Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. METHODS: The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. RESULTS: The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported "not at all" for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. CONCLUSIONS: Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. Investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

Outcomes of Older Women With Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer Treated With a CDK4/6 Inhibitor and an Aromatase Inhibitor: An FDA Pooled Analysis.

PURPOSE: Many older women will be treated with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor and an aromatase inhibitor (AI), given US Food and Drug Administration approval of three agents in this class. The current pooled analysis examines the efficacy and safety of this combination in older women. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We pooled data from three randomized controlled studies (N = 1,827) of different CDK4/6 inhibitors in combination with an AI for initial treatment of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The effect of age on progression-free survival was evaluated using Kaplan-Meier estimates and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. RESULTS: For patients age 75 years or older (n = 198) who were treated with a CDK4/6 inhibitor and an AI, hazard ratio was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.31 to 0.76) with an estimated median progression-free survival of 31.1 months (95% CI, 20.2 months to not reached) versus 13.7 months (95% CI, 10.9 months to 24.9 months) for those treated with an AI. Incidence of grade 3 to 4 adverse events was 88.8% in patients age 75 years and older and 73.4% in patients younger than age 75 years. Patients age 75 years or older reported a decline in quality-of-life measures using the EQ-5D regardless of treatment with AI alone or with the addition of a CDK4/6 inhibitor. CONCLUSION: There was similar efficacy with a CDK4/6 inhibitor in combination with an AI compared with AI alone for first-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer in older women compared with younger patients. Patients older than age 75 years experienced higher rates of toxicity, dose modifications, and a decrease from baseline in quality-of-life measures.

Patient reported outcomes in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor immunotherapy registration trials: FDA analysis of data submitted and future directions.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures can be used to capture the patient's experience with disease and treatment. Immunotherapy agents including the anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies have unique symptomatic side effects and patient-reported outcome data can help to characterize the benefits and burdens associated with therapy. METHODS: We reviewed registration trials in the Food and Drug Administration database for five anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor therapies to characterize trial design and patient-reported outcome assessment strategy (cutoff 31 December 2017). We evaluated the patient-reported outcome measurement coverage of eight key symptoms related to adverse events reported in immunotherapy agent product labels (fatigue, diarrhea, cough, shortness of breath, musculoskeletal pain, rash, pruritus, and fever). RESULTS: There were a total of 28 trials across seven disease types and one tumor agnostic indication reviewed, of which 17 were randomized and 25 were open label. Of the 28 trials, 21 contained patient-reported outcome measures and all 21 used >1 instrument. The most common instruments were the EuroQol five dimension (N = 19), and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (N = 17). Disease-specific patient-reported outcome tools were included in nine trials (six lung, one head and neck, one melanoma and one renal cell). No trial used a patient-reported outcome strategy assessing all eight selected adverse events. CONCLUSION: Collection of patient-reported outcome data in anti-programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand-1 inhibitor trials were variable and did not consistently assess important symptomatic adverse events. Use of a patient-reported outcome instrument with well-defined functional scales supplemented by item libraries to incorporate relevant symptomatic adverse events may allow for improved understanding of the patient experience while receiving therapy. These data, along with other clinical data such as hospitalizations and supportive care medication use can help inform the benefit-risk assessment for regulatory purposes.

FDA Approval Summary: Pertuzumab for Adjuvant Treatment of HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer.

On December 20, 2017, the FDA granted regular approval to pertuzumab in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy for the adjuvant treatment of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (EBC) at high risk of recurrence. Approval was based on data from the APHINITY trial, which randomized patients to receive pertuzumab or placebo in combination with trastuzumab and chemotherapy. After 45.4-month median follow-up, the proportion of invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events in the intent-to-treat population was 7.1% (n = 171) in the pertuzumab arm and 8.7% (n = 210) for placebo [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.00; P = 0.047]. The proportion of IDFS events in patients with hormone receptor-negative disease was 8.2% (n = 71) and 10.6% (n = 91) in the pertuzumab and placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.56-1.04). The proportion of IDFS events for patients with node-positive disease was 9.2% (n = 139) and 12.1% (n = 181) in the pertuzumab and placebo arms, respectively (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96). Adverse reactions in ≥30% of patients receiving pertuzumab were diarrhea, nausea, alopecia, fatigue, peripheral neuropathy, and vomiting. From a regulatory standpoint, the benefits of the addition of pertuzumab to adjuvant treatment outweighed the risks for patients with EBC at high risk of recurrence.

