Exploring Clinicians' Perspectives of Barriers to Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment and Management in Oncology Practice: A Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative reports suggest that the assessment and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in practice is suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative analysis was to explore clinician-related perspectives of CIPN assessment, management, and the use of a CIPN decision support tool. METHODS: Clinicians from the breast oncology, gastrointestinal oncology, or multiple myeloma disease centers at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who interacted with a CIPN clinician decision support algorithm were eligible to participate in the semi-structured interviews. The interview guide included questions about CIPN assessment, management, and clinician-decision support tool use. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: Of the 39 eligible clinicians, 15 agreed to be interviewed. Interviewed clinicians were mainly physicians (73.3) and White, non-Hispanic (93.3%). Main themes from the interviews included (1) CIPN management practice patterns (eg, endorsement of non-recommended management strategies or lack of standardization for chemotherapy dose reduction) and barriers (eg, insurance prior authorizations required for duloxetine prescription), (2) CIPN assessment practice patterns (eg, use of subjective instead of objective CIPN assessment approaches) and barriers (eg, difficult to interpret patients' CIPN report between visits), and (3) utilization of the clinician decision support tool (eg, all assessment tasks lead to same management options). CONCLUSIONS: There are several barriers to clinicians' use of evidence-based CIPN assessment and management strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Future work should be focused on addressing barriers to duloxetine prescription, developing evidence-based CIPN assessment and management strategies, improving symptom monitoring, and facilitating referrals to existing supportive care services.

Exploring Patients' Understanding of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

Little quantitative evidence exists surrounding patients' level of understanding of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) symptoms (numbness, tingling, pain in the hands/feet) and consequences (e.g., negatively affect physical functioning or chemotherapy dosing) at the beginning of chemotherapy. The purpose of this cross-sectional, secondary analysis was to describe CIPN knowledge and education patterns among adults early in a course of neurotoxic chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer (< three infusions). Following consent, participants completed an electronic questionnaire about their perceptions of CIPN symptoms, incidence, and education. Participants (N = 92) were mainly female (76%), white (91%), and diagnosed with breast (46%) or gastrointestinal (40%) cancers. Most participants without CIPN (n = 48) did not expect to develop CIPN (45%) or were unaware of CIPN as a side-effect (30%). Furthermore, 71% of participants without CIPN (n = 31) estimated CIPN to occur in ≤ 30% of patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy. Overall, participants learned about CIPN from their doctor or nurse prior to beginning chemotherapy (90%). Clinicians delivered education about CIPN symptoms (75%), but less frequently delivered education about CIPN management (14%), or the impact of CIPN on the ability to continue chemotherapy (16%) or physical functioning (24%). Finally, participants reported that a discussion with their doctor/nurse would be the best way to learn about CIPN (92%). Results revealed that participants without CIPN were largely unaware of the adverse consequences or incidence of CIPN during treatment. Further research is needed to investigate optimal methods to promote patient-clinician communication about CIPN during chemotherapy to enhance patients' retention of CIPN information and activation in their care.

Identifying participants' preferences for modifiable chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy prevention clinical trial factors: an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis.

PURPOSE: There are no recommended treatments for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) prevention. Recruitment to CIPN prevention clinical trials is challenging because it is difficult to enroll patients between the time of cancer diagnosis and the initiation of neurotoxic chemotherapy. The purpose of this exploratory-sequential mixed-methods study was to determine patients' preferences that could affect the choice to participate in CIPN prevention clinical trials. METHODS: First, twenty cognitive interviews were conducted with adults who completed less than three neurotoxic chemotherapy infusions to clarify clinical trial attributes and levels thought to be important to patients when deciding whether to enroll in CIPN prevention trials (i.e., type of treatment, clinical tests, reimbursement, survey delivery; length of visits, timing of follow-up, when to begin treatment). Second, another eighty-eight patients completed an adaptive choice-based conjoint analysis survey that incorporated the finalized attributes and levels. Each level was assigned a part-worth utility score using Hierarchical Bayes Estimation. The relative importance of each attribute was calculated. RESULTS: The attributes with the highest relative importance values were type of treatment (27.1%) and length of study visits (20.2%). The preferred levels included non-medicine treatment (53.49%), beginning treatment after experiencing CIPN (60.47%), email surveys (63.95%), assessments that include surveys and clinical exams (39.53%), under 30-min visits (44.19%), $50/week reimbursement (39.53%), and 1-month post-chemotherapy follow-up visits (32.56%). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' preferences for participation may be included in the design of future CIPN prevention clinical trials to potentially bolster study enrollment.

