB in HL60 cells is IDH1, which catalyzes the production of α-ketoglutarate (α-KG), a required substrate of the TET family of dioxygenases that convert 5-methylcytosine (5mC) to 5-hydroxymethylcytosine (5hmC). In particular, TFEBS211A expression provoked increases in levels of α-KG and significant increases in global levels of 5hmC in genomic DNA of HL60 leukemia cells both ex vivo and in vivo. Furthermore, TFEB-mediated induction of IDH1/2 mRNA and protein, and of IDH1 promoter activity, was antagonized by inducible expression of MYC. To assess the global effects of TFEB on 5mC/5hmC landscapes, we performed paired reduced representation bisulfite (BS)- and oxidation bisulfite (oxBS)-sequencing. As predicted, TFEBS211A induced both loss and gains of 5mC, but there were more losses (n = 722) than gains (n = 459) across all 22 chromosomes. Quite remarkably, and consistent with TFEB-provoked increases of 5hmC signals, TFEBS211A exclusively induced 5hmC gains (in a total of 863 genes), and 37% and 36% of these 5hmC gains occurred in promoter regions and CpG islands, and across all 22 chromosomes. Comparison of BS- and oxBS-seq versus RNA-seq analyses of HL60 cells expressing TFEB revealed significant changes in mRNA levels and concomitant differential changes in 5mC and 5hmC marks in KLF4, KLF6, STAT3, TP73, andFOXO1 that have pivotal roles in controlling myeloid cell differentiation and death. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that MYC suppresses TFEB expression and function in AML cells, and that TFEB functions as a tumor suppressor that provokes AML cell differentiation and death. Strikingly, these responses rely on epigenetic control, where TFEB directly induces the transcription of IDH1 and IDH2 to provoke global hydroxylation of 5-methylcytosine and the expression of genes that drive terminal differentiation and apoptosis. Thus, a MYC-TFEB-IDH1/2-TET2 circuit controls AML cell fate. Disclosures Murphy: Merck: Research Funding; Puma Biotech: Research Funding. Ballabio:CASMA Therapeutics: Other: Co-Founder. Kaufmann:Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding.

Abstract Objective: The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the change in sexual function following treatment with fractional CO2 laser therapy in breast cancer (BC) survivors with genitourinary syndrome of menopause (GSM). Methods: A single-arm feasibility study of BC survivors with symptoms of GSM, including dyspareunia and/or vaginal dryness, was conducted. Participants who received three treatments with fractional CO2 laser and 4-week follow-up were contacted for patient-reported outcomes and adverse events at 12 months. Sexual function was measured using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) and Female Sexual Distress Scale Revised (FSDS-R). Descriptive statistics were calculated for patient demographics and disease characteristics for the set of participants who agreed to long-term follow-up and those who were lost to follow-up. FSFI and FSDS-R scores were summarized at baseline, 4 weeks and 12 months, as well as the change from baseline, and were compared using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. Results: A total of 67 BC survivors enrolled, 59 completed treatments and 4-week follow-up; 39 participated in the 12 month follow-up. The overall FSFI score improved from baseline to 4-week follow-up (median Δ 8.8 [Q1, Q3] (QS) (2.2, 16.7)], P < 0.001). There were improvements at 4 weeks in all domains of the FSFI (P < 0.001 for each) including desire (median Δ 1.2; QS [0.6, 1.8]), arousal (median Δ 1.2; QS [0.3, 2.7]), lubrication (median Δ 1.8 (0, 3.3), orgasm (median Δ 1.2; QS [0, 3.6]), satisfaction (median Δ 1.6 (0.4, 3.2)), and pain (median Δ 1.6 (0, 3.6). The FSDS-R score also improved from baseline to 4-week follow-up (median Δ −10.0; QS [−16, −5] P < 0.001) indicating less sexually related distress. The scores of the FSFI and FSDS-R remained improved at 12 months and there were no serious adverse events reported. Conclusions: In BC survivors with GSM, the total and individual domain scores of the FSFI and the FSDS-R improved after fractional CO2 laser therapy. Video Summary: http://links.lww.com/MENO/A711.

