Rates of laboratory adverse events by course in paediatric leukaemia ascertained with automated electronic health record extraction: a retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events are often misreported in clinical trials, leading to an incomplete understanding of toxicities. We aimed to test automated laboratory adverse event ascertainment and grading (via the ExtractEHR automated package) to assess its scalability and define adverse event rates for children with acute myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. METHODS: For this retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group (COG), we included patients aged 0-22 years treated for acute myeloid leukaemia or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (Atlanta, GA, USA) from Jan 1, 2010, to Nov 1, 2018, at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014, and at the Texas Children's Hospital (Houston, TX, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014. The ExtractEHR automated package acquired, cleaned, and graded laboratory data as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 for 22 commonly evaluated grade 3-4 adverse events (fatal events were not evaluated) with numerically based CTCAE definitions. Descriptive statistics tabulated adverse event frequencies. Adverse events ascertained by ExtractEHR were compared to manually reported adverse events for patients enrolled in two COG trials (AAML1031, NCT01371981; AALL0932, NCT02883049). Analyses were restricted to protocol-defined chemotherapy courses (induction I, induction II, intensification I, intensification II, and intensification III for acute myeloid leukaemia; induction, consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia). FINDINGS: Laboratory adverse event data from 1077 patients (583 from Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 200 from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and 294 from the Texas Children's Hospital) who underwent 4611 courses (549 for acute myeloid leukaemia and 4062 for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) were extracted, processed, and graded. Of the 166 patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 86 (52%) were female, 80 (48%) were male, 96 (58%) were White, and 132 (80%) were non-Hispanic. Of the 911 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 406 (45%) were female, 505 (55%) were male, 596 (65%) were White, and 641 (70%) were non-Hispanic. Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia had the most adverse events during induction I and intensification II. Hypokalaemia (one [17%] of six to 75 [48%] of 156 courses) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased (13 [10%] of 134 to 27 [17%] of 156 courses) were the most prevalent non-haematological adverse events in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, as identified by ExtractEHR. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia had the greatest number of adverse events during induction and maintenance (eight adverse events with prevalence ≥10%; induction and maintenance: anaemia, platelet count decreased, white blood cell count decreased, neutrophil count decreased, lymphocyte count decreased, ALT increased, and hypocalcaemia; induction: hypokalaemia; maintenance: aspartate aminotransferase [AST] increased and blood bilirubin increased), as identified by ExtractEHR. 187 (85%) of 220 total comparisons in 22 adverse events in four AAML1031 and six AALL0923 courses were substantially higher with ExtractEHR than COG-reported adverse event rates for adverse events with a prevalence of at least 2%. INTERPRETATION: ExtractEHR is scalable and accurately defines laboratory adverse event rates for paediatric acute leukaemia; moreover, ExtractEHR seems to detect higher rates of laboratory adverse events than those reported in COG trials. These rates can be used for comparisons between therapies and to counsel patients treated on or off trials about the risks of chemotherapy. ExtractEHR-based adverse event ascertainment can improve reporting of laboratory adverse events in clinical trials. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, and Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation.

Accuracy of Adverse Event Ascertainment in Clinical Trials for Pediatric Acute Myeloid Leukemia.

PURPOSE: Reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials is critical to understanding treatment safety, but data on AE accuracy are limited. This study sought to determine the accuracy of AE reporting for pediatric acute myeloid leukemia clinical trials and to test whether an external electronic data source can improve reporting. METHODS: Reported AEs were evaluated on two trials, Children's Oncology Group AAML03P1 and AAML0531 arm B, with identical chemotherapy regimens but with different toxicity reporting requirements. Chart review for 12 AEs for patients enrolled in AAML0531 at 14 hospitals was the gold standard. The sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) of the AAML0531 AE report and AEs detected by review of Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) billing and microbiology data were compared with chart data. RESULTS: Select AE rates from AAML03P1 and AAML0531 arm B differed significantly and correlated with the targeted toxicities of each trial. Chart abstraction was performed on 204 patients (758 courses) on AAML0531. AE report sensitivity was < 50% for eight AEs, but PPV was > 75% for six AEs. AE reports for viridans group streptococcal bacteremia, a targeted toxicity on AAML0531, had a sensitivity of 78.3% and PPV of 98.1%. PHIS billing data had higher sensitivity (> 50% for nine AEs), but lower PPV (< 75% for 10 AEs). Viridans group streptococcal detection using PHIS microbiology data had high sensitivity (92.3%) and PPV (97.3%). CONCLUSION: The current system of AE reporting for cooperative oncology group clinical trials in pediatric acute myeloid leukemia underestimates AE rates. The high sensitivity and PPV of PHIS microbiology data suggest that using external data sources may improve the accuracy of AE reporting.

Meta-analysis of multiple microarray datasets reveals a common gene signature of metastasis in solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Metastasis is the number one cause of cancer deaths. Expression microarrays have been widely used to study metastasis in various types of cancer. We hypothesize that a meta-analysis of publicly available gene expression datasets in various tumor types can identify a signature of metastasis that is common to multiple tumor types. This common signature of metastasis may help us to understand the shared steps in the metastatic process and identify useful biomarkers that could predict metastatic risk. METHODS: We identified 18 publicly available gene expression datasets in the Oncomine database comparing distant metastases to primary tumors in various solid tumors which met our eligibility criteria. We performed a meta-analysis using a modified permutation counting method in order to obtain a common gene signature of metastasis. We then validated this signature in independent datasets using gene set expression comparison analysis with the LS-statistic. RESULTS: A common metastatic signature of 79 genes was identified in the metastatic lesions compared with primaries with a False Discovery Proportion of less than 0.1. Interestingly, all the genes in the signature, except one, were significantly down-regulated, suggesting that overcoming metastatic suppression may be a key feature common to all metastatic tumors. Pathway analysis of the significant genes showed that the genes were involved in known metastasis-associated pathways, such as integrin signaling, calcium signaling, and VEGF signaling. To validate the signature, we used an additional six expression datasets that were not used in the discovery study. Our results showed that the signature was significantly enriched in four validation sets with p-values less than 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: We have modified a previously published meta-analysis method and identified a common metastatic signature by comparing primary tumors versus metastases in various tumor types. This approach, as well as the gene signature identified, provides important insights to the common metastatic process and a foundation for future discoveries that could have broad application, such as drug discovery, metastasis prediction, and mechanistic studies.