Access control models describe frameworks that dictate how subjects (e.g. users) access resources. In the Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) model access to resources is based on the role the user holds within the organization. RBAC is a rigid model where access control decisions have only two output options: Grant or Deny. Break The Glass (BTG) policies on the other hand are flexible and allow users to break or override the access controls in a controlled and justifiable manner. The main objective of this paper is to integrate BTG within the NIST/ANSI RBAC model in a transparent and secure way so that it can be adopted generically in any domain where unanticipated or emergency situations may occur. The new proposed model, called BTG-RBAC, provides a third decision option BTG, which grants authorized users permission to break the glass rather than be denied access. This can easily be implemented in any application without major changes to either the application code or the RBAC authorization infrastructure, apart from the decision engine. Finally, in order to validate the model, we discuss how the BTG-RBAC model is being introduced within a Portuguese healthcare institution where the legislation requires that genetic information must be accessed by a restricted group of healthcare professionals. These professionals, advised by the ethical committee, have required and asked for the implementation of the BTG concept in order to comply with the said legislation.

The Electronic Medical Record (EMR) integrates heterogeneous information within a Healthcare Institution stressing the need for security and access control. The Biostatistics and Medical Informatics Department from Porto Faculty of Medicine has recently implemented a Virtual EMR (VEMR) in order to integrate patient information and clinical reports within a university hospital. With more than 500 medical doctors using the system on a daily basis, an access control policy and model were implemented. However, the healthcare environment has unanticipated situations (i.e. emergency situations) where access to information is essential. Most traditional policies do not allow for overriding. A policy that allows for "Break-The-Glass (BTG)" was implemented in order to override access control whilst providing for non-repudiation mechanisms for its usage. The policy was easily integrated within the model confirming its modularity and the fact that user intervention in defining security procedures is crucial to its successful implementation and use.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Bendamustine and rituximab (BR) has been a preferred regimen for frontline therapy of patients (pts) with advanced stage follicular lymphoma (FL) since randomized trials demonstrated both favorable efficacy and toxicity profiles (Rummel et al 2013, Flinn et al 2014). However, the incidence of transformation and outcomes of pts with early progression within 24 months (POD24) after BR remain poorly documented. Since 2013, BR has been the recommended frontline therapy for all pts with advanced stage, symptomatic FL in British Columbia (BC). We report this population-based analysis evaluating outcomes following the introduction of BR, including the incidence of transformation and POD24, compared to a historical cohort of pts treated with frontline RCVP. Methods: The BC Lymphoid Cancer Database was used to identify all FL pts treated with frontline BR prior to April 1st 2018. A period of observation prior to systemic therapy was permitted, but pts were excluded if they received prior radiation or single-agent rituximab. All pts had pathologically confirmed FL grades 1-3A and symptomatic advanced stage disease (Ann-Arbor I/II if too bulky/not amenable to radiation or stage III-IV). Pts were excluded if they were HIV positive or had documented discordant/composite lymphoma. Event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and time-to-transformation (TTTF) were calculated from the date of initiation of systemic therapy. Early progression (POD24) was defined as relapse or progression, death from lymphoma or treatment toxicity within 24 months of initiation of systemic therapy. Outcomes were compared with a historical cohort of pts treated with frontline RCVP, which was the recommended induction prior to BR. All pts were eligible to receive rituximab maintenance, which is standard of care for responding pts post-induction therapy in BC. Results: A total of 296 BR-treated pts were identified with a median age of 61 years (range 24-86) and baseline characteristics as outlined in Table 1. Only 34 (11%) had been previously observed and 239 (81%) received rituximab maintenance. A historical cohort of 347 RCVP-treated pts was identified, with comparable clinical characteristics but longer duration of follow-up (median 8.4y, range 0.6-12.6). With a median follow-up for living pts of 2.8y (range 0.2-7.6), estimates for 2-y EFS and OS were 85% (95% CI 80-89%) and 92% (95% CI 88-95%), respectively, for BR-treated pts. As expected, use of BR was associated with an improvement in EFS compared with RCVP (2-y EFS 76% [95% CI 71-80%], p=0.001), but no difference in OS with current follow-up. A total of 28 (9%) transformations have occurred in BR-treated pts, 68% of which were documented histologically. Only elevated LDH was associated with increased risk of transformation (p<0.001). Compared with RCVP-treated pts, the incidence of transformation over time appears similar with current follow-up (Figure 1). Post-transformation outcome in BR-treated pts was poor, with 2-y OS 39% (95% CI 18-59). Early progression (POD24) has occurred in 35/296 (12%) of BR-treated pts. The majority of these, 27 (77%), had transformed lymphoma. Five POD24 pts (14%) died of lymphoma or treatment toxicity without documented transformation and 3 (9%) had relapse with FL and are still alive at last follow up. By comparison, POD24 occurred in 77/347 (22%) of RCVP-treated pts: comprising 31 (40%) transformed lymphoma, 27 (35%) died of lymphoma or treatment toxicity without documented transformation and 19 (25%) relapsed with FL and are still alive at last follow up. Outcome in BR-treated pts with POD24 was poor, with post-progression 2y OS 38% (95% CI 20-55%) compared to non-POD24 BR-treated patients (Figure 2). Conclusion: This population-based analysis demonstrates that in the absence of transformation or POD24, pts with advanced stage FL have excellent outcomes after frontline BR. The use of BR has not changed the rate of transformation compared with that seen after frontline RCVP, with limited follow-up. The occurrence of early progression (POD24) may be decreasing following the introduction of BR, but the majority of POD24 pts now have transformed lymphoma. As a consequence, only a small proportion of POD24 pts following BR have FL-only relapse that may be considered for novel approaches specific for FL. A greater impact on outcome for POD24 pts after BR will require early prediction and improved treatment of transformed lymphoma. Disclosures Freeman: Seattle Genetics: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria. Scott:NanoString: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Research Funding. Connors:Merck: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; Bristol Myers-Squibb: Research Funding; Cephalon: Research Funding; NanoString Technologies: Patents & Royalties: Named Inventor on a patent licensed to NanoString Technologies, Research Funding; Bayer Healthcare: Research Funding; Genentech: Research Funding; Lilly: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Honoraria, Research Funding; F Hoffmann-La Roche: Research Funding; Roche Canada: Research Funding; Takeda: Research Funding; Amgen: Research Funding. Sehn:Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Seattle Genetics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche/Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria; Morphosys: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; Merck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Lundbeck: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria.