Providing 0.1 Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Support to Fellowship Core Faculty Improves Faculty Involvement in Fellowship Education and Recruitment.

In 2022, the American Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recommended that core faculty (CF) in medical subspecialty fellowships receive at least 0.1 full-time equivalent (FTE) salary support, with plans to enforce compliance in July 2023. After early feedback raised concerns about potential unintended consequences, ACGME deferred enforcement to July 2024. Hence, there is an urgent need to understand the ramifications of providing FTE support for CF. In 2020, the Yale hematology and medical oncology (HO) fellowship program began providing 0.1 FTE support to all CF. Perceptions regarding this were assessed via surveys distributed to all CF in 2021 and 2022 and to all HO fellows in 2021. The vast majority (83.3%) of CF survey respondents reported improved job satisfaction and an increased sense of involvement in the fellowship program as a result of the new 0.1 FTE-supported CF program. Most CF increased attendance at fellowship conferences, devoted more time to mentorship, and increased participation in recruitment. In free text comments, CF respondents described that providing 0.1 FTE support made them "feel rewarded," gave them "a sense of commitment" to the fellowship, and helped "offset clinical requirements." HO fellows reported "a positive impact" of the new program with faculty being "more present at lectures." The median number of times faculty were available to interview fellowship applicants rose markedly after introduction of the program. The FTE-supported CF program was viewed enthusiastically by fellows and faculty, resulting in increased CF involvement in fellowship education and recruitment.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling of tremelimumab in patients with advanced solid tumours and the impact of disease status on time-varying clearance.

AIMS: Tremelimumab, a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 human monoclonal antibody of the immunoglobulin G2 κ isotype, has been studied in oncology clinical trials as both monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. This study characterized the pharmacokinetics of tremelimumab as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab and evaluated the impact of patient covariates on pharmacokinetics. METHODS: A pooled-analysis population pharmacokinetics model was built using NONMEM methodology. Pharmacokinetic data from 5 studies spanning different tumour types and therapy regimens were pooled for model development (956 patients). A dataset pooled from 4 additional studies was used for external validation (554 patients). Demographic and relevant clinical covariates were explored during model development. RESULTS: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics, well described by a 2-compartment model, with time-varying clearance (0.276 L/day at baseline) associated primarily with therapy regimen and linked with changes in disease status. As monotherapy and combination therapy, tremelimumab clearance over 1 year increased by ~16% and decreased by ~17%, respectively. Pharmacokinetic behaviour was consistent across patient demographics and cancer subtypes. Patients with higher bodyweight and lower albumin levels at baseline had significantly higher clearance; however, no dosage adjustments are warranted. A flat dose (75 mg) was projected to provide comparable exposure to weight-based dosing (1 mg/kg) in adults. CONCLUSION: Tremelimumab exhibited linear pharmacokinetics but consistently opposite trends of time-varying clearance as monotherapy and in combination with durvalumab. Baseline bodyweight and albumin were significant covariates, but conversion from weight-based dosing at 1 mg/kg to flat dosing at 75 mg had no clinically relevant impact.

Comparative efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus immunotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, in the absence of head-to-head trials, it is unclear whether chemoimmunotherapy provides an additional overall survival (OS) benefit compared with immunotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The authors conducted a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy versus ICI. METHODS: MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from inception to April 2020. Phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy of first-line ICI or chemoimmunotherapy and reporting efficacy outcomes (OS, progression-free survival [PFS], and the overall response rate [ORR]) stratified by programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) status were included. NMA with a Bayesian random effects model was performed. RESULTS: A total of 12 eligible trials comprising 7845 patients were included. In patients who were negative for PD-L1 (tumor proportion score [TPS] <1%), NMA comparing chemoimmunotherapy with dual-agent ICI failed to demonstrate a statistically significant difference with regard to OS, PFS, or the ORR. In patients with low PD-L1 (TPS 1%-49%), there was no statistically significant difference observed between chemoimmunotherapy compared with either single-agent ICI or dual-agent ICI with regard to OS or the ORR. In patients with high PD-L1 (TPS ≥50%), chemoimmunotherapy was found to be associated with an improved PFS and ORR compared with single-agent ICI, but not with dual-agent ICI. No differences in OS were observed with chemoimmunotherapy when compared with either single-agent or dual-agent ICIs. CONCLUSIONS: Although chemoimmunotherapy appears to improve the ORR and PFS in patients with PD-L1-high tumors when compared with single-agent ICI, it does not appear to confer an OS benefit over single-agent or dual-agent ICI for patients with advanced NSCLC regardless of PD-L1 status. Prospective trials are needed to validate these findings.

