Released: October 24, 2019
At the end of the 2019 ESMO annual meeting, we asked the experts what findings they thought were practice-changing and how they planned to incorporate the new findings into the care of their patients. Read on to see what they said.
Gastrointestinal Cancers
Axel Grothey, MD: BEACON: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, 3-arm phase III trial that evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib for patients with BRAF V600E–mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) and progressive disease after 1 or 2 previous regimens.
Key findings: Both the triplet regimen with encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab and the doublet regimen with encorafenib and cetuximab led to significant improvement of median OS (triplet: 9.0 vs 5.4 months with control; HR: 0.52; P < .0001; doublet: 8.4 months; HR: 0.60; P = .0003) and ORR (triplet: 26%; doublet: 20%; control: 2%) vs standard of care (irinotecan or irinotecan-based therapy plus cetuximab) in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC.
My take-aways: The BEACON trial really addressed a patient population with unmet needs. These patients with BRAF V600E–mutant CRC in the advanced setting have a very poor prognosis and make up approximately 8% to 12% of the patient population. Typically, patients diagnosed with this type of metastatic CRC have a median survival of approximately 1 year, and patients reaching second-line or third-line treatment have rapid progression. The primary endpoint of OS with the triplet regimen was clearly met, with an HR of 0.52 for the triplet over control, which is the largest difference ever seen in a randomized comparison in advanced CRC. That the doublet of encorafenib and cetuximab also improved OS vs control, and had a similar impact on PFS to the triplet, is quite interesting. Now the question, of course, is, do patients need a triplet regimen, or is the doublet sufficient? For the OS analysis, the number of events was insufficient to evaluate any difference between the triplet vs doublet regimen; however, there seemed to be a trend toward improved outcome with the triplet. These data will need to mature, but it is important to note that the comparison of triplet vs doublet is exploratory in nature and was not part of the initial planned analysis. Overall, the treatments were well tolerated. The triplet regimen was found to have higher adverse event rates than the doublet, primarily in terms of diarrhea. However, both triplet and doublet regimens compared favorably with the irinotecan-based control arm.
Clinical implications: Overall, the BEACON trial established a new standard of care with the BRAF/MEK/EGFR inhibitor combination that is currently listed in guidelines. I have started using this regimen in my practice. I start with the triplet combination in the second or third line. If my patients begin to experience issues from the MEK inhibitor component, such as diarrhea or blurry vision, then I remove the binimetinib component and continue with the doublet regimen of encorafenib and cetuximab. In my opinion, the data are strong enough for the doublet to take the approach of starting with the triplet regimen and moving ahead with the doublet in cases of poor tolerance. In addition, it is notable that there is an overlap in this population between MSI-H tumors and BRAF V600E–mutant tumors. If I have a patient who is MSI high and has the BRAF V600E mutation, I typically start with immunotherapy using one of the checkpoint inhibitors and use the BEACON triplet regimen in the second-line or third-line setting.
ATTRACTION-3: International, open-label, randomized phase III trial evaluating second-line nivolumab vs chemotherapy in patients with unresectable esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC) who were refractory or intolerant to 1 previous fluoropyrimidine-based and platinum-based therapy. The ATTRACTION-3 study was conducted primarily in Asia, comprising 96% of the study population, and small proportions of study centers were in Europe or the United States.
Key findings: The primary endpoint of OS was significantly improved with second-line nivolumab vs paclitaxel or docetaxel in patients with unresectable ESCC (10.9 vs 8.4 months, respectively; HR: 0.77; P = .019).
My take-aways: The observed OS benefit was independent of tumor PD-L1 expression levels. When evaluating both the OS and PFS curves, there appears to be a trend in favor of chemotherapy in the short term, followed by a crossover and benefit of nivolumab in the longer term. This suggests there is a subgroup of patients who will benefit from nivolumab. However, it is not currently clear which patients will derive the most benefit from nivolumab. Similar data have been seen with pembrolizumab in gastric cancer in the first-line and-second line settings. The ORR of nivolumab vs chemotherapy was similar at 19% vs 22%, respectively. Thus, although the response rate overall was not different between groups, the durability of response was longer with nivolumab compared with chemotherapy.
