Search

The lack of treatments with durable response in neuro-oncology highlights the critical need for clinical trials to advance patient care. The intersection of relatively low incidence, evolving classification schema, and entrenched community, healthcare provider, and organizational factors have been historic challenges against successful trial enrollment and implementation. The additional need for multidisciplinary, often tertiary-level care, further magnifies latent national and international health inequities with rural and under-served populations. The COVID-19 pandemic both unveiled fundamental weaknesses in historical approaches and prompted the necessity of new approaches and systems for conducting clinical trials. Here, we provide an overview of traditional barriers to clinical trial enrollment in neuro-oncology, the effect of COVID-19 on these barriers, and the discovery of additional systemic weaknesses. Finally, we discuss future directions by reflecting on lessons learned with strategies to broaden access of care and streamline clinical trial integration into clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Although the early and middle stages of Huntington's disease (HD) and its complications have been well described, less is known about the course of late-stage illness. In particular, little is known about the population of patients who enroll in hospice.Objectives: Our goal is to describe the characteristics of patients with HD who enrolled in hospice.Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study of electronic medical record data from 12 not-for-profit hospices in the United States from 2008 to 2012.Results: Of the 164,032 patients admitted to these hospices, 101 (0.06%) had a primary diagnosis of HD. Their median age was 57 (IQR 48-65) and 53 (52.5%) were women. Most patients were cared for by a spouse (n = 36, 36.6%) or adult child (n = 20, 19.8%). At the time of admission, most patients were living either at home (n = 39, 38.6%) or in a nursing home (n = 41, 40.6%). All were either bedbound or could ambulate only with assistance. The most common symptom reported during enrollment in hospice was pain (n = 34, 33.7%) followed by anxiety (n = 30, 29.7%), nausea (n = 18, 17.8%), and dyspnea (n = 10, 9.9%). Patients had a median length of stay in hospice of 42 days, which was significantly longer than that of other hospice patients in the sample (17 days), P < 0.001. Of the 101 patients who were admitted to hospice, 73 died, 11 were still enrolled at the time of data analysis, and 17 left hospice either because they no longer met eligibility criteria (n = 14, 13.7%) or because they decided to seek treatment for other medical conditions (n = 3, 3.0%). Of the 73 patients who died while on hospice, most died either in a nursing home (n = 29; 40%) or a hospital (n = 27; 37%). Seventeen patients (23%) died at home. No patient that started in a facility died at home.Conclusion: Patients with HD are admitted to hospice at a younger age compared with other patients (57 vs. 76 years old) but have a significant symptom burden and limited functional status. Although hospice care emphasizes the importance of helping patients to remain in their homes, only a minority of these patients were able to die at home. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Collaborative relationships between academic oncology and industry (pharmaceutical, biotechnology, "omic," and medical device companies) are essential for therapeutic development in oncology; however, limited research on engagement in and perceptions of these relationships has been done. Methods: Survey questions were developed to evaluate relationships between academic oncology and industry. An electronic survey was delivered to 1000 randomly selected members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, a professional organization for oncologists, eliciting respondents' views around oncology‐industry collaborations. The responses were analyzed according to prespecified plans. Results: There were 225 survey respondents. Most were from the United States (70.0%), worked at an academic institution (60.1%), worked in medical oncology (81.2%), and had an active relationship with industry (85.8%). One quarter (26.7%) of respondents reported difficulty establishing a relationship with industry collaborators, and most respondents (75%) did not report having had mentorship in developing these relationships. The majority (85.3%) of respondents considered these collaborations important to their careers. Respondents generally thought that scientific integrity was preserved (92%), and most respondents (95%) had little concern over the quality of the collaborative product. Many (60%) shared concerns over potential conflict of interest if an individual with a compensated relationship promoted an industry product for clinical care/research, yet most respondents (67%) stated these relationships did not shape their interactions with patients. Conclusions: This study provides novel data characterizing the nature of collaborative relationships between clinicians, researchers, and industry in oncology. Although respondents considered these collaborations an important part of clinical and academic oncology, formal education or mentorship around these relationships was rare. Conflicting findings around conflict of interest highlight the importance of more dedicated research in this area. Plain Language Summary: Business enterprises in health care play a central role in cancer research and care, driving the development of new medical testing, drugs, and devices. Effective working relationships among clinicians, researchers, and these industry partners can promote innovative research and enhance patient care. Study of these collaborations has been limited to date. Through distribution of a questionnaire to cancer clinicians and researchers, we found that most participants consider these relationships valuable, though they find establishing such relationships challenging partly because of gaps in educational programs in this area. Our findings also highlight the need for further policy around the potential bias these relationships can introduce. Oncology‐industry collaborations can be mutually beneficial relationships that contribute to both scientific and clinical innovation. Despite their value, a deficit of education and policy around these collaborations is recognized by cancer clinicians and researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a fatal brain tumor with limited treatment options. O6-methylguanine-DNA-methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status