Feasibility of structuring electronic health record data to facilitate real-world data research: ICAREdata methods applied to multicenter cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research is limited by a lack of structure and a standard data model. The objective of the ICAREdata (Integrating Clinical Trials and Real-World Endpoints Data) project was to structure key research data elements in EHRs using a minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) data model to extract and transmit data. METHODS: The ICAREdata project captured two EHR data elements essential to clinical trials: cancer disease status and treatment plan change. The project was implemented in clinical sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials. Data were extracted from EHRs and sent by secure Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource messaging (a standard for exchanging EHRs) to a database. Selected elements were compared with corresponding data from the trial's electronic data capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave. RESULTS: By December 2023, data were extracted and transmitted from 10 sites for 35 patients, involving 367 clinical encounters across 15 clinical trials. Data through March 2023 demonstrated that concordance for the elements treatment plan change and cancer disease status was 79% and 34%, respectively. When disease evaluation was reported by both EHR and EDC (n = 15), there was 87% agreement on cancer disease status. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation, extraction, and aggregation of structured data elements in EHRs using mCODE and ICAREdata methods is feasible in multi-institutional cancer clinical trials. EDC as a reference data set allowed assessment of the completeness of EHR data capture. Future initiatives will focus on elements with shared definitions in clinical and research environments and efficient workflows. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming. ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Clinical Trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impact on healthcare, resulting in modifications to how we perform cancer research, including clinical trials for cancer. The impact of some healthcare workers and study coordinators working remotely and patients minimizing visits to medical facilities impacted clinical trial participation. Clinical trial accrual dropped at the onset of the pandemic, with improvement over time. Adjustments were made to some trial protocols, allowing telephone or video-enabled consent. Certain study activities were permitted to be performed by local healthcare providers or at local laboratories to maximize patients' ability to continue on study during these challenging times. We discuss the impact of COVID-19 on cancer clinical trials and changes at the local, cooperative group, and national level.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Clinical Trials: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Experience (Alliance A152022).

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic led to immediate changes in cancer clinical trial conduct. The primary aims of this study were to summarize the impact of the pandemic on Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) enrollment, protocol deviations, COVID-19 events (positive or presumptive-positive COVID test), and premature study discontinuation rates. Methods: Enrollment trends were examined from January 2019 (pre COVID-19 pandemic) through 2022. Data were captured for protocol deviations and premature treatment and study discontinuation events across all Alliance protocols using a centralized Medidata Rave database, and summarized from January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2022. Descriptive statistics and graphical techniques are used to summarize observed trends. Results: Overall enrollment across Alliance trials decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic and remained below pre-pandemic levels in 2022. Racial and ethnic demographics of enrolled patients did not change substantially. 4805 protocol deviations were reported on 2745 unique patients, with at least one protocol deviation reported by 618 sites and 77 unique trials. Commonly reported deviations were telemedicine visits (n=2167, 45%) and late/missed study procedures (n=2150, 45%). A total of 826 COVID-19 events were reported in 659 unique patients. Of an estimated 18,000 enrolled patients, only 68 withdrew from treatment and 45 withdrew from study due to COVID-19. Conclusion: A centralized COVID-19 database enabled a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the pandemic across Alliance trials. COVID-19 led to an immediate decline in enrollment across all patient populations. While the number of trials open to patient accrual remained stable, several large, adjuvant studies completed accrual during this period, which contributed to accrual decline. Telemedicine usage was notable, and both COVID-19 events and study discontinuation due to COVID-19 were rare.

Rates of and Factors Associated With Patient Withdrawal of Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient's volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial's purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion. Objective: To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient's voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent. Results: A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P < .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P < .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

Impact of disease progression date determination on progression-free survival estimates in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced lung cancer, overall survival is largely influenced by progression status. Because progression-free survival (PFS)-based endpoints are controversial, the authors evaluated the impact of the progression date (PD) determination approach on PFS estimates. METHODS: Individual patient data from 21 trials (14 North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials and 7 Southwest Oncology Group trials) were used. The reported PD (RPD) was defined as either the radiographic scan date or the clinical deterioration date. PD was determined using Method 1 (M1), the RPD; M2, 1 day after the last progression-free scan; M3, midpoint between the last progression-free scan and the RPD; and M4, an interval-censoring approach. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (M1-M3), and maximum-likelihood (M4) methods. Simulation studies were performed to understand the impact of the length of time elapsed between the last progression-free scan and the PD on time-to-progression estimates. RESULTS: PFS estimates using the RPD were the highest, and M2 was the most conservative. M3 and M4 were similar because the majority of progressions occurred during treatment (ie, frequent disease assessments). M3 was influenced less by the length of the assessment schedules (percentage difference from the true time-to-progression, <1.5%) compared with M1 (11% to 30%) and M2 (-8% to -29%). The overall study conclusion was unaffected by the method used for randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of difference in the PFS estimates was large enough to alter trial conclusions in patients with advanced lung cancer. The results indicate that standards for PD determination, the use of sensitivity analyses, and randomized trials are critical when designing trials and reporting efficacy using PFS-based endpoints.

