Longitudinal cognitive function and brain metabolites in women receiving chemotherapy for stage 1 to 3 breast cancer: Observational study.

Few proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies have explored chemotherapy-related biochemical changes in brain regions. This observational study aimed to longitudinally assess short-term cognitive changes and brain metabolite concentrations in women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer. We analyzed 11 women with newly diagnosed stage 1 to 3 breast cancer. Patients were evaluated via objective cognitive testing, and patient self-report tests. Patients were examined using single voxel proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the medial frontal cortex, posterior cingulate gyrus, and left thalamus at baseline and after the completion of chemotherapy on a 1.5 Tesla scanner. At the posttreatment evaluation as compared to baseline, 7 of the 10 (70%) patients reported worsening memory on the MD Anderson symptom inventory (annualized change = 1.82 ± 2.88, P = .08), while the delayed recall raw score of the Rey Osterrieth complex figure test did not change from pre- to post-chemotherapy (mean annualized change = 5.00 ± 14.38, P = .30). The annualized change in the creatine concentration in the posterior cingulate gyrus was statistically significant. The annualized change in the MD Anderson symptom inventory was negatively correlated with the annualized change in the medial frontal N-acetylaspartate (Spearman correlation coefficient [rho] = -0.78, P = .01) and positively correlated with the annualized change in the posterior cingulate gyrus creatine (rho = 0.66, P = .04). Annualized changes in the Rey Osterrieth complex figure test were positively correlated with annualized changes in choline (rho = 0.83, P = .01) in the medial frontal cortex, choline (rho = 0.76, P = .04) in the left thalamus, and creatine (rho = 0.73, P = .02) in the medial frontal cortex. Our data suggest that chemotherapy may lead to the worsening of self-reported memory function, which is associated with alterations in brain metabolites.

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.

An evaluation of the effect of lithium on taxane-induced neuropathy.

PURPOSE: No medications are known to protect against chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Pre-clinical models suggest that lithium may lessen taxane-induced neuropathy. Our aim was to use clinical data to assess whether concurrent lithium usage decreased the frequency or severity of CIPN in patients receiving taxane chemotherapy. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using the electronic health record at Mayo Clinic to identify all patients prescribed concurrent lithium and paclitaxel. Four controls were matched to each case based on clinical variables. Neuropathy severity was graded from available patient and clinician reports. Rates of any neuropathy, dose reduction for CIPN, and treatment discontinuation for CIPN were compared. Conditional regression analysis was performed with propensity score matching. RESULTS: Six patients, receiving concurrent lithium and paclitaxel, were included in the analysis, and compared to 24 control cases. A similar number of paclitaxel cycles were administered to both groups. Any neuropathy was experienced by 33% (2/6) of patients receiving lithium and 38% (9/24) patients who did not receive lithium (p = 1.000). There was no difference in neuropathy severity (p = 0.8565), rate of chemotherapy dose reduction (17% vs. 17%, p = 1.000), or treatment discontinuation (17% vs 4%, p = 0.3655) for CIPN. In the propensity score analysis, the odds ratio for developing any neuropathy was 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.06 to 6.96, p = 0.7079). CONCLUSIONS: Lithium does not appear to significantly lessen the risk of neuropathy for patients receiving paclitaxel. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Targeted approaches for preventing CIPN are desperately needed. Despite sound scientific rationale, the current study did not identify neuroprotective properties of lithium.

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.

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.

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.

Expanding Beyond Maximum Grade: Chemotherapy Toxicity over Time by Age and Performance Status in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in CALGB 9730 (Alliance A151729).

