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.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).

PURPOSE: The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS: PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N-, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

Association of Oncologist Participation in Medicare's Oncology Care Model With Patient Receipt of Novel Cancer Therapies.

Importance: Medicare's Oncology Care Model (OCM) was an alternative payment model that tied performance-based payments to cost and quality goals for participating oncology practices. A major concern about the OCM regarded inclusion of high-cost cancer therapies, which could potentially disincentivize oncologists from prescribing novel therapies. Objective: To examine whether oncologist participation in the OCM changed the likelihood that patients received novel therapies vs alternative treatments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data and Medicare claims compared patient receipt of novel therapies for patients treated by oncologists participating vs not participating in the OCM in the period before (January 2015-June 2016) and after (July 2016-December 2018) OCM initiation. Participants included Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries in SEER registries who were eligible to receive 1 of 10 novel cancer therapies that received US Food and Drug Administration approval in the 18 months before implementation of the OCM. The study excluded the Hawaii registry because complete data were not available at the time of the data request. Patients in the OCM vs non-OCM groups were matched on novel therapy cohort, outcome time period, and oncologist specialist status. Analysis was conducted between July 2021 and April 2022. Exposures: Oncologist participation in the OCM. Main Outcomes and Measures: Preplanned analyses evaluated patient receipt of 1 of 10 novel therapies vs alternative therapies specific to the patient's cancer for the overall study sample and for racial subgroups. Results: The study included 2839 matched patients (760 in the OCM group and 2079 in the non-OCM group; median [IQR] age, 72.7 [68.3-77.6] years; 1591 women [56.0%]). Among patients in the non-OCM group, 33.2% received novel therapies before and 40.1% received novel therapies after the start of the OCM vs 39.9% and 50.3% of patients in the OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 3.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.7 to 10.7 percentage points; P = .34). In subgroup analyses, second-line immunotherapy use in lung cancer was greater among patients in the OCM group vs non-OCM group (adjusted difference-in-differences, 17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 4.8-30.0 percentage points; P = .007), but no differences were seen in other subgroups. Over the entire study period, patients with oncologists participating in the OCM were more likely to receive novel therapies than those with oncologists who were not participating (odds ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.09-1.97; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that participation in the OCM was not associated with oncologists' prescribing novel therapies to Medicare beneficiaries with cancer. These findings suggest that OCM financial incentives did not decrease patient access to novel therapies.

A Dynamic Clinical Calculator for Estimating Conditional Recurrence-Free Survival After Total Neoadjuvant Therapy for Rectal Cancer and Either Surgery or Watch-and-Wait Management.

