Citations

Abstract Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common primary brain malignancy in adults. Standard of care (SOC) for suspected GBM begins with maximal safe resection followed by adjuvant radiotherapy and temozolomide, and maintenance temozolomide. Imvax has developed the Goldspire™ platform to create IGV-001, an autologous biologic-device combination product for the treatment of newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). IGV-001 consists of autologous GBM tumor cells and an antisense oligonucleotide against IGF-1R mRNA (IMV-001), irradiated and administered via biodiffusion chambers implanted in the abdomen. Together, these components stimulate immunogenic cell death and antigen release. IGV-001 was well tolerated and multiple efficacy signals were observed in a Phase 1b study in patients with ndGBM, including significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), radiographic evidence of tumor response, and changes in immune response biomarkers. A Phase 2b randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled study has been initiated to assess the safety and efficacy of IGV-001 in patients with ndGBM (NCT04485949). After surgical resection, patients will be treated with IGV-001 or placebo followed by SOC. 25 US sites have been selected with a target enrollment of 93 patients (2:1 randomization) and the study is open to enrollment. Key inclusion criteria are 18 to 70 years of age, Karnofsky performance status score ≥ 70, diagnosis of GBM based on the treating neurosurgeon's best clinical judgement, confirmed measurable disease pre-operatively, tumor located in the supratentorial compartment, and adequate bone marrow and organ function. Key exclusion criteria include bihemispheric disease, multicentric disease, or treatment with Tumor Treating Fields prior to documented progression. The primary outcome is PFS, defined as the time from randomization to first progression, as determined by blinded central radiology review, or death. Secondary outcomes include overall survival, defined as the time from randomization to death due to any cause, and safety.

Objective To develop new antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria with high specificity for use in observational studies and trials, jointly supported by the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) and EULAR. Methods This international multidisciplinary initiative included 4 phases: 1) Phase I, criteria generation by surveys and literature review; 2) Phase II, criteria reduction by modified Delphi and nominal group technique exercises; 3) Phase III, criteria definition, further reduction with the guidance of real‐world patient scenarios, and weighting via consensus‐based multicriteria decision analysis, and threshold identification; and 4) Phase IV, validation using independent adjudicators’ consensus as the gold standard. Results The 2023 ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria include an entry criterion of at least one positive antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) test within 3 years of identification of an aPL‐associated clinical criterion, followed by additive weighted criteria (score range 1–7 points each) clustered into 6 clinical domains (macrovascular venous thromboembolism, macrovascular arterial thrombosis, microvascular, obstetric, cardiac valve, and hematologic) and 2 laboratory domains (lupus anticoagulant functional coagulation assays, and solid‐phase enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays for IgG/IgM anticardiolipin and/or IgG/IgM anti–β 2 ‐glycoprotein I antibodies). Patients accumulating at least 3 points each from the clinical and laboratory domains are classified as having APS. In the validation cohort, the new APS criteria versus the 2006 revised Sapporo classification criteria had a specificity of 99% versu s 86%, and a sensitivity of 84% versus 99%. Conclusion These new ACR/EULAR APS classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary international input. Hierarchically clustered, weighted, and risk‐stratified criteria reflect the current thinking about APS, providing high specificity and a strong foundation for future APS research.

Abstract BACKGROUND Standard of care (SOC) and patient survival in glioblastoma have changed little in the past 17 years. We evaluated in a phase 3 trial whether adding an autologous tumor lysate-loaded dendritic cell vaccine (murcidencel) to SOC extends survival. Patients and METHODS Newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients were randomized 2:1 to either murcidencel or placebo. Under a crossover design, all patients could receive murcidencel following tumor recurrence. All parties remained blinded regarding treatments before recurrence. Patients thus received murcidencel at new diagnosis (nGBM) or at recurrence (rGBM) following crossover from placebo. The primary and secondary endpoints compare overall survival (OS) with contemporaneous, matched external controls. Four sets of analyses were conducted to ensure rigorous matching of the controls, reduce biases, and confirm the robustness of the results. RESULTS 331 patients were enrolled. With the crossover, 89% received murcidencel. Median OS (mOS) for nGBM patients (n = 232) was 19.3 months from randomization (22.4 months from surgery) with murcidencel vs. 16.5 months from randomization in the controls (HR = 0.80, p = 0.002). Survival at 48 months from randomization was 15.7% vs. 9.9%, and at 60 months was 13% vs. 5.7%. For rGBM (n = 64), mOS was 13.2 months from relapse vs. 7.8 months in the controls (HR = 0.58, p < 0.001). Survival at 24 months post-recurrence was 20.7% vs. 9.6%, and at 30 months post-recurrence was 11.1% vs 5.1%. In nGBM patients with methylated MGMT (n = 90), mOS was 30.2 months from randomization (33 months from surgery) with murcidencel vs. 21.3 months from randomization in the controls (HR = 0.74, p = 0.027). The treatment was well tolerated, with only 5 serious adverse events deemed at least possibly related to the vaccine. CONCLUSION Clinically meaningful and statistically significant survival extension was seen in both nGBM and rGBM patients treated with murcidencel and SOC compared with contemporaneous, matched external controls who received SOC alone.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic led to unprecedented challenges in medical training, and we sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on hematology-oncology (HO) fellowship programs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional anonymous online survey of 103 HO program directors (PDs) in conjunction with the American Society of Hematology (ASH) and ASCO. We sought to assess the specific impact of COVID-19 on HO fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research activities, evaluate perceptions regarding PD and trainee emotional and mental health, and identify ways to support programs. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, parametric and nonparametric tests, and multivariable logistic regression models. Responses to open-ended questions were analyzed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Significant changes to fellowship activities included transitioning fellow training from outpatient clinics to telehealth (77.7%), shifting to virtual education (94.2%), and moving to remote research work (63.1%). A minority (21.4%) of PDs reported that their fellows were redeployed to cover non-HO services. Most PDs (54.4%) believed COVID-19 had a slight negative impact on fellowship training. PD self-reported burnout increased significantly from 15.5% prepandemic to 44.7% during the pandemic, and most PDs witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout (52.4%). Common PD concerns included inadequate supervision for telehealth activities, reduced opportunities for fellow advancement and promotion, lack of professional development activities, limited research operations and funding, program financial constraints, and virtual recruitment. CONCLUSION: We encourage institutions and national societies to allocate resources and develop programs that can support fellowships and mitigate the potential negative effects of COVID-19 on trainee and PD career development.

