Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 12 Trials.

PURPOSE: A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Is local review of positron emission tomography scans sufficient in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma clinical trials? A CALGB 50303 analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quantitative methods of Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET) interpretation, including the percent change in FDG uptake from baseline (ΔSUV), are under investigation in lymphoma to overcome challenges associated with visual scoring systems (VSS) such as the Deauville 5-point scale (5-PS). METHODS: In CALGB 50303, patients with DLBCL received frontline R-CHOP or DA-EPOCH-R, and although there were no significant associations between interim PET responses assessed centrally after cycle 2 (iPET) using 5-PS with progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), there were significant associations between central determinations of iPET ∆SUV with PFS/OS. In this patient cohort, we retrospectively compared local vs central iPET readings and evaluated associations between local imaging data and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Agreement between local and central review was moderate (kappa = 0.53) for VSS and high (kappa = 0.81) for ∆SUV categories (<66% vs. ≥66%). ∆SUV ≥66% at iPET was significantly associated with PFS (p = 0.03) and OS (p = 0.002), but VSS was not. Associations with PFS/OS when applying local review vs central review were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that local PET interpretation for response determination may be acceptable in clinical trials. Our findings also highlight limitations of VSS and call for incorporation of more objective measures of response assessment in clinical trials.

Relevance of Bone Marrow Biopsies for Response Assessment in US National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network Follicular Lymphoma Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Bone marrow biopsies (BMB) are performed before/after therapy to confirm complete response (CR) in patients with lymphoma on clinical trials. We sought to establish whether BMB add value in assessing response or predict progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) outcomes in follicular lymphoma (FL) subjects in a large, multicenter, multitrial cohort. METHODS: Data were pooled from seven trials of 580 subjects with previously untreated FL through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) and SWOG Cancer Research Network (SWOG) completing enrollment from 2008 to 2016. RESULTS: Only 5/580 (0.9%) had positive baseline BMB, CR on imaging, and subsequent positive BMB (P < .0001). Therefore, BMB were irrelevant to response in 99% of subjects. A sensitivity analysis of 385 FL subjects treated on an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study was included. In the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group cohort, 5/385 (1.3%) had BMB that affected response assessment. Since some subjects do not undergo confirmatory BMB, we performed a landmark survival analysis from first radiologic CR with data from 580 subjects from Alliance and SWOG. Of subjects with CR on imaging (n = 187), PFS and OS were not significantly different among those with negative BMB to confirm CR (n = 47) versus those without repeat BMB (n = 140; PFS: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.10, 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.94, log-rank P = .686; OS: hazard ratio, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.23 to 1.53, log-rank P = .276). CONCLUSION: We conclude that BMB add little value to response assessment in subjects with FL treated on clinical trials and we recommend eliminating BMB from clinical trial requirements. BMB should also be removed from diagnostic guidelines for FL except in scenarios in which it may change management including confirmation of limited stage and assessment of cytopenias. This would reduce cost, patient discomfort, resource utilization, and potentially remove a barrier to trial enrollment.

Nivolumab in patients with relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma: modest activity and cases of hyperprogression.

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), a heterogeneous group of mature aggressive non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, carry a worse prognosis for most subtypes when compared with their B-cell counterparts. Despite recent approval of newer therapies, the outlook for patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) PTCL remains poor and new treatment strategies are clearly needed. Targeting the profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in PTCL is one such approach. To determine whether immune checkpoint blockade targeting program death receptor 1 would be effective in PTCL, we conducted an investigator-initiated phase 2 prospective study of single-agent nivolumab for RR PTCL. We report here results of the pre-specified interim analysis. METHODS: The primary objective was to assess the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability of nivolumab in PTCL and to assess progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) was defined as time-to-treatment failure of less than or equal to one month from initiation of therapy. RESULTS: Twelve patients who received at least one cycle of nivolumab were included in this interim analysis. Half (6/12) of the patients had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3/12 had PTCL, not otherwise specified. Most (11/12) were advanced stage, had extranodal disease (97.1%) and had received a prior autologous stem cell transplant (50%). The ORR was 33% (95% CI: 12.3 to 63.7%) with two complete response and two partial response. The median PFS was however short at 2.7 months (95% CI: 1.5 to NE); and the median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI: 3.4 to NE). The median DOR was also short at 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.9 to NE). HPD occurred in four patients, three of whom had AITL. Observed grade 3 and higher adverse events (AEs) were non-hematologic in 5/12 (42%), while hematologic AEs were seen in 3/12 (25%). CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab had modest clinical activity in R/R PTCL. Due to a high number of hyperprogression and short DOR, a decision was made to halt the study. These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03075553.