These findings show further evidence that a subgroup of patients can benefit from PD-1 antibodies in esophageal/gastric cancer, including patients with squamous cell cancer. From a safety perspective, nivolumab showed a tolerable safety profile, with numerically fewer grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events vs chemotherapy (8%/2% vs 15%/4%, respectively). In addition, the prespecified exploratory analyses observed significantly improved health-related quality-of-life outcomes with nivolumab.
Clinical implications: I have started to use nivolumab in the second-line or third-line setting for patients with ESCC, particularly for those who are not ideal candidates for chemotherapy, knowing that immune checkpoint inhibitors are relatively well tolerated. I look forward to additional data on immune checkpoint inhibitors in a broader patient population to evaluate whether the findings seen here in a largely Asian population can be translated into a more diverse patient group. Trials are ongoing evaluating these questions.
ClarIDHy: International, double-blind, randomized phase III trial evaluating ivosidenib vs placebo in previously treated, advanced, IDH1-mutant positive cholangiocarcinoma.
Key findings: Ivosidenib demonstrated significantly longer median PFS vs placebo for previously treated patients with IDH1 mutation–positive advanced cholangiocarcinoma (2.7 vs 1.4 months, respectively; HR: 0.37; P < .001).
My take-aways: Using a blinded, independent radiologic review, the PFS improvement was demonstrated with a striking 63% reduction in the risk of progression or death. The disease control rate was 53% with ivosidenib vs 28% with placebo. Of interest, the PR rate with ivosidenib was only 2%, and 51% of patients had stable disease. Thus, the benefit with ivosidenib is really in stabilizing disease and preventing disease progression. Based on the crossover design, there was no statistically significant difference in OS for the overall patient population. However, in a rank-preserving structural failure time analysis used to adjust for the crossover, an improvement in OS was observed (HR: 0.46; P < .001). The safety and tolerability of ivosidenib were manageable, with improved quality of life vs placebo.
Clinical implications: I now have clinical experience using ivosidenib in this setting. I have used this agent now off-label for 3 patients, who tolerated the treatment quite well. It is too early to know whether I will see clinical benefit in my patients. One patient had early progression of disease; the other 2 are still on therapy but have not yet been restaged. Treatment options for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas are limited, so I can see that ivosidenib or other IDH1 inhibitors really could play a role in our standard of care.
It is worth noting that intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas—or GI malignancies in general—have the highest yield of targetable mutations and alterations. This is the patient group where I believe we really need to have upfront molecular screening for the IDH1 mutation, FGFR fusions, and genetic aberrations to best target the disease.
Gynecologic Cancers
Bradley J. Monk, MD, FACS, FACOG: At ESMO, reports were presented for 3 key ovarian cancer trials evaluating PARP inhibitors as maintenance therapy after first-line chemotherapy:
PRIMA: Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating niraparib as maintenance therapy after initial platinum-based therapy in patients with newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer.
Key findings: The overall patient population receiving maintenance niraparib showed significantly longer median PFS compared with patients who received placebo (13.8 vs 8.2 months, respectively; HR 0.62; P < .001). PFS with niraparib among patients with homologous recombination deficiency (HRD) was also extended (21.9 vs 10.4 months with placebo; HR: 0.43; P < .001).
VELIA/GOG-3005: Randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial evaluating veliparib plus carboplatin/paclitaxel followed by veliparib maintenance therapy in patients with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer.
Key findings: The addition of veliparib to platinum-based chemotherapy followed by veliparib maintenance significantly prolonged median PFS in patients with newly diagnosed high-grade serous ovarian cancer, regardless of BRCA mutation or HRD status. The risk of recurrence or progression decreased by 56% in patients with BRCA mutations, by 43% in patients with HRD, and by 32% in the overall patient population.
PAOLA-1: Randomized phase III trial for patients with newly diagnosed, FIGO stage III/IV, high-grade, serous/endometrioid ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer evaluating platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab followed by maintenance therapy with olaparib plus bevacizumab.
Key findings: Median PFS was significantly prolonged with the addition of olaparib to maintenance bevacizumab after frontline platinum-based chemotherapy (ITT patient population: 22.1 vs 16.6 months; P < .0001), regardless of BRCA mutation status or initial surgical outcome. Of note, the best PFS outcomes were seen in patients with BRCA mutations and those without BRCA mutations with HRD-positive tumors.