Self-Reported Severity, Characteristics, and Functional Limitations of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

BACKGROUND: The early identification of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) (e.g., numbness or tingling in the fingers or toes) is important due to its frequency and the few effective treatment options available. The identification of common patient-reported CIPN characteristics and associated functional limitations may help to facilitate patient-clinician discussions of CIPN in practice. AIMS: To quantify the severity, duration, location, characteristics, and associated functional limitations of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy. DESIGN: Exploratory secondary analysis of a prospective, two-phase study SETTING: Breast, gastrointestinal, and multiple myeloma clinics at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. PARTICIPANTS: 142 individuals who planned to receive at least three more cycles of neurotoxic chemotherapy after consent. METHODS: Participants self-reported CIPN using standardized measures (i.e., PRO-CTCAE™ Numbness and Tingling Items or 0-10 numerical rating scale of worst CIPN pain intensity) and/or study team generated follow up questions about CIPN location, duration, characteristics, and functional limitations prior to three consecutive clinic visits (T1, T2, T3). Participants' responses to the CIPN self-report questionnaires were described by chemotherapy type and age. RESULTS: Over approximately 36.5 days (T1-T3), the percentage of participants reporting at least mild CIPN increased from 59.3% to 71%. At T3, patients with non-painful (n = 98) or painful neuropathy (n = 34) frequently reported symptoms in the fingers (non-painful = 83.5%, painful = 76.5%) or toes (non-painful = 49.5%, painful = 41.2%) and characterized symptoms as numbness (non-painful = 54.1%, painful = 50%) or tingling (non-painful = 68.4%, painful = 82.4%). Self-reported CIPN functional limitations (n = 55) included difficulties with buttoning a shirt (38.2%) or walking (25.5%). Paclitaxel-related CIPN (n = 33) was frequently characterized as "continuous" (30.3%), whereas oxaliplatin-related CIPN (n = 51) was frequently characterized as "intermittent" (41.2%). Young adults (15-39 years old, n = 15) frequently reported moderate-severe non-painful CIPN (46.7%), painful CIPN (40%), and CIPN interference (33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with qualitative research, participants frequently described CIPN as numbness and/or tingling in the fingers and/or toes.

