Berk, Lawrence

Objectives: The primary objective of NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0123 was to test the ability of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor captopril to alter the incidence of pulmonary damage after radiation therapy for lung cancer; secondary objectives included analyzing pulmonary cytokine expression, quality of life, and the long-term effects of captopril. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients included stage II-IIIB non–small cell lung cancer, stage I central non–small cell lung cancer, or limited-stage small cell. Patients who met eligibility for randomization at the end of radiotherapy received either captopril or standard care for 1 year. The captopril was to be escalated to 50 mg three times a day. Primary endpoint was incidence of grade 2+ radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity in the first year. Results: Eighty-one patients were accrued between June 2003 and August 2007. Given the low accrual rate, the study was closed early. No significant safety issues were encountered. Eight patients were ineligible for registration or withdrew consent before randomization and 40 patients were not randomized postradiation. Major reasons for nonrandomization included patients’ refusal and physician preference. Of the 33 randomized patients, 20 were analyzable (13 observation, 7 captopril). The incidence of grade 2+ pulmonary toxicity attributable to radiation therapy was 23% (3/13) in the observation arm and 14% (1/7) in the captopril arm. Conclusions: Despite significant resources and multiple amendments, NRG Oncology Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0123 was unable to test the hypothesis that captopril mitigates radiation-induced pulmonary toxicity. It did show the safety of such an approach and the use of newer angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors started during radiotherapy may solve the accrual problems.

ABSTRACT Introduction Erectile dysfunction (ED) may be the most commonly observed adverse event (AE) associated with the combination of radiation therapy (RT) and androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). A significant number of men are trying phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5s) such as sildenafil to treat ED, yet sildenafil studies to date shed little light on the response to ED after ADT. Aim The purpose of this trial was to evaluate sildenafil in the treatment of ED in prostate cancer patients previously treated with external beam RT and neoadjuvant and concurrent ADT. Methods In this randomized, double-blinded crossover trial, eligible patients received RT/ADT for intermediate risk prostate cancer and currently had ED as defined by the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Patients were randomized to 12 weeks of sildenafil or placebo followed by 1 week of no treatment then 12 weeks of the alternative. Treatment differences were evaluated using a marginal model for binary crossover data. Main Outcome Measures The primary end point was improved erectile function, as measured by the IIEF. Results The study accrued 115 patients and 61 (55%) completed all three IIEF assessments. Sildenafil effect was significant (P = 0.009) with a difference in probabilities of erectile response of 0.17 (95% confidence interval: 0.06, 0.29), and 0.21 (0.06, 0.38) for patients receiving ≤120 days of ADT. However, as few as 21% of patients had a treatment-specific response, only improving during sildenafil but not during the placebo phase. Conclusions This is the first controlled trial to suggest a positive sildenafil response for ED treatment in patients previously treated with RT/ADT, however, only a minority of patients responded to treatment. ADT duration may be associated with response and requires further study. The overall low response rate suggests the need for study of additional or preventative strategies for ED after RT/ADT for prostate cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often the primary end point in symptom management trials. The scientific field of PROs is evolving, as evidenced by the US Food and Drug Administration's February 2007 release of a draft guidance for using PROs in effectiveness claims for drug labeling. This article presents issues encountered during use of PROs in National Cancer Institute–sponsored symptom management trials. Selected trials are presented that exemplify the challenges often seen in symptom management trials, and solutions are described. The examples presented include defining the appropriate end point, selecting and validating assessments, and answering the research questions through statistical analysis and interpretation. Progress has been made in addressing some of the unique challenges of PRO-based symptom management research. Many challenges still remain, but a foundational body of work now exists for more consistent and rigorous application of PROs into symptom management trials. There remains a need for more research in several methodologic aspects of design, analysis, and interpretation of symptom management trials.