Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation plus sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (chemoradiotherapy) before surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America. Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) can be used in lieu of chemoradiotherapy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX (with chemoradiotherapy given only if the primary tumor decreased in size by <20% or if FOLFOX was discontinued because of side effects) as compared with chemoradiotherapy. Adults with rectal cancer that had been clinically staged as T2 node-positive, T3 node-negative, or T3 node-positive who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery were eligible to participate. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Noninferiority would be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed 1.29. Secondary end points included overall survival, local recurrence (in a time-to-event analysis), complete pathological resection, complete response, and toxic effects. RESULTS: From June 2012 through December 2018, a total of 1194 patients underwent randomization and 1128 started treatment; among those who started treatment, 585 were in the FOLFOX group and 543 in the chemoradiotherapy group. At a median follow-up of 58 months, FOLFOX was noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.92; 90.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). Five-year disease-free survival was 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9 to 83.7) in the FOLFOX group and 78.6% (95% CI, 75.4 to 81.8) in the chemoradiotherapy group. The groups were similar with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.44) and local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.44 to 3.16). In the FOLFOX group, 53 patients (9.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 8 (1.4%) received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery, preoperative FOLFOX was noninferior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy with respect to disease-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PROSPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01515787.).

Optimization of alert notifications in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring systems (AFT-39).

PURPOSE: Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed. METHODS: We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency. RESULTS: 593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61% female, 80% white, 10% reported never using computers/tablets/smartphones). Patients completed 91% of expected weekly surveys. 34% of surveys generated an alert, and 59% of alerts prompted immediate nurse actions. Patients considered 10% of alerts urgent. Of the remaining cases, nurses considered alerts urgent more often when patients reported any worsening symptom compared to the prior week (33% of alerts with versus 26% without any worsening symptom, p = 0.009). The algorithm identified 38% of alerts as likely non-urgent that could be suppressed with acceptable discrimination (sensitivity = 80%, 95% CI [76%, 84%]; specificity = 52%, 95% CI [49%, 55%]). CONCLUSION: An algorithm can identify remote symptom monitoring alerts likely to be considered non-urgent by nurses, and may assist in fostering nurse acceptance and implementation feasibility of ePRO systems.

Empirical evaluation of language modeling to ascertain cancer outcomes from clinical text reports.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data on key cancer outcomes for clinical research, such as response to treatment and disease progression, are not captured in standard cancer registry reporting. Manual extraction of such outcomes from unstructured electronic health records is a slow, resource-intensive process. Natural language processing (NLP) methods can accelerate outcome annotation, but they require substantial labeled data. Transfer learning based on language modeling, particularly using the Transformer architecture, has achieved improvements in NLP performance. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of NLP model training strategies on the extraction of cancer outcomes from unstructured text. RESULTS: We evaluated the performance of nine NLP models at the two tasks of identifying cancer response and cancer progression within imaging reports at a single academic center among patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We trained the classification models under different conditions, including training sample size, classification architecture, and language model pre-training. The training involved a labeled dataset of 14,218 imaging reports for 1112 patients with lung cancer. A subset of models was based on a pre-trained language model, DFCI-ImagingBERT, created by further pre-training a BERT-based model using an unlabeled dataset of 662,579 reports from 27,483 patients with cancer from our center. A classifier based on our DFCI-ImagingBERT, trained on more than 200 patients, achieved the best results in most experiments; however, these results were marginally better than simpler "bag of words" or convolutional neural network models. CONCLUSION: When developing AI models to extract outcomes from imaging reports for clinical cancer research, if computational resources are plentiful but labeled training data are limited, large language models can be used for zero- or few-shot learning to achieve reasonable performance. When computational resources are more limited but labeled training data are readily available, even simple machine learning architectures can achieve good performance for such tasks.

