Search

BackgroundWhether pembrolizumab given both before surgery (neoadjuvant therapy) and after surgery (adjuvant therapy), as compared with pembrolizumab given as adjuvant therapy alone, would increase event-free survival among patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma is unknown.MethodsIn a phase 2 trial, we randomly assigned patients with clinically detectable, measurable stage IIIB to IVC melanoma that was amenable to surgical resection to three doses of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab, surgery, and 15 doses of adjuvant pembrolizumab (neoadjuvant-adjuvant group) or to surgery followed by pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses) for approximately 1 year or until disease recurred or unacceptable toxic effects developed (adjuvant-only group). The primary end point was event-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Events were defined as disease progression or toxic effects that precluded surgery; the inability to resect all gross disease; disease progression, surgical complications, or toxic effects of treatment that precluded the initiation of adjuvant therapy within 84 days after surgery; recurrence of melanoma after surgery; or death from any cause. Safety was also evaluated.ResultsAt a median follow-up of 14.7 months, the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group (154 patients) had significantly longer event-free survival than the adjuvant-only group (159 patients) (P = 0.004 by the log-rank test). In a landmark analysis, event-free survival at 2 years was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 64 to 80) in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 49% (95% CI, 41 to 59) in the adjuvant-only group. The percentage of patients with treatment-related adverse events of grades 3 or higher during therapy was 12% in the neoadjuvant-adjuvant group and 14% in the adjuvant-only group.ConclusionsAmong patients with resectable stage III or IV melanoma, event-free survival was significantly longer among those who received pembrolizumab both before and after surgery than among those who received adjuvant pembrolizumab alone. No new toxic effects were identified. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and Merck Sharp and Dohme; S1801 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03698019.).

PURPOSE Use of the electronic health record (EHR) during face-to-face clinical encounters affects communication, and prior research has been inconclusive regarding its effect. This survey study assessed health care practitioner use of EHR-specific communication skills and patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes regarding EHR use during clinical encounters. METHODS For this US-based study, we distributed previously validated surveys to practitioners and adult patients (aged >18 years) at academic primary care practices from July 1, 2018 through August 31, 2018. The electronic practitioner survey was completed first; a paper survey was administered to patients after appointments. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and the Cochran-Armitage test was used to assess for associations between key variables. RESULTS The practitioner response was 72.9% (43/59); patient response, 45.2% (452/1,000). Practitioners reported maintaining less eye contact (79.1%), listening less carefully (53.5%), focusing less on patients (65.1%), and visits feeling less personal (62.8%). However, patients reported that practitioners provided sufficient eye contact (96.8%) and listened carefully (97.0%); they disagreed that practitioners focused less on them (86.7%) or that visits felt less personal (87.2%). Patients thought EHR use was positive (91.7%); only one-third of practitioners (37.2%) thought that patients would agree with that statement. Practitioners reported stress, burnout, and a lack of sufficient time for EHR documentation. CONCLUSIONS A discrepancy existed in this study between patient and practitioner experiences and attitudes about EHR use, which appeared to negatively affect the experience of health care practitioners but not patients. Organizations should adopt formal strategies to improve practitioner experiences with EHR use. Key words: electronic health record; patient experience; primary health care; communication skills, INTRODUCTION The electronic health record (EHR [computer implied throughout]) is intended to promote safe, efficient, and high-quality medical care. (1,2) However, use of the EHR during face-to-face clinical encounters affects [...]

