Ethical dilemmas in researching sensitive issues online: lessons from the study of British disability dissent networks

This paper presents an unconventional approach to the resolution of the key ethical dilemmas raised by the study of politically charged personal content posted on social media. In particular, this study suggests that Internet research ethics should remain informed by the disciplinary perspectives of those who study online communities. Hence, Internet scholars must build on established ethical practices from their respective disciplines in such a way as to address these ‘human-centred’ ethical issues. A ‘medium-cloaked’ strategy towards data anonymization was adopted for this study of the comments posted on the Facebook pages of UK disability rights groups. Key themes were typically conveyed without the disclosure of personally identifiable information and direct quotes were only used if they could not be located using a search engine. The rationale for such an approach is elucidated in order to identify the limitations in the ways in which such ethical issues are dealt with in existing guidelines in this area. The paper suggests that the automatic categorization of disabled people and others experiencing disadvantage as ‘vulnerable groups’ in many of these protocols might further disempower these stakeholders through the omission of their personal stories from relevant scholarship. A more nuanced approach towards the protection of user privacy is advocated; one that allows for the use of direct quotes when it is unlikely to prove harmful to the user but also sets out to provide the maximum level of anonymity possible for those who divulge sensitive information in these semi-public spaces

Durvalumab Plus Carboplatin/Paclitaxel Followed by Maintenance Durvalumab With or Without Olaparib as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Endometrial Cancer: The Phase III DUO-E Trial

PURPOSE Immunotherapy and chemotherapy combinations have shown activity in endometrial cancer, with greater benefit in mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient (dMMR) than MMR-proficient (pMMR) disease. Adding a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor may improve outcomes, especially in pMMR disease. METHODS This phase III, global, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomly assigned eligible patients with newly diagnosed advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer 1:1:1 to: carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab placebo followed by placebo maintenance (control arm); carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib placebo (durvalumab arm); or carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab plus olaparib (durvalumab + olaparib arm). The primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) in the durvalumab arm versus control and the durvalumab + olaparib arm versus control. RESULTS Seven hundred eighteen patients were randomly assigned. In the intention-to-treat population, statistically significant PFS benefit was observed in the durvalumab (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.89]; P = .003) and durvalumab + olaparib arms (HR, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.69]; P < .0001) versus control. Prespecified, exploratory subgroup analyses showed PFS benefit in dMMR (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.80]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.41 [95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75]) and pMMR subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.60 to 0.97]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control] 0.57; [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.73]); and in PD-L1-positive subgroups (HR [durvalumab v control], 0.63 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.83]; HR [durvalumab + olaparib v control], 0.42 [95% CI, 0.31 to 0.57]). Interim overall survival results (maturity approximately 28%) were supportive of the primary outcomes (durvalumab v control: HR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.56 to 1.07]; P = .120; durvalumab + olaparib v control: HR, 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42 to 0.83]; P = .003). The safety profiles of the experimental arms were generally consistent with individual agents. CONCLUSION Carboplatin/paclitaxel plus durvalumab followed by maintenance durvalumab with or without olaparib demonstrated a statistically significant and clinically meaningful PFS benefit in patients with advanced or recurrent endometrial cancer

Safety and efficacy of pomalidomide, dexamethasone and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma.

Immunomodulatory drugs including thalidomide, lenalidomide (LEN) and pomalidomide (POM), are effective for treating multiple myeloma (MM). POM has shown enhanced efficacy with dexamethasone (DEX). Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) with bortezomib is US Food and Drug Administration-approved for treating MM. PLD with LEN or thalidomide has shown efficacy for MM patients. LEN with DEX, PLD and bortezomib achieves high response rates. We evaluated the combination of POM with DEX 40 mg and PLD 5 mg/

Ofranergene Obadenovec (Ofra-Vec, VB-111) With Weekly Paclitaxel for Platinum-Resistant Ovarian Cancer: Randomized Controlled Phase III Trial (OVAL Study/GOG 3018)

PURPOSE To evaluate the addition of ofranergene obadenovec (ofra-vec, VB-111), a novel gene-based anticancer targeted therapy, to once a week paclitaxel in patients with recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC). METHODS This placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase III trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03398655 ) randomly assigned patients with PROC 1:1 to receive intravenous ofra-vec every 8 weeks with once a week IV paclitaxel or placebo with paclitaxel until disease progression. The dual primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by Blinded Independent Central Review. RESULTS Between December 2017 and March 2022, 409 patients were randomly assigned. The median PFS was 5.29 months in the ofra-vec arm and 5.36 months in the control arm, hazard ratio (HR) 1.03 (CI, 0.83 to 1.29; P = .7823). The median OS with ofra-vec was 13.37 months versus 13.14 months, HR 0.97 (CI, 0.75 to 1.27; P = .8440). Objective response rates (ORRs) per RECIST 1.1 were similar in both arms: 28.9% with ofra-vec versus 29.6% with control. In both treatment arms, response to CA-125 was a substantial prognostic factor for both PFS and OS. In the ofra-vec arm, the HR in CA-125 responders compared with that in nonresponders for PFS was 0.2428 (CI, 0.1642 to 0.3588), and for OS, the HR was 0.3343 (CI, 0.2134 to 0.5238). Safety profile was characterized by common transient flu–like symptoms such as fever and chills. CONCLUSION The addition of ofra-vec to paclitaxel did not improve PFS or OS. The PFS and ORR in the control arm exceeded the results that were anticipated on the basis of the AURELIA chemotherapy control arm. CA-125 response was a substantial prognostic biomarker for PFS and OS in patients with PROC treated with paclitaxel