Citations

Background: In Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders (ADRD) research, common outcome measures include cognitive and functional impairment, as well as persons with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI) and care partner self-reported mood and quality of life. Studies commonly analyze these measures separately, which potentially leads to issues of multiple comparisons and/or multicollinearity among measures while ignoring the latent constructs they may be measuring. Objective: This study sought to examine the latent factor structure of a battery of 12-13 measures of domains mentioned above, used in a multicomponent behavioral intervention (The HABIT® program) for pwMCI and their partners. Methods: Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) involved 214 pwMCI-partner pairs. Subsequent Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) used 730 pairs in both pre- and post-intervention conditions. Results: EFA generated a three-factor model. Factors could be characterized as partner adjustment (29.9%), pwMCI adjustment (18.1%), and pwMCI impairment (12.8%). The subsequent CFA confirmed our findings, and the goodness-of-fit for this model was adequate in both the pre- (CFI = 0.937; RMSEA = 0.057, p = 0.089) and post-intervention (CFI = 0.942; RMSEA = 0.051, p = 0.430) groups. Conclusion: Results demonstrated a stable factor structure across cohorts and intervention conditions suggesting that three broad factors may provide a straightforward and meaningful model to assess intervention outcome, at least during the MCI phase of ADRD.

Expanding the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications for immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with cancer has resulted in therapeutic success and immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Neurologic irAEs (irAE-Ns) have an incidence of 1%–12% and a high fatality rate relative to other irAEs. Lack of standardized disease definitions and accurate phenotyping leads to syndrome misclassification and impedes development of evidence-based treatments and translational research. The objective of this study was to develop consensus guidance for an approach to irAE-Ns including disease definitions and severity grading. A working group of four neurologists drafted irAE-N consensus guidance and definitions, which were reviewed by the multidisciplinary Neuro irAE Disease Definition Panel including oncologists and irAE experts. A modified Delphi consensus process was used, with two rounds of anonymous ratings by panelists and two meetings to discuss areas of controversy. Panelists rated content for usability, appropriateness and accuracy on 9-point scales in electronic surveys and provided free text comments. Aggregated survey responses were incorporated into revised definitions. Consensus was based on numeric ratings using the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Appropriateness Method with prespecified definitions. 27 panelists from 15 academic medical centers voted on a total of 53 rating scales (6 general guidance, 24 central and 18 peripheral nervous system disease definition components, 3 severity criteria and 2 clinical trial adjudication statements); of these, 77% (41/53) received first round consensus. After revisions, all items received second round consensus. Consensus definitions were achieved for seven core disorders: irMeningitis, irEncephalitis, irDemyelinating disease, irVasculitis, irNeuropathy, irNeuromuscular junction disorders and irMyopathy. For each disorder, six descriptors of diagnostic components are used: disease subtype, diagnostic certainty, severity, autoantibody association, exacerbation of pre-existing disease or de novo presentation, and presence or absence of concurrent irAE(s). These disease definitions standardize irAE-N classification. Diagnostic certainty is not always directly linked to certainty to treat as an irAE-N (ie, one might treat events in the probable or possible category). Given consensus on accuracy and usability from a representative panel group, we anticipate that the definitions will be used broadly across clinical and research settings.

