Satele, Daniel

Purpose Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting toxicity of capecitabine for which no effective preventative treatment has been definitively demonstrated. This trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary data that a urea/lactic acid–based topical keratolytic agent (ULABTKA) may prevent HFS. Patients and Methods A randomized, double-blind phase III trial evaluated 137 patients receiving their first ever cycle of capecitabine at a dose of either 2,000 or 2,500 mg/m2 per day for 14 days. Patients were randomly assigned to a ULABTKA versus a placebo cream, which was applied to the hands and feet twice per day for 21 days after the start of capecitabine. Patients completed an HFS diary (HFSD) daily. HFS toxicity grade (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the end of each cycle. The primary end point was the incidence of moderate/severe HFS symptoms in the first treatment cycle, based on the patient-reported HFSD. Results The percentage of patients with moderate/severe HFS symptoms was not different between groups, being 13.6% in the ULABTKA arm and 10.2% in the placebo arm (P = .768 by Fisher's exact test). The odds ratio was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.37 to 5.76). Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not significantly so (33% v 27%; P = .82). No significant differences were observed in other toxicities between groups. Conclusion These data do not support the efficacy of a ULABTKA cream for preventing HFS symptoms in patients receiving capecitabine.

Purpose Inconsistencies and errors resulting from nonstandard processes, together with redundancies, rework, and excess workload, lead to extended time frames for clinical trial protocol development. This results in dissatisfaction among sponsors, investigators, and staff and restricts the availability of novel treatment options for patients. Methods A team of experts from Mayo Clinic formed, including Protocol Development Unit staff and management from the three Mayo Clinic campuses (Florida, Minnesota, and Arizona), a systems and procedures analyst, a quality office analyst, and two physician members to address the identified deficiencies. The current-state process was intensively reviewed, and improvement steps were taken to accelerate the development and approval of cancer-related clinical trials. The primary goal was to decrease the time from receipt of a new protocol through submission to an approving authority, such as the National Cancer Institute or institutional review board. Results Using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) framework infused with Lean waste-reduction methodologies, areas were identified for improvement, including enhancing first-time quality and processing new studies on a first-in/first-out basis. The project was successful in improving the mean turnaround time for internally authored protocols (P < .001) from 25.00 weeks (n = 41; range, 3.43 to 94.14 weeks) to 10.15 weeks (n = 14; range, 4.00 to 22.14 weeks). The mean turnaround time for externally authored protocols was improved (P < .001) from 20.61 weeks (n = 85; range, 3.29 to 108.57 weeks) to 7.79 weeks (n = 50; range, 2.00 to 20.86 weeks). Conclusion DMAIC framework combined with Lean methodologies is an effective tool to structure the definition, planning, analysis, and implementation of significant process changes.