Time toxicity associated with early phase clinical trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Early phase cancer clinical trials (EPCTs) involve experimental drugs being used for the first time in humans. These studies are designed for dose determination and safety, and represent the most time intensive of all clinical trials for both clinicians and patients. We sought to quantify the amount of patient time consumed through EPCT participation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective audit of patients treated in the EPCT unit at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney was carried out from 2013 to 2023. We defined 'time toxicity' (TT) as a composite measure where time-toxic days were considered days with any health care system contact, including clinic visits, infusions, procedures or blood work. RESULTS: A total of 219 patients across 36 EPCTs were included. The median age was 65 years (range 31-81 years). Patients spent a median of 29% (range 4%-100%) of their days in direct contact with the health care system during their study. Protocol-specified visits accounted for the greatest contribution to total TT in 101 (46%) patients. In 7% (n = 16) of patients, unscheduled visits due to either adverse events or cancer-related symptoms accounted for the greatest TT. TT reduced as patients completed additional cycles of treatment. Patients who completed >10 cycles spent 14% of their days interacting with health care systems compared with 35% for those who completed ≤2 cycles. No statistically significant difference in TT was noted between dose-expansion and dose-escalation studies or trials focusing on immune-oncology versus targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Our study is the first to report TT in EPCTs with an extended follow-up. Clinicians should be aware of TT when discussing risks and benefits. TT also may not be the appropriate term when describing the time patients invest during EPCTs. Toxicity implies a negative impact, but for many patients, trial participation would be seen as positive. There should be efforts to streamline health care visits to limit TT in EPCTs.

Phase Ib study of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with atezolizumab in patients with triple negative breast cancer and colorectal cancer with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a first-in-class oncolytic viral immunotherapy, enhances tumor-specific immune activation. T-VEC combined with atezolizumab, which blocks inhibitor T-cell checkpoints, could provide greater benefit than either agent alone. Safety/efficacy of the combination was explored in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases. METHODS: In this phase Ib, multicenter, open-label, parallel cohort study of adults with TNBC or CRC with liver metastases, T-VEC (106 then 108 PFU/ml; ≤4 ml) was administered into hepatic lesions via image-guided injection every 21 (±3) days. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was given on day 1 and every 21 (±3) days thereafter. Treatment continued until patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), had complete response, progressive disease, needed alternative anticancer treatment, or withdrew due to an adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was DLT incidence, and secondary endpoints included efficacy and AEs. RESULTS: Between 19 March 2018 and 6 November 2020, 11 patients with TNBC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 10); between 19 March 2018 and 16 October 2019, 25 patients with CRC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 24). For the 5 patients in the TNBC DLT analysis set, no patient had DLT; for the 18 patients in the CRC DLT analysis set, 3 (17%) had DLT, all serious AEs. AEs were reported by 9 (90%) TNBC and 23 (96%) CRC patients, the majority with grade ≥3 [TNBC, 7 (70%); CRC, 13 (54%)], and 1 was fatal [CRC, 1 (4%)]. Evidence of efficacy was limited. Overall response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval 0.3-44.5) for TNBC; one (10%) patient had a partial response. For CRC, no patients had a response; 14 (58%) were unassessable. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile reflected known risks with T-VEC including risks of intrahepatic injection; no unexpected safety findings from addition of atezolizumab to T-VEC were observed. Limited evidence of antitumor activity was observed.

Imipenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam for empiric treatment of neutropenic fever in adults.

Australian guidelines for neutropenic fever recommend piperacillin/tazobactam (PIP-TAZ) or cefepime for first-line empiric treatment of neutropenic fever. We compared outcomes among haematology patients before and after changing our first-line neutropenic fever treatment from imipenem to PIP-TAZ. Forty-five patients received imipenem and 60 PIP-TAZ. Despite a higher rate of antibiotic modification in the PIP-TAZ cohort, treatment success and time to defervescence were similar, with a trend towards fewer Clostridium difficile infections in the PIP-TAZ cohort.