Sloan, Jeff A.

8580 Background: This pooled analysis examined the relationship between single-item and multiple-item quality of life (QOL) measures and assessed the agreement between changes in QOL and patient-reported adverse events (AE). Methods: Data from six lung cancer clinical trials involving 358 patients were pooled. All trials incorporated the UNISCALE and one of three multiple-item assessments: the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-Lung, the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, or the Symptom Distress Scale. A clinically significant decline (CSD) in QOL was defined as a 10-point drop from baseline. A CSD in AE was defined as a change from ≤ grade 2 at baseline to ≥ grade 3 post-baseline. Spearman rank correlations and Bland-Altman approach were used to assess agreement. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate the time to the first occurrence of a severe (grade 3+) AE and first CSD in QOL. Results: Correlations between the UNISCALE and multi-item assessments were modest (rho=0.49–0.66). At least one 10-point decline in the UNISCALE and multi-item assessments were reported by 58% and 40% respectively. At least one severe AE was reported in 44% of patients post-baseline. The percent agreement between experiencing a severe AE and a CSD in QOL was 49% and 59% for UNISCALE and the multi-item tools. For individual AE, the percent agreement between a CSD in AE and a CSD in QOL ranged from 37% to 50% for UNISCALE and 44% to 69% for the multi-item tools. The median time to the first CSD in QOL for UNISCALE and multi-item tools was 67 and 142 days respectively. The median time to the first occurrence of a severe AE was 304 days. Conclusions: QOL and AE provide quantifiably different information. A 10-point decline in QOL occurs earlier than CTC AE reporting. Patient reported outcomes may be more sensitive in identifying clinically relevant problems than physician rated symptom assessments. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

18552 Background: We reviewed Palliative Care Consultation Service (PCCS) referrals to attempt to promote earlier referrals, and to improve overall patient care. Methods: Eligibility for PCCS referral is life expectancy of one year or less. Data was collected prospectively on the first 461 referrals (452 individual patients) over the initial 30-month period (January 1, 2003 to July 1, 2005). Additional factors were retrospectively abstracted from documentation. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was then performed. Results: 452 patients were seen (mean age 71.9 years), and 387 (86%) have died. Median length of inpatient stay was 8 days, with PCCS consultation requested 3 days prior to discharge. 107 patients (24%) died prior to hospital discharge. 345 patients survived to discharge, 236 (68%) died within 3 months, and 262 (76%) died within 6 months. Median survival from consultation to death was 12 days and after hospital discharge was 6 days. Secondary analysis determined that patients with malignancy had longer median survival from discharge to death than those with other diagnoses (11 days versus 3 days, p = 0.025). Median survival was longer with referrals from general surgery and surgical specialties (37 days and 8 days, respectively), compared to hematology-oncology and critical care (2 days and 0 days, respectively). Conclusions: The primary goal of the PCCS is to provide symptom control and maximize quality of life at the end of life. These data suggest palliative care services are unnecessarily delayed until too late. Education is necessary to facilitate earlier PCCS intervention. Survival analysis suggests providers are more likely to consider PCCS involvement in patients with malignancy compared with other diseases. Critical care and hematology-oncology, showed the lowest median survivals. Education efforts must be focused on these areas. Programs are underway to identify eligible patients earlier in their disease process, and educate providers about key end-of-life services provided to patients and families. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8534 Purpose: Tumor necrosis factor (TNF) is a putative mediator of the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome. This study was designed to determine if etanercept (a dimeric fusion protein consisting of the extracellular ligand-binding portion of the human 75 kilodalton TNF receptor linked to the Fc portion of human IgG1) could palliate this syndrome. Methods: 63 evaluable patients were randomly assigned to etanercept 25 mg SQ twice/week versus a comparably-administered placebo, both of which were to be given for at least 12 weeks. All patients had an incurable malignancy, acknowledged loss of weight and/or appetite as a concern, and reported weight loss of > 5 pounds over 2 months and/or a daily intake of < 20 calories/kg body weight. The above sample size provided 81% power to detect a 24% difference in the percentage of patients who gained >/= 10% of baseline weight. Results: At baseline, groups were comparable on age, gender, tumor type, and degree of weight