My take-aways: Collectively, these 3 trials reported at ESMO represent a shift in ovarian cancer first-line/maintenance therapy standard of care. Prior to these results, the standard was either platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab followed by bevacizumab maintenance or platinum-based chemotherapy followed by olaparib for patients with BRCA mutations (germline or somatic). It is not yet clear whether the expected FDA approvals based on the findings of these 3 new trials will be limited to patients with only mutated BRCA, or HRD, or will have no biomarker restriction. Based on these data, HRD is becoming the dominant biomarker in newly diagnosed, advanced ovarian cancer, and it has both prognostic and predictive capability. Among individuals with newly diagnosed ovarian cancer, homologous recombination proficiency is a negative predictor for progression and prognosis. In the PRIMA trial, for example, the patients with homologous recombination proficiency who received placebo had a median PFS of 5.4 months. However, for those with HRD, the PFS was nearly twice as long, at approximately 10 months. Consequently, the evolving development of HRD assays provides an important opportunity for predicting patient outcomes.
Clinical implications: Depending on subsequent approvals after ESMO, clinicians and patients will likely have 3 additional treatment options for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer: (1) platinum-based chemotherapy followed by maintenance niraparib; (2) platinum-based chemotherapy with veliparib followed by maintenance therapy with veliparib; and (3) platinum-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab plus olaparib.
Patients who started bevacizumab or veliparib as part of their initial therapy would likely continue these therapies as maintenance. However, there is also an opportunity to add a PARP inhibitor during the maintenance phase after first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. According to results from the SOLO-1 trial, olaparib maintenance therapy could be used in women with BRCA mutations, or alternatively, based on data from PRIMA, niraparib maintenance therapy could be used in any patient who received first-line chemotherapy only. In addition, for patients who received bevacizumab as part of their first-line therapy, olaparib could also be added based on the PAOLA-1 trial. The beauty of adding veliparib in the frontline setting as in the VELIA trial is the potential for all patients to try a PARP inhibitor, enabling researchers to evaluate efficacy. Even though the likelihood of response may be reduced in those patients with BRCA wild-type or homologous recombination–proficient tumors, it may be worth trying for our patients.
KEYNOTE-146: Final primary efficacy analysis of a patient cohort with previously treated advanced endometrial cancer in an international, multicohort, open-label, single-arm phase Ib/II trial evaluating lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab.
Key findings: Clinical activity of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was demonstrated, independent of MSI status, PD-L1 status, or histologic subtype. Investigator-assessed ORR at data cutoff were 38.9% for all patients, 37.2% for those without MSI-H/dMMR, and 63.6% for those with MSI-H/dMMR. Responses were deep and durable, with a median DoR in all patients of 21.2 months.
My take-aways: Although PD-1 and PD-L1 agents work very well as single agents in certain cancers, including NSCLC and melanoma, they do not work effectively as single agents in the setting of non–MSI-H endometrial cancer—at least not to a clinically relevant degree. One approach to improve the efficacy of a PD-1/PD-L1 agent in this setting is to add an anti-VEGF agent, creating significant increases in complete response rates.
Clinical implications: The KEYNOTE-146 trial was transformational. Based on these results, the combination regimen of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib, an oral VEGFR kinase inhibitor, was approved in September 2019 for the treatment of patients with advanced endometrial carcinoma that is not MSI-H or dMMR who have disease progression following previous systemic therapy and are not candidates for curative surgery or radiation.
Lung Cancer
Sandip P. Patel, MD: CheckMate-227: Open-label, multipart, randomized phase III trial that evaluated nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic NSCLC.
Key findings: Met the coprimary endpoint of significantly improved median OS with nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab compared with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1 tumor expression ≥ 1% (17.1 vs 14.9 months, respectively; HR: 0.79; P = .007).
