Citations

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a posterior facet replacement device, the Total Posterior Spine (TOPS) System, for the treatment of one-level symptomatic lumbar stenosis with grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis. Posterior lumbar arthroplasty with facet replacement is a motion-preserving alternative to lumbar decompression and fusion. The authors report the preliminary results from the TOPS FDA investigational device exemption (IDE) trial. METHODS The study was a prospective, randomized controlled FDA IDE trial comparing the investigational TOPS device with transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF) and pedicle screw fixation. The minimum follow-up duration was 24 months. Validated patient-reported outcome measures included the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and visual analog scale (VAS) for back and leg pain. The primary outcome was a composite measure of clinical success: 1) no reoperations, 2) no device breakage, 3) ODI reduction of ≥ 15 points, and 4) no new or worsening neurological deficit. Patients were considered a clinical success only if they met all four measures. Radiographic assessments were made by an independent core laboratory. RESULTS A total of 249 patients were evaluated (n = 170 in the TOPS group and n = 79 in the TLIF group). There were no statistically significant differences between implanted levels (L4–5: TOPS, 95% and TLIF, 95%) or blood loss. The overall composite measure for clinical success was statistically significantly higher in the TOPS group (85%) compared with the TLIF group (64%) (p = 0.0138). The percentage of patients reporting a minimum 15-point improvement in ODI showed a statistically significant difference (p = 0.037) favoring TOPS (93%) over TLIF (81%). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients reporting a minimum 20-point improvement on VAS back pain (TOPS, 87%; TLIF, 64%) and leg pain (TOPS, 90%; TLIF, 88%) scores. The rate of surgical reintervention for facet replacement in the TOPS group (5.9%) was lower than the TLIF group (8.8%). The TOPS cohort demonstrated maintenance of flexion/extension range of motion from preoperatively (3.85°) to 24 months (3.86°). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that posterior lumbar decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device is safe and efficacious in the treatment of lumbar stenosis with degenerative spondylolisthesis. Additionally, decompression and dynamic stabilization with the TOPS device maintains segmental motion.

Background The contribution of atrial cardiopathy to dementia risk is uncharacterized. We aimed to evaluate the association of atrial cardiopathy with incident dementia and potential mediation by atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke. Methods and Results We conducted a prospective cohort analysis of participants in the ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) study attending visit 5 (2011–2013). We used Cox regression to determine the association between atrial cardiopathy and risk of dementia. Structural equation modeling methods were used to determine potential mediation by AF and/or stroke. Atrial cardiopathy was defined if ≥1 of the following at visit 5: P‐wave terminal force >5000 mV·ms in ECG lead V1, NT‐proBNP (N‐terminal pro–brain natriuretic peptide) >250 pg/mL or left atrial volume index ≥34 mL/m 2 by transthoracic echocardiography. We repeated our analysis necessitating ≥2 markers to define atrial cardiopathy. The prevalence of atrial cardiopathy was 34% in the 5078 participants (mean age 75 years, 59% female, 21% Black adults), with 763 participants developing dementia. Atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with dementia (adjusted HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16–1.58]), with strengthening of the effect estimate when necessitating ≥2 biomarkers (adjusted HR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.25–1.89]). There was an increased risk of dementia among those with atrial cardiopathy when excluding those with AF (adjusted HR, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.12–1.55]) or stroke (adjusted HR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.09–1.52]). The proportion of the effect mediated by AF was 4% ( P =0.005), and 9% was mediated by stroke ( P =0.048). Conclusions Atrial cardiopathy was significantly associated with an increased risk of dementia, with only a small percent mediation of the effect by AF or stroke.

Background: In response to encounters involving misconduct, discrimination, and harassment toward healthcare workers, the Experience Training, Education, and Coaching (XTEC) team was tasked with empowering staff members to respond to biased requests and misconduct appropriately and consistently. The aim of this article is to discuss communication strategies for how to respond to patient bias and misconduct. Methods: XTEC developed a training program with two focused communication strategies: (1) SAFER, a stepped approach to respond to patient and visitor misconduct and (2) ASAP, an approach for responding to patient bias which we describe as requests related to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, and other personal attributes of staff. Intervention: SAFER ASAP workshops were delivered to 2154 health care professionals through 109 face-to-face training over a 15-month period between January 2019 and March 2020. All trainings were discussion- and scenario-based, ranging in duration from 60 to 90 min. Participants were given pre- and post-training test case scenarios, in which respondents wrote responses to a challenging behavior to assess skill attainment post-training. Results:Seventy-one percent demonstrated higher levels of response ability post-training, and 92% of respondents indicated they would likely recommend this training to others. Conclusions: SAFER ASAP is an effective communication training program for responding to patient and visitor bias and misconduct.