Rates of Guideline-Concordant Surgery and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Lung Cancer in the US ALCHEMIST Study (Alliance A151216).

Importance: Standard treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes anatomic resection with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for appropriate patients. Historically, many patients with early-stage NSCLC have not received such treatment, which may affect the interpretation of the results of adjuvant therapy trials. Objective: To ascertain patterns of guideline-concordant treatment among patients enrolled in a US-wide screening protocol for adjuvant treatment trials for resected NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 2833 patients with stage IB to IIIA NSCLC (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria) who enrolled in the Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) screening study (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A151216) from August 18, 2014, to April 1, 2019, and who did not enroll in a therapeutic adjuvant clinical trial; patients had tumors of at least 4 cm and/or with positive lymph nodes. Statistical analysis was conducted from June 1, 2020, through October 1, 2021. Exposures: Care patterns were ascertained overall and by sociodemographic and clinical factors, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, marital status, geography, histologic characteristics, stage, genomic variant status, smoking history, and comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Five outcomes are reported: whether patients (1) had anatomic surgical resection, (2) had adequate lymph node dissection (≥1 N1 nodal station plus ≥3 N2 nodal stations), (3) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, (4) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, and (5) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: Of the 2833 patients (1505 women [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.2] years) included in this analysis, 2697 (95%) had anatomic surgical resection, 1513 (53%) had adequate lymph node dissection, 1617 (57%) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, 1237 (44%) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and 965 (34%) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates were similar across race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that among participants in a screening protocol for adjuvant clinical trials for resected early-stage NSCLC, just 53% underwent adequate lymph node dissection, and 57% received adjuvant chemotherapy, despite indications for such treatment. These results may affect the interpretation of adjuvant trials. Efforts are needed to optimize the use of proven therapies for early-stage NSCLC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02194738.

Successes and lessons learned in database development for national multi-site cancer care delivery research trials: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology experience.

INTRODUCTION: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) coordinated trials utilize Medidata Rave® (Rave) as the primary clinical data capture system. A growing number of innovative and complex cancer care delivery research (CCDR) trials are being conducted within the Alliance with the aims of studying and improving cancer-related care. Because these trials encompass patients, providers, practices, and their interactions, a defining characteristic of CCDR trials is multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings. Consequently, CCDR trials necessitated innovative strategies for database development, centralized data management, and data monitoring in the presence of these real-world multilevel relationships. Having real trial experience in working with community and academic centers, and having recently implemented five CCDR trials in Rave, we are committed to sharing our strategies and lessons learned in implementing such pragmatic trials in oncology. METHODS: Five Alliance CCDR trials are used to describe our approach to analyzing the database development needs and the novel strategies applied to overcome the unanticipated challenges we encountered. The strategies applied are organized into 3 categories: multilevel (clinic, clinic stakeholder, patient) enrollment, multilevel quantitative and qualitative data capture, including nontraditional data capture mechanisms being applied, and multilevel data monitoring. RESULTS: A notable lesson learned in each category was (1) to seek long-term solutions when developing the functionality to push patient and non-patient enrollments to their respective Rave study database that affords flexibility if new participant types are later added; (2) to be open to different data collection modalities, particularly if such modalities remove barriers to participation, recognizing that additional resources are needed to develop the infrastructure to exchange data between that modality and Rave; and (3) to facilitate multilevel data monitoring, orient site coordinators to the their trial's multiple study databases, each corresponding to a level in the hierarchy, and remind them to establish the link between patient and non-patient participants in the site-facing NCI web-based enrollment system. CONCLUSION: Although the challenges due to multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings were surmountable, our shared experience can inform and foster collaborations to collectively build on our past successes and improve on our past failures to address the gaps.

Exploring therapeutic decisions in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results and conclusions from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0222.

