Feasibility of Large-Scale Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Remote Monitoring System for Patients on Active Treatment at a Community Cancer Center.

PURPOSE: The use of digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The evidence of benefit has been largely derived from research studies. The feasibility of adopting this technology in the real-world setting is unknown. METHODS: We report on the clinical implementation of a proprietary electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based digital symptom monitoring platform at the Highlands Oncology Group practice, a large community oncology practice. We present here our experience with patient enrollment, engagement, and retention; reasons for discontinued use; proportion of reports generating alerts and containing severe symptoms; and the responses to alerts including nursing telephone consultations and urgent office visits. RESULTS: Over an approximately 17-month period, 923 patients were successfully enrolled. Patients enrolled from June 20, 2020, through November 30, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2022. Retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 94%, 88%, 73%, and 67%, respectively, with greater retention at 12 months in patients age 65 years or older. Few patients discontinued use for reasons related to the platform (n = 47; 5%). Of the 25,311 ePRO reports submitted, 49% (n = 12,334) exceeded the predefined alert thresholds and 8% (n = 1,920) included severe symptoms. The nursing team responded within 24 hours by telephone to 31.2% (n = 3,910) of all reports with alerts. Of reports with severe symptoms, 72.7% (n = 1,395) received a call. Only 6.4% (n = 249) of phone calls required an office evaluation within 72 hours of the report. CONCLUSION: This single-center experience indicates that an ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring platform can be effectively implemented at a large scale with a high level of long-term patient engagement. Most reports could be effectively resolved by nurses, and physician intervention was infrequently required.

A Phase Ib/II Study of the JAK1 Inhibitor, Itacitinib, plus nab-Paclitaxel and Gemcitabine in Advanced Solid Tumors.

LESSONS LEARNED: Itacitinib in combination with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with clinical activity in patients with advanced solid tumors including pancreatic cancer.The results support future studies of itacitinib as a component of combination regimens with other immunologic and targeted small molecule anticancer agents. BACKGROUND: Cytokine-mediated signaling via JAK/STAT is central to tumor growth, survival, and systemic inflammation, which is associated with cancer cachexia, particularly in pancreatic cancer. Because of their centrality in the pathogenesis of cancer cachexia and progression, JAK isozymes have emerged as promising therapeutic targets. Preclinical studies have demonstrated antiproliferative effects of JAK/STAT pathway inhibition in both in vitro and in vivo models of cancer, including pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This phase Ib/II dose-optimization study assessed itacitinib, a selective JAK1 inhibitor, combined with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine in adults with treatment-naïve advanced/metastatic disease (Part 1) or pancreatic adenocarcinoma (Parts 2/2A; NCT01858883). Starting doses (Part 1) were itacitinib 400 mg, nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2, and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2. Additional dose levels incorporated were granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, de-escalations of itacitinib to 300 mg once daily (QD), nab-paclitaxel to 100 mg/m2, and gemcitabine to 750 mg/m2. RESULTS: Among 55 patients in Part 1, 6 developed seven hematologic dose-limiting toxicities (Cycle 1). Itacitinib 300 mg plus nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 was tolerated and expanded in Part 2. Treatment discontinuation and grade 3/4 neutropenia rates prompted itacitinib de-escalation to 200 mg QD in Part 2A. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue and neutropenia. Partial responses occurred across all itacitinib doses and several tumor types (overall response rate, 24%). CONCLUSION: Itacitinib plus chemotherapy demonstrated acceptable safety and clinical activity in patients with advanced solid tumors including pancreatic cancers. This study was terminated early (sponsor's decision) based on negative phase III results for a JAK1/2 inhibitor in previously treated advanced pancreatic cancer.

A Phase Ib, open-label, dose-finding study of alpelisib in combination with paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) pathway activation is associated with resistance to paclitaxel in solid tumors. We assessed the safety and activity of alpelisib, an oral, selective PI3K p110α inhibitor, plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid tumors. This Phase Ib, multicenter, open-label, dose-finding study, with a planned dose-expansion phase of alpelisib once daily (QD) plus fixed-dose paclitaxel, recruited patients with advanced solid tumors. For the dose-finding phase, the primary objective was determination of maximum tolerated and/or recommended Phase II dose of alpelisib plus paclitaxel, and the secondary objectives included the assessment of safety for this combination. From March 2014 to August 2016, 19 patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with alpelisib QD (300 mg, n=6; 250 mg, n=4; 150 mg, n=9) plus paclitaxel (80 mg/m2, per standard of care). During dose finding, five of 12 (41.7%) evaluable patients for MTD determination experienced dose-limiting toxicities: alpelisib 300 mg, Grade 2 hyperglycemia (n=1); alpelisib 250 mg, Grade 2 hyperglycemia (n=1), Grade 4 hyperglycemia and Grade 3 acute kidney injury (n=1); and alpelisib 150 mg, Grade 2 hyperglycemia (n=1) and Grade 4 leukopenia (n=1). The MTD of alpelisib when administered with paclitaxel was 150 mg QD. Most frequent all-grade AEs were diarrhea (73.7%; Grade 3/4 10.5%) and hyperglycemia (57.9%; Grade 3/4 31.6%). The planned dose-expansion phase was not initiated. Alpelisib plus paclitaxel has a challenging safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors. This study was closed following the completion of the dose-finding phase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02051751.

