Symptom monitoring during chemotherapy via web-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) was previously demonstrated to lengthen survival in a single-center study.1 A multicenter randomized clinical ...trial compared web-based monitoring vs standard scheduled imaging to detect symptomatic recurrence in patients with lung cancer following initial treatment. A planned interim analysis (9-month follow-up) found a significant survival benefit (19-month survival in the PRO group vs 12 months in the control group).2 We now present the final overall survival analysis.
Abstract Purpose There is increasing interest to use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to evaluate symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer treatment trials. However, there are currently no ...standard recommended approaches for integrating patient-reported AE measures into trials. Methods Approaches are identified from previous trials for selecting AEs for solicited patient reporting, administering patient-reported AE measures, and analyzing and reporting results. Findings Approaches for integrating patient-reported AE measures into cancer trials generally combine current standard methods for clinician-reported AEs and established best practices for using PRO measures. Specific AEs can be selected for a PRO questionnaire based on common and expected reactions in a given trial context, derived from literature review and qualitative/mixed-methods evaluations and should be the same set administered across all arms of a trial. A mechanism for collecting unsolicited patient-reported AEs will also ideally be included. Patients will preferably report at baseline and at the end of active treatment as well as on a frequent standardized schedule during active treatment, such as weekly from home, with a recall period corresponding to the frequency of reporting (eg, past 7 days). Less frequent reporting may be considered after an initial intensive monitoring period for trials of prolonged treatments and during long-term follow-up. Electronic PRO data collection is preferred. Backup data collection for missed PRO reports is advisable to boost response rates. Analysis can use a combination of approaches to AE and PRO data. If a high proportion of patients is experiencing baseline symptoms, systematic subtraction of these from on-study AEs should be considered to improve reporting of symptoms related to treatment. More granular longitudinal analyses of individual symptoms can also be useful. Implications Methods are evolving for integrating patient-reported symptomatic AEs into cancer trials. These methods are expected to further evolve as more data from trials become available.
Genetic profiling represents the future of neuro-oncology but suffers from inadequate biopsies in heterogeneous tumors like Glioblastoma (GBM). Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) targets enhancing core ...(ENH) but yields adequate tumor in only ~60% of cases. Further, CE-MRI poorly localizes infiltrative tumor within surrounding non-enhancing parenchyma, or brain-around-tumor (BAT), despite the importance of characterizing this tumor segment, which universally recurs. In this study, we use multiple texture analysis and machine learning (ML) algorithms to analyze multi-parametric MRI, and produce new images indicating tumor-rich targets in GBM.
We recruited primary GBM patients undergoing image-guided biopsies and acquired pre-operative MRI: CE-MRI, Dynamic-Susceptibility-weighted-Contrast-enhanced-MRI, and Diffusion Tensor Imaging. Following image coregistration and region of interest placement at biopsy locations, we compared MRI metrics and regional texture with histologic diagnoses of high- vs low-tumor content (≥80% vs <80% tumor nuclei) for corresponding samples. In a training set, we used three texture analysis algorithms and three ML methods to identify MRI-texture features that optimized model accuracy to distinguish tumor content. We confirmed model accuracy in a separate validation set.
We collected 82 biopsies from 18 GBMs throughout ENH and BAT. The MRI-based model achieved 85% cross-validated accuracy to diagnose high- vs low-tumor in the training set (60 biopsies, 11 patients). The model achieved 81.8% accuracy in the validation set (22 biopsies, 7 patients).
Multi-parametric MRI and texture analysis can help characterize and visualize GBM's spatial histologic heterogeneity to identify regional tumor-rich biopsy targets.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) improves outcomes for metastatic human epidermal growth factor 2-positive breast cancer and increases the pathologic complete response in the neoadjuvant setting, ...but their role as adjuvant therapy remains uncertain.
In the Adjuvant Lapatinib and/or Trastuzumab Treatment Optimization trial, patients with centrally confirmed human epidermal growth factor 2-positive early breast cancer were randomly assigned to 1 year of adjuvant therapy with T, L, their sequence (T→L), or their combination (L+T). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), with 850 events required for 80% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.8 for L+T versus T.
Between June 2007 and July 2011, 8,381 patients were enrolled. In 2011, due to futility to demonstrate noninferiority of L versus T, the L arm was closed, and patients free of disease were offered adjuvant T. A protocol modification required P ≤ .025 for the two remaining pairwise comparisons. At a protocol-specified analysis with a median follow-up of 4.5 years, a 16% reduction in the DFS hazard rate was observed with L+T compared with T (555 DFS events; HR, 0.84; 97.5% CI, 0.70 to 1.02; P = .048), and a 4% reduction was observed with T→L compared with T (HR, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.80 to 1.15; P = .61). L-treated patients experienced more diarrhea, cutaneous rash, and hepatic toxicity compared with T-treated patients. The incidence of cardiac toxicity was low in all treatment arms.
Adjuvant treatment that includes L did not significantly improve DFS compared with T alone and added toxicity. One year of adjuvant T remains standard of care.