How do oncologists choose therapy for the elderly? Oncologists assigned patients aged 65 years or older with incurable non-small cell lung cancer to: (a) carboplatin (AUC = 2) + paclitaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 (28-day cycle × 4) followed by gefitinib; or (b) gefitinib 250 mg/day. With (a), 12 of 34 were progression-free at 6 months; median time to cancer progression was 3.9 months. With (b), the same occurred in 11 of 28 patients with the latter being 4.9 months. The most common reason for conventional chemotherapy was oncologists' opinion that the cancer was aggressive, and for gefitinib alone, patients' reluctance to receive chemotherapy. Interestingly, age had no influence.

Radiofrequency ablation of medically inoperable stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: are early posttreatment PET findings predictive of treatment outcome?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate initial experience with (18)F-FDG PET/CT after pulmonary radiofrequency ablation of stage IA non-small cell lung cancer to determine whether treatment success or residual disease can be predicted with early postablation PET. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with medically inoperable stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (12 men, 18 women; median age, 76 years; range, 60-87 years) underwent outpatient CT-guided radiofrequency ablation over a 33-month period. Mean tumor size was 2.0 cm (range, 1.3-2.9 cm). PET/CT was performed within 60 days before radiofrequency ablation (RFA), within 4 days after RFA, and 6 months after RFA. Metabolic response was categorized as complete response or partial or no response at early post-RFA PET/CT and complete response, partial response, or progressive metabolic disease at 6-month post-RFA PET/CT and was compared with the 1-year clinical event rate (death, disease progression at contrast-enhanced CT, or repeat ablation). RESULTS: Early PET/CT images, obtained within 4 days of RFA, were evaluable for 26 patients (23 at 6 months). Patients with a complete metabolic response at early PET/CT had a 1-year event rate of 43%, whereas those with partial or no response or disease progression had a 1-year event rate of 67% (p = 0.27). Patients with a complete metabolic response at 6-month PET/CT had a 1-year event rate of 0%. Those with a partial response and those with disease progression had an overall event rate of 75% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early post-RFA PET/CT is not necessary and 6-month post-RFA PET/CT findings correlate better with clinical outcome at 1 year.

Integration of immunotherapy into adjuvant therapy for resected non-small-cell lung cancer: ALCHEMIST chemo-IO (ACCIO).

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) causes significant mortality each year. After successful resection of disease stage IB (>4 cm) to IIIA (per AJCC 7), adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy improves median overall survival and is the standard of care, but many patients still experience recurrence of disease. An adjuvant regimen with greater efficacy could substantially improve outcomes. Pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor, has become an important option in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. ALCHEMIST is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that includes biomarker analysis for resected NSCLC and supports therapeutic trials including A081801 (ACCIO), a three-arm study that will evaluate both concurrent chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab and sequential chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab to standard of care adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT04267848 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Stool DNA and occult blood testing for screen detection of colorectal neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Stool DNA testing is a new approach to colorectal cancer detection. Few data are available from the screening setting. OBJECTIVE: To compare stool DNA and fecal blood testing for detection of screen-relevant neoplasia (curable-stage cancer, high-grade dysplasia, or adenomas >1 cm). DESIGN: Blinded, multicenter, cross-sectional study. SETTING: Communities surrounding 22 participating academic and regional health care systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 4482 average-risk adults. MEASUREMENTS: Fecal blood and DNA markers. Participants collected 3 stools, smeared fecal blood test cards and used same-day shipment to a central facility. Fecal blood cards (Hemoccult and HemoccultSensa, Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, California) were tested on 3 stools and DNA assays on 1 stool per patient. Stool DNA test 1 (SDT-1) was a precommercial 23-marker assay, and a novel test (SDT-2) targeted 3 broadly informative markers. The criterion standard was colonoscopy. RESULTS: Sensitivity for screen-relevant neoplasms was 20% by SDT-1, 11% by Hemoccult (P = 0.020), 21% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.80); sensitivity for cancer plus high-grade dysplasia did not differ among tests. Specificity was 96% by SDT-1, compared with 98% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 97% by HemoccultSensa (P = 0.20). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of screen-relevant neoplasms, compared with 16% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 24% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Stool DNA test 2 detected 46% of adenomas 1 cm or larger, compared with 10% by Hemoccult (P < 0.001) and 17% by HemoccultSensa (P < 0.001). Among colonoscopically normal patients, the positivity rate was 16% with SDT-2, compared with 4% with Hemoccult (P = 0.010) and 5% with HemoccultSensa (P = 0.030). LIMITATIONS: Stool DNA test 2 was not performed on all subsets of patients without screen-relevant neoplasms. Stools were collected without preservative, which reduced detection of some DNA markers. CONCLUSION: Stool DNA test 1 provides no improvement over HemoccultSensa for detection of screen-relevant neoplasms. Stool DNA test 2 detects significantly more neoplasms than does Hemoccult or HemoccultSensa, but with more positive results in colonoscopically normal patients. Higher sensitivity of SDT-2 was particularly apparent for adenomas.

