Protein signaling and drug target activation signatures to guide therapy prioritization: Therapeutic resistance and sensitivity in the I-SPY 2 Trial.

Molecular subtyping of breast cancer is based mostly on HR/HER2 and gene expression-based immune, DNA repair deficiency, and luminal signatures. We extend this description via functional protein pathway activation mapping using pre-treatment, quantitative expression data from 139 proteins/phosphoproteins from 736 patients across 8 treatment arms of the I-SPY 2 Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01042379). We identify predictive fit-for-purpose, mechanism-of-action-based signatures and individual predictive protein biomarker candidates by evaluating associations with pathologic complete response. Elevated levels of cyclin D1, estrogen receptor alpha, and androgen receptor S650 associate with non-response and are biomarkers for global resistance. We uncover protein/phosphoprotein-based signatures that can be utilized both for molecularly rationalized therapeutic selection and for response prediction. We introduce a dichotomous HER2 activation response predictive signature for stratifying triple-negative breast cancer patients to either HER2 or immune checkpoint therapy response as a model for how protein activation signatures provide a different lens to view the molecular landscape of breast cancer and synergize with transcriptomic-defined signatures.

Redefining breast cancer subtypes to guide treatment prioritization and maximize response: Predictive biomarkers across 10 cancer therapies.

Using pre-treatment gene expression, protein/phosphoprotein, and clinical data from the I-SPY2 neoadjuvant platform trial (NCT01042379), we create alternative breast cancer subtypes incorporating tumor biology beyond clinical hormone receptor (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status to better predict drug responses. We assess the predictive performance of mechanism-of-action biomarkers from ∼990 patients treated with 10 regimens targeting diverse biology. We explore >11 subtyping schemas and identify treatment-subtype pairs maximizing the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate over the population. The best performing schemas incorporate Immune, DNA repair, and HER2/Luminal phenotypes. Subsequent treatment allocation increases the overall pCR rate to 63% from 51% using HR/HER2-based treatment selection. pCR gains from reclassification and improved patient selection are highest in HR+ subsets (>15%). As new treatments are introduced, the subtyping schema determines the minimum response needed to show efficacy. This data platform provides an unprecedented resource and supports the usage of response-based subtypes to guide future treatment prioritization.

Durvalumab with olaparib and paclitaxel for high-risk HER2-negative stage II/III breast cancer: Results from the adaptively randomized I-SPY2 trial.

The combination of PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab and PARP inhibitor olaparib added to standard paclitaxel neoadjuvant chemotherapy (durvalumab/olaparib/paclitaxel [DOP]) was investigated in the phase II I-SPY2 trial of stage II/III HER2-negative breast cancer. Seventy-three participants were randomized to DOP and 299 to standard of care (paclitaxel) control. DOP increased pathologic complete response (pCR) rates in all HER2-negative (20%-37%), hormone receptor (HR)-positive/HER2-negative (14%-28%), and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) (27%-47%). In HR-positive/HER2-negative cancers, MammaPrint ultra-high (MP2) cases benefited selectively from DOP (pCR 64% versus 22%), no benefit was seen in MP1 cancers (pCR 9% versus 10%). Overall, 12.3% of patients in the DOP arm experienced immune-related grade 3 adverse events versus 1.3% in control. Gene expression signatures associated with immune response were positively associated with pCR in both arms, while a mast cell signature was associated with non-pCR. DOP has superior efficacy over standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy in HER2-negative breast cancer, particularly in a highly sensitive subset of high-risk HR-positive/HER2-negative patients.

Software for Administering the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software. METHODS: Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested. RESULTS: Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01031641 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/708hTjlTl).

Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. RESULTS: Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. CONCLUSION: Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.

Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).

The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.

Effects of vascular endothelial growth factor signaling inhibition on human erythropoiesis.

Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling increases red blood cell (RBC) counts, and erythropoiesis markers have been proposed to guide antiangiogenic therapy in humans. We analyzed RBC measurements in patients enrolled in three studies: a phase II trial of axitinib in thyroid cancer; a study of sorafenib in advanced solid tumors; and a randomized trial of fluorouracil, hydroxyurea, and radiation with and without bevacizumab for head and neck cancer. In the sorafenib trial, plasma erythropoietin concentrations were measured at baseline, day 8, and day 35. Over the first 84 days of treatment, RBC counts increased for each day on sorafenib (2.7 M/µL [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.5-3.9]) and axitinib (4.3 M/µL [95% CI, 2.2-6.5]). RBCs declined over the first 68 days of cytotoxic chemoradiotherapy alone (-12.8 M/µL per day [95% CI, -15.7 to -9.8]) but less so with added bevacizumab (-7.2 M/µL per day [95% CI, -9.5 to -4.9]). Erythropoietin levels increased, on average, by 9.5 mIU/mL between day 8 and day 35 of sorafenib exposure. No significant relationships between elevations in RBCs and changes in volume status or blood pressure or between elevations in erythropoietin and smoking status were found. VEGF signaling inhibition is associated with increased RBC and erythropoietin production in humans. The effects of these changes are subtle at physiologic doses and are unlikely to be clinically useful biomarkers for guiding the administration of or predicting treatment responses to VEGF pathway inhibitors.

Prevalence of pain and analgesic use in men with metastatic prostate cancer using a patient-reported outcome measure.

PURPOSE: Contemporary tumor-directed therapies for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are approved to prolong life, but their effects on symptoms such as pain are less well understood as a result of the lack of analytically valid assessments of pain prevalence and severity, clinically meaningful definitions of therapeutic benefit, and methodologic standards of trial conduct. This study establishes pain characteristics in the mCRPC population using a PRO measure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with prostate cancer participated in an anonymous survey at five US comprehensive cancer centers in the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium that incorporated the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), analgesic use, and interference with daily activities. Prevalence and severity of cancer-related pain and analgesic use were tabulated according to castration-resistant status and exposure to docetaxel chemotherapy. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-one patients with prostate cancer participated, of whom 147 had mCRPC involving bone (61% [89 of 147] docetaxel exposed, 39% [58 of 147] docetaxel naive). Pain of any level was more common among docetaxel-exposed versus docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC (70% [62 of 89] v 38% [22 of 58], respectively; P<.001). BPI score≥4 was reported by 38% (34 of 89) of docetaxel-pretreated and 24% (14 of 58) of docetaxel-naive patients with mCRPC; 40% of these patients with pain intensity≥4 reported no current narcotic analgesic. CONCLUSION: Pain prevalence and severity were higher in patients with prior docetaxel exposure. Analgesics were underutilized. These results provide a method for estimating accruals along the disease continuum, and for enabling design of trials appropriately powered to assess pain.

Feasibility of long-term patient self-reporting of toxicities from home via the Internet during routine chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used in routine outpatient cancer care to guide clinical decisions and enhance communication. Prior evidence suggests good patient compliance with reporting at scheduled clinic visits, but there is limited evidence about compliance with long-term longitudinal reporting between visits. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving chemotherapy for lung, gynecologic, genitourinary, or breast cancer at a tertiary cancer center, with access to a home computer and prior e-mail experience, were asked to self-report seven symptomatic toxicities via the Web between visits. E-mail reminders were sent to participants weekly; patient-reported high-grade toxicities triggered e-mail alerts to nurses; printed reports were provided to oncologists at visits. A priori threshold criteria were set to determine if this data collection approach merited further development based on monthly (≥ 75% participants reporting at least once per month on average) and weekly compliance rates (60% at least once per week). RESULTS: Between September 2006 and November 2010, 286 patients were enrolled (64% were women; 88% were white; median age, 58 years). Mean follow-up was 34 weeks (range, 2 to 214). On average, monthly compliance was 83%, and weekly compliance was 62%, without attrition until the month before death. Greater compliance was associated with older age and higher education but not with performance status. Compliance was greatest during the initial 12 weeks. Symptomatic illness and technical problems were rarely barriers to compliance. CONCLUSION: Monthly compliance with home Web reporting was high, but weekly compliance was lower, warranting strategies to enhance compliance in routine care settings.

Measurement of affective and activity pain interference using the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI): Cancer and Leukemia Group B 70903.

