Search

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment refers to a cluster of symptoms commonly referred to as "chemobrain". To date, nursing literature on the progression of and tools used to evaluate chemobrain is limited. OBJECTIVES The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the onset of chemobrain in patients who recently began chemotherapy treatment, as well as those who have been receiving chemotherapy for an extended period of time. METHODS This prospective, nonrandomized, observational pilot feasibility study used the General Practitioner Assessment of Cognition and the Trail Making Test Parts A and B to examine chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment symptoms in patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment. FINDINGS Paired t tests showed a significant difference in scores on the Trail Making Test Part A from baseline to eight months (p < 0.05) and in scores on the Trail Making Test Part B from four to eight months (p < 0.05). The mixed results suggest that the Trail Making Test Parts A and B may not be effective for testing chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment in patients.

This article describes the care processes for a 64-year-old man with newly diagnosed advanced non–small-cell lung cancer who was enrolled in a first-line clinical trial of a new immunotherapy regimen. The case highlights the concept of multiteam systems in cancer clinical research and clinical care. Because clinical research represents a highly dynamic entity—with studies frequently opening, closing, and undergoing modifications—concerted efforts of multiple teams are needed to respond to these changes while continuing to provide consistent, high-level care and timely, accurate clinical data. The case illustrates typical challenges of multiteam care processes. Compared with clinical tasks that are routinely performed by single teams, multiple-team care greatly increases the demands for communication, collaboration, cohesion, and coordination among team members. As the case illustrates, the described research team and clinical team are separated, resulting in suboptimal function. Individual team members interact predominantly with members of their own team. A considerable number of team members lack regular interaction with anyone outside their team. Accompanying this separation, the teams enact rivalries that impede collaboration. The teams have misaligned goals and competing priorities that create competition. Collective identity and cohesion across the two teams are low. Research team and clinical team members have limited knowledge of the roles and work of individuals outside their team. Recommendations to increase trust and collaboration are provided. Clinical providers and researchers may incorporate these themes into development and evaluation of multiteam systems, multidisciplinary teams, and cross-functional teams within their own institutions.

e21571 Background: ALK -targeting drugs and SABR are combined in patients with metastatic cancer, anecdotally yielding clinical benefit. However, the precise impact of the combination and the optimal time to introduce SABR remain unknown. Methods: This completed phase 2 study (NCT02513667) had a primary objective of doubling progression free survival (PFS) for ALK+ lung adenocarcinoma patients by consolidating all remaining disease with SABR, 8-10 weeks after ceritinib initiation. Patients who then progressed could receive repeat SABR as long as they then resumed ceritinib. Patients were divided into ALK-inhibitor naïve vs previously treated cohorts. Oligometastatic disease was NOT a requirement for study entry, CNS disease was permitted. Blood was serially analyzed for variation in 1. blood cfDNA detection of resistance mechanisms 2. flow cytometric analysis of white cell populations. Results: 14 patients were enrolled out of a planned 33; 7 female; 3 hispanic/latino; median age was 53 years (range 31-78); 5 patients had previously received crizotinib. 4 patients stopped ceritinib within 30 days due to toxicity, despite dose reductions or with-food administration. However, all patients still completed initial SABR consistent with protocol time-points. Patients predominantly had thoracic disease irradiated (11/14, 78%). Two patients had only brain metastases treated and 1 had bone only metastases treated. 4 had one fraction SBRT regimens (16-24 Gy per fraction) delivered to disease, 3 had three fraction SBRT regimens (9-11 Gy per fraction) delivered to disease, and 7 had five fraction SBRT or 15 fraction hypofractionated regimens (6 Gy per fraction or 3Gy per fraction, respectively) delivered to disease. Disease control in all irradiated areas was 100%. There was no significant grade 3 or higher toxicity associated with radiation. Broad variability in baseline and serial levels of circulating PMN-MDSC, VEGFR2, FoxP3+, CD56+CD16+ and various T-cell populations showed no clinical correlation. The trial terminated early due to increased use of alternative targeted therapies, thus the primary endpoint was not met. 8 patients had CR/PR/SD as best response. Including those who did not tolerate ceritinib, median PFS was 12 months, max of 31 months with 1 ongoing response. Conclusions: Consolidative SABR after ALK therapy is well tolerated, can be repeated and may prolong PFS compared to drug alone. Ceritinib toxicity meant higher rates of discontinuation but this did not prevent consolidative SABR in any patient. Clinical trial information: NCT02513667.