Phase III randomized, double-blind study of maintenance CAI or placebo in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after completion of initial therapy (NCCTG 97-24-51).

PURPOSE: This study assessed whether maintenance therapy with carboxyaminoimidazole (CAI), compared to placebo, prolonged overall survival in stage IIIB/IV NSCLC patients who had tumour regression or stable disease after treatment with one chemotherapy regimen. METHODS: After completion of chemotherapy, patients were randomized to receive daily oral CAI at 250mg or placebo. Treatment continued until patient refusal, disease progression or unacceptable adverse event (AE). Quality of life (QOL) was assessed by UNISCALE and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy for Lung Cancer (FACT-L). RESULTS: Registration was halted early for slow accrual (targeted 360, randomized 186: 94 CAI, 92 placebo). All patients were off active treatment at time of analyses. Non-haematologic AEs (primarily grade 1, 2) observed significantly more often in the CAI group included fatigue (54.5% versus 29.3%), anorexia (31.1% versus 13.0%), nausea (62.2% versus 30.4%), vomiting (32.2% versus 14.1%), neurosensory (60.0% versus 44.6%) and ataxia (33.3% versus 16.3%). Patients discontinued treatment for AEs, death on study or refusal more often in the CAI group (36.0% versus 8.7%, p<0.0001). No significant differences in survival or time to progression were observed (median: CAI versus placebo: 11.4 months versus 10.5 months, log rank p=0.54; 2.8 months versus 2.4 months, log rank p=0.50). More patients receiving CAI reported a clinically significant (10-point) decline in QOL particularly on the functional (58% versus 37%, p=0.05) construct of FACT-L and UNISCALE (72% versus 51%, p=0.04). CONCLUSION: The addition of CAI following chemotherapy does not provide clinical benefit or improvement in QOL over placebo in advanced NSCLC.

Long-Term Results of a Trial of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Escalating Doses of Radiation for Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NCCTG N0028 (Alliance).

INTRODUCTION: This phase I/II trial was designed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of thoracic radiotherapy as part of a combined modality approach. This report includes the long-term outcomes of patients treated on this study. The phase II portion was never completed, as RTOG-0617 opened before it was concluded. METHODS: In this study, the maximally tolerated dose was defined as 74 Gy of radiation in 37 fractions. Twenty-five patients with unresectable NSCLC were treated with 2-Gy daily fractions and concurrent weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel. Of these patients, 20 had stage III disease and five had stage I or II disease. RESULTS: Patients were followed until death or for a minimum of 5 years in the case of survivors. The median and 5-year survivals were 42.5 months and 20% for all patients, 52.9 months and 40% in patients with stages I or II disease, and 39.8 months and 15% in patients with stage III disease. CONCLUSIONS: The median survival of the stage III patients was quite favorable. We believe that this may have been due to a robust central review program of radiotherapy plans before treatment, ensuring compliance with protocol guidelines along with very low exposure of the heart to radiotherapy. Further improvements in 5-year survival will likely require research on both systemic therapy and thoracic radiotherapy. Potential therapeutic modalities that may aid in these efforts include immunotherapy, targeted therapy, improved imaging, adaptive radiotherapy, simultaneous integrated boost techniques, novel dose fractionation regimens, and charged particle therapy.

Randomized phase II trial of three schedules of pemetrexed and gemcitabine as front-line therapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: A randomized three-arm phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the optimum administration schedule of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to three schedules of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2, separated by a 90-minute interval, on a 21-day cycle as follows: schedule A, pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; schedule B, gemcitabine followed by pemetrexed on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; and schedule C, gemcitabine on day 1 and pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 8. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-two eligible patients (schedule A, n = 59; schedule B, n = 31, and schedule C, n = 62) received a median of five (schedule A), two (schedule B), and four (schedule C) treatment cycles. Overall, 66% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Common grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were dyspnea (11%), fatigue (16%), and transaminase elevation (9%). Schedule A seemed less toxic compared with schedule C (grade 3 or 4 events: 86% v 94%, respectively; P = .19; grade 4 events: 39% v 48%, respectively; P = .30). Schedule B was closed at interim analysis for inferior efficacy. Schedule A, with a confirmed response rate of 31% (95% CI, 20% to 45%), met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, whereas schedule C, with a confirmed response rate of 16.1% (95% CI, 11% to 34%), did not. Median survival time and time to progression were 11.4 and 4.4 months, respectively, with no observable difference between the arms. CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed and gemcitabine administered as outlined for schedule A met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, was less toxic compared with the other treatment schedules, and should be further evaluated.