Prior studies have reported high response rates with recombinant interferon-α (rIFN-α) therapy in patients with essential thrombocythemia (ET) and polycythemia vera (PV). To further define the role ...of rIFN-α, we investigated the outcomes of pegylated-rIFN-α2a (PEG) therapy in ET and PV patients previously treated with hydroxyurea (HU). The Myeloproliferative Disorders Research Consortium (MPD-RC)-111 study was an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, phase 2 trial evaluating the ability of PEG therapy to induce complete (CR) and partial (PR) hematologic responses in patients with high-risk ET or PV who were either refractory or intolerant to HU. The study included 65 patients with ET and 50 patients with PV. The overall response rates (ORRs; CR/PR) at 12 months were 69.2% (43.1% and 26.2%) in ET patients and 60% (22% and 38%) in PV patients. CR rates were higher in CALR-mutated ET patients (56.5% vs 28.0%; P = .01), compared with those in subjects lacking a CALR mutation. The median absolute reduction in JAK2V617F variant allele fraction was −6% (range, −84% to 47%) in patients achieving a CR vs +4% (range, −18% to 56%) in patients with PR or nonresponse (NR). Therapy was associated with a significant rate of adverse events (AEs); most were manageable, and PEG discontinuation related to AEs occurred in only 13.9% of subjects. We conclude that PEG is an effective therapy for patients with ET or PV who were previously refractory and/or intolerant of HU. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01259856.
•Pegylated-rIFN-α2a can achieve an ORR of 69% and 60% in ET and PV patients, respectively, previously treated with hydroxyurea.•The presence of a CALR mutation was associated with superior CR rates in ET patients treated with pegylated-rIFN-α2a.
Display omitted
There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited.
We randomly assigned ...patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival.
Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts.
Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.
Treatments for high-risk essential thrombocythemia (ET) address thrombocytosis, disease-related symptoms, as well as risks of thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation to myelofibrosis, and leukemia. ...Patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC) have a poor outlook. MAJIC (ISRCTN61925716) is a randomized phase 2 trial of ruxolitinib (JAK1/2 inhibitor) vs best available therapy (BAT) in ET and polycythemia vera patients resistant or intolerant to HC. Here, findings of MAJIC-ET are reported, where the modified intention-to-treat population included 58 and 52 patients randomized to receive ruxolitinib or BAT, respectively. There was no evidence of improvement in complete response within 1 year reported in 27 (46.6%) patients treated with ruxolitinib vs 23 (44.2%) with BAT (P = .40). At 2 years, rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, and transformation were not significantly different; however, some disease-related symptoms improved in patients receiving ruxolitinib relative to BAT. Molecular responses were uncommon; there were 2 complete molecular responses (CMR) and 1 partial molecular response in CALR-positive ruxolitinib-treated patients. Transformation to myelofibrosis occurred in 1 CMR patient, presumably because of the emergence of a different clone, raising questions about the relevance of CMR in ET patients. Grade 3 and 4 anemia occurred in 19% and 0% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) in the BAT arm, and grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia in 5.2% and 1.7% of ruxolitinib vs 0% (both grades) of BAT-treated patients. Rates of discontinuation or treatment switching did not differ between the 2 trial arms. The MAJIC-ET trial suggests that ruxolitinib is not superior to current second-line treatments for ET. This trial was registered at www.isrctn.com as #ISRCTN61925716.
•After hydroxycarbamide therapy in high-risk ET, ruxolitinib showed no improvement for complete or partial response rates compared with BAT.•Ruxolitinib significantly improved some disease-related symptoms, but rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, or transformation were not different.
Purpose
Patients with cancer experience acute and chronic symptoms caused by their underlying disease or by the treatment. While numerous studies have examined the impact of various treatments on ...symptoms experienced by cancer patients, there are inconsistencies regarding the symptoms measured and reported in treatment trials. This article presents a systematic review of the research literature of the prevalence and severity of symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment.
Methods
A systematic search for studies of persons receiving active cancer treatment was performed with the search terms of “multiple symptoms” and “cancer” for studies involving patients over the age of 18 years and published in English during the years 2001 to 2011. Search outputs were reviewed independently by seven authors, resulting in the synthesis of 21 studies meeting criteria for generation of an Evidence Table reporting symptom prevalence and severity ratings.
Results
Data were extracted from 21 multi-national studies to develop a pooled sample of 4,067 cancer patients in whom the prevalence and severity of individual symptoms was reported. In total, the pooled sample across the 21 studies was comprised of 62 % female, with a mean age of 58 years (range 18 to 97 years). A majority (62 %) of these studies assessed symptoms in homogeneous samples with respect to tumor site (predominantly breast and lung cancer), while 38 % of the included studies utilized samples with mixed diagnoses and treatment regimens. Eighteen instruments and structured interviews were including those measuring single symptoms, multi-symptom inventories, and single symptom items drawn from HRQOL or health status measures. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory was the most commonly used instrument in the studies analyzed (
n
= 9 studies; 43 %), while the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Subscale, Medical Outcomes Survey Short Form-36, and Symptom Distress Scale were each employed in two studies. Forty-seven symptoms were identified across the 21 studies which were then categorized into 17 logical groupings. Symptom prevalence and severity were calculated across the entire cohort and also based upon sample sizes in which the symptoms were measured providing the ability to rank symptoms.
Conclusions
Symptoms are prevalent and severe among patients with cancer. Therefore, any clinical study seeking to evaluate the impact of treatment on patients should consider including measurement of symptoms. This study demonstrates that a discrete set of symptoms is common across cancer types. This set may serve as the basis for defining a “core” set of symptoms to be recommended for elicitation across cancer clinical trials, particularly among patients with advanced disease.
PDF