First-line ribociclib plus letrozole in postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- advanced breast cancer: Tumor response and pain reduction in the phase 3 MONALEESA-2 trial.

PURPOSE: The phase 3 MONALEESA-2 study demonstrated that addition of ribociclib (RIB) to letrozole (LET) significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients (pts) with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Here, we evaluated duration of response (DoR), tumor shrinkage, PFS by treatment-free interval (TFI), and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: Postmenopausal women (N = 668) with HR+ , HER2- ABC and no prior systemic therapy for ABC were randomized to RIB (600 mg/day; 3 weeks on/1 week off) plus LET (2.5 mg/day; continuous) or placebo (PBO) plus LET. Primary end point was PFS; HRQoL was the secondary end point; DoR was exploratory end point and PFS by TFI was post hoc analysis. RESULTS: Of 501 pts with measurable disease and confirmed complete or partial response, median DoR was 26.7 months (95% CI, 24.0-NR) in the RIB arm versus 18.6 months (95% CI, 14.8-23.1) in the PBO arm. At 8 weeks, more pts in the RIB arm (32%) versus the PBO arm (17%) experienced best percentage change ≥ 60%. The average pain reduction was greater in the RIB arm (26%) versus the PBO arm (15%). PFS benefit was seen with RIB vs PBO, irrespective of TFI. CONCLUSION: RIB plus LET versus PBO plus LET is associated with earlier and more durable tumor response, greater degree of tumor shrinkage and pain reduction, and PFS benefit irrespective of TFI. These data further support RIB plus LET as a first-line treatment option for postmenopausal women with HR+ , HER2- ABC.

PointBreak: a randomized phase III study of pemetrexed plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance pemetrexed and bevacizumab versus paclitaxel plus carboplatin and bevacizumab followed by maintenance bevacizumab in patients with stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: PointBreak (A Study of Pemetrexed, Carboplatin and Bevacizumab in Patients With Nonsquamous Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer) compared the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed (Pem) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (PemCBev) with paclitaxel (Pac) plus carboplatin (C) plus bevacizumab (Bev) followed by bevacizumab (PacCBev) in patients with advanced nonsquamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated stage IIIB or IV nonsquamous NSCLC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to receive pemetrexed 500 mg/m(2) or paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) combined with carboplatin area under the curve 6 and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks for up to four cycles. Eligible patients received maintenance until disease progression: pemetrexed plus bevacizumab (for the PemCBev group) or bevacizumab (for the PacCBev group). The primary end point of this superiority study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Patients were randomly assigned to PemCBev (n = 472) or PacCBev (n = 467). For PemCBev versus PacCBev, OS hazard ratio (HR) was 1.00 (median OS, 12.6 v 13.4 months; P = .949); progression-free survival (PFS) HR was 0.83 (median PFS, 6.0 v 5.6 months; P = .012); overall response rate was 34.1% versus 33.0%; and disease control rate was 65.9% versus 69.8%. Significantly more study drug-related grade 3 or 4 anemia (14.5% v 2.7%), thrombocytopenia (23.3% v 5.6%), and fatigue (10.9% v 5.0%) occurred with PemCBev; significantly more grade 3 or 4 neutropenia (40.6% v 25.8%), febrile neutropenia (4.1% v 1.4%), sensory neuropathy (4.1% v 0%), and alopecia (grade 1 or 2; 36.8% v 6.6%) occurred with PacCBev. CONCLUSION: OS did not improve with the PemCBev regimen compared with the PacCBev regimen, although PFS was significantly improved with PemCBev. Toxicity profiles differed; both regimens demonstrated tolerability.

Long-term management of a patient with well-differentiated pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma: a case report.

Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors (NET) are rare, and very few published reports have described the long-term treatment of patients with this disease. Current treatment options for patients with metastatic well-differentiated pulmonary NET are limited. This case report details the long-term treatment of a 62-year-old female patient with well-differentiated pulmonary NET and multiple liver metastases. The heavily pretreated patient achieved radiographic stability in measurable disease, improvement in nonmeasurable disease, and symptomatic improvement over 3 years while receiving the combination of everolimus and octreotide long-acting repeatable (LAR). Treatment was well tolerated without mucositis, rash, or pneumonitis. This case report suggests that the combination of everolimus and octreotide LAR may be a novel treatment option for heavily pretreated patients with metastatic well-differentiated pulmonary NET, but these findings require further analysis in clinical trials.