loss. Over time, weight gain was minimal in both groups; no patient gained >/= 10% baseline weight. Appetite questionnaires (the NCCTG Anorexia/Cachexia Questionnaire and FACT-AN) revealed negligible improvements in both groups. Median survival was comparable: 175 days versus 148 in etanercept-treated and placebo-exposed patients, respectively (p=0.82). Finally, preliminary data on adverse events showed that etanercept-treated patients had higher rates of neurotoxicity (29% versus 0%) but lower rates of anemia (0% versus 19%) and thrombocytopenia (0% versus 14%). Infection rates were negligible in both groups. Clinical correlative data on TNF genotyping will be available at the time of the meeting. Conclusion: This TNF inhibitor does not appear to palliate the cancer anorexia/weight loss syndrome. The study was supported by CA37404, the American Institute for Cancer Research, and Amgen. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8527 Background: Minority patients (MP) suffer deficits in access to care and socioeconomic status. This study uses a patient-level pooled analysis to explore whether these deficits translate into quality of life (QOL) differences between MP and non-MP on clinical trials. Method: Baseline QOL scores were combined from 47 clinical trials (6,513 patients) conducted either at the Mayo Clinic Cancer Center or in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. QOL scales used were the Uniscale, Linear Analogue Self Assessment (LASA), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (Fact-G). Fisher’s Exact tests and linear regression adjusted for age, site, and performance score. Survival data was compared using the method of Kaplan-Meier. Results: Eight percent (531) of patients self-reported as MP (0.45% American Indian/Alaskan Native, 0.7% Asian, 5% Black/African American, 1.5% Hispanic, 0.1% Native Hawaiian and 0.3% Other). MP had no meaningful deficits in overall QOL or the SDS and were slightly worse on FACT-G total score, physical, social/family, functional, and SDS nausea severity. MP among lung cancer patients reported greater nausea (58 vs 69) and sleep problems (34 vs 54), with neurological cancers reported worse emotional well-being (53 vs 74), and with GI tumors had lower social/family well-being (60 vs 67). Regression models confirmed these results. Median survival time was shorter for MP (198 vs 310 days, p=0.001) but was not significant after adjusting for disease severity. Conclusions: MP on these clinical trials did not report large QOL deficits at baseline relative to non-MP. MP did indicate small deficits in physical, social, and emotional subscales. MP experienced large tumor-specific deficits for a few QOL domains that might bear further attention. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8521 Background: The extent of patient involvement in the decision making process for cancer treatment can impact satisfaction with care. A pooled-analysis of clinical studies from the US and Canada incorporating the Control Preferences Scale (CPS) was conducted to produce normalized data regarding patient preferences and examine differences in role preference related to country, tumor type, gender and other demographics. Methods: Patient data culled from six trials indicated the treatment decision making role preferred and the role actually experienced clinically. Fisher’s Exact Tests were performed to compare role distribution concordance and association with clinical and demographic variables. Results: Data available for 3,491 patients indicated that 25% preferred an active role, 46% a collaborative role, and 29% a passive role in their medical treatment decision making. In terms of actual experience, 30% of patients reported taking on an active role, 34% collaborative, and 36% passive. Overall, 61% of patients reported playing the role they prefer. Differences between genders in the preferred role were slight, but males achieved their preferred role more often than females (66% vs. 60%, p=0.011). More women actually took a passive role than men (40% vs. 24%, p<0.0001) as did more patients in the US than Canada (84% vs. 54%, p<0.001). Canadian patients preferred more passive than active roles (33% vs 22.4%) and US patients preferred more active to passive roles (31.9% vs 14.2%) (p<0.001). Older patients preferred a more passive role and took on that role. Differences in role preference across tumor types were negligible. Conclusions: Roughly one half of the cancer patients studied indicated that they preferred to have a collaborative relationship with physicians, the remaining patients split equally between an active and passive role. The US cohort seemed to want to be more assertive than their Canadian counterparts and women ended up playing a more passive role than they preferred. Given these gender and cross-county differences these findings highlight the need for individualized patient communication styles to be incorporated into treatment plans No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8507 Background: Problems with sexual functioning are an issue negatively affecting the quality