Incidence and characteristics of metastatic intracranial lesions in stage III and IV melanoma: a single institute retrospective analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The study aimed to describe the brain metastases (BM) incidence, at diagnosis and follow-up, in patients initially presenting with stage III or IV melanoma and characterize their metastatic brain lesions. We also sought to describe the association of common genetic mutations and immunotherapy with BM development in advanced melanoma. METHODS: Using our institution's tumor registry, we identified patients with initial diagnoses of stage III and stage IV melanoma. In this cohort, we obtained BM incidence at diagnosis and follow-up, characterized the metastatic brain lesions and primary tumor's genetic profile. RESULTS: During the follow-up period, 22.9% of patients with an initial diagnosis of stage III developed BM. In this cohort, the median time for BM occurrence was 20 months; [95% CI (14-29)]. Likewise, 37.7% of patients with Stage IV melanoma presented with BM at the time of diagnosis, and 22.7% of remaining patients developed BM at follow-up over a median duration of 6 months [95% CI (4-11)]. Therefore, suggesting an overall incidence of 51.9% in stage IV melanoma. Next, we observed that the incidence of BM development during the follow-up period significantly decreased from 2012 to 2017 (p < 0.001). Lastly, we found a significantly higher frequency of mutational BRAF in the primary tumor of patients with BM (68.7% vs. 31.2%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: While the overall incidence of BM remains high, the decreasing incidence of BM over the follow-up period is promising. Similar BM incidence in patients with an initial diagnosis of stage III or stage IV warrants appropriate imaging surveillance regimen for stage III patients.

Pembrolizumab for management of patients with NSCLC and brain metastases: long-term results and biomarker analysis from a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: We did a phase 2 trial of pembrolizumab in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) or melanoma with untreated brain metastases to determine the activity of PD-1 blockade in the CNS. Interim results were previously published, and we now report an updated analysis of the full NSCLC cohort. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 2 study of patients from the Yale Cancer Center (CT, USA). Eligible patients were at least 18 years of age with stage IV NSCLC with at least one brain metastasis 5-20 mm in size, not previously treated or progressing after previous radiotherapy, no neurological symptoms or corticosteroid requirement, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than two. Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria was used to evaluate CNS disease; systemic disease was not required for participation. Patients were treated with pembrolizumab 10 mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks. Patients were in two cohorts: cohort 1 was for those with PD-L1 expression of at least 1% and cohort 2 was patients with PD-L1 less than 1% or unevaluable. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving a brain metastasis response (partial response or complete response, according to mRECIST). All treated patients were analysed for response and safety endpoints. This study is closed to accrual and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02085070. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and May 21, 2018, 42 patients were treated. Median follow-up was 8·3 months (IQR 4·5-26·2). 11 (29·7% [95% CI 15·9-47·0]) of 37 patients in cohort 1 had a brain metastasis response. There were no responses in cohort 2. Grade 3-4 adverse events related to treatment included two patients with pneumonitis, and one each with constitutional symptoms, colitis, adrenal insufficiency, hyperglycaemia, and hypokalaemia. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in six (14%) of 42 patients and were pneumonitis (n=2), acute kidney injury, colitis, hypokalaemia, and adrenal insufficiency (n=1 each). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab has activity in brain metastases from NSCLC with PD-L1 expression at least 1% and is safe in selected patients with untreated brain metastases. Further investigation of immunotherapy in patients with CNS disease from NSCLC is warranted. FUNDING: Merck and the Yale Cancer Center.

