Search

Supplementary Figure 1 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Figure 4 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Figure 2 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Figure Legends 1-5 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Figure 5 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Figure 3 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

Supplementary Table 1 from Phase I Trial of Intraperitoneal Administration of an Oncolytic Measles Virus Strain Engineered to Express Carcinoembryonic Antigen for Recurrent Ovarian Cancer

PURPOSE The combination of gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) is a standard therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. Based on data that angiogenesis plays a role in urothelial carcinoma growth and progression, a randomized placebo-controlled trial was performed with the primary objective of testing whether patients treated with GC and bevacizumab (GCB) have superior overall survival (OS) than patients treated with GC and placebo (GCP). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between July 2009 and December 2014, 506 patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma without prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease and no neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy within 12 months were randomly assigned to receive either GCB or GCP. The primary end point was OS, with secondary end points of progression-free survival, objective response, and toxicity. RESULTS With a median follow-up of 76.3 months among alive patients, the median OS was 14.5 months for patients treated with GCB and 14.3 months for patients treated with GCP (hazard ratio for death = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; two-sided stratified log-rank P = .14). The median progression-free survival was 8.0 months for GCB and 6.7 months for GCP (hazard ratio = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.95; P = .016). The proportion of patients with grade 3 or greater adverse events did not differ significantly between both arms, although increased bevacizumab-related toxicities such as hypertension and proteinuria occurred in the bevacizumab-treated arm. CONCLUSION The addition of bevacizumab to GC did not result in improved OS. The observed median OS of about 14 months is consistent with prior phase III trials of cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Purpose: Chemoradiation (CRT) is an integral treatment modality for patients with locally advanced lung cancer. It has been hypothesized that current use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor during CRT may be protective for treatment-related lung damage and pneumonitis.Methods and Materials: We conducted a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Study-eligible patients receiving curative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) were randomly assigned to 20 mg of lisinopril or placebo once daily during and up to 3 months after RT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was adverse event profiling. Multiple patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, including the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, Function Assessment of Cancer TherapyeLung, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Questionnaire, were applied with a symptom experience questionnaire. Exploratory comparative statistics were used to detect differences between arms with c 2 and Kruskal-Wallis testing.Results: Five institutions enrolled 23 patients. However, accrual was less than expected. Eleven and 12 patients were in the placebo and lisinopril arms, respectively (mean age, 63.5 years; male, 62%). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Eighteen patients (86%) were former or current smokers. The primary endpoint was met; neither arm had grade 3 or higher hypotension, acute kidney injury, allergic reaction (medication-induced cough), or anaphylaxis (medication-related angioedema). Few PRO measures suggested that compared with the placebo arm, patients receiving lisinopril had less cough, less shortness of breath, fewer symptoms from lung cancer, less dyspnea with both walking and climbing stairs, and better overall quality of life (for all, PConclusions: Although underpowered because of low accrual, our results suggest that there was a clinical signal for safetydand possibly beneficial by limited PRO measuresdin concurrently administering lisinopril during thoracic CRT to mitigate or prevent RT-induced pulmonary distress. Our results showed that a definitive, larger-scale, randomized phase 3 trial is needed in the future. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

LBA7564 Background: Patients with r/r B-NHL have a dismal prognosis. DIAL (Dual Immunomodulation in Aggressive Lymphoma) was a multi-center randomized phase II study testing the efficacy of nivolumab (PD-1 inhibitor) plus varlilumab (CD27 agonist) in this population. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to nivolumab (240 mg IV every 2 weeks for 4 months, 480 mg IV monthly thereafter; group 1) alone or combined with varlilumab (3 mg/kg IV monthly; group 2). Cross-over (group 1 to 2) was allowed for progression. Primary endpoint was overall response (ORR) per LYRIC criteria. A sample size of 48 patients per arm would provide 80% power to detect increase in ORR from 25% to 45% using a one-sided test (p = 0.15). Pre-specified interim analysis occurred after half of the patients completed first radiologic assessment. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events (AEs). Exploratory endpoints included tumor genomic assessment and immune profiling of blood and tumor. Results: 53 patients were enrolled (27 in group 1; 26 in group 2). Interim analysis included 24 patients from each arm. Mean age was 65.2 years, 34 (70.8%) were male, and 36 (75%) received prior CAR-T cell therapy. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms. Grade ≥ 3 AEs were observed in 8 (33.3%) and 7 (30.4%) of patients in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Common AEs (> 5%) of any grade included fatigue, lymphopenia, diarrhea, rash. There were no treatment-associated deaths. Toxicity profile was similar between arms. Table summarizes efficacy outcomes. ORR was achieved in 6 patients (12.5%), not statistically different between arms; 4 responses were complete. Seven patients crossed over (1 responded after crossing). Median OS (8.6 vs 7.3 months; p = 0.39) and PFS (2.7 vs 1.4 months; p = 0.06) were similar between arms. Subgroup analysis of patients with prior CAR-T cell therapy showed similar ORR (5/36; 14%), not statistically different between arms. Correlative analysis results will be presented at conference. The trial met futility criterion on interim analysis and enrollment ceased based on pre-specified stopping rule. Conclusions: Dual immunomodulatory therapy did not enhance anti-tumor activity in patients with aggressive B-NHL compared to nivolumab alone. Response rates were low and consistent with previous data using PD-1 inhibitors in this population. Prior therapy with CAR-T cell does not seem to sensitize patients to PD-1 blockade. Toxicity profile was acceptable and dual therapy did not increase the rate of AEs. Clinical trial information: NCT03038672. [Table: see text]

TPS4615 Background: While a standard approach to muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) management involves neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy (NAC) followed by radical cystectomy (RC), up to 50% of pts recur with metastatic disease. Moreover, removal of the bladder has a significant impact on pts’ quality of life. Pathologic downstaging to non-muscle-invasive disease (5 cm by cystoscopic assessment, and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-refractory disease (beyond standard induction and maintenance) are not allowed. Intravesical chemotherapy is allowed. Pts must be eligible for cisplatin chemotherapy. Eligible pts will receive either standard dose or dose dense gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy (investigator’s choice) with simultaneous genetic sequencing of pre-treatment transurethral resection specimens. Pts whose tumors contain deleterious alterations in any 1 of 9 pre-selected DDR genes ( ERCC2, ERCC5, BRCA1, BRCA2, RECQL4, RAD51C, ATM, ATR, and FANCC) and who exhibit T1 disease after NAC will undergo RC or chemoradiation therapy (investigator/patient choice). The primary endpoint is 3-year event-free survival in DDR-altered pts who undergo bladder sparing, defined as the proportion of pts without BCG-unresponsive non-muscle invasive recurrences, any >T2 recurrences, or any metastatic recurrences. Secondary endpoints include clinical response rate (

Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL), a heterogeneous group of mature aggressive non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas, carry a worse prognosis for most subtypes when compared with their B-cell counterparts. Despite recent approval of newer therapies, the outlook for patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) PTCL remains poor and new treatment strategies are clearly needed. Targeting the profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment in PTCL is one such approach. To determine whether immune checkpoint blockade targeting program death receptor 1 would be effective in PTCL, we conducted an investigator-initiated phase 2 prospective study of single-agent nivolumab for RR PTCL. We report here results of the pre-specified interim analysis.MethodsThe primary objective was to assess the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability of nivolumab in PTCL and to assess progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) was defined as time-to-treatment failure of less than or equal to one month from initiation of therapy.ResultsTwelve patients who received at least one cycle of nivolumab were included in this interim analysis. Half (6/12) of the patients had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3/12 had PTCL, not otherwise specified. Most (11/12) were advanced stage, had extranodal disease (97.1%) and had received a prior autologous stem cell transplant (50%). The ORR was 33% (95% CI: 12.3 to 63.7%) with two complete response and two partial response. The median PFS was however short at 2.7 months (95% CI: 1.5 to NE); and the median OS was 6.7 months (95% CI: 3.4 to NE). The median DOR was also short at 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.9 to NE). HPD occurred in four patients, three of whom had AITL. Observed grade 3 and higher adverse events (AEs) were non-hematologic in 5/12 (42%), while hematologic AEs were seen in 3/12 (25%).ConclusionsNivolumab had modest clinical activity in R/R PTCL. Due to a high number of hyperprogression and short DOR, a decision was made to halt the study. These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases.Trial registration numberNCT03075553.

Sleep disturbance is a prevalent problem for cancer survivors and effective behavioral treatments are not widely used for this population. This study evaluated home-based sleep interventions based on cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). This phase II randomized controlled trial evaluated two manualized interventions over 7 weeks. The intervention group received sleep hygiene information, stimulus control, sleep restriction, and a bedtime imagery audio recording. The control group was similar, but without sleep restriction and used audio recordings of bedtime short stories instead of imagery. Eligibility included adult cancer survivors who had trouble falling asleep or falling back to sleep on 3 of 7 days. Patients with diagnoses of sleep or mental health disorders were excluded. The primary endpoint was change in time to fall asleep or falling back to sleep after awakening, from baseline to week 7. Two-sample T tests evaluated differences between arms for this endpoint. Ninety-three of 168 planned participants were enrolled from 20 institutions. The study closed early for poor accrual. Baseline time to sleep was 45 min and 52 min for the intervention and control group, respectively. At 7 weeks, both groups improved, the intervention group to 26 min and control group to 30 min, a non-significant difference between groups (p = 0.85). Secondary outcomes improved in both groups with no significant differences between arms. Improvement in sleep outcomes in both arms was consistent with other CBT-I interventions delivered through alternative approaches to provider-delivered therapy. More research on optimal scalable delivery of CBT-I is needed. This study supports the effectiveness of CBT-I based behavioral interventions for sleep but also the need for better delivery methods to improve uptake and effect size. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00993928

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. 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. 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

TPS4593 Background: Bone metastases are prevalent in approximately 30% of pts with advanced RCC. Pts with bone metastases have a worse prognosis compared to pts without bone metastases and are at risk of symptomatic skeletal events (SSEs). Cabozantinib, a multitargeted inhibitor of multiple kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor and MET, has improved survival in pts with metastatic RCC and has enhanced activity in bone. Ra-223, an alpha-emitting radioisotope with natural bone-seeking proclivity, has been shown to prolong survival in men with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We previously conducted a pilot study of Ra-223 with VEGF inhibition and demonstrated safety and declines in markers of bone formation and resorption with the combination (McKay et al, CCR 2018). Given that decreasing rates of SSEs and improving outcomes for pts with RCC with bone metastases are unmet needs in pts with RCC, we designed a randomized phase 2 study through the National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) investigating cabozantinib with or without Ra-223 in patients with RCC with bone metastases. Methods: This is an open-label multicenter study. Eligible pts have metastatic RCC of any histology with ≥2 metastatic bone lesions untreated with prior radiation therapy and no more than 2 prior lines of systemic therapy. Pts with non-clear cell RCC are eligible and will be capped at 20% of the total accrual goal. Pts must have a Karnofsky performance status of ≥60%, have symptomatic bone pain defined as a prior SSE or need of analgesics, and be on osteoclast-targeted therapy unless otherwise contraindicated. Pts are randomized 1:1 to cabozantinib with (Arm A) or without (Arm B) Ra-223. Starting dose of cabozantinib for Arm A is 40 mg by mouth daily to be escalated to 60 mg daily after cycle 1 (1 cycle = 28 days) if no persistent grade 2 or grade ≥3 toxicity. Ra-223 is administered at a fixed dose of 1.49 microcurie/kg IV every 28 days x 6 doses. The primary endpoint is SSE-free survival. Secondary endpoints include safety, progression-free survival, overall survival, quality of life measures, and correlative analyses including liquid biopsy studies and tumor tissue analysis. The study has 90% power to detect an improvement in 6-month SSE-free survival rate from 65% to 78% with one-sided α = 0.025 significance. To ensure 191 evaluable patients, target accrual is 210 pts. This design includes a safety run-in and an interim analysis for futility when 50% of the expected number of events (72 SSE events) have been observed. Final data analysis will occur when 143 events have been observed. The study was activated in December 2019 and accrual is currently ongoing throughout the NCTN. Clinical trial information: NCT04071223.

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. 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. 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

To characterize quality of life (QOL) using real-time, electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) and to evaluate adverse events (AEs) and supportive care during head-and-neck radiotherapy (RT) and concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT).Sixty-five patients undergoing head-and-neck RT completed electronic, real-time, 12-item linear analog self-assessments (LASA) at baseline, before biweekly appointments, and at the last week of RT. Changes in QOL domains between time points were calculated. Clinical data were collected from the institutional medical record. AEs were recorded at the same time points as the LASA and graded.During head-and-neck RT, most patients had clinically meaningful decreases in all QOL domains except level of support, financial concerns, and legal concerns. QOL domains with the most prevalent, clinically meaningful decreases were fatigue (75.4% of patients; 95% CI, 62.9-84.9%), social activity (70.8%; 95% CI, 58.0-81.1%), and overall QOL (70.8%; 95% CI, 58.0-81.1%). All patients had grade 2 AEs; 35.4% had grade 3 (50.0%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .002). Weight loss averaged 5.5 kg (6.9 kg, CCRT; 2.8 kg, RT; P .001). Intravenous hydration was needed in 52.3% (77.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P .001); feeding tube placement 40.0% (57.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .001); emergency department visits without hospitalization, 10.8%; and emergent hospitalization, 27.7% (37.5%, CCRT; 12.0%, RT; P = .04).Head-and-neck RT, particularly CCRT, negatively impacts patients' overall QOL, social activity, and fatigue, with frequent grade 3 AEs, weight loss, intravenous hydration, feeding tube placement, ED visits, and hospitalization. Real-time ePROs allow providers to monitor QOL at multiple time points during RT, potentially allowing early intervention to improve QOL and mitigate AEs.

