Head-to-head comparison of treatment sequences in advanced pancreatic cancer-Real-world data from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study.

There are no clear guidelines regarding the optimal treatment sequence for advanced pancreatic cancer, as head-to-head phase III randomised trials are missing. We assess real-world effectiveness of three common sequential treatment strategies by emulating a hypothetical randomised trial. This analysis included 1551 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer receiving FOLFIRINOX (n = 613) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB; n = 938) as palliative first-line treatment. We used marginal structural modelling to compare overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between three common first- to second-line treatment sequences, adjusting for time-varying potential confounding. The sequences were: FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and GEMNAB→nanoliposomal irinotecan (NALIRI) + 5-fluorouracil. Outcome was also calculated stratified by patients' prognostic risk according to the Pancreatic Cancer Score. Median OS and TTD of HRQoL independent of risk were 10.7 [8.9, 11.9] and 6.4 [4.8, 7.7] months for FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, 8.4 [7.4, 9.7] and 5.8 [4.6, 7.1] months for GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and 8.9 [7.8, 10.4] and 4.6 [4.1, 6.1] months for GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil. Compared to FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, OS and TTD were worse for poor-risk patients with GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF (OS: HR 2.09 [1.47, 2.98]; TTD: HR 1.97 [1.19, 3.27]) and those with GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil (OS: HR 1.35, [0.76, 2.39]; TTD: HR 2.62 [1.56, 4.42]). Brackets denote 95%-confidence intervals. The estimated real-world effectiveness of the three treatment sequences evaluated were largely comparable. Poor-risk patients might benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Future randomised trials on sequential treatments in advanced pancreatic cancer are warranted.

First-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Final results of the NEPTUN study.

Real-world data on the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still limited. The NEPTUN study evaluated effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) plus carboplatin (nab-P/C) in patients with advanced NSCLC in routine clinical practice in Germany. Patients included in our study were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and with decision for first-line nab-P/C in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6), secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. From 2016 to 2019, 408 patients from 75 sites were enrolled. PFS6 was 39.5% (95% CI: 34.2-44.8), median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6), ORR was 42.9% (95% CI: 37.7-48.2). Median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-11.6). In subgroup analyses, median OS for squamous vs non-squamous histology was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.8) vs 9.8 months (95% CI: 8.1-11.3) and for patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years median OS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 9.8-15.1) vs 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.7-11.1). Adverse events (AEs) related to nab-paclitaxel were reported in 247 (66.4%) patients, while carboplatin-related AEs were documented in 224 (60.2%) patients. Most frequently related AEs were leukopenia (22.3%) for nab-paclitaxel and anemia (20.2%) for carboplatin. Nab-P/C-related deaths were reported in 2 (0.5%) patients (sepsis and neutropenic sepsis). No new or unexpected safety signals emerged. These results support the effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-P/C in patients with advanced NSCLC reported in the pivotal trial and highlight the clinical value of this regimen in the real-world setting.

Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany.

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

The INFINITY study protocol: a retrospective cohort study on decision making and clinical impact of biomarker-driven precision oncology in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Precision oncology, defined as treatment of patients with targeted therapies matched to specific molecular alterations, has entered routine clinical practice. Particularly in patients with advanced cancer or hematologic malignancies, for whom no further standard therapies are available, this approach is increasingly applied as last resort option outside of the approved indication. However, data on patient outcomes are not systematically collected, analyzed, reported, and shared. We have initiated the INFINITY registry to provide evidence from routine clinical practice to fill this knowledge gap. METHODS: INFINITY is a retrospective, non-interventional cohort study conducted at approximately 100 sites in Germany (office-based oncologists/hematologists and hospitals). We aim to include 500 patients with advanced solid tumors or hematologic malignancies who received a non-standard targeted therapy based on potentially actionable molecular alterations or biomarkers. INFINITY aims to provide insights into the use of precision oncology in routine clinical practice within Germany. We systematically collect details on patient and disease characteristics, molecular testing, clinical decision-making, treatment, and outcome. DISCUSSION: INFINITY will provide evidence on the current biomarker landscape driving treatment decisions in routine clinical care. It will also provide insights on effectiveness of precision oncology approaches in general, and of specific drug class/alteration matches used outside their approved indications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04389541.