My take-aways: There were 2 interesting aspects to this study related to the utility of biomarkers. First, tumor mutational burden (TMB) using a cutoff of 10 mutations/Mb really did not seem to identify patients who responded to the combination of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab vs those who did not any better than PD-L1 testing by IHC. Broadly, there appeared to be an OS benefit independent of either PD-L1 expression level or TMB. Of note, the greatest clinical benefit with the combination of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab compared with chemotherapy appeared to be in patients with ≥ 50% PD-L1 tumor expression (HR for OS: 0.70) and those with < 1% PD-L1 tumor expression (HR for OS: 0.62). This latter finding in the patient cohort with < 1% PD-L1 expression is effectively the same survival benefit seen with pembrolizumab monotherapy in patients with high PD-L1 expression, which is particularly intriguing given that we know that PD-1 inhibition has little if any activity in patients with undetectable PD-L1 expression. What the anti–CTLA-4 therapy is doing that results in survival outcomes comparable to chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab in this group of patients with < 1% PD-L1 expression is unclear at this time. Moreover, it will be interesting to follow the durability of the survival outcomes in this study. If combining low-dose ipilimumab with nivolumab results in a similar durability in metastatic NSCLC to that reported at ESMO for patients with metastatic melanoma, I think that has the potential to be transformative.
Clinical implications: Based on these results, there are a couple of patient groups that I may consider for treatment with the combination of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab, if it is approved. Putting it into clinical context, for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic NSCLC in visceral crisis who need an immediate response, I think chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab remains a standard of care independent of their PD-L1 status. For those patients who are not in visceral crisis, I would consider nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in those with ≥ 50% PD-L1 expression, and especially for those patients with < 1% PD-L1 expression. Among patients with 1% to 49% PD-L1 tumor expression, I think chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab remains a strong standard of care because the data for nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab vs chemotherapy in this subset of patients showed equivalent median OS outcomes. Regarding the potential clinical use of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab, it is important to consider that the incidence of immune-related adverse events remains relatively high, although not as high as that seen in melanoma, where a higher dose of ipilimumab is used in combination with nivolumab. Healthcare providers need to be aware of this and adept at managing these toxicities, should they occur.
IMpower110: Randomized phase III trial that evaluated single-agent atezolizumab compared with platinum-based doublet chemotherapy for chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic NSCLC and PD-L1 expression ≥ 1% by IHC using the SP142 monoclonal antibody.
Key findings: Significantly improved median OS with atezolizumab vs chemotherapy in patients with high PD-L1 expression (TC3 or IC3) and no EGFR or ALK genetic aberrations (20.2 vs 13.1 months, respectively; HR: 0.59; P = .0106).
My take-aways: First, the PD-L1 biomarker used in this study was measured by IHC using the SP142 monoclonal antibody that is used with atezolizumab, rather than the 22C3 monoclonal antibody that is used with pembrolizumab. Of importance, distinct from the 22C3 assay, which only looks at tumor cell PD-L1 expression, the SP142 IHC assay scores PD-L1 expression in tumor cells and tumor-infiltrating immune cells. At this interim analysis with a median follow-up of 15.7 months, patients with high tumor cell (≥ 50%) and/or tumor-infiltrating immune cell (≥ 10%) PD-L1 expression, called TC3 or IC3, had a 41% reduction in the risk of death with atezolizumab vs platinum-based doublet chemotherapy.
Clinical implications: If atezolizumab monotherapy is approved in the first-line setting for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC, it could represent another potential treatment option for those patients with high tumor-associated PD-L1 expression as determined with the appropriate companion assay. Of note, this would include those patients with IC3 who may not have been eligible for pembrolizumab monotherapy due to insufficient tumor cell PD-L1 expression.
FLAURA: Double-blind, randomized phase III trial comparing osimertinib vs a first-generation EGFR TKI (erlotinib or gefitinib) in previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC adenocarcinoma.
Key findings: Final analysis of OS showed a 20% reduction in risk of death with osimertinib compared with erlotinib or gefitinib as first-line therapy (median OS of 38.6 vs 31.8 months; HR 0.799; P = .0462)
My take-aways: First, a median OS of more than 3 years with osimertinib in metastatic NSCLC is impressive and a testament to drug development. The second important finding involves the idea of whether it is better to use osimertinib as initial therapy or to sequence it after another EGFR TKI. Even in the context of this well-done study with an ideal clinical management scenario, only approximately 30% of patients with progression on erlotinib or gefitinib were able to cross over to osimertinib, even with EGFR T790M mutation testing being available. Another 30% of patients did not receive any further treatment at disease progression on erlotinib or gefitinib. I think that this last observation should serve as a warning to clinicians that, particularly outside of the setting a carefully controlled clinical trial, the percentage of patients who may not receive further treatment at disease progression is high. Thus, in the “real world,” more than one third of patients may be deprived of the best available therapy if osimertinib is saved for later lines of therapy. Given that we currently have no way to identify those patients who may have rapid disease progression vs those who may have a more indolent disease course, we cannot predict which patients may most benefit from osimertinib compared with a first-generation EGFR TKI.