ObjectivesSleep disturbances are prevalent in cancer patients, especially those with advanced disease. There are few published intervention studies that address sleep issues in advanced cancer patients during the course of treatment. This study assesses the impact of a multidisciplinary quality of life (QOL) intervention on subjective sleep difficulties in patients with advanced cancer.MethodThis randomized trial investigated the comparative effects of a multidisciplinary QOL intervention (n = 54) vs. standard care (n = 63) on sleep quality in patients with advanced cancer receiving radiation therapy as a secondary endpoint. The intervention group attended six intervention sessions, while the standard care group received informational material only. Sleep quality was assessed using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), administered at baseline and weeks 4 (post-intervention), 27, and 52.ResultsThe intervention group had a statistically significant improvement in the PSQI total score and two components of sleep quality and daytime dysfunction than the control group at week 4. At week 27, although both groups showed improvements in sleep measures from baseline, there were no statistically significant differences between groups in any of the PSQI total and component scores, or ESS. At week 52, the intervention group used less sleep medication than control patients compared to baseline (p = 0.04) and had a lower ESS score (7.6 vs. 9.3, p = 0.03).Significance of resultsA multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL can also improve sleep quality of advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. Those patients who completed the intervention also reported the use of less sleep medication.

Background: Although 50% to 90% of patients who receive epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors develop a rash, options for rash prevention or palliation remain limited. This issue is particularly important from a palliative care standpoint because these agents are prescribed only to patients with incurable cancer. Here, we report (1) gene expression profiling of skin biopsies from patients with an EGFR inhibitor–induced rash and (2) a randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility trial with the antiandrogen, spironolactone. Both investigations were undertaken to begin to explore the hypothesis that androgens mediate EGFR inhibitor–induced rash and that antiandrogens palliate it. Methods/Results: First, 4 skin biopsies from patients with EGFR inhibitor–induced rash (3 men and 1 woman) were subject to gene expression microarray profiling. A public data set of normal skin gene expression (Gene Expression Omnibus, GSE22998) served as a reference. Sixty percent of commonly interrogated androgen receptor genes (207 of 308 between the 2 data sets) were differentially expressed ( P < .05) in the rash samples. Second, in a 17-patient double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial with topical spironolactone applied to the face, although the primary feasibility end point was not achieved, patients in the spironolactone arm received more doses of EGFR inhibitor, and anecdotal photographic evidence suggested salutatory effects of spironolactone on rash. Conclusions: Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor–induced rash appears to be androgen-mediated; antiandrogen therapy merits further study for rash prevention/palliation.

Background/Aims: The use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials is a focal point for research and policy. Non-compliance with planned questionnaires and missing data can threaten both internal validity and generalizability. This retrospective analysis was conducted to determine the extent of, and characteristics associated with, missing patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Study characteristics, patient characteristics and adverse events, and reasons for non-compliance were compiled from 14 closed Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Mayo Clinic Cancer Center, or Mayo Clinic Cancer Research Consortium clinical trials. Compliance rates were calculated for each patient using the number of booklets completed while the patient was on trial divided by the number of booklets the patient was expected to complete. Frequency counts and summary statistics were compiled. Logistic regression techniques were employed. Results: The 1640 included patients had a median age of 58 years and were mostly White (90.8%) and female (73.8%). Compliance rates per study ranged from 84.7% to 97.2%. The primary endpoint of overall compliance rate was 93.1%. A total of 1267 patients were compliant. Those non-compliant were slightly older (mean = 58.6 vs 57.5, p = 0.03) and had different types of cancers (p Conclusion: Patient-reported outcomes have successfully been implemented into Alliance and Mayo Clinic trials with high rates of patient compliance. Further improvement in compliance can be made with staff commitment and education. Patients are typically non-compliant only when the task at hand is burdensome, unclear, or logistically challenging. Existing tracking systems used for the other trial outcomes should be utilized to ensure successful capture of patient-reported outcomes.

Summary Background Traditional methods of reporting adverse events in clinical trials are inadequate for modern cancer treatments with chronic administration. Conventional analysis and display of maximum grade adverse events do not capture toxicity profiles that evolve over time or longer lasting, lower grade toxic effects; we aimed to address this shortcoming in this study. Methods We developed an analytic approach and standardised, comprehensive format, the Toxicity over Time (ToxT) approach, which combines graphs and adverse event tabular displays with multiple longitudinal statistical techniques into a readily applicable method to study toxic effects. Plots visualising summary statistics or individual patient data over discrete timepoints were combined with statistical methods including the following longitudinal techniques: repeated measures models that describe the changes in adverse events across all cycles of treatment; time-to-event analyses of first and worst grade toxicity; and area under the curve (AUC) analyses summarising adverse event profiles over the entire course of a study, including chronic low-grade events. We applied ToxT analysis to adverse event data from two completed North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG/Alliance) trials: N9741 (NCT00003594), in which different combinations of oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan were investigated for metastatic colorectal cancer, and 979254, in which survivors of breast cancer were given venlafaxine or placebo for control of hot flashes. Findings In trial NCCTG 979254 there was a higher incidence of late-occurring dry mouth in patients who were given venlafaxine than in those given placebo (week 1 [baseline]: 13% [six incidence in 48 patients, SD 5] vs 22% [11/49, SD 6]; p=0·20; week 5: 49% [24/49, 7] vs 2% [1/46, 2]; p vs 0·6 [0·7]; p vs 2·9 [4·2]; p Interpretation The ToxT analytical approach incorporates the dimension of time into adverse event assessment and offers a more comprehensive depiction of toxic effects than present methods. With new, continuously administered targeted agents, immunotherapy, and maintenance regimens, these improved longitudinal analyses are directly relevant to patients and are crucial in cancer clinical trials. Funding National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health and the Mayo Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: The burden associated with caregiving has been well documented. Caregivers have multiple responsibilities, and technology may be accessible as a potential burden-alleviating resource. Materials and Methods: We surveyed cancer caregivers regarding current technology use and willingness to use technology for easing burden or distress. Because age has been associated with technology use, responses were compared between geriatric (≥65 years old) and nongeriatric (18–64 years old) caregivers. Results: We had 112 respondents. Based on nonmissing responses, 66% (n=71) were women, 95% (n=106) were white, and 84% (n=91) had post–high school education. Almost all caregivers reported having Internet (105 [94%]) and e-mail (102 [91%]) access. Nongeriatric caregivers indicated more willingness to access Internet-based tools that help caregivers (54 [93%] versus 41 [76%]; p=0.04) and were more frequent users of social media (37 [64%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), smartphones (33 [57%] versus 16 [30%]; p=0.01), and other mobile wireless devices (42 [72%] versus 19 [35%]; p