Survival after secondary liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparing data of three prospective randomized European trials (LICC, CELIM, FIRE-3).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with liver-limited disease (LLD) have a chance of long-term survival and potential cure after hepatic metastasectomy. However, the appropriate postoperative treatment strategy is still controversial. The CELIM and FIRE-3 studies demonstrated that secondary hepatic resection significantly improved overall survival (OS). The objective of this analysis was to compare these favorable outcome data with recent results from the LICC trial investigating the antigen-specific cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) as adjuvant therapy in mCRC patients with LLD after R0/R1 resection. Data from mCRC patients with LLD and secondary hepatic resection from each study were analyzed for efficacy outcomes based on patient characteristics, treatment and surveillance after surgery. In LICC, 40/121 (33%) patients, in CELIM 36/111 (32%) and in FIRE-3-LLD 29/133 (22%) patients were secondarily resected, respectively. Of those, 31 (77.5%) patients in LICC and all patients in CELIM were R0 resected. Median disease-free survival after resection was 8.9 months in LICC, 9.9 months in CELIM. Median OS in secondarily resected patients was 66.1 months in LICC, 53.9 months in CELIM and 56.2 months in FIRE-3-LLD. Median age was about 5 years less in LICC compared to CELIM and FIRE-3. Secondarily resected patients of LICC, CELIM and FIRE-3 showed an impressive median survival with a tendency for improved survival for patients in the LICC trial. A younger patient cohort but also more selective surgery, improved resection techniques, deep responses and a close surveillance program after surgery in the LICC trial may have had a positive impact on survival.

Pomalidomide plus dexamethasone for patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma: Final results of the non-interventional study POSEIDON and comparison with the pivotal phase 3 clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have relapsed on or become refractory to immunomodulators and bortezomib is poor, and treatment options are limited. While pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone (POM/DEX) has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trials, real-world evidence is scarce. PATIENTS AND METHODS: POSEIDON was a prospective non-interventional study designed to evaluate effectiveness, safety and quality of life (QoL) of POM/DEX in patients with relapsed or refractory MM (R/RMM) pretreated with at least two prior therapy lines including both lenalidomide and bortezomib in real world in Germany. Patients received POM/DEX according to physicians' choice. Data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2017, 151 patients were enrolled, 144 patients with a median of three prior therapy lines qualified for effectiveness analysis. Median age was 73.2 years. Median progression-free and overall survival were 6.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.2, 8.6] and 12.9 months [95% CI 10.6, 15.1]. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were leukopenia (8.2%), pneumonia (7.5%) and anemia (5.5%). QoL was maintained after start of POM/DEX. CONCLUSION: The results of POSEIDON support the effectiveness and safety of POM/DEX in R/RMM patients pretreated with lenalidomide and bortezomib and highlight the clinical value of the POM/DEX regimen in the real-world setting. Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02075996).

First-line pazopanib in intermediate- and poor-risk patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the FLIPPER trial.

Temsirolimus has long been the only approved first-line standard of care (SOC) with overall survival (OS) benefit in poor-risk patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). However, tyrosine kinase inhibitors are also commonly used in clinical practice. Pazopanib is an SOC for first-line mRCC treatment, but for poor-risk patients data are scarce. The FLIPPER (First-Line Pazopanib in Poor-Risk Patients with Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma) study aimed to assess efficacy and safety of first-line pazopanib in poor-risk mRCC patients. FLIPPER was a single-arm, multicenter, Phase IV trial. Key inclusion criteria were treatment-naive clear cell, inoperable advanced or mRCC, poor-risk according to MSKCC with slight modification, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥60% and adequate organ function. Oral pazopanib 800 mg was given daily. Primary endpoint was the 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6). Secondary endpoints included PFS, OS, overall response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR) and safety. For analysis, descriptive statistics were used. Between 2012 and 2016, 60 patients had been included. Forty-three patients qualified for safety analyses, 34 for efficacy. Median age was 66 years, 64.7% of patients were poor-risk, 82.4% had a KPS ≤70%. PFS6 was 35.3% (95% CI, 19.7-53.5). Median PFS and OS were 4.5 months (95% CI, 3.6-7.8) and 9.3 months (95% CI, 6.6-22.2), respectively. ORR was 32.4% (95% CI, 17.4-50.5), median DOR 9.7 months (95% CI, 1.8-12.4). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse event reported in 4.7% of patients was hypertension. No treatment-related death occurred. Since pazopanib is active and well tolerated in poor-risk patients with clear cell mRCC, our results support its use as first-line treatment in this setting.

Everolimus after failure of one prior VEGF-targeted therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: Final results of the MARC-2 trial.

MARC-2, a prospective, multicenter phase IV trial, aimed to investigate clinical outcomes in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) treated with everolimus after failure of one initial vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor (VEGFR-TKI) therapy and to identify subgroups benefiting most, based on clinical characteristics and biomarkers. Patients with clear cell mRCC failing one initial VEGFR-TKI received everolimus until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival rate (6moPFS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR), PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. Between 2011 and 2015, 63 patients were enrolled. Median age was 65.4 years (range 43.3-81.1). 6moPFS was 39.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0-51.3) overall, 54.4% (95% CI, 35.2-70.1) vs 23.7% (95% CI, 10.5-39.9) for patients aged ≥65 vs <65 years and 51.4% (95% CI, 34.7-65.7) vs 18.2% (95% CI, 5.7-36.3) for patients with body mass index (BMI) >25 vs ≤25 kg/m2 . A Cox proportional hazards model confirmed a longer PFS for patients aged ≥65 years (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.80) and a longer OS for patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 (HR 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71). Median PFS and median OS were 3.8 months (95% CI, 3.2-6.2) and 16.8 months (95% CI, 14.3-24.3). ORR was 7.9% and disease control rate was 60.3%. No new safety signals emerged. Most common adverse events were stomatitis (31.7%), fatigue (31.7%), and anemia (30.2%). One patient died from treatment-related upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage. Everolimus remains a safe and effective treatment option for mRCC patients after one prior VEGFR-TKI therapy. Patients aged ≥65 years and patients with BMI >25 kg/m2 benefited most.

Patient, nurse, and physician preferences: final results of the CONVENIENCE study evaluating pegfilgrastim prophylaxis via pre-filled syringe or on-body injector in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The on-body injector (OBI) automatically delivers pegfilgrastim the day after chemotherapy (CTx), thus eliminating the need of return visits to the medical office for guideline-compliant pegfilgrastim administration. The CONVENIENCE study aimed to evaluate patient, nurse, and physician preferences as well as health economics for pegfilgrastim administration either with OBI or manually using a pre-filled syringe (PS). METHODS: Patients with early breast cancer, receiving two or three weekly anthracycline/cyclophosphamide or three weekly taxane-based CTx, and patients with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) receiving first-line R-CHOP-14 or -21 were randomized 1:1 to receive both pegfilgrastim application forms for four consecutive CTx cycles in an alternating sequence starting either with OBI or PS. Primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed by questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 308 patients were evaluable in the per-protocol analysis. Patients slightly preferred OBI over PS (OBI, n = 133, 43.2%; vs. PS, n = 111, 36.0%; p-value = 0.159), while study nurses slightly preferred PS (n = 19, 46.3%) over OBI (n = 18, 43.9%) and physicians clearly preferred PS (n = 24, 58.8%) over OBI (n = 15, 36.6%). Among patients with preference for OBI, saving of time was their major reason for preference (53.4%). Pegfilgrastim was administered 24-72 h after each CTx cycle in 97.6% of OBI and 63.1% of PS applications. CONCLUSION: The OBI was slightly preferred by patients and saving time was the major reason for their preference. PS was physicians' most preferable choice and slightly preferred by nurses. Using OBI, pegfilgrastim was almost always administered within the time period recommended by current guidelines, while it was often not applied as specified using PS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No: ClinicalTrials.gov No. NCT03619993. Registered on June 25, 2018.