Purpose Preclinical studies demonstrated anti-tumor efficacy of the combination of the histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor romidepsin plus erlotinib in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) models that were insensitive to erlotinib monotherapy. We therefore studied this combination in a phase 1 clinical trial in previously treated advanced NSCLC. Methods Romidepsin (8 or 10mg/m 2 ) was administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days in combination with erlotinib (150mg orally daily), with romidepsin monotherapy lead-in during Cycle 1. Correlative studies included peripheral blood mononuclear cell HDAC activity and histone acetylation status, and EGFR pathway activation status in skin biopsies. Results A total of 17 patients were enrolled. Median number of prior lines of therapy was 3 (range 1–5). No cases had a sensitizing EGFR mutation. The most common related adverse events were nausea, vomiting, and fatigue (each 82%), diarrhea (65%), anorexia (53%), and rash (41%). Dose-limiting nausea and vomiting occurred at the romidepsin 10mg/m 2 level despite aggressive antiemetic prophylaxis and treatment. Among 10 evaluable patients, the best response was stable disease ( n =7) and progressive disease ( n =3). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.3 months (range 1.4–16.5 months). Prolonged PFS (>6 months) was noted in a KRAS mutant adenocarcinoma and a squamous cell cancer previously progressed on erlotinib monotherapy. Romidepsin monotherapy inhibited HDAC activity, increased histone acetylation status, and inhibited EGFR phosphorylation. Conclusions Romidepsin 8mg/m 2 plus erlotinib appears well tolerated, has evidence of disease control, and exhibits effects on relevant molecular targets in an unselected advanced NSCLC population.

Background. Lack of access to available cancer clinical trials has been cited as a key factor limiting trial accrual, particularly among medically underserved populations. We examined the trends and factors in clinical trial availability within a major U.S. safety-net hospital system. Materials and Methods. We identified cancer clinical trials activated at the Harold C. Simmons Cancer from 1991 to 2014 and recorded the characteristics of the trials that were and were not activated at the Parkland Health and Hospital System satellite site. We used univariate and multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between trial characteristics and nonactivation status, and chi-square analysis to determine the association between the trial characteristics and the reasons for nonactivation. Results. A total of 773 trials were identified, of which 152 (20%) were not activated at Parkland. In multivariable analysis, nonactivation at Parkland was associated with trial year, sponsor, and phase. Compared with the 1991–2006 period, clinical trials in the 2007–2014 period were almost eightfold more likely not to be activated at Parkland. The most common reasons for nonactivation at Parkland were an inability to perform the study procedures (27%) and the startup costs (15%). Conclusion. Over time, in this single-center setting, a decreasing proportion of cancer clinical trials were available to underserved populations. Trial complexity and costs appeared to account for much of this trend. Efforts to overcome these barriers will be key to equitable access to clinical trials, efficient accrual, and the generalizability of the results. Implications for Practice: Despite numerous calls to increase and diversify cancer clinical trial accrual, the present study found that cancer clinical trial activation rates in a safety-net setting for medically underserved populations have decreased substantially in recent years. The principal reasons for study nonactivation were expenses and an inability to perform the study-related procedures, reflecting the increasing costs and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Future efforts need to focus on strategies to mitigate the increasing disparity in access to clinical research and cutting-edge therapies, which also threatens to hinder study accrual, completion rates, and generalizability.