Introduction: Peripheral T-cell lymphomas (PTCL) are a heterogeneous group of mature aggressive T-cell non-Hodgkin lymphomas. They carry a worse prognosis for most subtypes compared with their B-cell counterparts. Despite the recent approval of newer therapies, the response rate and duration of clinical benefit is short and the outlook for patients with relapsed/refractory (RR) PTCL remains poor. There is therefore a need for novel effective therapies in PTCL. Targeting the profoundly immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) in PTCL is one such approach. Preclinical data show that malignant cells in PTCL overexpress programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1), which signals via programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor, and provides an inhibitory signal further suppressing antitumor immunity. PD-1/PD-L1/2 interactions in PTCL are particularly complicated as both the receptor and ligands can be expressed on the malignant T-cell. While the use of anti-PD-1 blocking antibodies has shown remarkable efficacy particularly in relapsed Hodgkin lymphoma, only a small number of patients with PTCL have been treated with checkpoint blockade. We conducted an investigator-initiated phase 2 prospective study of single-agent nivolumab for RR PTCL. We report here the results of the prespecified interim analysis. Study design and patient selection: Nivolumab was given at a flat dose of 240 mg intravenously (IV) every 2 weeks for 8 cycles then 480 mg IV every 4 weeks starting cycle 9. The primary objective was to assess the overall response rate (ORR) defined as proportion of subjects achieving either a partial response (PR) or complete response (CR) within 12 cycles of treatment. Secondary objectives were to assess safety and tolerability of nivolumab in PTCL and to assess progression-free survival (PFS), duration of response (DOR) and overall survival (OS). Pre-planned sample size was 39, assuming that an ORR of 10% or less would be considered negative and an ORR of 30% or greater would warrant further study. We used a one-stage design with an interim analysis (upon enrolling 12 subjects) based on a Simon optimal design to assess efficacy. This design had a 90% power with a 1-sided 10% level test. The Duffy and Santner method was utilized to determine confidence intervals for the ORR. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to assess PFS, OS, and DOR. This study was sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb (NCT03075553). Results: Twelve patients who received at least one cycle of nivolumab were included in this interim analysis. Patient characteristics are illustrated in table 1. Half (6/12) of the patients had angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL), 3/12 had PTCL, not otherwise specified (NOS), one had ALK negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALK- ALCL). Most (11/12) were advanced stage (stage 4), had extranodal disease and half of the patients had received a prior autologous transplant. The ORR was 33% (4/12) (95% CI: 12.3 - 63.7%): 1 CR seen in ALK-ALCL; 2 PR, 1 in PTCL, NOS and 1 in enteropathy associated T-cell lymphoma; 1 CR in AITL. The median DOR was 3.6 months (95% CI: 1.9-6.9). The median PFS for all 12 patients was short at 1.9 months (95% CI: 1.5-8.7); median OS was 7.9 months (95% CI: 3.4-10.8) (Panel A). Hyperprogressive disease (defined as dramatic progression within 1 cycle of treatment) occurred in 4 patients. Observed grade 3 and higher adverse events (AEs) were as follows: non-hematologic AEs in 5/12 (41.7%), while hematologic AEs were seen in 3/12 (25%) patients. Conclusions: Nivolumab had modest clinical activity in patients with R/R PTCL and the study met the criteria at interim analysis to continue accrual. However, due to the high number of patients with hyperprogressive disease, the moderate activity of the drug, and short DOR, a decision was made to halt the study. These findings likely reflect the distinct biology of PTCL and should be considered when designing future studies using checkpoint inhibitors in these diseases. Further studies are indicated using nivolumab in combination (rather than a single-agent) and use of biomarkers to better predict the responders. Disclosures Bennani: Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Adicet Bio: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Purdue Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Bristol-Myers Squibb: Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Other: Advisory board; Seattle Genetics: Other: Advisory board. Nowakowski:Selvita: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; NanoString: Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Research Funding; Curis: Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd: Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Consultancy, Research Funding. Ansell:Merck: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Seattle Genetics: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Takeda: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Bristol Myers Squibb: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Regeneron: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Affimed: Other: research funding for clinical trials; Pfizer: Other: research funding for clinical trials; AI Therapeutics: Other: research funding for clinical trials.

The combination of pomalidomide (POM) and dexamethasone (DEX) was evaluated for relapsed/refractory primary central nervous system lymphoma (PCNSL) and primary vitreoretinal lymphoma (PVRL) to determine the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) of POM as the primary objective, and overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety profile as secondary objectives. A cohorts-of-3 study design was used with a dose-escalation schedule consisting of POM (3, 5, 7, or 10 mg) orally daily for 21 days every 28 days and DEX 40 mg orally every week. After 2 cycles, POM was continued alone until disease progression, intolerance, or subject withdrawal. Following MTD determination, the MTD cohort was expanded. Twenty-five of 29 patients with the median of 3 prior treatments were eligible for assessment as per international PCNSL collaborative group criteria. The MTD of POM was 5 mg daily for 21 days every 28 days. Whole-study ORR was 48% (12 of 25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 27.8%, 68.7%) with 6 complete response (CR), 2 complete response, unconfirmed (CRu), and 4 partial response (PR). MTD cohort ORR was 50% (8 of 16; 95% CI, 24.7%, 75.4%) with 5 CR, 1 CRu, and 2 PR. Median PFS was 5.3 months (whole study) and 9 months (for responders). One patient had pseudoprogression. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (21%), anemia (8%), and thrombocytopenia (8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included lung infection (12%), sepsis (4%), fatigue (8%), syncope (4%), dyspnea (4%), hypoxia (4%), respiratory failure (8%), and rash (4%). POM/DEX treatment is feasible with significant therapeutic activity against relapsed/refractory PCNSL and PVRL. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01722305.

