Characteristics, Treatment, and Outcomes of Real-World Talazoparib-Treated Patients With Germline BRCA-Mutated Advanced HER2-Negative Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Talazoparib is a poly (adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor approved for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious or suspected deleterious germline BRCA-mutated (gBRCAm), HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/mBC), with approval based on the EMBRACA trial. To date, there are no published data on talazoparib use in the real-world United States (USA) setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Characteristics, treatment patterns, and clinical outcomes of real-world US patients with gBRCAm HER2-negative LA/mBC treated with talazoparib monotherapy were collected via retrospective chart review and summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Among 84 eligible patients, 35.7% had hormone receptor-positive tumors and 64.3% had triple-negative LA/mBC (TNBC). At talazoparib initiation, 29.8% had ECOG PS of ≥2 and 19.0% had brain metastasis. Mutations in gBRCA1 or 2 were detected among 64.3% and 35.7% of patients, respectively. Talazoparib was given as 1st-line therapy in 14.3% of patients, 2nd-line in 40.5%, and 3rd- or 4th-line in 45.2%. Median time to talazoparib treatment failure was 8.5 months (95% CI, 8.0-9.7), median progression-free survival was 8.7 months (95% CI, 8.0-9.9), the median time from initiation to chemotherapy was 12.2 months (95% CI, 10.5-20.1), and the overall response rate was 63.1%. No differences in clinical outcomes were observed between patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative LA/mBC and patients with TNBC by using unadjusted statistical comparisons. Brain metastasis and ECOG PS ≥2 at talazoparib initiation were associated with treatment failure and progression or mortality. CONCLUSION: Overall, talazoparib clinical outcomes in this real-world population are consistent with findings from EMBRACA.

Real-world outcomes of pomalidomide therapy after lenalidomide induction in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

Aim: To demonstrate the efficacy of pomalidomide for relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) following treatment in real-world, community practice using retrospective database analysis. Materials & methods: US-based community oncologists identified patients with RRMM treated with or without pomalidomide following first-line lenalidomide. Disease response (≥ very good partial response) and progression-free survival were compared. Results: Disease response was 78.6 and 51.7% for pomalidomide (n = 126) and nonpomalidomide cohorts (n = 174), respectively (p < 0.0001). Multivariate adjusted odds of response were 4.5-times greater for pomalidomide cohort (p < 0.0001). Median progression-free survival was not reached for pomalidomide cohort and 16.7 months for nonpomalidomide cohort (log-rank p < 0.01). Conclusion: Following lenalidomide induction in RRMM, pomalidomide is an effective treatment.

Plain language summary Treatment options have expanded in recent years for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who received lenalidomide as their initial treatment and then either had a period of improvement before the disease worsened or did not respond to the medication at all. Pomalidomide is another MM treatment from the same drug class as lenalidomide. We analyzed the effect of a combination treatment containing pomalidomide versus a combination treatment without pomalidomide in patients with MM who had received routine initial treatment with lenalidomide. US-based community oncologists completed study forms to record patient characteristics and treatment response information. Results showed that patients who received pomalidomide in a combination treatment after initial lenalidomide treatment achieved higher rates of very good partial response or better and longer progression-free survival than those who did not. The results of this analysis suggest that switching to a different class of drugs following the initial treatment may not be warranted after first relapse and pomalidomide-containing combination treatments are a more effective treatment following lenalidomide for patients with RRMM.

A Multisite Preregistered Paradigmatic Test of the Ego-Depletion Effect.

We conducted a preregistered multilaboratory project (k = 36; N = 3,531) to assess the size and robustness of ego-depletion effects using a novel replication method, termed the paradigmatic replication approach. Each laboratory implemented one of two procedures that was intended to manipulate self-control and tested performance on a subsequent measure of self-control. Confirmatory tests found a nonsignificant result (d = 0.06). Confirmatory Bayesian meta-analyses using an informed-prior hypothesis (δ = 0.30, SD = 0.15) found that the data were 4 times more likely under the null than the alternative hypothesis. Hence, preregistered analyses did not find evidence for a depletion effect. Exploratory analyses on the full sample (i.e., ignoring exclusion criteria) found a statistically significant effect (d = 0.08); Bayesian analyses showed that the data were about equally likely under the null and informed-prior hypotheses. Exploratory moderator tests suggested that the depletion effect was larger for participants who reported more fatigue but was not moderated by trait self-control, willpower beliefs, or action orientation.

