A patient reported outcomes of treatments for desmoid tumors: An international natural history study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11560-11560
Author(s):  
Danielle Braggio ◽  
Amanda Lucas ◽  
Lynne Hernandez ◽  
Kelly Mercier
Keyword(s):  
Natural History ◽  
Active Surveillance ◽  
Desmoid Tumor ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Desmoid Tumors ◽  
Targeted Agents ◽  
Natural History Study ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Patient Reported

11560 Background: The Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation (DTRF) launched the natural history study (NHS) in 2017. At this time, there are no standard-of-care options for this rare sarcoma. The treatments, clinical descriptors, and the patient reported outcomes to pharmacologic agents are described here within. Methods: The web-based natural history study launched September 2017 in collaboration with the National Organization of Rare Disorders. It contains 15 surveys covering diagnostics, disease, treatment, care management, and quality of life. Treatment types included in the DTRF NHS were pharmacology, surgery, radiation, high-intensity focused ultrasound (HiFU), and active surveillance (watch and wait). Results: While surgery was once the primary intervention for desmoid tumor patients, the NHS participants reported that 47.6% had received active surveillance or no systemic treatment at diagnosis. This is most common for desmoid tumors located in abdominal wall (54/103; 52.4%). There were 87 reported cases of complete surgical resection, 38 incomplete resections, and 23 bowel resections. 9 amputations were reported; 8 participants reported recurrent disease following the removal of the limb. The non-surgical interventions, such as radiation and HiFU, were mostly described for participants with chest wall tumors (15 pts) and joints/extremities (10 pts). Many options for systemic therapies were described including sorafenib (44/284; 15.5%), sulindac (36/284; 12.7%), and anti-hormonal agents tamoxifen and toremifene (34/285; 10.9%) were described. Targeted agents, such as gamma secretase inhibitor, pazopanib, and sorafenib, were greater in the United States than the non-US country participants (21% vs 9%). Multiple lines of treatments were reported by 81 participants, surgery is greatest as the first intervention for all tumor locations (49/81, 60%), with the exception of those with head/neck tumors who received chemotherapy (6/11, 55%). Analysis has started to evaluate the efficacy of systemic treatments from these NHS data. The table describes the participant reported outcomes of anti-hormonal agents, chemotherapeutics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and targeted agents. Both chemotherapies and targeted agents were reported to have 38.1% response rates from the participants with 34.3% and 23.8% of participants reported progressive disease on therapy, respectively. Conclusions: Desmoid tumor NHS study participants reported the use of many treatment modalities demonstrating a range of frequency of use by tumor location and efficacy. Data collection through the DTRF NHS is ongoing.[Table: see text]

A retrospective collection of diagnostic data from the desmoid tumor research foundation natural history study.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e23549-e23549
Author(s):  
Amanda Lucas ◽  
Danielle Braggio ◽  
Lynne Hernandez ◽  
Kelly Mercier
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Chest Wall ◽  
Desmoid Tumor ◽  
The United States ◽  
Desmoid Tumors ◽  
Primary Method ◽  
Natural History Study ◽  
Diagnostic Data ◽  
Tumor Research

e23549 Background: Desmoid tumors are a benign sarcoma diagnosed in 4-5 patients per million each year. The Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation (DTRF) launched the patient registry and natural history study (NHS) in 2017. This is a retrospective analysis of diagnostic data collected, tumor location, rates of misdiagnosis, how genetics testing is being incorporated into clinical practice, and additional clinical trial participation. Methods: The NHS launched September 2017 and contains 15 surveys covering diagnostics, disease, treatment, care management, and quality of life. Current reporting as of December 31, 2020, contains 619 participants or legally authorized representatives for which a subset have completed the surveys on desmoid tumor diagnoses. Results: Survey analysis documents that the most prevalent tumor locations were intra-abdominal 35.5% (220), joint / extremities 21.2% (131), and chest wall 14.7% (91). The majority of participants, 68.2%, reported that they had unifocal tumors (199/292), 19.5% reported that they had multifocal desmoid tumors (57). Biopsy procedures were the primary method of diagnosis according to 57.2% (167/292) of the participants, with needle biopsy comprising 19.8% (33/167). Biopsy as the primary method of diagnosis was most prevalent in tumors of the head and neck (18/26, 69.2%), chest wall (32/47, 68.1%) joint /extremities (50/90, 55.6%), and abdominal tumors (27/51, 52.9%). Additionally, imaging methods (CT, MRI) were the primary method of diagnosis in 22.6% (66/292) and surgical resection 14.4% (42/292). Misdiagnosis is common for this tumor type, as 41.0% (119/290) participants reported an incorrect initial diagnosis. The reported incorrect diagnoses are described in the table. Genetic testing is not standard of care for desmoid tumors but is increasing in practice. A total of 78 participants (28%) of 282 participants report they had genetic testing (germline or somatic) of their tumor tissue. The majority of those participants, 65.4% (51/78), reported having Familial Adenomatous Polyposis (FAP). Of the participants that had genetic testing, 89.0% live in the United States. 10.5% of participants (37/353) have reported having participated in clinical trials. The majority of participants (317/368, 86.1%) are willing to participate in other studies in the future, with 77.4% (285/368) willing to donate specimens for biomarker studies. Conclusions: Participants with desmoid tumors report many methods of diagnosis for their diverse tumor locations, high rates of misdiagnosis, and increased rates of genetic mutation testing. Data collection through the DTRF NHS is ongoing.[Table: see text]

