Improving Surgical Care and Outcomes in Older Cancer Patients Through Implementation of a Presurgical Toolkit (OPTI-Surg)-Final Results of a Phase III Cluster Randomized Trial (Alliance A231601CD).

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a practice-level preoperative frailty screening and optimization toolkit (OPTI-Surg) on postoperative functional recovery and complications in elderly cancer patients undergoing major surgery. BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older adults. It increases the risk of poor postoperative functional recovery and complications. The potential for a practice-level screening/optimization intervention to improve outcomes is unknown. METHODS: Thoracic, gastrointestinal, and urologic oncological surgery practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (UC), OPTI-Surg, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. OPTI-Surg consisted of the Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for referral interventions. Patients 70 years old or above undergoing curative intent surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was 8 weeks postoperative function (kcal/wk). The key secondary outcome was complications within 90 days. Mixed models were used to compare UC to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined. RESULTS: From July 2019 to September 2022, 325 patients were enrolled in 29 practices. One hundred ninety-nine (64 UC, 135 OPTI-Surg) and 279 (78 UC, 201 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for primary and secondary analysis, respectively. UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in total caloric expenditure (2.2 UC, 2.0 OPTI-Surg) after adjusting for baseline function ( P =0.53). UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in postoperative complications (25.6% UC, 35.3% OPTI-Surg, P =0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Frailty assessment was successfully performed, but the OPTI-Surg intervention did not improve postoperative function nor reduce postoperative complications compared with UC. Future analysis will explore practice-level factors associated with toolkit implementation and the differences between the coaching and noncoaching arms.

Neuropathy severity at the time of oxaliplatin treatment alteration in patients with colon cancer (Alliance A151912).

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend altering chemotherapy treatment by decreasing, delaying, or discontinuing dosing in patients who are experiencing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. There are few data available on the clinical use of treatment alteration including the severity of CIPN at the time of treatment alteration. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of patients receiving oxaliplatin on the NCCTG N08CB trial. Neuropathy severity was assessed at each cycle by clinicians and patients. Patients were classified as (1) completed treatment without alteration, (2) dose reduction or delay due to neuropathy, (3) discontinuation due to neuropathy, (4) discontinuation for other toxicity, or (5) discontinuation for another reason (5). Comparisons focused primarily on patients with alteration due to neuropathy (groups 2 and/or 3) compared with patients who completed treatment without alteration (group 1). RESULTS: In 350 participants, 135 (39%) completed treatment without alteration, 70 (20%) had a dose reduction or delay due to neuropathy, and 35 (10%) discontinued early due to neuropathy. Clinician-assessed neuropathy severity was greater in patients at the time of dose reduction or delay compared with severity at the end of treatment in patients without alteration (p < 0.0001). Patient-reported neuropathy severity at cycle 4 was worse in patients who eventually had a reduction or delay as compared with patients who completed treatment without alteration (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment alterations due to neuropathy are common in patients receiving oxaliplatin for colon cancer and are associated with clinician-assessed neuropathy severity. Rapid increases in patient-reported neuropathy severity indicate a potential need for monitoring and intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01099449 (NCCTG N08CB).

Cisplatin-associated neuropathy characteristics compared with those associated with other neurotoxic chemotherapy agents (Alliance A151724).

PURPOSE: The current project was developed to obtain natural history information regarding cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in males with testicular/germ cell cancers and to compare such neuropathy data with similarly obtained data in patients receiving other chemotherapy drugs in similarly conducted clinical trials. METHODS: Patients without baseline neuropathy symptoms, who were initiating cisplatin-based chemotherapy, completed the EORTC CIPN 20 patient-reported instrument to evaluate chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Results were compared with EORTC CIPN 20 data obtained from independent study sets regarding patients receiving (1) paclitaxel, (2) combined paclitaxel and carboplatin, (3) oxaliplatin, or (4) a combination of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC). The last study set of patients on AC was selected to evaluate the use of EORTC CIPN 20 data in patients receiving chemotherapy not known to cause CIPN. RESULTS: Cisplatin-induced neuropathy was more similar to neuropathy in patients receiving oxaliplatin than in those receiving paclitaxel. The cisplatin and oxaliplatin groups exhibited the coasting phenomenon and more prominent upper extremity symptoms than lower extremity symptoms during chemotherapy administration weeks. In contrast, paclitaxel-treated patients did not, on average, exhibit the coasting phenomenon; additionally, lower extremity symptoms were more prominent during the weeks when paclitaxel was administered. Cisplatin-induced neuropathy was less severe than was seen in patients in the other two groups, potentially because the cisplatin-receiving patients were younger. Patients receiving AC did not report substantial EORTC CIPN 20 changes. CONCLUSION: Understanding neuropathy similarities and differences with various chemotherapy agents may help elucidate CIPN processes and facilitate means to prevent and/or treat established CIPN. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02677727.

Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Randomized trial of ofatumumab and bendamustine versus ofatumumab, bendamustine, and bortezomib in previously untreated patients with high-risk follicular lymphoma: CALGB 50904 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial evaluated complete responses (CRs), efficacy, and safety with ofatumumab and bendamustine and with ofatumumab, bendamustine, and bortezomib in patients with untreated, high-risk follicular lymphoma (FL). METHODS: Patients with grade 1 to 3a FL and either a Follicular Lymphoma International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score of 2 with 1 lymph node >6 cm or an FLIPI score of 3 to 5 were randomized to arm A (ofatumumab, bendamustine, and maintenance ofatumumab) or to arm B (ofatumumab, bendamustine, bortezomib, and maintenance ofatumumab and bortezomib). RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients (66 in arm A and 62 in arm B) received treatment. The median age was 61 years, and 61% had disease >6 cm; 29% had an FLIPI score of 2, and 71% had an FLIPI score of 3 to 5. In arm A, 86% completed induction, and 64% completed maintenance. In arm B, 66% and 52% completed induction and maintenance, respectively. Dose modifications were required in 65% and 89% in arms A and B, respectively. Clinically significant grade 3 to 4 toxicities included neutropenia (A, 36%; B, 31%), nausea/vomiting (A, 0%; B, 8%), diarrhea (A, 5%; B, 11%), and sensory neuropathy (A, 0%; B, 5%). The estimated CR rates were 62% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50%-74%) and 60% (95% CI, 47%-72%) in arms A and B, respectively (P = .68). With a median follow-up of 3.3 years, the estimated 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were 80% and 97%, respectively, for arm A and 76% and 91%, respectively, for arm B. CONCLUSIONS: The CR rates, PFS, and OS were not improved with the addition of bortezomib to ofatumumab and bendamustine in patients with high-risk FL. Although grade 3 to 4 toxicities were similar, more patients treated with bortezomib required dose modifications and early discontinuation.

Promoting Accrual of Older Patients with Cancer to Clinical Trials: An Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Member Survey (A171602).

BACKGROUND: There are multiple known individual- and practice-level barriers to enrollment of older patients with cancer to clinical trials, but little is known about how the clinical research workforce feels about potential higher-level strategy changes aimed to promote increased enrollment of older patients. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: We invited all 11,351 Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology ("Alliance") members to participate in an anonymous, web-based survey to examine awareness of current accrual patterns for older patients to clinical trials, to ascertain consensus on how to tackle enrollment challenges, and to provide the impetus for high-level changes to improve clinical trial accrual of older patients with cancer. RESULTS: During the period from February 28, 2017, to June 16, 2017, 1,146 Alliance members participated (response rate = 10%), including a national diverse sample of physicians, nurses, administrative/clinical research staff, and patient advocates with representation from community, academic, and rural sites. Overall, one third felt that >50% of clinical trial enrollees should be age ≥65, and 64.9% felt the Alliance could improve upon enrollment of older patients. The four most commonly ranked strategies to improve enrollment of older patients were creating more dedicated trials for this population (36.3%), minimizing exclusion criteria focused on comorbidity (35.5%), developing independent strategies for those aged ≥65 and for those aged ≥70 (33.2%), and requiring that most/all Alliance trials have a specific expansion cohort of older patients (30.0%). CONCLUSION: We anticipate that the recommendations from >1,000 Alliance members will continue to propel important strategy changes aimed to improve accrual of older patients with cancer to clinical trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This survey of the Alliance for Clinical Trials membership sought opinions on potential, large-scale, national strategies to improve accrual of older adults with cancer. Consensus was found around multiple strategies, including creating more dedicated trials for older patients, developing less stringent eligibility criteria, and mandating expansion cohorts of older patients within broader Alliance trials. It is anticipated that the recommendations from >1,000 Alliance members will continue to propel important strategy changes aimed to improve accrual of older patients with cancer to clinical trials.

Systemic and local effects of vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA): NCCTG N10C1 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is helpful for treating vaginal symptoms. This secondary analysis evaluated the impact of vaginal DHEA on hormone concentrations, bone turnover, and vaginal cytology in women with a cancer history. METHODS: Postmenopausal women, diagnosed with breast or gynecologic cancer, were eligible if they reported at least moderate vaginal symptoms. Participants could be on tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors (AIs). Women were randomized to 3.25 versus 6.5 mg/day of DHEA versus a plain moisturizer (PM) control. Sex steroid hormone levels, biomarkers of bone formation, vaginal pH, and maturation index were collected at baseline and 12 weeks. Analysis included independent t tests and Wilcoxon rank tests, comparing each DHEA arm with the control. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-five women contributed evaluable blood and 46 contributed evaluable cytology and pH values. Circulating DHEA-S and testosterone levels were significantly increased in those on vaginal DHEA in a dose-dependent manner compared to PM. Estradiol was significantly increased in those on 6.5 mg/day DHEA but not in those on 3.25 mg/day DHEA (p < 0.05 and p = 0.05, respectively), and not in those on AIs. Biomarkers of bone formation were unchanged in all arms. Maturation of vaginal cells was 100% (3.25 mg/day), 86% (6.5 mg/day), and 64% (PM); pH decreased more in DHEA arms. CONCLUSION: DHEA resulted in increased hormone concentrations, though still in the lowest half or quartile of the postmenopausal range, and provided more favorable effects on vaginal cytology, compared to PM. Estrogen concentrations in women on AIs were not changed. Further research on the benefit of vaginal DHEA is warranted in hormone-dependent cancers.

