Search

ObjectiveTo assess imaging utilization practices across clinical specialists in neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) for the evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic children and adults with or without plexiform neurofibromas (PN).MethodsAn institutional review board–exempt survey was administered to medical practitioners caring for individuals with NF1 at the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) meeting in September 2019. The survey included questions on respondent demographic data (9 questions), type of imaging obtained for asymptomatic (4 questions) and symptomatic (4 questions) people with and without PN, and utilization of diffusion-weighted imaging (2 questions).ResultsThirty practitioners participated in the survey. Most were academic neuro-oncologists at high-volume (>10 patients/week) NF1 centers. Of 30 respondents, 26 had access to whole-body MRI (WB-MRI). The most common approach to an asymptomatic person without PN was no imaging (adults: 57% [17/30]; children: 50% [15/30]), followed by a screening WB-MRI (adults: 20% [6/30]; children: 26.7% [8/30]). The most common approach to a person with symptoms or known PN was regional MRI (adults: 90% [27/30]; children: 93% [28/30]), followed by WB-MRI (adults: 20% [6/30]; children: 36.7% [11/30]). WB-MRI was most often obtained to evaluate a symptomatic child with PN (37% [11/30]).ConclusionsMore than 90% of practitioners indicated they would obtain a regional MRI in a symptomatic patient without known or visible PN. Otherwise, there was little consensus on imaging practices. Given the high prevalence of PN and risk of malignant conversion in this patient population, there is a need to define imaging-based guidelines for optimal clinical care and the design of future clinical trials.

ObjectiveAs part of an evaluation of the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) International Collaboration patient representative program, we surveyed REiNS members to (1) identify facilitators and barriers to involving patient representatives and (2) understand whether and how involving patient representatives affected recommendations for clinical trial outcomes.MethodsWe administered an anonymous online survey to all REiNS members. Facilitators and barriers to patient representative involvement were solicited using a modified free listing technique; responses were inductively grouped into higher-order categories and ranked based on saliency score (Smith s). Open-ended questions assessed patient representative expectations for engagement, perceived benefits/costs of patient engagement, and patient representative contributions; responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis.ResultsA total of 63/172 (37%) members responded, including 18/30 (60%) patient representatives. Providing sufficient opportunities to meaningfully engage in research tasks and cultivating a respectful, inclusive atmosphere were key facilitators to patient representatives' satisfaction and ability to make an impact. Respondents perceived that patient representatives directly (through their input on research tasks) and indirectly (through effects on other stakeholders' knowledge and communication style) improved the organization's research, leading to selection of more meaningful, relevant, and feasible clinical trial outcome measures. Ongoing challenges to patient engagement include difficulty scheduling meetings and concerns about the level of scientific knowledge patient representatives needed to effectively engage.ConclusionsInvolving patient representatives in REiNS improved perceived quality of neurofibromatosis clinical trial outcome measures. Negotiating sufficient opportunities to engage, fostering an inclusive atmosphere, and navigating time pressures are key to effective patient engagement.

ObjectiveTo assess the perspectives of adults with neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) regarding cutaneous neurofibroma (cNF) morbidity, treatment options, and acceptable risk–benefit ratio to facilitate the design of patient-centered clinical trials.MethodsAn online survey developed by multidisciplinary experts and patient representatives of the Response Evaluation in Neurofibromatosis and Schwannomatosis (REiNS) cNF Working Group was distributed to adults with NF1 (n = 3,734) in the largest international database of individuals with any form of NF. Eligibility criteria included self-reported NF1 diagnosis, age ≥18 years, ≥1 cNF, and ability to read English.ResultsA total of 548 adults with NF1 responded to the survey. Respondents ranked appearance, number, and then location as the most bothersome features of raised cNF. Seventy-five percent of respondents considered a partial decrease of 33%–66% in the number or size of cNF as a meaningful response to experimental treatments. Most respondents (48%–58%) were willing to try available cNF treatments but were not aware of options outside of surgical removal. Regarding experimental agents, respondents favored topical, then oral medications. Most individuals (>65%) reported being “very much” or “extremely willing” to try experimental treatments, especially those with the highest cNF burden. Many respondents were not willing to tolerate side effects like nausea/vomiting (51%) and rash (46%). The greatest barriers to participation in cNF clinical trials were cost of participation and need to take time off work.ConclusionsMost adults with NF1 are willing to consider experimental therapies for treatment of cNF. These data will guide the design of patient-centered clinical trials for adults with cNF.