AbstractPurposeThe current evidence regarding iodine-containing compounds and iodine allergy cross-reactivity is reviewed.SummaryIodine is an essential human nutrient found in the thyroid gland. It is used in the synthesis of the thyroid hormones thyroxine and triiodothyroxine. Patients who report having adverse reactions to iodine-containing substances are often labelled as having an “iodine allergy,” which can result in delays in care or patients being denied essential iodinated contrast media (ICM) or other iodine-containing drugs. A literature review was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding iodine allergy and iodine-containing drugs. Of 435 articles considered potentially appropriate for full review (plus 12 additional articles included on the basis of references from the eligible articles), 113 could not be obtained. After exclusion of 353 articles that did not meet all inclusion criteria, the remaining 81 articles were included in the review. The results of the literature review indicated that iodine has not been shown to be the allergen responsible for allergic reactions to iodinated contrast media, amiodarone, povidone-iodine, and other iodine-containing compounds.ConclusionThere is a lack of evidence to support cross-reactivity between iodine-containing compounds in so called iodine-allergic individuals.

To review the anxiety and fear risk factors, pathophysiology, symptoms, screening and diagnosis while highlighting treatment considerations for women undergoing a pelvic examination. Methods: We reviewed the literature pertaining to anxiety and fear surrounding the pelvic examination to help guide health care providers’ on available screening options and to review options for individualized patient management. Results: Anxiety and fear are common before and during the pelvic examination. In fact, the pelvic exam is one of the most common anxiety-provoking medical procedures. This exam can provoke negative physical and emotional symptoms such as pain, discomfort, anxiety, fear, embarrassment, and irritability. These negative symptoms can interfere with preventative health screening compliance resulting in delayed or avoided care and significant health consequences. Conclusion: Assessing women for anxiety related to pelvic examinations may help decrease a delay or avoidance of examinations. Risk factor and symptom identification is also a key component in this. General anxiety questionnaires can help identify women with anxiety related to pelvic examinations. Strategies to reduce anxiety, fear and pain during a pelvic examination should routinely be implemented, particularly in women with high-risk factors or those identified with screening techniques as having anxiety, fear or pain with examinations. Treatment options should be targeted at understanding the patient’s concerns, starting conversations about pelvic examinations early, educating patient’s about the examination and offering the presence of a chaperone or support person. During an examination providers should ensure the patient is comfortable, negative phrases are avoided, the correct speculum size is utilized and proper lubrication, draping, dressing and positioning are performed. Treating underlying gynecologic or mental health conditions, consideration of cognitive behavioral therapy and complementary techniques such as lavender aromatherapy and music therapy should also be considered when appropriate.

OBJECTIVE High-grade gliomas (HGGs) inevitably recur and progress despite resection and standard chemotherapies and radiation. Viral therapies have emerged as a theoretically favorable adjuvant modality that might overcome intrinsic factors of HGGs that confer treatment resistance. METHODS The authors present the results of systematic searches of the MEDLINE and ClinicalTrials.gov databases that were performed for clinical trials published or registered up to July 15, 2020. RESULTS Fifty-one completed clinical trials were identified that made use of a virus-based therapeutic strategy to treat HGG. The two main types of viral therapies were oncolytic viruses and viral vectors for gene therapy. Among clinical trials that met inclusion criteria, 20 related to oncolytic viruses and 31 to gene therapy trials. No oncolytic viruses have progressed to phase III clinical trial testing, although there have been many promising early-phase results and no reported cases of encephalitis or death due to viral therapy. Three phase III trials in which viral gene therapy was used have been completed but have not resulted in any FDA-approved therapy. Recent efforts in this area have been focused on the delivery of suicide genes such as herpes simplex virus thymidine kinase and cytosine deaminase. CONCLUSIONS Decades of research efforts and an improving understanding of the immunomodulatory effects of viral therapies for gliomas are informing ongoing clinical efforts aimed at improving outcomes in patients with HGG. The available clinical data reveal varied efficacy among different virus-based treatment strategies.