Evaluation of adverse events experienced by older patients participating in studies of molecularly targeted agents alone or in combination.

BACKGROUND: The tolerability of molecularly targeted agents in older patients has not been specifically examined. Adverse event data from clinical trials in the Princess Margaret Hospital Phase II Consortium database were analyzed to address this question. METHODS: The Consortium database collects trial information on all patients treated with either a molecularly targeted agent alone or in combination since 2001. The frequency of adverse events was determined and analyzed by two different age groups, <65 years and >/=65 years. Toxicity indices (TI) and frequencies of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), based on adverse events of all causalities (TI(ALL) and DLT(ALL)), and on adverse events that were at least possibly related to the molecularly targeted agent (TI(MTA) and DLT(MTA)), were calculated for both age groups. RESULTS: Four hundred and one patients who received 1,252 treatment cycles were analyzed from 19 different studies. Baseline performance status was similar between both age groups, but fewer older patients have had multiple prior regimens of chemotherapy or prior radiation therapy. A comparison of the proportions of younger and older patients experiencing DLT(ALL) and DLT(MTA) showed similar results. The TI(MTA) values were comparable between the two age groups in both single agent (3.25 versus 3.00, for <65 versus >/=65 years) and multi-agent (3.65 versus 3.00, for <65 versus >/=65 years) trials. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients seem to tolerate molecularly targeted therapies either alone or in combination with chemotherapy as well as younger patients. Age alone should not be a barrier in the administration of targeted agents.

Systematic review of barriers to the recruitment of older patients with cancer onto clinical trials.

PURPOSE: Older patients are significantly underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. A literature review was undertaken to identify the barriers that impede the accrual of this vulnerable population onto clinical trials and to determine what specific strategies are needed to improve the representation of older patients in research studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken using several different strategies to identify relevant articles. RESULTS: Nine of 31 relevant papers from 159 citations were included. Age is a significant barrier to recruitment; only a quarter to one third of potentially eligible older patients are enrolled onto trials. Physicians' perceptions, protocol eligibility criteria with restrictions on comorbid conditions, and functional status to optimize treatment tolerability are the most important reasons resulting in the exclusion of older patients. Other barriers include the lack of social support and the need for extra time and resources to enroll these patients. Conversely, older patients do not view their age as an important reason for refusing trials. CONCLUSION: Specific clinical trials confined to older patients should be conducted to evaluate tumor biology, treatment tolerability, and the effect of comorbid conditions. Protocol designs need to stratify for age and be less restrictive with respect to exclusions on functional status, comorbidity, and previous cancers, such that results are generalizable to older patients. Physician education to dispel unfounded perceptions, improved access to available clinical trials, and provision of personnel and resources to accommodate the unique requirements of an older population are possible solutions to remove the barriers of ageism.

Understanding the attitudes of the elderly towards enrolment into cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal cancer treatment for an older population is largely unknown because of the low numbers of elderly patients accrued into clinical trials. This project focuses on the attitudes of the elderly about participation in clinical trials to determine if this is one of the barriers to the involvement of this population in clinical trials. METHODS: The first phase of this study was a self-administered questionnaire mailed to 425 elderly persons with cancer, selected from Princess Margaret Hospital oncology clinics. The second phase consisted of individual semi-structured interviews with cancer patients to assess their attitudes towards cancer, its management and enrolment into cancer clinical trials. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients responded to the survey giving a response rate of 22.1%. Three quarters of respondents stated that they would be willing to participate in a clinical trial. The factors that most influenced older patients' willingness to participate in a cancer study were recommendations from a cancer doctor and the chance that the study treatment may help them feel better. Seventeen survey responders participated in interviews. Common themes from these interviews included patient-physician communication, the referral process, and the role of age in cancer care decision-making. CONCLUSION: Most elderly people, who responded to this survey, are willing to consider participation in cancer clinical trials however, elderly patients do not appear to actively seek clinical trials and few were informed of the availability of clinical trials. Physician barriers and availability of appropriate clinical trials may play a bigger role in preventing accrual of elderly cancer patients into trials.

Comparing attitudes of younger and older patients towards cancer clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitudes of patients towards cancer clinical trials (CCTs) and assess the differences between older and younger patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with cancer, receiving treatment or in follow-up in University Hospital Waterford, Ireland were eligible. Patients completed a self-administered questionnaire. To determine attitudes towards CCTs, patients indicated their preference if offered participation in three hypothetical studies (cancer prevention/screening trial; CCT comparing standard to new treatment; a trial of new drug where no standard exists). Patients' reasons to or not to participate in CCTs were explored. RESULTS: From May 2014 to March 2015, 219 patients were accrued, 119 <65years and 100 ≥65years. Twenty-two (18%) younger and 4 (4%) older patients had been/were actively enrolled on a CCT (p=0.0012). No older patient and 5 (4%) of younger patients had enquired about CCT availability. For the CCT questions, 85 (71%) younger vs 57 (57%) older patients would participate in a prevention/screening CCT (p=0.033); 60 (50%) vs 44 (44%) for standard vs new drug (p=0.415), and 83 (69%) vs 78 (78%) for a CCT where no standard exists (p=0.218). The most common reason to participate in a CCT was a recommendation from the oncologist -98% <65years vs 87% ≥65years (p=0.001), with health problems being the leading reason not to participate, 86% vs 72% (p=0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Older and younger patients in this study gave similar importance to reasons for and against participation in CCTs. Most patients did not actively seek out a CCT, which may reflect a lack of awareness and a need for better education.

Sorafenib Increases Tumor Hypoxia in Cervical Cancer Patients Treated With Radiation Therapy: Results of a Phase 1 Clinical Study.