Final results from IMPROVE: a randomized, controlled, open-label, two-arm, cross-over phase IV study to determine patients' preference for everolimus in combination with exemestane or capecitabine in combination with bevacizumab in advanced HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the IMPROVE study was patients' preference for either endocrine-based therapy or combined chemo- and anti-angiogenic therapy in advanced HR-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomized, cross-over phase IV study, 77 patients were recruited in 26 sites in Germany. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cap+Bev) as first-line therapy followed by cross-over to everolimus plus exemestane (Eve+Exe) as second-line therapy (Arm A) or the reverse sequence (Arm B). The primary endpoint was patients' preference for either regimen, assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire 12 weeks after cross-over. Key secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). RESULTS: 61.5% of patients preferred Cap+Bev (p = 0.1653), whereas 15.4% preferred Eve+Exe and 23.1% were indecisive. Physicians showed a similar tendency towards Cap+Bev (58.1%) as the preferred regimen versus Eve+Exe (32.3%). Median first-line PFS was longer for Cap+Bev than for Eve+Exe (11.1 months versus 3.5 months). Median second-line PFS was similar between Cap+Bev and Eve+Exe (3.6 months versus 3.7 months). Median OS was comparable between Arm A (28.8 months) and Arm B (24.7 months). 73.0% and 52.6% (first-/second-line, Cap+Bev) and 54.1% and 52.9% (first-/second-line, Eve+Exe) of patients experienced grade 3/4 TEAEs. No treatment-related deaths occurred. QoL and treatment satisfaction were not significantly different between arms or treatment lines. CONCLUSIONS: Patients tended to favor Cap+Bev over Eve+Exe, which was in line with physicians' preference. Cap+Bev showed superior first-line PFS, while QoL was similar in both arms. No new safety signals were reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT No: 2013-005329-22. Registered on 19 August 20.

VicTORia: a randomised phase II study to compare vinorelbine in combination with the mTOR inhibitor everolimus versus vinorelbine monotherapy for second-line chemotherapy in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Improving the outcome of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer experiencing tumour progression following first-line chemotherapy remains an urgent medical need. The purpose of the VicTORia trial was to show superiority of everolimus in combination with vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy as second-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced HER2 negative breast cancer. METHODS: In this randomised phase II trial, 133 patients were recruited in 32 centres in Germany. Patients were randomised 1:1 to second-line chemotherapy either with vinorelbine plus everolimus (arm1) or vinorelbine alone (arm2). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were PFS rate at 6 months, overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. Baseline PI3 K mutational status was determined in plasma samples. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was not different between arms (arm1 vs. arm2: 4.01 months, 95% CI 2.40-6.09 vs. 4.08, 95% CI 2.80-5.33). PFS rate at 6 months (arm1 vs. arm2: 39.4%, 95% CI 27.6-50.9% vs. 36.6%, 95% CI 24.6-48.6%), median OS (arm1 vs. arm2: 16.3 months, 95% CI 11.4-19.0 vs. 13.8 months, 95% CI 10.2-19.1) and ORR were not different between arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (50% vs. 40%), gastrointestinal toxicities (19.1% vs. 6.1%), and infections (19.1% vs. 7.7%). PI3 K mutational status was neither associated with PFS nor with OS. CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, the efficacy of everolimus and vinorelbine combination therapy was not superior to vinorelbine monotherapy. There was no correlation between PI3 K mutational status and efficacy. EudracCT No 2011-001024-38, ClinicalTrials.gov No NCT01520103.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NADIR study).