Measurement properties of brief neuropathy screening items in cancer patients receiving taxanes, platinums, or proteasome inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Timely detection of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is critical to effectively tailor chemotherapy dose levels and offer supportive care. The purpose of this secondary analysis was to determine the reliability and validity of the two Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) numbness and tingling severity and interference items to screen for CIPN in patients receiving taxanes, platinums, or proteasome inhibitors. METHODS: Participants (N = 142) completed the two PRO-CTCAE items, a 0-10 numerical rating scale of worst CIPN pain intensity, and the Quality of Life Questionnaire-CIPN20 (QLQ-CIPN20) prior to three clinical visits (T1, T2, T3) during neurotoxic chemotherapy. Participants completed the two PRO-CTCAE items again following the T3 clinical visit (T4). In addition, study staff administered the modified Total Neuropathy Score-Clinical Version (TNSc©) at T3. We examined floor (i.e., no CIPN severity or interference) and ceiling effects, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, longitudinal validity, construct validity of the response categories, and sensitivity and specificity of the two PRO-CTCAE items. RESULTS: At T3, 29% of participants had PRO-CTCAE severity scores at the floor; 60.1% of participants reported interference item scores at the floor. Agreements between scores reported at T3 and T4 for PRO-CTCAE severity (ICC = 0.79) and interference (ICC = 0.73) were moderate to strong. The PRO-CTCAE severity and interference items correlated moderately-strongly with QLQ-CIPN20 sensory (Spearman's ρ-range = 0.53-0.72) and motor (Spearman's ρ-range = 0.50-0.58) subscale scores. The Cohen's d from T1 to T3 for the PRO-CTCAE items were small (severity: d = 0.32, interference: d = 0.40) and comparable to the effect sizes for change observed with the QLQ-CIPN20. The PRO-CTCAE severity (0-3) and interference (0-2) response categories distinguished respondents with significantly different levels of QLQ-CIPN20 sensory and motor subscale scores (p < 0.001 via Jonckheere-Terpstra tests). The sensitivity and specificity of the PRO-CTCAE severity item (cutoff > 0) to detect probable sensory peripheral neuropathy were 95.83% and 65.22%, while the sensitivity and specificity of the PRO-CTCAE™ interference item (cutoff > 0) were 51.39% and 73.91%. CONCLUSION: Preliminary evidence supports the reliability and validity of the PRO-CTCAE numbness and tingling items for CIPN screening, although there may be floor effects and limitations in the capacity of the PRO-CTCAE items to identify the full range of CIPN sensory and motor features beyond numbness and tingling. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03514680. Registered 21 April 2018. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514680.

Exploring the impact of a decision support algorithm to improve clinicians' chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy assessment and management practices: a two-phase, longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) negatively affects physical function and chemotherapy dosing, yet, clinicians infrequently document CIPN assessment and/or adhere to evidence-based CIPN management in practice. The primary aims of this two-phase, pre-posttest study were to explore the impact of a CIPN clinician decision support algorithm on clinicians' frequency of CIPN assessment documentation and adherence to evidence-based management. METHODS: One hundred sixty-two patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy (e.g., taxanes, platinums, or bortezomib) answered patient-reported outcome measures on CIPN severity and interference prior to three clinic visits at breast, gastrointestinal, or multiple myeloma outpatient clinics (n = 81 usual care phase [UCP], n = 81 algorithm phase [AP]). During the AP, study staff delivered a copy of the CIPN assessment and management algorithm to clinicians (N = 53) prior to each clinic visit. Changes in clinicians' CIPN assessment documentation (i.e., index of numbness, tingling, and/or CIPN pain documentation) and adherence to evidence-based management at the third clinic visit were compared between the AP and UCP using Pearson's chi-squared test. RESULTS: Clinicians' frequency of adherence to evidence-based CIPN management was higher in the AP (29/52 [56%]) than the UCP (20/46 [43%]), but the change was not statistically significant (p = 0.31). There were no improvements in clinicians' CIPN assessment frequency during the AP (assessment index = 0.5440) in comparison to during the UCP (assessment index = 0.6468). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a clinician-decision support algorithm did not significantly improve clinicians' CIPN assessment documentation or adherence to evidence-based management. Further research is needed to develop theory-based implementation interventions to bolster the frequency of CIPN assessment and use of evidence-based management strategies in practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03514680 . Registered 21 April 2018.

A Phase Ib/II Trial of the First-in-Class Anti-CXCR4 Antibody Ulocuplumab in Combination with Lenalidomide or Bortezomib Plus Dexamethasone in Relapsed Multiple Myeloma.

