Inter-Rater Reliability of the Phase of Illness Tool in Pediatric Palliative Care.

BACKGROUND: Phase of Illness is used to describe the stages of a patient's illness in the palliative care setting. Categorization is based on individual needs, family circumstances, and the adequacy of a care plan. Substantial (κ = .67) and moderate (κ = .52) inter-rater reliability is demonstrated when categorizing adults; however, there is a lack of similar studies in pediatrics. OBJECTIVE: To test the inter-rater reliability of health-care professionals when assigning pediatric palliative care patients to a Phase of Illness. Furthermore, to obtain user views on phase definitions, ease of assignment, feasibility and acceptability of use. METHOD: A prospective cohort study in which up to 9 health-care professionals' independently allocated 80 pediatric patients to a Phase of Illness and reported on their experiences. This study took place between June and November 2017. RESULTS: Professionals achieved a moderate level of agreement (κ = 0.50). Kappa values per phase were as follows: stable = 0.63 (substantial), unstable = 0.26 (fair), deteriorating = 0.45 (moderate), and dying = 0.43 (moderate). For the majority of allocations, professionals report that the phase definitions described patients very well (76.1%), and they found it easy to assign patients (73.5%). However, the unstable phase caused the most uncertainty. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest Phase of Illness is a moderately reliable, acceptable, and feasible tool for use in pediatric palliative care. Current results are similar to those found in some adult studies. However, in a quarter of cases, users report some uncertainty in the application of the tool, and further study is warranted to explore whether suggested refinements improve its psychometric properties.

Gemcitabine Re-challenge in Metastatic Soft Tissue Sarcomas: A Therapeutic Option for Selected Patients.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Treatment options for patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas are limited. Re-challenge with a previously successful gemcitabine-based regimen is common. There are no published data to support this practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective search to identify patients re-challenged with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (GBC) from 2003 to 2015. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients re-challenged with gemcitabine were identified. The response rate for initial GBC was 55% (n=15) and for re-challenge GBC 26% (n=6). The median progression-free survival was 11.1 months (95%CI=7.2-11.9) for initial GBC and 5.3 months (95%CI=2.0-7.5) for re-challenge GBC. Overall survival following gemcitabine re-challenge was 12.2 months (95%CI=7.0-18.2). Twelve out of 26 evaluable patients (46%) treated with re-challenge GBC experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (CTCAE 4.03) with 31% (n=8) of patients requiring dose reduction. CONCLUSION: In selected patients, gemcitabine re-challenge can be considered in advanced sarcomas, however, this approach is associated with toxicity.

Clinical outcomes of adolescents and young adults with advanced solid tumours participating in phase I trials.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent and young adult (AYA) patients with advanced solid tumours are often considered for phase I clinical trials with novel agents. The outcome of AYAs in these trials have not been described before. AIM: To study the outcome of AYA patients in phase I clinical trials. METHODS: Clinical trial data of AYAs (defined as aged 15-39 years at diagnosis) treated at the Drug Development Unit, Royal Marsden Hospital, between 2002 and 2016, were analysed. RESULTS: From a prospectively maintained database of 2631 patients treated in phase I trials, 219 AYA patients (8%) were identified. Major tumour types included gynaecological cancer (25%) and sarcoma (18%). Twenty-five (11%) had a known hereditary cancer syndrome (most commonly BRCA). Molecular characterisation of tumours (n = 45) identified mutations most commonly in TP53 (33%), PI3KCA (18%) and KRAS (9%). Therapeutic targets of trials included DNA damage repair (16%), phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) (16%) and angiogenesis (16%). Grade 3/4 toxicities were experienced in 26% of patients. Of the 214 evaluable patients, objective response rate was 12%, with clinical benefit rate at 6 months of 22%. Median overall survival (OS) was 7.5 months (95% confidence interval: 6.3-9.5), and 2-year OS was 11%. Of patients with responses, 36% were matched to phase I trials based on germline or somatic genetic aberrations. CONCLUSION: We describe the outcome of the largest cohort of AYA patients treated in phase I trials. A subgroup of these patients demonstrates benefit, with several durable responses beyond 2 years. A sizeable proportion of AYA patients have cancer syndromes, significant family history or somatic molecular aberrancies which may influence novel therapeutic treatment options.

Safety, efficacy and survival of patients with primary malignant brain tumours (PMBT) in phase I (Ph1) trials: the 12-year Royal Marsden experience.