PURPOSE: Graduate medical and research training has drastically changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, with widespread implementation of virtual learning, redeployment from core rotations to the care of patients with COVID-19, and significant emotional and physical stressors. The specific experience of hematology-oncology (HO) fellows during the COVID-19 pandemic is not known. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods study using a survey of Likert-style and open-ended questions to assess the training experience and well-being of HO fellows, including both clinical and postdoctoral trainee members of the American Society of Hematology and ASCO. RESULTS: A total of 2,306 surveys were distributed by e-mail; 548 (23.8%) fellows completed the survey. Nearly 40% of fellows felt that they had not received adequate mental health support during the pandemic, and 22% reported new symptoms of burnout. Pre-existing burnout before the pandemic, COVID-19–related clinical work, and working in a primary research or nonclinical setting were associated with increased burnout on multivariable logistic regression. Qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed significant concerns about employment after training completion, perceived variable quality of virtual education and board preparation, loss of clinical opportunities to prepare for independent clinical practice, inadequate grant funding opportunities in part because of shifting research priorities, variable productivity, and mental health or stress during the pandemic. CONCLUSION: HO fellows have been profoundly affected by the pandemic, and our data illustrate multiple avenues for fellowship programs and national organizations to support both clinical and postdoctoral trainees.

Abstract Background The National Institutes of Health define African Americans or Blacks, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Hispanics or Latinos, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders as being underrepresented in medicine. A number of studies have demonstrated that improving diversity of such underrepresented demographics within the medical profession improves patient outcomes, medical education and reduces health disparities in patients from vulnerable racial or socioeconomic groups. Despite this recognition, significant underrepresentation of various racial, ethnic, and sexual identities still exists within nearly all medical specialties. Aims The purpose of this study was to a gain a greater understanding of the current state of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts among U.S. hematology and medical oncology fellowship training programs. We explored the perspectives of adult and pediatric fellowship program directors regarding current recruitment strategies and suggestions for improvement to help mitigate the effects of implicit and explicit bias. Here, we present an interim analysis of the data using descriptive statistics. Methods: We convened a multi-institutional collaboration of fellowship program directors, teaching faculty, and staff members of the American Society of Hematology to develop a survey examining perceptions of DEI efforts among hematology and medical oncology fellowship program directors. The survey was pilot tested in a small group of program directors representing 6 different academic programs (5 adult, 1 pediatric). The final online survey was distributed via email to 224 fellowship program directors at U.S. adult and pediatric hematology and medical oncology fellowship programs. The survey included 29 questions regarding perspectives on bias within the fellowship selection process, current DEI initiatives, and current faculty and fellow demographics. Survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of numerous factors in determining which applicants to invite utilizing a scale of 0-10, with 0 and 10 representing lowest and highest importance, respectively. To measure program director perceptions of certain applicant groups, survey respondents were asked to rate applicant demographics as being advantaged/disadvantaged based on survey options ranging from 0-5, with 0 and 5 representing very disadvantaged and very advantaged, respectively. Results: At interim analysis, 41 of 224 program directors completed the survey for an interim response rate of 21%, including 25 adult program directors and 16 pediatric program directors, with representation from university and community programs. Of the program directors surveyed, 28 (68%) reported having access to a dedicated diversity committee or DEI policies in place to improve recruitment of underrepresented applicants. In determining which applicants to invite, respondents placed highest value on the applicant's program director letter (mean score ± standard deviation: 7.44±1.93), caliber of the applicant's residency program (7.28±2.06) and letters of recommendations (7.15±2.23). Survey respondents viewed white and male applicants as representing the most advantaged demographic group, while LGBTQI, age>40, and U.S. citizen and non-citizen international medical graduates were the most disadvantaged (Table 1). Suggestions regarding improving DEI in the fellowship selection process included implementing bias training, identifying potentially disadvantaged applicants in ERAS, increasing faculty diversity, and pairing underrepresented applicants with interviewers based on applicant preference. Conclusion: While the majority of hematology and medical oncology fellowship program directors report having DEI programs or policies to improve recruitment of underrepresented applicants, perceptions of advantaged/disadvantaged groups may extend beyond demographics traditionally viewed as being underrepresented in medicine. As our survey is ongoing, we plan to reanalyze our data when the survey has been finalized with a higher response rate utilizing multivariable regression to identify themes that may further improve DEI efforts within the fellowship selection process. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures LaCasce: Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.: Other: Data Safetly and Monitoring. Murphy: North American Thrombosis Foundation: Honoraria. Naik: Rigel: Research Funding. Podoltsev: Pfizer: Honoraria; Blueprint Medicines: Honoraria; Incyte: Honoraria; Novartis: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; PharmaEssentia: Honoraria; Bristol-Myers Squib: Honoraria; CTI BioPharma: Honoraria.