of life of female cancer survivors. Testosterone has been implicated as an important hormone in sexual functioning such as libido. Studies of transdermal testosterone have shown benefit in enhancing libido in women who have been diagnosed with hypoactive sexual desire disorder after bilateral oophorectomy. This phase III placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated whether transdermal testosterone would increase libido in female cancer survivors. Methods: Women with a history of cancer, currently without evidence of disease, were eligible if they reported a decrease in sexual desire and had a sexual partner. Women must have been postmenopausal. Eligible women were randomized to receive 2% testosterone in Vanicream (10 mg daily) versus placebo Vanicream for four weeks, then crossed over to the opposite treatment. The primary endpoint, libido, was measured via the desire subscales of the Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire (CSFQ), which were completed at baseline and at the end of 4 and 8 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the average intra-patient change from baseline to four weeks in the CSFQ subscales between the two arms. A total of 64 patients per group were needed to provide 80% power to detect a difference of 8 units between the treatment means. Two-sided alternative hypothesis testing and a 5% Type I error rate were used. Results: One hundred fifty women were enrolled onto this study. Complete data were available for 132 women. For those on active testosterone cream, serum bioavailable testosterone levels increased significantly over placebo, with a mean change from baseline of 12 and 10 ng/dl for the first and second period, respectively (p<.0001). The average intra-patient change from baseline to week 4 in libido was 5.5 on testosterone and 4.4 on placebo (p=0.58). No carryover effect was detected. The difference in average intra-patient changes from baseline for the entire crossover design between the two arms was only 1.1 points (95% confidence interval of -1.2 to 3.4, p=0.35). Conclusion: Testosterone is not a panacea for libido troubles in women with a history of cancer. Further studies are needed to determine whether there is a role for transdermal testosterone in this population. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8506 Background: A randomized study (Int J Rad Oncol Biol Phys 54:195–202, 2002) demonstrated a beneficial effect for octreotide in the treatment of diarrhea in patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy. This North Central Cancer Treatment Group study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of depot octreotide in the prevention of diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. Methods: Patients receiving pelvic radiation therapy, with a planned minimum dose of 45 Gy at 1.70–2.1 Gy per day, were eligible for this study. The study was designed for a Wilcoxon test, with 112 evaluable patients, to have 85% power to detect a further one grade decrease in diarrhea over and above that experienced by patients treated with placebo. Between June 13, 2002 and October 28, 2005, 120 evaluable patients were randomly allocated, in double blind fashion, to receive octreotide (62 patients) or placebo (58 patients), prior to the fourth radiation therapy fraction. Octreotide dosing: Octreotide, 100 micrograms subcutaneously on day 1 followed by depot octreotide, 20 milligrams intramuscularly on days 2 and 29. Results: Grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 diarrhea was observed in 17%, 32%, 26% and 26% of patients treated with octreotide and 18%, 34%, 22%, and 26% of patients treated with placebo (P=0.86). Grade 0, 1, 2 and 3 tenesmus was observed in 55%, 30%, 11% and 4% of patients treated with octreotide and 76%, 16%, 4%, and 4% of patients treated with placebo (P=0.04). No other statistically significant differences in toxicity were observed. Conclusions: Octreotide, as administered in this study, did not decrease diarrhea during pelvic radiation therapy. [Table: see text]

7545 Background: Interpretation of lung cancer clinical trials is complicated by the heterogeneity of the patient population due to disease burden and comorbidities making pre-trial assessment of OS probability challenging. Methods: To create and validate a scoring system to estimate OS and improve the quality of future trials, this study evaluated the pretreatment prognostic factors of 2,442 pts with NSCLC. Univariate (UV) and multivariate (MV) Cox models were used to evaluate the prognostic importance of each baseline factor on OS. Those prognostic factors significant on both UV and MV analyses that were used to develop the scoring system included overall quality of life, age, sex, stage, ECOG performance status, the presence of other cancers, and smoking cessation. The score for each factor was determined by dividing the 5-year OS rate (in %) by 10 and summing these scores to form a total score. Multivariate models and the score for each factor were validated using bootstrapping with 1000 iterations from the original samples. Results: The score for