scholarly journals 488 The impact of education on novel concepts in metastatic melanoma: triplet therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A524-A524
Author(s):  
Kinjal Parikh ◽  
Sara Fagerlie ◽  
Patrick Kugel ◽  
Richard Caracio ◽  
Ryan Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Panel Discussion ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Advanced Melanoma ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Educational Activity ◽  
List Type ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Post Assessment

BackgroundAdvanced melanoma treatment selection is guided by BRAF-mutation status and patient and disease-specific factors. Historically, oncologists decided between targeted therapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, given the differences in onset of activity, response durability, and adverse events combination BRAF/MEK inhibitors and ICI (triplet therapy) are being evaluated to optimize outcomes. With several trials due to report, oncologists need education to stay up-to-date on the available data and contextualize this potential treatment option.MethodsAn online continuing education (CME) activity consisting of a multi-media 30-minute video panel discussion explored the rationale, available clinical trial data, and future directions of triplet therapy for the treatment of advanced BRAF-mutated melanoma. Educational effect was assessed using a repeated pairs pre-assessment/post-assessment study design and compared the pre- and post-assessment responses. A chi-square test was used to identify differences between pre- and post-assessment responses. Effect size was calculated using Cramer’s V test by determining the strength of the association between the activity and the outcomes (V = 0.16–0.26 is considerable and V > 0.26 is extensive). P values were calculated and those < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data from oncologist participants were collected between 12/23/2019 through 2/26/20.ResultsParticipation in education resulted in statistically significant improvements and noticeable educational effect for oncologists (n=49; p < 0.05, V =0.136). • 39% of pre-assessment questions were correctly answered increasing to 52% post-assessment • 15% of oncologists had a measurable improvement in confidence regarding the rationale for use of triplet therapy in advanced melanoma• Significant improvement in knowledge regarding clinical trial data in triplet therapy was observed (35% vs. 55%; p < 0.05, V = 0.205)ConclusionsThis online, interactive, expert-led, CME-certified educational activity resulted in significant gains in oncologist knowledge and confidence regarding triplet therapy in the management of melanoma. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of on-demand education but also highlight an ongoing need for education on this topic as further data becomes available.AcknowledgementsThis educational initiative was supported through educational grants from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and GenentechReferenceSullivan RJ, Salama AKS. Managing Melanoma: Emerging Concepts of Triplet Therapy. https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/923003

The impact of immunotherapy education on GI cancers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 479-479
Author(s):  
Kinjal Parikh ◽  
Katie Lucero ◽  
Charlotte Warren ◽  
Emily Sherene Van Laar ◽  
Patrick Kugel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Educational Activities ◽  
Cancer Subtypes ◽  
Gi Cancers ◽  
The Impact

479 Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancers are a heterogeneous group of cancers with varying underlying pathophysiology and distinct treatment paradigms. Immunotherapy (IO) is unique in each of the subtypes and biomarkers utility varies. With the expansion of IO in each cancer subtypes, education remains essential to optimize patient outcomes through integration of the latest evidence-based data at point of care. Through the partnership between Medscape Oncology and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer, 2 educational activities were designed to increase the knowledge and competence of oncologists surrounding the role of IO in patients with advanced GI cancers. Methods: The 2 educational activities included a text based online activity with 3 chapters focused on gastroesophageal cancers, colorectal cancers, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and a 30-minute online, video discussion with 3 faculty and synchronized slides on HCC. Educational effectiveness was assessed with repeated paired pre/post assessment where learners served as their own controls. A chi-square test was used to identify statistical significance in proportion of correct responses. The first activity launched 11/27/2019 and the second activity launched on 5/8/20. Data were collected and reported through 8/25/2020. Results: A total of 8433 learners, including 1543 oncologists, participated from 11/2019 through 8/2020. Participation in education resulted in significant relative improvements among oncologist learners on IO in GI cancers in (n = 641): 110%: role or eligibility of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) (p < .001) 38%: clinical trial data of ICIs (p < .001) Subsequent education on unresectable HCC demonstrated a significant relative improvement in both knowledge and competence for oncologist learners (n = 902): 19%: regarding clinical trial data in unresectable HCC (p = .073) 19%; competence identifying role of ICIs in unresectable HCC (p < .05) 59%: competence managing irAEs in unresectable HCC (p < .001). Conclusions: These 2 online CME-certified educational activities resulted in statistically significant gains in oncologist knowledge surrounding the use of IO in advanced GI cancers Follow-up education on HCC demonstrated the value and benefit of multi-modal and sequential activities on improving competence among oncologists caring for patients with unresectable HCC There remains a need for continuous education as more oncologists utilize IO in their practice while the understanding and availability of clinical data continues to expand and evolve in the varying GI cancer subtypes. More than 50% of learners continued to demonstrate a need in understanding the clinical trial data or role of IO in metastatic GI cancers with more than 40% of the learners demonstrating continued need on clinical trial data or role of IO in HCC specifically.

