Search

Background Purpose: The combination of a mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor and lenalidomide showed enhanced preclinical cytotoxicity. We conducted a phase 1 study in advanced solid tumour patients to assess safety, efficacy and pharmacodynamic (PD) outcomes. Methods We employed a 3+3 dose escalation design to establish the safety and recommended phase 2 doses (RP2D) of daily everolimus and lenalidomide in patients with advanced solid tumours. The starting doses were 5 and 10 mg, respectively, with planned escalation to maximum single-agent doses of 10 and 25 mg in the absence of dose-limiting toxicity. PD endpoints of lymphocyte subsets and immune cytokines were assessed in peripheral blood using multiparameter flow cytometry and LUMINEX assay. Efficacy was evaluated by cross-sectional imaging after every two cycles of treatment. Results The study enrolled 44 patients, median age of 58 years and 28 males (63.6%). The RP2D was established as 10 and 25 mg daily continuously for everolimus and lenalidomide. Common (>5%) grade ≥3 adverse events included rash (19%), neutropenia (19%), hypokalaemia (11%) and fatigue (9%). Best efficacy outcomes in 36 evaluable patients were partial response in 5 (13.8%), stable disease in 24 (55.8%) and progressive disease in 7 (19.4%) patients. PD assessment revealed significant association of cytokine levels (interleukin-2 (IL2), IL21 and IL17), baseline activated and total CD8+ lymphocytes and change in B cell lymphocytes and activated NK cells with clinical benefit. Conclusions The study demonstrated the safety of everolimus and lenalidomide with promising efficacy signal in thyroid and adenoid cystic cancers. Clinical Trial Registration NCT01218555

Summary Background Data on patients with COVID-19 who have cancer are lacking. Here we characterise the outcomes of a cohort of patients with cancer and COVID-19 and identify potential prognostic factors for mortality and severe illness. Methods In this cohort study, we collected de-identified data on patients with active or previous malignancy, aged 18 years and older, with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection from the USA, Canada, and Spain from the COVID-19 and Cancer Consortium (CCC19) database for whom baseline data were added between March 17 and April 16, 2020. We collected data on baseline clinical conditions, medications, cancer diagnosis and treatment, and COVID-19 disease course. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality within 30 days of diagnosis of COVID-19. We assessed the association between the outcome and potential prognostic variables using logistic regression analyses, partially adjusted for age, sex, smoking status, and obesity. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04354701, and is ongoing. Findings Of 1035 records entered into the CCC19 database during the study period, 928 patients met inclusion criteria for our analysis. Median age was 66 years (IQR 57–76), 279 (30%) were aged 75 years or older, and 468 (50%) patients were male. The most prevalent malignancies were breast (191 [21%]) and prostate (152 [16%]). 366 (39%) patients were on active anticancer treatment, and 396 (43%) had active (measurable) cancer. At analysis (May 7, 2020), 121 (13%) patients had died. In logistic regression analysis, independent factors associated with increased 30-day mortality, after partial adjustment, were: increased age (per 10 years; partially adjusted odds ratio 1·84, 95% CI 1·53–2·21), male sex (1·63, 1·07–2·48), smoking status (former smoker vs never smoked: 1·60, 1·03–2·47), number of comorbidities (two vs none: 4·50, 1·33–15·28), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or higher (status of 2 vs 0 or 1: 3·89, 2·11–7·18), active cancer (progressing vs remission: 5·20, 2·77–9·77), and receipt of azithromycin plus hydroxychloroquine (vs treatment with neither: 2·93, 1·79–4·79; confounding by indication cannot be excluded). Compared with residence in the US-Northeast, residence in Canada (0·24, 0·07–0·84) or the US-Midwest (0·50, 0·28–0·90) were associated with decreased 30-day all-cause mortality. Race and ethnicity, obesity status, cancer type, type of anticancer therapy, and recent surgery were not associated with mortality. Interpretation Among patients with cancer and COVID-19, 30-day all-cause mortality was high and associated with general risk factors and risk factors unique to patients with cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to better understand the effect of COVID-19 on outcomes in patients with cancer, including the ability to continue specific cancer treatments. Funding American Cancer Society, National Institutes of Health, and Hope Foundation for Cancer Research.