OBJECTIVE: The prospective non-interventional study (NIS) NADIR was designed to evaluate both effectiveness and safety of prophylactic use of lipegfilgrastim (Lonquex® ), a glycopegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, in cancer patients with different tumor entities undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. The primary objective was incidence of severe neutropenia, febrile neutropenia (FN), and neutropenia-associated complications. METHOD: NADIR was a national, multicenter, prospective NIS. RESULTS: Here, we present the data on patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Final analysis comprised 337 NHL patients having received ≥1 administration of lipegfilgrastim. Primary prophylaxis with lipegfilgrastim was documented in 78.7% of patients with high risk to develop FN. In total, ≥1 severe neutropenia (grade 3/4) was reported in 115 (34.1%) patients and ≥1 event of FN documented in 15 (4.5%) patients. Grade 3/4 infections were reported in 22 (6.5%) patients overall. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) related to lipegfilgrastim in total were bone pain (5.4%), leukocytosis (2.1%), back pain (1.8%), platelet count decreased (1.2%), and myalgia (1.2%). Fatal serious AEs were documented in 9 (2.7%) patients; none were attributable to lipegfilgrastim. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis or therapeutic intention with lipegfilgrastim in NHL patients in routine clinical practice showed similar effectiveness and safety as demonstrated in the pivotal trials.

Effects and moderators of exercise on muscle strength, muscle function and aerobic fitness in patients with cancer: a meta-analysis of individual patient data.

OBJECTIVE: To optimally target exercise interventions for patients with cancer, it is important to identify which patients benefit from which interventions. DESIGN: We conducted an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate demographic, clinical, intervention-related and exercise-related moderators of exercise intervention effects on physical fitness in patients with cancer. DATA SOURCES: We identified relevant studies via systematic searches in electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We analysed data from 28 randomised controlled trials investigating the effects of exercise on upper body muscle strength (UBMS) and lower body muscle strength (LBMS), lower body muscle function (LBMF) and aerobic fitness in adult patients with cancer. RESULTS: Exercise significantly improved UBMS (ß=0.20, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.26), LBMS (ß=0.29, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.35), LBMF (ß=0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.24) and aerobic fitness (ß=0.28, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.34), with larger effects for supervised interventions. Exercise effects on UBMS were larger during treatment, when supervised interventions included ≥3 sessions per week, when resistance exercises were included and when session duration was >60 min. Exercise effects on LBMS were larger for patients who were living alone, for supervised interventions including resistance exercise and when session duration was >60 min. Exercise effects on aerobic fitness were larger for younger patients and when supervised interventions included aerobic exercise. CONCLUSION: Exercise interventions during and following cancer treatment had small effects on UBMS, LBMS, LBMF and aerobic fitness. Demographic, intervention-related and exercise-related characteristics including age, marital status, intervention timing, delivery mode and frequency and type and time of exercise sessions moderated the exercise effect on UBMS, LBMS and aerobic fitness.

Determinants of physical, affective, and cognitive fatigue during breast cancer therapy and 12 months follow-up.

Fatigue is common in cancer survivors but often insufficiently treated. Due to its complexity a one-size-fits-all treatment seems not appropriate. To gain more information on influencing factors and sub-dimensions of fatigue we investigated potential determinants and correlates of physical, affective, and cognitive fatigue in breast cancer survivors during and after adjuvant therapy. Within the follow-up of two randomized controlled trials physical, affective, and cognitive fatigue were repeatedly assessed during and up to 12 months after cancer therapy with the 20-item Fatigue Assessment Questionnaire in 255 breast cancer survivors. Determinants of the different fatigue dimensions over time were explored with linear mixed models. Chemotherapy appeared as significant precipitating factor for physical fatigue. However, type of cancer therapy had no impact on fatigue one year post-treatment. Obesity was significantly associated with increased physical fatigue throughout all time points (Δ=15.5 at 12 months) whereas exercise appeared to be beneficial (Δ = -6.3). In contrast, affective fatigue was significantly associated with poor social support and worries about the future. In addition, poor sleep quality and previous use of psychopharmaceuticals were significantly associated with physical, affective, as well as cognitive fatigue. Further, hot flashes were associated with increased physical and cognitive fatigue. In conclusion, the broad diagnosis 'fatigue' in cancer survivors needs to be recognized as a diversity of symptoms determined by specific characteristics and likely different etiologies. Taking potential influencing factors such as obesity, physical inactivity, sleep problems, hot flashes, lack of social support, or psychological disorders into consideration might enable a better, individually-tailored fatigue treatment.