Effectiveness research in oncology with electronic health record data: A retrospective cohort study emulating the PALOMA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: Oncology electronic health record (EHR) databases have increased in quality and availability over the past decade, yet it remains unclear whether these clinical practice data can be used to conduct reliable comparative effectiveness studies. We sought to emulate a clinical trial with EHR data in the advanced breast cancer population and compare our results against the trial. METHODS: This cohort study used EHR data from US oncology practices. All elements of the study were defined to mimic the PALOMA-2 trial as closely as possible. Patients with hormone-positive, HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer with no prior treatment for metastatic disease were included. Patients initiating palbociclib and letrozole on the same day following the earliest record of metastasis were compared to those initiating letrozole only. The primary associational measure was the conditional hazard ratio for time-to-next treatment (TTNT). TTNT is well-measured in our data source and amenable for calibration against the randomized study results of the PALOMA-2 trial. We used multiple imputation for several patient characteristics with missing values. RESULTS: There were 3836 study-eligible women with advanced breast cancer. The hazard ratio for TTNT in the observational study (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.56-0.68) was closely aligned with that of the randomized trial (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.52-0.78). CONCLUSIONS: Under our assumptions on missing data and comparability of the two study populations, results from our non-randomized study closely matched that of the randomized trial. Further studies are needed to determine whether EHR data can yield reliable conclusions on treatment effects in oncology.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Recurrent VTE in Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with cancer who have venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended to prevent recurrent VTE. The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate DOACs, compared with LMWH, for preventing recurrent VTE and for rates of bleeding in patients with cancer following an initial VTE event. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 67 oncology practices in the US that enrolled 671 patients with cancer (any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia) who had a new clinical or radiological diagnosis of VTE. Enrollment occurred from December 2016 to April 2020. Final follow-up was in November 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a DOAC (n = 335) or LMWH (n = 336) and were followed up for 6 months or until death. Physicians and patients selected any DOAC or any LMWH (or fondaparinux) and physicians selected drug doses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the recurrent VTE rate at 6 months. Noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC vs LMWH was defined by the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference of a DOAC relative to LMWH of less than 3% in the randomized cohort that received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. The 6 prespecified secondary outcomes included major bleeding, which was assessed using a 2.5% noninferiority margin. Results: Between December 2016 and April 2020, 671 participants were randomized and 638 (95%) completed the trial (median age, 64 years; 353 women [55%]). Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose. Among those randomized to LMWH, 308 received at least 1 dose. Rates of recurrent VTE were 6.1% in the DOAC group and 8.8% in the LMWH group (difference, -2.7%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 0.7%) consistent with the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Of 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, none were statistically significant. Major bleeding occurred in 5.2% of participants in the DOAC group and 5.6% in the LMWH group (difference, -0.4%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 2.5%) and did not meet the noninferiority criterion. Severe adverse events occurred in 33.8% of participants in the DOAC group and 35.1% in the LMWH group. The most common serious adverse events were anemia and death. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE over 6-month follow-up. These findings support use of a DOAC to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744092.

Adaptation of a Multimedia Chemotherapy Educational Intervention for Latinos: Letting Patient Narratives Speak for Themselves.

This study aims to adapt a video-based, multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention to meet the needs of US Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. A five-step hybrid adaptation process involved (1) creating a multidisciplinary team with diverse Latino subject experts, (2) appraising the parent intervention, (3) identifying key cultural considerations from a systematic literature review and semi-structured Latino patient/caregiver interviews, (4) revising the intervention, highlighting culturally relevant themes through video interviews with Latino cancer patients, and (5) target population review with responsive revisions. We developed a suite of videos, booklets, and websites available in English and Spanish, which convey the risks and benefits of common chemotherapy regimens. After revising the English materials, we translated them into Spanish using a multi-step process. The intervention centers upon conversations with 12 Latino patients about their treatment experiences; video clips highlight culturally relevant themes (personalismo, familismo, faith, communication gaps, prognostic information preferences) identified during the third adaptation step. The adapted intervention materials included a new section on coping, and one titled "how to feel the best you can feel," which reviews principles of side effect management, self-advocacy, proactive communication, and palliative care. Ten Latinos with advanced malignancies reviewed the intervention and found it to be easily understandable, relatable, and helpful. A five-step hybrid model was successful in adapting a chemotherapy educational intervention for Latinos. Incorporation of video interviews with Latino patients enabled the authentic representation of salient cultural themes. Use of authentic patient narratives can be useful for cross-cultural intervention adaptations.