BACKGROUND: Primary malignant brain tumours (PMBT) constitute less than 2% of all malignancies and carry a dismal prognosis. Treatment options at relapse are limited. First-in-human solid tumour studies have historically excluded patients with PMBT due to the poor prognosis, concomitant drug interactions and concerns regarding toxicities. METHODS: Retrospective data were collected on clinical and tumour characteristics of patients referred for consideration of Ph1 trials in the Royal Marsden Hospital between June 2004 and August 2016. Survival analyses were performed using the Kaplan-Meier method, Cox proportional hazards model. Chi squared test was used to measure bivariate associations between categorical variables. RESULTS: 100pts with advanced PMBT were referred. At initial consultation, patients had a median ECOG PS 1, median age 48 years (range 18-70); 69% were men, 76% had glioblastoma; 68% were on AEDs, 63% required steroid therapy; median number of prior treatments was two. Median OS for patients treated on a Ph1 trials was 9.3 months (95% CI 5.9-12.9) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 4.1-6.1) for patients that did not proceed with a Ph1 trial, p = 0.0094. Steroid use, poor PS, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and treatment on a Ph1 trial were shown to independently influence OS. CONCLUSIONS: We report a survival benefit for patients with PMBT treated on Ph1 trials. Toxicity and efficacy outcomes were comparable to the general Ph1 population. In the absence of an internationally recognized standard second line treatment for patients with recurrent PMBT, more Ph1 trials should allow enrolment of patients with refractory PMBT and Ph1 trial participation should be considered at an earlier stage.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with advanced mesothelioma treated in a phase I clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: We have previously reported a prognostic score for patients in phase I trials in the Drug Development Unit, treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital (RPS). The RPS is an objective tool used in patient selection for phase I trials based on albumin, number of disease sites and LDH. Patients with mesothelioma are often selected for phase I trials as the disease remains localised for long periods of time. We have now reviewed the clinical outcomes of patients with relapsed malignant mesothelioma (MM) and propose a specific mesothelioma prognostic score (m-RPS) that can help identify patients who are most likely to benefit from early referral. METHODS: Patients who participated in 38 phase I trials between September 2003 and November 2015 were included in the analysis. Efficacy was assessed by response rate, median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Univariate (UVA) and multivariate analyses (MVA) were carried out to develop the m-RPS. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients with advanced MM were included in this retrospective study. The PFS was 2.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.0-3.1 months) and OS was 8 months (95% CI 5.6-9.8 months). A total of four (6%) patients had RECIST partial responses, whereas 26 (40%) patients had RECIST stable disease >3 months. The m-RPS was developed comprising of three different prognostic factors: a neutrophil: lymphocyte ratio greater than 3, the presence of more than two disease sites (including lymph nodes as a single site of disease) and albumin levels less than 35 from the MVA. Patients each received a score of 1 for the presence of each factor. Patients in group A (m-RPS 0-1; n = 35) had a median OS of 13.4 months (95% CI 8.5-21.6), whereas those in group B (m-RPS 2-3; n = 30) had a median OS of 4.0 months (95% CI 2.9-7.1, P < 0.0001). A total of 56 (86%) patients experienced G1-2 toxicities, whereas reversible G3-4 toxicities were observed in 18 (28%) patients. Only 10 (15%) patients discontinued phase I trials due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Phase I clinical trial therapies were well tolerated with early signals of antitumour activity in advanced MM patients. The m-RPS is a useful tool to assess MM patient suitability for phase I trials and should now be prospectively validated.

Using serum CA125 to assess the activity of potential cytostatic agents in ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVE: New strategies are required to rapidly identify novel cytostatic agents before embarking on large randomized trials. This study investigates whether a change in rate of rise (slope) of serum CA125 from before to after starting a novel agent could be used to identify cytostatic agents. Tamoxifen was used to validate this hypothesis. METHODS: Asymptomatic patients with relapsed ovarian cancer who had responded to chemotherapy were enrolled and had CA125 measurements taken every 4 weeks, then more frequently when rising. Once levels reached 4 times the upper limit of normal or nadir, they started continuous tamoxifen 20 mg daily, as well as fortnightly CA125 measurements until symptomatic progression. Because of the potentially nonlinear relationship of CA125 over time, it was felt that to enable normal approximations to be utilized a natural logarithmic standard transformation [ln(CA125)] was the most suitable to improve linearity above the common logarithmic transformation to base 10. RESULTS: From 235 recruited patients, 81 started tamoxifen and had at least 4 CA125 measurements taken before and 4 CA125 measurements taken after starting tamoxifen, respectively. The mean regression slopes from using at least 4 1n(CA125) measurements immediately before and after starting tamoxifen were 0·0149 and 0·0093 [ln(CA125)/d], respectively. This difference is statistically significant, P = 0·001. Therefore, in a future trial with a novel agent, at least as effective as tamoxifen, using this effect size, the number of evaluable patients needed, at significance level of 5% and power of 80%, is 56. CONCLUSIONS: Further validation of this methodology is required, but there is potential to use comparison of mean regression slopes of ln(CA125) as an interim analysis measure of efficacy for novel cytostatic agents in relapsed ovarian cancer.