BACKGROUND: Prior comparisons of chemotherapy adverse events (AEs) by age and performance status (PS) are limited by the traditional maximum grade approach, which ignores low-grade AEs and longitudinal changes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To compare fatigue and neuropathy longitudinally by age (<65, ≥65 years) and PS (0-1, 2), we analyzed data from a large phase III trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel versus paclitaxel for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (CALGB 9730, n = 529). We performed multivariable (a) linear mixed models to estimate mean AE grade over time, (b) linear regression to estimate area under the curve (AUC), and (c) proportional hazards models to estimate the hazard ratio of developing grade ≥2 AE, as well as traditional maximum grade analyses. RESULTS: Older patients had on average a 0.17-point (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00-0.34; p = .049) higher mean fatigue grade longitudinally compared with younger patients. PS 2 was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 fatigue (hazard ratio [HR], 1.56; 95% CI, 1.07-2.27; p = .02). For neuropathy, older age was associated with earlier development of grade ≥2 neuropathy (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.00-1.97; p = .049). Patients with PS 2 had a 1.30 point lower neuropathy AUC (95% CI, -2.36 to -0.25; p = .02) compared with PS 0-1. In contrast, maximum grade analyses only detected a higher percentage of older adults with grade ≥3 fatigue and neuropathy at some point during treatment. CONCLUSION: Our comparison of complementary but distinct aspects of chemotherapy toxicity identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy by age and PS that are missed by the traditional maximum grade approach. Clinical trial identification number: NCT00003117 (CALGB 9730) IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The traditional maximum grade approach ignores persistent low-grade adverse events (AEs) and changes over time. This toxicity over time analysis of fatigue and neuropathy during chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer demonstrates how to use longitudinal methods to comprehensively characterize AEs over time by age and performance status (PS). We identified important longitudinal differences in fatigue and neuropathy that are missed by the maximum grade approach. This new information about how older adults and patients with PS 2 experience these toxicities longitudinally may be used clinically to improve discussions about treatment options and what to expect to inform shared decision making and symptom management.

Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians studying symptoms experienced by people with cancer must choose from various scales. It would be useful to know how the scores on one measure translate to another. METHODS: Using item response theory (IRT) with the single-group design, in which the same sample answers all measures, we produced crosswalk tables linking five 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and 15 items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE, scored on a 1-5 scale) to the T-Score metric of six different scales from the NIH Patient reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). The constructs, for which we conducted linking, include emotional distress-anxiety, emotional distress-depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference. We tested the IRT linking assumption of construct similarity between measures by comparing item content and testing unidimensionality of item sets comprising each construct. We also investigated the correlation of the measures to be linked and, by inspecting standardized mean differences, whether the linkage is invariant across age and gender subgroups. For measures that satisfied the assumptions, we conducted linking. RESULTS: In general, an NRS score of 0 corresponded to about 38.2 on the PROMIS T-Score scale (mean = 50; SD = 10); whereas an NRS score of 10 corresponded to a PROMIS T-Score of approximately 72.7. Similarly, the lowest/best score of 1 on PRO-CTCAE corresponded to 39.8 on T-score scale and the highest/worst score of 5 corresponded to 72.0. CONCLUSION: We produced robust linking between single item symptom measures and PROMIS short forms.

Longitudinal Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis to evaluate tolerability: a case study of lenalidomide in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance) trial.

Evaluation of tolerability is increasingly relevant for patients with haematological malignancies treated with chronically administered therapies. Adverse events from these agents might affect the ability of patients to tolerate treatment over time. Conventional toxicity tables that include the incidence of high-grade adverse events, defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, do not provide information on the time profile of these adverse events or reflect the continuous, lower grade symptomatic toxicities that are particularly relevant to treatment tolerability for patients living with indolent disease. Modern approaches to the evaluation and reporting of toxicity that capture the tolerability of treatment to the patient are imperative. In this Viewpoint, we present a focused, pilot, and longitudinal Toxicity over Time analysis of adverse events from lenalidomide and lenalidomide with rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma treated in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance; NCT00238238) trial to define the trajectory of adverse events and quantify the burden of continuous, low-grade events. Toxicity over Time analyses provided clinically relevant descriptions of neutropenia and fatigue trajectories caused by lenalidomide that were not identified by standard analysis of the maximum grade events defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Systematic, rigorous incorporation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials will be crucial to our understanding of the tolerability of chronically administered therapies in patients with haematological malignancies.

Oxybutynin vs Placebo for Hot Flashes in Women With or Without Breast Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial (ACCRU SC-1603).

BACKGROUND: Hot flashes (HFs) negatively affect quality of life among perimenopausal and postmenopausal women. This study investigated the efficacy of oxybutynin vs placebo in decreasing HFs. METHODS: In this randomized, multicenter, double-blind study, women with and without breast cancer with 28 or more HFs per week, lasting longer than 30 days, who were not candidates for estrogen-based therapy, were assigned to oral oxybutynin (2.5 mg twice a day or 5 mg twice a day) or placebo for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the intrapatient change from baseline in weekly HF score between each oxybutynin dose and placebo using a repeated-measures mixed model. Secondary endpoints included changes in weekly HF frequency, HF-related daily interference scale questionnaires, and self-reported symptoms. RESULTS: We enrolled 150 women. Baseline characteristics were well balanced. Mean (SD) age was 57 (8.2) years. Two-thirds (65%) were taking tamoxifen or an aromatase inhibitor. Patients on both oxybutynin doses reported greater reductions in the weekly HF score (5 mg twice a day: -16.9 [SD 15.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: -10.6 [SD 7.7]), placebo -5.7 (SD 10.2); P < .005 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), HF frequency (5 mg twice a day: -7.5 [SD 6.6], 2.5 mg twice a day: -4.8 [SD 3.2], placebo: -2.6 [SD 4.3]; P < .003 for both oxybutynin doses vs placebo), and improvement in most HF-related daily interference scale measures and in overall quality of life. Patients on both oxybutynin arms reported more side effects than patients on placebo, particularly dry mouth, difficulty urinating, and abdominal pain. Most side effects were grade 1 or 2. There were no differences in study discontinuation because of adverse effects. CONCLUSION: Oxybutynin is an effective and relatively well-tolerated treatment option for women with HFs.

Club Fit: Development of a Physical Activity and Healthy Eating Intervention at a Boys & Girls Club After School Program.

Children and adolescents from minority and low income backgrounds face social and environmental challenges to engaging in physical activity and healthy eating to maintain a healthy weight. In this study, we present pilot work to develop and implement a multi-component physical activity and healthy eating intervention at a Boys & Girls Club (BGC) afterschool program. Using a community-based participatory approach, BGC staff and academic researchers developed intervention components informed by formative studies and based on a Social Ecological Theory framework. Components included healthy eating and physical activity policy implementation, staff training, a challenge and self-monitoring program for healthy behaviors, a peer-coaching program for healthy behaviors, and a social marketing campaign. We assessed pilot feasibility through a single group, pre-post study design with measures collected at baseline and 6 months. The sample included 61 children with a mean age of 10.4 years. Mean (SD) body mass index (BMI) percentile was 72.8 (28.9); 47.5% were in the healthy weight range for their age. We found statistically significant improvements of self-efficacy and motivation for physical activity. Self-efficacy and motivation for fruit and vegetable consumption, sugary beverage consumption, and screen time improved but were not statistically different from baseline. We found no improvements of perceived social support, objectively measured physical activity, or self-reported dietary quality. Though BMI did not improve overall, a dose effect was observed such that attendance in Club Fit specific programming was significantly correlated with decreased BMI z scores. Processes and products from this study may be helpful to other communities aiming to address childhood obesity prevention through afterschool programs.

Prospective longitudinal cohort study of patient recovery after major gastrointestinal surgery: is there a difference between minimally invasive and open approaches?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons use the absence of post-operative complications to define recovery while patients define recovery as return to normal function. We aimed to better define the recovery process after minimally invasive surgery (MIS) and open gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for open or MIS pancreaticoduodenectomy, esophagectomy, colectomy, and proctectomy were prospectively enrolled. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected using validated PROMIS and LASA scales pre-operatively, on post-operative days 2, 7, 14, 30, and monthly until 6 months. Patients were also asked if they felt fully recovered. Descriptive statistics and area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare approaches. Multivariable mixed-effects repeated measures models and logistic regression were used to control for covariates. RESULTS: 340 patients met inclusion criteria (158 open and 182 MIS). Median age was 60 years with 44% women. The PRO showed improved post-operative QOL scores in MIS compared to open on all measures by AUC. None of these difference persisted at 6-months. After adjusting for covariates, MIS had higher overall QOL scores at day 14 (Estimate + 0.58, p = 0.02) and 30 (+ 0.56, p = 0.03). Differences did not persist at 3 and 6 months (both p > 0.05). At 1, 3, and 6 months, 20%, 47%, and 61% of patients reported feeling completely recovered. On adjusted analysis there was no difference in odds of complete recovery in MIS at 1 (OR 1.07 [95% CI 0.53-2.14] and 3 months (1.12 [0.63-2.01]) compared to open. MIS patients were more likely to report complete recovery at 6 months (1.87 [1.05-3.33]). CONCLUSION: MIS patients reported improved PRO on selected QOL measures early in the recovery period compared to open. There was no difference in long-term QOL data between MIS and open patients. Two-thirds (61%) of patients reported being fully recovered at 6 months with MIS patients being more likely to report a complete recovery.

Spirituality and Emotional Distress Among Lung Cancer Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Emerging research is highlighting the importance of spirituality in cancer survivorship as well as the importance of early distress screening. The purpose of this study was to prospectively examine the relationships among spirituality, emotional distress, and sociodemographic variables during the early period of lung cancer survivorship. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight hundred sixty-four lung cancer survivors completed the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being, and the Short-Form-8 for emotional distress within the first year after lung cancer diagnosis, and 474 of these survivors completed the survey again 1 year later. RESULTS: At baseline, spirituality was associated with lower prevalence of emotional distress, being married, fewer years of cigarette smoking, and better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Additionally, high baseline spirituality was associated with lower rates of high emotional distress at 1-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that spirituality might serve as a protective factor for emotional distress among lung cancer survivors. Further research is warranted to explore the role of spirituality in promoting distress management among lung cancer survivors.

N-Acetylcysteine Rinse for Thick Secretion and Mucositis of Head and Neck Chemoradiotherapy (Alliance MC13C2): A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether N-acetylcysteine rinse was safe and could improve thickened secretions and dry mouth during and after radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed a prospective pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (Alliance MC13C2). Adult patients (age ≥18 years) were enrolled if they underwent chemoradiotherapy (≥60 Gy). Patients initiated testing rinse within 3 days of starting radiotherapy. With swish-and-spit, they received 10% N-acetylcysteine (2500 mg daily) or placebo rinse solution 5 times daily during radiotherapy and 2 weeks postradiotherapy. The primary aim was to evaluate N-acetylcysteine in improvement of saliva viscosity with the Groningen Radiotherapy-Induced Xerostomia questionnaire. Secondary aims included evaluating xerostomia improvement by the same questionnaire and with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Head and Neck-35 Questions survey and adverse-event profiles. The type I error rate was 20%. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were balanced for placebo (n=17) and N-acetylcysteine (n=15). N-acetylcysteine was better for improving sticky saliva (area under curve, P=.12). Scores of multiple secondary end points favored N-acetylcysteine, including sticky saliva daytime (P=.04), daytime and total xerostomia (both P=.02), pain (P=.18), and trouble with social eating (P=.15). Repeated measures models confirmed the findings. Taste was a major dissatisifer for N-acetylcysteine rinse; however, both testing rinses were safe and well tolerated overall. CONCLUSION: Our pilot data showed that N-acetylcysteine rinse was safe and provided strong evidence of potential efficacy for improving thickened saliva and xerostomia by patient-reported outcome. A confirmatory phase 3 trial is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123511.

