Overall side effect assessment of oxaliplatin toxicity in rectal cancer patients in NRG oncology/NSABP R04.

PURPOSE: Regulatory guidance suggests capturing patient-reported overall side effect impact in cancer trials. We examined whether the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy/radiotherapy differed between oxaliplatin vs. non- oxaliplatin arms in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) R-04 trial of stage II-III rectal cancer patients. METHODS: The R-04 neoadjuvant trial compared local-regional tumor control between patients randomized to receive 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine with radiation, with or without oxaliplatin (4 treatment arms). Participants completed surveys at baseline and immediately after chemoradiotherapy. GP5 has a 5-point response scale: "Not at all" (0), "A little bit" (1), "Somewhat" (2), "Quite a bit" (3), and "Very much" (4). Logistic regression compared the odds of reporting moderate-high side effect impact (GP5 2-4) between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not after chemoradiotherapy, controlling for relevant patient characteristics. We examined associations between GP5 and other patient-reported outcomes reflecting side effects. RESULTS: Analyses were performed among 1132 study participants. Participants receiving oxaliplatin were 1.58 times (95% CI: 1.22-2.05) more likely to report moderate-high side effect bother at post-chemotherapy/radiation. In both arms, worse overall side effect impact was associated with patient-reported diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, and peripheral sensory neuropathy (p < 0.01 for all). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis of R-04 found that GP5 distinguished between patients receiving oxaliplatin or not as part of their post-neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, adding patient-centric evidence on the reduced tolerability of oxaliplatin and demonstrating that GP5 is sensitive to known toxicity differences between treatments. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: NCT00058474.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2023.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals address the complex and varied needs of cancer survivors. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize recent guideline updates and panel discussions pertaining to sleep disorders, fatigue, and cognitive function in cancer survivors.

NCCN Guidelines® Insights: Survivorship, Version 1.2022.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals who work with survivors to ensure that the survivors' complex and varied needs are addressed. The NCCN Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for the consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote physical activity, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes updates to the NCCN Guidelines pertaining to preventive health for cancer survivors, including recommendations about alcohol consumption and vaccinations.

Survivorship, Version 1.2021.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship are intended to help healthcare professionals working with cancer survivors to ensure that each survivor's complex and varied needs are addressed. The Guidelines provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment; recommendations to help promote healthful lifestyle behaviors, weight management, and immunizations in survivors; and a framework for care coordination. This article summarizes the recommendations regarding employment and return to work for cancer survivors that were added in the 2021 version of the NCCN Guidelines.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Survivorship, Version 2.2020.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship provide screening, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for consequences of adult-onset cancer and its treatment, with the goal of helping healthcare professionals who work with survivors, including those in primary care. The guidelines also provide recommendations to help clinicians promote physical activity, weight management, and proper immunizations in survivors and facilitate care coordination to ensure that all of the survivors' needs are addressed. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize additions and changes made to the guidelines in 2020 regarding cardiovascular disease risk assessment and screening for subsequent primary malignancies.

Prospective evaluation of finger two-point discrimination and carpal tunnel syndrome among women with breast cancer receiving adjuvant aromatase inhibitor therapy.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) are associated with musculoskeletal symptoms and risk of developing carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), which can impair quality of life and prompt treatment discontinuation. The incidence of CTS and clinical utility of diagnostic tests such as 2-point discrimination (2-PD) have not been prospectively examined among women receiving AIs. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with stage 0-III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer who were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial investigating adjuvant AIs (Exemestane and Letrozole Pharmacogenetics, ELPh) underwent prospective evaluation of 2-PD with the Disc-criminator™ (sliding aesthesiometer) and completed a CTS questionnaire at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, following initiation of AI. Changes in mean 2-PD were analyzed with multivariable mixed effects modelling. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 100 women who underwent baseline 2-PD testing, CTS was identified by questionnaire in 11% at baseline prior to AI initiation. Prevalence of CTS at any time in the first year was 26%. A significant increase in worst 2-PD score was observed from baseline to 3 months (3.7 mm to 3.9 mm, respectively, p = 0.03) when adjusted for age, prior chemotherapy, randomized treatment assignment, and diabetes. There were no significant differences in treatment discontinuation due to CTS between the arms. CONCLUSION: For women receiving adjuvant AI, 2-PD scores were significantly worse at 3 months compared to baseline. Studies are required to assess whether change in 2-PD is an adequate objective assessment for CTS with AI therapy. Early diagnosis of CTS may expedite management, improve AI adherence, and enhance breast cancer outcomes.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Risk of Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: Type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) is a rare, irreversible immune-related adverse event reported in patients receiving treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). However, clinical risk factors for ICI-induced T1DM (ICI-T1DM) and its impact on survival in patients remain unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used Optum's Clinformatics Data Mart database for assessment of the incidence and characteristics of T1DM in a large de-identified cohort of patients treated with ICI between 2017 and 2020. We applied Fine-Gray and cause-specific hazard models to study associations between patient/treatment characteristics and ICI-T1DM and applied the Cox model with ICI-T1DM as a time-varying covariate to assess the impact of ICI-T1DM on survival. RESULTS: ICI-T1DM was observed in 261 of 30,337 (0.86%) patients. Dual use of antibodies to cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) or programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) was associated with increasing risk of ICI-T1DM (hazard ratio [HR] 1.62; 95% CI 1.15-2.26) vs. anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD-1 alone. Younger age (HR 1.19 for every 5-year decrease; 95% CI 1.13-1.25) and preexisting non-T1DM diabetes (HR 4.48; 95% CI 3.45-5.83) were also associated with higher risk of ICI-T1DM. Conversely, prior use of immunosuppressive medications (HR 0.57; 95% CI 0.34-0.95) was associated with lower incidence of ICI-T1DM, but part of its protective effect may be due to the increased mortality rate. Development of ICI-T1DM does not seem to significantly impact patient survival. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of ICI-T1DM is associated with the type of ICI therapy, patient age, and preexisting non-T1DM diabetes. These data may help guide risk assessment and screening practices for patients during ICI therapy.