Evaluating the efficacy of vaginal dehydroepiandosterone for vaginal symptoms in postmenopausal cancer survivors: NCCTG N10C1 (Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Women with estrogen deficiencies can suffer from vaginal symptoms that negatively impact sexual health. This study evaluated vaginal dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) for alleviation of vaginal symptoms. METHODS: This three-arm randomized, controlled trial evaluated DHEA 3.25 mg and DHEA 6.5 mg, each compared to a plain moisturizer (PM) over 12 weeks, to improve the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia, measured with an ordinal scale, and overall sexual health using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI). Postmenopausal women with a history of breast or gynecologic cancer who had completed primary treatment, had no evidence of disease, and reported at least moderate vaginal symptoms were eligible. The mean change from baseline to week 12 in the severity of vaginal dryness or dyspareunia for each DHEA dose was compared to PM and analyzed by two independent t tests using a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-four women were randomized. All arms reported improvement in either dryness or dyspareunia. Neither DHEA dose was statistically significantly different from PM at 12 weeks (6.25 mg, p = .08; 3.25 mg, p = 0.48), although a significant difference at 8 weeks for 6.5 mg DHEA was observed (p = 0.005). Women on the 6.5 mg arm of DHEA reported significantly better sexual health on the FSFI (p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in provider-graded toxicities and few significant differences in self-reported side effects. CONCLUSION: PM and DHEA improved vaginal symptoms at 12 weeks. However, vaginal DHEA, 6.5 mg, significantly improved sexual health. Vaginal DHEA warrants further investigation in women with a history of cancer.

Genome-wide association study of cardiotoxicity in the NCCTG N9831 (Alliance) adjuvant trastuzumab trial.

OBJECTIVES: The major clinical side effect of the ERBB2-targeted breast cancer therapy, trastuzumab, is a decline in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Improved markers are needed to better identify patients susceptible to cardiotoxicity. METHODS: The NCCTG N9831 trial compared adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by either weekly paclitaxel (arm A); paclitaxel then trastuzumab (arm B); or concurrent paclitaxel and trastuzumab (arm C) in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. A genome-wide association study was performed on all patients with available DNA (N=1446). We used linear regression to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with decline in LVEF, adjusting for age, baseline LVEF, antihypertensive medications, and the first two principle components. RESULTS: In total, 618 863 SNPs passed quality control and DNA from 1191 patients passed genotyping quality control and were identified as Whites of non-Hispanic origin. SNPs at six loci were associated with a decline in LVEF (P=7.73×10 to 8.93×10), LDB2, BRINP1, chr6 intergenic, RAB22A, TRPC6, and LINC01060, in patients who received chemotherapy plus trastuzumab (arms BC, N=800). None of these loci were significant in patients who received chemotherapy only (arm A, N=391) and did not increase in significance in the combined analysis of all patients. We did not observe association, P<0.05, with SNPs previously associated with trastuzumab-induced cardiotoxicity at ERBB2, I655V, and P1170A. We replicated association, P<0.05, with SNPs previously associated with anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity at CBR3 and ABCB1. CONCLUSION: Our study identified six putative novel cardiotoxicity loci in patients treated with combination chemotherapy and trastuzumab that require further investigation and confirmed known associations of anthracycline-induced cardiotoxicity.

A pilot study of minocycline for the prevention of paclitaxel-associated neuropathy: ACCRU study RU221408I.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel is associated with both an acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Given that extensive animal data suggest that minocycline may prevent chemotherapy-induced neurotoxicity, the purpose of this pilot study was to investigate the efficacy of minocycline for the prevention of CIPN and the P-APS. METHODS: Patients with breast cancer were enrolled prior to initiating neoadjuvant or adjuvant weekly paclitaxel for 12 weeks and were randomized to receive minocycline 200 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg twice daily or a matching placebo. Patients completed (1) an acute pain syndrome questionnaire daily during chemotherapy to measure P-APS and (2) the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questionnaire at baseline, prior to each dose of paclitaxel, and monthly for 6 months post treatment, to measure CIPN. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were randomized. There were no remarkable differences noted between the minocycline and placebo groups for the overall sensory neuropathy score of the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 or its individual components, which evaluate tingling, numbness and shooting/burning pain in hands and feet. However, patients taking minocycline had a significant reduction in the daily average pain score attributed to P-APS (p = 0.02). Not only were no increased toxicities reported with minocycline, but there was a significant reduction in fatigue (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Results of this pilot study do not support the use of minocycline to prevent CIPN, but suggest that it may reduce P-APS and decrease fatigue; further study of the impact of this agent on those endpoints may be warranted.