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.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected many aspects of healthcare, including medical education and training. Its impact on hematology/oncology (HO) fellowship programs has not yet been characterized. Methods The American Society of Hematology (ASH) and American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) sent an anonymous survey in June 2020 to all HO program directors (PDs) addressing program changes during the COVID-19 pandemic and their perception of impact on trainees' experience, education, and mental health. The survey included 32 multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Participants who completed the survey received a $10 gift card. Quantitative descriptive analyses of multiple-choice questions were conducted. Open-ended responses were analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results Of 233 invited PDs, 103 (44%) respondents completed the survey; 22 additional surveys were incomplete and not included in the analysis. Table 1 summarizes PDs and program characteristics. In response to the pandemic, 42% (N=43) of programs removed fellows from outpatient clinics and 63% (N=65) changed research location to home (Figure 1). Most PDs reported their fellows were participating in telehealth for HO care (79%, N=81) and 21% (N=22) had their fellows re-deployed to cover medicine and other non-HO services. To support fellows' mental health most programs held additional virtual meetings (76%, N=78) and social events (52%, N=54). Twenty one percent of PDs (N=22) reported their program's professional development funds were completely cut or frozen and 17% (N=17) had funds cut slightly. Most PDs reported the pandemic negatively impacted fellowship overall (67% slight to significant negative impact, N=69), 72% identified clinical education as negatively impacted (72% slight to significant negative impact, N=74), and 35% (N=36) reported significant negative impact on research training/productivity. Twenty three percent (N=24) of PDs thought their fellows were not able to make good use of their time during the pandemic, professionally speaking. One third (33%, N=34) of PDs anticipated the pandemic would lead to lack of fellow clinical preparedness, 24% (N=25) with need to make up clinical rotations, and 15% (N=15) anticipated a negative impact on HO board pass rates. Post-pandemic, most PDs plan to maintain some virtual educational sessions (73%, N=75) and telehealth in fellows' continuity clinic (55%, N=57). Among PDs, the prevalence of burnout increased from 16% (N=16) pre-pandemic to 45% (N=46) during the pandemic (p<0.0001). Seventeen percent (N=18) of PDs witnessed moderate signs of fellow burnout and 52% (N=54) witnessed minor signs of fellow burnout during the pandemic. Several educational and research constraints were identified via qualitative analysis: limited in-person clinical rotations, supervision of telehealth encounters, training year promotion and making up clinical time, limited professional development activities, board exam cancellations, and inability to perform research. Additional PD-identified trainee concerns included: ability to obtain childcare, separation from family, and Visa concerns among international fellows. PDs anticipated that financial constraints leading to cuts or removal of discretionary funds may have negative consequences for fellows' professional development activities and could force PDs to decrease program size in the future. PD recommendations for ASH and ASCO included: reducing or eliminating fellow membership fees, providing free access to educational materials and meetings, eliminating in-training examination fees, providing virtual sessions on career development, telehealth and wellness, virtual journal clubs, PD webinars focused on navigating fellowship issues and virtual interviews, and extending ASCO YIA funding for a second year. Conclusions PDs reported that their fellowship programs' clinical, educational, and research experiences have been impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. PDs are concerned about the impact of budget cuts on fellows' professional and career development. PD burnout increased during the pandemic and most PDs observed at least mild burnout among their fellows. Professional societies can support fellowship programs by limiting fees and costs associated with membership, exams, and meetings, and increasing virtual opportunities for both fellows and PDs. Disclosures Velazquez Manana: Portola Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Midatech: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership; Corbus Pharmaceuticals: Other: Immediate family member stock ownership.

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.