PET2 response associated with survival in newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma: results of two independent prospective cohorts.

Studies evaluating Positron Emission Tomography scan after 2 cycles of chemotherapy (PET2) in newly diagnosed diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) are heterogeneous in patient characteristics, treatments and have conflicting results. Here we report association of PET2 with outcomes in two large independent prospective cohorts of newly diagnosed DLBCL pts treated with two RCHOP-based regimens. The discovery cohort consisted of pts enrolled in single arm phase 2 MC078E study of lenalidomide with RCHOP (R2CHOP). The validation cohort consisted of RCHOP-treated pts from the Molecular Epidemiology Resource (MER) cohort. Pts who received 3-6 cycles of therapy and had PET2 were included in the study. Patients who progressed on PET2 were excluded. Revised response criteria 2007 were used to define PET2 response PET2 positive (PET2 + ) pts had inferior EFS [24-month EFS 45.5% vs 87.9%, HR 4.0, CI95 (2.1-7.9), p < 0.0001) with a trend towards lower OS [24-months OS 77% vs 94.8%, HR 2.0, CI95 (0.9-4.8), P = 0.1] than PET2 negative (PET2-) pts in MC078E cohort. PET2 + pts had an inferior EFS (24 month EFS 48.7% vs 81.6%, HR 2.9, CI95 2.0-4.2, p < 0.0001) and OS (24-month OS 68.6% vs 88.1%, HR 2.3, CI95: 1.5-3.5, p < 0.0001) in the MER cohort. These results were consistent regardless of age, sex and in the subgroup of advanced stage and high-risk international prognostic index (IPI). For MER, PET2 + pts also had higher odds of positive end of treatment PET (OR: 17.3 (CI95 7.9-37.7), p < 0.001). PET2 is an early predictor DLBCL pts at high risk of progression and death in two independent prospective cohorts. PET2-guided risk-adapted strategies may improve outcomes, and should be explored in clinical trials.

Prognostic and Predictive Impact of Primary Tumor Sidedness for Previously Untreated Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned subgroup analyses from several studies have suggested primary tumor sidedness (PTS) as a potential prognostic and predictive parameter in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to investigate the impact of PTS on outcomes of mCRC patients. METHODS: PTS data of 9277 mCRC patients from 12 first-line randomized trials in the ARCAD database were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox models adjusting for age, sex, performance status, prior radiation/chemotherapy, and stratified by treatment arm. Predictive value was tested by interaction term between PTS and treatment (cetuximab plus chemotherapy vs chemotherapy alone). All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Compared with right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 2421, 26.1%), left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer patients (n = 6856, 73.9%) had better OS (median = 21.6 vs 15.9 months; adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj] = 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.67 to 0.76; P < .001) and PFS (median = 8.6 vs 7.5 months; HRadj = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.84; P < .001). Interaction between PTS and KRAS mutation was statistically significant (Pinteraction < .001); left-sidedness was associated with better prognosis among KRAS wild-type (WT) (OS HRadj = 0.59, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.66; PFS HRadj =0.68, 95% CI = 0.61 to 0.75) but not among KRAS mutated tumors. Among KRAS-WT tumors, survival benefit from anti-EGFR was confirmed for left-sidedness (OS HRadj = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.75 to 0.97; P = .01; PFS HRadj = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.67 to 0.88; P < .001) but not for right-sidedness. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of PTS is restricted to the KRAS-WT population. PTS is predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy, with a statistically significant improvement of survival for left-sidedness mCRC patients. These results suggest treatment choice in mCRC should be based on both PTS and KRAS status.