Analysis of longitudinal quality-of-life data in high-risk operable patients with lung cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z4032 (Alliance) multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have suggested that low baseline quality-of-life (QOL) scores predict worse survival in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. However, these studies involved average-risk patients undergoing lobectomy. We report QOL results from a multicenter trial, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4032, which randomized high-risk operable patients to sublobar resection (SR), or SR with brachytherapy, and included longitudinal QOL assessments. METHODS: Global QOL, using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF36), and the dyspnea score from the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (SOBQ) scale, was measured at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. SF36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores were standardized and adjusted for age and gender normals, with scores <50 indicating below-average health status. SOBQ scores were transformed to a 0-100 (poor-excellent) scale. Aims were to: (1) determine the impact of baseline scores on recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and 30-day adverse events (AEs); and (2) identify subgroups (surgical approach, resection type. tumor location, tumor size, respiratory function) with a ≥ 10-point decline or improvement in QOL after SR. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve eligible patients were included. There were no significant differences in baseline QOL scores between arms. Median baseline PCS, MCS, and SOBQ scores were 42.7, 51.1, and 70.8, respectively. There were no differences in grade-3+ AEs, overall survival, or recurrence-free survival in patients with baseline scores ≤ median versus > median values, except for a significantly worse overall survival for patients with baseline SOBQ scores ≤ median value. There were no significant differences between the study arms in percentage change of QOL scores from baseline to 3, 12, or 24 months. Further comparison combining the 2 arms demonstrated a higher percentage of patients with a ≥ 10-point decline in SOBQ scores with segmentectomy compared with wedge resection (40.5% vs 21.9%, P = .03) at 12 months, with thoracotomy versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) (38.8% vs 20.4%, P = .03) at 12 months, and T1b versus T1a tumors (46.9% vs 23.5%, P = .020) at 24 months. A ≥ 10-point improvement in PCS score was seen at 3 months with VATS versus thoracotomy (16.5% vs 3.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk operable patients, poor baseline QOL scores were not predictive for worse overall or recurrence-free survival, or for higher risk for AEs following SR. VATS was associated with improvement in physical function at 3 months, and improved dyspnea scores at 12 months, lending support for the preferential use of VATS when SR is undertaken.

A quality-adjusted reanalysis of a Phase III trial comparing once-daily thoracic radiation vs. twice-daily thoracic radiation in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer(1).

PURPOSE: We undertook an analysis of quality-adjusted survival using the Q-TWiST (Quality Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity) methodology and developed a new graphic representation called a quality-adjusted life-years plot, which presents a complete and concise Q-TWiST analysis on a single plot. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Q-TWiST plot incorporates the time without symptoms or toxicity and several combinations of utility coefficients for toxicity and relapse days into the same plot. In addition, the plot includes threshold lines, to judge whether a particular combination of utility coefficients reaches a significance level. RESULTS: The differential in toxicity incidence and severity between the two thoracic radiation treatment arms was inconsequential. Sensitivity analyses were run using Q-TWiST plots. For all combinations of the various toxicity definitions and utility coefficients, the median Q-TWiST was greater for the once-daily thoracic radiation treatment arm than for the twice-daily treatment arm, without achieved significance. CONCLUSION: This work refines the results previously reported for this Phase III clinical trial in patients with limited-stage small-cell cancer, and there was no significant difference in survival after adjusting for toxicity and progression. Furthermore, the new methods developed for this trial allow for a more detailed and parsimonious presentation of survival and toxicity data for all oncology clinical trials.

