Bruner, Deborah Watkins

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

1 Background: To determine whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated (H) schedule is no worse than a conventional (C) schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer. Methods: From April 2006 to December 2009, one thousand one hundred fifteen men with low-risk prostate cancer (clinical stage T1-2a, Gleason ≤ 6, PSA < 10) were randomly assigned 1:1 to a conventional (C) schedule (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to a hypofractionated (H) schedule (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). The trial was designed to establish with 90% power and alpha = 0.05 that (H) results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not lower than (C) by more than 7% (hazard ratio (HR) < 1.52). Secondary endpoints include freedom from biochemical recurrence (FFBR) and overall survival. At the third planned interim analysis (July 2015), the NRG Oncology Data Monitoring Committee recommended that the results of the trial be reported. Results: One thousand one hundred and one protocol eligible men were randomized: 547 to C and 554 to H. Median follow-up is 5.9 years. Baseline characteristics are not different according to treatment arm. At the time of analysis 185 DFS events have been observed; 99 in the C arm and 86 in the H arm. The estimated 7-year disease-free survival is 75.6% (95% CI 70.3, 80.1) in the C arm and 81.8% (77.5, 85.3) in the H arm. The DFS HR (C/H) is 0.85 (0.64, 1.14). Comparison of biochemical recurrence (HR = 0.77, (0.51, 1.17)) and overall survival (HR = 0.95, (0.65, 1.41)) also met protocol non-inferiority criteria. Grade ≥ 3 GI toxicity is 3.0% (C) vs. 4.6% (H), Relative risk (RR) for H vs. C 1.53, (95% CI 0.86, 2.83); grade ≥ 3 GU toxicity is 4.5% (C) vs. 6.4% (H), RR = 1.43 (0.86,2.37). Conclusions: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is non-inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks. Clinical trial information: NCT00331773.

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.