Patients carrying CYP2C8*3 have shorter systemic paclitaxel exposure.

AIM: First, evaluate if patients carrying putatively diminished activity CYP2C8 genotype have longer paclitaxel exposure (e.g., time above threshold concentration of 0.05 µM [Tc >0.05]). Second, screen additional pharmacogenes for associations with Tc >0.05. Methods: Pharmacogene panel genotypes were translated into genetic phenotypes for associations with Tc >0.05 (n = 58). RESULTS: Patients with predicted low-activity CYP2C8 had shorter Tc >0.05 after adjustment for age, body surface area and race (9.65 vs 11.03 hrs, ß = 5.47, p = 0.02). This association was attributed to CYP2C8*3 (p = 0.006), not CYP2C8*4 (p = 0.58). Patients with predicted low-activity SLCO1B1 had longer Tc >0.05 (12.12 vs 10.15 hrs, ß = 0.85, p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: Contrary to previous publications, CYP2C8*3 may confer increased paclitaxel metabolic activity. SLCO1B1 and CYP2C8 genotype may explain some paclitaxel pharmacokinetic variability.

Integrative Oncology Scholars Program: A Model for Integrative Oncology Education.

OBJECTIVES: Oncology providers are often confronted by patients who use complementary or alternative therapies, but have limited knowledge or confidence on how to advise patients on appropriate use. Despite this, there are few opportunities for oncology providers to learn about complementary or alternative therapies, while at the same time there is a high demand for integrative oncology (IO) training. To address a gap in IO educational opportunities, and particularly for nonphysicians, we created the Integrative Oncology Scholars (IOS) Program. The program's goal is to train 100 IO leaders and facilitate partnerships between them and complementary practitioners. DESIGN: Four iterations of a year-long National Cancer Institute-funded educational program that combines in-person team-based learning and eLearning to teach the evidence, application, and philosophy supporting IO. SETTINGS: In-person sessions take place at the University of Michigan, and eLearning is implemented using a Canvas website (Instructure, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT). SUBJECTS: Nurses, social workers, physician assistants, psychologists, physicians, pharmacists, and physical/occupational therapists with active oncology practices. Educational intervention: Four cohorts of 25 oncology providers per year will learn the evidence base for complementary and alternative approaches to a wide number of oncology topics, including symptom control, dietary supplements commonly used by cancer patients, diet, and the utility of specific integrative approaches for common oncology side-effects such as fatigue. OUTCOME MEASURES: A mixed methods approach will be used to evaluate overall IOS Program progress and individual scholar's impact on IO research, education, and clinical endeavors. RESULTS: The first cohort of 25 IOS has been recruited and their education will begin in Summer 2018. Scholars come from 13 states and represent 23 different healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: The IOS Program has the potential to increase the number of trained IO providers, educators, and researchers in the United States.