each factor ranged from 1 to 7 points and the total scores ranged between 23 and 39 points. Higher scores reflected better OS. Categorization of the score was delineated first by clinician expert opinion (see Table) and then by multiple statistically defined empirical cut points. All categorization schemes demonstrated successful prognostic power. The bootstrap method confirmed the reliability of multivariate Cox model and score (Spearman correlation coefficient= 0.45). Conclusions: Prognostic factors significantly associated with OS on both UV and MV analysis were used to construct a valid scoring system which can be used to predict survival of NSCLC pts. This scoring system can be used by clinicians in counseling pts and for stratification in future trial design. [Table: see text]

6587 Background: Recently the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE was developed to augment clinically graded adverse events with information reported directly by patients on clinical trials (Basch, 2009). The validation and potential application of PRO-CTCAE in phase I clinical trials are of great interest as toxicity is the primary endpoint. Methods: Selected PRO-CTCAE items (21 items measuring 12 symptomatic adverse events) corresponding to the major adverse events required to be graded clinically were collected in an ongoing phase I clinical trial of weekly cilengitide and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01276496). PRO-CTCAE was administered in a paper booklet by a clinical research associate prior to treatment on days 1, 8 and 15 of their regular visits. These PRO-CTCAE items were summarized descriptively in comparison to clinician-assessed CTCAE ver 4.0 (NCI, 2009) during the first cycle. As a pilot study to assess feasibility of PRO-CTCAE in phase I trials, PRO-CTCAE was not intended for determination of dose-limiting toxicity. Results: Twelve patients were accrued to two separate doses of cilengitide and paclitaxel. The median age was 56 (range 36—67) and half of patients were female. All patients had an ECOG performance score <= 1. Over 90% of patients had received prior surgery and chemotherapy. All but one patient completed weekly PRO-CTCAE during the first cycle, the only patient refused to complete weeks 2 and 3 did not give a reason. PRO-CTCAE captured most of the symptomatic adverse events reflected in clinician-assessed CTCAE. Some symptomatic adverse events were not reported clinically by CTCAE but were reported by patients by PRO-CTCAE. Overall, PRO-CTCAE items indicated slightly more severe degree of symptoms experienced by patients than those reported in CTCAE. Conclusions: This is the first study that PRO-CTCAE items were integrated within regular study visits in a phase I trial. The administration of PRO-CTCAE has been proved feasible and fruitful, providing consistent and enhanced symptomatic toxicity from the patient point of view. The addition of PRO-CTCAE did not significantly increase patient burden. Clinical trial information: NCT01276496.

9047 Background: Symptomatic adverse events (AE) in cancer trials are reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). To integrate the patient perspective into AE reporting, NCI contracted (HHSN261201000043C) to create a patient-reported outcomes companion tool (PRO-CTCAE). We report the validity and reliability of PRO-CTCAE’s 124 items reflecting 78 symptomatic AEs. Methods: English-speaking subjects (n=869; 44% male; median [mdn] age 59; 32% racial/ethnic minority; 34% high school or less; 17% ECOG Performance Status [PS] 2-4) receiving treatment for a range of cancers at 4 NCI-designated cancer centers and 5 sites in NCI's Community Cancer Centers Program completed a web-based survey in clinic including PRO-CTCAE and EORTC QLQ-C30. Pearson correlations were computed between PRO-CTCAE items and QLQ-C30 scales. Differences in PRO-CTCAE item scores between clinician-reported ECOG PS (0-1 vs 2-4) groups were computed. Test-retest reliability of 48 prespecified items was evaluated in a subset (n=79). Results: Correlations in the expected direction were observed for 116/124 PRO-CTCAE items with the QLQ-C30 global health scale (mdn r=-.21; range .08 to -.57). Stronger correlations were seen for PRO-CTCAE items with conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains: fatigue with physical, role and social functioning (-.54 to -.66); anxiety and depression with emotional functioning (-.54 to -.70); and concentration and memory problems with cognitive functioning (-.62 to -.72) [all p <0.001]. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation and diarrhea items strongly correlated with corresponding QLQ-C30 symptom scales (.69 to .79, all p <0.001). Scores for 98/124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2-4 vs 0-1 group (mdn effect size .3). Test-retest reliability was observed across all tested items (mdn intraclass correlation coeff .77; range .53 to .96). Conclusions: Results demonstrate favorable validity and reliability of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Further testing in multicenter treatment trials is underway.