5579 Background: Adavosertib (AZD-1775) is a potent small molecule inhibitor of Wee-1, currently in clinical development. In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial (NCT02151292), adavosertib and gemcitabine significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant or platinum-refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOV) compared to gemcitabine alone. We investigated whether plasma and intra-tumoral adavosertib concentrations correlated with survival in these patients. Methods: Adavosertib was administered orally on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 at 175 mg per day, and gemcitabine was administered on Days 1, 8 and 15 at 1000 mg/m2 every 28 days. Serial blood samples were collected on Day 1 of cycle 1 after adavosertib administration. Tumor biopsies were taken 1-2 weeks after initiation of study treatments. Plasma and tumor adavosertib concentrations were determined using validated HPLC-MS/MS. Patients were divided into groups with plasma or tumor adavosertib concentrations above or below the biologically active concentration (BAC) of 125 ng/ml (Leijen et al, J Clin Onco 2016). Survival was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Among 61 HGSOV patients who received adavosertib, plasma samples were available in 47, and tumor samples were available in 31 patients. Among 25 non-HGSOV patients (exploratory cohort), plasma and tumor samples were available in 21 and 17 patients respectively. The mean maximum adavosertib concentration (Cmax) was 355.3 ± 120.9 ng/ml and 358.6 ± 117.9 ng/ml respectively. Cmax was above BAC in all patients. The mean tumor adavosertib concentration was 609.2 ± 1129.2 ng/ml (range: 0.47 – 5501 ng/ml) for HGSOV patients, and 964.2 ± 1611.2 ng/ml (range: 0.22 – 6116 ng/ml) for non-HGSOV patients. There was no correlation between Cmax and tumor adavosertib concentrations. In HGSOV, the median PFS was 5.8 months for patients with tumor concentrations above BAC, and 3.5 months for those with tumor concentrations below BAC (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.46, 95% confidence interval: 0.19 – 1.14, p = 0.06). No difference in PFS was seen in non-HGSOV patients according to tumor adavosertib concentration. Tumor adavosertib concentration did not correlate with OS. Conclusions: Although Cmax was above BAC in all patients, there was a high variability in tumor adavosertib concentrations. In HGSOV, higher tumor adavosertib concentration was associated with a trend towards improved PFS, but not OS. Our results indicate that the current adavosertib dosing regimen may not produce the desired concentrations in tumors for some patients, and further optimization may be needed.

2012 Background: Individualized Screening Trial of Innovative Glioblastoma Therapy (INSIGhT) trial is a phase II platform trial using response adaptive randomization and deep genomic profiling to more efficiently test experimental agents in MGMT unmethylated glioblastoma and potentially accelerate identification of novel therapies for phase III testing. We report on the feasibility and conduct of this approach. Methods: Tumor genotyping was performed prior to treatment assignment on eligible participants with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma to identify biomarker signatures. Initial randomization was 1:1:1:1 between control (temozolomide) and 3 experimental arms (abemaciclib, CC-115, and neratinib). Subsequent randomization was adapted based on Bayesian estimation of biomarker-naïve and biomarker-specific probabilities of treatment impact on progression-free survival (PFS). Ineffective or toxic arms were discontinued by protocol amendment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Results: INSIGhT randomized 71 patients to the control arm, 73 patients to the abemaciclib arm, 12 patients to the CC-115 arm, and 81 patients to the neratinib arm between 2/9/2017 and 5/14/2021. Following the initial equal randomization period, early data were repeatedly analyzed during the study to capture early signals of treatment effects across the enrolled population or in specific biomarker subgroups. The results of these interim analyses influenced the randomization probability for future enrolled patients. In total, 77% of the participants were randomized before assessing their biomarker profile and 23% were biomarker randomized. The CC-115 arm opened and closed three times during the safety lead-in. The randomization probability to the CC-115 arm decreased based on poor early PFS results and the arm eventually closed after 12 patients due to toxicity. The randomization probability to the abemacicilb arm increased based on promising early PFS results. After the completion of accrual into the abemaciclib arm, the trial switched to block randomization to finish enrolling into the remaining neratinib and control arms. A total of 28 interim analyses and 32 randomization tables were created throughout the course of the trial with 4 adjustments (3 due to CC-115 closures and 1 due to completion of the abemaciclib arm). Biomarker association trends for neratinib and abemaciclib were similar to those seen in preclinical modeling of the trial. Conclusions: Relative to a standard randomization design, the adaptive platform design facilitated more efficient and economical testing of experimental arms by sharing a control arm, decreasing the probability of enrollment to potentially ineffective arms, and increasing the probability of enrollment to potentially effective arms. Additional future arms are planned on INSIGhT. Clinical trial information: NCT02977780.

ObjectiveTo characterize the catchment area and patient profile of large cochlear implant (CI) centers in the United States.Study DesignMulti‐institutional retrospective case series.SettingTertiary referral CI centers.MethodsPatients who underwent CI surgery at 7 participating CI centers between 2015 and 2020 were identified. Patients’ residential zip codes were used to approximate travel distances and urban vs rural residential areas.ResultsOver the 6‐year study period (2015‐2020), 6313 unique CI surgical procedures occurred (4529 adult, 1784 pediatric). Between 2015 and 2019, CI procedures increased by 43%. Patients traveled a median 52 miles (interquartile range, 21‐110) each way; patients treated at rural CI centers traveled greater distances vs those treated at urban centers (72 vs 46 miles, P <. 001). Rural residents represented 61% of the patient population and traveled farther than urban residents (73 vs 24 miles, P <. 001). Overall, 91% of patients lived within a 200‐mile radius of the institution, while 71% lived within a 100‐mile radius. In adults, multiple regression analysis redemonstrated an association between greater travel distances and (1) older age at the time of CI and (2) residential rural setting (both P <. 001, r2 = 0.2).ConclusionsWhile large CI centers serve geographically dispersed populations, most patients reside within a 200‐mile radius. Strategies to expand CI utilization may leverage remote programming, telemedicine, and strategic placement of new centers and satellite clinics to ameliorate travel burden.

AbstractWhile the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed the expansion of telemedicine into nearly every specialty of medicine, few articles have summarized current practices and recommendations for integrating virtual care in the practice of neuro-oncology. This article identifies current telemedicine practice, provides practical guidance for conducting telemedicine visits, and generates recommendations for integrating virtual care into neuro-oncology practice. Practical aspects of telemedicine are summarized including when to use and not use telemedicine, how to conduct a virtual visit, who to include in the virtual encounter, unique aspects of telehealth in neuro-oncology, and emerging innovations.