Cetuximab and Irinotecan With or Without Bevacizumab in Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: BOND-3, an ACCRU Network Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

The impact of smoking on radical cystectomy complications increases in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Smoking, the most common risk factor for bladder cancer (BC), is associated with increased complications after radical cystectomy (RC), poorer oncologic outcomes, and higher mortality. The authors hypothesized that the effect of smoking on the probability of major complications increases with increasing age among patients who undergo RC. METHODS: The authors analyzed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2011-2017), identified all patients undergoing RC using Current Procedural Terminology codes, and formed two groups according to smoking status (active smoker and nonsmoker [included former and never-smokers]). Patient characteristics and 30-day postoperative complications using the Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC) were assessed. A multivariable logistic regression model was constructed that included age, sex, race, body mass index, operative time, comorbidities, chemotherapy status, and type of diversion with major complications (CDC ≥III) as the outcome variable, and explored the interaction between age and smoking status. RESULTS: A total of 10,528 patients underwent RC, including 22.8% who were active smokers. The authors identified an interaction between age and smoking status (P = .045). Older patients were found to experience a stronger smoking effect than younger patients with regard to the probability of major complications. The risk of a major complication was the same for 50-year-old nonsmokers and smokers, but it increased from 17.8% to 21.7% for 70-year-old nonsmokers and smokers, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Up to 20% of patients who undergo RC are active smokers, and these individuals have an increased risk of major complications. The effect of smoking is stronger with increasing age; the difference with regard to complications for smokers versus nonsmokers was found to increase substantially, wherein older smokers are at an especially high risk of complications.

Variation in Use of High-Cost Technologies for Palliative Radiation Therapy by Radiation Oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the sources of variation in the use of high-cost technologies is important for developing effective strategies to control costs of care. Palliative radiation therapy (RT) is a discretionary treatment and its use may vary based on patient and clinician factors. METHODS: Using data from the SEER-Medicare linked database, we identified patients diagnosed with metastatic lung, prostate, breast, and colorectal cancers in 2010 through 2015 who received RT, and the radiation oncologists who treated them. The costs of radiation services for each patient over a 90-day episode were calculated, and radiation oncologists were assigned to cost quintiles. The use of advanced technologies (eg, intensity-modulated radiation, stereotactic RT) and the number of RT treatments (eg, any site, bone only) were identified. Multivariable random-effects models were constructed to estimate the proportion of variation in the use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation (>10 fractions) that could be explained by patient fixed effects versus physician random effects. RESULTS: We identified 37,361 patients with metastatic lung cancer, 3,684 with metastatic breast cancer, 5,323 with metastatic prostate cancer, and 8,726 with metastatic colorectal cancer, with 34%, 27%, 22%, and 9% receiving RT within the first year, respectively. The use of advanced technologies and extended fractionation was associated with higher costs of care. Compared with the patient case-mix, physician variation accounted for a larger proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies for palliative RT and the use of extended fractionation. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in radiation oncologists' practice and choices, rather than differences in patient case-mix, accounted for a greater proportion of the variation in the use of advanced technologies and high-cost radiation services.

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Review.

Importance: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide with more than 1.85 million cases and 850 000 deaths annually. Of new colorectal cancer diagnoses, 20% of patients have metastatic disease at presentation and another 25% who present with localized disease will later develop metastases. Observations: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer mortality for men and women in the United States, with 53 200 deaths projected in 2020. Among people diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, approximately 70% to 75% of patients survive beyond 1 year, 30% to 35% beyond 3 years, and fewer than 20% beyond 5 years from diagnosis. The primary treatment for unresectable metastatic CRC is systemic therapy (cytotoxic chemotherapy, biologic therapy such as antibodies to cellular growth factors, immunotherapy, and their combinations.) Clinical trials completed in the past 5 years have demonstrated that tailoring treatment to the molecular and pathologic features of the tumor improves overall survival. Genomic profiling to detect somatic variants is important because it identifies the treatments that may be effective. For the 50% of patients with metastatic CRC with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, cetuximab and panitumumab (monoclonal antibodies to the epithelial growth factor receptor [EGFR]), in combination with chemotherapy, can extend median survival by 2 to 4 months compared with chemotherapy alone. However, for the 35% to 40% of patients with KRAS or NRAS sequence variations (formerly termed mutations), effective targeted therapies are not yet available. For the 5% to 10% with BRAF V600E sequence variations, targeted combination therapy with BRAF and EGFR inhibitors extended overall survival to 9.3 months, compared to 5.9 months for those receiving standard chemotherapy. For the 5% with microsatellite instability (the presence of numerous insertions or deletions at repetitive DNA units) or mismatch repair deficiency, immunotherapy may be used in the first or subsequent line and has improved treatment outcomes with a median overall survival of 31.4 months in previously treated patients. Conclusions and Relevance: Advances in molecular profiling of metastatic CRC facilitate the ability to direct treatments to the biologic features of the tumor for specific patient subsets. Although cures remain uncommon, more patients can anticipate extended survival. Genomic profiling allows treatment selection so that more patients derive benefit and fewer are exposed to toxicity from ineffective therapies.

