Search

BACKGROUND: Recurrence after resection of metastatic sarcoma is common. The gangliosides GM2, GD2 and GD3 are strongly expressed across sarcoma subtypes. We hypothesised that generation of anti-ganglioside antibodies would control micrometastases and improve outcomes in sarcoma patients who were disease-free after metastasectomy. METHODS: We conducted a randomised phase II trial of the immunological adjuvant OPT-821 with a KLH-conjugated ganglioside vaccine targeting GM2, GD2 and GD3, versus OPT-821 alone in patients with metastatic sarcoma following complete metastasectomy. Patients received 10 subcutaneous injections at Weeks 1, 2, 3, 8, 16, 28, 40, 52, 68 and 84 and were followed for evidence of recurrent disease. The primary end-point was relapse-free survival. Secondary end-points included overall survival and serologic response. RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were randomised, 68 to each arm. The mean age was 51.2, 52.2% were male, 90.4% had relapsed disease, 86.8% had high-grade tumours and 14% had ≥4 metastases resected. Histologies included leiomyosarcoma (33%), spindle cell sarcoma (14%), undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (13%), osteosarcoma (10%), synovial sarcoma (9%), liposarcoma (9%) and others (12%). Most adverse events were Grade ≤2 (83.8% and 70.6% in the vaccine and adjuvant arms, respectively). The most common (≥20% of patients) were injection site reaction (89.7%), fatigue (44.1%) and pyrexia (27.9%) on the vaccine arm, and injection site reaction (69.1%) on the adjuvant only arm. The 1-year relapse-free survival rate (34.5% and 34.8% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively) did not differ between arms (P = 0.725). One-year overall survival rates were 93.1% and 91.5% in the vaccine and OPT-821 monotherapy arm, respectively (P = 0.578). Serologic responses at week 9 were more frequent on the vaccine arm (96.5% of patients) than in the adjuvant arm (32.8%), and the difference between groups was durable. CONCLUSIONS: A sustained serologic response to vaccination was induced with the vaccine, but no difference in recurrence-free or overall survival was observed between treatment arms. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: NCT01141491.

This study examined the role of character evidence and other issues in criminal appeals of child sexual abuse (CSA) convictions. Character evidence includes uncharged acts and character witnesses who testify to another's reputation or opinion and is offered to prove an individual's propensities. Examining 168 appellate court opinions reviewing CSA convictions between 2005 and 2015 in Maricopa County, Arizona, we found that when specific types of evidence were at issue, they were most often character evidence issues (49%). However, appellate courts virtually never reversed convictions (n = 5), and when defendants did obtain relief, the reduction in charges or in sentences was minor. Of the small number of opinions that were published (n = 4), all focused on character evidence, including the single case reviewed by the Arizona Supreme Court. However, close examination of the published cases suggested they effected only modest change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Somatic KIT activating mutations drive most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs). Disease progression eventually develops with first-line imatinib, commonly due to KIT secondary mutations, and different kinase inhibitors have various levels of treatment efficacy dependent on specific acquired resistance mutations. Ripretinib is a broad-spectrum switch-control KIT/PDGFRA tyrosine kinase inhibitor for patients with advanced GIST who received prior treatment with three or more kinase inhibitors, including imatinib. Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA analysis from the second-line INTRIGUE trial determined that patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib harboring primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations restricted to KIT exons 17/18 had greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib. We describe the rationale and design of INSIGHT (NCT05734105), an ongoing Phase III open-label study of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib exclusively harboring KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations detected by circulating tumor DNA. Clinical Trial Registration:NCT05734105 (ClinicalTrials.gov) Plain Language Summary Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is rare, but it is the most common mesenchymal tumor (a type of tumor that develops from cells which give rise to soft tissues) of the gastrointestinal tract. The primary treatment for advanced GIST is medication that targets the abnormal mechanisms in cancer cells in order to block tumor growth and spread. Ripretinib is an inhibitor of a protein known as KIT, which is a member of the tyrosine kinase protein family and is involved in the growth of GIST. In a Phase III clinical trial called INTRIGUE, the effects of ripretinib and another receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, sunitinib, were compared in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with the drug imatinib. An exploratory analysis from the INTRIGUE trial that characterized baseline circulating tumor DNA in the blood showed a greater clinical benefit with ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with gene mutations solely occurring in KIT exon 11 + 17 and/or 18 (exon 11 + 17/18). This article describes the rationale and design for a Phase III clinical trial called INSIGHT that will evaluate the benefit of ripretinib compared with sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST whose tumors have mutations in KIT exon 11 and KIT exon 17 and/or 18. Patients will receive ripretinib or sunitinib in 6-week cycles, and investigators will assess survival without cancer progression as the primary outcome, and overall survival, and response of the tumor to these two drugs as secondary outcomes. Tweetable Abstract This article describes the rationale and design for the INSIGHT Phase III trial evaluating patients with second-line advanced GIST who harbor primary KIT exon 11 mutations and secondary resistance mutations restricted to the activation loop (KIT exons 17/18). Executive summary Disease overview & management Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is the most common gastrointestinal sarcoma, with approximately 80% of cases driven by activating mutations in KIT. Sunitinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) approved as a second-line therapy for advanced GIST after disease progression on or intolerance to imatinib. Ripretinib is a broad-spectrum switch-control KIT/PDGFRA TKI approved as a fourth-line therapy for advanced GIST. Differential activity of ripretinib & sunitinib against secondary KIT mutations Exploratory baseline circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis from INTRIGUE determined that patients with KIT exon 11 + 13/14 mutations had improved progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) with