Surgical versus non-surgical management for patients with malignant bowel obstruction (S1316): a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial.

BACKGROUND: Malignant small bowel obstruction has a poor prognosis and is associated with multiple related symptoms. The optimal treatment approach is often unclear. We aimed to compare surgical versus non-surgical management with the aim to determine the optimal approach for managing malignant bowel obstruction. METHODS: S1316 was a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial done within the National Cancer Trials Network at 30 hospital and cancer research centres in the USA, Mexico, Peru, and Colombia. Participants had an intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal primary cancer confirmed via pathological report and malignant bowel disease; were aged 18 years or older with a Zubrod performance status 0-2 within 1 week before admission; had a surgical indication; and treatment equipoise. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to surgical or non-surgical treatment using a dynamic balancing algorithm, balancing on primary tumour type. Patients who declined consent for random assignment were offered a prospective observational patient choice pathway. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital (good days) at 91 days. Analyses were based on intention-to-treat linear, logistic, and Cox regression models combining data from both pathways and adjusting for potential confounders. Treatment complications were assessed in all analysed patients in the study. This completed study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02270450. FINDINGS: From May 11, 2015, to April 27, 2020, 221 patients were enrolled (143 [65%] were female and 78 [35%] were male). There were 199 evaluable participants: 49 in the randomised pathway (24 surgery and 25 non-surgery) and 150 in the patient choice pathway (58 surgery and 92 non-surgery). No difference was seen between surgery and non-surgery for the primary outcome of good days: mean 42·6 days (SD 32·2) in the randomised surgery group, 43·9 days (29·5) in the randomised non-surgery group, 54·8 days (27·0) in the patient choice surgery group, and 52·7 days (30·7) in the patient choice non-surgery group (adjusted mean difference 2·9 additional good days in surgical versus non-surgical treatment [95% CI -5·5 to 11·3]; p=0·50). During their initial hospital stay, six participants died, five due to cancer progression (four patients from the randomised pathway, two in each treatment group, and one from the patient choice pathway, in the surgery group) and one due to malignant bowel obstruction treatment complications (patient choice pathway, non-surgery). The most common grade 3-4 malignant bowel obstruction treatment complication was anaemia (three [6%] patients in the randomised pathway, all in the surgical group, and five [3%] patients in the patient choice pathway, four in the surgical group and one in the non-surgical group). INTERPRETATION: In our study, whether patients received a surgical or non-surgical treatment approach did not influence good days during the first 91 days after registration. These findings should inform treatment decisions for patients hospitalised with malignant bowel obstruction. FUNDING: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Cancer Institute. TRANSLATION: For the Spanish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology.

Background: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). Patients and methods: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. Results: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. Conclusions: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.

Clustering of EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life scales across several cancer types: Validation study.

INTRODUCTION: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) measures 15 health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scales relevant to the disease and treatment of patients with cancer. A study by Martinelli (2011) demonstrated that these scales could be grouped into three main clusters: physical, psychological and gastrointestinal. This study aims to validate Martinelli's findings in an independent dataset and evaluate whether these clusters are consistent across cancer types and patient characteristics. METHODS: Pre-defined criteria for successful validation were three main clusters should emerge with a minimum R-squared value of 0.51 using pooled baseline-data. A cluster analysis was performed on the 15 QLQ-C30 HRQoL-scales in the overall dataset, as well as by cancer type and selected patient characteristics to examine the robustness of the results. RESULTS: The dataset consisted of 20,066 patients pooled across 17 cancer types. Overall, three main clusters were identified (R2 = 0.61); physical-cluster included role-functioning, physical-functioning, social-functioning, fatigue, pain, and global-health status; psychological-cluster included emotional-functioning, cognitive-functioning, and insomnia; gastro-intestinal-cluster included nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. The results were consistent across different levels of disease severity, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics with minor variations by cancer type. Global-health status was found to be strongly linked to the scales included in the physical-functioning-related cluster. CONCLUSION: This study successfully validated prior findings by Martinelli (2011): the QLQ-C30 scales are interrelated and can be grouped into three main clusters. Knowing how these multidimensional HRQoL scales are related to each other can help clinicians and patients with cancer in managing symptom burden, guide policymakers in defining social-support plans and inform selection of HRQoL scales in future clinical trials.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Stoma location and ostomy-related quality of life among cancer survivors with ostomies: A pooled analysis.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to explore how stoma location may affect self-care events and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in cancer survivors with ostomies. METHODS: A pooled dataset was obtained from three multi-site studies that used the City of Hope Quality of Life-Ostomy questionnaire. Predicted means for HRQOL and individual items were generated adjusting for sex, ostomy type, and body mass index. RESULTS: Among 607 cancer survivors, abdominal quadrant groups were: 138 (23%) upper left, 298 (49%) lower left, 51 (8%) upper right, and 120 (20%) lower right. Survivors with lower right side ostomies more frequently reported weight gain after ostomy surgery (p < 0.001). Stoma on the right side of the abdomen was associated with lower scores for issues with the skin surrounding the ostomy (p = 0.03) and satisfaction with appearance (p = 0.008). DISCUSSION: Stoma location is associated with HRQOL and difficulties adjusting to the ostomy.