Importance: The risk of recurrence in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer has historically been determined after surgery, relying on pathologic variables. A growing number of patients are being treated without surgery, and their risk of recurrence needs to be calculated differently. Objective: To develop a dynamic calculator for estimating the probability of recurrence-free survival (RFS) in patients with rectal cancer who undergo total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) (induction systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy) and either surgery or watch-and-wait management. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included patients who presented with stage II or III rectal cancer between June 1, 2009, and March 1, 2015, at a comprehensive cancer center. Conditional modeling was incorporated into a previously validated clinical calculator to allow the probability of RFS to be updated based on whether the patient remained in watch-and-wait management or underwent delayed surgery. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to March 2022. Exposure: TNT followed by immediate surgery or watch-and-wait management with the possibility of delayed surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: RFS, concordance index, calibration curves. Results: Of the 302 patients in the cohort, 204 (68%) underwent surgery within 3 months from TNT completion (median [range] age, 51 [22-82] years; 78 [38%] women), 54 (18%) underwent surgery more than 3 months from TNT completion (ie, delayed surgery; median [range] age, 62 [31-87] years; 30 [56%] female), and 44 (14%) remained in watch-and-wait management as of April 21, 2021 (median [range] age, 58 [32-89] years; 16 [36%] women). Among patients who initially opted for watch-and-wait management, migration to surgery due to regrowth or patient choice occurred mostly within the first year following completion of TNT, and RFS did not differ significantly whether surgery was performed 3.0 to 5.9 months (73%; 95% CI, 52%-92%) vs 6.0 to 11.9 months (71%; 95% CI, 51%-99%) vs more than 12.0 months (70%; 95% CI, 49%-100%) from TNT completion (P = .70). RFS for patients in the watch-and-wait cohort at 12 months from completion of TNT more closely resembled patients who had undergone surgery and had a pathologic complete response than the watch-and-wait cohort at 3 months from completion of TNT. Accordingly, model performance improved over time, and the concordance index increased from 0.62 (95% CI, 0.53-0.71) at 3 months after TNT to 0.66 (95% CI, 0-0.75) at 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients with rectal cancer, the clinical calculator reliably estimated the likelihood of RFS for patients who underwent surgery immediately after TNT, patients who underwent delayed surgery after entering watch-and-wait management, and patients who remained in watch-and-wait management. Delayed surgery following attempted watch-and-wait did not appear to compromise oncologic outcomes. The risk calculator provided conditional survival estimates at any time during surveillance and could help physicians counsel patients with rectal cancer about the consequences of alternative treatment pathways and thereby support informed decisions that incorporate patients' preferences.

Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Among Patients with Cancer and Limited English Proficiency.

Importance: Often electronic tools are built with English proficient (EP) patients in mind. Cancer patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience gaps in care and are at risk for excess toxic effects if they are unable to effectively communicate with their care team. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic patient-reported outcome tools (ePROs) built to improve health outcomes for EP patients might also be acceptable for LEP patients in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at a single National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. In 2019, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking LEP patients with cancer receiving oral chemotherapies were recruited to participate in a qualitative focus group examining patient attitudes toward ePROs and electronic tools that are used to manage adherence and symptoms related to oral therapies. Six focus groups were held for EP patients and 1 for Spanish-speaking LEP patients. LEP was defined as patients who self-identified as needing an interpreter to navigate the health care system. Data analysis was performed April through June of 2019. Exposures: Enrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The perspectives of patients with cancer treated with oral chemotherapies on integrating ePROs into their care management. Results: Among the 46 participants included in the study, 46 (100%) were White, 10 (22%) were Latinx Spanish-speaking, 43 (93%) were female, and 37 (80%) were aged at least 50 years or older. Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this qualitative study found that EP and LEP patients had different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manage their OCDT. EP patients felt generally positive toward OCDT and were not generally interested in using electronic tools to manage their care. LEP patients generally disliked OCDT and welcomed the use of technology for health management, particularly when addressing gaps in symptom management by their oncology clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Although most electronic interventions target EP patients, these findings reveal the willingness of LEP patients to participate in technology-based interventions. Expanding ePROs to LEP patients may help to manage gaps in communication about treatment and potential adverse events because of the willingness of LEP patients to use ePRO tools to manage their health. This qualitative assessment is a strategic step in determining the resources needed to narrow the digital health gap and extend the value of PROs to the LEP oncology population.