PURPOSE: Ulocuplumab (BMS-936564) is a first-in-class fully human IgG4 monoclonal anti-CXCR4 antibody that inhibits the binding of CXCR4 to CXCL12. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase Ib/II study aimed to determine the safety and tolerability of ulocuplumab alone and in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (Arm A), or bortezomib and dexamethasone (Arm B), in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were evaluated (median age, 60 years; range, 53-67). The median number of prior therapies was 3 (range, 1-11), with 70% of subjects having received ≥3. This trial had a dose-escalation and a dose-expansion part. Using a 3+3 design on both arms of the trial, ulocuplumab's dose was escalated to a maximum of 10 mg/kg without reaching MTD. The most common treatment-related adverse events (AE) were neutropenia (13 patients, 43.3%) in Arm A and thrombocytopenia (6 patients, 37.5%) in Arm B. No deaths related to study drugs occurred. The combination of ulocuplumab with lenalidomide and dexamethasone showed a high response rate (PR or better) of 55.2% and a clinical benefit rate of 72.4%, even in patients who had been previously treated with immunomodulatory agents (IMiD). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that blockade of the CXCR4-CXCL12 axis by ulocuplumab is safe with acceptable AEs and leads to a high response rate in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma, making CXCR4 inhibitors a promising class of antimyeloma drugs that should be further explored in clinical trials.

Phase I/II trial of the CXCR4 inhibitor plerixafor in combination with bortezomib as a chemosensitization strategy in relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma.

We tested the hypothesis that using CXCR4 inhibition to target the interaction between the tumor cells and the microenvironment leads to sensitization of the tumor cells to apoptosis. Eligibility criteria included multiple myeloma (MM) patients with 1-5 prior lines of therapy. The purposes of the phase I study were to evaluate the safety and maximal-tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination. The treatment-related adverse events and response rate of the combination were assessed in the phase II study. A total of 58 patients were enrolled in the study. The median age of the patients was 63 years (range, 43-85), and 78% of them received prior bortezomib. In the phase I study, the MTD was plerixafor 0.32 mg/kg, and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 . The overall response rate for the phase II study was 48.5%, and the clinical benefit rate 60.6%. The median disease-free survival was 12.6 months. The CyTOF analysis demonstrated significant mobilization of plasma cells, CD34+ stem cells, and immune T cells in response to plerixafor. This is an unprecedented study that examines therapeutic targeting of the bone marrow microenvironment and its interaction with the tumor clone to overcome resistance to therapy. Our results indicate that this novel combination is safe and that the objective response rate is high even in patients with relapsed/refractory MM. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00903968.

Progression Risk Stratification of Asymptomatic Waldenström Macroglobulinemia.

BACKGROUND: Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM) is preceded by asymptomatic WM (AWM), for which the risk of progression to overt disease is not well defined. METHODS: We studied 439 patients with AWM, who were diagnosed and observed at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute between 1992 and 2014. RESULTS: During the 23-year study period, with a median follow-up of 7.8 years, 317 patients progressed to symptomatic WM (72%). Immunoglobulin M 4,500 mg/dL or greater, bone marrow lymphoplasmacytic infiltration 70% or greater, ß2-microglobulin 4.0 mg/dL or greater, and albumin 3.5 g/dL or less were all identified as independent predictors of disease progression. To assess progression risk in patients with AWM, we trained and cross-validated a proportional hazards model using bone marrow infiltration, immunoglobulin M, albumin, and beta-2 microglobulin values as continuous measures. The model divided the cohort into three distinct risk groups: a high-risk group with a median time to progression (TTP) of 1.8 years, an intermediate-risk group with a median TTP of 4.8 years, and a low-risk group with a median TTP of 9.3 years. We validated this model in two external cohorts, demonstrating robustness and generalizability. For clinical applicability, we made the model available as a Web page application ( www.awmrisk.com ). By combining two cohorts, we were powered to identify wild type MYD88 as an independent predictor of progression (hazard ratio, 2.7). CONCLUSION: This classification system is positioned to inform patient monitoring and care and, for the first time to our knowledge, to identify patients with high-risk AWM who may need closer follow-up or benefit from early intervention.