Mazza, Gina L.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Introduction TP53 alterations (TP53+) are seen in <5% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) but are more common in accelerated/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP) [Luque Paz D, et al 2020]. While pts with low-burden TP53+ (Variant allele frequency (VAF) <5%) may remain stable for years [Kubesova et al, 2018]; biallelic loss of TP53 is thought to confer higher risk for progression [Li et al, 2022] and worse overall survival (OS) than non-TP53+ pts [Rolles et al, 2023]. However, TP53 abnormalities have not been incorporated into currently utilized molecular based prediction models (MIPSS or MIPSS70) or compared with currently validated high molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (mut). We report the outcomes of the largest cohort of TP53+ MPN pts to date in comparison with HMR mut, and identify a VAF cut-off associated with highest risk of progression to MPN-AP/BP. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 2583 MPN pts from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) with at least one next generation sequencing (NGS) performed. Deidentified data from an additional cohort of 8 TP53+ MPN pts was received from University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center (UMiami). Patient characteristics such as MPN subtype, gender, age at MPN diagnosis, driver mutation, thrombosis history were recorded. We also recorded date of transformation to MPN-AP/BP, dates of NGS testing, mutational and cytogenetic data, and survival status. We defined multi-hit TP53 as presence of =/>2 TP53mut, VAF > 50% or TP53 mutation + 17p deletion. Additional cohorts of pts with HMR mut (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, U2AF1, SRSF2 as per MIPSS70v.2) from MSH and non-TP53+ pts from the MPN-Research Consortium Tissue Bank were used as comparator arms. Patient characteristics were compared between TP53 single-hit and multi-hit using Chi-Sq test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare leukemic transformation and OS, respectively, between groups. Successive VAF levels with minimum groups of 25% of the total cohort were used to identify an optimal VAF cut-off. Results Of the 2583 MPN pts from MSH and MSK, 66 pts (2.6%) were found to have a TP53 mutation. Including 8 additional pts from UMiami, we analyzed a total of 74 TP53+ MPN pts; 40 single-hit and 34 multi-hit. Median age at MPN diagnosis was 61 years with a male predominance (60%). Distribution of driver mut was similar in single-hit vs multi-hit cohort with JAK2V617F being the most common (58%), whereas 11% of pts had triple negative disease . Thrombotic history was available for 45 TP53+ pts, with a high frequency of venous/arterial thrombosis (21/45 or 46.7%) in the TP53+ group as compared to 18.5% in the non-TP53+ MPN cohort (p= 0.0001). A significantly higher number of multi-hit TP53+ pts had a concurrent complex karyotype (79% vs 24% in single-hit; p<.001). MPN diagnosis at the time of detection of TP53+ was ET/PV (25.7%), MF (44.6%), MDS/MPN overlap syndrome (6.8%), MPN-U (2.7%) and MPN-AP/BP (20.3%), respectively. One or more genetic samples with TP53+ was available prior to transformation to MPN-AP/BP in 77% of pts (21/34 multi-hit; 36/40 single-hit) while a TP53+ was detected at the time of MPN-AP/BP diagnosis in the rest. Multi-hit TP53+ was associated with a significantly higher incidence of transformation to MPN-AP/BP as compared to single-hit; [65% vs 17.5%; HR=4.08 (1.71-9.71), p=0.0015]. Compared with HMR mut, multi-hit (HR=2.41; p=0.004) but not single-hit (HR=0.53; p=.277) TP53+ MPN pts were found to have a significantly increased risk of MPN-AP/BP transformation. One-year OS from the time of mutation detection was significantly inferior for both multi-hit (53.3%) and single-hit (75%) TP53+ pts as compared to HMR mut (98.8%, p=<.001). Cut-point analysis identified VAF >36% to be associated with the highest risk of transformation (HR=3.08) with lowest p-value (0.002). Conclusions Multi-hit TP53 alterations are associated with a significantly increased risk of leukemic evolution as compared to previously validated HMR mut, whereas both multi and single-hit TP53 mut are associated with worse OS highlighting the importance of TP53 in MPN disease progression.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare lymphoma with a median age at diagnosis of 60-70 years. Front line therapy has traditionally been bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in older patients and then Bruton Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) for relapsed disease. Due to their efficacy, BTKi are now being combined with chemotherapy as induction treatment. The TRIANGLE trial of R-CHOP/R-DHAP +/- ibrutinib +/- transplant showed the benefit of adding a BTKi in young patients (Dreyling M, 2022). The SHINE trial, a phase III trial of BR +/- ibrutinib in patients >65 years, showed a significant improvement in median PFS (81 months vs. 53 months) (Wang M, 2022). However, this came with an increase in toxicity with more treatment related deaths in the ibrutinib arm (11% vs. 6%) and no difference in overall survival. Therefore, a better tolerated approach is still needed in older patients. A phase II study of rituximab + indefinite ibrutinib in 50 patients >65 years demonstrated efficacy of frontline BTKi with a 96% ORR and 71% CR (Jain P, 2021). However, a disadvantage of BTKi therapy is continuous treatment until disease progression or intolerance. In this study half of patients required dose reductions and almost a third of patients stopped treatment due to drug toxicity, most frequently atrial fibrillation or bleeding. If front line intermittent BTKi therapy is as effective as continuous therapy, it could minimize cumulative toxicity. A052101 (NCT05976763), an Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trial, is a randomized phase 3 multicenter trial of upfront zanubrutinib that asks the question “in older patients with previously untreated MCL who obtain a CR with zanubrutinib-rituximab, is it safe and equally effective to stop treatment and restart it upon disease progression rather than continuing indefinitely?” The A052101 trial is enrolling pts with previously untreated MCL who are either >70 years old or 60-69 years old but are not transplant candidates due to cardiac ejection fraction <45%, DLCO <60% of predicted, creatinine clearance <70, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of >2, or a Cumulative Illness Rating Scales score of >6. Key exclusion criteria include: history of a severe bleeding disorder or clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias. Patients will take zanubrutinib 320 mg daily and rituximab/rituximab biosimilar once monthly for 6 cycles. Patients with less than partial response after 6 cycles will go off study treatment. Patients with a complete remission will be randomized in a 1:1 manner to intermittent treatment versus continuous treatment. Randomization will be stratified by age (60-69 years vs ≥70 years) and MIPI score. Those randomized to the continuous arm will receive zanubrutinib until intolerance or disease progression. Those randomized to the intermittent arm will stop all study drugs after those initial 6 cycles and will restart zanubrutinib at first disease progression and continue it until intolerance or second disease progression. In order to make the study results generalizable to clinical practice, disease progression will be defined by clinical parameters rather than minimal residual disease testing. The primary objective of this study is to compare time from randomization to first progression or death (PFS1) in the continuous treatment arm to the time to second progression or death (PFS2) in the intermittent treatment arm. The primary evaluation will be to determine whether, for patients in a CR, active monitoring followed by retreatment with zanubrutinib therapy upon disease progression will result in non-inferior clinical outcomes compared to indefinite zanubrutinib. Serial quality of life testing and adverse event monitoring will be performed throughout the study to gain a full understanding of the impact of continuous vs intermittent zanubrutinib on patients' lives. A052101 has the potential to change management of older patients with previously untreated MCL. If our study demonstrates that the time to second progression/death when using the stop and retreat strategy is non-inferior to time to first progression/death when using continuous BTK therapy, then it might lead to a new standard of care in this patient population. This could result in decreased health care costs, decreased toxicity and improved quality of life for older patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