Even Optimists Get the Blues: Interindividual Consistency in the Tendency to Brace for the Worst.

OBJECTIVE: The present research examined whether the tendency to brace for the worst by becoming pessimistic as news approaches varies across people, namely, people who differ in their trait-like outlooks on the future (dispositional optimism, defensive pessimism). METHOD: Across nine studies in laboratory and field settings, we examined the roles of dispositional optimism and defensive pessimism in the propensity to brace for the worst when awaiting uncertain news. The studies used a variety of paradigms, including predictions about performance on the bar exam, peer ratings of attractiveness, and feedback on an intelligence test. RESULTS: Results from these studies consistently failed to support individual differences in the tendency to brace for the worst. CONCLUSIONS: Trait-like differences in future outlooks seem to influence only the level and not trajectories of outcome predictions, pointing to relative commonalities in the development of the tendency to brace for the worst.

Characteristics and Correlates of Word Use in Physician-Patient Communication.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have described and evaluated communication in healthcare contexts, but these studies have focused on broad content and complex units of behavior. Growing evidence reveals the predictive power and importance of precise linguistic characteristics of communication. PURPOSE: This study aims to document characteristics, predictors, and correlates of word use within specific linguistic categories by physicians and patients during a healthcare visit. METHODS: Conversations between patients (n = 145) and their physician (n = 6) were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using Linguistic Inquiry Word Count software. Patients also completed questionnaires prior to and immediately following the visit and (for a subset of patients) at a follow-up visit, which assessed patients' demographics, how much they liked the physician, and self-reported adherence. Physicians completed a questionnaire following the initial visit that assessed the patient's health status, the physician's optimism regarding the upcoming treatment, and satisfaction with the productivity of the visit. RESULTS: Patients and physicians differed in the extent of their word use in key linguistic categories, while also maintaining significant linguistic synchrony. Demographic characteristics and health status predicted variability in patients' and physicians' word use, and word use predicted key visit outcomes. Most notably, patients liked their physician more when physicians used fewer negative emotion words and were less adherent when physicians used more singular first-person pronouns. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal patterns in the way physicians speak to patients who vary in their demographic characteristics and health status and point to potentially fruitful targets for linguistic interventions with both physicians and patients.

Two definitions of waiting well.

Waiting for uncertain news is often distressing, at times even more distressing than facing bad news. The goal of this article was to investigate strategies for "waiting well" during these periods of uncertainty. Specifically, we propose 2 definitions of waiting well. First, people can wait in such a way as to ease their distress during the waiting period. Second, people could wait in such a way as to ease the pain of bad news or enhance the thrill of good news. We conducted a longitudinal study of law graduates (N = 230) awaiting their result on the California bar exam. Participants completed questionnaires prior to the exam, every 2 weeks during the 4-month waiting period, and shortly after learning whether they passed or failed. Cross-lagged models revealed that participants were quite unsuccessful at waiting well by our first definition. That is, their coping strategies were ineffective for reducing distress associated with uncertainty, apparently even backfiring in some cases. However, multiple regression analyses examining relationships between waiting experiences and responses to good and bad news found that many participants were successful at waiting well according to our second definition: Participants who suffered through a waiting period marked by anxiety, rumination, and pessimism responded more productively to bad news and more joyfully to good news, as compared with participants who suffered little during the wait. These findings substantiate the difficulty of enduring a stressful waiting period but suggest that this difficulty may pay off once the news arrives.

Is Waiting the Hardest Part? Comparing the Emotional Experiences of Awaiting and Receiving Bad News.

Awaiting uncertain news is stressful, but is it more stressful than receiving bad news? We compared these emotional experiences in two studies. Participants in Study 1 reflected on a personal experience awaiting news that ultimately turned out badly, and participants in Study 2 were law graduates awaiting their results on the bar exam who ultimately failed the exam. In Study 1, participants were ambivalent as to whether awaiting or receiving bad news was more difficult, and emotion ratings in both studies confirmed this ambivalence. Anxiety was higher in anticipation of bad news (at least at the moment of truth) than in the face of it, whereas other negative emotions were more intense following the news than during the waiting period. Thus, whether waiting is "the hardest part" depends on whether one prefers to be racked with anxiety or afflicted with other negative emotions such as anger, disappointment, depression, and regret.