Purpose: Concurrent inhibition of mTOR and PI3K led to improved efficacy in preclinical models and provided the rationale for this phase I study of everolimus and buparlisib (BKM120) in patients with advanced solid tumor. Patients and Methods: We used the Bayesian Escalation with Overdose Control design to test escalating doses of everolimus (5 or 10 mg) and buparlisib (20, 40, 60, 80, and 100 mg) in eligible patients. Pharmacokinetic assessment was conducted using blood samples collected on cycle 1, days 8 and 15. Pharmacodynamic impact on mTOR/PI3K pathway modulation evaluated in paired skin biopsies collected at baseline and end of cycle 1. Results: We enrolled 43 patients, median age of 63 (range, 39–78) years; 25 (58.1%) females, 35 (81.4%) Caucasians, and 8 (18.6%) Blacks. The most frequent toxicities were hyperglycemia, diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and aspartate aminotransferase elevation. Dose-limiting toxicities observed in 7 patients were fatigue (3), hyperglycemia (2), mucositis (1), acute kidney injury (1), and urinary tract infection (1). The recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for the combination was established as everolimus (5 mg) and buparlisib (60 mg). The best response in 27 evaluable patients was progressive disease and stable disease in 3 (11%) and 24 (89%), respectively. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.7 (1.8–4.2) and 9 (6.4–13.2) months. Steady-state pharmacokinetic analysis showed dose-normalized maximum concentrations and AUC values for everolimus and buparlisib in combination to be comparable with single-agent pharmacokinetic. Conclusions: The combination of everolimus and buparlisib is safe and well-tolerated at the RP2D of 5 and 60 mg on a continuous daily schedule.

In phase I trials, some biospecimens are used both for research and patient care and some for research only. Some research participants have therapeutic misconception, assuming all biospecimens are for patient care. This study’s aim was to test if a simple information chart would improve understanding of nontherapeutic research procedures. A two-arm study was conducted. Participants in the control group (C) were asked whether biospecimens were for their care, for research only, or for both. The experimental group (E) was asked the same questions but provided with a study-specific information chart labeling the purpose of each biospecimen. One hundred one patients were interviewed. In both arms, understanding that pretreatment blood draws were for patient care and research was moderate (49% for C and 62% for E). Understanding that posttreatment blood draws were for research only was significantly higher in the experimental arm (16% for C and 44% for E; p = 0.002). Providing a simple information chart may help alleviate this aspect of therapeutic misconception.

Background Sarcopenia and inflammation have been associated with poor survival in patients with cancer. We explored the combined effects of these variables on survival in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 90 patients enrolled on immunotherapy‐based phase I clinical trials at Emory University from 2009 to 2017. Baseline neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio, monocyte‐to‐lymphocyte ratio, and platelet‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (PLR) were used as surrogates of inflammation. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was derived from the skeletal muscle density calculated from baseline abdominal computed tomography images. Optimal cutoffs for continuous inflammation biomarkers and SMI were determined by bias‐adjusted log‐rank test. A four‐level risk stratification was used to create low‐risk (PLR, The interaction between chronic inflammation and body composition is particularly important in the era of immunotherapy, considering that immune checkpoint inhibitors rely on the host immune system for their efficacy. This article reports on the combined effects of inflammation and sarcopenia on clinical outcomes in patients with solid tumors treated with immunotherapy‐based regimens.

