Citations

Background Resilience refers to the ability to adapt or recover from stress. There is increasing appreciation that it plays an important role in wholistic patient-centered care and may affect patient outcomes, including those of orthopaedic surgery. Despite being a focus of the current orthopaedic evidence, there is no strong understanding yet of whether resilience is a stable patient quality or a dynamic one that may be modified perioperatively to improve patient-reported outcome scores. Questions/purposes (1) Does resilience change postoperatively? (2) How do outcome measures change postoperatively in relation to resilience grouping? (3) For patients who do have resilience instability (change in resilience of ≥ 1 SD between any two follow-up points), how were patient-level factors, surgical characteristics, and outcome measures associated with instability? Methods In this single-surgeon, retrospective, comparative study, we identified all patients who underwent shoulder surgery between March 2021 and March 2023 from the medical records of one US military teaching hospital, resulting in 144 initial patients. Data on resilience (measured by the Brief Resilience Scale) and outcomes (assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE]) were collected for all patients and maintained in a longitudinal outcomes score database. Patients younger than 18 years of age (1% [1 of 144]) who underwent surgery for fracture, acute tendon rupture (8% [11 of 144]), or revision surgery (3% [4 of 144]); had concomitant shoulder conditions (such as, instability or rotator cuff tear) (1% [2 of 144]); or had incomplete follow-up data (4% [5 of 144]) were excluded, leaving 84% (121 of 144) of the original sample size for analysis. Among the patients, 12% (15 of 121) were women, the mean age was 41 ± 15 years, and the most common indication for surgery was instability (40% [48 of 121]) followed by rotator cuff repair (29% [35 of 121]). Based on their preoperative Brief Resilience Scale and its deviation from the mean, patients were stratified into low (> 1 SD below mean), intermediate (within 1 SD above and below mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) resilience groups. Preoperatively, 19% (23 of 121) of patients were classified as low resilience, 62% (75 of 121) as intermediate resilience, and 19% (23 of 121) as high resilience. The mean ± SD preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score was 25 ± 4. The Brief Resilience Scale is a six-item scale with a calculated summary score ranging from 6 to 30. A higher score is suggestive of greater perceived resilience. There were no differences in the preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score with regard to age, gender, type of surgery performed, or outcome measures. Patient resilience was followed during the postoperative period for a minimum of 6 months, and instability in the scale was evaluated. Instability in resilience was defined as change in Brief Resilience Scale score by > 1 SD from one follow-up time point to another. Perioperative NRS and SANE outcomes, in addition to demographic data, were utilized to evaluate the relationship between resilience and patient-level factors. Results Brief Resilience Scale groups across all time points remained consistent with no change in grouping or crossover in groups except for patients with low resilience who had an increase in mean ± SD Brief Resilience Scale score by the final follow-up (18 ± 3 versus 20 ± 4; p < 0.05). Regardless of resilience group, there was a decrease in mean ± SD NRS (4.4 ± 2.2 versus 2.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and an improvement in mean ± SD SANE (46 ± 19 versus 69 ± 21; p < 0.001) scores during the postoperative period. At the 1- to 2-month follow-up and the 6- to 10-month follow-up visits, patients with high resilience were more likely to have lower NRS scores than patients with intermediate resilience (1.8 ± 1.0 versus 3.8 ± 2.3; p = 0.003) and low resilience (1.5 ± 1.8 versus 3.3 ± 2.4; p < 0.001), respectively. No relationship was observed between resilience groups and SANE scores, surgical category, and percentage of patients meeting the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the NRS or the SANE. Regarding resilience instability, 46% (56 of 121) of patients were categorized as having a Brief Resilience Scale change of ≥ 1 SD from baseline during the postoperative period. Gender (r = 0.03; p = 0.21), age (p = 0.81), and surgical category (r = 0.01; p = 0.88) were not associated with the likelihood of resilience instability. Individuals whose resilience increased had a lower starting Brief Resilience Scale score than those whose resilience stayed the same (22 ± 4 versus 25 ± 4, respectively; p < 0.001) or those whose resilience decreased (22 ± 4 versus 26 ± 3, respectively; p < 0.001). Conclusion When evaluated by resilience group, the trait appears static; however, at the individual level, resilience appears dynamic and complex. Patients with high resilience may have less postoperative pain. Identification of patients with low resilience may indicate patients who experience more dynamic change in this psychometric property. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Abstract Background: Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 (FGFR1) gene amplification and overexpression is associated with an adverse prognosis in hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) breast cancer and is observed in ~10% of all invasive breast cancers. The phase 2 FOENIX-MBC2 study (NCT04024436) was designed to evaluate the effect of futibatinib, a highly selective and potent irreversible covalent inhibitor of FGFR1–4 (FDA-approved for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma), used either alone or in combination with fulvestrant in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Here, we report final efficacy and safety data for the cohort of patients receiving futibatinib plus fulvestrant for HR+/HER2− breast cancer harboring high-level FGFR1 gene amplification. Methods: Patients were eligible if they had disease progression after prior therapy for advanced/metastatic disease, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, were fulvestrant-naïve, and had previously received 1–2 endocrine-containing therapies, ≤1 chemotherapy regimen, and a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor for advanced cancer (unless ineligible). High-level FGFR1 gene amplification, determined in tumor tissue using next-generation sequencing, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), or similar assays, was defined as FGFR1/centromere 8 ratio ≥5 or FGFR1 copy number ≥10 signals per cell. Local FGFR1 determination results were confirmed in tumor tissue by a central laboratory using FISH. Patients received oral futibatinib 20 mg once daily and standard fulvestrant dosing until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or other discontinuation criteria were met. The primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. Key secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), PFS, and overall safety. Results: Overall, 22 female patients were enrolled in this cohort. Patients were a median age of 58 years, had received a median of 3 lines of any prior systemic anticancer therapy, and had all received CDK4/6 inhibitor pretreatment. PFS at 6 months was observed in 10 (45.5%) patients (95% CI: 24.4, 67.8) and the median PFS was 7.2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.1, 7.6) months. Four patients had a confirmed partial response (ORR: 18.2%; 95% CI: 5.2, 40.3). The median duration of response was 6.3 (range: 3.3–12.8) months. All patients had ≥1 treatment-related adverse event (TRAE), the most common being hyperphosphatemia (95.5%), alopecia (54.5%), constipation (45.5%), and dry mouth (40.9%). There were 5 (22.7%) patients with a Grade 3 TRAE (no Grade 4 or 5). TRAEs leading to study treatment interruption or reduction were seen in 9 (40.9%) and 15 (68.2%) patients, respectively. There were 2 (9.1%) patients who had TRAEs leading to study treatment discontinuation. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions: Futibatinib plus fulvestrant showed antitumor activity in patients with advanced HR+/HER2− breast cancer with FGFR1 amplification progressing on prior CDK4/6 inhibitors, with a numerically higher ORR and doubling in PFS relative to historical fulvestrant results in post-CDK4/6 patients. The safety profile was consistent with those of the individual study drugs. Further biomarker work is ongoing. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Fabrice André, Nisha Unni, Marta Ferreira, Karthik Giridhar, Brooke Daniel, Marco Colleoni, Luis Costa, Thomas Bachelot, Ciara O’Brien, Gail Wright, Masashi Shimura, Gareth Tomlinson, Maciej Gil, Nicholas Turner. Final results from the phase 2, open-label FOENIX-MBC2 study: efficacy and safety of futibatinib in adult patients with locally advanced/metastatic HR+/HER2− breast cancer harboring high-level FGFR1 gene amplification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr RF01-04.

Abstract Background: FGFR gene amplifications are found in 18% of breast cancers (BCs), with FGFR1 amplifications occurring in ≈10% of cases, predominantly in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2−) MBCs. FGFR1 amplifications are associated with resistance to endocrine therapy, and in preclinical experiments, FGFR pathway inhibition has been shown to overcome resistance to hormone therapy in BC harboring FGFR1 amplifications. Futibatinib, a highly selective, irreversible FGFR1-4 inhibitor, has shown preclinical activity in BC xenograft models harboring FGFR1/2 amplifications. In a phase 1 study, futibatinib showed promising clinical activity and tolerability across tumor types, including MBC, harboring various FGFR aberrations. A multicohort phase 2 trial (FOENIX-MBC2; NCT04024436) was designed to evaluate futibatinib alone (cohorts 1-3) or in combination with fulvestrant (cohort 4) in patients with MBC harboring FGFR2 or FGFR1 amplifications, respectively. Here, we report preliminary safety data from cohort 4 of FOENIX-MBC2, including data from a safety lead-in. Methods: Cohort 4 of FOENIX-MBC2 enrolled adult patients with HR+ HER2− MBC harboring high levels of FGFR1 amplification (FGFR1:CEN8 ratio ≥5 or FGFR1 copy number ≥10 signals per cell), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and adequate organ function. Patients were fulvestrant naive and had previously received 1-2 endocrine-containing therapies, ≤1 chemotherapy regimen, and a CDK4/6 inhibitor (if eligible). Cohort 4 began with a safety lead-in to assess dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) during the first treatment cycle. Patients received oral futibatinib 20 mg once daily continuously, and intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg was administered on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and day 1 of every subsequent 28-day cycle. Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or another discontinuation criterion was met. Results: As of data cutoff (March 31, 2021), cohort 4 had enrolled 8 female patients with HR+ HER2− MBC harboring high-level FGFR1 amplification. The median age was 55.5 years (range: 31-62 years), and all patients had received ≥2 prior therapies for advanced/metastatic BC. The median duration of treatment was 8.0 weeks (range: 3.0-32.7 weeks); 3 of 8 patients (38%) were continuing treatment at time of data cutoff. All patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs; grade ≥3: 25%). The most common TRAE was hyperphosphatemia (88%), followed by constipation (62%), transaminase elevation (50%), dry mouth (38%), and alopecia (38%). Among these TRAEs, grade ≥3 events were only reported for hyperphosphatemia (12%), and no serious adverse events were reported. In this cohort, TRAEs led to dose reductions in 4 patients, dosing interruptions in 3 patients, and treatment discontinuation in 1 patient; no patients died due to TRAEs. DLTs were evaluated in 5 patients following 1 treatment cycle (1 patient was enrolled after data cutoff, and 