Blinding and Patient-Reported Outcome Completion Rates in US Food and Drug Administration Cancer Trial Submissions, 2007-2017.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly included in submissions to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Open-label designs are frequent in cancer trials. Between-arm differences in PRO missingness may affect results. We sought to compare PRO completion rates between study arms in randomized open-label and double-blind cancer trials. METHODS: Randomized, controlled trials for oncology and malignant hematology products submitted to the FDA in fiscal years 2007-2017 were identified using internal FDA databases. Applicant study reports were reviewed to assess PRO use and reporting of completion rates. Completion rates were collected for each PRO and compared between arms. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Ninety-six trials for anticancer products from 2007 to 2017 contained PROs. Fifty-one (53.1%) were randomized, controlled trials with useable information on PRO completion. The median completion rate for investigational arms was 89.7% (range = 33.7-100.0%) and 88.2% (range = 11.0-100.0%) for control arms. At six months, seven double-blind trials had gaps of at least 10% in at least one PRO between arms; in four trials, these gaps favored the control arm (median difference = 11.5%, range = 10.0-17.0%). For open-label trials, four trials had such gaps, all of which favored the investigational arm (median difference = 28.5%, range = 10.0-69.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Among trials that provided interpretable PRO completion information, completion rates were high. Most trials had comparable completion rates between arms. However, when large between-arm completion rate differences existed, differences favoring the experimental arm were more common in open-label trials compared with double-blind trials. Procedures must be put in place to improve reporting of PRO completion and reduce missingness, particularly in open-label trials.

Trial designs for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention: ACTTION recommendations.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially dose-limiting side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapies. No therapies are available to prevent CIPN. The small number of positive randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating preventive therapies for CIPN provide little guidance to inform the design of future trials. Moreover, the lack of consensus regarding major design features in this area poses challenges to development of new therapies. An Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities and Networks (ACTTION)-Consortium on Clinical Endpoints and Procedures for Peripheral Neuropathy Trials (CONCEPPT) meeting attended by neurologists, oncologists, pharmacists, clinical trialists, statisticians, and regulatory experts was convened to discuss design considerations and provide recommendations for CIPN prevention trials. This article outlines considerations related to design of RCTs that evaluate preventive therapies for CIPN including (1) selection of eligibility criteria (e.g., cancer types, chemotherapy types, inclusion of preexisting neuropathy); (2) selection of outcome measures and endpoints, including those that incorporate alterations in chemotherapy dosing, which may affect the rate of CIPN development and its severity; (3) potential effects of the investigational therapy on the efficacy of chemotherapy; and (4) sample size estimation. Our hope is that attention to the design considerations and recommendations outlined in this article will improve the quality and assay sensitivity of CIPN prevention trials and thereby accelerate the identification of efficacious therapies.

Early Stage HER2-Positive Breast Cancers Not Achieving a pCR From Neoadjuvant Trastuzumab- or Pertuzumab-Based Regimens Have an Immunosuppressive Phenotype.