Objectives Caregiving can negatively impact well-being. Cancer caregivers face unique challenges given the intense nature of cancer and treatment, which increases their risk for burden, poor quality of life (QOL), and burnout. Studies to reduce caregiver burden demonstrate QOL improvement and distress reduction in the short term. However, few studies exist to address long-term benefits. We assessed changes in various QOL domains after participation in a QOL intervention for caregivers of patients having newly diagnosed advanced cancer. Methods Our institutional review board-approved study randomized patient–caregiver dyads to either usual care or an in-person group intervention composed of six 90-min sessions of structured multidisciplinary QOL components delivered over 4 weeks, with 10 follow-up phone calls within 20 weeks. Caregivers attended four of the six sessions attended by patients. Sessions included physical therapy, coping and communication strategies, mental health education, spirituality, and social needs. Caregiver QOL (Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer Scale [CQOLC] and Linear Analogue Self-Assessment [LASA]) and mood (Profile of Mood States-Brief [POMS-B]) were measured at baseline and 4, 27, and 52 weeks. Wilcoxon tests and effect sizes were used to compare the caregiver groups. Results Of the 131 caregivers (65 intervention and 66 usual care), 116 completed the study. Caregivers post-intervention (at 4 weeks) had improved scores on LASA Spiritual Well-being; POMS-B total score, Vigor/Activity, and Fatigue/Inertia; and CQOLC Adaptation. At long term (at 27 weeks), caregivers retained improvement in POMS-B Fatigue/Inertia and gained improvements in CQOLC Disruptiveness and Financial Concerns. Conclusions Caregivers who received the intervention had higher QOL ratings for specific QOL domains but not for overall QOL. Although a comprehensive intervention was helpful, more specific, targeted interventions tailored for individual needs are recommended. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Hot flashes are a significant source of symptom burden that negatively impacts quality of life (QOL). For women who have contraindications to, or are unwilling to consider, estrogens or antidepressants for bothersome hot flashes, there are limited effective pharmacologic or complementary and alternative medicines.This single-arm phase II trial studied the efficacy of S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAMe) for the treatment of hot flashes. Eligible women were required to have reported ≥14 hot flashes per week for ≥1 month. The patients were treated with SAMe at a dose of 400 mg twice daily to evaluate whether a reduction in hot flash score appeared to be better than the historical placebo response of approximately 25%. The women kept a daily hot flash diary during a baseline week and then daily during weeks 2-7. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline to week 7 in hot flash score and hot flash frequency. Secondary endpoints included toxicity analyses and the effect of SAMe on QOL.From October 28, 2010 to January 30, 2012, 43 women were treated with SAMe. The decrease in mean percent of baseline hot flash score and frequency was 35.4 and 32.6%, respectively. When compared to the historical placebo response of 25%, the effect of SAMe on hot flash score was not statistically significant (p = 0.09). Treatment was well tolerated with expected grade 1/2 gastrointestinal toxicity and no negative effect on QOL.The use of SAMe does not appear to significantly reduce hot flashes more than would be expected with a placebo.

Previous pilot data suggested that venlafaxine could prevent acute and chronic oxaliplatin-related neuropathy. The purpose of this randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded pilot study was to obtain additional data to support conducting a phase III trial to test the use of venlafaxine to prevent oxaliplatin neurotoxicity. Fifty patients, scheduled to undergo oxaliplatin-based therapy (FOLFOX) for stages II–III (67 %) or stage IV (33 %) colon cancer, were randomized to receive venlafaxine extended release (37.5 mg) or placebo, twice daily, through their last dose of oxaliplatin and then titrated off. Neurotoxicity was evaluated via several patient- and physician-reported measures, including the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (EORTC QLQ-CIPN20) instrument. Baseline patient characteristics were equivalent for the two arms, with a median age of 60 years. There was a trend toward benefit for the venlafaxine arm, when evaluated by the oxaliplatin-specific neuropathy scale and by acute neuropathy measures of throat discomfort and discomfort swallowing cold liquids, the latter only for the first two oxaliplatin doses. These trends were outweighed by a lack of any such trends in all other measurements including the following: (1) the CIPN20 sensory subscale (P = 0.55, primary endpoint), physician-completed NCI CTCAE assessment, or cumulative administered oxaliplatin doses (median 716 vs 631 mg for placebo and venlafaxine, respectively, P = 0.34). The present study neither supports the use of venlafaxine for preventing oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in clinical practice nor the initiation of a phase III trial to investigate venlafaxine in this setting.

Paclitaxel can cause an acute pain syndrome (P-APS), considered to be an acute form of neuropathy and chronic chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Anecdotal reports suggested that gabapentin may be helpful in the prevention of these toxicities. The purpose of this pilot study was to obtain data to support or refute the utility of pregabalin for the prevention of P-APS and CIPN. Patients scheduled to receive weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2/dose) were randomized 1:1 to receive pregabalin 75 mg or a placebo, twice daily, during the 12 weeks of chemotherapy. Patients completed the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ) CIPN20 questionnaire at baseline, prior to each dose of paclitaxel and monthly for 6 months post-treatment. Patients completed a post-paclitaxel questionnaire for 6 days after each dose of paclitaxel and an acute pain syndrome symptom questionnaire on day 8. The primary end point was to determine the effect of pregabalin on the maximum of the worst acute pain scores for the week following paclitaxel administration for cycle 1. Forty-six patients were randomly assigned to the treatment or placebo arm. There was no suggestion of a difference between the two study arms with regard to P-APS measures. While there was a suggestion that pregabalin decreased numbness, there was no suggestion that it decreased tingling, pain, or the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 subscale scores. There were no evident toxicity differences between the two study arms. The results of this pilot trial do not support that pregabalin is helpful for preventing P-APS or paclitaxel-associated CIPN.

Objective Hot flashes are a common symptom in breast cancer survivors that can negatively impact quality of life. Preliminary data suggested that magnesium might be used as an effective low-cost treatment of hot flashes with minimal adverse effects. Methods A four-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial was conducted. Postmenopausal women with a history of breast cancer and bothersome hot flashes were randomized into treatment groups of magnesium oxide 800 or 1,200 mg daily or corresponding placebo groups at a 2:2:(1:1) ratio. Hot flash frequency and hot flash score (number × mean severity) were measured using a validated hot flash diary. A 1-week baseline period preceded initiation of study medication. The primary endpoint was intrapatient difference in mean hot flash score between baseline and treatment periods, comparing each magnesium group with the combined placebo groups using a gatekeeping procedure. Results were analyzed using repeated-measures and growth curve models on weekly hot flash scores based on a modified intent-to-treat principle. Results Two hundred eighty-nine women enrolled between December 2011 and March 2013. Study groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics. Mean hot flash scores, mean hot flash frequencies, and associated changes during the treatment period were similar for each group. An increased incidence of diarrhea and a corresponding lower incidence of constipation were reported in magnesium arms compared with placebo. No statistically significant difference in other toxicities or quality-of-life measures was observed. Conclusions The results of this trial do not support the use of magnesium oxide for hot flashes.

Bone mineral density (BMD) measurement can vary depending upon anatomical site, machine, and normative values used. This analysis compared different BMD endpoints in two clinical trials. Trial results differed across endpoints. Future clinical trials should consider inclusion of multiple endpoints in sensitivity analysis to ensure sound overall study conclusions.Methodological issues hamper efficacy assessment of osteoporosis prevention agents in cancer survivors. Osteoporosis diagnosis can vary depending upon which bone mineral density (BMD) anatomical site and machine is used and which set of normative values are applied. This analysis compared different endpoints for osteoporosis treatment efficacy assessment in two clinical studies.Data from North Central Cancer Treatment Group phase III clinical trials N02C1 and N03CC (Alliance) were employed involving 774 patients each comparing two treatments for osteoporosis prevention. Endpoints for three anatomical sites included raw BMD score (RawBMD); raw machine-based, sample-standardized, and reference population-standardized T scores (RawT, TSamp, TRef); and standard normal percentile corresponding to the reference population-standardized T score (TPerc). For each, treatment arm comparison was carried out using three statistical tests using change and percentage change from baseline (CB, %CB) at 1 year.Baseline correlations among endpoints ranged from 0.79 to 1.00. RawBMD and TPerc produced more statistically significant results (14 and 19 each out of 36 tests) compared to RawT (11/36), TSamp (8/36), and TRef (7/36). Spine produced the most statistically significant results (26/60) relative to femoral neck (20/60) and total hip (13/60). Lastly, CB resulted in 44 statistically significant results out of 90 tests, whereas %CB resulted in only 15 significant results.Treatment comparisons and interpretations were different across endpoints and anatomical sites. Transforming via sample statistics provided similar results as transforming via reference or machine-based norms. However, RawBMD and TPerc may be more sensitive to change as clinical trial endpoints.