is the central molecular biomarker linked to both the response to temozolomide, the standard chemotherapy drug employed for GBM, and to patient survival. However, MGMT status is captured on tumor tissue which, given the difficulty in acquisition, limits the use of this molecular feature for treatment monitoring. MGMT protein expression levels may offer additional insights into the mechanistic understanding of MGMT but, currently, they correlate poorly to promoter methylation. The difficulty of acquiring tumor tissue for MGMT testing drives the need for non-invasive methods to predict MGMT status. Feature selection aims to identify the most informative features to build accurate and interpretable prediction models. This study explores the new application of a combined feature selection (i.e., LASSO and mRMR) and the rank-based weighting method (i.e., MGMT ProFWise) to non-invasively link MGMT promoter methylation status and serum protein expression in patients with GBM. Our method provides promising results, reducing dimensionality (by more than 95%) when employed on two large-scale proteomic datasets (7k SomaScan® panel and CPTAC) for all our analyses. The computational results indicate that the proposed approach provides 14 shared serum biomarkers that may be helpful for diagnostic, prognostic, and/or predictive operations for GBM-related processes, given further validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) is commonly mutated (mIDH) in gliomas, and this mutant enzyme produces the oncometabolite 2-hydroxyglutarate (2HG). 2HG promotes gliomagenesis and is implicated in epileptogenesis. Ivosidenib (IVO), a small molecule oral mIDH1 inhibitor, is FDA-approved for mIDH1 newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Moreover, IVO has efficacy in clinical trials for recurrent mIDH1 gliomas. Given the lack of targeted treatments for gliomas, we initiated off-label IVO for mIDH glioma patients in October 2020. Methods Retrospectively, we sought to assess early outcomes in our patients and describe their experience on IVO from October 2020 through February 2022. Our objective was to report on the following variables of off-label use of IVO: radiographic response, seizure control, tolerability, and access to the medication. All patients initially received single-agent IVO dosed at 500 mg orally once daily. Results The cohort age range was 21–74 years. Tumor types included astrocytoma (n = 14) and oligodendroglioma (n = 16), with most being grade 2 (n = 21). The best radiographic response in nonenhancing disease (n = 22) was 12 stable diseases, 5 minor responses, 3 partial responses, and 2 progressive diseases. Seizure frequency was stable to improved for most patients (70%, n = 21). IVO was well-tolerated, with the most common toxicities being diarrhea, elevated creatine kinase, and QTc interval prolongation. Most patients (66.7%, n = 20) received drugs via the patient assistance program, with insurance initially covering a third of patients and with ongoing use, later covering 60%. Conclusions Targeted therapies like IVO are options for mIDH glioma patients and can provide positive oncologic and neurological outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Few studies have assessed the impact of race on short-term patient outcomes in the brain metastasis population. The goal of this study is to evaluate the association of race with inpatient clinical presentation, treatment, in-hospital complications, and in-hospital mortality rates for patients with brain metastases (BM). Method Using data collected from the National Inpatient Sample between 2004 and 2014, we retrospectively identified adult patients with a primary diagnosis of BM. Outcomes included nonroutine discharge, prolonged length of stay (pLOS), in-hospital complications, and mortality. Results Minority (Black, Hispanic/other) patients were less likely to receive surgical intervention compared to White patients (odds ratio [OR] 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66–0.74, p  < 0.001; OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.84–0.93, p  < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to develop an in-hospital complication than White patients (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.28–1.41, p  < 0.001). Additionally, minority patients were more likely to experience pLOS than White patients (OR 1.48; 95% CI 1.41–1.57, p  < 0.001; OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.27–1.42, p  < 0.001). Black patients were more likely to experience a nonroutine discharge (OR 1.25; 95% CI 1.19–1.31, p  < 0.001) and higher in-hospital mortality than White (OR 1.13; 95% CI 1.03–1.23, p  = 0.008). Conclusion Our analysis demonstrated that race is associated with disparate short-term outcomes in patients with BM. More efforts are needed to address these disparities, provide equitable care, and allow for similar outcomes regardless of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Critically ill patients with brain metastases (BM) face significant uncertainty regarding prognosis and survival and can benefit from Palliative care (PC). However, research regarding the role of PC in this population is lacking.Objectives: We sought to compare BM patients admitted to an intensive care unit who received an inpatient PC consult (PC cohort) to those who did not (Usual Care, UC cohort).Methods: We performed a single-institution retrospective cohort analysis. Our outcome variables were mortality, time from intensive care unit admission to death, disposition, and change in code status. We also evaluated PC's role in complex medical decision making, symptom management and hospice education.Results: PC consult was placed in 31 of 118 (28%) of patients. The overall mortality rates were not statistically different (78.8% vs. 90.3%, P= 0.15, UC vs. PC cohort). Patients in the PC cohort had a shorter time to death, higher rate of death within 30 days of admission, increased rate of discharge to hospice, and increase percentage of code status change to "do not attempt resuscitation" during the admission. The primary services provided by PC were symptom management (n = 21, 67.7%) and assistance in complex medical decision making (n = 20, 64.5%).Conclusion: In our patient cohort, PC is an underutilized service that can assist in complex medical decision making and symptom management of critically ill BM patients. Further prospective studies surveying patient, family and provider experiences could better inform the qualitative impact of PC in this unique patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]