scholarly journals Setting the IMPACT (IMProve Access to Clinical Trial data) Observatory baseline

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo ◽  
Josip Šimić ◽  
Karmela Krleža-Jerić
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Improve Access

scholarly journals The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samantha Cruz Rivera ◽  
Derek G. Kyte ◽  
Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi ◽  
Anita L. Slade ◽  
Christel McMullan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Real World ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Research Impact ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies. Methods Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial. Results Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals. Conclusions PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste. Trial registration Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

Response to checkpoint inhibitors (CPI) in sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma (sRCC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17095-e17095
Author(s):  
Iris Yeong- Fung Sheng ◽  
Wei Wei ◽  
Kunal Desai ◽  
Kimberly D. Allman ◽  
Allison Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Real World ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Cleveland Clinic ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
World Population ◽  
Related Factors

e17095 Background: sRCC have a generally poor prognosis though recent clinical trial data suggest improved outcomes with CPI. We present a real-world experience of metastatic sRCC patients (pts) treated with a variety of CPI. Methods: Pts with sRCC treated with CPI Cleveland Clinic from 1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019 were identified. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using Kaplan-Meier and compared by log rank test. Results: Of 28 eligible pts identified with sRCC, median age 58, 82% Caucasian, all KPS score > 80%, 86% had IMDC intermediate/poor risk disease, 75% were clear cell, and 71% had prior nephrectomy. 46.4% had prior non-CPI systemic therapy. CPI therapy in this cohort included: 46% nivolumab monotherapy, 18% axitinib/pembrolizumab, 21% ipilimumab/nivolumab, 4% atezolizumab/bevacizumab, 7% atezolizumab, 4% carboplatin/pemetrexed/pembrolizumab. At a median follow up of 13.6 months (range 6.5-31.4), ORR was 36% (4% CR, 32% PR) and median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.23-NA). Median time to response was 3.2 months (range 2.4-13.1) and median duration of response was 8.1 months (range 0-25.5). Ten of the 13 patients started subsequent therapy due to progression. At the time of analysis, 39% were still alive and 25% of patients were still on initial I/O therapy (7+ -30+ months). There were no clear correlations between specific disease-related factors (including IMDC risk, time-to treatment of > or < 1 year, or prior systemic therapy) and response (all were p > 0.05). Conclusions: ORR and CR rates were lower in this real-world population of metastatic sRCC pts compared to clinical trial data, which should be a result of various CPI treatments and lines of treatment. However, these data highlight the heterogeneity of sRCC in general and need for additional investigations into impact of percentage of sarcomatoid features, genomic analyses, line of therapy, and CPI choice to optimize outcomes in sRCC pts.

scholarly journals THU0585 ONLINE EDUCATION YIELDS SIGNIFICANT GAINS IN RHEUMATOLOGISTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THE JAK INHIBITORS MODE OF ACTION AND CLINICAL TRIAL DATA

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 534.2-534
Author(s):  
A. Stan ◽  
M. Calle ◽  
C. Scot-Smith ◽  
R. Van Vollenhoven
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Online Education ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Trial Data ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Jak Inhibitors ◽  
Research Support ◽  
Educational Grant ◽  
Trial Outcomes ◽  
Post Assessment