Underutilization of Guideline-Recommended Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability Biomarker Testing in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, DNA mismatch repair/microsatellite instability (MMR/MSI) testing was nationally recommended for advanced colorectal cancers based on favorable immune checkpoint inhibitor responses among patients with MMR-deficient/MSI-high tumors. METHODS: Patients ages ≥20-years-old presenting with stage IV colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2010 to 2017 were identified from the National Cancer Database. 2017 was the latest year with available testing utilization data. Patient, tumor, socioeconomic, and care setting characteristics were evaluated for association with upfront MMR/MSI testing in 2017 using multivariable logistic regression and average adjusted predicted probabilities (%AAP). RESULTS: Among 72,830 stage IV colorectal cancers, upfront MMR/MSI testing levels increased from 16.4% in 2010 to 56.4% in 2017. For patients diagnosed in 2017 (i.e., following national recommendations, n = 10,022), testing levels were lower for older patients (Padj < 0.001), and were independent of patients' race/ethnicity and insurance status. Patients from the poorest quartile of households received less testing [49.6%AAP, 99.9% confidence interval (CI) 45.5-53.7] than patients from the 3rd (56.9%AAP, 99.9% CI, 53.3-60.6; Padj < 0.001) or 4th quartiles (57.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 54.3-60.9; Padj < 0.001). Although testing levels improved most at community programs, they remained lower in 2017 (46.6%AAP, 99.9% CI, 41.0-52.1) compared with academic/NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (62.8%AAP, 99.9% CI, 59.7-65.8; Padj < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Upfront MMR/MSI testing utilization for patients with advanced colorectal cancer has increased but there is still substantial need for optimization. Testing utilization disproportionately lagged for patients who were older, from the poorest quartile of households, or managed at community cancer programs. IMPACT: Our findings indicate opportunities for improving rates of MMR/MSI testing and reporting, possibly through incorporation into quality control and accreditation metrics.

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 High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Body Composition among Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

Skeletal muscle and adipose tissue express the vitamin D receptor and may be a mechanism through which vitamin D supplementation slows cancer progression and reduces cancer death. In this exploratory analysis of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial, 105 patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were receiving chemotherapy were randomized to either high-dose vitamin D3 (4000 IU) or standard-dose (400 IU) vitamin D3. Body composition was measured with abdominal computed tomography at enrollment (baseline) and after cycle 8 of chemotherapy (16 weeks). As compared with standard-dose vitamin D3, high-dose vitamin D3 did not significantly change body weight [-0.7 kg; (95% CI: -3.5, 2.0)], body mass index [-0.2 kg/m2; (95% CI: -1.2, 0.7)], muscle area [-1.7 cm2; (95% CI: -9.6, 6.3)], muscle attenuation [-0.4 HU; (95% CI: -4.2, 3.2)], visceral adipose tissue area [-7.5 cm2; (95% CI: -24.5, 9.6)], or subcutaneous adipose tissue area [-8.3 cm2; (95% CI: -35.5, 18.9)] over the first 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Among patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, the addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy did not result in any changes in body composition.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Progression-Free Survival Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The SUNSHINE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In observational studies, higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels have been associated with improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective: To determine if high-dose vitamin D3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 139 patients with advanced or metastatic CRC conducted at 11 US academic and community cancer centers from March 2012 through November 2016 (database lock: September 2018). Interventions: mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy every 2 weeks and either high-dose vitamin D3 (n = 69) or standard-dose vitamin D3 (n = 70) daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the log-rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model. Testing was 1-sided. Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and change in plasma 25(OH)D level. Results: Among 139 patients (mean age, 56 years; 60 [43%] women) who completed or discontinued chemotherapy and vitamin D3 (median follow-up, 22.9 months), the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D3 was 13.0 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7; 49 PFS events) vs 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.0; 62 PFS events) for standard-dose vitamin D3 (log-rank P = .07); multivariable hazard ratio for PFS or death was 0.64 (1-sided 95% CI, 0 to 0.90; P = .02). There were no significant differences between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D3 for tumor ORR (58% vs 63%, respectively; difference, -5% [95% CI, -20% to 100%], P = .27) or OS (median, 24.3 months vs 24.3 months; log-rank P = .43). The median 25(OH)D level at baseline for high-dose vitamin D3 was 16.1 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL for standard-dose vitamin D3 (difference, -2.6 ng/mL [95% CI, -6.6 to 1.4], P = .30); at first restaging, 32.0 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 12.8 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.0 to 16.6], P < .001); at second restaging, 35.2 ng/mL vs 18.5 ng/mL (difference, 16.7 ng/mL [95% CI, 10.9 to 22.5], P < .001); and at treatment discontinuation, 34.8 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 16.2 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.9 to 22.4], P < .001). The most common grade 3 and higher adverse events for chemotherapy plus high-dose vs standard-dose vitamin D3 were neutropenia (n = 24 [35%] vs n = 21 [31%], respectively) and hypertension (n = 9 [13%] vs n = 11 [16%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with metastatic CRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy resulted in a difference in median PFS that was not statistically significant, but with a significantly improved supportive hazard ratio. These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01516216.