Invited Commentary: Opportunities That Come With Studying the Co-Occurrence of Multiple Outcomes.

In almost all clinical settings, patients are at risk for multiple potential events and, in consultation with health-care providers, must weigh the potential benefits and harms across these events when making decisions. As researchers seek to build an evidence base to inform these decisions, they must contend with a choice as to how they will handle the different events. One approach, arguably the standard approach in the literature, is to consider the events individually by conducting analyses and publishing results for each one at a time. Doing so, however, fails to acknowledge or exploit the inherent multivariate nature of the data, represents a lost opportunity, and results in an evidence base that is not aligned with how clinical decision-making is actually performed. The article by Prentice et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2020;189(9):972-981) in this issue of the Journal moves beyond this standard by illustrating recently developed methods that directly take advantage of information on the co-occurrence of multiple events. Moreover, their article highlights the role of modern methods in deriving additional information and insight from studies of multiple clinical outcomes by making full use of multivariate data, with the goal being to complement, not replace, existing methods.

Translation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Trials to Everyday Practice.

PURPOSE: Clinical trials in oncology evaluating the effects of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) collection have found that monitoring of symptoms with PROs is associated with improved clinical care through reduced acute care utilization and decreased patient symptom burden. This educational review will evaluate strategies for systematic PRO integration into everyday oncology clinical practice. METHODS: We outline key considerations for using PROs in clinical practice, highlighting evidence from published studies. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of PRO implementation in oncology. RESULTS: Implementing PRO collection in clinical practice can improve care delivery and facilitate patient-centered clinical research. Considerations for using PROs in clinical practice include choice of instrument, method of delivery, and frequency of query. Challenges with implementing systematic PRO collection include the costs and resources needed for implementation, impact on clinical workflow, and controlling/monitoring physician burnout. CONCLUSIONS: While challenges exist in terms of financial resources and staff participation/burnout, patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice provide a number of benefits, including symptom monitoring, clinical research, and potential real-time personalized clinical-decision support.

A phase 2 clinical trial of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP 90) inhibitor ganetespib in patients with refractory advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Subsets of esophagogastric (EG) cancers harbor genetic abnormalities, including amplification of HER2, MET, or FGFR2 or mutations in PIK3CA, EGFR, or BRAF. Ganetespib which is a novel triazolone heterocyclic inhibitor of HSP90, is a potentially biologically rational treatment strategy for advanced EG cancers with these gene amplification. This multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial enrolled patients with histologically confirmed advanced EG cancer with progression on at least one line of systemic therapy. Patients received Ganetespib 200 mg/m2 IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: Progression Free Survival (PFS); to correlate the presence of HSP clients with ORR and PFS; evaluating the safety, tolerability and adverse events profile. In this study 26 eligible patients mainly: male 77%, median age 64 years were enrolled. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), fatigue (65%), elevated ALKP (42%), and elevated AST (38%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs included: leucopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), diarrhea (8%), and elevated ALKP (8%). The ORR of 4% reflects the single patient of 26 who had a complete response and stayed on treatment for more than seventy (70) months. Median PFS and OS was 61 days (2.0 months), 94 days (3.1 months) respectively. Ganetespib showed manageable toxicity. While the study was terminated early due to insufficient evidence of single-agent activity, the durable CR and 2 minor responses suggest that there may be a subset of EG patients who could benefit from this drug.