BACKGROUND: Stromal tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) might predict pathologic complete response (pCR) in patients with HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer treated with trastuzumab (H). Docetaxel (T), carboplatin (C), H, and pertuzumab (P) have immune-modulating effects. Pre- and post-treatment immune biomarkers in cancers treated with neoadjuvant TCH with or without P are lacking. In this study we quantified baseline and changes in TILs, cluster of differentiation (CD) 4+, CD8+, FoxP3+, and PD-L1+ cells using immunohistochemistry (IHC) and quantified productive T-cell receptor ß (TCRß) rearrangements and TCRß clonality using next-generation sequencing (NGS) in 30 HER2+ breast cancer tissues treated with neoadjuvant H with or without P regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty pre- and post-neoadjuvant TCH (n = 4) or TCHP (n = 26) breast cancer tissues were identified. TILs were quantified manually using hematoxylin and eosin. CD4, CD8, FoxP3, and PD-L1 were stained using IHC. TCRß was evaluated using NGS. Immune infiltrates were compared between pCR and non-pCR groups using the Wilcoxon rank sum test. RESULTS: A pCR occurred in 15 (n = 15; 50%) cancers (TCH n = 2; TCHP, n = 13). Pretreatment TILs, CD4+, CD8+, FoxP3+, and PD-L1+ cells were not associated with response (P = .42, P = .55, P = .19, P = .66, P = .87, respectively. Pretreatment productive TCRß and TCRß clonality did not predict response, P = .84 and P = .40, respectively). However, post-treatment CD4+ and FoxP3+ cells (T-regulatory cells) were elevated in the non-pCR cohort (P = .042 and P = .082, respectively). CONCLUSION: An increase in regulatory T cells in non-pCR tissues suggests the development of an immunosuppressive phenotype. Further investigation in a larger cohort of samples is warranted to validate these findings.

FDA Approval Summary: Niraparib for the Maintenance Treatment of Patients with Recurrent Ovarian Cancer in Response to Platinum-Based Chemotherapy.

The FDA approved niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, on March 27, 2017, for maintenance treatment of patients with recurrent epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer who are in response to platinum-based chemotherapy. Approval was based on data from the NOVA trial comparing niraparib with placebo in two independent cohorts, based on germline BRCA mutation status (gBRCAm vs. non-gBRCAm). Progression-free survival (PFS) in each cohort was the primary endpoint. In the gBRCAm cohort, estimated median PFS on niraparib was 21 months versus 5.5 months on placebo [HR, 0.26; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.17-0.41; P < 0.0001]. In the non-gBRCAm cohort, estimated median PFS for niraparib and placebo was 9.3 and 3.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.34-0.61; P < 0.0001). Common adverse reactions (>20% and higher incidence in the niraparib arm) with niraparib included thrombocytopenia, anemia, neutropenia, nausea, constipation, vomiting, mucositis, fatigue, decreased appetite, headache, insomnia, nasopharyngitis, dyspnea, rash, and hypertension. There were five cases of myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia (1.4%) in patients treated with niraparib compared with two cases (1.1%) on placebo. Niraparib is the first PARP inhibitor approved as maintenance therapy for patients with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer, with improvement in PFS, regardless of gBRCAm status. Clin Cancer Res; 24(17); 4066-71. ©2018 AACRSee related commentary by Konstantinopoulos and Matulonis, p. 4062.

A 25-Year Experience of US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval of Malignant Hematology and Oncology Drugs and Biologics: A Review.

Importance: Accelerated approval (AA) is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited program intended to speed the approval of drugs and biologics that may demonstrate a meaningful advantage over available therapies for diseases that are serious or life-threatening. Observations: This review describes all malignant hematology and oncology AAs from inception of the program on December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017. During this period, the FDA granted AA to 64 malignant hematology and oncology products for 93 new indications. Of these AAs, 53 were for new molecular entities. Overall, the end point of response rate, including hematologic response rates, accounted for most AAs (81 [87%]), followed by time-to-event end points of progression-free survival or time to progression (8 [9%]) and disease-free survival or recurrence-free survival (4 [4%]). Single-arm trial designs provided the data for 67 (72%) of the initial AA indications. Of the 93 AAs, 51 (55%) have fulfilled their postmarketing requirement and verified benefit in a median of 3.4 years after their initial AA. Thirty-seven (40%) indications have not yet completed confirmatory trial(s) or verified benefit, and 5 indications receiving AA (5%) have been withdrawn from the market. Conclusions and Relevance: The use of the AA program during the past 25 years has increased over time, and only a small portion of indications under the AA program fail to verify clinical benefit. For patients with serious or life-threatening oncologic diseases, AA brings products to the market years before confirmatory trials are typically completed.

