Caregiver survey in glioblastoma focused on cognitive dysfunction: development and results from a multicenter study.

Aim: To develop a cognitive dysfunction (CD) focused questionnaire to evaluate caregiver burden in glioblastoma. Materials & methods: The survey was developed from stakeholder consultations and a pilot study, and disseminated at eight US academic cancer centers. Caregivers self-reported caring for an adult with glioblastoma and CD. Results: The 89-item survey covered demographics, CD symptoms and caregiver burden domains. Among 185 caregivers, most were white, educated females and reported memory problems as the most common CD symptom. An exposure-effect was observed, with increase in number of CD symptoms significantly associated with greater caregiver burden. Conclusion: This questionnaire could guide caregiver interventions and be adapted for use longitudinally, in community cancer settings, and in patients with brain metastases.

Glioblastoma (GBM) is a very aggressive brain cancer. People who have GBM have trouble remembering things and are unable to do things they used to do. These changes can be very hard. Researchers are trying to better understand what it is like for people who take care of people with GBM (or caregivers). In this study, researchers created a new survey for caregivers. The survey included questions about what caregivers see happening in their loved one with GBM. Caregivers said that memory problems were common. Also, when the patient had more problems the caregiver had a harder time, too. Researchers hope to improve the survey and use it in the future for more studies.

Adherence to Adjuvant Imatinib Therapy in Patients with Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor in Clinical Practice: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to imatinib therapy has been significantly associated with disease progression and direct medical costs in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) patients. However, adherence to oral anticancer drugs is frequently hindered by the influence of various factors. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of imatinib adherence and its influencing factors among GIST patients in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: Adherence of GIST patients (receiving imatinib for ≥1 month) was assessed using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS), with a score <8 indicating nonadherence. Quality of life and social support were evaluated by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ C30) and Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS). Factors associated with nonadherence were identified by multivariate logistic regression analysis. Imatinib plasma concentrations were determined and compared between adherent and nonadherent groups. RESULTS: A total of 158 GIST patients were enrolled, 92 (58.2%) patients were considered nonadherent. Intentional nonadherence, especially feeling hassled by treatment plan (34.2% of patients), was common. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, gender (OR 2.68, 95% CI 1.33-5.41; p = 0.0058), place of residence (OR 3.20, 95% CI 1.39-7.35; p = 0.0061), and global health status (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04; p = 0.0378) were significantly associated with nonadherence. Moreover, imatinib plasma concentrations in nonadherent patients were significantly lower than that in the good adherence group (p = 0.0338). CONCLUSIONS: Poor adherence to imatinib is a notable problem in Chinese GIST patients in the adjuvant therapy setting. The predominant indicators of nonadherence in this study were gender (female), living in a rural area, and harboring a low global health status score. These indicators may aid clinicians in determining where increased efforts in promoting adherence may be beneficial.

UGT1A1 Guided Cancer Therapy: Review of the Evidence and Considerations for Clinical Implementation.

Multi-gene assays often include UGT1A1 and, in certain instances, may report associated toxicity risks for irinotecan, belinostat, pazopanib, and nilotinib. However, guidance for incorporating UGT1A1 results into therapeutic decision-making is mostly lacking for these anticancer drugs. We summarized meta-analyses, genome-wide association studies, clinical trials, drug labels, and guidelines relating to the impact of UGT1A1 polymorphisms on irinotecan, belinostat, pazopanib, or nilotinib toxicities. For irinotecan, UGT1A1*28 was significantly associated with neutropenia and diarrhea, particularly with doses ≥ 180 mg/m2, supporting the use of UGT1A1 to guide irinotecan prescribing. The drug label for belinostat recommends a reduced starting dose of 750 mg/m2 for UGT1A1*28 homozygotes, though published studies supporting this recommendation are sparse. There was a correlation between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and pazopanib-induced hepatotoxicity, though further studies are needed to elucidate the role of UGT1A1-guided pazopanib dose adjustments. Limited studies have investigated the association between UGT1A1 polymorphisms and nilotinib-induced hepatotoxicity, with data currently insufficient for UGT1A1-guided nilotinib dose adjustments.

