Screening for depression in cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: Feasibility and identification of effective tools in the NRG Oncology RTOG 0841 trial.

BACKGROUND: Brief tools are needed to screen oncology outpatients for depressive symptoms. METHODS: Patients starting radiotherapy for the first diagnosis of any tumor completed distress screening tools, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) (25-item version). Patients exceeding validated cutoff scores and a systematic sample of patients whose screening was negative completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-three patients from 35 community-based radiation oncology sites and 2 academic radiation oncology sites were recruited. Sixty-six percent of the 455 eligible patients (n = 299) were women, and the eligible patients had breast (45%), gastrointestinal (11%), lung (10%), gynecologic (6%), or other cancers (27%). Seventy-five (16.5%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. Forty-two of these patients completed the SCID. Another 37 patients whose screening was negative completed the SCID. Among the 79 patients completing the SCID, 8 (10.1%) met the criteria for major depression, 2 (2.5%) met the criteria for dysthymia, and 6 (7.6%) met the criteria for an adjustment disorder. The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders with a cutoff score of ≥3 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.83) and was comparable to the PHQ-9 ( > 9; AUC = 0.85). The NCCN-DT did not detect depression (AUC = 0.59). CONCLUSIONS: The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders, which were equivalent to the PHQ-9 and superior to the NCCN-DT. These findings support using the PHQ-2 to identify patients in need of further assessment for depression, which has a low prevalence but is a clinically significant comorbidity. These findings could inform the implementation of distress screening accreditation standards. Cancer 2017;123:485-493. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Psychological Treatment for Patients Receiving Radiation: Results of NRG Oncology/RTOG 0841.

PURPOSE: NRG/RTOG 0841 assessed the feasibility of a depression screening procedure in patients receiving radiation therapy (RT). As a secondary endpoint, availability and barriers to psychosocial care data were collected in hopes of providing recommendations for improved psychosocial care among patients receiving RT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients starting RT were prospectively recruited and assessed with self-reported distress screening tools. Patients exceeding a validated cutoff and a sample of patients who screened negative received the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone. During that SCID evaluation, patients completed a validated scale ranking interview on barriers to psychosocial care and interest in various psychosocial intervention modalities. RESULTS: A total of 463 patients from 35 community-based and 2 academic RT oncology sites were recruited. Of the 455 eligible, 75 (16%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. From this group, 78 patients completed the SCID; most were female (76%), white (88%), and had breast cancer (55%). Overall, the most common barriers to treatment, regardless of insurance, were costs (58%), daily responsibilities (44%), and physical health symptoms (38%). Patients from RT facilities without mental health services were significantly more likely to report difficulty with physical health problems, specifically serious illness and walking, compared with those treated at RT facilities with services (P = .013 and P = .039, respectively). Overall, there was interest in obtaining psychosocial services with face-to-face counseling at the cancer center and printed educational materials as the most commonly preferred interventions. Patients with difficult barriers to psychosocial interventions were significantly less interested in support away from the cancer center (P = .016), telephone and Internet counseling (P = .0062 &P = .011), and Internet support (P = .0048). CONCLUSION: Radiation oncology patients are interested in obtaining psychosocial services but face barriers to access to mental health services including cost, debilitating symptoms, and time constraints that prevent adequate care.

Paired Phase II Studies of Erlotinib/Bevacizumab for Advanced Bronchioloalveolar Carcinoma or Never Smokers With Advanced Non-Small-cell Lung Cancer: SWOG S0635 and S0636 Trials.