Hospitalization Risk During Chemotherapy for Advanced Cancer: Development and Validation of Risk Stratification Models Using Real-World Data.

PURPOSE: Hospitalizations are a common occurrence during chemotherapy for advanced cancer. Validated risk stratification tools could facilitate proactive approaches for reducing hospitalizations by identifying at-risk patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We assembled two retrospective cohorts of patients receiving chemotherapy for advanced nonhematologic cancer; cohorts were drawn from three integrated health plans of the Cancer Research Network. We used these cohorts to develop and validate logistic regression models estimating 30-day hospitalization risk after chemotherapy initiation. The development cohort included patients in two health plans from 2005 to 2013. The validation cohort included patients in a third health plan from 2007 to 2016. Candidate predictor variables were derived from clinical data in institutional data warehouses. Models were validated based on the C-statistic, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated in reference to a prespecified risk threshold (hospitalization risk ≥ 18.0%). RESULTS: There were 3,606 patients in the development cohort (median age, 63 years) and 634 evaluable patients in the validation cohort (median age, 64 years). Lung cancer was the most common diagnosis in both cohorts (26% and 31%, respectively). The selected risk stratification model included two variables: albumin and sodium. The model C-statistic in the validation cohort was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.62 to 0.75); 39% of patients were classified as high risk according to the prespecified threshold; 30-day hospitalization risk was 24.2% (95% CI, 19.9% to 32.0%) in the high-risk group and 8.7% (95% CI, 6.1% to 12.0%) in the low-risk group. CONCLUSION: A model based on data elements routinely collected during cancer treatment can reliably identify patients at high risk for hospitalization after chemotherapy initiation. Additional research is necessary to determine whether this model can be deployed to prevent chemotherapy-related hospitalizations.

Challenges and solutions in the design and execution of the PROSPECT Phase II/III neoadjuvant rectal cancer trial (NCCTG N1048/Alliance).

BACKGROUND: More than half of the 40,000 incident rectal cancer patients in the United States each year are diagnosed at clinical stage II and III (locally advanced stage). For this group, high rates of cure can be achieved with the combination of pelvic radiation and sensitizing 5-fluorouracil (chemoradiation), surgery and chemotherapy, but treatment is long, arduous and toxicities are substantial. The PROSPECT trial (N1048, NCT01515787) was designed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) could be used as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation without compromising treatment outcomes and to spare these patients excess toxicity. The statistical design balanced the twin co-primary goals of achieving low local and distant recurrence rates. Study design features contended with the need for stringent safeguards given limited phase II data, the need for straightforward criteria to facilitate both accrual and protocol fidelity and the importance of patients' perspectives on symptom burden and treatment toxicity. METHODS: PROSPECT is an ongoing multi-site two-group seamless phase II/III randomized trial comparing standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy with selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Challenges addressed in the design and conduct of PROSPECT have included the following: (1) setting safety thresholds given limited single-center phase II data, (2) establishing workable eligibility criteria, (3) balancing competing time to local and distant recurrence as co-primary endpoints and (4) obtaining reliable and complete data for patients' symptom burden. The design and implementation challenges, choices, modifications and their implications for the design of future national cooperative group clinical trials are presented. RESULTS: PROSPECT incorporated stringent thresholds for both complete surgical resection (R0) and the time to local recurrence as early stopping rules. When predetermined stopping criteria were not met after evaluation of the first 366 participants in the randomized phase II, the study transitioned seamlessly to phase III with cumulative accrual of over 1000 participants. Eligibility criteria stipulating rectal tumor location based on distance from the anal verge were unworkable, and the protocol was amended to a more pragmatic approach that assigned surgeons with primary responsibility for determining eligibility. Central radiology review was feasible and in some cases prompted discontinuation of protocol treatment. Participation in toxicity reporting using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was uniformly high and was well accepted by participants from over 200 sites in the United States, Canada and Switzerland. CONCLUSION: The strategies used to overcome these obstacles may inform the design of other studies that involve multi-modality treatment interventions, particularly trials where implementation of consistent criteria for eligibility and outcomes across hundreds of practice settings is necessary.