scholarly journals Clinical Activity of the γ-Secretase Inhibitor PF-03084014 in Adults With Desmoid Tumors (Aggressive Fibromatosis)

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (14) ◽  
pp. 1561-1569 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivaani Kummar ◽  
Geraldine O'Sullivan Coyne ◽  
Khanh T. Do ◽  
Baris Turkbey ◽  
Paul S. Meltzer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Partial Response ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Aggressive Fibromatosis ◽  
Study Patient ◽  
Desmoid Tumors ◽  
Secretase Inhibitor ◽  
Systemic Treatments ◽  
Long Term Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported

Purpose Desmoid tumors (aggressive fibromatosis) arise from connective tissue cells or fibroblasts. In general, they are slow growing and do not metastasize; however, locally aggressive desmoid tumors can cause severe morbidity and loss of function. Disease recurrence after surgery and/or radiation and diagnosis of multifocal desmoid tumors highlight the need to develop effective systemic treatments for this disease. In this study, we evaluate objective response rate after therapy with the γ-secretase inhibitor PF-03084014 in patients with recurrent, refractory, progressive desmoid tumors. Patients and Methods Seventeen patients with desmoid tumors received PF-03084014 150 mg orally twice a day in 3-week cycles. Response to treatment was evaluated at cycle 1 and every six cycles, that is, 18 weeks, by RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) version 1.1. Patient-reported outcomes were measured at baseline and at every restaging visit by using the MD Anderson Symptoms Inventory. Archival tumor and blood samples were genotyped for somatic and germline mutations in APC and CTNNB1. Results Of 17 patients accrued to the study, 15 had mutations in APC or CTNNB1 genes. Sixteen patients (94%) were evaluable for response; five (29%) experienced a confirmed partial response and have been on study for more than 2 years. Another five patients with prolonged stable disease as their best response remain on study. Patient-reported outcomes confirmed clinician reporting that the investigational agent was well tolerated and, in subgroup analyses, participants who demonstrated partial response also experienced clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvements in symptom burden. Conclusion PF-03084014 was well tolerated and demonstrated promising clinical benefit in patients with refractory, progressive desmoid tumors who receive long-term treatment.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes and Frailty Among Participants in the NHLBI MDS Natural History Study

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 15-16
Author(s):  
Gregory A. Abel ◽  
Donnie Hebert ◽  
Cecilia Lee ◽  
James M. Foran ◽  
Steven D. Gore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Board Of Directors ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Natural History Study ◽  
Diagnostic Categories ◽  
Patient Reported