BACKGROUND: Before mutation testing of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene was recognized as highly associated with the activity of EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), clinically defined patient populations with bronchioloalveolar carcinoma (BAC) and never smokers were identified as likely to benefit from EGFR TKIs. From preclinical and clinical data suggesting potentially improved efficacy with a combination of an EGFR TKI and the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab, the Southwestern Oncology Group (SWOG) initiated paired phase II trials to evaluate the combination of erlotinib/bevacizumab in patients with advanced BAC (SWOG S0635) or never smokers with advanced lung adenocarcinoma (SWOG S0636). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with BAC or adenocarcinoma with BAC features (SWOG S0635) or never smokers with advanced lung adenocarcinoma (SWOG S0636) received erlotinib 150 mg/day with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg until progression or prohibitive toxicity. Never smokers with BAC were preferentially enrolled to SWOG S0636. The primary endpoint for both trials was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients were enrolled in the SWOG S0635 trial and 85 in the SWOG S0636 trial. The objective response rate was 22% (3% complete response) in the SWOG S0635 trial and 50% (38% confirmed; 3% complete response) in the SWOG S0636 trial. The median progression-free survival was 5 and 7.4 months in the S0635 and S0636 trials, respectively. The median overall survival was 21 and 29.8 months, respectively. Toxicity consisted mainly of rash and diarrhea in both trials. CONCLUSION: Although the field has moved toward molecular, rather than clinical, selection of patients as optimal candidates for EGFR TKI therapy, these results support the hypothesis that a subset of patients in whom erlotinib is particularly active could receive an incremental benefit from the addition of bevacizumab.

Phase II trial of ixabepilone and carboplatin with or without bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Epothilones, a new class of cytotoxic agents, have demonstrated activity in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This phase II study examined ixabepilone/carboplatin (cohort A) and ixabepilone/carboplatin/bevacizumab (cohort B) as first-line therapy for patients with advanced NSCLC. METHOD: Patients were enrolled to either cohort A or B at physician discretion and when eligibility met. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed stage III/IV NSCLC, ECOG PS 0-1, adequate organ function, no active CNS metastases, and, in cohort B, bevacizumab treatment criteria. Both cohorts received ixabepilone 30 mg/m2 and carboplatin AUC=6 IV day 1 every 3-weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients assigned to cohort B also received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg IV day 1 of each cycle, and could continue single-agent bevacizumab for 6 additional cycles. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients (median age, 63 years; majority stage IV and former smokers) were enrolled from 11/08 to 10/09 (A-42, B-40) and received medians of 4 and 6 cycles, respectively. The ORRs were 29% and 50%. After median follow up of 17.5 months (A) and 15.7 months (B), median progression free survivals were A-5.3 months (95% CI 2.8-8.6) and B-6.7 months (95% CI 5.1-8.4), with median overall survivals of 9.3 months (95% CI 6.4-16.6) 13.2 months (95% CI 8.9-upper limit not reached), respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicity included: anemia (A-10%, B-27%), neutropenia (A-31%, B-48%), thrombocytopenia (A-19%, B-20%), fatigue (A-10%, B-23%), infection (A-5%, B-20%), and hypersensitivity reaction (A-2%, B-5%). There was one treatment-related death, due to hemoptysis in a cohort B patient with squamous histology. CONCLUSIONS: Ixabepilone can be safely combined with carboplatin in newly diagnosed patients with advanced NSCLC. The benefits of treatment appear consistent with those achieved with other modern platinum-doublet regimens. The addition of bevacizumab increases toxicities, however, these are largely expected and reversible. The high ORR and OS observed in the bevacizumab-cohort are encouraging, but would require validation in a larger randomized trial of cohort A versus B.

A phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial of flaxseed for the treatment of hot flashes: North Central Cancer Treatment Group N08C7.

