Definitive intensity modulated proton re-irradiation for lung cancer in the immunotherapy era

IntroductionAs immunotherapy has improved distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS) in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC), isolated locoregional recurrences have increased. However, management of locoregional recurrences can be challenging. We report our institutional experience with definitive intent re-irradiation using Intensity Modulated Proton Therapy (IMPT).MethodRetrospective cohort study of recurrent or second primary NSCLC or LS-SCLC treated with IMPT. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used for time-to-event analyses.Results22 patients were treated from 2019 to 2021. After first course of radiation (median 60 Gy, range 45-70 Gy), 45% received adjuvant immunotherapy. IMPT re-irradiation began a median of 28.2 months (8.8-172.9 months) after initial radiotherapy. The median IMPT dose was 60 GyE (44-60 GyE). 36% received concurrent chemotherapy with IMPT and 18% received immunotherapy after IMPT. The median patient’s IMPT lung mean dose was 5.3 GyE (0.9-13.9 GyE) and 5 patients had cumulative esophagus max dose >100 GyE with 1-year overall survival (OS) 68%, 1-year local control 80%, 1-year progression free survival 45%, and 1-year DMFS 60%. Higher IMPT (HR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1-1.7, p=0.01) and initial radiotherapy mean lung doses (HR 1.3; 95% CI 1.0-1.6, p=0.04) were associated with worse OS. Two patients developed Grade 3 pneumonitis or dermatitis, one patient developed Grade 2 pneumonitis, and seven patients developed Grade 1 toxicity. There were no Grade 4 or 5 toxicities.DiscussionDefinitive IMPT re-irradiation for lung cancer can prolong disease control with limited toxicity, particularly in the immunotherapy era

Academic oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and information needed before prescribing

Background: With increasing numbers of oncology biosimilars in the approval pipeline, it is important to investigate oncology clinicians’ understanding of biosimilars and what information they need prior to adoption. Methods: Between January and May 2018, 77 oncology clinicians (52 physicians, 16 pharmacists, and 9 advanced practice providers) completed a survey covering three domains: clinician understanding, prescription preferences, and patient involvement. An in-depth interview was designed based on themes identified in the first 50 surveys: cost, safety and efficacy, patient preference, and disease stage. Participants were chosen to participate in the interview based on outlying responses to survey questions. Results: When asked to define a biosimilar, 74% (57/77) of respondents could not give a satisfactory definition, and 40.3% (31/77) considered a biosimilar the same as a generic drug. The most important factor in biosimilar prescription was safety and efficacy (4.51 out of 5) followed closely by cost differences (4.34 out of 5). A 40% increase (53.2–94.8%) in clinicians’ prescribing likelihood was seen after a biosimilar is designated as interchangeable. Participants in this study were split regarding the importance of shared decision-making with patients [50.7% (39/77) important or extremely important, 39.0% (30/77) somewhat or not at all important]. Clinicians were also split concerning the role that pharmacists should play in the decision to prescribe or substitute biosimilars. Conclusion: Understanding of biosimilars is low, and educational needs are high. The information that clinicians deem important to assess, such as safety, efficacy and cost, will need to be provided before they are comfortable prescribing biosimilars

Understanding immunotherapy terminology: An analysis of provider‐patient conversations

Abstract Background Immunotherapy terminology is complex and can be difficult for patients to understand, threatening informed consent. The aims of this exploratory study are to determine whether patients understand immunotherapy terminology and if the provider defining the term improves patient understanding. Good patient/provider communication is important for good informed consent, patient adherence to treatment and patient outcomes. Methods Conversations between oncology providers and patients discussing immunotherapy were observed (n = 39), and technical terms used were noted. With consent, patients were interviewed post‐conversation to assess their understanding of these terms (n = 39). Comparisons of the terms were conducted using chi‐square tests, Fisher's exact tests, or ANOVA where appropriate. Results “Immunotherapy” was the most difficult for participants to understand with 48.7% (19/39) correctly defining immunotherapy. “Immunotherapy agents” was understood 53.8% (14/26) of the time. “Immune system” was well understood 88.5% (23/26). Providers defined immunotherapy in 97.4% of conversations. There was no correlation between having immunotherapy defined in the conversation, and the likelihood of a correct definition (p = 0.487). “Immune system” was defined in 92.3% of conversations (n = 26), and defining it in the conversation was correlated with increased patient understanding (p = 0.009). Conclusion Our results indicate that patients have difficulty understanding some immunotherapy terminology. Since patient understanding of key terminology is crucial for informed consent and patient care, it is essential to implement interventions to improve understanding

Family Strategies to Support Siblings of Pediatric Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the strategies families report using to address the needs and concerns of siblings of children, adolescents, and young adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT). METHODS: A secondary semantic analysis was conducted of 86 qualitative interviews with family members of children, adolescents, and young adults undergoing HSCT at 4 HSCT centers and supplemented with a primary analysis of 38 additional targeted qualitative interviews (23 family members, 15 health care professionals) conducted at the primary center. Analyses focused on sibling issues and the strategies families use to address these issues. RESULTS: The sibling issues identified included: (1) feeling negative effects of separation from the patient and caregiver(s); (2) experiencing difficult emotions; (3) being faced with additional responsibilities or burdens; (4) lacking information; and (5) feeling excluded. Families and health care providers reported the following strategies to support siblings: (1) sharing information; (2) using social support and help offered by family or friends; (3) taking siblings to the hospital; (4) communicating virtually; (5) providing special events or gifts or quality time for siblings; (6) offering siblings a defined role to help the family during the transplant process; (7) switching between parents at the hospital; (8) keeping the sibling’s life constant; and, (9) arranging sibling meetings with a certified child life specialist or school counselor. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the above strategies and sharing them with other families in similar situations can begin to address sibling issues during HSCT and can improve hospital-based, family-centered care efforts

Biosynthesis of tetrahydrobiopterin : purification and characterization of 6-pyruvoyl-tetrahydropterin synthase from human liver

6-Pyruvoyl-tetrahydropterin synthase, which catalyzes the first step in the conversion of 7,8-dihydroneopterin triphosphate to tetrahydrobiopterin, was purified approximately 140,000-fold to apparent homogeneity from human liver. The molecular mass of the enzyme is estimated to be 83 kDa. 7,8-Dihydroneopterin triphosphate was a substrate of the enzyme in the presence of Mg2+, and the pH optimum of the reaction was 7.5 in Tris HCl buffer. The Km value for 7,8-dihydroneopterin triphosphate was 10 μM. The product of this enzymatic reaction was the presumed intermediate 6-pyruvoyl-tetrahydropterin. This latter compound was converted to tetrahydrobiopterin in the presence of NADPH and partially purified sepiapterin reductase from human liver. The conditions and the effect of N-acetyserotonin on this reaction, and on the formation of the intermediates 6-(1'-hydroxy-2'-oxopropyl)-tetrahydropterin and 6-(1'oxo-2'-hydroxypropyl)-tetrahydropterin have been studied