Clinical implications: These results confirm the role of osimertinib as the preferred first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC and an EGFR mutation wherever it is available. Overall, osimertinib therapy prolongs survival, with better CNS activity and better tolerability compared with a first-generation EGFR TKI.
Remember to download the ESMO 2019 highlights slideset from the CCO Web site!
What studies most excited you at ESMO 2019 and why? Leave your comments below to join in the conversation.
These Terms of Use ("Terms") apply to your use of the websites, mobile applications and other resources provided by Clinical Education Alliance LLC (“CEA”) and its affiliates (referred to collectively as "CEA," "us," "we" and "our") that are intended for use by healthcare professionals, which we refer to as the "CEA Network," including the personalized information and services that meet the needs and interests of users of the CEA Network such as medical news, reference content, clinical tools, applications, sponsored programs, advertising, email communications, continuing medical education, market research opportunities and discussion forums (collectively, the "Services"). You will always be able to view the most current version of these Terms by clicking on the Terms of Use link at the bottom of any page of a CEA Network property. Note that these Terms do not apply to our properties and services that display a link to different terms of use. In the event that we expand the CEA Network through our acquisition of another company and/or its properties, that company may operate its properties subject to its own terms of use accessible via a link on such properties until we integrate its practices with ours, at which point a link to these Terms will be displayed on its properties. By using the Services, you agree to these Terms, whether or not you are a registered member of the CEA Network. These Terms govern your use of the Services and create a binding legal agreement that we may enforce against you in the event of a violation. If you do not agree to all of these Terms of Use, do not use the Services!
We reserve the right to change these terms from time to time. The most current version may be viewed by clicking on the “Terms of Use” link at the bottom of designated pages on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites. Use of the Clinical Education Alliance Sites after the effective date constitutes acceptance of the amended Terms of Use. When you leave a CEA Web site and go to another Web site, different terms apply and CEA has no responsibility or liability for any content on those sites.
The Clinical Education Alliance Sites incorporate information, including modules, capsules, journal articles, medical news, references, interactive case studies, other continuing education material, downloadable software applications, advertising, and other healthcare information, which is intended for adults who are licensed healthcare professionals. This information is not intended to serve as a substitute for the healthcare professional’s clinical judgment. If you are a consumer who chooses to read this professional-level information on Clinical Education Alliance Sites, you should not use or rely on that information as professional medical advice or use it to replace any relationship with your physician or other qualified healthcare professional or any information they may have provided to you. For medical issues or concerns, including decisions about medications and other treatments, consumers should always consult their physician or, in serious cases, seek immediate assistance from emergency personnel.
The Content on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites is developed or selected in accordance with our published Editorial Policies. However, users access and use this material at their own risk. It is the reader’s job to evaluate the accuracy of any information and results from interactive programs found on the Clinical Education Alliance Site. If you are a healthcare professional, you should rely on your professional judgment in evaluating any and all information and confirm the information contained on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites with other sources and reliable third parties before basing any treatment or advice on it. If you are a consumer, you should evaluate the information together with your physician or another qualified healthcare professional.
THE CONTENT, APPLICATIONS, SOFTWARE, AND ALL OTHER MATERIAL ON THE CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE SITES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS” AND WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NONINFRINGEMENT. ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED. CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, PHYSICAL HARM OR INJURIES, LOST REVENUES, OR LOST PROFITS, RESULTING FROM THE USE OR MISUSE OF THE CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE SITES, OR ANY INFORMATION, APPLICATIONS, MATERIALS, OR SOFTWARE THEREON, EVEN IF CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANOTHER PARTY. CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THIS SITE OR ANY APPLICATIONS OR SOFTWARE WILL BE FREE OF BUGS, INACCURACIES, OR ERRORS, NOR DOES CLINICAL EDUCATION ALLIANCE WARRANT THAT ANY SITE, SOFTWARE, OR APPLICATION IS FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL ELEMENTS.