OBJECTIVE: Preliminary data suggest that flaxseed, a rich source of dietary lignans, may be a potentially effective treatment of hot flashes. A phase III, randomized, placebo, controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of flaxseed in reducing hot flashes. METHODS: Postmenopausal women with or without breast cancer were randomly assigned to a flaxseed bar (providing 410 mg of lignans) for 6 weeks versus a placebo bar. Participants completed daily, prospective, hot flash diaries during the baseline week, and then ate one study bar per day for 6 weeks while recording their daily hot flashes. The intraparticipant difference in hot flash activity between baseline and the last treatment week was the primary endpoint. Adverse effects were evaluated through a self-report and the Common Terminology Criteria assessment. RESULTS: A total of 188 women were enrolled in this trial. The mean hot flash score was reduced 4.9 in the flaxseed group and 3.5 in the placebo group (P = 0.29). In both groups, slightly more than a third of the women received a 50% reduction in their hot flash score. Only one adverse effect was significantly different between groups, grade 1 pruritus, which was more common in the placebo group (8% vs 1%). Both groups reported abdominal distension, flatulence, diarrhea, and nausea. Adherence and ability to detect treatment assignment did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this trial do not support the use of 410 mg of lignans for the reduction of hot flashes. The bars were fairly well tolerated, with both groups reporting gastrointestinal effects, probably due to the fiber content.

Sorafenib in platinum-treated patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: a Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG 0435) phase II trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sorafenib is a multikinase inhibitor affecting pathways involved in tumor progression and angiogenesis. We conducted a phase II trial of sorafenib in platinum-treated patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer to determine the tumor response rate, toxicity, and overall survival. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed, measurable disease, Zubrod performance status 0 to 1, and no more than 1 prior platinum-based treatment were eligible. Patients were stratified by platinum-sensitivity status: sensitive (progression >90 days after platinum) or refractory (progression during or ≤90 days after platinum). Patients were treated with sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day continuously on a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: Of 89 patients registered, 82 were evaluable for toxicity assessment, and 83 were evaluable for response. There were four partial responses seen among the 38 patients in the platinum-sensitive stratum, for an estimated response rate of 11% (95% confidence interval: 3-25%), and one partial response among the 45 patients in the platinum-refractory stratum, for an estimated response rate of 2% (95% confidence interval: 0-12%). The median overall survival estimates were 6.7 months (95% confidence interval: 6.1-9.1 months) for the platinum-sensitive stratum and 5.3 months (95% confidence interval: 3.3-7.5 months) in the platinum-refractory stratum. Nineteen patients discontinued treatment because of adverse events or side effects from therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the lack of disease control seen in our trial, further investigation of single-agent sorafenib in the small cell lung cancer population is not recommended. Combination trials of sorafenib and chemotherapy are ongoing.

Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus gemcitabine/irinotecan in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site: a randomized, phase III Sarah Cannon Oncology Research Consortium Trial.

PURPOSE: To compare the results of empiric first-line therapy with paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide (PCE) versus gemcitabine/irinotecan, both followed by single-agent gefitinib, in patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated carcinoma of unknown primary site were randomized to receive either PCE or gemcitabine/irinotecan. Responding and stable patients continued treatment for 4 to 6 cycles. Patients with no evidence of tumor progression at that time received single-agent gefitinib until tumor progression. The trial was designed to detect an improvement in the 2-year survival rate from 20% to 30%. RESULTS: Between September 2003 and July 2008, 198 patients entered this multicenter, community-based trial. Because of slow accrual, the trial was stopped short of its target accrual of 320 patients. Clinical characteristics were comparable for patients receiving PCE (N = 93) and gemcitabine/irinotecan (N = 105). PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan produced similar 2-year survival (15% vs. 18%), median survival (7.4 months vs. 8.5 months), median progression-free survival (3.3 months vs. 5.3 months), and response rate (18% vs. 18%). Grade 3/4 neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, anemia, febrile neutropenia, and red blood cells transfusions were more common with PCE; diarrhea was more common with gemcitabine/irinotecan. The median duration of gefitinib maintenance was 3 months, suggesting no role as a maintenance therapy in this setting. DISCUSSION: The PCE and gemcitabine/irinotecan regimens have comparable efficacy in the first-line treatment of patients with carcinoma of unknown primary site. Gemcitabine/irinotecan is the preferable regimen, due to its favorable toxicity profile. However, the moderate efficacy of both regimens underscores the need for novel treatment approaches in this patient population.