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.

Oncology Patient Portal Enrollment at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

PURPOSE: Patient portals (PPs) provide patients access to their electronic health record and may facilitate active engagement in their care. Because PP use has not been well studied among patients with cancer, we sought to: understand the willingness of patients with cancer to use the PP, identify barriers to PP use, and improve PP accessibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of an institutional quality improvement initiative, we used a stakeholder-driven approach to examine PP use at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA). We conducted a survey across all ambulatory oncology practices as well as staff and patient focus groups in one ambulatory practice. We deployed three interventions to address barriers: staff education, staff-assisted enrollment support, and independent enrollment support. RESULTS: In October 2015, 1,019 (87%) of 1,178 eligible patients completed the survey (PP enrolled, 57%; non-PP enrolled, 43%). PP-enrolled patients reported reviewing test results and appointment schedules. Non-PP-enrolled patients cited difficult PP enrollment, lack of computer access, and concern about sharing data electronically as barriers to PP enrollment. Focus groups (staff, n = 20; patient representatives, n = 5) also identified lack of awareness of PP benefits as a barrier. The interventions, deployed from November to December 2015, increased PP enrollment from 47% to 53% by January 2016. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer want to communicate with their team through the PP, but barriers to enrollment impede use. Straightforward system-level interventions may increase enrollment. Further work is necessary to ascertain the degree to which increased PP enrollment leads to greater engagement and better outcomes.

Lack of Association Between Heart Failure and Incident Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Several recent studies have suggested an increased cancer risk among patients with heart failure (HF). However, these studies are constrained by limited size and follow-up, lack of comprehensive data on other health attributes, and adjudicated cancer outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether HF is associated with cancer incidence and cancer-specific mortality. METHODS: The study assembled a cohort from the Physicians' Health Studies I and II, 2 randomized controlled trials of aspirin and vitamin supplements conducted from 1982 to 1995 and from 1997 to 2011, respectively, that included annual health evaluations and determination of cancer and HF diagnoses. In the primary analysis, the study excluded participants with cancer or HF at baseline and performed multivariable-adjusted Cox models to determine the relationship between HF and cancer, modeling HF as a time-varying exposure. In a complementary analysis, the study used the landmark method and identified cancer-free participants at 70 years of age, distinguishing between those with and without HF, and likewise performed Cox regression. Sensitivity analyses were performed at 65, 75, and 80 years of age. RESULTS: Among 28,341 Physicians' Health Study participants, 1,420 developed HF. A total of 7,363 cancers developed during a median follow-up time of 19.9 years (25th to 75th percentile: 11.0 to 26.8 years). HF was not associated with cancer incidence in crude (hazard ratio: 0.92; 95% confidence interval: 0.80 to 1.08) or multivariable-adjusted analysis (hazard ratio: 1.05; 95% confidence interval: 0.86 to 1.29). No association was found between HF and site-specific cancer incidence or cancer-specific mortality after multivariable adjustment. Results were similar when using the landmark method at all landmark ages. CONCLUSIONS: HF is not associated with an increased risk of cancer among male physicians.

Trends in intensity modulated radiation therapy use for locally advanced rectal cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.

