A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of testosterone for treatment of postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgias: Alliance study A221102.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of testosterone supplementation for improving aromatase inhibitor musculoskeletal symptoms (AIMSS). METHODS: Postmenopausal women experiencing moderate-to-severe arthralgias while taking adjuvant aromatase inhibitors for breast cancer were enrolled in this trial. Initially, patients were randomly allocated to receive either a subcutaneous testosterone pellet versus a placebo pellet. Due to slow accrual, the protocol was modified such that additional participants were randomized to receive either a topical testosterone gel or a placebo gel. Changes in patient-reported joint pain were compared between patients receiving testosterone and those receiving placebo using a two-sample t test. Changes in hot flashes and other vasomotor symptoms were also analyzed. Further analyses were conducted to evaluate whether 27 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 14 genes previously associated with AIMSS were associated with testosterone supplementation benefit. RESULTS: While 64% of patients reported an improvement in joint pain at 3 months, there were no significant differences in average pain or joint stiffness at 3 or 6 months between testosterone and placebo arms. Patients receiving testosterone did report improvements in strength, lack of energy, urinary frequency, and stress incontinence (p < 0.05). The subset of patients receiving subcutaneous testosterone also experienced improvements in hot flashes and mood swings. An inherited variant (rs7984870 CC genotype) in TNFSF11 was more likely to be associated with improvements in hot flashes in patients receiving testosterone. CONCLUSION: The doses of testosterone supplementation used in this study did not significantly improve AIMSS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01573442.

Remarks on the design and analyses of longitudinal studies for cancer patients with anorexia and weight loss.

Longitudinal data serve an important role in understanding the cancer anorexia weight loss syndrome and in testing interventions to palliative and treat patients who develop this syndrome. The element of time and the interrelatedness of data points define longitudinal data and add to the richness of this type of data. However, longitudinal data can also give rise to non-random, missing data that can lead to flawed conclusions. This paper discusses these issues and suggests practical considerations for design and analysis of longitudinal cancer anorexia weight loss studies.

Physician-Reported Experience and Understanding of Adverse Event Attribution in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: To report the results of a survey conducted among Mayo Clinic medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists to better understand the current practice of determining whether an adverse event that a patient experience in a clinical trial is related to the drug under investigation, a process commonly known as attribution, as well as to formulate recommendations for an improved system. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An electronic survey was developed and conducted (from August 2 through 29, 2017) among 165 medical oncologists, hematologists, and cancer prevention specialists at the 3 Mayo Clinic sites: Rochester, Minnesota; Scottsdale, Arizona; and Jacksonville, Florida. The survey included 21 items that queried clinicians about their clinical practice and trial experience, their training and process in adverse event attribution assignment, and their recommendations for improving the current attribution system. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent (61 of 165) of physicians responded to the survey. The median number of years in clinical practice was 15 (range, 1-64) and that of clinical trial experience 12. Eighty-nine percent (54 of 61) had served as a trial principal investigator. Only 15% (9 of 60) of responders reported having received any formal attribution training. Eighty percent (48 of 60) were confident about their ability to assign attribution. Seventy-five percent (45 of 60) consulted their colleagues or study chair when assigning attribution. Sixty-seven percent (40 of 60) recommended formal training to improve attribution accuracy. CONCLUSION: Very few clinical trialists in our survey received any formal training for adverse event attribution, yet most identified formal training as effective means to improve attribution accuracy. These data underscore an unmet need of formal adverse event attribution training among clinical trialists.