The asymptomatic follicular lymphoma (AFL) trial: single-agent rituximab immunotherapy versus 90Y-ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy (RIT) for patients with new, untreated follicular lymphoma.

Patients with asymptomatic follicular lymphoma (AFL) are candidates for observation or immunotherapy. Given the effectiveness of radiation therapy in FL, another option is 90Yttrium-ibritumomab tiuxetan radioimmunotherapy (RIT). We conducted a trial where untreated AFL patients were randomized to rituximab 375 mg/m2 weekly × 4 or rituximab 250 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 0.4 mCi/kg (maximum 32 mCi) of RIT day 8. Twenty patients were enrolled before the study was halted due to unavailability of RIT. The ORR for rituximab and RIT were 90% and 80%, respectively; the CR rate at 6 months was 30% and 60%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 67 months, eight patients have progressed-three in the rituximab arm and five in the RIT arm and five have required systemic therapy. All patients remain alive. Both agents are highly active for AFL. The 1-week treatment with RIT and sparing of T-cells make combination therapy with newer agents attractive.

A phase 2 and pharmacological study of sapanisertib in patients with relapsed and/or refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent approval of several new agents, relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) remains challenging to treat. Sapanisertib (MLN0128/TAK-228) is an oral TORC1/2 inhibitor that exhibited preclinical activity against ALL. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm multi-center Phase II study of sapanisertib monotherapy (3 mg orally daily of the milled formulation for 21 days every 28 days) in patients with ALL through the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (NCI-9775). RESULTS: Sixteen patients, 15 of whom were previously treated (median 3 prior lines of therapy), were enrolled. Major grade 3-4 non-hematologic toxicities included mucositis (3 patients) and hyperglycemia (2 patients) as well as hepatic failure, seizures, confusion, pneumonitis, and anorexia (1 patient each). Grade >2 hematological toxicity included leukopenia (3), lymphopenia (2), thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia (1). The best response was stable disease in 2 patients (12.5%), while only 3 patients (19%) were able to proceed to Cycle 2. Pharmacokinetic analysis demonstrated drug exposures similar to those observed in solid tumor patients. Immunoblotting in serially collected samples indicated limited impact of treatment on phosphorylation of mTOR pathway substrates such as 4EBP1, S6, and AKT. CONCLUSION: In summary, single-agent sapanisertib had a good safety profile but limited target inhibition or efficacy in ALL as a single agent. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02484430.

Nivolumab in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma: modest activity and cases of hyperprogression.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), a heterogeneous group of mature aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, carry a worse prognosis for most subtypes when compared with their B-cell counterparts. Despite recent approval of newer therapies, the outlook for patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) PTCL remains poor and new treatment strategies are clearly needed. Targeting the profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in PTCL is one such approach. To determine whether immune checkpoint blockade targeting program death receptor 1 would be effective in PTCL, we conducted an investigator-initiated phase 2 prospective study of single-agent nivolumab for RR PTCL. We report here results of the pre-specified interim analysis. METHODS: The primary objective was to assess the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability of nivolumab in PTCL and to assess progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) was defined as time-to-treatment failure of less than or equal to one month from initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Twelve patients who received at least one cycle of nivolumab were included in this interim analysis. Half (6/12) of the patients had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3/12 had PTCL, not otherwise specified. Most (11/12) were advanced stage, had extranodal disease (97.1%) and had received a prior autologous stem cell transplant (50%). The ORR was 33% (95% CI: 12.3 to 63.7%) with two complete response and two partial response. The median PFS was however short at 2.7 months (95% CI: 1.5 to NE); and the median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI: 3.4 to NE). The median DOR was also short at 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.9 to NE). HPD occurred in four patients, three of whom had AITL. Observed grade 3 and higher adverse events (AEs) were non-hematologic in 5/12 (42%), while hematologic AEs were seen in 3/12 (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab had modest clinical activity in R/R PTCL. Due to a high number of hyperprogression and short DOR, a decision was made to halt the study. These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03075553.

