Use of Clinical Mental Health Counseling Student and Client Recording in Practicum: An Overview of CACREP Training Programs in the SACES Region

SACES CACREP accredited clinical mental health counseling practicum training handbooks were explored to discover the designated use of video recording and review during practicum. Results from an artifact review indicated a lack of standardization across programs. Implications for future research and clinical counseling programs practicum experiences are presented

Debulking Regimens Prior to Initiating Venetoclax Therapy in Untreated Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia: Interim Results from a Phase 3b Study

Background: Venetoclax (VEN), a B-cell lymphoma 2 inhibitor, is an oral agent with demonstrated efficacy in patients (pts) with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). VEN treatment induces rapid tumor reduction, posing a risk for tumor lysis syndrome (TLS), particularly in pts with high tumor burden, and may require inpatient monitoring at the initiation of therapy. Agents such as obinutuzumab (G), ibrutinib, and bendamustine (B) have been used in clinical studies to debulk tumors prior to treatment with VEN. However, the benefits of these debulking regimens could not be established conclusively, as disease restaging was rarely performed. In the present study, disease restaging was performed every 2 cycles to evaluate the efficacy and safety of G, with or without B, as a debulking therapy in untreated pts with CLL, prior to VEN treatment in an outpatient community setting. Methods: This open-label, phase 3b trial (NCT03406156) enrolled adult pts with previously untreated CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (excluding those with 17p deletion) who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of ≤1 and medium (any lymph node [LN] 5 to &amp;lt;10 cm or absolute lymphocyte count [ALC] ≥25 × 109/L) or high (any LN ≥10 cm or ALC ≥25 × 109/L and any LN ≥5 cm) tumor burden. Pts received at least 2 cycles of debulking therapy (G±B), which could be repeated for a maximum of six 28-day cycles until low tumor burden (ALC &amp;lt;25 × 109/L and all LN &amp;lt;5 cm) was achieved. B was administered at investigator discretion, with protocol recommendation for pts with LN &amp;gt;10 cm or with del(11q) and LN &amp;gt;5 cm. Restaging data were obtained after every 2 cycles of debulking therapy. When low tumor burden was achieved, VEN was administered (5-week ramp-up schedule) as combination therapy with G (VEN+G) for 5 months, and then as monotherapy (VEN mono) for a total of 1 year. Response assessments were scheduled at week 38 and week 65 post-VEN initiation. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored throughout the study. Primary endpoints were the reduction in tumor burden after debulking therapy and the complete remission (CR)/CR with incomplete marrow recovery (CRi) rates of pts subsequently treated with VEN. We report the results of a planned interim analysis when 50 pts had completed their week 38 disease assessment. Results: As of 3 Feb 2020, 117 pts were treated with study drug(s): 80 (68%) received G and 37 (32%) received G+B for debulking; 113 pts were active in study (7 in the debulking phase; 106 completed debulking therapy and initiated VEN, including 26 in posttreatment follow-up). Four pts discontinued study due to withdrawal by pt (n=2; 1 at debulking and 1 at VEN treatment phase) and physician decision (n=1; at VEN treatment phase) and other (n=1; at debulking). At baseline, 85% of pts had ALC ≥25 × 109/L, 9% had LN ≥10 cm, 23% had LN 5-10 cm; 74%/26% had medium/high TLS risk, respectively, per investigator assessment (1 pt with low TLS risk was enrolled and subsequently discontinued). After 2 cycles of debulking therapy, low tumor burden was achieved in 85% (89/105) of evaluable pts: 86% (63/73) with G and 81% (26/32) with G+B. Reductions by pt subgroups and genetic features are presented in Figure. For pts debulked with G, similar debulking efficacy was observed among the subgroups being explored (Figure). Of the 50 pts with a week 38 disease assessment, 17 pts had an initial response of partial remission and await confirmation per IWCLL criteria. Objective response rate was 96% (48/50) overall, with 95% (37/39) for those debulked with G and 100% (11/11) for those debulked with G+B. The rate of CR or CRi was 52% (26/50) overall, with 54% (21/39) achieving CR/CRi for those debulked with G and 45% (5/11) for those debulked with G+B (Figure). More grade ≥3 AEs were observed in pts receiving G+B than those receiving G: debulking, 62% vs 40%; VEN+G, 43% vs 34%; VEN mono, 41% vs 28%. Conclusions: Most pts (85%) achieved low tumor burden after 2 cycles of G±B. Similar debulking efficacy was observed across subgroups in pts