Survival Rates after Thermal Ablation versus Stereotactic Radiation Therapy for Stage 1 Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A National Cancer Database Study.

Purpose To compare survival rates of thermal ablation and stereotactic radiation therapy (SRT) for stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, patients with stage 1 NSCLC treated by thermal ablation (TA) or SRT were identified in the 2004-2013 National Cancer Database. Patients who underwent TA and SRT were one-to-one propensity matched to undergo thermal ablation. Outcomes were overall survival and unplanned hospital readmission within 30 days after treatment. Results This study included 28 834 patients (TA, 1102 patients; SRT, 27 732 patients). Patients treated with TA had more comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index of 1 vs ≥2, 32.8% [362 of 1102] vs 19.7% [217 of 1102], respectively) compared with SRT (Charlson comorbidity index of 1 vs ≥2, 26.9% [7448 of 27 732] vs 15.3% [4251 of 27 732], respectively; P , .001) and smaller tumor size (mean tumor size, TA vs SRT: 19 mm vs 22 mm, respectively; P , .001). In the propensity score-matched cohort with balanced distribution of potential confounders, there was no significant difference in overall survival between TA and SRT at a mean follow-up of 52.4 months (survival difference, P = .69). Overall survival rates were comparable between TA and SRT (1 year, 85.4% vs 86.3%, respectively, P = .76; 2 years, 65.2% vs 64.5%, respectively, P = .43; 3 years, 47.8% vs 45.9%, respectively, P = .32; 5 years, 24.6% vs 26.1%, respectively, P = .81). Unplanned hospital readmission rates were higher for patients who underwent TA versus those who underwent SRT (3.7% [40 of 1070] vs 0.2% [two of 1070], respectively; P , .001). Conclusion Regarding overall survival, thermal ablation was noninferior to stereotactic radiation therapy for primary treatment of stage 1 non-small cell lung cancer. © RSNA, 2018 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Shyn in this issue.

Bullous disorders associated with anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 therapy: A retrospective analysis evaluating the clinical and histopathologic features, frequency, and impact on cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Bullous disorders associated with anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)/programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) therapy are increasingly reported and may pose distinct therapeutic challenges. Their frequency and impact on cancer therapy are not well established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and histopathologic findings, frequency, and impact on cancer therapy of bullous eruptions due to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients evaluated by the oncodermatology clinic and consultative service of Yale New Haven Hospital from 2016 to 2018. RESULTS: We identified 9 of 853 patients who developed bullous eruptions (∼1%) that were treated with an-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy at our institution during the study period: 7 presented with bullous pemphigoid, 1 presented with bullous lichenoid dermatitis, and 1 presented with linear IgA bullous dermatosis in the context of vancomycin therapy. In all, 8 patients required systemic steroids, 5 required maintenance therapy, and 8 required interruption of immunotherapy. All 9 patients had an initial positive tumor response or stable disease, but 4 went on to develop disease progression. LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective study from a single tertiary care center. CONCLUSIONS: Bullous disorders developed in approximately 1% of patients treated with anti-PD-1/PD-L1 therapy at our institution and frequently resulted in interruption of immune therapy and management with systemic corticosteroids and occasionally steroid-sparing agents.

Comparing available criteria for measuring brain metastasis response to immunotherapy.

The response assessment in neuro-oncology (RANO) working group recently proposed standardized response criteria for brain metastases (RANO-BM). We sought to compare RANO-BM to other criteria in an ongoing brain metastasis trial. The first 36 patients enrolled on NCT02085070, an ongoing trial of pembrolizumab for patients with untreated brain metastases, were included in this analysis. As RANO-BM had not been proposed when the protocol was written, response on trial was assessed using an institutional modification of RECIST 1.1 (mRECIST), wherein minimum target brain lesion size was 5 mm in longest diameter and up to five target brain lesions were followed. We here additionally assessed response using standard RECIST 1.1, RANO high-grade glioma (RANO-HGG), and RANO-BM. Comparison between the four criteria sets using cases eligible across the board revealed excellent concordance (kappa statistic > 0.8), with only one discordant case. However, compared to RECIST 1.1 or RANO-BM, using a 5 mm threshold for target brain lesions in mRECIST allowed enrollment of 13 additional patients, five of whom had durable responses. Compared to RANO-HGG, 19 additional patients were enrolled using mRECIST, eight of whom had durable responses. Consequently, this resulted in response rates ranging from 12% with RANO-HGG to 28% with mRECIST. This study supports using a 5 mm threshold for target brain lesions when using high resolution MRI with ≤2 mm slices to facilitate accrual to similar clinical trials and provide earlier access to novel therapies for brain metastasis patients. Concordance among the four criteria studied was otherwise very high.

