Physician and Stakeholder Perceptions of Conflict of Interest Policies in Oncology

The landscape of managing potential conflicts of interest (COIs) has evolved substantially across many disciplines in recent years, but rarely are the issues more intertwined with financial and ethical implications than in the health care setting. Cancer care is a highly technologic arena, with numerous physician-industry interactions. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) recognizes the role of a professional organization to facilitate management of these interactions and the need for periodic review of its COI policy (Policy)

Concurrent MEK2 Mutation and BRAF Amplification Confer Resistance to BRAF and MEK Inhibitors in Melanoma

SummaryAlthough BRAF and MEK inhibitors have proven clinical benefits in melanoma, most patients develop resistance. We report a de novo MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF gain in a melanoma from a patient who progressed on the MEK inhibitor trametinib and did not respond to the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib. We also identified the same MEK2-Q60P mutation along with BRAF amplification in a xenograft tumor derived from a second melanoma patient resistant to the combination of dabrafenib and trametinib. Melanoma cells chronically exposed to trametinib acquired concurrent MEK2-Q60P mutation and BRAF-V600E amplification, which conferred resistance to MEK and BRAF inhibitors. The resistant cells had sustained MAPK activation and persistent phosphorylation of S6K. A triple combination of dabrafenib, trametinib, and the PI3K/mTOR inhibitor GSK2126458 led to sustained tumor growth inhibition. Hence, concurrent genetic events that sustain MAPK signaling can underlie resistance to both BRAF and MEK inhibitors, requiring novel therapeutic strategies to overcome it

What makes health impact assessments successful? Factors contributing to effectiveness in Australia and New Zealand

Background: While many guidelines explain how to conduct Health Impact Assessments (HIAs), less is known about the factors that determine the extent to which HIAs affect health considerations in the decision making process. We investigated which factors are associated with increased or reduced effectiveness of HIAs in changing decisions and in the implementation of policies, programs or projects. This study builds on and tests the Harris and Harris-Roxas' conceptual framework for evaluating HIA effectiveness, which emphasises context, process and output as key domains. Methods: We reviewed 55 HIA reports in Australia and New Zealand from 2005 to 2009 and conducted surveys and interviews for 48 of these HIAs. Eleven detailed case studies were undertaken using document review and stakeholder interviews. Case study participants were selected through purposeful and snowball sampling. The data were analysed by thematic content analysis. Findings were synthesised and mapped against the conceptual framework. A stakeholder forum was utilised to test face validity and practical adequacy of the findings. Results: We found that some features of HIA are essential, such as the stepwise but flexible process, and evidence based approach. Non-essential features that can enhance the impact of HIAs include capacity and experience; 'right person right level'; involvement of decision-makers and communities; and relationships and partnerships. There are contextual factors outside of HIA such as fit with planning and decision making context, broader global context and unanticipated events, and shared values and goals that may influence a HIA. Crosscutting factors include proactive positioning, and time and timeliness. These all operate within complex open systems, involving multiple decision-makers, levels of decision-making, and points of influence. The Harris and Harris-Roxas framework was generally supported. Conclusion: We have confirmed previously identified factors influencing effectiveness of HIA and identified new factors such as proactive positioning. Our findings challenge some presumptions about 'right' timing for HIA and the rationality and linearity of decision-making processes. The influence of right timing on decision making needs to be seen within the context of other factors such as proactive positioning. This research can help HIA practitioners and researchers understand and identify what can be enhanced within the HIA process. Practitioners can adapt the flexible HIA process to accommodate the external contextual factors identified in this report

Behavioral economic implementation strategies to improve serious illness communication between clinicians and high-risk patients with cancer: protocol for a cluster randomized pragmatic trial

Background Serious illness conversations (SICs) are an evidence-based approach to eliciting patients’ values, goals, and care preferences that improve patient outcomes. However, most patients with cancer die without a documented SIC. Clinician-directed implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics (“nudges”) that identify high-risk patients have shown promise in increasing SIC documentation among clinicians. It is unknown whether patient-directed nudges that normalize and prime patients towards SIC completion—either alone or in combination with clinician nudges that additionally compare performance relative to peers—may improve on this approach. Our objective is to test the effect of clinician- and patient-directed nudges as implementation strategies for increasing SIC completion among patients with cancer. Methods We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized pragmatic trial to test the effect of nudges to clinicians, patients, or both, compared to usual care, on SIC completion. Participants will include 166 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians practicing at ten sites within a large academic health system and their approximately 5500 patients at high risk of predicted 6-month mortality based on a validated machine-learning prognostic algorithm. Data will be obtained via the electronic medical record, clinician survey, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients. The primary outcome will be time to SIC documentation among high-risk patients. Secondary outcomes will include time to SIC documentation among all patients (assessing spillover effects), palliative care referral among high-risk patients, and aggressive end-of-life care utilization (composite of chemotherapy within 14 days before death, hospitalization within 30 days before death, or admission to hospice within 3 days before death) among high-risk decedents. We will assess moderators of the effect of implementation strategies and conduct semi-structured interviews with a subset of clinicians and patients to assess contextual factors that shape the effectiveness of nudges with an eye towards health equity. Discussion This will be the first pragmatic trial to evaluate clinician- and patient-directed nudges to promote SIC completion for patients with cancer. We expect the study to yield insights into the effectiveness of clinician and patient nudges as implementation strategies to improve SIC rates, and to uncover multilevel contextual factors that drive response to these strategies. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04867850 . Registered on April 30, 2021. Funding National Cancer Institute P50CA24469

Repeat operative sentinel lymph node biopsy.

Because sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy continues to be used for staging in patients with breast cancer, physicians treating these patients will be faced with in-breast recurrences and new primary breast cancers in the treated breast. Repeat operative SLN biopsy might be feasible in this clinical scenario. This report describes the case of a patient with an ipsilateral different-site, recurrent, infiltrating ductal carcinoma 14 months after lumpectomy; negative SLN biopsy result; and radiation therapy, now with a positive SLN biopsy result

Phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without sorafenib in metastatic melanoma

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether carboplatin, paclitaxel, and sorafenib (CPS) improve overall survival (OS) compared with carboplatin and paclitaxel (CP) in chemotherapynaive patients with metastatic melanoma. Patients and Methods: In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III study, all patients received carboplatin at area under the [concentration-time] curve 6 and paclitaxel 225 mg/m2 intravenously once every 21 days with random assignment to sorafenib 400 mg orally twice per day on days 2 through 19 every 21 days or placebo. The primary end point was OS, and secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective tumor response, and toxicity. Results: In all, 823 patients were enrolled over 34 months. At final analysis, the median OS was 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.8 to 12.2 months) for CP and 11.1 months (95% CI, 10.3 to 12.3 months) for CPS; the difference in the OS distribution was not statistically significant by the stratified log-rank test, stratified on American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and prior therapy (P =.878). Median progressionfree survival was 4.9 months for CPS and 4.2 months for CP (P =.092, stratified log-rank test) Response rate was 20% for CPS and 18% for CP (P =.427). More patients on the CPS arm had grade 3 or higher toxicities (84% v78%; P =.027), with increased rash, hand-foot syndrome, and thrombocytopenia accounting for most of the difference. Conclusion: Sorafenib does not improve OS when given in combination with CP for chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic melanoma. This study establishes benchmark end points for the CP regimen in first-line therapy of metastatic melanoma.7 page(s