A user’s use of the Clinical Education Alliance Sites, and any reliance on any materials, information, software, or applications, is at the user’s own risk. You agree that you hereby release Clinical Education Alliance and its affiliates, owners, respective directors, officers, employees, advertisers, authors, and contributors from any and all liability or obligations arising from the use of the Clinical Education Alliance Sites. A user’s sole remedy for any problem or concern is to exit the Web site or application. You agree that you will indemnify and hold Clinical Education Alliance harmless for any loss, damages, or liability suffered by Clinical Education Alliance as a result of your use of any Clinical Education Alliance Site or material, application, information, or software thereon or your submission of any material to Clinical Education Alliance. Clinical Education Alliance reserves the right to restrict or limit access to this Web site.
The Clinical Education Alliance Sites include interactive programs, clinical tools, and databases intended for the use of healthcare professionals. These materials are not intended as professional advice or recommendations of particular products. Physicians and other healthcare professionals who use our interactive programs, tools, or databases should exercise their own clinical judgment as to the results. Consumers who use the tools or databases do so at their own risk.
Individuals with any type of medical condition are specifically cautioned to seek professional medical advice before beginning any sort of health treatment. For medical concerns or issues, including decisions about medications and other treatments, users should always consult their physician or other qualified healthcare professional.
The entire contents and design of the Clinical Education Alliance Sites, including the software applications, tools, and databases, are protected under US and international copyright laws. These materials are owned by CEA or its affiliates or are used with permission of their owners or as otherwise authorized by law. All rights are reserved, worldwide. You may look at the Clinical Education Alliance Sites, download individual articles or applications to your personal computer or handheld device, and print a reasonable number of pages for your own personal reference. You must not remove any copyright notices from our materials. We reserve all our other rights. This means you may not sell, rewrite, or modify any content or other material found on any Clinical Education Alliance Site, redistribute it, put it on your own Web site, or use it for any commercial purpose without our prior written authorization.
The names of the CEA products and services are protected by trademark laws in the United States. Any use of our trademarks or service marks requires prior written approval from CEA.
You may link to a CEA Web site if your Web site offers products, services, or information of interest to the professional healthcare community. You are not allowed to link to the Clinical Education Alliance Sites if you post illegal, obscene, or offensive content or if the link is likely to have a negative impact on CEA’s reputation. Any other use, such as framing any part of a CEA Web site or incorporating any CEA content into another Web site, product, or application, requires advance written permission from Clinical Education Alliance. Clinical Education Alliance assumes no responsibility for any Web sites or materials that are linked to Clinical Education Alliance Sites or materials.
Clinical Education Alliance makes some software and accompanying documentation available for downloading from our Web sites and/or from iTunes. These materials are protected by copyrights under US and international law and are owned by Clinical Education Alliance or companies that have licensed the software to us. We do not transfer any ownership rights in software or documentation to you when you download it from our Web site and/or directly from iTunes. You may use the software and accompanying documentation for their intended purpose. You are not authorized to further copy or distribute the software and accompanying documentation, nor may you attempt to recreate or reverse engineer our software or applications. In addition, some software available for downloading from our Web sites and/or from iTunes is subject to US export controls. By downloading or using such software, you are representing to us that your download of such software complies with these controls.
If you are affiliated with the US government, please note that the software and documentation available on our Web sites and/or directly from iTunes are “commercial items,” as that term is defined in 48 C.F.R. 2.101 (October 1995), consisting of “commercial computer software” and “commercial computer software documentation,” as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. 12.212 (September 1995). Consistent with 48 C.F.R. 12.212 and 48 C.F.R. 227.7202-1 through 227.7202-4 (June 1995), all US government end users acquire the software and documentation with only those rights set forth herein.