Safety and antitumour activity of durvalumab plus tremelimumab in non-small cell lung cancer: a multicentre, phase 1b study.

BACKGROUND: PD-L1 and CTLA-4 immune checkpoints inhibit antitumour T-cell activity. Combination treatment with the anti-PD-L1 antibody durvalumab and the anti-CTLA-4 antibody tremelimumab might provide greater antitumour activity than either drug alone. We aimed to assess durvalumab plus tremelimumab in patients with advanced squamous or non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: We did a multicentre, non-randomised, open-label, phase 1b study at five cancer centres in the USA. We enrolled immunotherapy-naive patients aged 18 years or older with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC. We gave patients durvalumab in doses of 3 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 15 mg/kg, or 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks, or 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks, and tremelimumab in doses of 1 mg/kg, 3 mg/kg, or 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks for six doses then every 12 weeks for three doses. The primary endpoint of the dose-escalation phase was safety. Safety analyses were based on the as-treated population. The dose-expansion phase of the study is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02000947. FINDINGS: Between Oct 28, 2013, and April 1, 2015, 102 patients were enrolled into the dose-escalation phase and received treatment. At the time of this analysis (June 1, 2015), median follow-up was 18·8 weeks (IQR 11-33). The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded in the cohort receiving durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 3 mg/kg, with two (30%) of six patients having a dose-limiting toxicity (one grade 3 increased aspartate aminotransferase and alanine aminotransferase and one grade 4 increased lipase). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 and 4 adverse events were diarrhoea (11 [11%]), colitis (nine [9%]), and increased lipase (eight [8%]). Discontinuations attributable to treatment-related adverse events occurred in 29 (28%) of 102 patients. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 37 (36%) of 102 patients. 22 patients died during the study, and three deaths were related to treatment. The treatment-related deaths were due to complications arising from myasthenia gravis (durvalumab 10 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg), pericardial effusion (durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg), and neuromuscular disorder (durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 3 mg/kg). Evidence of clinical activity was noted both in patients with PD-L1-positive tumours and in those with PD-L1-negative tumours. Investigator-reported confirmed objective responses were achieved by six (23%, 95% CI 9-44) of 26 patients in the combined tremelimumab 1 mg/kg cohort, comprising two (22%, 95% CI 3-60) of nine patients with PD-L1-positive tumours and four (29%, 95% CI 8-58) of 14 patients with PD-L1-negative tumours, including those with no PD-L1 staining (four [40%, 95% CI 12-74] of ten patients). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab 20 mg/kg every 4 weeks plus tremelimumab 1 mg/kg showed a manageable tolerability profile, with antitumour activity irrespective of PD-L1 status, and was selected as the dose for phase 3 studies, which are ongoing. FUNDING: MedImmune.

