Observations with alpelisib in older patients (≥ 65 year of age) with breast cancer in a non-clinical trial setting.

PURPOSE: Alpelisib is newly-available breast cancer agent that targets PIK3 mutations and confers a somewhat unusual adverse event profile. This study focused on older patients (≥ 65 years of age) treated outside a clinical trial to gain further experience on how these under-studied patients do with this new agent. METHODS: This descriptive, multi-site study relied on medical record review. RESULTS: Fifty-one older breast cancer patients were started on alpelisib between May 2019 and September 2020. The median age and number of comorbidities at alpelisib initiation was 71 years and 4, respectively. Thirty-five patients had stopped alpelisib (median time on drug 2.6 months (range: < 1, 9.5 months)) for the following reasons: alpelisib adverse events (n = 15), cancer progression (n = 13), and other/unknown (n = 7). Alpelisib adverse events included hyperglycemia (n = 37), diarrhea (n = 23), rash (n = 19), fatigue (n = 12), and mouth sores (n = 7); (numbers in parentheses indicate the number of patients with at least one such event). Five patients were hospitalized for hyperglycemia. At the time of report, 14 patients were deceased, and median survival had not been reached. CONCLUSION: Older patients might derive further benefit from alpelisib if the adverse event profile of this agent, particularly the hyperglycemia, were able to be better managed.

Randomized, Double-Blind Trial on the Impact of Word Count in Cancer Clinical Trial Consent Forms.

PURPOSE: This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment. METHODS: This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making. RESULTS: In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: "The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial" (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign. CONCLUSION: This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

How Did a Multi-Institutional Trial Show Feasibility of Electronic Data Capture in Older Patients With Cancer? Results From a Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study (Alliance A171902).

PURPOSE: New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS: Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, "I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious." Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, "I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all." A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, "Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on." CONCLUSION: High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.

Metastatic or suspected metastatic cancer in patients 90 years of age or older: A single-institution, multi-site study.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic cancer in nonagenarians and those older is rare and understudied. Here we explored whether these patients appear to benefit from antineoplastic therapy and whether outcomes differ based on whether or not untreated patients had a histologic/cytologic confirmation of cancer. METHODS: In this single-institution, multi-site study, we reviewed 10 years of consecutive medical records of patients 90+ years of age with a histologic/cytologic cancer diagnosis and metastatic cancer or, alternatively, a presumed metastatic cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Sixty-eight patients are the focus with a median age of 93 years (range: 90, 103 years). Patients fell into 3 groups: 1) no tissue/cytologic cancer diagnosis and no treatment (=23); 2) tissue/cytologic diagnosis but no treatment (n = 21); and 3) cancer treatment rendered (n = 24). The median survival in groups 1,2, and 3 was 5 weeks (95% confidence interval (CI): 2, 11 weeks), 9 weeks (95% CI: 3, 23 weeks), and 60 weeks (95% CI: 38 weeks, not yet reached), respectively. For those patients in group 3 who received cancer therapy, chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery were administered in 11 (16%), 6 (9%), and 4 (6%), respectively. Fourteen received other cancer therapy: hormonal therapy (n = 6), targeted therapy (n = 6), and immunotherapy (n = 2). Only one patient experienced an adverse event that required hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Although these older patients likely received cancer treatment on a selective basis, such treatment was associated with improved survival and was well-tolerated. However, based on survival outcomes, one might question whether to put patients through a biopsy, if they have limited therapeutic options.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI)-based chemotherapy after irinotecan -based chemotherapy in patients with pancreas cancer.

BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan (Nal-IRI) is a preferred second-line treatment for metastatic pancreas cancer. It is unclear, however, whether patients who had received irinotecan derive benefit. METHODS: Medical records of metastatic pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan and then Nal-IRI were reviewed. The primary endpoint was overall survival after the initiation of Nal-IRI (an a priori threshold of >4 months defined success); adverse events and quotes from the medical record on decision-making were also recorded. RESULTS: Sixty four patients met eligibility criteria with a median age of 65 years (range: 36, 80 years). The median overall survival from initiation of Nal-IRI was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3, 5.6 months). An exploratory comparison, based on no cancer progression with irinotecan versus progression, showed improved survival with Nal-IRI in the former group: 6.1 months (95% CI: 5.1, 9.3 months) versus 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.3, 4.8 months); p = 0.0006. Nal-IRI adverse events occurred as expected. Qualitative data illustrate several themes, including "limited treatment options," which appeared to drive the decision to prescribe Nal-IRI. CONCLUSION: Nal-IRI might be considered in pancreas cancer patients who had received irinotecan, particularly in the absence of disease progression with the latter.