Association of Variants in Candidate Genes with Lipid Profiles in Women with Early Breast Cancer on Adjuvant Aromatase Inhibitor Therapy.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors can exert unfavorable effects on lipid profiles; however, previous studies have reported inconsistent results. We describe the association of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in candidate genes with lipid profiles in women treated with adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a prospective observational study to test the associations between SNPs in candidate genes in estrogen signaling and aromatase inhibitor metabolism pathways with fasting lipid profiles during the first 3 months of aromatase inhibitor therapy in postmenopausal women with early breast cancer randomized to adjuvant letrozole or exemestane. We performed genetic association analysis and multivariable linear regressions using dominant, recessive, and additive models. RESULTS: A total of 303 women had complete genetic and lipid data and were evaluable for analysis. In letrozole-treated patients, SNPs in CYP19A1, including rs4646, rs10046, rs700518, rs749292, rs2289106, rs3759811, and rs4775936 were significantly associated with decreases in triglycerides by 20.2 mg/dL and 39.3 mg/dL (P < 0.00053), respectively, and with variable changes in high-density lipoprotein (HDL-C) from decreases by 4.2 mg/dL to increases by 9.8 mg/dL (P < 0.00053). CONCLUSIONS: Variants in CYP19A1 are associated with decreases in triglycerides and variable changes in HDL-C in postmenopausal women on adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. Future studies are needed to validate these findings, and to identify breast cancer survivors who are at higher risk for cardiovascular disease with aromatase inhibitor therapy.

Molecular Heterogeneity and Response to Neoadjuvant Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2 Targeting in CALGB 40601, a Randomized Phase III Trial of Paclitaxel Plus Trastuzumab With or Without Lapatinib.

PURPOSE: Dual human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) targeting can increase pathologic complete response rates (pCRs) to neoadjuvant therapy and improve progression-free survival in metastatic disease. CALGB 40601 examined the impact of dual HER2 blockade consisting of trastuzumab and lapatinib added to paclitaxel, considering tumor and microenvironment molecular features. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage II to III HER2-positive breast cancer underwent tumor biopsy followed by random assignment to paclitaxel plus trastuzumab alone (TH) or with the addition of lapatinib (THL) for 16 weeks before surgery. An investigational arm of paclitaxel plus lapatinib (TL) was closed early. The primary end point was pCR in the breast; correlative end points focused on molecular features identified by gene expression-based assays. RESULTS: Among 305 randomly assigned patients (THL, n = 118; TH, n = 120; TL, n = 67), the pCR rate was 56% (95% CI, 47% to 65%) with THL and 46% (95% CI, 37% to 55%) with TH (P = .13), with no effect of dual therapy in the hormone receptor-positive subset but a significant increase in pCR with dual therapy in those with hormone receptor-negative disease (P = .01). The tumors were molecularly heterogeneous by gene expression analysis using mRNA sequencing (mRNAseq). pCR rates significantly differed by intrinsic subtype (HER2 enriched, 70%; luminal A, 34%; luminal B, 36%; P < .001). In multivariable analysis treatment arm, intrinsic subtype, HER2 amplicon gene expression, p53 mutation signature, and immune cell signatures were independently associated with pCR. Post-treatment residual disease was largely luminal A (69%). CONCLUSION: pCR to dual HER2-targeted therapy was not significantly higher than single HER2 targeting. Tissue analysis demonstrated a high degree of intertumoral heterogeneity with respect to both tumor genomics and tumor microenvironment that significantly affected pCR rates. These factors should be considered when interpreting and designing trials in HER2-positive disease.

Is a comparative clinical trial for breast cancer tumor markers to monitor disease recurrence warranted? A value of information analysis.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer tumor markers are used by some clinicians to screen for disease recurrence risk. Since there is limited evidence of benefit, additional research may be warranted. AIM: To assess the potential value of a randomized clinical trial of breast tumor marker testing in routine follow-up of high-risk, stage II-III breast cancer survivors. MATERIALS & METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model of tumor marker testing plus standard surveillance every 3-6 months for 5 years. The expected value of sample information was calculated using probabilistic simulations and was a function of: the probability of selecting the optimal monitoring strategy with current versus future information; the impact of choosing the nonoptimal strategy; and the size of the population affected. RESULTS: The value of information for a randomized clinical trial involving 9000 women was US$214 million compared with a cost of US$30-60 million to conduct such a trial. The probability of making an alternate, nonoptimal decision and choosing testing versus no testing was 32% with current versus future information from the trial. The impact of a nonoptimal decision was US$2150 and size of population impacted over 10 years was 308,000. The value of improved information on overall survival was US$105 million, quality of life US$37 million and test performance US$71 million. CONCLUSION: Conducting a randomized clinical trial of breast cancer tumor markers appears to offer a good societal return on investment. Retrospective analyses to assess test performance and evaluation of patient quality of life using tumor markers may also offer valuable areas of research. However, alternative investments may offer even better returns in investments and, as such, the trial concept deserves further study as part of an overall research-portfolio evaluation.