Background Multiple pilot studies, including one in colorectal cancer patients, suggest that creatine, an amino acid derivative, augments muscle, improves strength, and thereby could palliate the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome. Patients and methods In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, incurable patients with this syndrome were assigned creatine (20 g/day load×5 days followed by 2 g/day orally) versus identical placebo. Patients were weighed once a week for 1 month and then monthly. Patients were also assessed over 1 month for appetite and quality of life (validated questionnaires), fist grip strength, body composition (bioelectrical impedance), and adverse events. The primary endpoint was 10% or greater weight gain from baseline during the first month. Results Within this combined cohort of 263 evaluable patients (134 received creatine and 129 placebo), only 3 gained ≥10% of their baseline weight by 1 month: two creatine-treated and the other placebo-exposed (P = 1.00). Questionnaire data on appetite, quality of life, and activities of daily living showed no statistically significant differences between groups. Similarly, no statistically significant differences between groups were observed for fist-grip strength or body composition. Rates and severity of adverse events were comparable between groups. Finally, a median survival of 230 and 239 days were observed in the creatine and placebo groups, respectively (P = 0.70). Conclusion Creatine, as prescribed in this trial, had no effect on the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute���s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted �� statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling ���too ill��� in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most �� < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

Objective There are significant burdens associated with providing care for loved ones with cancer. However, caregiver quality of life (QOL) is often overlooked. With the increasing number of older adults with cancer, it is important to determine whether a patient's age and QOL have any association with the caregiver's QOL. The objective of our study was to describe caregiver QOL and explore whether patient age and other psychosocial factors impact caregiver QOL. Materials and Methods Baseline information from patients with advanced cancer undergoing radiation and their caregivers, who were enrolled in a randomized, controlled clinical trial to test the effectiveness of a structured, multidisciplinary QOL intervention, was analyzed for this study. Caregivers completed the Caregiver Quality of Life Index-Cancer (CQOLC) Scale. Both patients and caregivers completed the Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA) to measure QOL, and Profile of Mood States (POMS) to measure mood states. Results Overall, 131 patient–caregiver pairs participated in the study. At baseline, caregivers of older adults (≥65years) had higher mental ( P =0.01), emotional ( P =0.003), spiritual ( P P =0.03) LASA QOL scores. Caregivers of older adults also had higher baseline QOL (CQOLC, P =0.003) and mood (POMS, P =0.04) than caregivers of younger adults. Caregivers of patients with higher LASA QOL scores had higher overall ( P =0.02), mental ( P =0.006), physical ( P =0.02), emotional ( P =0.002), and spiritual LASA QOL scores ( P =0.047). Conclusions Caregivers of older adults with advanced cancer demonstrated better QOL and fewer mood disturbances compared to caregivers of younger patients. When patients have good QOL, caregivers also had good QOL.

Purpose Cumulative neurotoxicity is a prominent toxicity of oxaliplatin-based therapy. Intravenous calcium and magnesium have been extensively used to reduce oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. This trial was designed to definitively test whether calcium/magnesium decreases oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity. Patients and Methods In all, 353 patients with colon cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) were randomly assigned to intravenous calcium/magnesium before and after oxaliplatin, a placebo before and after, or calcium/magnesium before and placebo after. The primary end point was cumulative neurotoxicity measured by the sensory scale of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 tool. Results There were no statistically significant neuropathy differences among the study arms as measured by the primary end point or additional measures of neuropathy, including clinician-determined measurement of the time to grade 2 neuropathy by using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events scale or an oxaliplatin-specific neuropathy scale. In addition, calcium/magnesium did not substantially decrease oxaliplatin-induced acute neuropathy. Conclusion This study does not support using calcium/magnesium to protect against oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity.

BACKGROUND Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a significant side effect of taxane and platinum-based chemotherapy. Several studies have supported the potential benefit of glutathione for the prevention of platinum-induced CIPN. The current trial was designed to determine whether glutathione would prevent CIPN as a result of carboplatin/paclitaxel therapy. METHODS In total, 185 patients who received treatment with paclitaxel and carboplatin were accrued between December 4, 2009 and December 19, 2011. Patients were randomized to receive either placebo (n = 91) or 1.5 g/m2 glutathione (n = 94) over 15 minutes immediately before chemotherapy. CIPN was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life (EORTC-QLQ) 20-item, CIPN-specific (CIPN20) sensory subscale and the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. RESULTS There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 study arms with regard to: 1) peripheral neurotoxicity, as assessed using both the EORTC-QLQ-CIPN20 (P = .21) and the CTCAE scales (P = .449 for grade ≥2 neurotoxicity; P = .039 for time to development of grade ≥2 neuropathy, in favor of the placebo); 2) the degree of paclitaxel acute pain syndrome (P = .30 for patients who received paclitaxel every 3-4 weeks and P = .002, in favor of the placebo, for patients who received weekly paclitaxel); 3) the time to disease progression (P = .63); or 4) apparent toxicities. Subgroup analyses did not reveal any evidence of benefit in any particular subgroup. CONCLUSIONS The results from this study do not support the use of glutathione for the prevention of paclitaxel/carboplatin-induced CIPN. Cancer 2014;120:1890–1897. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Objective The aim of this randomized controlled trial for patients with advanced cancer receiving radiation therapy was to determine the effect of a multidisciplinary intervention on spiritual quality of life (QOL) at the end of the intervention (week 4) and at two follow-up time points (weeks 26 and 52). Methods One hundred thirty-one persons were randomized to either the intervention or control (forms only) groups. The intervention included six 90-min in-person sessions based on the physical, emotion, social, and spiritual domains of QOL. Three sessions included the spiritual component. Caregivers were present for four sessions, one which included a spiritual component. Ten follow-up phone calls were made to the patients in the intervention group during the 6-month follow-up period. Patients completed the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General Scale, the Linear Analog Self-Assessment which includes an assessment of spiritual QOL, and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being (FACIT-Sp) at enrollment, and weeks 4, 27, and 52. Results Following the intervention, the intervention group demonstrated improved spiritual QOL on the FACIT-Sp, whereas the spiritual QOL of the control group decreased, resulting in significant mean changes between groups (total score: 1.7 vs. −2.9; p