2000 Background: Craniopharyngiomas, a rare brain tumor along the pituitary-hypothalamic axis, can cause significant clinical sequelae. Surgery and radiation, the only effective treatments, can cause significant morbidity. Genetic analysis of craniopharyngiomas revealed that 95% of papillary craniopharyngiomas (PCP) have BRAF V600E mutations (Brastianos et al. Nature Genetics 2014). We evaluated the efficacy of BRAF/MEK inhibition in patients (pts) with previously untreated PCP. Methods: Eligible pts without prior radiation whose PCP screened positively for BRAF mutations were treated with oral vemurafenib/cobimetinib in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint of response rate (RR) based on centrally determined volumetric data was evaluated in 16 pts, where a partial response was defined as >20% decrease in volume. This single arm, Simon two-stage phase 2 trial had 89% power to detect a true RR of at least 30% (vs. the null RR 5%; alpha=0.04). In this design, 3 or more observed volumetric responses in 16 evaluable pts would be considered promising activity. Results: In the 16 pts evaluated, 56% were female, and the median age was 49.5 years. Median follow-up was 22 months (95% CI: 16-26.5) and median number of treatment cycles was 8. Three patients progressed after therapy was discontinued and none have died. Based on volumetric response criteria, 14 of 15 pts with volumetric data available for central review had response to therapy (93%; 95% CI: 68% to 99.8%). Of 16 patients evaluable based on local review, 15 had response to therapy (93.75%; 95% CI: 70% to 99.8%). The median tumor reduction was -83% (range: -52% to -99%). The one nonresponder received 2 days of treatment before coming off therapy due to toxicity. Median progression-free survival was not reached. Grade 3 toxicities at least possibly related to treatment occurred in 12 pts (rash in 6 pts). Grade 4 toxicities were observed in two pts: hyperglycemia (n=1) and increased CPK (n=1). Three pts discontinued treatment for adverse events. Conclusions: Vemurafenib/cobimetinib resulted in an objective response in all pts who received 1 or more cycles of therapy. Our study indicates that BRAF/MEK inhibitors could be a powerful tool in the treatment of previously untreated PCP and warrants further evaluation in larger studies. A second arm of this study is enrolling pts with progressive PCP after prior radiotherapy. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; U24CA196171, U10CA180868 (NRG); Genentech; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT03224767.

ObjectivesWe adapted a self‐efficacy measure for managing chronic illness to be specific to persons with mild cognitive impairment (pwMCI). The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the scale, the self‐efficacy for managing MCI scale, for use in research.MethodsAnalyses involved data from pwMCI enrolled in a behavioral intervention study that completed the measure five times from intervention enrollment to 18‐month post‐intervention. Factor structure, construct validity, internal consistency, and test‐retest reliability were analyzed.ResultsFactor analysis identified two factors, related to self‐efficacy for daily activities and managing MCI, which corresponded with domains from the original chronic illness self‐efficacy scale. Consistent with prior research, construct validity analysis suggested an association between memory‐loss self‐efficacy and psychosocial distress, but not cognitive or functional ability. Further analyses supported the scale's internal and test‐retest reliability.ConclusionsCurrently, no “gold standard” scale of memory‐loss self‐efficacy for pwMCI exists, despite the positive impact self‐efficacy may have on modifiable health behaviors. Overall, results supported the notion that the scale is a valid and reliable measure of memory‐loss self‐efficacy for pwMCI.

TPS2573 Background: Brain metastases, most commonly derived from melanoma, lung and breast cancers, are the most common brain tumor, with approximately 200,000 cases diagnosed annually in the United States. Median survival is on the order of months. For patients with clinically symptomatic brain metastases, approximately half succumb due to intracranial progression. In preclinical work, we demonstrated that brain metastases and primary tumors are often genetically distinct with frequent alterations in the CDK and PI3K pathway (Brastianos, Carter et al. Cancer Discovery 2015). Methods: We are currently accruing to a prospective multi-arm phase II study of CDK, PI3K/mTOR, and NTRK/ROS1 inhibitors in patients with brain metastases harboring alterations associated with sensitivity to these inhibitors (abemaciclib, paxalisib and entrectinib), respectively. Patients with new, recurrent or progressive brain metastases are eligible for this trial. Previously obtained tissue from brain metastases and extracranial sites (primary or extracranial metastases) are screened for the presence of these alterations, and if present in both tumor sites, patients will receive the appropriate corresponding targeted treatment. Screening is carried out with the SNaPshot NGS assay, which is a fully validated clinical test designed and developed at the MGH Center for Integrated Diagnostics. The primary endpoint of response rate (RR) in the central nervous system as per RANO criteria will be evaluated separately for each inhibitor, stratified by histology within each arm. There will be 21 evaluable patients assigned to each of the CDK and PI3K inhibitor and tumor type cohorts (breast, lung and other) and 10 patients assigned to the NTRK/ROS1 inhibitor cohort (lung) for a total of 136 evaluable patients. Although current systemic therapy for brain metastases is often ineffective, we hypothesize that targeted therapies will demonstrate efficacy in patients harboring the appropriate mutations. This study represents a novel individualized therapeutic approach in brain metastases, a disease with a critical need for effective therapy. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; Genentech, Kazia Therapeutics Limited, Eli Lilly; Clinical trial information: NCT03994796 .