Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics. METHODS: Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months. CONCLUSION: Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Impact of clinical pathways on treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world evidence from a community oncology practice.

Introduction: The evolving treatment landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and complexities of regulations and reimbursement present challenges to community oncologists. Clinical pathways are tools to optimize care, but information on their value in the real world is limited. This retrospective study assessed treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with stage I-III NSCLC pre- and post-pathways implementation at Tennessee Oncology, a large, community-based oncology practice in the USA. Methods & Materials: Chart data were abstracted for adults diagnosed with stage I-III NSCLC who received systemic treatment. Patients were divided into pre-pathways (treatment initiation 2014-2015) and post-pathways (treatment initiation 2016-2018) cohorts. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess time-dependent outcomes, and log-rank test was used to compare the cohorts. Results: 291 patients were included (stage I-II: 38 pre-pathways, 55 post-pathways; stage III: 105 pre-pathways, 93 post-pathways). Duration on first-line (1L) therapy was similar for stage I-II patients pre- and post-pathways (median 1.9 months vs 2.1 months; p = 0.75), but increased for stage III patients post-pathways (2.1 months vs 1.4 months pre-pathways; p < 0.01). Achievement of a complete or partial response with 1L therapy was similar post-pathways among stage I-stage -IIII patients (60.0% vs 55.2% pre-pathways), but increased for stage III patients (56.0% vs 35.2% pre-pathways). Conclusion: Given that improvements in rates of treatment response post-pathways occurred only for patients diagnosed with stage III NSCLC, among whom immunotherapy uptake increased post-pathways, such improvements may be attributable to evolving practices in cancer care, including advances in treatment and care delivery, rather than clinical pathways implementation. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of clinical pathways in the current treatment era, given that immunotherapy has now become the standard of care in NSCLC.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

A phase I/II study of exisulind in combination with docetaxel/carboplatin in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer.

Exisulind is a sulfone derivative of sulindac that induces apoptosis and demonstrates synergy with docetaxel in lung cancer models. This study evaluated the safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic interactions of exisulind and docetaxel/carboplatin in patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Fifty-seven patients received 218 cycles of docetaxel (75 mg/m2) and carboplatin (area under the curve, 5.0) in combination with exisulind (125-250 mg orally twice daily). Two complete responses and 9 partial responses were observed among the 47 patients assessable for response (overall response rate, 23%). The median duration of response was 5.9 months and median survival was 9.4 months. The 1- and 2-year survival rates are 35% and 14%, respectively. The hematologic toxicities were consistent with those previously reported with docetaxel/carboplatin. The most common nonhematologic toxicities were mild to moderate fatigue, anorexia, nausea, and vomiting. The addition of exisulind to the chemotherapy regimen did not interfere with the metabolism or elimination of docetaxel and vice versa, and docetaxel did not interfere with the pharmacokinetic parameters of exisulind. This trial did not allow direct comparison of patients receiving docetaxel/carboplatin with and without exisulind, but when compared with historical data of docetaxel/carboplatin alone, the addition of exisulind does not appear to enhance antitumor activity, duration of response, or survival. Although preclinical data demonstrate increased apoptosis and prolonged survival for the combination of exisulind and docetaxel, multiple clinical trials do not support further clinical development of this combination regimen in patients with advanced NSCLC.

Single-agent gefitinib in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status (PS) are often excluded from trials. Gefitinib is a safe oral agent that may benefit these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients with poor PS and advanced NSCLC were enrolled onto this study of gefitinib 250 mg per day given orally until disease progression, with evaluation at 8 weeks. Eligible patients had no previous chemotherapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2/3, and stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Quality of life (QOL) and symptom response (SR) scores were calculated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer-Lung questionnaire. Patient characteristics included a median age of 75 years; PS of 2/3; and bronchoalveolar (n=3), adenocarcinoma (n=29), squamous cell (n=21), large-cell (n=11), and unspecified histology (n=6). Mean treatment duration was 4 months (range, 3 days to 18 months), and median duration of follow-up was 12 months. Grade 3/4 toxicities included rash and diarrhea. RESULTS: Among 70 patients assessed for response, there were 3 partial responses (4%), 32 patients with stable disease (46%), and 18 with progressive disease (26%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 months and 6.3 months, respectively. Six-month and 1-year PFS and OS rates were 35% and 21% and 50% and 24%, respectively. Eighty-two percent and 48% of patients reported improvements or no change in QOL and SR, respectively. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib demonstrates modest efficacy and is well tolerated as initial therapy in advanced NSCLC for patients with poor PS.

A phase II trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and docetaxel as primary treatment of patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Three-drug regimens containing gemcitabine, an anthracycline, and a taxane produce response rates of 70%-90% in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) although accompanied by considerable hematologic toxicity. We explored the combination of gemcitabine/epirubicin/docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy. Docetaxel was administered weekly to decrease myelosuppression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 110 patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer received neoadjuvant gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) days 1 and 8, epirubicin 75 mg/m2 I.V. day 1, and docetaxel 30 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8, repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Then patients had either mastectomy or breast conservation surgery, and pathologic treatment responses were assessed. After surgery, 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8 and docetaxel 35 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8 were administered at 21-day intervals. After patients completed chemotherapy, locoregional radiation therapy and/or anti-estrogen therapy was administered per standard guidelines. RESULTS: Treatment with 4 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and weekly docetaxel resulted in an objective response in 79 of 110 patients enrolled (72%; 95% CI, 63-80%). Twenty of 103 patients (19%) who had surgery had pathologic complete response (pCR). Moderate hematologic toxicity was evident during neoadjuvant therapy, with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 41% and febrile neutropenia in 11% of the patients. Protocol-specified dose modifications were required in 35% of the patients, and 58% of the patients used myeloid growth factors. CONCLUSION: The pCR rate of 19% achieved with gemcitabine, epirubicin, and weekly docetaxel confirms previous reports with similar 3-drug regimens. The use of a weekly schedule of docetaxel did not appear to reduce the incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity.