Search

Debriefings should promote reflection and help learners make sense of events. Threats to psychological safety can undermine reflective learning conversations and may inhibit transfer of key lessons from simulated cases to the general patient care context. Therefore, effective debriefings require high degrees of psychological safety—the perception that it is safe to take interpersonal risks and that one will not be embarrassed, rejected or otherwise punished for speaking their mind, not knowing or asking questions. The role of introductions, learning contracts and prebriefing in establishing psychological safety is well described in the literature. How to maintain psychological safety, while also being able to identify and restore psychological safety during debriefings, is less well understood. This review has several aims. First, we provide a detailed definition of psychological safety and justify its importance for debriefings. Second, we recommend specific strategies debriefers can use throughout the debriefing to build and maintain psychological safety. We base these recommendations on a literature review and on our own experiences as simulation educators. Third, we examine how debriefers might actively address perceived breaches to restore psychological safety. Re-establishing psychological safety after temporary threats or breaches can seem particularly daunting. To demystify this process, we invoke the metaphor of a ‘safe container’ for learning; a space where learners can feel secure enough to work at the edge of expertise without threat of humiliation. We conclude with a discussion of limitations and implications, particularly with respect to faculty development.

Purpose The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal women remains controversial. This systematic review and meta-analysis using individual patient–level data was conducted to better assess the efficacy and safety of this strategy in patients with early breast cancer. Methods The trials in which premenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with concurrent GnRHa were eligible for inclusion. Primary end points were premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) rate and post-treatment pregnancy rate. Disease-free survival and overall survival were secondary end points. Because each study represents a cluster, statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model. Results A total of 873 patients from five trials were included. POI rate was 14.1% in the GnRHa group and 30.9% in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.57; P < .001). A total of 37 (10.3%) patients had at least one post-treatment pregnancy in the GnRHa group and 20 (5.5%) in the control group (incidence rate ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.15; P = .030). No significant differences in disease-free survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.42; P = .999) and overall survival (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.06; P = .083) were observed between groups. Conclusion Our findings provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy as an available option to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced POI and potentially improve future fertility in premenopausal patients with early breast cancer.

Purpose This phase I trial evaluated epigenetic modulation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hypoxia-inducible factor by using a histone deacetylase abexinostat in combination with pazopanib to enhance response and reverse resistance. Patients and Methods Pazopanib was administered once a day on days 1 to 28 and abexinostat was administered orally twice a day on days 1 to 5, 8 to 12, and 15 to 19 (schedule A) or on days 1 to 4, 8 to 11, and 15 to 18 (schedule B). Dose escalation (3 + 3 design) in all solid tumors was followed by dose expansion in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Results Fifty-one patients with RCC (N = 22) were enrolled, including 30 (59%) with one or more lines of prior VEGF-targeting therapy. Five dose-limiting toxicities, including fatigue (n = 2), thrombocytopenia (n = 2), and elevated AST/ALT (n = 1), were observed with schedule A; one dose-limiting toxicity was observed (elevated AST/ALT) was observed with schedule B. Grade ≥ 3 related adverse events included fatigue (16%), thrombocytopenia (16%), and neutropenia (10%). The recommended phase II dose was established as abexinostat 45 mg/m2 twice a day administered per schedule B plus pazopanib 800 mg/d. Objective response rate was 21% overall and 27% in the RCC subset. Median duration of response was 9.1 months (1.2 to > 49 months). Eight patients (16%) had durable control of disease for > 12 months. Durable tumor regressions were observed in seven (70%) of 10 patients with pazopanib-refractory disease, including one patients with RCC with ongoing response > 3.5 years. Peripheral blood histone acetylation and HDAC2 gene expression were associated with durable response to treatment. Conclusion Abexinostat is well tolerated in combination with pazopanib, allowing prolonged exposure and promising durable responses in pazopanib- and other VEGF inhibitor-refractory tumors, which supports epigenetically mediated reversal of treatment resistance.