Overuse of Diagnostic Brain Imaging Among Patients With Stage IA Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients diagnosed with stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the incidence of occult brain metastasis is low, and several professional societies recommend against brain imaging for staging purposes. The goal of this study was to characterize the use of brain imaging among Medicare patients diagnosed with stage IA NSCLC. METHODS: Using data from linked SEER-Medicare claims, we identified patients diagnosed with AJCC 8th edition stage IA NSCLC in 2004 through 2013. Patients were classified as having received brain imaging if they underwent head CT or brain MRI from 1 month before to 3 months after diagnosis. We identified factors associated with receipt of brain imaging using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 13,809 patients with stage IA NSCLC, 3,417 (25%) underwent brain imaging at time of diagnosis. The rate of brain imaging increased over time, from 23.5% in 2004 to 28.7% in 2013 (P=.0006). There was significant variation in the use of brain imaging across hospital service areas, with rates ranging from 0% to 64.0%. Factors associated with a greater likelihood of brain imaging included older age (odds ratios [ORs] of 1.16 for 70-74 years, 1.13 for 75-79 years, 1.31 for 80-84 years, and 1.46 for ≥85 years compared with 65-69 years; all P<.05), female sex (OR, 1.09; P<.05), black race (OR 1.23; P<.05), larger tumor size (ORs of 1.23 for 11-20 mm and 1.28 for 21-30 mm tumors vs 1-10 mm tumors; all P<.05), and higher modified Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score (OR, 1.28 for score >1 vs score of 0; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly 1 in 4 patients with stage IA NSCLC received brain imaging at the time of diagnosis despite national recommendations against the practice. Although several patient factors are associated with receipt of brain imaging, there is significant geographic variation across the United States. Closer adherence to clinical guidelines is likely to result in more cost-effective care.

FOLFOX plus ziv-aflibercept or placebo in first-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic therapy is a proven therapeutic modality for refractory gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This trial assessed whether the addition of a high affinity angiogenesis inhibitor, ziv-aflibercept, could improve the efficacy of first-line mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and bolus plus infusional 5- fluorouracil) in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: Patients with treatment-naive metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned (in a 2:1 ratio) in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial to receive first-line mFOLFOX6 with or without ziv-aflibercept (4 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were randomized to receive mFOLFOX6 and ziv-aflibercept (43 patients) or mFOLFOX6 and a placebo (21 patients). There was no difference in the PFS, overall survival, or response rate. Patients treated with mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept tended to be more likely to discontinue study treatment for reasons other than progressive disease (P = .06). The relative dose intensity of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil was lower in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept arm during the first 12 and 24 weeks of the trial. There were 2 treatment-related deaths due to cerebral hemorrhage and bowel perforation in the mFOLFOX6/ziv-aflibercept cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Ziv-aflibercept did not increase the anti-tumor activity of first-line mFOLFOX6 in metastatic esophagogastric cancer, potentially because of decreased dose intensity of FOLFOX. Further evaluation of ziv-aflibercept in unselected, chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma is not warranted.

Neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX for Patients with Borderline Resectable or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (nFOLFIRINOX) for patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (BR/LA PDAC) are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether nFOLFIRINOX is more effective or cost-effective for patients with BR/LA PDAC compared with upfront resection surgery and adjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM/CAPE) or gemcitabine monotherapy (GEM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a decision-analysis to assess the value of nFOLFIRINOX versus GEM/CAPE or GEM using a mathematical simulation model. Model transition probabilities were estimated using published and institutional clinical data. Model outcomes included overall and disease-free survival, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), cost in U.S. dollars, and cost-effectiveness expressed as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses explored the uncertainty of model assumptions. RESULTS: Model results found median overall survival (34.5/28.0/22.0 months) and disease-free survival (15.0/14.0/13.0 months) were better for nFOLFIRINOX compared with GEM/CAPE and GEM. nFOLFIRINOX was the optimal strategy on an efficiency frontier, resulting in an additional 0.35 life-years, or 0.30 QALYs, at a cost of $46,200/QALY gained compared with GEM/CAPE. Sensitivity analysis found that cancer recurrence and complete resection rates most affected model results, but were otherwise robust. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses found that nFOLFIRINOX was cost-effective 92.4% of the time at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000/QALY. CONCLUSION: Our modeling analysis suggests that nFOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery for patients with BR/LA PDAC from both an effectiveness and cost-effectiveness standpoint. Additional clinical data that further define the long-term effectiveness of nFOLFIRINOX are needed to confirm our results. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Increasingly, neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX has been used for borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic cancer with the goal of rendering them resectable and decreasing risk of recurrence. Despite many efforts to show the benefits of neoadjuvant over adjuvant therapies, clinical evidence to guide this decision is largely lacking. Decision-analytic modeling can provide a methodologic platform that integrates the best available data to quantitatively explore clinical decisions by simulating a hypothetical clinical trial. This modeling analysis suggests that neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is preferable to upfront surgery and adjuvant therapies by various outcome metrics including quality-adjusted life years, overall survival, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.