Impact of performance status and transfusion dependency on outcome of patients with myelodysplastic syndrome, acute myeloid leukemia and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia treated with azacitidine (PIAZA study).

OBJECTIVE: Azacitidine (Vidaza® ) is the standard treatment for patients with higher-risk myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) not eligible for allogeneic stem cell transplantation. In the noninterventional study PIAZA, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of azacitidine treatment in 149 patients with higher-risk MDS, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in routine clinical practice. METHOD: Patients were treated according to physician's discretion. Besides evaluation of safety and effectiveness, impact of covariates on progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed. RESULTS: Median age of patients was 75 years. 61.1% of patients were diagnosed with MDS, 31.5% with AML and 7.4% with CMML. Patients were treated with azacitidine for a median of seven cycles. Median PFS was 10.9 months. Median OS was 14.1 months. Two-year survival rate was 28.9%. 45.9% of patients showed CR or PR. Stable and progressive disease were observed in 37.2% and 8% of patients, respectively. Transfusion independence was reported in 64 of 89 patients. Eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) performance status (PS) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion before azacitidine therapy were identified as predictive factors for PFS. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, we estimated the duration of PFS in a real-world setting and identified ECOG PS and RBC transfusion as predictive factors for PFS. The safety of azacitidine showed a similar profile as demonstrated in the pivotal clinical trials.

Factors influencing participation in a randomized controlled resistance exercise intervention study in breast cancer patients during radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Over the past years knowledge about benefits of physical activity after cancer is evolving from randomized exercise intervention trials. However, it has been argued that results may be biased by selective participation. Therefore, we investigated factors influencing participation in a randomized exercise intervention trial for breast cancer patients. METHODS: Non-metastatic breast cancer patients were systematically screened for a randomized exercise intervention trial on cancer-related fatigue. Participants and nonparticipants were compared concerning sociodemographic characteristics (age, marital status, living status, travel time to the training facility), clinical data (body-mass-index, tumor stage, tumor size and lymph node status, comorbidities, chemotherapy), fatigue, and physical activity. Reasons for participation or declination were recorded. RESULTS: 117 patients (52 participants, 65 nonparticipants) were evaluable for analysis. Multiple regression analyses revealed significantly higher odds to decline participation among patients with longer travel time (p=0.0012), living alone (p=0.039), with more comorbidities (0.031), previous chemotherapy (p=0.0066), of age≥70 years (p=0.025), or being free of fatigue (p=0.0007). No associations were found with BMI or physical activity. By far the most frequently reported reason for declination of participation was too long commuting time to the training facility. CONCLUSIONS: Willingness of breast cancer patients to participate in a randomized exercise intervention study differed by sociodemographic factors and health status. Neither current physical activity level nor BMI appeared to be selective for participation. Reduction of personal inconveniences and time effort, e.g. by decentralized training facilities or flexible training schedules, seem most promising for enhancing participation in exercise intervention trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01468766 (October 2011).