sunitinib versus ripretinib, while those with KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations had improved PFS, ORR and overall survival (OS) and a better safety profile with ripretinib versus sunitinib. Design INSIGHT is an international, Phase III, randomized, multicenter, open-label study evaluating the efficacy of ripretinib versus sunitinib in patients with advanced GIST previously treated with imatinib and who have KIT exon 11 mutations and co-occurring mutations exclusively in KIT exons 17/18, as identified by ctDNA. Approximately 54 patients will be randomized 2:1 to receive ripretinib 150 mg once daily (QD; continuous) or sunitinib 50 mg QD (4 weeks on/2 weeks off) in 6-week cycles. Eligible patients must have a histologic diagnosis of advanced GIST and co-occurring KIT exon 11 + 17/18 mutations confirmed by central laboratory ctDNA analysis, as well as radiologic progression on imatinib. The primary outcome measure is PFS based on blinded independent radiologic review (IRR) using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (mRECIST v1.1), while key secondary outcome measures are ORR based on blinded IRR using mRECIST v1.1 and OS. Infographic [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Methods Results Conclusions Plain Language Summary The use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research is limited by a lack of structure and a standard data model. The objective of the ICAREdata (Integrating Clinical Trials and Real‐World Endpoints Data) project was to structure key research data elements in EHRs using a minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) data model to extract and transmit data.The ICAREdata project captured two EHR data elements essential to clinical trials: cancer disease status and treatment plan change. The project was implemented in clinical sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials. Data were extracted from EHRs and sent by secure Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource messaging (a standard for exchanging EHRs) to a database. Selected elements were compared with corresponding data from the trial's electronic data capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave.By December 2023, data were extracted and transmitted from 10 sites for 35 patients, involving 367 clinical encounters across 15 clinical trials. Data through March 2023 demonstrated that concordance for the elements treatment plan change and cancer disease status was 79% and 34%, respectively. When disease evaluation was reported by both EHR and EDC (n = 15), there was 87% agreement on cancer disease status.Documentation, extraction, and aggregation of structured data elements in EHRs using mCODE and ICAREdata methods is feasible in multi‐institutional cancer clinical trials. EDC as a reference data set allowed assessment of the completeness of EHR data capture. Future initiatives will focus on elements with shared definitions in clinical and research environments and efficient workflows. Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming. ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records. Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming.ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While researchers find that attorneys in CSA trials dedicate substantial time to questioning children about the plausibility of their reports, we know of no study to date that has assessed the types of plausibility issues attorneys raise, the relative frequency of different types, or if attorneys vary their plausibility questioning depending on case characteristics. In the current study we explored these questions. Guided by the story model of jury decision-making, we proposed defense attorneys would raise plausibility issues by (1) highlighting jurors' misconceptions about CSA dynamics; (2) highlighting confusing or implausible statements made by the child; and (3) offering alternative explanations for events. We conducted a content analysis of the cross-examinations of 134 children aged 5–17 testifying about alleged CSA. We found that attorneys raised all three proposed types of plausibility questioning, and they varied their plausibility questioning somewhat by age, severity, child-defendant relationship, and the number of victims in the case. Attorneys' preferred strategy was to highlight jurors' misconceptions about CSA. Prosecutors should address jurors' misconceptions preemptively in direct examinations of children or through expert testimony. Beyond implications for courtroom practices, our plausibility framework may apply to plausibility concerns raised in other crime types, something researchers should explore. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Identifying patient‐ and disease‐specific characteristics associated with clinical trial enrollment of adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer may target efforts to improve accrual. Methods: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) trials opened from January 1, 2000, and closed before January 1, 2018, for common AYA cancers were identified. Proportions of AYAs (aged 18–39 years old) versus non‐AYAs (aged ≥40 years old) enrolled by cancer type were summarized by descriptive statistics. Among studies with ≥20 AYAs enrolled, demographic and disease characteristics of AYAs versus non‐AYAs were compared with χ2 and Kruskal–Wallis tests. A qualitative review was also conducted of therapeutic trials included in analysis in PubMed through December 31, 2021, that reported AYA‐specific survival. Results: Among 188 trials enrolling 40,396 patients, AYAs represented 11% (4468 of 40,396) of accrual. AYA accrual varied by cancer type (leukemia, 23.6%; breast, 9.9%; lymphoma, 14.8%; colorectal, 6.2%; central nervous system, 8.1%; melanoma, 11.8%; sarcoma, 12%). Across ages, the proportion of Black and Hispanic patients enrolled was 1%–10%. Compared to non‐AYAs, AYAs in breast and colorectal cancer trials were less likely to be White and more likely to be Hispanic. Disease characteristics differed by age for selected trials. Two trials reported AYA‐specific survival, with no significant differences observed by age. Conclusions: AYA accrual to Alliance trials was comparable to or exceeded population‐based, age‐specific prevalence estimates for most cancer types. Greater proportional representation of Hispanic and non‐White patients among AYAs reflects US demographic trends. The small number of minority patients enrolled across ages underscores the persistent challenge of ensuring equitable access to trials, including for AYAs. Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients represented 11% of overall accrual to Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials from 2000 to 2017, which was comparable to or exceeded population‐based, age‐specific prevalence estimates for most cancer types. The small number of minority patients enrolled across ages underscores the persistent challenge of ensuring equitable access to trials, including for AYAs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]