Harlos, Elizabeth

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

Abstract Background The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study. Methods The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. Results Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05). Conclusions ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

Abstract Purpose A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. Materials and Methods A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 ­olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. Results A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. Conclusion This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

e24161 Background: Pertuzumab-induced gastrointestinal toxicities (PIGT), particularly diarrhea, is the most common adverse event reported in over 70% of patients receiving pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy. PIGT can result in dose reduction, treatment delay, and discontinuation of chemotherapy. Rifaximin is a minimally absorbed oral antibiotic approved for gastrointestinal tract infections and bacterial overgrowth. Our aim was to evaluate the efficacy of rifaximin in reducing PIGT. Methods: Patients with stage I-III HER2-positive (HER2+) breast cancer who received pertuzumab in combination with docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCHP) were enrolled. PIGT included diarrhea, abdominal distention, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, stomach pain, and typhlitis. Patients with any PIGT ≥ grade 2 after the first cycle of TCHP received rifaximin 550 mg orally twice daily on days 1-5 in all subsequent cycles of chemotherapy. Patients with PIGT grade < 2 were observed without rifaximin. Simon's Two-Stage design was used. Results: Between 2018-2022, a total of 21 patients were enrolled. One patient was excluded due to significant anemia not meeting the eligibility criteria to proceed with rifaximin after the first cycle of TCHP. Of 20 patients, the median age was 52.5 (39-69) years. 18/20 (90.0%) patients had PIGT ≥ grade 2 after 1 cycle of TCHP with PIGT grade 2 in 15 (83.3%) and grade 3 in 3 (16.7%). PIGT ≥ grade 2 included diarrhea in 14 (70.0%) with grade 2 in 12 (60.0%) and grade 3 in 2 (10.0%), abdominal pain in 9 (45.0%) with grade 2 in 8 (40.0%) and grade 3 in 1 (5.0%), abdominal distension in 3 (15.0%), dyspepsia in 5 (25.0%), and stomach pain in 4 (20.0%) patients. Among 18 patients who received rifaximin, 15 (83.3%; 95% CI 0.586-0.964) had at least 1 cycle with a maximum PIGT grade < 2. This result surpassed the threshold of the Two-Stage analysis. Reduction of individual PIGT symptoms for patients who experienced > grade 2 at baseline after the first cycle of rifaximin was reported in 2/3 (66.7%) for abdominal distention, 8/9 (88.9%) for abdominal pain, 6/14 (42.9%) for diarrhea, 3/4 (75.0%) for stomach pain, and 4/5 (80.0%) for dyspepsia. No patients experienced > grade 2 typhilitis at baseline and during treatment. Treatment is well tolerated, with no significant grade 3+ adverse event related to rifaximin observed. Among patients who received rifaximin, there was no treatment delay or discontinuation of pertuzumab related to PIGT. Conclusions: PIGT is a debilitating side effect observed in most patients receiving pertuzumab. A short course of rifaximin after each cycle of treatment is a well-tolerated treatment option that significantly reduces PIGT in patients receiving pertuzumab in combination with chemotherapy. Clinical trial information: NCT04249622 .

PURPOSE New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, “I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious.” Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, “I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all.” A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, “Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on.” CONCLUSION High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.

PURPOSE This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODs Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.