A feasibility study of virtual group therapy to improve quality of life of cancer caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Cancer caregiving can negatively impact the quality of life (QOL) of the caregiver. In-person interventions for improving coping skills have been shown to be effective in improving QOL for caregivers. OBJECTIVES: This pilot project explored the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual group therapy intervention to improve short-term cancer caregiver QOL. METHODS: Caregivers of cancer patients were enrolled in a structured multidisciplinary intervention of eight virtual group therapy sessions provided over four weeks between September 9, 2013 and November 17, 2014. Group sessions were led by trained facilitators and included components of physical therapy, occupational therapy, psychosocial education, cognitive-behavioral intervention, supportive discussion, spiritual reflection, and mindfulness therapy. Feasibility was based on acceptable number of recruited participants per session; acceptability was defined using attendance and 80% QOL completion rates. QOL domains and symptom burden were assessed using validated single items. RESULTS: The 20 cancer caregivers who enrolled were mostly older (80% were ≥ 65 years), female (76.5%), married to the patient (88.2%), Caucasian (100%), and highly educated (100%). 60% attended one to five sessions, 15% attended six to eight sessions, and 25% attended no sessions. Thirty percent completed pre- and post- intervention ratings of QOL items. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Findings suggested that a virtual group therapy intervention is feasible for the cancer caregivers in this study. Although not statistically significant, the caregivers reported higher QOL and less symptom burden in multiple domains after participating in the virtual group therapy intervention.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin With Bevacizumab or Placebo in Patients With Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma: Results of CALGB 90601 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes in relation to provider-assessed adverse events during head and neck radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: To assess the relationship between patient-reported quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes and provider-assessed adverse events (AEs) during head-and-neck (H&N) radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: Sixty-five patients undergoing H&N RT prospectively completed 12-domain linear analogue self-assessments (LASA) at baseline, before biweekly appointments, and at last week of RT. At the same time points, provider-assessed AEs were graded using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. LASA scores were stratified by maximum-grade AE and analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis methodology. Agreement between LASA scores and maximum-grade AE was assessed using Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Patient-reported QOL outcomes showed clinically meaningful decreases in most domains, predominantly fatigue (77.8% of patients), social activity (75.4%), and overall QOL (74.2%). Provider-assessed AEs showed 100% grade 2 AE, 35.4% grade 3 AE, and 3.1% grade 4 AE. At baseline, patients with higher grade AEs reported worse physical well-being (WB) (P = .04). At week 1, the following QOL domains were worse for patients with higher grade AEs: overall QOL (P = .03), mental WB (P = .02), and physical WB (P = .03). Bland-Altman analysis showed that QOL scores were relatively worse than AE burden at baseline and relatively better at RT completion. CONCLUSIONS: Worse QOL was associated with higher-grade AEs at baseline and early in RT. The impact of AEs on QOL appears to lessen with time. Patient-reported QOL outcomes and provider-assessed AEs provide complementary information.

Longitudinal Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis to evaluate tolerability: a case study of lenalidomide in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance) trial.

Evaluation of tolerability is increasingly relevant for patients with haematological malignancies treated with chronically administered therapies. Adverse events from these agents might affect the ability of patients to tolerate treatment over time. Conventional toxicity tables that include the incidence of high-grade adverse events, defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, do not provide information on the time profile of these adverse events or reflect the continuous, lower grade symptomatic toxicities that are particularly relevant to treatment tolerability for patients living with indolent disease. Modern approaches to the evaluation and reporting of toxicity that capture the tolerability of treatment to the patient are imperative. In this Viewpoint, we present a focused, pilot, and longitudinal Toxicity over Time analysis of adverse events from lenalidomide and lenalidomide with rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma treated in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance; NCT00238238) trial to define the trajectory of adverse events and quantify the burden of continuous, low-grade events. Toxicity over Time analyses provided clinically relevant descriptions of neutropenia and fatigue trajectories caused by lenalidomide that were not identified by standard analysis of the maximum grade events defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Systematic, rigorous incorporation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials will be crucial to our understanding of the tolerability of chronically administered therapies in patients with haematological malignancies.

A randomized phase II trial evaluating two non-pharmacologic interventions in cancer survivors for the treatment of sleep-wake disturbances: NCCTG N07C4 (Alliance).