PURPOSE: Intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) has been rapidly incorporated into clinical practice because of its technological advantages over 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (CRT). We characterized trends in IMRT utilization in trimodality treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer at National Comprehensive Cancer Network cancer centers between 2005 and 2011. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using the prospective National Comprehensive Cancer Network Colorectal Cancer Database, we determined treatment patterns for 976 patients with stage II-III rectal cancer who received pelvic radiation therapy at contributing centers between 2005 and 2011. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with IMRT versus 3-dimensional CRT. Radiation therapy compliance and time to completion were used to compare acute toxicity. RESULTS: A total of 947 patients (97%) received 3-dimensional CRT (80%) or IMRT (17%). Ninety-eight percent of these patients received radiation therapy preoperatively, and 81% underwent definitive resection. IMRT use increased from <13% pre-2009 to >30% in 2010 and thereafter, with significant variability among institutions (range, 0%-43%). Other factors associated with IMRT use included age ≥65 years, dose >50.4 Gy, African-American race, and no transabdominal surgery. Rates of and time to radiation therapy completion were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients with stage II-III rectal cancer at queried National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers between 2005 and 2011 received 3-dimensional CRT, significant and increasing numbers received IMRT. IMRT utilization is highly variable among institutions and not uniform among sociodemographic groups but may be more consistently embraced in specific clinical settings. Given this trend, comparative-effectiveness research is needed to evaluate the benefits of IMRT for rectal cancer.

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed. RESULTS: Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick." CONCLUSIONS: Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies.

Incidence of minimally invasive colorectal cancer surgery at National Comprehensive Cancer Network centers.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic colectomy has been shown to have equivalent oncologic outcomes to open colectomy for the management of colon cancer, but its adoption nationally has been slow. This study investigates the prevalence and factors associated with laparoscopic colorectal resection at National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers. METHODS: Data on patients undergoing surgery for colon and rectal cancer at NCCN centers from 2005 to 2010 were obtained from chart review of medical records for the NCCN Outcomes Project and included information on socioeconomic status, insurance coverage, comorbidity, and physician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status. Associations between receipt of minimally invasive surgery and patient and clinical variables were analyzed with univariate and multivariable logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 4032 patients, diagnosed between September 2005 and December 2010, underwent elective colon or rectal resection for cancer at NCCN centers. Median age of colon cancer patients was 62.6 years, and 49% were men. The percent of colon cancer patients treated with minimally invasive surgery (MIS) increased from 35% in 2006 to 51% in 2010 across all centers but varied statistically significantly between centers. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with minimally invasive surgery for colon cancer patients who had surgery at an NCCN institution were older age (P = .02), male sex (P = .006), fewer comorbidities (P ≤ .001), lower final T-stage (P < .001), median household income greater than or equal to $80000 (P < .001), ECOG performance status = 0 (P = .02), and NCCN institution (P ≤ .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of MIS increased at NCCN centers. However, there was statistically significant variation in adoption of MIS technique among centers.

Interinstitutional variation in management decisions for treatment of 4 common types of cancer: A multi-institutional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: When clinical practice is governed by evidence-based guidelines and there is consensus about their validity, practice variation should be minimal. For areas in which evidence gaps exist, greater variation is expected. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess interinstitutional variation in management decisions for 4 common types of cancer. DESIGN: Multi-institutional, observational cohort study of patients with cancer diagnosed between July 2006 through May 2011 and observed through 31 December 2011. SETTING: 18 cancer centers participating in the formulation of treatment guidelines and systematic outcomes assessment through the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. PATIENTS: 25 589 patients with incident breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. MEASUREMENTS: Interinstitutional variation for 171 binary management decisions with varying levels of supporting evidence. For each decision, variation was characterized by the median absolute deviation of the center-specific proportions. RESULTS: Interinstitutional variation was high (median absolute deviation >10%) for 35 of 171 (20%) oncology management decisions, including 9 of 22 (41%) decisions for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, 16 of 76 (21%) for breast cancer, 7 of 47 (15%) for lung cancer, and 3 of 26 (12%) for colorectal cancer. Forty-six percent of high-variance decisions involved imaging or diagnostic procedures and 37% involved choice of chemotherapy regimen. The evidence grade underpinning the 35 high-variance decisions was category 1 for 0%, 2A for 49%, and 2B/other for 51%. LIMITATION: Physician identifiers were unavailable, and results may not generalize outside of major cancer centers. CONCLUSION: The substantial variation in institutional practice manifest among cancer centers reveals a lack of consensus about optimal management for common clinical scenarios. For clinicians, awareness of management decisions with high variation should prompt attention to patient preferences. For health systems, high variation can be used to prioritize comparative effectiveness research, patient-provider education, or pathway development. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and National Comprehensive Cancer Network.