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate on pain intensity and quality of life in head and neck cancer patients suffering from cetuximab-induced rhagades during radioimmunotherapy: the support trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is a chimeric monoclonal antibody against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). Skin reactions are the most common side effects of cetuximab. Rhagades of the tips of the fingers and toes, the heels and especially the interphalangeal joints are one of the most frightening and painful dermatological side effects that may develop from EGFR-inhibitor therapy. Rhagades are characterized by pain, severe tenderness and poor healing response. They are challenging to treat. Thus, rhagades often poses the most significant threat to the quality of life (QoL) for these patients. Ethyl-2-cyanoacrylate (ECA), an ethyl ester of the 2-cyano-2-propenoic acid, is often used as adhesive in a variety of different work settings in industry, i.e. as a component in nail-care products such as nail glue. In addition, ECA is used for various medical indications, such as for liquid bandages and for suture-less surgery. Wound healing can be accelerated with ECA. The purpose of the SUPPORT trial is to investigate the efficacy of ECA for the treatment of cetuximab-induced rhagades and to assess the clinical usefulness of the SUPO score, a new classification system for rhagades induced by EGFR-inhibitor therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: The SUPPORT trial is an open-label, prospective, randomized, national multicenter intervention study to evaluate the effectiveness of ECA versus the standard treatment of each institution on the pain intensity and QoL in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer suffering from painful cetuximab-induced rhagades during radioimmunotherapy. Primary endpoint is the assessment of the pain intensity 24 hours after application of ECA or the standard treatment quantified by the visual analogue scale (VAS). Secondary endpoints are the evaluation of QoL assessed by the EORTC-QoL-C30 questionnaire and the Dermatological Life Quality Index (DLQI). DISCUSSION: During treatment with EGFR inhibitors it is necessary to recognize and manage side effects promptly to assure better patient QoL. The SUPPORT trial is the first randomized clinical trial evaluating a new treatment option for painful cetuximab-induced rhagades. Furthermore, the new SUPO score will be prospectively assessed in terms of clinical usefulness for classification of EGFR inhibitor-induced rhagades. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials NCT01693159.

Cardiorespiratory fitness in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant therapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to investigate cardiorespiratory fitness in breast cancer patients at different time points of anti-cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Non-metastatic breast cancer patients (n = 222, mean age 55 years) were categorized into four subgroups according to their treatment status. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was used to measure patients' cardiorespiratory fitness, including oxygen delivery and metabolic muscle function. Testing was performed by bicycle ergometry, and maximal oxygen uptake (VO2peak) was measured. Heart rate during exercise at 50 watts (HR50) was assessed as a cardiocirculatory parameter and ventilatory threshold (VT) was used as an indicator of the O2 supply to muscle. Analysis of covariance was used to estimate the impact of different cancer treatments on cardiorespiratory fitness with adjustment for clinical factors. RESULTS: Submaximal measures were successfully assessed in 220 (99%) and 200 (90%) patients for HR50 and VT, while criteria for maximal exercise testing were met by 176 patients (79%), respectively. The mean VO2peak was 20.6 ± 6.7 ml/kg/min, mean VT 10.7 ± 2.9 ml/min/kg and mean HR50 112 ± 16 beats/min. Chemotherapy was significantly associated with decreased VO2peak, with significantly lower adjusted mean VO2peak among patients post adjuvant chemotherapy compared to patients with no chemotherapy or those who just started chemotherapy regime (all p < 0.01). Patients post adjuvant chemotherapy reached only 63% of the VO2peak level expected for their age- and BMI-category (mean VO2peak 15.5 ± 4.8 ml/kg/min). Similarly, HR50 was significantly associated with treatment. However, VT was not associated with treatment. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients have marked and significantly impaired cardiopulmonary function during and after chemotherapy. Hereby, chemotherapy appears to impair cardiorespiratory fitness by influencing the oxygen delivery system rather than impacting metabolic muscle function. Our findings underline the need of exercise training in breast cancer patients to counteract the loss of cardiorespiratory fitness during the anti-cancer treatment.

Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of progressive resistance training compared to progressive muscle relaxation in breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy: the BEST study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common and distressing side effects of cancer and its treatment. During and after radiotherapy breast cancer patients often suffer from CRF which frequently impairs quality of life (QoL). Despite the high prevalence of CRF in breast cancer patients and the severe impact on the physical and emotional well-being, effective treatment methods are scarce.Physical activity for breast cancer patients has been reported to decrease fatigue, to improve emotional well-being and to increase physical strength. The pathophysiological and molecular mechanisms of CRF and the molecular-biologic changes induced by exercise, however, are poorly understood.In the BEST trial we aim to assess the effects of resistance training on fatigue, QoL and physical fitness as well as on molecular, immunological and inflammatory changes in breast cancer patients during adjuvant radiotherapy. METHODS/DESIGN: The BEST study is a prospective randomized, controlled intervention trial investigating the effects of a 12-week supervised progressive resistance training compared to a 12-week supervised muscle relaxation training in 160 patients with breast cancer undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy. To determine the effect of exercise itself beyond potential psychosocial group effects, patients in the control group perform a group-based progressive muscle relaxation training. Main inclusion criterion is histologically confirmed breast cancer stage I-III after lumpectomy or mastectomy with indication for adjuvant radiotherapy. Main exclusion criteria are acute infectious diseases, severe neurological, musculosceletal or cardiorespiratory disorders. The primary endpoint is cancer-related fatigue; secondary endpoints include immunological and inflammatory parameters analyzed in peripheral blood, saliva and urine. In addition, QoL, depression, physical performance and cognitive capacity will be assessed. DISCUSSION: The BEST study is the first randomized controlled trial comparing progressive resistance training with muscle relaxation training in breast cancer patients during adjuvant radiotherapy. Based on the analysis of physiological, immunological and inflammatory parameters it will contribute to a better understanding of the physiological and psychosocial effects and the biological mechanisms of resistance training. The ultimate goal is the implementation of optimized intervention programs to reduce fatigue, improve quality of life and potentially the prognosis after breast cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01468766.

Real-world patient-reported outcomes of breast cancer or prostate cancer patients receiving antiresorptive therapy for bone metastases: Final results of the PROBone registry study.

Background: In breast cancer and prostate cancer patients, bone metastases (BM) present the main cause of morbidity and often cause debilitating pain, impaired functioning and subsequent deterioration of quality of life (QoL). The management of BM is still challenging. Maintenance or improvement in QoL is the main goal of treatment. Antiresorptive treatment, such as denosumab and bisphosphonates, can help to reduce the frequency of skeletal complications, to control bone pain and potentially to improve QoL. The optimal time point for initiation of antiresorptive therapy is still discussed controversially. In patients with BM, bone pain can be used as a surrogate measure of QoL. However, limited data exist on health-related QoL in patients with BM under antiresorptive treatment. The PROBone registry study evaluated complaints and limitations caused by BM of breast and prostate cancer patients using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in real-world in Germany. Methods: Between 2014 and 2019, 500 patients with histological confirmation of advanced breast or prostate cancer, diagnosed with BM at start of their first antiresorptive therapy were prospectively enrolled in 65 outpatient-centers specialized in medical oncology across Germany. Changes of QoL were assessed monthly from baseline until a maximum of 12 months using the validated pain score Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Quality of Life Measurement in patients with bone pain (FACT-BP) supplemented by questions on general pain and on the impact of time spent for treatment of illness on patients' daily activities. Statistical analysis was performed descriptively by relative and absolute frequencies. Results: In total, 486 patients were eligible for final analysis, of these 310 were diagnosed with breast cancer and 176 with prostate cancer. Median age was 67 years for breast cancer and 76 years for prostate cancer patients. 79.7% of breast cancer and 59.7% of prostate patients started antiresorptive treatment within 3 months after diagnosis of BM. More than 75% of patients suffered from bone pain at study inclusion. In total 52% of breast cancer patients and 47.9% of prostate cancer patients reported to take pain medication during the observation period. In breast and prostate cancer patients an initial pain reduction after start of BTA was observed: General pain and bone pain levels as well as the median FACT-BP score showed a constant improvement over the first months and maintained stable at a constant level afterwards. Subgroup analysis showed that patients without pain at baseline reported distinctly better FACT-BP scores throughout the whole observation period than patients with pain at baseline. Looking at time-stress (M)-scores, younger breast cancer patients (<65 years) showed highest burden especially during the first months of treatment. Conclusions: Our results indicate overall good adherence to current guideline recommendation, with most breast and prostate cancer patients starting antiresorptive therapy within the first 3 months after diagnosis of BM. This point gains even more importance as our data support current recommendations by ESMO guidelines as well as by German evidence-based S3-guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of breast and prostate cancer to initiate bone-targeted agents (BTA) as soon as BM are diagnosed, to keep pain levels at the lowest level possible, to minimize the debilitating effects of metastatic bone pain and maintain a good QoL. Bone pain management by an early use of BTA following BM diagnosis might improve patient care.