PURPOSE: Sleep disturbance is a prevalent problem for cancer survivors and effective behavioral treatments are not widely used for this population. This study evaluated home-based sleep interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). METHODS: This phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated two manualized interventions over 7 weeks. The intervention group received sleep hygiene information, stimulus control, sleep restriction, and a bedtime imagery audio recording. The control group was similar, but without sleep restriction and used audio recordings of bedtime short stories instead of imagery. Eligibility included adult cancer survivors who had trouble falling asleep or falling back to sleep on 3 of 7 days. Patients with diagnoses of sleep or mental health disorders were excluded. The primary endpoint was change in time to fall asleep or falling back to sleep after awakening, from baseline to week 7. Two-sample T tests evaluated differences between arms for this endpoint. RESULTS: Ninety-three of 168 planned participants were enrolled from 20 institutions. The study closed early for poor accrual. Baseline time to sleep was 45 min and 52 min for the intervention and control group, respectively. At 7 weeks, both groups improved, the intervention group to 26 min and control group to 30 min, a non-significant difference between groups (p = 0.85). Secondary outcomes improved in both groups with no significant differences between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in sleep outcomes in both arms was consistent with other CBT-I interventions delivered through alternative approaches to provider-delivered therapy. More research on optimal scalable delivery of CBT-I is needed. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study supports the effectiveness of CBT-I based behavioral interventions for sleep but also the need for better delivery methods to improve uptake and effect size. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00993928.

Effects of a multidisciplinary quality of life intervention on sleep quality in patients with advanced cancer receiving radiation therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Sleep disturbances are prevalent in cancer patients, especially those with advanced disease. There are few published intervention studies that address sleep issues in advanced cancer patients during the course of treatment. This study assesses the impact of a multidisciplinary quality of life (QOL) intervention on subjective sleep difficulties in patients with advanced cancer. METHOD: This randomized trial investigated the comparative effects of a multidisciplinary QOL intervention (n = 54) vs. standard care (n = 63) on sleep quality in patients with advanced cancer receiving radiation therapy as a secondary endpoint. The intervention group attended six intervention sessions, while the standard care group received informational material only. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), administered at baseline and weeks 4 (post-intervention), 27, and 52. RESULTS: The intervention group had a statistically significant improvement in the PSQI total score and two components of sleep quality and daytime dysfunction than the control group at week 4. At week 27, although both groups showed improvements in sleep measures from baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in any of the PSQI total and component scores, or ESS. At week 52, the intervention group used less sleep medication than control patients compared to baseline (p = 0.04) and had a lower ESS score (7.6 vs. 9.3, p = 0.03). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: A multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL can also improve sleep quality of advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Those patients who completed the intervention also reported the use of less sleep medication.

Androgen Mediation-and Antiandrogens Mitigation-of the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (EGFR) Inhibitor-Induced Rash: Results From a Pilot Randomized Trial and Small Translational Case Series.

BACKGROUND: Although 50% to 90% of patients who receive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors develop a rash, options for rash prevention or palliation remain limited. This issue is particularly important from a palliative care standpoint because these agents are prescribed only to patients with incurable cancer. Here, we report (1) gene expression profiling of skin biopsies from patients with an EGFR inhibitor-induced rash and (2) a randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility trial with the antiandrogen, spironolactone. Both investigations were undertaken to begin to explore the hypothesis that androgens mediate EGFR inhibitor-induced rash and that antiandrogens palliate it. METHODS/RESULTS: First, 4 skin biopsies from patients with EGFR inhibitor-induced rash (3 men and 1 woman) were subject to gene expression microarray profiling. A public data set of normal skin gene expression (Gene Expression Omnibus, GSE22998) served as a reference. Sixty percent of commonly interrogated androgen receptor genes (207 of 308 between the 2 data sets) were differentially expressed ( P < .05) in the rash samples. Second, in a 17-patient double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with topical spironolactone applied to the face, although the primary feasibility end point was not achieved, patients in the spironolactone arm received more doses of EGFR inhibitor, and anecdotal photographic evidence suggested salutatory effects of spironolactone on rash. CONCLUSIONS: Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced rash appears to be androgen-mediated; antiandrogen therapy merits further study for rash prevention/palliation.