OBJECTIVE: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was designed to yield separate scores for pain intensity and interference. It has been proposed that the pain interference factor can be further broken down into unique factors of affective (e.g., mood) and activity (e.g., work) interference. The purpose of this analysis was to confirm this affective/activity interference dichotomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective confirmatory factor analysis was completed for a sample of 184 individuals diagnosed with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (age 40-86, mean = 65.46, 77% White non-Hispanic) who had been administered the BPI as part of Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9480. A one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models that were developed based on the design of the instrument. RESULTS: Root mean squared error of approximation (0.075), comparative fit index (0.971), and change in chi-square, given the corresponding change in degrees of freedom (13.33, P < 0.05) values for the three-factor model (i.e., pain intensity, activity interference, and affective interference), were statistically superior in comparison with the one- and two-factor models. This three-factor structure was found to be invariant across age, mean prostate-specific antigen, and hemoglobin levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results confirm that the BPI can be used to quantify the degree to which pain separately interferes with affective and activity aspects of a patient's everyday life. These findings will provide clinical trialists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and regulators with confidence in the flexibility of the BPI as they consider the use of this instrument to assist with understanding the patient experience as it relates to treatment.

Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians.

PURPOSE: Adverse symptom event reporting is vital as part of clinical trials and drug labeling to ensure patient safety and inform risk-benefit decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of adverse event reporting of different clinicians for the same patient for the same visit. METHODS: A retrospective reliability analysis was completed for a sample of 393 cancer patients (42.8% men; age 26-91, M = 62.39) from lung (n = 134), prostate (n = 113), and Ob/Gyn (n = 146) clinics. These patients were each seen by two clinicians who independently rated seven Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) symptoms. Twenty-three percent of patients were enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials. RESULTS: The average time between rater evaluations was 68 min. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for constipation (0.50), diarrhea (0.58), dyspnea (0.69), fatigue (0.50), nausea (0.52), neuropathy (0.71), and vomiting (0.46). These values demonstrated stability over follow-up visits. Two-point differences, which would likely affect treatment decisions, were most frequently seen among symptomatic patients for constipation (18%), vomiting (15%), and nausea (8%). CONCLUSION: Agreement between different clinicians when reporting adverse symptom events is moderate at best. Modification of approaches to adverse symptom reporting, such as patient self-reporting, should be considered.

Electronic toxicity monitoring and patient-reported outcomes.

Understanding the potential profile of adverse events associated with cancer treatment is essential in balancing safety versus benefits. Multiple stakeholders make use of this information for decision making, including patients, clinicians, researchers, regulators, and payors. Currently, adverse events are reported by clinical research staff, yet evidence suggests that this may contribute to underreporting of symptom events. Direct patient reporting via electronic interfaces offers a promising mechanism to enhance the efficiency and precision of our current approach and may complement clinician reports of adverse events. The National Cancer Institute has contracted to develop and test an item bank and software system for directly eliciting adverse symptom event information from patients in cancer clinical research, called the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The validity, usability, and scalability of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events prototype are currently being examined in academic and community-based settings.

Using confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate construct validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI).

CONTEXT: The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) is a frequently used instrument designed to assess the patient-reported outcome of pain. The majority of factor analytic studies have found a two-factor (i.e., pain intensity and pain interference) structure for this instrument; however, because the BPI was developed with an a priori hypothesis of the relationship among its items, it follows that construct validity investigations should use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this work was to establish the construct validity of the BPI using a CFA framework and demonstrate factorial invariance using a range of demographic variables. METHODS: A retrospective CFA was completed in a sample of individuals diagnosed with HIV/AIDS and cancer (n=364; 63% male; age 21-92 years, M=51.80). A baseline one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models (i.e., pain intensity, activity interference, and affective interference) that were developed based on the hypothetical design of the instrument. RESULTS: Fit indices for the three-factor model were statistically superior when compared with the one-factor model and marginally better when compared with the two-factor model. This three-factor structure was found to be invariant across disease, age, and ethnicity groups. CONCLUSION: The results of this study provide evidence to support a three-factor representation of the BPI, and the originally hypothesized two-factor structure. Such findings will begin to provide clinical trialists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and regulators with confidence in the psychometric properties of this instrument when considering its inclusion in clinical research.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.