Phase II study of gemcitabine and bevacizumab as first-line treatment in taxane-pretreated, HER2-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: In first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer, the best use of the available therapeutic agents is unclear. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of combined therapy with bevacizumab and gemcitabine. PATIENTS: Women who were to undergo first-line treatment for locoregionally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were eligible. Patients must have received a taxane-containing regimen in the neoadjuvant and/or adjuvant setting with a ≥ 12-month disease-free interval. METHODS: This was a single-arm, phase II trial. On day 1 of each 14-day cycle, patients received gemcitabine (2500 mg/m(2)) followed by bevacizumab (10 mg/kg). Patients were treated until complete response, progressive disease (PD), or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Fifty-two women were enrolled and treated. The median PFS was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-7.6), the 1-year overall survival rate was 68.7% (95% CI, 54.1%-79.5%), and the response rate was 21.4% (95% CI, 10.3%-36.8%). The clinical benefit rate was 35.7%. The median PFS in the triple-negative (n = 19) and non-triple-negative (n = 33) subsets was 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.7-11.7) and 4.9 months (95% CI, 3.4-8.1), respectively. The most common (all grades) drug-related adverse events (AEs) were nausea (51.9%), fatigue (46.2%), decreased appetite (25.0%), and anemia (25.0%). The most common grade 3 or grade 4 drug-related AEs were neutropenia (13.5%), leukopenia (11.5%), and hypertension (7.7%). CONCLUSION: Although the gemcitabine-bevacizumab doublet appears active, the median PFS was lower than expected. There were no unexpected safety signals at this dose and schedule of this combination.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel and bevacizumab with and without gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel improved progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We examined the efficacy and safety of adding gemcitabine to paclitaxel/bevacizumab (PB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase II trial, women with locally advanced or MBC were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) (days 1, 8, 15) and bevacizumab 10 mg/kg (days 1, 15) with or without gemcitabine 1500 mg/m(2) (days 1, 15) in 28-day cycles. Patients with prior cytotoxic therapy for MBC were ineligible. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR); secondary endpoints were PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients received PB, and 93 received paclitaxel/bevacizumab/gemcitabine (PB+G). The ORRs were 48.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38.5%-59.5%) and 58.7% (95% CI, 47.9%-68.9%; P = .117) with PB and PB+G, respectively. The median PFS was 8.8 months (95% CI, 8.1-10.4 months) and 11.3 months (95% CI, 9.7-12.7 months; P = .247; hazard ratio, 0.82); the median OS was 25.0 months (95% CI, 18.8-not assessable [N/A] months) and 24.3 months (95% CI, 20.3-N/A months; P = .475; hazard ratio, 0.84), with PB and PB+G, respectively. There was significantly more grade 3-4 neutropenia (P = .001) and dyspnea (P = .014) with PB+G. Patients treated with PB experienced more improvement in total FACT-B (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast) (P = .021), FACT-B Social/Family Well-being (P = .041), and Breast Cancer-Additional Concerns (P = .008) scores than patients treated with PB+G. CONCLUSION: The addition of gemcitabine to PB was not associated with a statistically significant improvement in ORR. Treatment with PB+G increased the incidence of severe neutropenia and dyspnea, although the regimen generally was well tolerated.

Randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan/cisplatin with etoposide/cisplatin in patients with previously untreated extensive-stage disease small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: Etoposide and cisplatin (EP) has been a standard treatment for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). An earlier phase III trial reported improved survival for patients receiving irinotecan plus cisplatin (IP) versus EP. Our trial was designed to determine if a modified weekly regimen of IP would provide superior survival with less toxicity than EP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary objective was to compare overall survival in extensive-disease SCLC patients randomly assigned to receive IP (n = 221) or EP (n = 110). Patients were randomly assigned in 2:1 ratio to cisplatin 30 mg/m2 intravenously (IV) + irinotecan 65 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, or cisplatin 60 mg/m2 IV on day 1, and etoposide 120 mg/m2 IV on days 1 to 3 every 21 days for at least four cycles, until progressive disease, or until intolerable toxicity resulted. RESULTS: Selected grade 3/4 toxicities for IP/EP were: neutropenia (36.2% v 86.5%; P < .01), febrile neutropenia (3.7% v 10.4%; P = .06), anemia (4.8% v 11.5%; P = .02), thrombocytopenia (4.3% v 19.2%; P < .01), vomiting (12.5% v 3.8%; P = .04), and diarrhea (21.3% v 0%; P < .01). There was no significant difference in response rates (48% v 43.6%), median time to progression (4.1 v 4.6 months), or overall survival (median survival time, 9.3 months v 10.2 months; P = .74). CONCLUSION: Treatment with this dose and schedule of IP did not result in improved survival when compared with EP. Fewer patients receiving IP had grade 3/4 anemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, and febrile neutropenia compared with patients receiving EP, but more had grade 3/4 diarrhea and vomiting.