Daily Lisinopril vs Placebo for Prevention of Chemoradiation-Induced Pulmonary Distress in Patients With Lung Cancer (Alliance MC1221): A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation (CRT) is an integral treatment modality for patients with locally advanced lung cancer. It has been hypothesized that current use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor during CRT may be protective for treatment-related lung damage and pneumonitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Study-eligible patients receiving curative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) were randomly assigned to 20 mg of lisinopril or placebo once daily during and up to 3 months after RT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was adverse event profiling. Multiple patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, including the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Questionnaire, were applied with a symptom experience questionnaire. Exploratory comparative statistics were used to detect differences between arms with χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis testing. RESULTS: Five institutions enrolled 23 patients. However, accrual was less than expected. Eleven and 12 patients were in the placebo and lisinopril arms, respectively (mean age, 63.5 years; male, 62%). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Eighteen patients (86%) were former or current smokers. The primary endpoint was met; neither arm had grade 3 or higher hypotension, acute kidney injury, allergic reaction (medication-induced cough), or anaphylaxis (medication-related angioedema). Few PRO measures suggested that compared with the placebo arm, patients receiving lisinopril had less cough, less shortness of breath, fewer symptoms from lung cancer, less dyspnea with both walking and climbing stairs, and better overall quality of life (for all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although underpowered because of low accrual, our results suggest that there was a clinical signal for safety-and possibly beneficial by limited PRO measures-in concurrently administering lisinopril during thoracic CRT to mitigate or prevent RT-induced pulmonary distress. Our results showed that a definitive, larger-scale, randomized phase 3 trial is needed in the future.

Phase 1 study of pomalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory primary CNS or vitreoretinal lymphoma.

The combination of pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) was evaluated for relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of POM as the primary objective, and overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety profile as secondary objectives. A cohorts-of-3 study design was used with a dose-escalation schedule consisting of POM (3, 5, 7, or 10 mg) orally daily for 21 days every 28 days and DEX 40 mg orally every week. After 2 cycles, POM was continued alone until disease progression, intolerance, or subject withdrawal. Following MTD determination, the MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-five of 29 patients with the median of 3 prior treatments were eligible for assessment as per international PCNSL collaborative group criteria. The MTD of POM was 5 mg daily for 21 days every 28 days. Whole-study ORR was 48% (12 of 25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8%, 68.7%) with 6 complete response (CR), 2 complete response, unconfirmed (CRu), and 4 partial response (PR). MTD cohort ORR was 50% (8 of 16; 95% CI, 24.7%, 75.4%) with 5 CR, 1 CRu, and 2 PR. Median PFS was 5.3 months (whole study) and 9 months (for responders). One patient had pseudoprogression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (21%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included lung infection (12%), sepsis (4%), fatigue (8%), syncope (4%), dyspnea (4%), hypoxia (4%), respiratory failure (8%), and rash (4%). POM/DEX treatment is feasible with significant therapeutic activity against relapsed/refractory PCNSL and PVRL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01722305.

Evaluating the efficacy of vaginal dehydroepiandosterone for vaginal symptoms in postmenopausal cancer survivors: NCCTG N10C1 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Women with estrogen deficiencies can suffer from vaginal symptoms that negatively impact sexual health. This study evaluated vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) for alleviation of vaginal symptoms. METHODS: This three-arm randomized, controlled trial evaluated DHEA 3.25 mg and DHEA 6.5 mg, each compared to a plain moisturizer (PM) over 12 weeks, to improve the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia, measured with an ordinal scale, and overall sexual health using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Postmenopausal women with a history of breast or gynecologic cancer who had completed primary treatment, had no evidence of disease, and reported at least moderate vaginal symptoms were eligible. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia for each DHEA dose was compared to PM and analyzed by two independent t tests using a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-four women were randomized. All arms reported improvement in either dryness or dyspareunia. Neither DHEA dose was statistically significantly different from PM at 12 weeks (6.25 mg, p = .08; 3.25 mg, p = 0.48), although a significant difference at 8 weeks for 6.5 mg DHEA was observed (p = 0.005). Women on the 6.5 mg arm of DHEA reported significantly better sexual health on the FSFI (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in provider-graded toxicities and few significant differences in self-reported side effects. CONCLUSION: PM and DHEA improved vaginal symptoms at 12 weeks. However, vaginal DHEA, 6.5 mg, significantly improved sexual health. Vaginal DHEA warrants further investigation in women with a history of cancer.

