Schaefer, Paul

9599 Background: We have previously identified overall a single-item measure for baseline quality of life (QOL) as a strong prognostic factor for survival (Tan, ASCO 2008), and that fatigue was an important component of patient QOL (Sloan, 2007). To explore whether patient-reported fatigue was supplemental or redundant to the prognostic information of overall QOL, we performed a patient-level pooled analysis of 43 NCCTG and MCCC oncology clinical trials of the effect of baseline fatigue on OS. Methods: 3,915 patients participating in 43 trials provided data at baseline for fatigue on a single-item 0–100 point scale. OS was tested for association with clinically deficient fatigue (CDF, score 0–50, n=1,497) vs not clinically deficient fatigue (nCDF, score 51–100, n=2,418). Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for the effects of overall QOL, performance score, race, disease site, age and gender. Results: Baseline fatigue was a strong predictor of OS for the entire patient cohort (CDF vs. nCDF: 31.5 mos vs >83.9 mos, p<0.0001). The effect sizes were consistent across different disease sites (GI, esophageal, head and neck, prostate, lung, breast and others). After controlling for covariates, including performance status and overall QOL, baseline fatigue remained a strong prognostic factor in multivariate models (CDF vs. nCDF: HR=1.23, p=0.02). Conclusions: Fatigue is a strong prognostic factor for OS independent of overall QOL and PS in a wide variety of oncology patient populations. Single-item measures of overall QOL and fatigue can help to identify vulnerable subpopulations among cancer patients. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9563 Background: Fatigue is a prevalent and debilitating symptom reported by cancer patients (pts) which compromises a pt's quality of life (QOL). This study examined the relationship between PR fatigue and QOL as well as cancer-related symptoms (CRS) in 43 North Central Cancer Treatment Group and Mayo Clinic Cancer Center clinical trials. Methods: 3,915 pts from 43 oncology clinical trials provided baseline fatigue data on a single-item 0–100 point scale. Pts' QOL assessment included a single-item overall QOL and associated QOL domains measured by numerical analogues, the Profile of Mood States (POMS), and PR symptom assessment measures. Associations between fatigue and QOL domains were assessed by Spearman correlation coefficients. Wilcoxon rank sum test compared QOL scores between pts with clinically deficient fatigue(CDF, score ≤50) vs. no clinically deficient fatigue (nCDF, score>50). Changes from baseline in fatigue and QOL were compared by Wilcoxon rank sum test with a 20-point change defined as clinically meaningful. Results: 38% of pts reported CDF at baseline and 45% of pts reported CDF at last assessment. Fatigue was only moderately correlated at best with overall QOL, pain, POMS, social and physical function (Spearman rho's of .27,.40, .56, .38 and .38 respectively). Pts with CDF averaged over 10 points lower overall QOL, pain, POMS, social, and physical function (see table below, all p<.0001) as well as worsening CRS including sleepiness, nausea, headache, abnormal sweating, trouble sleeping, dry mouth, and sexual dysfunction (all p<.001). Pts with 20+ points worsening in fatigue declined in overall QOL, physical function, pain and POMS (all p<.0001). Conclusions: Patients with CDF suffer greater deficits in QOL and CRS. Patients report fatigue as distinctly different from overall QOL, pain, physical, social, mood status and CRS. Fatigue appears with a broad spectrum of CRS clusters. Routine measurement and management of fatigue could impact QOL and treatment-related symptoms. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

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.

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.

1520 Background: Multiple variables may impact endpoints utilized to assess efficacy of investigational therapies for pts with recurrent gliomas. Understanding the nature of these variables should aid interpretation of results. Methods: 583 pts were enrolled to 15 consecutive recurrent glioma clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2004. Identical patient, tumor, treatment and time variables were identified for each trial. Central neuropathology review was completed and pts were grouped by WHO diagnoses. Pts alive and progression-free at 6 months after start of treatment were a PFS6 ‘success’. Pts whose outcome was progression at first evaluation were classified as “Immediate Progression (ImmProg)”. Response was defined as regression, partial regression, or complete regression in the absence of worsening neurologic symptoms or increased corticosteroid dose. Univariable and multivariable Classification and Regression Trees (CART) models were used to identify factors associated with OS, PFS, PFS6, ImmProg, and Response. Results: Variables associated with outcomes for each endpoint assessed by CART models are shown in Table below. Conclusions: In clinical trials of recurrent glioma, age, PS, duration of disease, primary and recurrent histologic diagnosis, and primary and recurrent extent of resection are associated with outcomes. These variables should be validated in additional datasets for potential inclusion in reports of future clinical trials. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