Disparities in older adult accrual to cancer trials: Analysis from the alliance for clinical trials in oncology (A151736).

BACKGROUND: Older adults are under-represented in cancer clinical trials. However, it remains unclear which types of trials under-enroll aging patients. We aimed to identify associations between trial characteristics and disparate enrollment of older adults onto trials sponsored by the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance). METHODS: Actual age ≥ 65 percentage and trial data were extracted from the Alliance closed study list. Each trial, based on its cancer type and years of enrollment, was assigned an expected age ≥ 65 percentage extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) US population-based database. Enrollment disparity difference (EDD), the difference between the expected age ≥ 65 percentage and the actual age ≥ 65 percentage, was calculated for each trial. Linear regression determined trial variables associated with larger EDDs and variables with an overall association p-value <0.20 were included in a multivariable fixed-effects linear model. RESULTS: The median age of 66,708 patients across 237 trials was 60 years (range 18-102). The average actual age ≥ 65 percentage enrolled per trial was lower than each trial's expected age ≥ 65 percentage average (39% vs. 58%; EDD 19, 95% CI 17.1-21.3%, p < 0.0001). In multivariable analyses, non-genitourinary (GU) cancer types (p < 0.001), trimodality+ trials (estimate 8.78, 95%CI 2.21-15.34, p = 0.009), and phase 2 trials (estimate 4.43 95% CI -0.06-8.91; p = 0.05) were all associated with larger EDDs. CONCLUSIONS: Disparate enrollment of older adults is not equal across cancer trials. Future strategies to improve older adult inclusion should focus on trial types associated with the highest disparate enrollment.

Impact of Massage Therapy on the Quality of Life of Hospice Patients and Their Caregivers: A Pilot Study.

Evidence for massage therapy (MT) in hospice patients remains limited. We conducted a prospective pilot study on MTs impact on quality of life of hospice patients and caregivers. Patient-caregiver dyads were enrolled if patients scored ≥5 on pain, depression, anxiety, or well-being using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised (ESAS-r). The patient received MT weekly for up to 3 massages with assessments completed at baseline, after each massage, and 1 week after the final massage for patients and at baseline and 1 week after final massage for caregivers. A satisfaction survey was completed at study completion. A pro-rated area under the curve (AUC) was utilized to assess the primary endpoints of change in ESAS-r for patient ratings of pain, depression and anxiety as well as the Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA). Median difference scores (end of study value)-(baseline value) for each participant and caregiver were calculated. Of 27 patients and caregivers enrolled, 25 patients received MT. Fifteen patients completed all 3 MT sessions and were given the final symptom assessment and satisfaction survey and their caregivers completed final assessments. The proportion of patients considered success (AUC > baseline) in the primary endpoints were the following: pain 40.9%, depression 40.9%, anxiety 54.5%, LASA 54.5%. Median difference scores were largely zero indicating no significant temporal change in symptoms. Patients were highly satisfied with MT. This pilot study indicated that MT was a feasible and well-received intervention in our population of patients with inadequately controlled symptoms.