Threshold Change in CEA as a Predictor of Non-Progression to First-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients With Elevated CEA.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are used in conjunction with imaging to monitor response to systemic therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We sought to identify a threshold for CEA change from baseline to predict progressive disease (PD) in mCRC patients receiving first-line therapy. METHODS: Patients from trials collected in the ARCAD database were included if baseline CEA was at least 10 ng/mL and repeat CEA was available within 14 days of first restaging scan. Optimal cutoffs for CEA change were identified by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Prediction performance of cutoffs was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value. Analyses were conducted by treatment class: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, and chemotherapy with anti-EGFR antibody. RESULTS: A total of 2643 mCRC patients treated with systemic therapy were included. Median percent change of CEA from baseline to first restaging for patients with complete response, partial response, or stable disease (non-PD) and PD was -53.1% and +23.6% for chemotherapy alone (n = 957) and -71.7% and -45.3% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody (n = 1355). The optimal area under the curve cutoff for differentiating PD from non-PD on first restaging was -7.5% for chemotherapy alone and -62.0% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody; chemotherapy alone, adjusted odds ratio = 6.51 (95% CI = 3.31 to 12.83, P < .001), chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, adjusted odds ratio = 3.45 (95% CI = 1.93 to 6.18, P < .001). A 99% negative predictive value clinical cutoff for prediction of non-PD would avoid CT scan at first restaging in 21.0% of chemotherapy alone and 16.2% of chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody-treated patients. Among patients with stable disease on first restaging, those with decreased CEA from baseline had statistically significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Change in CEA from baseline to first restaging can accurately predict non-progression and correlates with long-term outcomes in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy.

N-Acetylcysteine Rinse for Thick Secretion and Mucositis of Head and Neck Chemoradiotherapy (Alliance MC13C2): A Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether N-acetylcysteine rinse was safe and could improve thickened secretions and dry mouth during and after radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We designed a prospective pilot double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial (Alliance MC13C2). Adult patients (age ≥18 years) were enrolled if they underwent chemoradiotherapy (≥60 Gy). Patients initiated testing rinse within 3 days of starting radiotherapy. With swish-and-spit, they received 10% N-acetylcysteine (2500 mg daily) or placebo rinse solution 5 times daily during radiotherapy and 2 weeks postradiotherapy. The primary aim was to evaluate N-acetylcysteine in improvement of saliva viscosity with the Groningen Radiotherapy-Induced Xerostomia questionnaire. Secondary aims included evaluating xerostomia improvement by the same questionnaire and with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Head and Neck-35 Questions survey and adverse-event profiles. The type I error rate was 20%. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy were enrolled. Baseline characteristics were balanced for placebo (n=17) and N-acetylcysteine (n=15). N-acetylcysteine was better for improving sticky saliva (area under curve, P=.12). Scores of multiple secondary end points favored N-acetylcysteine, including sticky saliva daytime (P=.04), daytime and total xerostomia (both P=.02), pain (P=.18), and trouble with social eating (P=.15). Repeated measures models confirmed the findings. Taste was a major dissatisifer for N-acetylcysteine rinse; however, both testing rinses were safe and well tolerated overall. CONCLUSION: Our pilot data showed that N-acetylcysteine rinse was safe and provided strong evidence of potential efficacy for improving thickened saliva and xerostomia by patient-reported outcome. A confirmatory phase 3 trial is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02123511.

Dose-Adjusted EPOCH-R Compared With R-CHOP as Frontline Therapy for Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma: Clinical Outcomes of the Phase III Intergroup Trial Alliance/CALGB 50303.