debulked with G. In this early efficacy analysis, CR/CRi at week 38 was observed in 52% of pts treated with VEN after the debulking phase. Preliminary efficacy results from this study are consistent with other VEN studies in treatment-naive pts. Current study highlights the efficacy of the debulking strategy prior to treatment with VEN; this may allow more pts to have VEN ramp-up in outpatient setting. Figure Disclosures Flinn: Calithera Biosciences: Research Funding; Forma Therapeutics: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; Curio Science: Consultancy; Pfizer: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Trillium Therapeutics: Research Funding; Triphase Research &amp; Development Corp.: Research Funding; Constellation Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Johnson &amp; Johnson: Other; Teva: Research Funding; BeiGene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; Nurix Therapeutics: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy, Research Funding; Yingli Pharmaceuticals ≠: Consultancy, Research Funding; Rhizen Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; Vincera Pharma: Consultancy; Forty Seven: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Portola Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Takeda: Consultancy, Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Research Funding; Agios: Research Funding; ArQule: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Consultancy, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Research Funding; IGM Biosciences: Research Funding; Infinity Pharmaceuticals: Research Funding; Unum Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Iksuda Therapeutics: Consultancy; Great Point Partners: Consultancy; Loxo: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding. Andorsky:AstraZeneca: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; AbbVie: Honoraria. Melear:Janssen: Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Speakers Bureau. Manda:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials. Anz:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials. Kolibaba:Seattle Genetics: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Verastem: Honoraria; Cell Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Atara Biotech: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AbbVie: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Compass Oncology: Ended employment in the past 24 months; McKesson Life Sciences: Consultancy; Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Oncology: Consultancy, Other: travel, accommodations, expenses, . Yimer:Sanofi: Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy; Celgene, a Bristol-Myers Squibb Company: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Takeda: Speakers Bureau; Amgen: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; BeiGene: Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Texas Oncology: Current Employment; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau; Epizyme: Consultancy, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Divested equity in a private or publicly-traded company in the past 24 months, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Other: TRAVEL, ACCOMMODATIONS, EXPENSES (paid by any for-profit health care company), Speakers Bureau. Burke:Adaptive: Consultancy; Kura: Consultancy; Morphosys: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Bayer: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Roche: Consultancy; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy; Verastem: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Epizyme: Consultancy; Adaptive Biotechnologies: Consultancy. Fanning:TG Therapeautics: Consultancy; Abbvie: Consultancy; Prisma Health: Current Employment; Sanofi Aventis: Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Bristol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Courtright:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials.. Islas-Ohlmayer:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials.. Kambhampati:AbbVie: Other: Investigator in AbbVie-sponsored clinical trials.. Jiang:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or options. Pesko:AbbVie, Inc.: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or other options. Vizkelety:AbbVie: Current Employment, Other: may hold stock or stock options.. Sharmokh:AbbVie: Current Employment, Current equity holder in publicly-traded company. Sharman:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding; Genentech: Consultancy, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol Meyers Squibb: Consultancy, Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Acerta: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Consultancy, Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. </jats:sec