The Brief Pain Inventory and its "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item: clinical trial endpoint considerations.

CONTEXT: In 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft Guidance for Industry on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Measures in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. This draft guidance outlines psychometric aspects that should be considered when designing a PRO measure, including conceptual framework, content validity, construct validity, reliability, and the ability to detect clinically meaningful score changes. When finalized, it may provide a blueprint for evaluations of PRO measures that can be considered by sponsors and investigators involved in PRO research and drug registration trials. OBJECTIVE: In this review we examine the short form of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and particularly the "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item in the context of the FDA draft guidance, to assess its utility in clinical trials that include pain as a PRO endpoint. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: After a systematic evaluation of the psychometric aspects of the BPI, we conclude that the BPI and its "pain at its worst in the last 24 hours" item generically satisfy most key recommendations outlined in the draft guidance for assessing a pain-reduction treatment effect. Nonetheless, when the BPI is being considered for assessment of pain endpoints in a registration trial, sponsors and investigators should consult with the appropriate FDA division early during research design to discuss whether there is sufficient precedent to use the instrument in the population of interest or whether additional evaluations of measurement properties are advisable.

Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In cancer treatment trials, the standard source of adverse symptom data is clinician reporting by use of items from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Patient self-reporting has been proposed as an additional data source, but the implications of such a shift are not understood. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and their clinicians independently reported six CTCAE symptoms and Karnofsky Performance Status longitudinally at sequential office visits. To compare how patient's vs clinician's reports relate to sentinel clinical events, a time-dependent Cox regression model was used to measure associations between reaching particular CTCAE grade severity thresholds with the risk of death and emergency room visits. To measure concordance of CTCAE reports with indices of daily health status, Kendall tau rank correlation coefficients were calculated for each symptom with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were enrolled for an average of 12 months (range = 1-28 months), with a mean of 11 visits and 67 (41%) deaths. CTCAE reports were submitted by clinicians at 95% of visits and by patients at 80% of visits. Patients generally reported symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians. Statistically significant associations with death and emergency room admissions were seen for clinician reports of fatigue (P < .001), nausea (P = .01), constipation (P = .038), and Karnofsky Performance Status (P < .001) but not for patient reports of these items. Higher concordance with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores was observed for patient-reported symptoms than for clinician-reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Longitudinally collected clinician CTCAE assessments better predict unfavorable clinical events, whereas patient reports better reflect daily health status. These perspectives are complementary, each providing clinically meaningful information. Inclusion of both types of data in treatment trial results and drug labels appears to be warranted.

Ambulatory monitoring detects sorafenib-induced blood pressure elevations on the first day of treatment.

PURPOSE: Hypertension is a mechanism-based toxicity of sorafenib and other cancer therapeutics that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling pathway. This prospective, single-center, cohort study characterized ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as an early pharmacodynamic biomarker of VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Fifty-four normotensive advanced cancer patients underwent 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring before and between days 6 and 10 of sorafenib therapy. After blood pressure changes were detected among the first cohort within 10 days, ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was done during the first 24 hours of treatment for the second cohort. RESULTS: For the entire patient population, the blood pressure increase [mean systolic, +10.8 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 8.6-13.0; range, -5.2 to +28.7 mm Hg; mean diastolic, +8.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, 6.3-9.7; range, -4.4 to +27.1 mm Hg] was detected between days 6 and 10 (P < 0.0001 for both) and plateaued thereafter. Variability in blood pressure change did not associate with: age, body size, sex, self-reported race, baseline blood pressure, or steady-state sorafenib plasma concentrations. In the second cohort, the blood pressure elevation was detected during the first 24 hours (mean systolic, +8.2 mm Hg; 95% CI, 5.0-11.3; mean diastolic, +6.5 mm Hg; 95% CI, 4.7-8.3; P < 0.0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring detects the blood pressure response to VEGF signaling pathway inhibition by sorafenib during the first 24 hours of treatment. The magnitude of blood pressure elevation is highly variable and unpredictable but could be important in optimizing the therapeutic index of VEGF signaling pathway inhibitor therapy.