Background Treatment options for sarcoma are limited. Histone deacetylase inhibitors increase the efficacy of topoisomerase II inhibitors by promoting access to chromatin and by down-regulating DNA repair. Thus, combined panobinostat and epirubicin therapy was evaluated to treat refractory sarcoma. Patients and methods Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation phase I trial of panobinostat given on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by 75 mg/m2 of epirubicin on day 5 in 21-day cycles, with a dose expansion at maximum tolerated dose (MTD) in 20 sarcoma patients. Peripheral blood mononucleocyte histone acetylation was also evaluated. Results Forty patients received 20–60 mg panobinostat. Dose-limiting toxicities included thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, and fatigue at 60 mg, defining a panobinostat MTD at 50 mg. Four responses were seen in 37 assessable patients, all after progression on prior topoisomerase II inhibitors. For those with sarcoma, 12 of 20 derived clinical benefit (1 partial response and 11 stable disease, median overall survival 8.3 months), including 8 of 14 previously progressed on topoisomerase II therapy. Treatment benefits correlated with increased histone acetylation and decreased neutrophil count on day 5. Conclusions Panobinostat and epirubicin treatment is well tolerated and may reverse anthracycline resistance. Changes in histone acetylation and associated decrease in neutrophil count correlated with clinical benefit and warrant investigation as predictive biomarkers. Clinical trial This trial is registered at www.Clinicaltrials.gov , Identifier: NCT00878904.

Background The role of temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs (GnRHa) during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal early breast cancer patients remains highly controversial. This option is considered experimental by the ASCO and ESMO guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients. The present pooled analysis aimed at elucidating the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal early breast cancer patients. Patients and methods This study included individual patient data from 5 trials (PROMISE-GIM6, POEMS/SWOG S0230, Anglo Celtic Group OPTION, GBG-37 ZORO, Moffitt-led trial) in which premenopausal women with early breast cancer were randomized to receive (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy alone or with concurrent administration of GnRHa. Efficacy endpoints were premature ovarian insufficiency (POI, according to the definition used as primary endpoint in the included trials), 1- and 2-year amenorrhea rates and post-treatment pregnancy rate. Safety endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Odds ratio (OR), incidence rate ratio (IRR) and hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for the effect of adding GnRHa to chemotherapy alone. As each study represents a cluster, statistical analysis has been performed using a random effects model. The study is registered with the PROSPERO registration number CRD42014015638. Results A total of 873 patients from 5 randomized trials were included. Median age was 38 years (interquartile range: 34-42 years). POI rate was 14.1% in the GnRHa group and 30.9% in the control group (adjusted OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.26-0.57; p < 0.001). The incidence of 1-year amenorrhea was 36.8% in the GnRHa group and 40.4% in the control group (adjusted OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.66-1.28; p = 0.623). The incidence of 2-year amenorrhea was 18.2% in the GnRHa group and 30.0% in the control group (adjusted OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31-0.85; p = 0.009). A total of 37 patients had at least one post-treatment pregnancy in the GnRHa group and 20 in the control group (IRR 1.83; 95% CI 1.06-3.15; p = 0.030). There were no significant differences in DFS (adjusted HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.72-1.42; p = 0.999) or OS (adjusted HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.42-1.06; p = 0.083) between the GnRHa and control groups. Subgroup analyses of both efficacy and safety endpoints according to age of the patients, hormone receptor status, type and duration of chemotherapy will be presented at the conference. Conclusions This study provides level 1A of evidence for the efficacy and safety of temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy in premenopausal early breast cancer patients. Given the findings of this pooled analysis, temporary ovarian suppression with GnRHa during chemotherapy should be considered as a new standard option to reduce the likelihood of chemotherapy-induced POF and possibly improve future fertility in premenopausal early breast cancer patients. Citation Format: Lambertini M, Moore HCF, Leonard RCF, Loibl S, Munster P, Bruzzone M, Boni L, Unger JM, Anderson RA, Mehta K, Minton S, Poggio F, Albain KS, Adamson DJA, Gerber B, Cripps A, Bertelli G, Seiler S, Ceppi M, Partridge AH, Del Mastro L. Pooled analysis of five randomized trials investigating temporary ovarian suppression with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs during chemotherapy as a strategy to preserve ovarian function and fertility in premenopausal early breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr GS4-01.