PURPOSE Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board–approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months. RESULTS Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2–, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM. CONCLUSION A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

LBA12004 Background: Hot flashes are among the most common adverse events impacting quality of life reported by patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Oxybutynin is an effective therapy for reducing frequency and severity of hot flashes in women. Pilot information supports that this drug may also benefit men with hot flashes related to ADT. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomized to receive either oral oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice a day, oxybutynin 5 mg twice a day, or matching placebo doses for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores (determined by multiplying the number of hot flashes by the mean hot flash severity [grade 0: none, 1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe, and 4: very severe]) from baseline to 6 weeks, as measured by a daily hot flash diary. A total of 87 patients provided 76% power to reject the null hypothesis of no between-arm mean difference in hot flash score reduction from baseline to 6 weeks, when comparing each oxybutynin arm to the combined placebo arms. This was based on a two-sided contrast estimated from a generalized linear mixed model, α= 0.10, intraclass correlation of 0.50, population standardized mean difference of 0.50, and 10% missing data rate. Results: 88 patients were accrued between 10/28/21 and 12/02/23. Six patients cancelled before starting treatment and one was ineligible, leaving 81 analyzed patients with a median age of 68. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with patients reporting an average of 10.15 (SD = 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.23 (SD = 13.48) at enrollment. On average, patients on the placebo arm, low dose oxybutynin arm, and high dose oxybutynin arm had reductions of 2.15, 4.77, and 6.89 hot flashes/day, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in hot flashes/day (p < 0.001), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.02). Daily hot flash scores for the same three protocol arms reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94, and 13.95 points, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in daily hot flash scores (p = 0.002), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.07). No treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events occurred. The most commonly reported oxybutynin-related grade 2 adverse event was dry mouth. Conclusions: Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of hot flashes in men associated with androgen deprivation therapy and appears to be well tolerated. Support: UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT04600336 .

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.