PURPOSE: Debate continues over whether explicit recommendations for a clinical trial should be included as an element of shared decision making within oncology. We aimed to determine if and how providers make explicit recommendations in the setting of phase I cancer clinical trials. METHODS: Twenty-three patient/provider conversations about phase I trials were analyzed to determine how recommendations are made and how the conversations align with a shared decision-making framework. In addition, 19 providers (9 of whose patient encounters were observed) were interviewed about the factors they consider when deciding whether to recommend a phase I trial. RESULTS: We found that providers are comprehensive in the factors they consider when recommending clinical trials. The two most frequently stated factors were performance status (89%) and patient preferences (84%). Providers made explicit recommendations in 19 conversations (83%), with 12 of those being for a phase I trial (12 [63%] of 19). They made these recommendations in a manner consistent with a shared decision-making model; 18 (95%) of the 19 conversations during which a recommendation was made included all steps, or all but 1 step, of shared decision making, as did 11 of the 12 conversations during which a phase I trial was recommended. In 7 (58%) of these later conversations, providers also emphasized the importance of the patient’s opinion. CONCLUSION: We suggest that providers not hesitate to make explicit recommendations for phase I clinical trials, because they are able to do so in a manner consistent with shared decision making. With further research, these results can be applied to other clinical trial settings.

Background: The impact of age-, gender-, and race-based differences on safety and efficacy in phase I clinical trials has not been well studied. Methods: We analyzed data from phase I clinical trials evaluating targeted biologic agents in patients with advanced solid malignancies. Race and gender distribution of enrolled patients was compared to the referral population demographics at the city, metro, and state levels. The association between age, gender, and race with type, frequency, and severity of treatment-emergent toxicities and clinical benefit was assessed using univariate and multivariable models. Results: Data from 117 eligible patients – Blacks/Caucasians/Others (27/85/5); male/female (66/51) – were obtained. Blacks were younger than Caucasian patients (median age of 56 vs. 62 years, p = 0.004). Nausea/vomiting was more frequent in female patients (43 vs. 24%, p = 0.03), while hematologic toxicity was more likely in Whites. While median time on treatment was comparable (113 vs. 91; p = 0.840), the median overall survival was significantly shorter for Blacks versus Caucasians (7.4 vs. 11.4 months; p = 0.0227). Black race (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.24–3.60; p = 0.006) and older age (HR 1.03; 95% CI 1.00–1.06; p = 0.029) were associated with an increased risk of death. Conclusions: Age-, gender-, and race-based disparities were observed with specific toxicity and survival outcomes on phase I clinical trials of anticancer agents.

Introduction Bortezomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRD) is a standard induction therapy for newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients. Given preclinical and clinical data suggesting the synergistic activity of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat with both bortezomib and lenalidomide for the treatment of multiple myeloma, we hypothesized that adding vorinostat to VRD (R2V2) would increase the rate and the quality of responses to induction treatment. Here we report the results of a phase 1 trial (NCT01038388) evaluating R2V2 as up-front treatment for NDMM patients. Patients and Methods R2V2 was tested as induction therapy in a dose-escalation phase 1 study in 30 NDMM patients deemed eligible for autologous stem-cell transplantation. Treatment consisted of 4 induction cycles with R2V2, followed by either autologous stem-cell transplantation or 4 additional R2V2 cycles and lenalidomide maintenance therapy. Results The maximum tolerated dose of vorinostat was 200 mg daily. The most common adverse events were gastrointestinal (87%), fatigue and peripheral neuropathy (60%), and thrombocytopenia (33%). R2V2 induced an objective response in 96% of patients, with 48% obtaining at least a complete remission. Median progression-free survival was 52 months, with 77% of patients alive at 5 years. Conclusion R2V2 as induction treatment for NDMM patients resulted in remarkable response rates at the cost of increased toxicity.

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is a fast-developing field within the spectrum of cancer care. ICIs are associated with distinctive immune-related adverse events (irAEs), reflecting their unique mechanisms of action. Objectives Effective management of irAEs requires early recognition and prompt reporting of their signs and symptoms; appropriate patient education is critical to maximizing this opportunity. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the public domain concerning awareness, assessment, and management of irAEs associated with ICIs. Findings Educational resources should provide timely, consistent, and personalized information, using a variety of teaching strategies that consider individual patient needs. Patient education should be developed with interprofessional team input and regularly reviewed in response to emerging guidance. Key messages include timing of therapeutic response and corresponding irAEs, early identification of irAEs, and the unique ability of ICIs to influence immune responses after treatment discontinuation.

Programmed death-1 (PD-1) immune checkpoint inhibitors are novel immuno-oncology agents. Unlike chemotherapy or targeted agents, which inhibit tumor cell proliferation or induce tumor cell death, immune checkpoint inhibitors are designed to stimulate a patient's own immune system to eliminate tumors. As a result of their mechanism of action, PD-1 pathway inhibitors are associated with adverse events (AEs) with immunologic etiologies, termed immune-mediated AEs (imAEs). These include skin and gastrointestinal AEs, and endocrine, hepatic, renal, and respiratory AEs, including pneumonitis. Most imAEs can be effectively managed with treatment interruption/discontinuation and/or steroids or other immunosuppressive agents. A specialist consult may be required in some cases, and endocrine imAEs may require permanent hormone replacement therapy.This article provides an overview of PD-1 inhibitors, including the potential mechanism of action, key clinical trial data, and strategies for managing patients who may receive PD-1 inhibitors for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer.Information in the article comes from PubMed literature searches and the author's experience with these agents in clinical trials.Oncology clinicians must thoroughly assess baseline functioning and symptoms and be vigilant for imAEs, which require prompt diagnosis and management. A good understanding of the clinical profile of PD-1 pathway inhibitors is instrumental in helping clinicians manage patients receiving these new therapies.

Proteasome (PIs) and hystone deacetylase inhibitors (HDACis) have previously shown synergistic activity in the treatment of relapesed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients. In this phase 1 study, we combined carfilzomib, a second generation PI, with panobinostat, a HDACi, to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination (CarPan) and assess safety and efficacy among RRMM patients. Thirty-two patients (median of 4 prior lines of therapy) were enrolled. The MTD was carfilzomib 36 mg/m2 (on days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) and panobinostat 20 mg (TIW, 3 weeks on/1 week off, every 28 days), administered until progression. At the MTD, the most common grade 3/4, treatment-related adverse events were thrombocytopenia (41%), fatigue (17%), and nausea/vomiting (12%). The objective response rate (ORR) and clinical benefit rate were 63% and 68%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for the entire population were 8 and 23 months, respectively. No differences in terms of ORR (55% vs. 57%), median PFS (months 8 vs. 7 months) and OS (24 vs. 22 months) were observed between bortezomib-sensitive and -refractory patients. CarPan proved to be a safe and effective steroid-sparing regimen in a heavily pre-treated population of MM patients. (Trial registered at ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01549431), Key points CarPan is a highly active, steroid-sparing regimen, effective in both bortezomib-sensitive and refractory patients.The safety profile of CarPan, particularly thrombocytopenia and gastrointestinal adverse events, compares favorably with that of panobinostat and bortezomib.

Background Given the increasing number of available immunotherapeutic agents, more patients are presenting after failing immunotherapy in need of new treatment options. In this study, we investigated the clinical outcomes of patients treated with sequential immunotherapy. Methods We performed a retrospective review of 90 advanced stage cancer patients treated on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute from 2009 to 2017. We included 49 patients with an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-indicated histology. Patients were analyzed based on whether they had received prior ICI. Clinical outcomes were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and clinical benefit (best response of complete response, partial response, or stable disease). Univariate analysis (UVA) and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed using Cox proportional hazard or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, liver metastases, number of prior lines of therapy, histology, and Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group. Results The most common histologies were melanoma (61%) and lung/head and neck cancers (37%). More than half of patients (n = 27, 55%) received at least one ICI prior to trial enrollment: ten received anti-PD-1, two received anti-CTLA-4, five received anti-PD-1/CTLA-4 combination, and ten received multiple ICI. In MVA, ICI-naive patients had significantly longer OS (HR: 0.22, CI: 0.07–0.70, p = 0.010) and trended towards higher chance of CB (HR: 2.52, CI: 0.49–12.97, p = 0.268). Patients who received prior ICI had substantially shorter median OS (10.9 vs 24.3 months, p = 0.046) and PFS (2.8 vs. 5.1 months, p = 0.380) than ICI-naive patients per Kaplan-Meier estimation. Within the ICI-naive group, 78% (7 of 9) of patients who received prior interleukin (IL-2) or interferon gamma (IFNγ) experienced disease control for at least 6 months, compared to a disease control rate of 15% (2 of 13) in patients who had received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or no prior treatment. Conclusions ICI-naive patients may experience improved clinical outcomes on immunotherapy-based phase 1 clinical trials than patients who have received prior ICI. This may be particularly true for patients who received prior IL-2 or IFNγ. Further development of immunotherapy combination therapies is needed to improve clinical outcomes of these patients. These results should be validated in a larger study.