Effect of Doxepin Mouthwash or Diphenhydramine-Lidocaine-Antacid Mouthwash vs Placebo on Radiotherapy-Related Oral Mucositis Pain: The Alliance A221304 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Oral mucositis causes substantial morbidity during head and neck radiotherapy. In a randomized study, doxepin mouthwash was shown to reduce oral mucositis-related pain. A common mouthwash comprising diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid is also widely used. Objective: To evaluate the effect of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash for the treatment of oral mucositis-related pain. Design, Setting, and Participants: A phase 3 randomized trial was conducted from November 1, 2014, to May 16, 2016, at 30 US institutions and included 275 patients who underwent definitive head and neck radiotherapy, had an oral mucositis pain score of 4 points or greater (scale, 0-10), and were followed up for a maximum of 28 days. Interventions: Ninety-two patients were randomized to doxepin mouthwash (25 mg/5 mL water); 91 patients to diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid; and 92 patients to placebo. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was total oral mucositis pain reduction (defined by the area under the curve and adjusted for baseline pain score) during the 4 hours after a single dose of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash compared with a single dose of placebo. The minimal clinically important difference was a 3.5-point change. The secondary end points included drowsiness, unpleasant taste, and stinging or burning. All scales ranged from 0 (best) to 10 (worst). Results: Among the 275 patients randomized (median age, 61 years; 58 [21%] women), 227 (83%) completed treatment per protocol. Mucositis pain during the first 4 hours decreased by 11.6 points in the doxepin mouthwash group, by 11.7 points in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group, and by 8.7 points in the placebo group. The between-group difference was 2.9 points (95% CI, 0.2-6.0; P = .02) for doxepin mouthwash vs placebo and 3.0 points (95% CI, 0.1-5.9; P = .004) for diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo. More drowsiness was reported with doxepin mouthwash vs placebo (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-4.0]; P = .03), unpleasant taste (by 1.5 points [95% CI, 0-3.0]; P = .002), and stinging or burning (by 4.0 points [95% CI, 2.5-5.0]; P < .001). Maximum grade 3 adverse events for the doxepin mouthwash occurred in 3 patients (4%); diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash, 3 (4%); and placebo, 2 (2%). Fatigue was reported by 5 patients (6%) in the doxepin mouthwash group and no patients in the diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy, the use of doxepin mouthwash or diphenhydramine-lidocaine-antacid mouthwash vs placebo significantly reduced oral mucositis pain during the first 4 hours after administration; however, the effect size was less than the minimal clinically important difference. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy and safety for both mouthwashes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02229539.

Combining Survival and Toxicity Effect Sizes from Clinical Trials: NCCTG 89-20-52 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: How can a clinician and patient incorporate survival and toxicity information into a single expression of comparative treatment benefit? Sloan et al. recently extended the ½ standard deviation concept for judging the clinical importance of findings from clinical trials to survival and tumor response endpoints. A new method using this approach to combine survival and toxicity effect sizes from clinical trials into a quality-adjusted effect size is presented. METHODS: The quality-adjusted survival effect size (QASES) is calculated as survival effect size (ESS) minus the calibrated toxicity effect sizes (EST) (QASES=ESS-EST). This combined effect size can be weighted to adjust for the relative emphasis placed by the patient on survival and toxicity effects. RESULTS: As an example, consider clinical trial NCCTG 89-20-52 which randomized patients to once-daily thoracic radiotherapy (ODTRT) versus twice-daily treatment of thoracic radiotherapy (TDRT) for the treatment of lung cancer. The ODTRT vs. TDRT arms had median survival time of 22 vs. 20 months (p=0.49) and toxicity rate of 39% vs. 54%, (p<0.05). The QASES of 0.18 standard deviations translates to a quality-adjusted survival difference of 5.7 months advantage for the ODRT arm over the TDRT treatment arm (22(16.3) months), p<0.05). Similar results are presented for the four possible case combinations of significant/non-significant survival and toxicity benefits using completed clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: We used a novel approach to re-analyze clinical trial data to produce a single estimate for each treatment that combines survival and toxicity data. The QASES approach is an intuitive and mathematically simple yet robust approach.