Background & aimsEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is assessed endoscopically (endoscopic activity), based on grades of edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and strictures (EREFS). We examined variations in endoscopic assessments of severity, developed and validated 3 EREFS-based scoring systems, and assessed responsiveness of these systems using data from a randomized placebo-controlled trial of patients with EoE.MethodsFor the development set, 5 gastroenterologists reviewed EREFS findings from 266 adults with EoE and provided endoscopist global assessment scores (EndoGA, scale of 0 to 10); variation (ΔEndoGA) was assessed using linear regression. We evaluated simple scores (features given arbitrary values from 0 to 3) and developed 2 scoring systems (adjusted score range, 0-100). We then fitted our linear regression model with mean EndoGA to data from 146 adults recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between April 2011 and December 2012. For the validation set, we collected data from 120 separate adults (recruited in centers in Switzerland and the United States between May 2013 and July 2014), assessing regression coefficient-based scores using Bland-Altman method. We assessed the responsiveness of our scoring systems using data from a randomized trial of patients with EoE given fluticasone (n=16) or placebo (n=8).ResultsThe distribution of EndoGA values differed among endoscopists (mean ΔEndoGA, 2.6±1.8; range 0-6.6). We developed 2 regression-based scoring systems to assess overall and proximal and distal esophageal findings; variation in endoscopic features accounted for more than 90% of the mean EndoGA variation. In the validation group, differences between mean EndoGA and regression-based scores were small (ranging from -4.70 to 2.03), indicating good agreement. In analyses of data from the randomized trial, the baseline to end of study change in patients given fluticasone was a reduction of 24.3 in simple score (reduction of 4.6 in patients given placebo, P=.052); a reduction of 23.5 in regression-based overall score (reduction of 6.56 in patients given placebo, P=.12), and a reduction of 23.8 (reduction of 8.44 in patients given placebo, P=.11).ConclusionAssessments of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE vary among endoscopists. In an analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial, we found that newly developed scoring systems are no better than simple scoring system in detecting changes in endoscopic activity. These results support the use of a simple scoring system in evaluation of endoscopic activity in patients with EoE. clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT00939263 and NCT01386112.

Endometrial cancer (EC) patients make up the second largest group of female cancer survivors. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including quality of life (QOL) and sexual function and satisfaction (SF and S) are critical facets of survivorship. This prospective, longitudinal study assesses associations between baseline characteristics and PROs after treatment. Herein, we report the baseline clinical characteristics and PROs prior to treatment initiation. Outcomes post-treatment over time will be reported separately. Patients with planned surgery for EC were prospectively enrolled in 2019–2021 and administered the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QOL Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), EORTC QLQ EC Module (EN24), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), and the Mayo Clinic lower extremity lymphedema (LEL) questionnaire. This study enrolled 198 patients with a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (9.8) years and body mass index of 35.5 (8.3) kg/m2. No significant differences in the PROs for the QOL were seen when compared to the reference means (SD) except for the lower interest in sexual activity (31.9 (9.8) vs. 47.5 (SE0.70)) and lower fatigue (21.3 (19.8) vs. 31.7 (25.9)). Increased obesity was associated with an increased likelihood of LEL (p < 0.01) and multiple QOL scales, including poorer global health status (p < 0.01) and physical functioning (p < 0.01). Prior to treatment initiation for EC, the patients had a similar QOL compared to that of the general population. The patients with increasing obesity, a known risk factor for EC, had worse overall global health status and physical functioning. A better understanding of these QOL measures is imperative for earlier identification and intervention of patients at risk of chronic impairments from EC treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: The Targeted Agent and Profiling Utilization Registry Study is a phase II basket trial evaluating the antitumor activity of commercially available targeted agents in patients with advanced cancer and genomic alterations known to be drug targets. Results of a cohort of patients with various solid tumors with germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations treated with talazoparib are reported. METHODS: Eligible patients had advanced solid tumors, measurable disease (RECIST), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, adequate organ function, and no standard treatment options. Patients with germline BRCA -mutated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer were not eligible for this study. Primary end point was disease control (DC) determined by investigator assessment of objective response (OR) or stable disease (SD) of at least 16 weeks duration (SD16+). The results were evaluated on the basis of a one-sided exact binomial test with a null DC rate of 15% versus 35% (power = 0.82; α =.10). Secondary end points were OR, progression-free survival, overall survival, duration of response, duration of SD, and safety. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients (20 cancer types) with BRCA1/2 mutations were enrolled from December 2019 to September 2021 and collapsed into a single histology pooled cohort for analysis. All patients were evaluable for efficacy. One complete response, nine partial response, and six SD16+ were observed for DC and OR rates of 57% (one-sided 90% CI, 43 to 100) and 36% (95% CI, 19 to 56), respectively. The null hypothesis of a 15% DC rate was rejected (P <.001). Patients with OR had the following tumor types: breast (2), nonmelanoma skin, mesothelioma, stomach, uterus, non–small cell lung cancer, ovary, hepatocellular carcinoma, and pancreas. Thirteen patients had at least one grade 3-5 adverse event (AE) or serious AE at least possibly related to talazoparib. All were consistent with the drug label except bilirubin increase and hyponatremia (both grade 3 AEs). CONCLUSION: Talazoparib demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations, including cancer types for which poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors are not yet US Food and Drug Administration–approved. Talazoparib showed activity in patients with BRCA-mutated tumors for which PARP inhibitors are not yet FDA-approved. @ASCO #TAPUR [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & aimsIt is not clear whether symptoms alone can be used to estimate the biologic activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). We aimed to evaluate whether symptoms can be used to identify patients with endoscopic and histologic features of remission.MethodsBetween April 2011 and June 2014, we performed a prospective, observational study and recruited 269 consecutive adults with EoE (67% male; median age, 39 years old) in Switzerland and the United States. Patients first completed the validated symptom-based EoE activity index patient-reported outcome instrument and then underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsy collection. Endoscopic and histologic findings were evaluated with a validated grading system and standardized instrument, respectively. Clinical remission was defined as symptom score