PURPOSE: Alliance/CALGB 50303 (NCT00118209), an intergroup, phase III study, compared dose-adjusted etoposide, prednisone, vincristine, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and rituximab (DA-EPOCH-R) with standard rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP) as frontline therapy for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received six cycles of DA-EPOCH-R or R-CHOP. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary clinical objectives included response rate, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Between 2005 and 2013, 524 patients were registered; 491 eligible patients were included in the final analysis. Most patients (74%) had stage III or IV disease; International Prognostic Index (IPI) risk groups included 26% IPI 0 to 1, 37% IPI 2, 25% IPI 3, and 12% IPI 4 to 5. At a median follow-up of 5 years, PFS was not statistically different between the arms (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.27; P = .65), with a 2-year PFS rate of 78.9% (95% CI, 73.8% to 84.2%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 75.5% (95% CI, 70.2% to 81.1%) for R-CHOP. OS was not different (hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.59; P = .64), with a 2-year OS rate of 86.5% (95% CI, 82.3% to 91%) for DA-EPOCH-R and 85.7% (95% CI, 81.4% to 90.2%) for R-CHOP. Grade 3 and 4 adverse events were more common (P < .001) in the DA-EPOCH-R arm than the R-CHOP arm, including infection (16.9% v 10.7%, respectively), febrile neutropenia (35.0% v 17.7%, respectively), mucositis (8.4% v 2.1%, respectively), and neuropathy (18.6% v 3.3%, respectively). Five treatment-related deaths (2.1%) occurred in each arm. CONCLUSION: In the 50303 study population, the more intensive, infusional DA-EPOCH-R was more toxic and did not improve PFS or OS compared with R-CHOP. The more favorable results with R-CHOP compared with historical controls suggest a potential patient selection bias and may preclude generalizability of results to specific risk subgroups.

Daily Lisinopril vs Placebo for Prevention of Chemoradiation-Induced Pulmonary Distress in Patients With Lung Cancer (Alliance MC1221): A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation (CRT) is an integral treatment modality for patients with locally advanced lung cancer. It has been hypothesized that current use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor during CRT may be protective for treatment-related lung damage and pneumonitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Study-eligible patients receiving curative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) were randomly assigned to 20 mg of lisinopril or placebo once daily during and up to 3 months after RT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was adverse event profiling. Multiple patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, including the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Questionnaire, were applied with a symptom experience questionnaire. Exploratory comparative statistics were used to detect differences between arms with χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis testing. RESULTS: Five institutions enrolled 23 patients. However, accrual was less than expected. Eleven and 12 patients were in the placebo and lisinopril arms, respectively (mean age, 63.5 years; male, 62%). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Eighteen patients (86%) were former or current smokers. The primary endpoint was met; neither arm had grade 3 or higher hypotension, acute kidney injury, allergic reaction (medication-induced cough), or anaphylaxis (medication-related angioedema). Few PRO measures suggested that compared with the placebo arm, patients receiving lisinopril had less cough, less shortness of breath, fewer symptoms from lung cancer, less dyspnea with both walking and climbing stairs, and better overall quality of life (for all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although underpowered because of low accrual, our results suggest that there was a clinical signal for safety-and possibly beneficial by limited PRO measures-in concurrently administering lisinopril during thoracic CRT to mitigate or prevent RT-induced pulmonary distress. Our results showed that a definitive, larger-scale, randomized phase 3 trial is needed in the future.

Clinicopathological differences and survival outcomes with first-line therapy in patients with left-sided colon cancer and rectal cancer: Pooled analysis of 2879 patients from AGITG (MAX), COIN, FOCUS2, OPUS, CRYSTAL and COIN-B trials in the ARCAD database.

PURPOSE: Patients with left-sided colon tumours have better survival and respond differently to biologics compared with patients with right-sided tumours. Left-sided colon tumours and rectal cancers are often grouped together. Herein, we examined the clinicopathological differences and outcomes between left-sided colon and rectal cancers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from 2879 metastatic colorectal cancer patients enrolled on six first-line clinical trials during 2004-2010 were pooled. Patients were included if the primary tumour origin was clearly defined. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared in the two groups after adjusting for patient and tumour characteristics, metastatic sites and the first-line regimen. RESULTS: In total, 1374 patients with metastatic left-sided colon cancer and 1505 patients with metastatic rectal cancers were evaluated. Left-sided colon cancer patients were more likely to be female (40.1% versus 32.6%; P < 0.0001) and older (31.0% ≥ 70 years versus 25.8%; P = 0.0033) compared with rectal cancers patients. Patients with left-sided colon cancer had higher rates of liver metastases (80.9% versus 72.3%, P < 0.0001) but lower rates of lung metastases (34.2% versus 53.8%, P < 0.0001). KRAS mutations were slightly less frequent among left-sided tumours (34.8% versus 40.5%; P = 0.0103). Patients with left-sided tumours had approximately similar PFS (median 7.4 versus 6.9 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.03; P = 0.1998) and OS (median 17.4 versus 16.6 months; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91-1.07; P = 0.7597) compared with rectal cancer patients. CONCLUSION: The site of tumour origin within the left side was not prognostic of outcomes. Moreover, neither bevacizumab nor cetuximab impacted, differently, the findings of the comparisons in outcomes between patients with left-sided colon tumours or rectal cancers.

Phase 1 study of pomalidomide and dexamethasone for relapsed/refractory primary CNS or vitreoretinal lymphoma.

The combination of pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) was evaluated for relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of POM as the primary objective, and overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety profile as secondary objectives. A cohorts-of-3 study design was used with a dose-escalation schedule consisting of POM (3, 5, 7, or 10 mg) orally daily for 21 days every 28 days and DEX 40 mg orally every week. After 2 cycles, POM was continued alone until disease progression, intolerance, or subject withdrawal. Following MTD determination, the MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-five of 29 patients with the median of 3 prior treatments were eligible for assessment as per international PCNSL collaborative group criteria. The MTD of POM was 5 mg daily for 21 days every 28 days. Whole-study ORR was 48% (12 of 25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8%, 68.7%) with 6 complete response (CR), 2 complete response, unconfirmed (CRu), and 4 partial response (PR). MTD cohort ORR was 50% (8 of 16; 95% CI, 24.7%, 75.4%) with 5 CR, 1 CRu, and 2 PR. Median PFS was 5.3 months (whole study) and 9 months (for responders). One patient had pseudoprogression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (21%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included lung infection (12%), sepsis (4%), fatigue (8%), syncope (4%), dyspnea (4%), hypoxia (4%), respiratory failure (8%), and rash (4%). POM/DEX treatment is feasible with significant therapeutic activity against relapsed/refractory PCNSL and PVRL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01722305.

CNS relapse in patients with DLBCL treated with lenalidomide plus R-CHOP (R2CHOP): analysis from two phase 2 studies.

Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is a devastating event occurring in ~ 5% of patients treated with R-CHOP. We hypothesized that adding lenalidomide to R-CHOP (R2CHOP) may decrease the risk of CNS relapse. We analyzed records for patients with DLBCL from two R2CHOP trials. We assessed variables pertinent to the CNS-International Prognostic Index (CNS-IPI) scoring system and classified patients into groups of low, intermediate, and high risk of CNS relapse. The 2-year CNS relapse rate for each risk group was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with reported rates in cohorts treated with contemporary chemoimmunotherapy. A total of 136 patients were included. Mean age was 65 and median follow-up was 48.2 months. 10.3, 71.3, and 18.4% of patients were classified into low, intermediate, and high-risk CNS-IPI groups, respectively. Only one of 136 patients developed CNS relapse, corresponding to an incidence of 0.7% and an estimated 2-year CNS relapse rate of 0.9% for the entire R2CHOP cohort. The estimated 2-year CNS relapse rates for the low, intermediate, and high-risk groups were 0, 0, and 5.0%, respectively. Frontline therapy with R2CHOP in patients with DLBCL is associated with a lower-than-expected rate of CNS relapse.