Characterization and treatment of local recurrence following breast conservation for ductal carcinoma in situ.

PURPOSE: The optimal treatment strategy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) continues to evolve and should consider the consequences of initial treatment on the likelihood, type, and treatment of recurrences. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using two data sources of patients who experienced a recurrence (DCIS or invasive cancer) following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for index DCIS: patients with an index DCIS diagnosed from 1997 to 2008 at the academic institutions of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN; N = 88) and patients with an index DCIS diagnosed from 1990 to 2001 at community-based integrated healthcare delivery sites of the Health Maintenance Organization Cancer Research Network (CRN) (N = 182). RESULTS: Just under half of local recurrences in both cohorts were invasive cancer. While 40 % of patients in both cohorts underwent mastectomy alone at recurrence, treatment of the remaining patients varied. In the earlier CRN cohort, most other patients underwent repeat BCS (39 %) with only 18 % receiving mastectomy with reconstruction, whereas only 16 % had repeat BCS and 44 % had mastectomy with reconstruction in the NCCN cohort. Compared with patients not treated with radiation, those who received radiation for index DCIS were less likely to undergo repeat BCS (NCCN: 6.6 vs. 37 %, p = 0.001; CRN: 20 vs. 48 %, p = 0.0004) and more likely to experience surgical complications after treatment of recurrence (NCCN: 15 vs. 4 %, p = 0.17; CRN: 40 vs. 25 %, p = 0.09). CONCLUSION: We found that treatment of recurrences after BCS and subsequent complications may be affected by the use of radiotherapy for the index DCIS. Initial treatment of DCIS may have long-term implications that should be considered.

Chemotherapy usage patterns in a US-wide cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of biologic therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), few studies have examined patterns of care or predictors of specific treatment approaches. METHODS: We assessed 4877 mCRC patients who received chemotherapy between January 2004 and March 2011 at academic, private, and community-based oncology practices subscribing to a US-wide chemotherapy order entry (system capturing disease, patient, provider, and treatment data. Multivariable analyses of these prospectively recorded characteristics were used to identify independent predictors of specific therapeutic choices. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Throughout the study period, fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin combination was the most commonly used first-line chemotherapy regimen, representing 71% of first-line therapy by 2007. First-line bevacizumab use averaged 51%, peaking at 55% in 2006. Of those who received first-line bevacizumab, 34% continued to receive bevacizumab in the second-line. Only 26% of patients in our cohort ever received an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab = 22%; panitumumab = 6%) at some point in their treatment course. Patients treated at academic centers, with longer duration of first-line therapy, and at sites in the western United States were statistically more likely to receive an anti-EGFR antibody. Anti-EGFR antibody use fell by 18% after the US Food and Drug Administration limited its use to patients with KRAS wild-type tumors in June 2009. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of this US-wide mCRC cohort demonstrates that bevacizumab has been more consistently integrated into treatment regimens than anti-EGFR antibody therapies, particularly in first-line therapy. However, treatment choices vary substantially according to specific patient, practice, and provider characteristics.