4 of 9 patients were not evaluable for DLTs); DLTs were not experienced by any of the 5 evaluable patients. Conclusions: Based on these preliminary safety results, the combination of futibatinib and fulvestrant appears to be safe and tolerable in patients with HR+ HER− MBC harboring high-level FGFR1 amplification. The safety profile was consistent with the individual profiles of both drugs, and the treatment combination did not appear to result in synergistic toxicity. As no DLTs were observed in 5 evaluable patients, the recommended futibatinib dose in combination with fulvestrant is 20 mg once daily. Efficacy will be evaluated in the complete 28-patient post-lead-in cohort, in which enrollment is ongoing. Citation Format: Senthil Damodaran, Nisha Unni, Karthik V. Giridhar, Brooke Daniel, Sacha Howell, Luis Costa, Marta Ferreira, Masashi Shimura, Gareth Tomlinson, Maciej Gil, Nicholas Turner. Futibatinib in combination with fulvestrant in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) harboring high-level FGFR1 amplification: Preliminary data from a phase 2 study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P1-18-35.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure progression and quality of care. While legacy PROs such as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) survey are well-validated, a lengthy PRO creates a time burden on patients, decreasing adherence. In recent years, PROs such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function and Pain Interference surveys were developed as computer adaptive tests, reducing time to completion. Previous studies have examined correlation between legacy PROs and PROMIS; however, no studies have developed effective prediction models utilizing PROMIS to create an IKDC index. While the IKDC is the standard knee PRO, computer adaptive PROs offer numerous practical advantages. Purpose: To develop a nonlinear predictive model utilizing PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference to estimate IKDC survey scores and examine algorithm sensitivity and validity. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The MOTION (Military Orthopaedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network) database is a prospectively collected repository of PROs and intraoperative variables. Patients undergoing knee surgery completed the IKDC and PROMIS surveys at varying time points. Nonlinear multivariable predictive models using Gaussian and beta distributions were created to establish an IKDC index score, which was then validated using leave-one-out techniques and minimal clinically important difference analysis. Results: A total of 1011 patients completed the IKDC and PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference, providing 1618 complete observations. The algorithms for the Gaussian and beta distribution were validated to predict the IKDC (Pearson = 0.84-0.86; R 2 = 0.71-0.74; root mean square error = 9.3-10.0). Conclusion: The publicly available predictive models can approximate the IKDC score. The results can be used to compare PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference against historical IKDC scores by creating an IKDC index score. Serial use of the IKDC index allows for a lower minimal clinically important difference than the conventional IKDC. PROMIS can be substituted to reduce patient burden, increase completion rates, and produce orthopaedic-specific survey analogs.

Abstract Introduction Musculoskeletal injuries are an endemic amongst U.S. Military Service Members and significantly strain the Department of Defense’s Military Health System. The Military Health System aims to provide Service Members, military retirees, and their families the right care at the right time. The Military Orthopedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network (MOTION) captures the data that can optimize musculoskeletal care within the Military Health System. This report provides MOTION structural framework and highlights how it can be used to optimize musculoskeletal care. Materials and Methods MOTION established an internet-based data capture system, the MOTION Musculoskeletal Data Portal. All adult Military Health System patients who undergo orthopedic surgery are eligible for entry into the database. All data are collected as routine standard of care, with patients and orthopedic surgeons inputting validated global and condition-specific patient reported outcomes and operative case data, respectively. Patients have the option to consent to allow their standard of care data to be utilized within an institutional review board approved observational research study. MOTION data can be merged with other existing data systems (e.g., electronic medical record) to develop a comprehensive dataset of relevant information. In pursuit of enhancing musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes MOTION aims to: (1) identify factors which predict favorable outcomes; (2) develop models which inform the surgeon and military commanders if patients are behind, on, or ahead of schedule for their targeted return-to-duty/activity; and (3) develop predictive models to better inform patients and surgeons of the likelihood of a positive outcome for various treatment options to enhance patient counseling and expectation management. Results This is a protocol article describing the intent and methodology for MOTION; thus, to date, there are no results to report. Conclusions MOTION was established to capture the data that are necessary to improve military medical readiness and optimize medical resource utilization through the systematic evaluation of short- and long-term musculoskeletal injury patient outcomes. The systematic enhancement of musculoskeletal injury care through data analyses aligns with the National Defense Authorization Act (2017) and Defense Health Agency’s Quadruple Aim, which emphasizes optimizing healthcare delivery and Service Member medical readiness. This transformative approach to musculoskeletal care can be applied across disciplines within the Military Health System.