Long-term follow-up of chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab, oxaliplatin, cytosine arabinoside, dexamethasone (ROAD) in patients with relapsed CD20+ B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma: Results of a study of the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center Research Consortium (MCCRC) MC0485 now known as academic and community cancer research united (ACCRU).

Patients with relapsed aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) are often treated with platinum-based chemoimmunotherapy regimens in preparation for autologous stem cell transplant. We sought to reduce toxicity and maintain efficacy by using oxaliplatin with rituximab, cytarabine and dexamethasone (ROAD) in a phase II clinical trial in patients who had relapsed after one prior regimen. ROAD was delivered q21 days and consisted of rituximab 375 mg/m2 IV weekly x 4 doses (cycle 1 only); dexamethasone 40 mg PO/IV d2 - 5; oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 IV day 2; cytarabine 2000 mg/m2 IV × two doses on days 2 to 3; and pegfilgrastim 6 mg SC on day 4. Forty-five eligible patients were accrued between 2006 and 2008. Patient characteristics were a median age of 69 years; 96% had received prior rituximab; 53% were within one year of diagnosis. The median number of cycles received was 2 (range, 1-6). Forty-four % received ROAD as an outpatient. The overall response rate was 71% with 27% (12/45) CR and 44% (20/45) PR. Forty-four % (20/45) of all patients and 69% (18/26) of patients whom responded after 2 cycles proceeded to transplant. Median overall survival was 26 mos (95% CI: 7.3 mos-not reached) and median progression-free survival was 11 mos (95% CI: 6-104 mos). There was no grade 3/4 nephrotoxicity; the rate of grade 3/4 neuropathy was 4%. Forty-two percent of all patients and 69% of patients transplanted remain alive at 5 years. ROAD represents an acceptable salvage therapeutic option for patients with relapsed aggressive NHL.

Patient-reported outcomes questionnaire compliance in Cancer Cooperative Group Trials (Alliance N0992).

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is a focal point for research and policy. Non-compliance with planned questionnaires and missing data can threaten both internal validity and generalizability. This retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the extent of, and characteristics associated with, missing patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Study characteristics, patient characteristics and adverse events, and reasons for non-compliance were compiled from 14 closed Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, or Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium clinical trials. Compliance rates were calculated for each patient using the number of booklets completed while the patient was on trial divided by the number of booklets the patient was expected to complete. Frequency counts and summary statistics were compiled. Logistic regression techniques were employed. RESULTS: The 1640 included patients had a median age of 58 years and were mostly White (90.8%) and female (73.8%). Compliance rates per study ranged from 84.7% to 97.2%. The primary endpoint of overall compliance rate was 93.1%. A total of 1267 patients were compliant. Those non-compliant were slightly older (mean = 58.6 vs 57.5, p = 0.03) and had different types of cancers (p < 0.01). There were no differences in compliance according to tumor status (p = 0.66), clinical stage (p = 0.81), baseline quality of life (p = 0.42 for ≥8 vs <8 and p = 0.12 for ≥6 vs <6), or maximum adverse event grade incidence (p = 0.33 for grade 2+ incidence and p = 0.36 for grade 3+ incidence). Reasons for non-compliance included patient refusal (N = 136), booklet not administered to patient (N = 199), no clinic visit at the scheduled time for booklet completion (N = 40), and at-home-completed booklet not returned (N = 224). Logistic regression indicates gender (p < 0.01), race (p < 0.01), performance score (p = 0.02), dose delay status (p = 0.01), and incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse event (p = 0.03) were correlates of compliance. CONCLUSION: Patient-reported outcomes have successfully been implemented into Alliance and Mayo Clinic trials with high rates of patient compliance. Further improvement in compliance can be made with staff commitment and education. Patients are typically non-compliant only when the task at hand is burdensome, unclear, or logistically challenging. Existing tracking systems used for the other trial outcomes should be utilized to ensure successful capture of patient-reported outcomes.