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

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

Efficacy of Treatment With Armodafinil for Cancer-Related Fatigue in Patients With High-grade Glioma: A Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Nearly 96% of patients with high-grade glioma (HGG) report moderate-to-severe fatigue. Armodafinil is a psychostimulant that might help cancer-related fatigue in patients with HGG. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether armodafinil reduces fatigue in patients with HGG and moderate-to-severe fatigue. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this randomized multicenter, phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial, adults with HGG and moderate-to-severe fatigue who were clinically stable at least 4 weeks after completing radiation therapy were randomized to receive armodafinil daily (150 mg or 250 mg) or placebo over 8 weeks. A score of at least 6 out of 10 on severity scale for the brief fatigue inventory scale, with 10 being the worst, was required to suggest moderate-to-severe fatigue. Patients were allowed stable doses of corticosteroids but were excluded if they required increasing amounts of corticosteroids, were receiving some other treatment for fatigue, or had an uncontrolled seizure disorder. The study was conducted from June 2013 to December 15, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to 150 mg of armodafinil, 250 mg of armodafinil, or placebo for a total of 8 weeks with assessments at weeks 4 and 8. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was efficacy in treating cancer-related fatigue. Secondary outcomes included safety, neurocognitive function, and quality of life. Patients were evaluated at baseline and at weeks 4 and 8. Efficacy between the placebo and the 2 doses of study drug was determined by an improvement by 2 points on the 0 to 10 brief fatigue inventory scale. Kruskal-Wallis and χ2 tests were used and followed by confirmatory analyses. RESULTS: A total of 328 patients were enrolled, of whom 297 had evaluable end point data. Of these, 103 received 150 mg of armodafinil (mean [SD] age, 58.5 [11.9] years; 42 women [40.8%]), 97 250 mg of armodafinil (mean [SD] age, 56.6 [12.5] years; 37 women [38.1%]), and 97 placebo (mean [SD] age, 57.1 [12.5] years; 39 women [40.2%]). There was no difference in the proportion of patients who achieved clinically meaningful fatigue reduction between arms (28% [95% CI 20%-30%] for 150 mg of armodafinil, 28% [95% CI 19%-38%] for 250 mg of armodafinil, and 30% [95% CI 21%-40%] for placebo). There was a statistically significant reduction in global fatigue for corticosteroid users compared with nonusers (-0.7 [95% CI, -1.5 to -0.3] vs -1.7 [95% CI, -2.1 to -1.3]; P < .001). More patients (2 vs 7) reported insomnia with treatment with 250 mg of armodafinil. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results of this randomized clinical trial found no meaningful benefit of using treatment with armodafinil to reduce cancer-related fatigue in patients with HGG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01781468.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS®), and single-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measures. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference. RESULTS: For all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI's were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers. CONCLUSION: Across all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI's not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible.

N-Terminal Pro Brain Natriuretic Peptide, sST2, and Galectin-3 Levels in Breast Cancer Survivors.

NT-proBNP, soluble ST2 (sST2), and galectin-3 are biomarkers of cardiac dysfunction that have been proposed as identifiers of patients experiencing asymptomatic cardiac dysfunction after anthracycline-based chemotherapy. This study aimed to compare the proportion of breast cancer (BC) survivors with elevated serum levels of these three putative biomarkers by prior receipt of anthracycline (yes vs. no). Five-hundred-eighty survivors of BC who had received anthracycline-based chemotherapy were matched by age and time between diagnosis and serum storage to 580 who had not. Cardiac biomarker levels were analyzed using immunoassays. Analyses were carried out using linear and logistic regression models. Anthracycline recipients had higher values of NT-proBNP than non-recipients (mean 116.0 ng/L vs. 97.0 ng/L, respectively; p < 0.001). Values for ST2 and galectin-3 did not significantly differ by receipt of anthracycline. After further adjustment for age at breast cancer diagnosis, ethnicity, and receipt of trastuzumab, associations between receipt of anthracycline and higher NT-proBNP persisted (p < 0.001), showing that NT-proBNP may be a biomarker of cardiovascular toxicity after receipt of anthracycline-based chemotherapy. Further research to assess the clinical utility of NT-proBNP testing after receipt of anthracycline is recommended. sST2 and galectin-3 do not appear to differentiate between anthracycline recipients and non-recipients amongst breast cancer survivors.