Background:Patients experience reductions in quality of life (QOL) while receiving cancer treatment and several approaches have been proposed to address QOL issues. In this project, the QOL differences between older adult (age 65+) and younger adult (age 18–64) advanced cancer patients in response to a multidisciplinary intervention designed to improve QOL were examined.Methods:This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360814. Newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy were randomized to active QOL intervention or control groups. Those in the intervention group received six multidisciplinary 90-minute sessions designed to address the five major domains of QOL. Outcomes measured at baseline and weeks 4, 27, and 52 included QOL (Linear Analogue Self-Assessment (LASA), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (FACT-G)) and mood (Profile of Mood States (POMS)). Kruskall–Wallis methodology was used to compare scores between older and younger adult patients randomized to the intervention.Results:Of 131 patients in the larger randomized controlled study, we report data on 54 evaluable patients (16 older adults and 38 younger adults) randomized to the intervention. Older adult patients reported better overall QOL (LASA 74.4 vs. 62.9, p = 0.040), higher social well-being (FACT-G 91.1 vs. 83.3, p = 0.045), and fewer problems with anger (POMS anger–hostility 95.0 vs. 86.4, p = 0.028). Long-term benefits for older patients were seen in the anger–hostility scale at week 27 (92.2 vs. 84.2, p = 0.027) and week 52 (96.3 vs. 85.9, p = 0.005).Conclusions:Older adult patients who received a multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL while undergoing advanced cancer treatments benefited differently in some QOL domains, compared to younger adult patients. Future studies can provide further insight on how to tailor QOL interventions for these age groups.

Pelvic radiotherapy (PRT) is known to adversely affect bowel function (BF) and patient well-being. This study characterized long-term BF and evaluated quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving PRT.Data from 252 patients were compiled from two North Central Cancer Treatment Group prospective studies, which included assessment of BF and QOL by the BF questionnaire (BFQ) and Uniscale QOL at baseline and 12 and 24 months after completion of radiotherapy. BFQ scores (sum of symptoms), Uniscale results, adverse-event incidence, and baseline demographic data were compared via t test, χ (2), Fisher exact, Wilcoxon, and correlation methodologies.The total BFQ score was higher than baseline at 12 and 24 months (P 0.001). More patients had five or more symptoms at 12 months (13 %) and 24 months (10 %) than at baseline (2 %). Symptoms occurring in greater than 20 % of patients at 12 and 24 months were clustering, stool-gas confusion, and urgency. Factors associated with worse BF were female sex, rectal or gynecologic primary tumors, prior anterior resection of the rectum, and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy. Patients experiencing grade 2 or higher acute toxicity had worse 24-month BF (P values,.001-.02). Uniscale QOL was not significantly different from baseline at 12 or 24 months, despite worse BFQ scores.PRT was associated with worse long-term BF. Worse BFQ score was not associated with poorer QOL. Further research to characterize the subset of patients at risk of significant decline in BF is warranted.

Cancer treatment can profoundly impact the patient's quality of life (QOL). It has been well documented that there are gender differences in the symptoms associated with cancer treatment. This study explores the impact of gender on QOL for patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer.A randomized, controlled clinical trial in patients receiving radiotherapy for advanced cancer demonstrated maintenance of QOL with a six session multidisciplinary structured intervention compared to controls. This current study reports the gender differences in that trial. Outcome measures included the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general (FACT-G), linear analog self-assessment (LASA), and profile of mood states (POMS) at baseline and weeks 4, 27, and 52. Kruskal-Wallis was used to compare QOL scores.One hundred thirty-one patients (45 women and 86 men, mean age 58.7) participated in the clinical trial. At week 4 postintervention, women in the intervention group had statistically significant improvement in their FACT-G score, FACT-G physical well-being subscale, LASA fatigue, POMS total score, POMS fatigue-inertia subscale, and POMS confusion-bewilderment subscale (p0.05). Men receiving the intervention had a smaller decrease in FACT-G score compared to controls (p = 0.048) and also worsened on the LASA financial (p = 0.02). At week 27, the only gender difference was that intervention group men had more POMS anger-hostility (p = 0.009). By week 52, there were no statistically significant gender differences in any of the QOL measures.Gender-based differences appear to play a role in the early, but not late, response to a multidisciplinary intervention to improve QOL for patients with advanced cancer, suggesting that early interventions can be tailored for each gender.

BACKGROUND The objective of this study was to explore relations between patient role preferences during the cancer treatment decision-making process and quality of life (QOL). METHODS One-year cancer survivors completed a survey in 2000 as part of a larger survey conducted by the American Cancer Society. The current report was based on survey respondents from Minnesota (response rate, 37.4%). Standardized measures included the Profile of Mood States (scores were converted to have a range, from 0 to 100, with 100 indicating the best mood), the Medical Outcomes Survey 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36) (standardized scores), and the Control Preferences Scale. Patients' actual and preferred role preference distributions and concordance between roles were compared with QOL scores using 2-sample t test methodology. RESULTS The actual role of survivors (n = 594) in cancer care was 33% active, 50% collaborative, and 17% passive. Their preferred role was 35% active, 53% collaborative, and 13% passive. Overall, 88% of survivors had concordant preferred and actual roles. Survivors who had concordant roles had higher SF-36 Physical Component Scale (PCS) scores (P

Fatigue is the problematic symptom identified by patients with cancer. However, fatigue has not been widely examined in caregivers of patients with cancer. In this study, 131 caregivers of patients diagnosed with advanced stage cancer and actively receiving radiotherapy reported experiencing the most difficulties with fatigue (mean 46.9; on a 0-100 scale, with a 10-point difference having clinical meaning) at baseline and at a 6-month follow-up (mean 48.3). This is in sharp contrast to other domains of quality of life and functioning being rated in the 60s, 70s and 80s by the caregivers of patients with cancer. Given the level of fatigue reported by the caregivers of patients with cancer, if confirmed by other investigators in larger and more diverse samples, interventions targeting caregiver fatigue should be explored.

Radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicities over time have not been well quantified. We examined during and immediately following radiation therapy skin toxicities over time in a randomized study of mometasone furoate vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. Patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomized. Symptoms related to skin toxicity were addressed weekly using provider-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0) and 4 patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys. We applied repeated measures and risk analysis methodologies. One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled. By CTCAE, significant differences favoring mometasone were detected over time in all toxicities except skin striae, atrophy, and infection. Statistically significant differences between arms at baseline but not over time occurred for all Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Statistically significant differences occurred for all symptoms in the temporal profile of symptoms as measured by PRO surveys (all P

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial interventions often address only 1 domain of quality of life (QOL), are offered to patients with early-stage cancer, do not include the caregiver, and are delivered after cancer treatment has been completed. METHODS: In the current randomized controlled trial, 131 patients with advanced cancer who received radiotherapy and their caregivers were randomly assigned to either a 6-session, structured, multidisciplinary intervention arm or a standard care arm. The average age of the patients was 58 years, the majority were male (63%), and tumor types varied (gastrointestinal [37%], brain [22%], head and neck [16%], lung [13%], and other [12%]). The six 90-minute sessions addressed the 5 domains of QOL: cognitive, physical, emotional, social, and spiritual. The in-person intervention was followed by 10 brief telephone counseling sessions that took place over the next 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 117 patients who completed the study, overall QOL (assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General [FACT-G]) at week 4 was significantly higher in the intervention group (n = 54) compared with the standard arm control group (n = 63) (75.2 vs 68.7; P = .02). The 10 brief telephone contacts did not appear to impact QOL because at week 27 the groups had identical QOL (means of 77.6 and 77.7, respectively). There was no effect of the intervention noted on caregiver QOL. CONCLUSIONS: Participating in a 6-session multidisciplinary intervention was found to be effective in maintaining the QOL of patients with advanced cancer who were actively receiving radiotherapy. The QOL and symptom burden of this population is striking, making it important to identify effective QOL strategies to implement in conjunction with cancer care. Cancer 2013. © 2012 American Cancer Society.

