Search

101 Background: The genotype of primary mutations predicts imatinib response in untreated metastatic GIST. However, the sequence of salvage treatments in metastatic GIST is based solely on the chronological order of registration trials. ctDNA sequencing offers a powerful diagnostic tool to detect resistance mutations in GIST but has not been shown to correlate with outcomes in clinical trials of pretreated patients (pts). We analyzed ctDNA samples collected at baseline in the phase III VOYAGER trial (NCT03465722) to describe the landscape of KIT alterations and its association with outcomes of pts treated with avapritinib or regorafenib. Methods: In VOYAGER, 476 pts with advanced KIT-mutant GIST were randomly assigned to avapritinib (240 pts) or regorafenib (236 pts) in 3rd-4th line. Baseline plasma was collected and ctDNA analyzed with the Guardant 360 (G360), 74-gene panel. KIT molecular subgroups were determined and correlated with outcomes. PDGFRA-mutant GISTs were excluded from outcomes analysis. Results: Baseline ctDNA analysis was performed in 386/476 pts (81%). ctDNA was detected in 333 pts (86%), with 250 and 18 pts showing at least one KIT (75%) or PDGFRA (5%) variant, respectively. KIT primary mutations were detected in 71% pts (exon 11, 56%; exon 9, 14%; exon 13, 1%) and KIT secondary mutations in 55% of pts. Activation loop (AL, exons 17 and 18) was more commonly affected (44%) than the ATP-binding pocket (ABP, exons 13 and 14; 23%). Among KIT-mutant tumors, multiple KIT mutations were commonly detected within individual tumors (mean, 2.56; range, 1-14). Notably, 17% of pts had > 3 mutations (mean, 6.07; range, 4 to 14). Median PFS and OS were shorter for patients whose ctDNA was positive for V654A or T670I (ABP hot spots) when treated with avapritinib vs. regorafenib: mPFS, 1.9 mo vs. 7.4 mo; log-rank p

Background and Objectives:Little data exist on provider perspectives about counselling and shared decision-making for complex CHD, ways to support and improve the process, and barriers to effective communication. The goal of this qualitative study was to determine providers’ perspectives regarding factors that are integral to shared decision-making with parents faced with complex CHD in their fetus or newborn; and barriers and facilitators to engaging in effective shared decision-making.Methods:We conducted semi-structured interviews with providers from different areas of practice who care for fetuses and/or children with CHD. Providers were recruited from four geographically diverse centres. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analysed for key themes using an open coding process with a grounded theory approach.Results:Interviews were conducted with 31 providers; paediatric cardiologists (n = 7) were the largest group represented, followed by nurses (n = 6) and palliative care providers (n = 5). Key barriers to communication with parents that providers identified included variability among providers themselves, factors that influenced parental comprehension or understanding, discrepant expectations, circumstantial barriers, and trust/relationship with providers. When discussing informational needs of parents, providers focused on comprehensive short- and long-term outcomes, quality of life, and breadth and depth that aligned with parental goals and needs. In discussing resources to support shared decision-making, providers emphasised the need for comprehensive, up-to-date information that was accessible to parents of varying situations and backgrounds.Conclusions:Provider perspectives on decision-making with families with CHD highlighted key communication issues, informational priorities, and components of decision support that can enhance shared decision-making.

Background:Parents who receive a diagnosis of a severe, life-threatening CHD for their foetus or neonate face a complex and stressful decision between termination, palliative care, or surgery. Understanding how parents make this initial treatment decision is critical for developing interventions to improve counselling for these families.Methods:We conducted focus groups in four academic medical centres across the United States of America with a purposive sample of parents who chose termination, palliative care, or surgery for their foetus or neonate diagnosed with severe CHD.Results:Ten focus groups were conducted with 56 parents (Mage = 34 years; 80% female; 89% White). Results were constructed around three domains: decision-making approaches; values and beliefs; and decision-making challenges. Parents discussed varying approaches to making the decision, ranging from relying on their “gut feeling” to desiring statistics and probabilities. Religious and spiritual beliefs often guided the decision to not terminate the pregnancy. Quality of life was an important consideration, including how each option would impact the child (e.g., pain or discomfort, cognitive and physical abilities) and their family (e.g., care for other children, marriage, and career). Parents reported inconsistent communication of options by clinicians and challenges related to time constraints for making a decision and difficulty in processing information when distressed.Conclusion:This study offers important insights that can be used to design interventions to improve decision support and family-centred care in clinical practice.

Summary Background Oncogenic alterations in RET represent important therapeutic targets in thyroid cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and antitumour activity of pralsetinib, a highly potent, selective RET inhibitor, in patients with RET-altered thyroid cancers. Methods ARROW, a phase 1/2, open-label study done in 13 countries across 71 sites in community and hospital settings, enrolled patients 18 years or older with RET-altered locally advanced or metastatic solid tumours, including RET-mutant medullary thyroid and RET fusion-positive thyroid cancers, and an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2 (later limited to 0–1 in a protocol amendment). Phase 2 primary endpoints assessed for patients who received 400 mg once-daily oral pralsetinib until disease progression, intolerance, withdrawal of consent, or investigator decision, were overall response rate (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; masked independent central review) and safety. Tumour response was assessed for patients with RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer who had received previous cabozantinib or vandetanib, or both, or were ineligible for standard therapy and patients with previously treated RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer; safety was assessed for all patients with RET-altered thyroid cancer. This ongoing study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03037385 , and enrolment of patients with RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer was ongoing at the time of this interim analysis. Findings Between Mar 17, 2017, and May 22, 2020, 122 patients with RET-mutant medullary and 20 with RET fusion–positive thyroid cancers were enrolled. Among patients with baseline measurable disease who received pralsetinib by July 11, 2019 (enrolment cutoff for efficacy analysis), overall response rates were 15 (71%) of 21 (95% CI 48–89) in patients with treatment-naive RET-mutant medullary thyroid cancer and 33 (60%) of 55 (95% CI 46–73) in patients who had previously received cabozantinib or vandetanib, or both, and eight (89%) of nine (95% CI 52–100) in patients with RET fusion-positive thyroid cancer (all responses confirmed for each group). Common (≥10%) grade 3 and above treatment-related adverse events among patients with RET-altered thyroid cancer enrolled by May 22, 2020, were hypertension (24 patients [17%] of 142), neutropenia (19 [13%]), lymphopenia (17 [12%]), and anaemia (14 [10%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 21 patients (15%), the most frequent (≥2%) of which was pneumonitis (five patients [4%]). Five patients [4%] discontinued owing to treatment-related events. One (1%) patient died owing to a treatment-related adverse event. Interpretation Pralsetinib is a new, well-tolerated, potent once-daily oral treatment option for patients with RET-altered thyroid cancer. Funding Blueprint Medicines.