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) such as quality of life (QOL) are variably affected in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), but the heterogeneous composition of disease states grouped together as "MDS" increases the difficulty of assessing and understanding these outcomes. Moreover, little is known about the potential relationship between QOL and frailty in this population. Methods: The NHLBI MDS Natural History Study (NCT02775383) is a prospective cohort enrolling patients undergoing diagnostic work up for suspected MDS or MDS/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) in the setting of cytopenias. Untreated participants undergo bone marrow assessment with centralized histopathology review at enrollment for assignment into subcategories for longitudinal follow-up: MDS, MDS/MPN, ICUS, AML (<30% blasts), and "At-Risk" (cases with sub-threshold dysplasia or select karyotypic or genetic mutations). PRO and frailty data are collected at enrollment and every six months thereafter. PRO instruments include MDS-specific (QUALMS) and general (FACT-G, PROMIS Fatigue Short Form 7a, EQ-5D-5L) instruments, and a measure of frailty (VES-13). While no frailty instrument alone has been shown to be a substitute for comprehensive geriatric assessment, VES-13 has been successfully used in cancer-related studies for basic screening, where a score of 3 or more is considered frail (vulnerable). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the overall comparisons of mean baseline scores between diagnostic categories. Pairwise comparisons of scores between diagnostic categories and vulnerability subgroups were performed via two-sample t-tests. Results : Of 835 participants assessed for eligibility, 369 (44%) were classified as MDS, MDS/MPN, AML, ICUS or At-Risk, and further evaluated. Mean age was 72 years (standard deviation (SD)=10.7) and 68% were male. Mean baseline scores on the PRO measures are compared between diagnostic categories in the Table; scores did not differ significantly across categories. In particular, no significant differences were found between MDS and the other diagnostic categories. ICUS had similar QOL scores to MDS and MDS/MPN (e.g., means (SD) on EQ-5D-5L of 74.1 (17.8) in ICUS and 70.8 (19.4) in MDS, p=0.348) but had significantly higher scores than those for AML on EQ-5D-5L (60.7 (28.4), p=0.031). For the 216 participants with diagnostically-confirmed MDS, QOL impairment was similar to that routinely seen in other cancers; for example, the mean total FACT-G was 81.8 (SD=15.9), similar to localized breast cancer (82.4, SD=16.2), localized colorectal cancer (79.6, SD=16.1), and lung cancer with no current evidence of disease (82.6, SD=15.5; comparison means from Pearlman, Cancer, 2014). For frail/vulnerable participants with MDS or MDS/MPN (N=87), the most common reasons for vulnerability were age ≥75 years (68%), overall rating of health as poor or fair (62%), and difficulty with prolonged physical activity (90%) such as walking a quarter mile (75%) or doing heavy housework (70%). A minority also were vulnerable due to requiring help with instrumental activities of daily living (iADLS) such as shopping (28%) or managing money (16%). Mean QOL scores were compared between vulnerability subgroups (Figure). Vulnerable participants pooled over all diagnostic categories had significantly worse PROs than non-vulnerable participants for all measures (p<0.001). In particular, vulnerable MDS participants scored significantly worse on the QUALMS (mean 64.4, SD=13.4) vs. non-vulnerable MDS participants (mean 72.7, SD=13.3), p<0.001. Conclusions: Participants in our cohort with histologically-confirmed MDS-even low-grade MDS-had similar impairments in PROs as those with other cancers. Among those with histologically-confirmed MDS, vulnerable participants had significantly worse QOL on many measures compared to non-vulnerable participants, suggesting that this domain of function be specifically assessed in clinic. Moreover, while a "gestalt" of frailty may be inferred by observing how patients present and move in the office, these data suggest that other contributing domains, such as difficulty with prolonged physical activity and iADLs, should be evaluated explicitly. Disclosures Foran: H3Biosciences: Research Funding; Aptose: Research Funding; Kura Oncology: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Servier: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Xencor: Research Funding; Agios: Honoraria, Research Funding; Boehringer Ingelheim: Research Funding; Actinium: Research Funding; Aprea: Research Funding; BMS: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Trillium: Research Funding; Revolution Medicine: Consultancy; Pfizer: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Research Funding. Gore:Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Padron:Incyte: Research Funding; Kura: Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria; BMS: Research Funding. Sekeres:BMS: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pfizer: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda/Millenium: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

scholarly journals The initiation, design, and establishment of the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Patient Registry and Natural History Study

Rare Tumors ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 203636131988097
Author(s):  
Kelly A Mercier ◽  
Darragh M Walsh
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Natural History ◽  
Desmoid Tumor ◽  
Disease Monitoring ◽  
Desmoid Tumors ◽  
Rare Disorders ◽  
Natural History Study ◽  
National Organization ◽  
Tumor Research

Desmoid tumors are locally invasive sarcoma, affecting 5–6 individuals out of 1,000,000 per year. The desmoid tumors have high rates of recurrence after resection and can lead to significant deterioration of the quality of life of patients. There is a need for a better understanding of the desmoid tumors’ patient experience from first symptoms through diagnosis, disease monitoring, and clinical treatment options. With the National Organization of Rare Disorders, the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Natural History Study was designed to be collected through the registry. This article describes the protocol for the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Natural History Study and some initial findings. The Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Natural History Study Advisory Committee developed a series of questionnaires and longitudinal surveys, in addition to those from the National Organization of Rare Disorders for all of the rare diseases. These 13 surveys are designed to uncover initial symptoms, diagnosis process, disease monitoring, quality of life, treatments, as well as socioeconomic information. Since launching the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Registry and Natural History Study ( https://dtrf.iamrare.org ), more than 300 desmoid tumor patients have consented to the Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Natural History Study and completed the Participant Profile. The majority of the respondents are between the ages of 21 and 50 years (76%), female (81.2%), White (91.5%), and live in the United States (47.1%). The majority of tumors are in the lower or upper extremity, (22.9%) followed closely by abdominal desmoid tumors (21.5%). Most are willing to donate specimens (89.9%) and participate in trials (97.2%). Ongoing efforts are addressing the demographic differences between the respondents and non-respondents and any selection bias based on access to the registry and study. The Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation Natural History Study is built on the largest desmoid tumors registry and has recruited more desmoid tumors participants since launching in September 2017. It will serve to fill desmoid tumors knowledge gaps and assist other researchers in their recruitment efforts for additional studies.