Background:Physicians face challenges staying up-to-date with the latest research and accessing the ever-growing field of knowledge is time-consuming. Online education can make these clinician’s tasks more efficient and less time-consuming.Objectives:This study assessed whether the online CME accredited round-table-discussion with title “Meet the JAKs: Understanding the Role of Janus Kinase Inhibition in RA” improves physicians’ understanding mechanism of action (MOA) of current and emerging Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors and rationale for their development in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods:Rheumatologists participated in an online CME activity (https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/913625) consisting of a 30-minute video discussion between 2 experts with accompanying slides. Educational effect was assessed using a 4-question repeated pairs, pre-/post-assessment. A chi-square test was used to determine if a statistically significant improvement (P<.05 significance level) existed in the number of correct responses from the pretest and posttest scores. Cramer’s V was used to estimate the level of impact of the education. The CME activity launched on June 4, 2019, and the data were collected through September 3, 2019.Results:A total of 107 rheumatologists completed the pre- and post activity assessments. Overall the activity had a signficiant impact (P<.001) on rheumatologists’ knowledge of JAK inhibitors and relatedclinical trial data with a Cramer’s V value of 0.319 indicating an extensive educational impact. The average percentage of correct responses rose from 47% pre-activity to 78% post-activity. The repeated pairs analysis (each individual learner tracked pre- and post-education) showed that 34% of learners improved their knowledge and 44% reinforced their knowledge. The change in percentage of correct responses from pre- to post-assessment achieved statistical significance for all 3 questions presented: (1) understanding the MOA of JAK inhibitors vs biologics (64% at baseline rising to 82% post acivity;P<0.01), (2) understanding the specificity of different JAK inhibitors (49% at baseline rising to 85% post acivity;P<.001), (3) knowledge of clinical trial outcomes with JAK inhibitors (29% at baseline rising to 67% post acivity;P<.001) and (4) 60% of rheumatologists gained confidence in their ability to describe the MOA of current and emerging JAK inhibitors.Conclusion:This online CME activity significantly improved rheumatologists’ understanding of JAK inhibitors mode of action. However, there is clearly room for further improving physicians’ knowledge of clinical trial outcomes with these agents, since one third of rheumatologists provided incorrect answers to question 3 post-activity) and this topic can be further addressed in future education.Acknowledgments:This CME-certified activity was supported by anindependent educational grant from AbbVie.Disclosure of Interests:Adriana Stan Grant/research support from: The CME-certified activity was supported by anindependent educational grant from Sandoz., Marinella Calle Grant/research support from: This CME-certified activity was supported by anindependent educational grant from Novartis AG, Camille Scot-Smith Grant/research support from: This CME-certified activity was supported by anindependent educational grant from AbbVie, Ronald van Vollenhoven Grant/research support from: BMS, GSK, Lilly, UCB, Pfizer, Roche, Consultant of: AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Biotest, Celgene, Gilead, Janssen, Pfizer, Servier, UCB, Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Pfizer, UCB

489 The impact of education on novel concepts in adjuvant melanoma: a closer look at high risk stage II disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (Suppl 3) ◽  
pp. A525-A525
Author(s):  
Kinjal Parikh ◽  
Charlotte Warren ◽  
Emily Van Laar ◽  
Jason Luke
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Therapy ◽  
Adjuvant Treatment ◽  
Stage Ii ◽  
Educational Activity ◽  
List Type ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Multi Media ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Post Assessment

BackgroundAdjuvant therapy for patients with melanoma is currently recommended for patients with stage III disease with either immune checkpint inhibitors or combination dabrafenib/trametinib based on BRAF-status. Adjuvant treatment demonstrates improvement in recurence-free survival and overall survival. However, risk models suggesting that patients with stage IIB/IIC disease may have a higher risk of recurrence than patients with stage IIIA disease have prompted exploration into the use of adjuvant therapy in this patient subgroup as well. With several ongoing trials due to report, oncologists need education to stay up-to-date on the available data and contextualize this potential treatment option to implement therapy at the earliest point of clinical benefit to patients while also collaborating with surgical teams for optimal care planning.MethodsAn online continuing education (CME) activity consisted of a multi-media 30-minute video panel of a medical oncologist and surgical oncologist discussing the rationale, available clinical trial data, and future directions of adjuvant therapy for the treatment of patients with stage II melanoma. Educational effect was assessed using a repeated paired pre-assessment/post-assessment study design and compared the pre- and post-assessment responses. A chi-square test was used to identify differences between pre- and post-assessment responses. Effect size was calculated using Cramer’s V test by determining the strength of the association between the activity and the outcomes (V = 0.16–0.26 is considerable and V > 0.26 is extensive). P values were calculated and those < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Data from 65 oncologists and 138 surgeons are represented here through 8/12/2020.ResultsParticipation in education resulted noticeable educational effects for both oncologists (p < 0.01, V=0.143) and surgeons (p = 0.001, V=0.114): Statistically significant improvements in knowledge and competence were also seen regarding: -Knowledge regarding the rationale for adjuvant therapy in stage II diseaseo Oncologists: 46% pre; 69% post, p < 0.01o Surgeons: 24% pre; 36% post, p < 0.05 -Competence utilizing patient and tumor characteristics to identify potential candidates for adjuvant therapy in stage II diseaseo Oncologists: 52% pre; 77% post, p < 0.01o Surgeons: 29% pre; 43% post, p < 0.05-Increase in confidence was also observed for coordinating with the multidisciplinary team to augment surgical care with potential systemic adjuvant treatment for eligible patientso 22% improvement for oncologists o 19% improvement for surgeonsConclusionsThis online, interactive, multi-media, expert-led, CME-certified educational activity resulted in significant gains in oncologist and surgeon knowledge and competence with improvements in confidence regarding the role of adjuvant therapy in the management of high risk stage II melanoma and recommending clinical trials for eligible patients. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of education, especially in online and on-demand formats and those requiring cross-discipline collaboration, and also highlights an ongoing need to further educate on this topic.AcknowledgementsThis educational initiative was supported through independent educational grants from Bristol Myers Squibb.ReferenceLuke J, Yoon C. Adjuvant Melanoma Treatment: Can We Improve Outcomes for More Patients: https://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/932047.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document