Pembrolizumab for patients with melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer and untreated brain metastases: early analysis of a non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy targeting the PD-1 axis has activity in several tumour types. We aimed to establish the activity and safety of the PD-1 inhibitor pembrolizumab in patients with untreated brain metastases from melanoma or non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: In this non-randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with melanoma or NSCLC with untreated brain metastases from the Yale Cancer Center. Patients had at least one untreated or progressive brain metastasis between 5 and 20 mm in diameter without associated neurological symptoms or the need for corticosteroids. Patients with NSCLC had tumour tissue positive for PD-L1 expression; this was not required for patients with melanoma. Patients were given 10 mg/kg pembrolizumab every 2 weeks until progression. The primary endpoint was brain metastasis response assessed in all treated patients. The trial is ongoing and here we present an early analysis. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02085070. FINDINGS: Between March 31, 2014, and May 31, 2015, we screened 52 patients with untreated or progressive brain metastases (18 with melanoma, 34 with NSCLC), and enrolled 36 (18 with melanoma, 18 with NSCLC). A brain metastasis response was achieved in four (22%; 95% CI 7-48) of 18 patients with melanoma and six (33%; 14-59) of 18 patients with NSCLC. Responses were durable, with all but one patient with NSCLC who responded showing an ongoing response at the time of data analysis on June 30, 2015. Treatment-related serious and grade 3-4 adverse events were grade 3 elevated aminotransferases (n=1 [6%]) in the melanoma cohort, and grade 3 colitis (n=1 [6%]), grade 3 pneumonitis (n=1 [6%]), grade 3 fatigue (n=1 [6%]), grade 4 hyperkalemia (n=1 [6%]), and grade 2 acute kidney injury (n=1 [6%]) in the NSCLC cohort. Clinically significant neurological adverse events included transient grade 3 cognitive dysfunction and grade 1-2 seizures (n=3 [17%]) in the melanoma cohort. INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab shows activity in brain metastases in patients with melanoma or NSCLC with an acceptable safety profile, which suggests that there might be a role for systemic immunotherapy in patients with untreated or progressive brain metastases. FUNDING: Merck and the Yale Cancer Center.

Patient preferences regarding incidental genomic findings discovered during tumor profiling.

BACKGROUND: During the process of tumor profiling, there is the potential to detect germline variants. To the authors' knowledge, there currently is no accepted standard of care for how to deal with these incidental findings. The goal of the current study was to assess disclosure preferences among patients with cancer regarding incidental genomic variants that may be discovered during tumor profiling. METHODS: A 45-item questionnaire was administered to 413 patients in ambulatory oncology clinics. The survey captured demographic and disease variables and personal and family history, and presented case scenarios for different types of incidental germline variants that could theoretically be detected during genomic analysis of a patient's tumor. RESULTS: The possibility of discovering non-cancer-related, germline variants did not deter patients from tumor profiling: 77% wanted to be informed concerning variants that could increase their risk of a serious but preventable illness, 56% wanted to know about variants that cause a serious but unpreventable illness, and 49% wanted to know about variants of uncertain significance. The majority of patients (75%) indicated they would share hereditary information regarding predisposition to preventable diseases with family and 62% would share information concerning unpreventable diseases. The most frequent concerns about incidental findings were ability to obtain health (48%) or life (41%) insurance. Only 21% of patients were concerned about privacy of information. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cancer appear to prefer to receive information regarding incidental germline variants, but there is substantial variability with regard to what information patients wish to learn. The authors recommend that personal preferences for the disclosure of different types of incidental findings be clarified before a tumor profiling test is ordered. Cancer 2016;122:1588-97. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Navigating the Complexities of Brain Metastases Management.

The management of brain metastases, a potentially devastating complication of advanced cancers, has become increasingly complex with advancements in local and systemic therapies. Improved outcomes and extended survival for patients with metastatic solid tumors have led to a surge in the prevalence and possibly incidence of brain metastases, affecting up to 40% of individuals with solid tumors. Enhanced imaging technologies contribute to more accurate and early detection, shaping the understanding of the intricate landscape of this condition. Traditionally, surgery and radiation stood as the mainstays of treatment because of the limited efficacy of systemic therapies within the brain. However, emerging clinical data, particularly in melanoma, lung, and breast cancers, reveal promising results with novel systemic treatments such as immunotherapy and targeted therapies. Despite the historical exclusion of patients with active brain metastases from clinical trials, a shift is occurring toward a more inclusive approach. This chapter delves into the multifaceted challenges associated with managing brain metastases, with a focus on the evolving landscape of systemic approaches as well as the intricacies of shared decision making, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state and future directions in navigating the complexities of brain metastases management.