scholarly journals Identifying Foot and Ankle Patients at Risk to Fall Based on Patient Reported Outcomes Assessments

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 2473011418S0002
Author(s):  
Judith Baumhauer ◽  
Jack Teitel ◽  
Allison McIntyre ◽  
David Mitten ◽  
Jeff Houck
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Effect Size ◽  
Fall Risk ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
The United States ◽  
Foot And Ankle ◽  
Falls Risk ◽  
Orthopaedic Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patients At Risk

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: Each year approximately 30-40% of people over the age of 65 fall. Approximately one half of these falls result in an injury with the estimated annual direct medical costs of $30 billion. Pain, mobility issues, neuropathy and post-operative weight bearing limitations make foot and ankle patients particularly vulnerable to falls. Current approaches to determine at risk patients are cumbersome and time consuming requiring performance testing and “hands on” clinical assessment. The efficiency of obtaining PRO, such as PROMIS, in the clinical arena has been well documented. The purpose of this study is determine if patient reported outcomes (PROMIS) can identify orthopaedic and specifically foot and ankle patients at risk to fall. Methods: Prospective patient reported outcomes (PROMIS CAT physical function, pain interference and depression and CMS fall risk assessment questions) and patient demographics were collected for all patients at each clinic visit from an academic orthopaedic multi-specialty practice between January 2015 and November 2017. Standardized yes/no validated self-reported fall risk questions include: “Have you fallen in the last year?” and “Do you feel you are at risk of falling?” Histograms, t-tests, confidence intervals and effect size were used to determine the fall risk “YES” patients were different than the “NO” for ALL orthopaedic patients and specifically foot and ankle patients. Logistic Regression was used to determine if age, gender, height, weight, and PROMIS scales predicted self-reported falls risk. Results: 94,761 orthopaedic patients comprising 315,273 visits (44% male, mean age 53.7+/-17 years) and 13,720 foot/ankle patients comprising 33,480 visits (37% male, mean age 52.7+/-16.1 years) had complete data for analysis. Table 1 provides the means/SD/p-values/effect sizes for patient self-identifying at risk to fall stratified by PROMIS PF/ PI/Dep t-scores. Although all PROMIS scores demonstrated significant impairment between patients at risk designation (yes/no), PROMIS PF had the largest effect size for ALL Ortho and FOOT AND ANKLE patients (0.8 and 0.7 respectively). Patients who are at risk to fall have PROMIS PF t-scores >1.5 lower than the United States normative population while the patients not at risk are less <1 SD. In the adjusted regression models gender and PROMIS PF had the largest coefficients. Conclusion: Falls are a major threat to quality of life and independence yet prevention/treatment strategies are difficult to implement across a health system. There is also a tremendous societal cost with orthopaedic surgeons often the recipient of these debilitated patients. PROMIS assessments are part of the AOFAS OFAR initiative to track patient recovery with treatment and can additional be used to fulfill a quality indicator requirement by CMS. This study demonstrates these assessments (PROMIS threshold values) can also be linked to self-report falls risk (yes/no) and may identify patients at risk with no face to face time required from the provider.

The Development and Initial Findings of A Study of a Prospective Adult Research Cohort with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (SPARC IBD)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura E Raffals ◽  
Sumona Saha ◽  
Meenakshi Bewtra ◽  
Cecile Norris ◽  
Angela Dobes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Data Entry ◽  
The United States ◽  
Predictors Of Response ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Reported Data

Abstract Background Clinical and molecular subcategories of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are needed to discover mechanisms of disease and predictors of response and disease relapse. We aimed to develop a study of a prospective adult research cohort with IBD (SPARC IBD) including longitudinal clinical and patient-reported data and biosamples. Methods We established a cohort of adults with IBD from a geographically diverse sample of patients across the United States with standardized data and biosample collection methods and sample processing techniques. At enrollment and at time of lower endoscopy, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), clinical data, and endoscopy scoring indices are captured. Patient-reported outcomes are collected quarterly. The quality of clinical data entry after the first year of the study was assessed. Results Through January 2020, 3029 patients were enrolled in SPARC, of whom 66.1% have Crohn’s disease (CD), 32.2% have ulcerative colitis (UC), and 1.7% have IBD-unclassified. Among patients enrolled, 990 underwent colonoscopy. Remission rates were 63.9% in the CD group and 80.6% in the UC group. In the quality study of the cohort, there was 96% agreement on year of diagnosis and 97% agreement on IBD subtype. There was 91% overall agreement describing UC extent as left-sided vs extensive or pancolitis. The overall agreement for CD behavior was 83%. Conclusion The SPARC IBD is an ongoing large prospective cohort with longitudinal standardized collection of clinical data, biosamples, and PROs representing a unique resource aimed to drive discovery of clinical and molecular markers that will meet the needs of precision medicine in IBD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document