PURPOSE: Preclinical studies have shown that angiogenesis inhibition can improve response to radiation therapy (RT). The purpose of this phase 1 study was to examine the angiogenesis inhibitor sorafenib in patients with cervical cancer receiving radical RT and concurrent cisplatin (RTCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirteen patients with stage IB to IIIB cervical cancer participated. Sorafenib was administered daily for 7 days before the start of standard RTCT in patients with early-stage, low-risk disease and also during RTCT in patients with high-risk disease. Biomarkers of tumor vascularity, perfusion, and hypoxia were measured at baseline and again after 7 days of sorafenib alone before the start of RTCT. The median follow-up time was 4.5 years. RESULTS: Initial complete response was seen in 12 patients. One patient died without achieving disease control, and 4 experienced recurrent disease. One patient with an extensive, infiltrative tumor experienced pelvic fistulas during treatment. The 4-year actuarial survival was 85%. Late grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity developed in 4 patients. Sorafenib alone produced a reduction in tumor perfusion/permeability and an increase in hypoxia, which resulted in early closure of the study. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib increased tumor hypoxia, raising concern that it might impair rather than improve disease control when added to RTCT.

Are older cancer patients being referred to oncologists? A mail questionnaire of Ontario primary care practitioners to evaluate their referral patterns.

PURPOSE: Understanding why older patients are frequently underrepresented in cancer services use and clinical research may help to increase their participation in clinical trials and eventually result in better cancer care for this vulnerable population. METHODS: To identify potential barriers that may prevent older cancer patients from being referred from a primary care physician (PCP) to an oncology specialist, a self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 9,312 PCPs throughout Ontario. RESULTS: With a one-time mailing, 2,240 questionnaires were returned (response rate, 24%) of which 2,089 (93%) were assessable. Although 86% of respondents would refer most older patients with early-stage, potentially curable cancers to oncologists, only 65% would refer those with advanced-stage, potentially incurable cancers. The factors that most influence referral decisions of PCPs are patient's desire to be referred (69%), type (54%) and stage (49%) of cancer, and severity of cancer symptoms (49%). Other factors including age do not seem to influence the referral decision. Approximately 9% of respondents found it difficult to refer older cancer patients to oncology specialists, with the most commonly cited barriers being the length of waiting lists, mandatory tissue diagnosis before referral, and the belief that oncologists seldom relate to PCPs. CONCLUSION: Most PCPs stated that they would refer all elderly patients with cancer to oncologists and that referral decisions were based mainly on patients' wishes. Continued efforts are needed to overcome barriers in the referral process and to understand the perspectives of elderly patients to enhance their cancer care.

Nomograms to predict serious adverse events in phase II clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents.

PURPOSE: A tool that quantifies the risk of treatment-related toxicity based on individual patient characteristics can augment the informed consent process and safety monitoring in the setting of phase II cancer treatment trials of molecularly targeted agents (MTAs). METHODS: A regression model was constructed to predict the risk of a serious adverse event (SAE) with an MTA and presented as a nomogram. Estimation of risk can be performed by integrating risk estimates from the nomogram and from a reference or average patient. Internal validation was performed using bootstrapping techniques. RESULTS: A total of 578 patients were treated with one of 14 MTAs given alone or in combination on one of 27 clinical trials performed by the Princess Margaret Hospital Drug Development Program between 2001 and 2006. Approximately 50% and 24% of patients experienced an SAE and an attributable SAE (SAEatt) during cycle 1, respectively. Albumin, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), number of target lesions, prior radiotherapy, Charlson score, age, and performance status were included in the optimal model as predictors of a cycle 1 SAE, whereas the number of prior chemotherapy regimens, baseline creatinine, LDH, prior radiotherapy, Charlson score, body-surface area, and performance status were included as predictors of an SAEatt. Moderate-good internal validity was demonstrated, with area under the curve estimates ranging from 56.7% to 86.1% for all SAEs and 63.0% to 89.7% for SAEatts. CONCLUSION: A regression model was constructed that predicts the SAE and SAEatt risk for an individual patient during cycle 1 of phase II trial treatment with moderate to good internal validity. External validation is still required.

Expanded phase II trial of gemcitabine and capecitabine for advanced biliary cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase 2 trial of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap) in patients with advanced biliary cancer led to an objective response in approximately 30% of patients and a median survival of 14 months. In the current study, the authors report further efficacy data of a larger cohort of such patients treated with the GemCap regimen. METHODS: Patients aged >18 years and who had a diagnosis of locally advanced biliary cancer received first-line treatment with capecitabine at a dose of 650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days and gemcitabine at a dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) on Day 1 and Day 8, every 3 weeks until disease progression. Tumor response was assessed by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: Between July 2001 and January 2005, 75 patients were enrolled in the study. At a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the overall response rate was 29% (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 19.4-41%), with a median duration of 9.7 months (range, 3-36 months). Three patients achieved complete responses, with a median duration of 17 months (range, 9-27 months). The median progression-free survival and overall survivals were 6.2 months (95% CI, 4.4-8.3 months) and 12.7 months (95% CI, 9.5-31 months), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GemCap regimen is active in patients with biliary cancer. Randomized trials are warranted to define the impact of such a regimen on patient survival and quality of life.

The influence of mentorship on research productivity in oncology.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluates the impact of mentors in research productivity in oncology. METHODS: Two electronic surveys were sent out to 1009 oncologists who attended educational workshops between 1996 and 2004. RESULTS: Response rate was 41.4% (339 of 818). Respondents with mentors are more currently engaged in academic research than those without mentors. Mentorship status did not influence on self-reported publication record or on becoming principal investigators, even when adjusted for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Mentorship is valuable to oncologists in enhancing their research experiences. In this selected group, mentorship has effects on current involvement in academic research but not on self-reported publication.