Background Selecting the appropriate patients to receive immunotherapy (IO) remains a challenge due to the lack of optimal biomarkers. The presence of liver metastases has been implicated as a poor prognostic factor in patients with metastatic cancer. We investigated the association between sites of metastatic disease and clinical outcomes in patients receiving IO. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of 90 patients treated on IO-based phase 1 clinical trials at Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University between 2009 and 2017. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were measured from the first dose of IO to date of death or hospice referral and clinical or radiographic progression, respectively. Clinical benefit (CB) was defined as a best response of complete response (CR), partial response (PR), or stable disease (SD). Univariate analysis (UVA) and Multivariate analysis (MVA) were carried out using Cox proportional hazard model or logistic regression model. Covariates included age, whether IO is indicated for the patient’s histology, ECOG performance status, Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) risk group, number of metastatic sites, and histology. Results The median age was 63 years and 53% of patients were men. The most common histologies were melanoma (33%) and gastrointestinal cancers (22%). Most patients (73.3%) had more than one site of distant metastasis. Sites of metastasis collected were lymph node (n = 58), liver (n = 40), lung (n = 37), bone (n = 24), and brain (n = 8). Most patients (80.7%) were RMH good risk. Most patients (n = 62) had received 2+ prior lines of systemic treatment before receiving IO on trial; 27 patients (30.0%) received prior ICB. Liver metastases were associated with significantly shorter OS (HR: 0.38, CI: 0.17–0.84, p = 0.017). Patients with liver metastasis also trended towards having shorter PFS (HR: 0.70, CI: 0.41–1.19, p = 0.188). The median OS was substantially longer for patients without liver metastases (21.9 vs. 8.1 months, p = 0.0048). Conclusions Liver metastases may be a poor prognostic factor in patients receiving IO on phase 1 clinical trials. The presence of liver metastases may warrant consideration in updated prognostic models if these findings are validated in a larger prospective cohort.

Background: This phase 1 trial utilising a Bayesian continual reassessment method evaluated bortezomib and sunitinib to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and recommended doses of the combination. Methods: Patients with advanced solid organ malignancies were enrolled and received bortezomib weekly with sunitinib daily for 4 weeks, every 6 weeks. Initial doses were sunitinib 25 mg and bortezomib 1 mg m−2. Cohort size and dose level estimation was performed utilising the Escalation with Overdose Control (EWOC) adaptive method. Seven dose levels were evaluated; initially, sunitinib was increased to a goal dose of 50 mg with fixed bortezomib, then bortezomib was increased. Efficacy assessment occurred after each cycle using RECIST criteria. Results: Thirty patients were evaluable. During sunitinib escalation, DLTs of grade 4 thrombocytopenia (14%) and neutropenia (6%) at sunitinib 50 mg and bortezomib 1.3 mg m−2 were seen. Subsequent experience showed tolerability and activity for sunitinib 37.5 mg and bortezomib 1.9 mg m−2. Common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, hypertension, and diarrhoea. The recommended doses for further study are bortezomib 1.9 mg m−2 and sunitinib 37.5 mg. Four partial responses were seen. Stable disease >6 months was noted in an additional six patients. Conclusion: Bortezomib and sunitinib are well tolerated and have anticancer activity, particularly in thyroid cancer. A phase 2 study of this combination in thyroid cancer patients is planned.

