Citations

1005 Background: Evidence-based treatments (tx) for metastatic, HER2+ BCBM are limited. We previously found a central nervous system (CNS) objective response rate (ORR) of 8% (95% CI 2-22%) for the irreversible, EGFR/HER2-targeted kinase inhibitor, neratinib. To enhance CNS activity, we evaluated the combination of neratinib + capecitabine in a subsequent cohort, and report results here. Methods: Pts with measurable BCBM (≥ 1 cm in longest dimension) and no prior lapatinib or capecitabine were eligible. All but 3 had CNS progression after local CNS tx. During 21 day cycles, pts received capecitabine 750 mg/m2 twice daily x 14 days followed by 7 days off + neratinib 240 mg orally once daily. Loperamide prophylaxis (16 mg total daily) was recommended during cycle 1. Brain MRI and non-CNS imaging were repeated every 2 cycles until 18 wks, then every 3 cycles. The primary endpoint was composite CNS ORR, requiring all of the following: ≥50% reduction in volumetric sum of target CNS lesions (central review, VORR), no progression of non-target or non-CNS lesions, no new lesions, no escalating steroids, and no progressive neurologic signs/symptoms. We used a two-stage design with hypotheses ORR 15% and 35% (error rates 5% and 20%), responses in ≥5/19 pts to enter 2ndstage; responses in ≥9/35 [26%] pts to be promising. Results: 39 pts enrolled between 4/2014-11/2016 (2 withdrew before tx, 37 analyzed); median age 51, median prior metastatic lines 2 (range 0-6), 65% had prior WBRT. As of 11/15/16, 23 (62%) patients are alive and 7 remain on protocol tx; median number of cycles initiated = 5 (range 1-26). 18 women (49%) had a VORR (95% CI 32-66%, neurologic exams not yet available on all pts). Overall 12-month survival is 63% (95% CI 43%-77%); 4/7 pts still on protocol therapy have not yet reached 6 cycles. No pts had grade 4 toxicity; 18 (49%) had grade 3 toxicity, with diarrhea most common (32%), and 6 pts discontinued tx for toxicity. Conclusions: The combination of neratinib and capecitabine is active for BCBM with VORR in nearly half of pts, supporting further development of the regimen for BCBM. Updated results will be presented at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT01494662.

Objective Bone marrow aspiration and concentration (BMAC) is becoming a more common regenerative therapy for musculoskeletal pathology. In our current pilot study, we studied patients with mild-to-moderate bilateral knee osteoarthritis, compared pain at 12-month follow-up between BMAC-injected and saline-injected knees, and examined cartilage appearance measured by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) T2 quantitative mapping. Design Twenty-five patients with mild-to-moderate bilateral osteoarthritic knee pain were randomized to receive BMAC into one knee and saline placebo into the other. Bone marrow was aspirated from the iliac crests, concentrated in an automated centrifuge, combined with platelet-poor plasma for knee injection, and compared with saline injection into the contralateral knee. Primary outcome measures were T2 MRI cartilage mapping at 6-month and Visual Analog Scale and Osteoarthritis Research Society International Intermittent and Constant Osteoarthritis Pain scores and radiographs at 12-month follow-up. Results Constant, intermittent, and overall knee pain remained significantly decreased from baseline at 12-month follow-up (all P ⩽ 0.01), with no apparent difference between BMAC- and saline-treated knees (all P ⩾ 0.54). A similar significant increase from baseline to 12-month follow-up regarding quality of life was observed for both BMAC- and saline-treated knees (all P ⩽ 0.04). T2 quantitative MRI mapping showed no significant changes as a result of treatment. Conclusions BMAC is safe to perform and relieves pain from knee arthritis but showed no superiority to saline injection at 12-month follow-up. MRI cartilage sequences failed to show regenerative benefit with single BMAC injection. The mechanisms of action that led to pain relief remain unclear and warrant further studies.

ObjectivesDevelop multidisciplinary and international consensus on patient, disease, procedural, and perioperative factors, as well as key outcome measures and complications, to be reported for pediatric airway reconstruction studies.MethodsStandard Delphi methods were applied. Participants proposed items in three categories: 1) patient/disease characteristics, 2) procedural/intraoperative/perioperative factors, and 3) outcome measures and complications. Both general and anatomic site‐specific measures were elicited. Participants also suggested specific operations to be encompassed by this project. We then used iterative ranking and review to develop consensus lists via a priori Delphi consensus criteria.ResultsThirty‐three pediatric airway experts from eight countries in North and South America, Europe, and Australia participated, representing otolaryngology (including International Pediatric Otolaryngology Group members), pulmonology, general surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery. Consensus led to inclusion of 19 operations comprising open expansion, resection, and slide procedures of the larynx, trachea, and bronchi as well as three endoscopic procedures. Consensus was achieved on multiple patient/comorbidity (10), disease/stenosis (7), perioperative‐/intraoperative‐/procedure‐related (16) factors. Consensus was reached on multiple outcome and complication measures, both general and site‐specific (8 general, 13 supraglottic, 15 glottic, 17 subglottic, 8 cervical tracheal, 12 thoracic tracheal). The group was able to clarify how each outcome should be measured, with specific instruments defined where applicable.ConclusionThis consensus statement provides a framework to communicate results consistently and reproducibly, facilitating meta‐analyses, quality improvement, transfer of information, and surgeon self‐assessment. It also clarifies expert opinion on which patient, disease, procedural, and outcome measures may be important to consider in any pediatric airway reconstruction patient.Level of Evidence5 Laryngoscope, 129:244–255, 2019

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.