Historically, skin toxicity has been assessed in prospective clinical trials using the clinician-reported National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-reported Skindex-16 measures symptoms and perceptions of toxicity. This study was designed to compare information provided by these two measures.Data were compiled from three placebo-controlled North Central Cancer Treatment Group studies (N06C4, N03CB, N05C4) having rash prevention as the primary objective. All used the Skindex-16 and CTCAE at baseline, weekly during treatment and during a minimum 2-week follow-up period. Statistical procedures, including Pearson correlations, were utilized to determine relationships between adverse event (AE) grades and Skindex-16 scores.Four hundred and twelve individual patients provided data (median age, 61; 134 male). Patients' Skindex-16 score results show a 0.9 overall mean (range 0-6 with 6 being worse symptoms), a 0.4 baseline mean (range, 0-4.3) and a 1.3 end-of-treatment mean (range, 0-5.9). Ninety-three, 142 and 177 patients experienced a grade 0, 1 and 2+ CTCAE skin toxicity, respectively. Baseline Skindex-16 scores had relatively low correlation with CTCAE grades. The correlation of rash grade with Skindex-16 scores ranged from r = 0.49 with the function subscale to r = 0.62 with the symptom subscale. The highest correlations of the maximum grade of any dermatological AE with the Skindex-16 were r = 0.48 for the total score and r = 0.55 for the symptom subscale.The data reported support the decision to include both measures in a clinical trial to assess the patient experience, as each measure may specifically target varying symptoms and intensities.

Introduction. VSV-IFNβ-NIS is an oncolytic vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV; Rhabdovirus family) with rapid replication kinetics and potent antitumor activity. VSV-IFNβ-NIS encodes the human interferon beta (IFNβ) gene as a STING agonist and the human sodium iodide symporter (NIS) as a reporter gene for tracking the pharmacokinetics (PK) of virus replication in infected tumors. VSV replicates selectively in cancer cells and has promising preclinical antitumor activity across a broad spectrum of cancer types. We report here the safety and correlative data from an FIH trial of intravenous (IV) administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS in patients with stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer (EC). Methods. There are two ongoing IV FIH trials using VSV-IFN-NIS, in patients with EC (NCT03120624) and one in patients with hematological malignancies (NCT03017820). In EC, it is a classical 3+3 phase I trial, starting at 5x109 TCID50 through 5x1011 TCID50, given as a single IV dose. The primary objective is safety and tolerability; secondary objectives include monitoring the PK of viral replication through SPECT/CT imaging with NIS gene, viremia, virus shedding, preliminary efficacy, changes in the immune profile of peripheral blood leukocytes, and immunohistochemistry for immune cell infiltrates in tumors. Results. Nine patients have received IV VSV-IFNβ-NIS to date; three with EC and six with hematologic malignancies. The highest dose administered to date is 1.7x1010 TCID50 and dose escalation is ongoing. No DLTs have been observed. Patients experienced the expected infusion related AEs including rigors, chills, nausea, fever, hypotension, and hot flashes. Multiple cytokines increased at 4h post infusion of virus, but most returned to baseline levels by 24h. Viremia was detectable in all patients at the end of infusion, and to varying levels at 30 mins, 1, 2, 4, 24, 48h or 72 hours post virus infusion. No persistent viremia was observed. No infectious virus was recovered in buccal swabs or urine and neutralizing anti-VSV antibodies were present by day 29. Extensive immune phenotyping for T cells, NK, MSDC, myeloid cells performed on peripheral blood cells collected at baseline and at day 3, 8, 15 and 29 post virus infusion showed a trend towards increased PD-1 expression on CD8+ cells. Early IHC data suggests an increase in CD3+ and CD8+ cells in tumor biopsies at day 29 and 3 months in patients with EC treated at the first dose level. Elispot assays for shared EC antigens are pending. Conclusions. IV administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS up to doses of 1.7x1010 is safe and well tolerated. There is evidence of T cell activation with increased PD-1 expression in CD8+ T cells in the peripheral blood and increased in CD3+ and CD8+ cells in tumor biopsies. Updated results for the EC study will be reported. Citation Format: Jamie Bakkum-Gamez, Matthew S. Block, Nanda Packiriswamy, Bethany A. Brunton, Upreti Deepak, Jonathan M. Mitchell, Lukkana Suksanpaisan, Pamela Atherton, Amylou Dueck, Stephen J. Russell, Martha Q. Lacy, Kah-Whye Peng. First in human (FIH) dose escalation studies of intravenous administration of VSV-IFNβ-NIS (Voyager-V1™) in Stage IV or recurrent endometrial cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT072.

Purpose Up to 75% of women experience hot flashes, which can negatively impact quality of life. As hot flash physiology is not definitively understood, it cannot be assumed that effective agents represent class effects. Therefore, there is a continued need for rigorous evaluation to identify effective nonhormonal options for hot flash relief. Methods A randomized, double-blind trial evaluated citalopram at target doses of 10, 20, or 30 mg/d versus placebo for 6 weeks. Postmenopausal women with at least 14 bothersome hot flashes per week recorded hot flashes for 7 days before starting treatment and were then titrated to their target doses. The primary end point was the change from baseline to 6 weeks in hot flash score. Results Two hundred fifty-four women were randomly assigned onto this study. Data for hot flash scores and frequencies showed significant improvement in hot flashes with citalopram over placebo, with no significant differences among doses. Reductions in mean hot flash scores were 2.0 (23%), 7.0 (49%), 7.7 (50%), and 10.7 (55%) for placebo and 10, 20, and 30 mg of citalopram, respectively (P ≤ .002). Improvement in secondary outcomes, such as the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale, was statistically superior in the 20-mg arm. Citalopram was well-tolerated, with no significant negative adverse effects. Conclusion Citalopram is an effective, well-tolerated agent in managing hot flashes. There does not appear to be a significant dose response above 10 mg/d, but broader helpful effects of the agent appear to be more evident at 20 mg/d.