Development and Refinement of a Learning Health Systems Training Program.

CONTEXT: In the emerging Learning Health System (LHS), the application and generation of medical knowledge are a natural outgrowth of patient care. Achieving this ideal requires a physician workforce adept in information systems, quality improvement methods, and systems-based practice to be able to use existing data to inform future care. These skills are not currently taught in medical school or graduate medical education. CASE DESCRIPTION: We initiated a first-ever Learning Health Systems Training Program (LHSTP) for resident physicians. The curriculum builds analytical, informatics and systems engineering skills through an active-learning project utilizing health system data that culminates in a final presentation to health system leadership. FINDINGS: LHSTP has been in place for two years, with 14 participants from multiple medical disciplines. Challenges included scheduling, mentoring, data standardization, and iterative optimization of the curriculum for real-time instruction. Satisfaction surveys and feedback were solicited mid-year in year 2. Most respondents were satisfied with the program, and several participants wished to continue in the program in various capacities after their official completion. MAJOR THEMES: We adapted our curriculum to successes and challenges encountered in the first two years. Modifications include a revised approach to teaching statistics, smaller cohorts, and more intensive mentorship. We continue to explore ways for our graduates to remain involved in the LHSTP and to disseminate this program to other institutions. CONCLUSION: The LHSTP is a novel curriculum that trains physicians to lead towards the LHS. Successful methods have included diverse multidisciplinary educators, just in time instruction, tailored content, and mentored projects with local health system impact.

Neoadjuvant use of ipilimumab in locally advanced melanoma.

Recent advances in immune modulating therapies show great promise for patients with advanced melanoma, however optimal strategies for achieving long-term disease control in locally advanced melanoma are unclear. We present two cases of neoadjuvant ipilimumab, one case in combination with isolated limb infusion (ILI) followed by surgical resection and one followed by surgery alone. Both patients have had durable responses. These cases highlight the ongoing need for prospective trials in the neoadjuvant setting.

There is a mismatch between the medicare benefit package and the preferences of patients with cancer and their caregivers.

PURPOSE: To identify insured services that are most important to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and their family caregivers when coverage is limited. METHODS: A total of 440 participants (patients, n = 246; caregivers, n = 194) were enrolled onto the CHAT (Choosing Health Plans All Together) study from August 2010 to March 2013. The exercise elicited preferences about what benefits Medicare should cover for patients with cancer in their last 6 months of life. Facilitated sessions lasted 2.5 hours, included 8 to 10 participants, and focused on choices about Medicare health benefits within the context of a resource-constrained environment. RESULTS: Six of 15 benefit categories were selected by > 80% of participants: cancer care, prescription drugs, primary care, home care, palliative care, and nursing home coverage. Only 12% of participants chose the maximum level of cancer benefits, a level of care commonly financed in the Medicare program. Between 40% and 50% of participants chose benefits not currently covered by Medicare: unrestricted cash, concurrent palliative care, and home-based long-term care. Nearly one in five participants picked some level of each of these three benefit categories and allocated on average 30% of their resources toward them. CONCLUSION: The mismatch between covered benefits and participant preferences shows that addressing quality of life and the financial burden of care is a priority for a substantial subset of patients with cancer in the Medicare program. Patient and caregiver preferences can be elicited, and the choices they express could suggest potential for Medicare benefit package reform and flexibility.

The ethics of clinical trials for cancer therapy.

Cancer clinical trials are intended to evaluate novel interventions and to improve outcomes. Such research depends on the participation of patients seeking the best options for care. The design, conduct, and analysis of trials must therefore be grounded in an ethical framework that respects and protects the interests of clinical trial participants.