Systemic and local effects of vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA): NCCTG N10C1 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is helpful for treating vaginal symptoms. This secondary analysis evaluated the impact of vaginal DHEA on hormone concentrations, bone turnover, and vaginal cytology in women with a cancer history. METHODS: Postmenopausal women, diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer, were eligible if they reported at least moderate vaginal symptoms. Participants could be on tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women were randomized to 3.25 versus 6.5 mg/day of DHEA versus a plain moisturizer (PM) control. Sex steroid hormone levels, biomarkers of bone formation, vaginal pH, and maturation index were collected at baseline and 12 weeks. Analysis included independent t tests and Wilcoxon rank tests, comparing each DHEA arm with the control. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five women contributed evaluable blood and 46 contributed evaluable cytology and pH values. Circulating DHEA-S and testosterone levels were significantly increased in those on vaginal DHEA in a dose-dependent manner compared to PM. Estradiol was significantly increased in those on 6.5 mg/day DHEA but not in those on 3.25 mg/day DHEA (p < 0.05 and p = 0.05, respectively), and not in those on AIs. Biomarkers of bone formation were unchanged in all arms. Maturation of vaginal cells was 100% (3.25 mg/day), 86% (6.5 mg/day), and 64% (PM); pH decreased more in DHEA arms. CONCLUSION: DHEA resulted in increased hormone concentrations, though still in the lowest half or quartile of the postmenopausal range, and provided more favorable effects on vaginal cytology, compared to PM. Estrogen concentrations in women on AIs were not changed. Further research on the benefit of vaginal DHEA is warranted in hormone-dependent cancers.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes and toxicities during radiotherapy for head-and-neck cancer.

PURPOSE: To characterize quality of life (QOL) using real-time, electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and to evaluate adverse events (AEs) and supportive care during head-and-neck radiotherapy (RT) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT). METHODS: Sixty-five patients undergoing head-and-neck RT completed electronic, real-time, 12-item linear analog self-assessments (LASA) at baseline, before biweekly appointments, and at the last week of RT. Changes in QOL domains between time points were calculated. Clinical data were collected from the institutional medical record. AEs were recorded at the same time points as the LASA and graded. RESULTS: During head-and-neck RT, most patients had clinically meaningful decreases in all QOL domains except level of support, financial concerns, and legal concerns. QOL domains with the most prevalent, clinically meaningful decreases were fatigue (75.4% of patients; 95% CI, 62.9-84.9%), social activity (70.8%; 95% CI, 58.0-81.1%), and overall QOL (70.8%; 95% CI, 58.0-81.1%). All patients had grade 2 AEs; 35.4% had grade 3 (50.0%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .002). Weight loss averaged 5.5 kg (6.9 kg, CCRT; 2.8 kg, RT; P < .001). Intravenous hydration was needed in 52.3% (77.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P < .001); feeding tube placement 40.0% (57.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .001); emergency department visits without hospitalization, 10.8%; and emergent hospitalization, 27.7% (37.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Head-and-neck RT, particularly CCRT, negatively impacts patients' overall QOL, social activity, and fatigue, with frequent grade 3 AEs, weight loss, intravenous hydration, feeding tube placement, ED visits, and hospitalization. Real-time ePROs allow providers to monitor QOL at multiple time points during RT, potentially allowing early intervention to improve QOL and mitigate AEs.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Patient-reported outcomes questionnaire compliance in Cancer Cooperative Group Trials (Alliance N0992).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is a focal point for research and policy. Non-compliance with planned questionnaires and missing data can threaten both internal validity and generalizability. This retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the extent of, and characteristics associated with, missing patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Study characteristics, patient characteristics and adverse events, and reasons for non-compliance were compiled from 14 closed Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, or Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium clinical trials. Compliance rates were calculated for each patient using the number of booklets completed while the patient was on trial divided by the number of booklets the patient was expected to complete. Frequency counts and summary statistics were compiled. Logistic regression techniques were employed. RESULTS: The 1640 included patients had a median age of 58 years and were mostly White (90.8%) and female (73.8%). Compliance rates per study ranged from 84.7% to 97.2%. The primary endpoint of overall compliance rate was 93.1%. A total of 1267 patients were compliant. Those non-compliant were slightly older (mean = 58.6 vs 57.5, p = 0.03) and had different types of cancers (p < 0.01). There were no differences in compliance according to tumor status (p = 0.66), clinical stage (p = 0.81), baseline quality of life (p = 0.42 for ≥8 vs <8 and p = 0.12 for ≥6 vs <6), or maximum adverse event grade incidence (p = 0.33 for grade 2+ incidence and p = 0.36 for grade 3+ incidence). Reasons for non-compliance included patient refusal (N = 136), booklet not administered to patient (N = 199), no clinic visit at the scheduled time for booklet completion (N = 40), and at-home-completed booklet not returned (N = 224). Logistic regression indicates gender (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.01), performance score (p = 0.02), dose delay status (p = 0.01), and incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse event (p = 0.03) were correlates of compliance. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes have successfully been implemented into Alliance and Mayo Clinic trials with high rates of patient compliance. Further improvement in compliance can be made with staff commitment and education. Patients are typically non-compliant only when the task at hand is burdensome, unclear, or logistically challenging. Existing tracking systems used for the other trial outcomes should be utilized to ensure successful capture of patient-reported outcomes.

Longitudinal adverse event assessment in oncology clinical trials: the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis of Alliance trials NCCTG N9741 and 979254.

BACKGROUND: Traditional methods of reporting adverse events in clinical trials are inadequate for modern cancer treatments with chronic administration. Conventional analysis and display of maximum grade adverse events do not capture toxicity profiles that evolve over time or longer lasting, lower grade toxic effects; we aimed to address this shortcoming in this study. METHODS: We developed an analytic approach and standardised, comprehensive format, the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach, which combines graphs and adverse event tabular displays with multiple longitudinal statistical techniques into a readily applicable method to study toxic effects. Plots visualising summary statistics or individual patient data over discrete timepoints were combined with statistical methods including the following longitudinal techniques: repeated measures models that describe the changes in adverse events across all cycles of treatment; time-to-event analyses of first and worst grade toxicity; and area under the curve (AUC) analyses summarising adverse event profiles over the entire course of a study, including chronic low-grade events. We applied ToxT analysis to adverse event data from two completed North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG/Alliance) trials: N9741 (NCT00003594), in which different combinations of oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan were investigated for metastatic colorectal cancer, and 979254, in which survivors of breast cancer were given venlafaxine or placebo for control of hot flashes. FINDINGS: In trial NCCTG 979254 there was a higher incidence of late-occurring dry mouth in patients who were given venlafaxine than in those given placebo (week 1 [baseline]: 13% [six incidence in 48 patients, SD 5] vs 22% [11/49, SD 6]; p=0·20; week 5: 49% [24/49, 7] vs 2% [1/46, 2]; p<0·0001). In trial NCCTG N9741 there was an increased incidence of early nausea for patients given irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (IROX) compared with those given 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX; cycle 1 mean grade nausea 1·1 [SD 1·0] vs 0·6 [0·7]; p<0·0001). Event charts showed earlier occurrences of higher grades of diarrhoea for patients given IROX compared with those given FOLFOX, and the AUC analysis shows a higher magnitude of diarrhoea consistently over time throughout the study in patients given IROX versus those given FOLFOX (mean AUC 4·2 [SD 5·2] vs 2·9 [4·2]; p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: The ToxT analytical approach incorporates the dimension of time into adverse event assessment and offers a more comprehensive depiction of toxic effects than present methods. With new, continuously administered targeted agents, immunotherapy, and maintenance regimens, these improved longitudinal analyses are directly relevant to patients and are crucial in cancer clinical trials. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Repeated measures analyses of dermatitis symptom evolution in breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy in a phase 3 randomized trial of mometasone furoate vs placebo (N06C4 [alliance]).

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicities over time have not been well quantified. We examined during and immediately following radiation therapy skin toxicities over time in a randomized study of mometasone furoate vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomized. Symptoms related to skin toxicity were addressed weekly using provider-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0) and 4 patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys. We applied repeated measures and risk analysis methodologies. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled. By CTCAE, significant differences favoring mometasone were detected over time in all toxicities except skin striae, atrophy, and infection. Statistically significant differences between arms at baseline but not over time occurred for all Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Statistically significant differences occurred for all symptoms in the temporal profile of symptoms as measured by PRO surveys (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of longitudinal methods enhanced the ability of PRO tools to detect differences between study arms. Our results strengthened the conclusions of the original report that mometasone reduced acute skin toxicities. PRO surveys can accurately assess patients' experiences of symptom type and intensity over time and should be included in future clinical trials. For radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicity, we hypothesized that clinically significant differences over time, if any, can be found by repeated measures. We examined the acute skin toxicities in a randomized study of mometasone vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. For secondary end points, we showed that longitudinal methods enhanced the detection of differences between study arms and strengthened the conclusions from the original report. Frequent patient-reported outcome surveys over time should be included in future clinical trials.