Platinum-based therapy combined with cetuximab is standard first-line therapy for recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (RMSCCHN). Preclinical studies have suggested that mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors may overcome resistance to epidermal growth factor receptor blockers and may augment cetuximab antitumor activity. We conducted a phase 1b trial of carboplatin, cetuximab, and everolimus for untreated RMSCCHN.Patients received carboplatin (area under the curve = 2 mg/ml/min; 3 weeks on, 1 week off), cetuximab (with a loading dose of 400 mg/m(2) and then 250 mg/m(2) weekly), and dose-escalating everolimus (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10 mg/day) with a 3+3 design. After 4 cycles, patients without progression continued cetuximab/everolimus until progression or intolerable toxicity. Patients (age ≥ 18 years) had previously untreated, unresectable RMSCCHN not amenable to radiotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2.The study enrolled 20 patients (male/female = 18/2) with RMSCCHN; the median age was 65 years (44-75 years). Thirteen patients received everolimus (male/female = 92%). Two of 6 patients receiving 2.5 mg/day experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) with grade 3 hyponatremia and nausea. In 7 patients receiving de-escalated everolimus (2.5 mg every other day), grade 3 hyperglycemia produced DLT in 1 of 6 patients. The objective response rate (RR) was 61.5% (all partial responses). Progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.15 months. The pharmacokinetics of everolimus was described with a 2-compartment mixed-effects model. There was a significant correlation between tumor p-p44/42 staining and response (P = .044) and a marginally significant correlation between phosphorylated mammalian target of rapamycin and overall survival.The maximum tolerated dose of everolimus with cetuximab and carboplatin was 2.5 mg every other day. The regimen was associated with an encouraging RR and PFS, and this suggested possible clinical efficacy in a select group of patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) patients with histories of cocaine and alcohol abuse (CA-PTSD) were compared with normal volunteers. Positron emission tomography (PET) scans with 15O-butanol were used to compare regional cerebral blood flow (rCBF) between the groups during rest and during an auditory continuous performance task (ACPT). CA-PTSD patients had significantly higher rCBF in right amygdala and left parahippocampal gyrus than normals during the ACPT. Normals had higher rCBF at frontal cortex during the resting scan and during the ACPT. The role of the amygdala in attention and fear conditioning suggests that increased amygdala rCBF may be related to clinical features of PTSD. Cocaine use may be associated with increased amygdala rCBF in PTSD patients. Amygdala and frontal cortex attention system components may be reciprocally related and their relative contributions to processing of neutral stimuli perturbed in CA-PTSD.

Despite recent advances in understanding the biology of thrombopoiesis, autoimmune thrombocytopenia caused by inhibition of megakaryocytic precursors, remains a treatment dilemma. We report a case of a 43-year-old female who developed amegakaryocytic thrombocyto- penia refractory to intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), prednisone, cytoxan and vincristine. She was subsequently treated with myeloablative chemotherapy (busulfan and cyclophosphamide) followed by allogeneic bone marrow transplant from a 6/6 HLA-matched sibling. The patient is currently more than 1 year after transplant with complete donor chimerism and restoration of normal thrombopoiesis. A review of the literature shows that the clinical syndrome known as amegakaryocytic thrombocytopenia represents a heterogeneous group of disorders, and clinical experience with immunosuppression varies. Appropriate initial treatment for these patients requires immunosuppressive agents, including antithymocyte globulin (ATG) for steroid refractory disease. However, in the case of symptomatic patients who have an appropriate sibling donor, early hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant, even before administration of ATG, may be necessary. Further studies are needed to better define the pathogenesis and mechanism of this heterogeneous disorder before more definitive treatment algorithms can be established.