Clinical Education Alliance offers users the opportunity to engage in social media interactions with both experts and other users of the sites. As with other online social media, users must exercise sound judgment in both the information that they post and in how they assess the postings of other users. As such, users are expected to adhere to the social media recommendations made by the American Medical Association when utilizing the social media capabilities of CEA sites. In particular, users must be cognizant of standards of patient privacy and confidentiality that must be maintained in all environments and must not post identifiable patient information on CEA sites. In social media interactions, users must maintain appropriate boundaries of the patient–physician/care provider relationship in accordance with professional ethical guidelines just as they would in any other context. Users acknowledge that privacy settings are not absolute and that once on the Internet, content posted by them may be copied by third parties and republished out of the control of Clinical Education Alliance. Thus, users should routinely monitor their own Internet presence to ensure that the personal information and content that they post and, to the extent possible, that is posted about them by others is accurate and appropriate.
Users are expected to refrain from submitting comments or messages that are defamatory, hateful, or obscene or that harass others. Users may not impersonate any other person or violate any other person’s or entity’s legal rights or submit falsified credentials or experiences. Users agree that they will not submit any materials that violate or infringe any copyrights, trademarks, patents, trade secret, or other intellectual property rights of any third party. Clinical Education Alliance retains all copyrights in the content posted by users to its sites. Clinical Education Alliance may adopt additional rules to govern use of social media, message boards or forums, to which users will be subject.
If you believe that any material on this Web site infringes your copyright, please notify us as follows, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). To notify us, the DMCA requires that you: 1. Send an email notice to Clinical Education Alliance at customersupport@clinicaloptions.com. 2. Include the following information in your email: a. Identify the copyrighted work(s) you claim is infringed; b. Identify the material you claim is infringing the copyright(s) and give enough information for Clinical Education Alliance to locate that material; c. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the copyright owner’s behalf (the “Claimant”); d. Include the Claimant’s name, address, and telephone number(s); e. Include a statement that the Claimant has a good faith belief that use of the disputed material is not authorized by the copyright owner or his agent; and f. Include a statement, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification of copyright infringement is accurate and that the Claimant is the copyright owner or is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.
If you believe any content or material on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites violates any laws, please notify customersupport@clinicaloptions.com. Please include details about your concerns and an email address for contacting you.
Clinical Education Alliance controls the Clinical Education Alliance Sites from its offices in the state of Virginia in the United States of America. The Clinical Education Alliance Sites can be accessed from any of the United States and from other countries worldwide. Since the laws of each state or country may differ, both you and Clinical Education Alliance agree that the laws of Virginia, without regard to conflicts of laws principles, will apply to all matters relating to use of the Clinical Education Alliance Sites and materials, including software and applications.
Clinical Education Alliance makes no representation that materials on these sites are appropriate or available for use in countries aside from the United States. Accessing the Clinical Education Alliance Sites from territories where their contents are illegal is prohibited. Those who choose to access these sites from other locations do so at their own risk and are responsible for compliance with any and all applicable local laws or regulations.
By downloading or accessing materials on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites and/or directly from iTunes or registering with us, you agree to all the terms and conditions in this agreement, including the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. If you disagree with any of these Terms of Use or Privacy Policy, please refrain from using the Clinical Education Alliance Sites or materials.
Because we provide education for healthcare professionals, we pay special attention to privacy issues. The purpose of our Privacy Policy is to identify the information we may collect about you, describe the uses we may make of your information and the security measures we take to protect it, and discuss your options for controlling your information. You can review our Privacy Policy by clicking on the “Privacy Policy” link at the bottom of designated pages on the Clinical Education Alliance Sites.
If you fail to comply with these terms, we have the right to suspend or eliminate your account and remove any information you have placed on our site, including your registration information. We may also take any legal action we think is appropriate. If there is any dispute between us concerning this agreement or your use of any Clinical Education Alliance Site or materials or applications, we both agree to submit the dispute to nonbinding mediation, followed by binding arbitration. Both the mediation and the arbitration will be governed under the rules of the American Arbitration Association, and the venue for the arbitration will be Virginia.
For questions or concerns about these Terms of Use, please send an email to customersupport@clinicaloptions.com
These terms of use were last updated in July 2021.
You are leaving the site. The new destination site may have a different terms of use and privacy policy.
We've updated our ad policy. Please review our policy here. Click 'Agree' to accept. If you do not accept, you cannot proceed to the site.
By clicking "Agree," you are agreeing to our Privacy Policy, Terms & Conditions and Ad Policy.
Back