Long-term results of a phase III trial comparing once-daily radiotherapy with twice-daily radiotherapy in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: This Phase III study was performed to determine whether twice-daily (b.i.d.) radiotherapy (RT) resulted in better survival than once-daily (q.d.) RT for patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (LD-SCLC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 310 patients with LD-SCLC initially received three cycles of etoposide and cisplatin. Subsequently, the 261 patients without significant progression were randomized to two cycles of etoposide and cisplatin plus either q.d. RT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) or split-course b.i.d. RT (24 Gy in 16 fractions, a 2.5-week break, and 24 Gy in 16 fractions) to the chest. Patients then received a sixth cycle of etoposide and cisplatin followed by prophylactic cranial RT. RESULTS: Follow-up ranged from 4.6 to 11.9 years (median, 7.4 years). The median survival and 5-year survival rate from randomization was 20.6 months and 21% for patients who received q.d. RT compared with 20.6 months and 22% for those who received b.i.d. RT (p = 0.68), respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in the rates of progression (p = 0.68), intrathoracic failure (p = 0.45), in-field failure (p = 0.62), or distant failure (p = 0.82) between the two treatment arms. No statistically significant difference was found in the overall rate of Grade 3 or worse (p = 0.83) or Grade 4 or worse toxicity (p = 0.95). Grade 3 or worse esophagitis (p = 0.05) was more common in the b.i.d. arm. Grade 5 toxicity occurred in 4 (3%) of 130 patients who received b.i.d. RT compared with 0 (0%) of 131 who received q.d. RT (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Although this study did not demonstrate an advantage to split-course b.i.d. RT, the long-term survival was favorable, likely reflecting the positive influences of concurrent combined modality therapy and prophylactic cranial RT.

Patient perceptions of stool DNA testing for pan-digestive cancer screening: a survey questionnaire.

AIM: To explore patient interest in a potential multi-organ stool-DNA test (MUST) for pan-digestive cancer screening. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and mailed to 1200 randomly-selected patients from the Mayo Clinic registry. The 29-item survey questionnaire included items related to demographics, knowledge of digestive cancers, personal and family history of cancer, personal concern of cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behavior, interest in MUST, importance of test features in a cancer screening tool, and comparison of MUST with available CRC screening tests. All responses were summarized descriptively. χ(2) and Rank Sum Test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 434 (29% aged 50-59, 37% 60-69, 34% 70-79, 52% women). Most participants (98%) responded they would use MUST. In order of importance, respondents rated multi-cancer detection, absence of bowel preparation, safety and noninvasiveness as most attractive characteristics. For CRC screening, MUST was preferred over colorectal-only stool-DNA testing (53%), occult blood testing (75%), colonoscopy (84%), sigmoidoscopy (91%), and barium enema (95%), P < 0.0001 for each. Among those not previously screened, most (96%) indicated they would use MUST if available. Respondents were confident in their ability to follow instructions to perform MUST (98%). Only 9% of respondents indicated that fear of finding cancer was a concern with MUST, and only 3% indicated unpleasantness of stool sampling as a potential barrier. CONCLUSION: Patients are receptive to the concept of MUST, preferred MUST over conventional CRC screening modalities and valued its potential feature of multi-cancer detection.

Impact of brachytherapy on local recurrence rates after sublobar resection: results from ACOSOG Z4032 (Alliance), a phase III randomized trial for high-risk operable non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: A major concern with sublobar resection (SR) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is high local recurrence (LR). Adjuvant brachytherapy may reduce LR This multicenter randomized trial compares SR to SR with brachytherapy (SRB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: High-risk operable patients with NSCLC ≤ 3 cm were randomly assigned to SR or SRB. The primary end point was time to LR, where LR included recurrence at the staple line (local progression), in the primary tumor lobe away from the staple line, and in ipsilateral hilar nodes. The trial was designed to have a 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.315 in favor of SRB, using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05 with a sample size of 100 eligible patients in each arm. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients were randomly assigned; 222 patients were evaluable for intent-to-treat analysis. Median age was 71 years (range, 49 to 87 years). No differences were found in baseline characteristics. Median follow-up time was 4.38 years (range, 0.04 to 5.59 years). There was no difference in time to LR (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.98; log-rank P = .98) or in the types of LR. Local progression occurred in only 17 (7.7%) of 222 patients. In patients with potentially compromised margins (margin < 1 cm, margin-to-tumor ratio < 1, positive staple line cytology, wedge resection, nodule size > 2.0 cm), SRB did not reduce LR, although trends favored the SRB arm. This was most marked in 14 patients with positive staple line cytology (HR, 0.22; P = .24). Three-year overall survival rates were similar for patients in the SR (71%) and SRB (71%) arms (P = .97). CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy did not reduce LR after SR. This finding may have been related to closer attention to parenchymal margins by surgeons participating in this study.