A decision exercise to engage cancer patients and families in deliberation about Medicare coverage for advanced cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Concerns about unsustainable costs in the US Medicare program loom as the number of retirees increase and experiences serious and costly illnesses like cancer. Engagement of stakeholders, particularly cancer patients and their families, in prioritizing insured services offers a valuable strategy for informing Medicare coverage policy. We designed and evaluated a decision exercise that allowed cancer patients and family members to choose Medicare benefits for advanced cancer patients. METHODS: The decision tool, Choosing Health plans All Together (CHAT) was modified to select services for advanced cancer patients. Patients with a cancer history (N = 246) and their family members (N = 194) from North Carolina participated in 70 CHAT sessions. Variables including participants' socio-demographic characteristics, health status, assessments of the exercise and results of group benefit selections were collected. Routine descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics and Fisher's exact test compared group differences. Qualitative analysis of group discussions were used to ascertain reasons for or against selecting benefits. RESULTS: Patients and family members (N = 440) participated in 70 CHAT exercises. Many groups opted for such services as palliative care, nursing facilities, and services not currently covered by the Medicare program. In choosing among four levels of cancer treatment coverage, no groups chose basic coverage, 27 groups (39%) selected intermediate coverage, 39 groups (56%) selected high coverage, and 4 groups (6%) chose the most comprehensive cancer coverage. Reasons for or against benefit selection included fairness, necessity, need for prioritizing, personal experience, attention to family needs, holistic health outlook, preference for comfort, freedom of choice, and beliefs about the proper role of government. Participants found the exercise very easy (59%) or fairly easy (39%) to understand and very informative (66%) or fairly informative (31%). The majority agreed that the CHAT exercise led to fair decisions about priorities for coverage by which they could abide. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to involve cancer patients and families in explicit discussions of their priorities for affordable advanced cancer care through the use of decision tools designed for this purpose. A key question is whether such a conversation is possible on a broader, national level.

Assessing the value of patient-generated data to comparative effectiveness research.

The goal of comparative effectiveness research is to assess medical therapies and allow patients, health care providers, payers, and policy makers to make evidence-based decisions about the most appropriate therapies in routine clinical practice. To conduct this type of research and to inform health care delivery, data about the impact of interventions on patient outcomes are needed. Methods of generating evidence for comparative effectiveness research provide opportunities to engage patients and understand their experiences with illness and its treatment. In this article we assess the need for, uses of, and strengths and weaknesses of patient-generated data. We also review in brief federal and medical society efforts to create new streams of patient-generated data for clinical and research use. We observe that the key to high-quality patient-generated data is to have immediate and actionable data so that patients experience the importance of the data for their own care as well as research purposes. We conclude that leveraging the emerging wealth of "big data" being generated by patient-facing technologies such as systems to collect patient-reported outcomes data and patient-worn sensors is critical to developing the evidence base that informs decisions made by patients, providers, and policy makers in pursuit of high-value medical care.

Early palliative care in cancer treatment: rationale, evidence and clinical implications.

Patients with advanced cancer often experience symptoms of disease and treatment that contribute to distress and diminish their quality of life (QOL). Care that is aimed at control of these symptoms, whether or not the patient is undergoing ongoing disease-directed therapy to control the cancer, is thus a key feature of high-quality patient-centered care. In standard oncology practice, it is easy for focus on this type of care to be obscured by discussions and management of anticancer therapy and adequate attention to QOL, patient preferences, and goals of care often occur only days to weeks from the patient's death. The initiation of palliative care and discussion of the patients' goals and preferences earlier in the course of disease can lead to improved symptom control, reduced distress throughout the disease-directed therapy, and care delivery that matches the patients' preferences. This review discusses the evolving evidence for early initiation of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer and ongoing barriers to care in this setting. We highlight challenges for research and care delivery and the potential for broader awareness of the demonstrated benefits of palliative care to help translate known benefits into improved outcomes for patients facing advanced cancer.