Budget Impact of Adaptive Abiraterone Therapy for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The use of a novel strategy known as adaptive abiraterone therapy based on mathematical modeling of evolutionary dynamics of tumor subpopulations was shown in a clinical trial to extend the time to disease progression in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and reduced the use of abiraterone therapy. Although the clinical impact of adaptive abiraterone treatment is clear, the economic impact of this strategy has not been investigated. OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost of care with adaptive abiraterone therapy versus standard continuous abiraterone therapy in patients with metastatic CRPC, using patient billing data. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of billing data for patients with metastatic CRPC who received abiraterone treatment at a large cancer center between June 1, 2012, and August 31, 2018. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on whether they received adaptive abiraterone therapy (N = 15) or continuous abiraterone therapy (N = 21). All patients with refractory, metastatic prostate cancer after castration that was indicated for abiraterone therapy were eligible for this study. Each patient in the adaptive abiraterone therapy cohort received abiraterone plus prednisone treatment until the patient reached a target threshold of 50% or more reduction in prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level compared with his PSA level before abiraterone therapy; treatment was then suspended until the PSA level rose above the 50% of PSA before abiraterone therapy target threshold. The continuous therapy cohort received abiraterone plus prednisone daily until radiographic progression. The primary outcomes were the mean annual cost of care per patient, including and excluding the cost of abiraterone, and the cost of care, by clinical category. RESULTS: The median time to disease progression was 25.8 months for patients who received adaptive abiraterone therapy compared with 12.1 months for patients who received continuous abiraterone therapy. Overall, the mean total, including the cost of drug, annual cost per patient who received adaptive abiraterone therapy was $79,093 compared with $146,782 for patients who received continuous abiraterone therapy (P <.0001). The annual cost of care per patient, excluding the cost of abiraterone, was $13,883 for those who received adaptive therapy versus $22,322 for those who received continuous abiraterone therapy (P = .2757), which was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Practical precision medicine strategies, such as adaptive abiraterone treatment or pharmacogenomics-targeted dosing, can use known biomarkers, such as PSA, to tailor therapy, generate improved outcomes, and reduce costs without the need for novel drug and diagnostic discovery and development. The results of this study suggest that a large clinical study of adaptive abiraterone therapy is warranted to validate the potential of this strategy to extend the time to disease progression and reduce costs of treatment of metastatic CRPC.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Immunosuppressant Nonadherence in Heart Transplant Recipients: A Single-Center Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Immunosuppressant nonadherence (INA) has been shown to affect outcomes after solid organ transplantation. The aim of the present study was to determine the prevalence of INA in heart transplant recipients and the associated risk factors of INA. METHODS: Adult heart transplant recipients who firstly received heart transplantation (discharged for at least 3 months) were consecutively enrolled. Immunosuppressant adherence was assessed using the Basel Assessment of Adherence with Immunosuppressive Medication Scale (BAASIS). INA was categorized into five domains of contributing factors (socio-demographic factors, transplant-related factors, healthcare system access factors, post-transplant treatment-related factors, and patient-related psychosocial factors). These factors were compared between adherent and nonadherent patients. The risk factors of INA were investigated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 168 heart recipients were ultimately included. Among them, 69 (41.1%) recipients were revealed to be nonadherent. Logistic regression analysis indicated that INA was associated with monthly income<3000 Chinese Yuan (CNY) (OR, 3.11; 95% CI, 1.58-6.12; p=0.001), number of prescribed concomitant drugs (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12-1.50; p=0.003) and concerns about immunosuppressants (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Heart recipients had a high prevalence of INA. Lower income, greater number of prescribed concomitant drugs, and more concerns about immunosuppressants correlated most with timing nonadherence and taking nonadherence among heart recipients. These findings will be helpful to intervene on and prevent future INA of heart recipients.

Immunotargeted therapy in melanoma: patient, provider preferences, and willingness to pay at an academic cancer center.

New melanoma therapies have shifted the expectations of patients and providers. Evaluating the impact of treatment characteristics may enhance shared decision making. A survey, including a discrete choice experiment, was utilized to evaluate perceived trade-offs of different melanoma treatments and to estimate out-of-pocket (OOP) willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds (January 2016 to March 2016). Participants included patients with melanoma at Huntsman Cancer Institute and their cancer care providers. Stakeholder focus groups were conducted to identify treatment attributes. Descriptive and comparative statistics and multinomial logit model were used to evaluate responses. Response rates were 41.9% (N = 220) for patients and 37.7% (N = 20) for providers. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy attributes considered important by participants were overall survival, immunotherapy-related side effects, and skin toxicities. Patients and providers had significantly different views of quality-of-life expectations, anxiety toward melanoma, trust to make treatment decisions, sharing concerns about treatment, time to discuss treatment, understanding OOP costs, and willingness to undergo/recommend treatment (half of the patients would undergo treatment if it was effective for > 24 months). Among patients, the average monthly OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy with nivolumab + ipilimumab was $ 2357 and for BRAF/MEK inhibitor was $1648. Among providers, these estimates were $ 2484 and $1350, respectively. Discordance existed between patients' and providers' perceptions about quality of life expectations, degree of anxiety, sharing of opinions, and progression-free survival. Our study suggests that patients and providers exhibit a higher OOP WTP for combination immunotherapy treatment compared with BRAF/MEK inhibitors, influenced predominately by overall survival expectations.