Efficacy and safety of pralsetinib in patients with advanced RET -fusion-positive NSCLC: Final data from the phase 1/2 ARROW study

8644 Background: RET fusions are targetable oncogenic drivers in 1-2% of non-small cell lung cancers (NSCLC). ARROW (NCT03037385) study results (final data lock May 20, 2024) supported the US FDA approval of pralsetinib, a highly potent, oral, selective RET inhibitor for metastatic RET -altered NSCLC. Here, we present final study results. Methods: ARROW was a phase 1/2 open-label study conducted at 84 sites in 13 countries. Phase 2 included patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC who received 400 mg pralsetinib once daily (QD). Initially, treatment-naïve patients were not candidates for platinum-based therapy and presented with several unfavorable prognostic factors; this requirement was removed by protocol amendment in July 2019. Primary objectives were overall response rate (ORR, per RECIST v1.1) and safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) are reported in the full efficacy population; the measurable disease population (MDP) was the primary analysis population for ORR and duration of response (DOR). Results: 281 patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC received pralsetinib 400 mg QD, with a median duration of treatment of 14.95 months (mos). Median age was 60 years; 46% were male. In the MDP (n=259), ORR was 70.3% (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 64.3, 75.8) and median DOR was 19.1 mos (95% CI: 14.5, 27.9; Table). In the efficacy population (N=281), median OS was 44.3 mos (95% CI: 30.9, 53.1) with median follow up of 47.6 mos (95% CI: 44.8, 49.2), and median PFS was 13.1 mos (95% CI: 11.4, 16.8). ORR (Table) and median PFS were markedly higher in the US (25.9 mos, n=64) vs. Asia (12.6 mos, n=122) or Europe (12.9 mos, n=95). In the safety population, 95% of patients experienced treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs); 66% experienced ≥grade 3. Common TRAEs included increased AST (n=128 [46%]), anemia (n=121 [43%]), increased ALT (n=98 [35%]), and hypertension (n=77 [27%]). 3 patients died due to TRAEs (pneumonia, n=2; interstitial lung disease and rhabdomyolysis, n=1 each). No new safety signals were identified with this update. Conclusions: Pralsetinib produced clinically meaningful and durable responses in patients with RET -fusion-positive NSCLC (regardless of prior therapies) with a manageable safety profile, confirming with this longer follow up previously published results. Clinical trial information: NCT03037385 . All MDP(n=259) Prior Platinum (n=130) Treatment-naive(n=106) ORR, % (95% CI) Overall 70.3(64.3, 75.8) 63.1(54.2, 71.4) 78.3(69.2, 85.7) US (n=58)77.6(64.7, 87.5) (n=31)64.5(45.4, 80.8) (n=19)100(82.4, 100) Europe (n=89)65.2(54.3, 75) (n=36)63.9(46.2, 79.2) (n=43)65.1(49.1, 79) Asia (n=112)70.5(61.2, 78.8) (n=63)61.9(48.8, 73.9) (n=44)81.8(67.3, 91.8) Median DOR, mos (95% CI) a (n=182)19.1(14.5, 27.9) (n=82)31.8(15.1, 40.4) (n=83)13.4(9.4, 21.7) Median DOR follow up, mos (95% CI) 46.8(42.3, 50.2) 50.3(46.9, 56.8) 42.3(37.4, 44.2) a Per FDA censoring rule

Pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (KEYNOTE-183): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND: Pomalidomide and dexamethasone is a standard of care for patients with multiple myeloma in whom bortezomib and lenalidomide treatment has failed. KEYNOTE-183 assessed efficacy and safety of pomalidomide and dexamethasone with or without pembrolizumab in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. Here, we present the findings of an unplanned, ad-hoc interim analysis at the request of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: KEYNOTE-183 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at 97 medical centres across 11 countries (Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, and USA). Patients aged at least 18 years with multiple myeloma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 or 1, previously treated with at least two lines of therapy (excluding pomalidomide) and refractory to the last line were randomly assigned 1:1 to the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group via an interactive voice response or integrated web response system. Patients received oral pomalidomide 4 mg daily on days 1-21 and oral low-dose dexamethasone 40 mg on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 in 28-day cycles, with or without intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The dual primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival. Efficacy was assessed in all randomly assigned patients and safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02576977, and it is closed for accrual. FINDINGS: Between Jan 18, 2016, and June 7, 2017, 249 patients were randomly assigned to either the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=125) or the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (n=124). On July 3, 2017, the FDA established that risks associated with the triple combination outweighed benefits and halted the study. Median follow-up was 8\ub71 months (IQR 4\ub75-10\ub79). Median progression-free survival was 5\ub76 months (95% CI 3\ub77-7\ub75) in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 8\ub74 months (5\ub79-not reached) in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group; progression-free survival estimates at 6 months were 48% (95% CI 37-58) versus 60% (49-69) at 6 months (hazard ratio [HR] 1\ub753; 95% CI 1\ub705-2\ub722; p=0\ub798). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI 12\ub79-not reached) versus 15\ub72 months (12\ub77-not reached; HR 1\ub761; 95% CI 0\ub791-2\ub785; p=0\ub795); overall survival estimates at 6 months were 82% (95% CI 74-88) versus 90% (82-95). Serious adverse events occurred in 75 (63%) of 120 patients in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group versus 56 (46%) of 121 patients in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. Four (3%) treatment-related deaths occurred in the pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone group (one each of unknown cause, neutropenic sepsis, myocarditis, and Stevens-Johnson syndrome); myocarditis and Stevens-Johnson syndrome were considered related to pembrolizumab. No treatment-related deaths were reported in the pomalidomide and dexamethasone group. INTERPRETATION: The results from this unplanned, FDA-requested, interim analysis showed that the benefit-risk profile of pembrolizumab plus pomalidomide and dexamethasone is unfavourable for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp &amp; Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck &amp; Co (Kenilworth, NJ, USA)