Citations

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

INTRODUCTION: Reflux bile acids are believed to promote esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but the role of systemic bile acids is unknown. This study aimed to assess associations between systemic bile acids and stages of Barrett's esophagus (BE) progression. METHODS: Subjects with and without BE were enrolled in this multicenter cross-sectional study. Targeted serum bile acid profiling was performed, and a subset of subjects completed a validated food frequency questionnaire. RNA sequencing was performed on BE or gastric cardia tissue to assess bile acid associations with gene expression. RESULTS: A total of 141 subjects were enrolled with serum bile acids profiled (49 non-BE; 92 BE: 44 no dysplasia, 25 indefinite/low grade dysplasia, 23 high-grade dysplasia/EAC). Lower Healthy Eating Index score, older age, higher body mass index, and no proton pump inhibitor use were associated with increased levels of multiple bile acids. Global bile acid pools were distinct between non-BE and stages of BE neoplasia ( P = 0.004). Increasing cholic acid was associated with high-grade dysplasia/EAC compared with non-BE, even after adjusting for EAC risk factors (adjusted odds ratio 2.03, 95% confidence interval 1.11–3.71) as was the combination of unconjugated primary bile acids (adjusted odds ratio 1.81, 95% confidence interval 1.04–3.13). High cholic acid levels were associated with tissue gene expression changes including increased DNA replication and reduced lymphocyte differentiation genes. DISCUSSION: Alterations in serum bile acids are independently associated with advanced neoplasia in BE and may contribute to neoplastic progression. Future studies should explore associated gut microbiome changes, proneoplastic effects of bile acids, and whether these bile acids, particularly cholic acid, represent potential biomarkers or viable therapeutic targets for advanced neoplasia in BE.

INTRODUCTION: Esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is the second-most lethal cancer in the United States, with Barrett esophagus (BE) being the strongest risk factor. Assessing the future risk of neoplastic progression in patients with BE is difficult; however, high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and early EAC are treatable by endoscopic eradication therapy (EET), with survival rates of 90%. Thus, it would be beneficial to develop a molecular assay to identify high-risk patients, who merit more frequent endoscopic surveillance or EET, as well as low-risk patients, who can avoid EET and undergo less frequent surveillance. METHODS: Deidentified endoscopic biopsies were acquired from 240 patients with BE at 6 centers and confirmed as future progressors or nonprogressors. Tissues were analyzed by a set of methylation-specific biomarker assays. Test performance was assessed in an independent validation set using 4 stratification levels: low risks, low-moderate risks, high-moderate risks, and high risks. RESULTS: Relative to patients in the low-risk group, high-risk patients were 15.2 times more likely to progress within 5 years to HGD or EAC. For patients in the high-risk category, the average risk of progressing to HGD or EAC within 5 years was 21.5%, 4-fold the BE population prevalence within 5 years, whereas low-risk patients had a progression risk of only 1.85%. DISCUSSION: This clinical assay, Esopredict, stratifies future neoplastic progression risk to identify higher-risk patients with BE who can benefit from EET or more frequent surveillance and lower-risk patients who can benefit from reduced surveillance.

INTRODUCTION: Early neoplastic progression of Barrett's esophagus (BE) is often treated with endoscopic therapy. Although effective, some patients are refractory to therapy or recur after apparent eradication of the BE. The goal of this study was to determine whether genomic alterations within the treated BE may be associated with persistent or recurrent disease. METHODS: We performed DNA sequencing on pre-treatment esophageal samples from 45 patients who were successfully treated by endoscopic therapy and did not recur as well as pre-treatment and post-treatment samples from 40 patients who had persistent neoplasia and 21 patients who had recurrent neoplasia. The genomic alterations were compared between groups. RESULTS: The genomic landscape was similar between all groups. Patients with persistent disease were more likely to have pre-treatment alterations involving the receptor tyrosine kinase pathway ( P = 0.01), amplifications of oncogenes ( P = 0.01), and deletions of tumor suppressor genes ( P = 0.02). These associations were no longer significant after adjusting for patient age and BE length. More than half of patients with persistent (52.5%) or recurrent (57.2%) disease showed pre-treatment and post-treatment samples that shared at least 50% of their driver mutations. DISCUSSION: Pre-treatment samples were genomically similar between those who responded to endoscopic therapy and those who had persistent or recurrent disease, suggesting there is not a strong genomic component to treatment response. Although it was expected to find shared driver mutations in pre-treatment and post-treatment samples in patients with persistent disease, the finding that an equal number of patients with recurrent disease also showed this relation suggests that many recurrences represent undetected minimal residual disease.

Abstract Background A previous phase IB/II study of nab‐paclitaxel + cisplatin + gemcitabine (NABPLAGEM) in 25 patients with previously untreated metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) demonstrated favorable results. This phase II study was conducted to further evaluate the safety, efficacy, and impact on quality of life (QOL) of NABPLAGEM in a multi‐center setting. Methods Participants were ≥18 years; had measurable PDAC; Karnofsky performance status of ≥70%; life expectancy ≥12 weeks; <grade 2 pre‐existing peripheral neuropathy, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function. Study treatment included nab‐paclitaxel (125 mg/m 2 ), cisplatin (25 mg/m 2 ), and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m 2 ), on Days 1 and 8 of a 21‐day cycle. The primary endpoint was 12‐month overall survival (OS). Results A total of 42 patients were enrolled with a median age of 66.8 years, a majority were male (66.7%) and white (76.2%). Treatment‐related adverse events ≥grade 3 were: thrombocytopenia (64.3%), anemia (47.6%), and neutropenia (26.1%). OS at 12 months was 38.1%, with 12% of patients alive as of last contact (20–40+ months). In 37 evaluable participants responses included: partial response (40.5%), stable disease (43.2%), and progressive disease (16.2%), with overall response rate of 40.5% and DCR of 88.6%. Statistically significant improvement in QOL was reported during the first three cycles. Conclusion The primary objective of achieving a 12‐month survival comparable to the previous phase Ib/II NABPLAGEM PCRT 12‐001 was not achieved in this trial. NABPLAGEM has efficacy in advanced PDAC, demonstrating early disease control noted by improvement in patient symptoms, decrease in tumor volume and tumor markers within the first 9 weeks. The activity and tolerability make this a suitable regimen for further testing in the neoadjuvant setting.

Abstract The requirement of community outreach and engagement (COE) as a major component of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Cancer Center Support Grant has had an enormous impact on the way NCI-designated cancer centers identify, investigate, and address the needs of their catchment area (CA) communities. Given the wide-ranging diversity of our nation, COE’s scope of work (SOW) is extremely demanding and complex. Yet, COE is often marginalized and viewed as void of scientific methods when, in fact, it requires specialized scientific knowledge and a broad range of proficiencies. Black COE scientific directors may be particularly attuned to this marginalization as they have often confronted workplace inequities that resemble the health inequities observed within their cancer center’s CA. Thus, Black COE leaders are uniquely positioned to offer insight on the past, present, and future of COE. Key areas discussed include the low involvement of minoritized group members and those with appropriate expertise in national COE leadership; the lack of established, consistent criteria for evaluation of COE components and qualifications of evaluators; the need for substantial financial investment in COE; potential misalignment of community priorities and cancer center objectives; professional development and growth of COE staff and leaders; the expanding scope of COE across their respective cancer centers and CAs; and the need for center-wide involvement in COE and an “all-hands-on-deck” approach. These areas warrant thoughtful dialogue as COE evolves, for the benefit and success of all COE leaders. However, this dialogue must include diverse voices representing similarly diverse stakeholders at every level.