Association of Fatigue and Outcomes in Advanced Cancer: An Analysis of Four SWOG Treatment Trials.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes may be associated with cancer outcomes. We evaluated clinically significant fatigue (CSF), overall survival, adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QOL) during cancer treatment. METHODS: We compared outcomes in four phase II or III chemotherapy trials, two advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and two advanced hormone-refractory prostate cancer, with or without baseline CSF. CSF was defined as a rating of two or greater on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy fatigue question or a European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 fatigue symptom score of 50% or greater. Survival was compared according to CSF using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression models. Differences in AE rates by CSF were assessed via chi-squared tests, and QOL changes from baseline to 3 months via linear regression. RESULTS: Of 1,994 participants, 1,907 (median age 69 years, range: 32-91) had complete baseline QOL survey data, with 52% reporting CSF at baseline. For the two hormone-refractory prostate cancer studies, baseline CSF was associated with higher mortality rates, with adjusted hazard ratios of (95% CI, P value) 1.32 (1.13 to 1.55, P < .001) and 1.31 (1.02 to 1.67, P = .03) and with increased incidence of grade 3-5 constitutional (16.5% v 9.4%, P = .002; 13.9% v 6.3%, P = .002) and neurologic (11.7% v 6.1%, P = .006; 9.0% v 3.9%, P = .01) AEs, respectively. Baseline CSF was associated with a higher mortality rate in one non-small-cell lung cancer study: hazard ratio 1.44 and 1.04 to 2.00, P = .03. CONCLUSION: Oncology trial participants with baseline CSF had poorer survival and experienced more AEs than participants without CSF. This indicates fatigue as an important baseline prognostic factor in oncology treatment trials.

Electronic Geriatric Assessment: Is It Feasible in a Multi-Institutional Study That Included a Notable Proportion of Older African American Patients? (Alliance A171603).

PURPOSE: This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODS: Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS: A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.

Genetic Predictors of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy from Paclitaxel, Carboplatin and Oxaliplatin: NCCTG/Alliance N08C1, N08CA and N08CB Study.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common and potentially permanent adverse effect of chemotherapeutic agents including taxanes such as paclitaxel and platinum-based compounds such as oxaliplatin and carboplatin. Previous studies have suggested that genetics may impact the risk of CIPN. We conducted genome-wide association studies (GWASs) for CIPN in two independent populations who had completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ)-CIPN20 assessments (a CIPN-specific 20-item questionnaire which includes three scales that evaluate sensory, autonomic, and motor symptoms). The study population N08Cx included 692 participants from three clinical trials (North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) N08C1, N08CA, and N08CB) who had been treated with paclitaxel, paclitaxel plus carboplatin, or oxaliplatin. The primary endpoint for the GWAS was the change from pre-chemotherapy CIPN20 sensory score to the worse score over the following 18 weeks. Study population The Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR) consisted of 381 Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry enrollees who had been treated with taxane or platinum-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint for the GWAS assessed was the earliest CIPN20 sensory score available after the completion of chemotherapy. In multivariate model analyses, chemotherapy regimen (p = 3.0 × 10-8) and genetic ancestry (p = 0.007) were significantly associated with CIPN in the N08Cx population. Only age (p = 0.0004) was significantly associated with CIPN in the MCBDR population. The SNP most associated with CIPN was rs56360211 near PDE6C (p =7.92 × 10-8) in N08Cx and rs113807868 near TMEM150C in the MCBDR (p = 1.27 × 10-8). Due to a lack of replication, we cannot conclude that we identified any genetic predictors of CIPN.

Do Missing Values Influence Outcomes in a Cross-sectional Mail Survey?

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of missing and inconsistent data on a weight management mail survey results. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Weight management surveys were sent to 5000 overweight and obese individuals in the Learning Health System Network. Survey information was collected between October 27, 2017, and March 1, 2018. Some participants reported body mass index (BMI) values inconsistent with the intended overweight and obese sampling cohort. Analyses were performed after excluding these surveys and also performed again after setting these low BMI values to missing. Models were run after imputing missing values using expectation-maximization, Markov chain Monte Carlo, random forest imputation, multivariate imputation by chained equations, and multiple imputation and replacing missing BMI values with the minimum, maximum, mean, or median of the known BMI values. RESULTS: Of 2799 surveys, 222 (8%) had missing BMI values and 155 (6%) reported invalid BMI values. Overall, 725 of these 2799 surveys (26%) were missing at least 1 variable that was essential to the main analyses. Different imputation methods consistently found that BMI was related to age, sex, race, marital status, and education. Patients with a BMI of 35.0 kg/m2 or greater were more likely to feel judged because of their weight, and patients with a BMI of 40.0 kg/m2 or greater were more likely to feel they were not always treated with respect and treated as an equal. CONCLUSION: Analyses using different imputation methods were consistent with the original published results. Missing data likely did not affect the study results.