Background & aimsStandardized instruments are needed to assess the activity of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) and to provide end points for clinical trials and observational studies. We aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument and score, based on items that could account for variations in patient assessments of disease severity. We also evaluated relationships between patient assessment of disease severity and EoE-associated endoscopic, histologic, and laboratory findings.MethodsWe collected information from 186 patients with EoE in Switzerland and the United States (69.4% male; median age, 43 y) via surveys (n = 135), focus groups (n = 27), and semistructured interviews (n = 24). Items were generated for the instruments to assess biologic activity based on physician input. Linear regression was used to quantify the extent to which variations in patient-reported disease characteristics could account for variations in patient assessment of EoE severity. The PRO instrument was used prospectively in 153 adult patients with EoE (72.5% male; median age, 38 y), and validated in an independent group of 120 patients with EoE (60.8% male; median age, 40.5 y).ResultsSeven PRO factors that are used to assess characteristics of dysphagia, behavioral adaptations to living with dysphagia, and pain while swallowing accounted for 67% of the variation in patient assessment of disease severity. Based on statistical consideration and patient input, a 7-day recall period was selected. Highly active EoE, based on endoscopic and histologic findings, was associated with an increase in patient-assessed disease severity. In the validation study, the mean difference between patient assessment of EoE severity (range, 0-10) and PRO score (range, 0-8.52) was 0.15.ConclusionsWe developed and validated an EoE scoring system based on 7 PRO items that assess symptoms over a 7-day recall period. Clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT00939263.

Abstract Background The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient’s position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites. Methods/design In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology. Discussion Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.

ObjectiveThe NIH Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIH Toolbox) is a comprehensive battery of brief assessment tools. The purpose of this article is to describe plans to establish normative reference values for the NIH Toolbox measures.MethodsA large sample will be obtained from the US population for the purpose of calculating normative values. The sample will be stratified by age (ages 3-85 years), sex, and language preference (English or Spanish) and have a total sample size of at least 4,205. The sample will include a minimum of 25-100 individuals in each targeted demographic and language subgroup.ResultsNorming methods will include poststratification adjustment calculated using iterative proportional fitting, also known as raking, so that the weighted sample will have the same distribution on key demographic variables as the US population described in the 2010 Census.ConclusionsAs with any set of norms, users should be mindful of the reference population and make conclusions consistent with the limitations of normative sampling, since it is not a probability-based sample. However, the NIH Toolbox norming study has been designed to minimize bias and maximize representativeness and precision of estimates. The availability of a "toolbox" of normed measures will be an important foundation for addressing critical research questions in neurologic and behavioral health.