LBA9006 Purpose: Many patients who receive EGFR inhibitors develop an acneiform rash, and anecdotal reports suggest tetracycline is effective in treating it. To our knowledge, however, no rigorous trials have ever been published to substantiate this approach. This double- blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to assess the role of tetracycline in preventing EGFR inhibitor-induced rash and/or reducing its severity. Methods: 61 patients were randomly assigned to tetracycline 500 mg orally twice a day×4 weeks versus an identical, similarly prescribed placebo. Eligibility criteria required all patients to have begun an EGFR inhibitor </= 7 days prior with no rash at study entry. Patients were to be followed for 8 weeks. Physician assessments of rash incidence, severity, and adverse events, occurred at 4 and 8 weeks. Patients completed a weekly rash diary, quality of life questionnaire (SKINDEX-16), and EGFR inhibitor compliance questionnaire. Thirty patients per group provides 90% power to detect a difference in rash incidence (the primary endpoint) of 40% between groups and of rejecting the null hypothesis of equal proportions with a type I error of 5% (2-sided). Results: Treatment arms were balanced on baseline characteristics, drop out rates, and rates of discontinuation of the EGFR inhibitor. Rash incidence was comparable across arms. Physicians reported that 16 tetracycline-treated patients (70%) and 22 placebo-exposed patients (76%) developed a rash (p=0.61). However, tetracycline appears to have lessened rash severity. By week 4, physician-reported grade 2 rash occurred in 17% of tetracycline-treated patients (n=4) and 55% of placebo- exposed patients (n=16); (p=0.04). Tetracycline-treated patients reported better scores on certain quality of life parameters (SKINDEX-16), such as skin burning or stinging, skin irritation, and being bothered by a persistence/recurrence of a skin condition. Adverse events were comparable across arms. Conclusion: Tetracycline did not prevent EGFR inhibitor-induced rashes. However, diminished rash severity and improved quality of life suggest this antibiotic merits further study. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

8565 Background: Previous studies using low-dose (250 ug/dose) aerosolized sargramostim (granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor: aero-GM-CSF) for the treatment of metastatic melanoma, revealed anecdotal clinical responses that appeared to correlate with an increase in the number of tumor specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes (CTL) in blood. Herein, we address whether or not further dose escalation of aero-GM-CSF is safe, results in greater increase of melanoma specific CTLs, and affects clinical outcomes. Methods: A 5+5 dose escalation clinical trial was conducted to determine the dose of aero-GM-CSF that would increase in the frequency of peripheral blood melanoma specific CTLs in HLA-A2+ patients with metastatic melanoma to the lungs. Aero-GM-CSF was administered twice daily on days 1–7 and 15–21 of a 28 day cycle at doses of: 500, 750, 1,000, 1,250, 1,500, 1,750, and 2,000 ug per cohort. If at most 2 of 5 patients at a dose level reported a 5-fold increase in CTLs, dose escalation occurred. If not, 5 additional patients were treated at that dose. Dose escalation continued until =2 of 5 patients at a dose level developed severe toxicity, at least 7 of the 10 patients at a dose level reported a 5-fold increase in CTLs, or all dose levels were exhausted. Results: The study accrued 40 patients from August 2002 to July 2006. Four patients cancelled participation prior to treatment. One patient was replaced (500 ug) as he died within 13 days of registration. Among the 35 remaining patients, median age was 58 (23–84), 72% were male, and 72% had a PS=0. Dose escalation was not terminated due to toxicity. Toxicities = grade 3 (at least probably treatment related) included: grade 3 fatigue (1) at 1,000 ug; and grade 3 cough (1), and grade 4 dyspnea (1) at 1,750 ug. At the 2,000 ug dose, most patients (4 of 5) exhibited a greater than 2-fold increase in melanoma specific CTLs. Two of these patients remain on treatment: one with partial response at 14.0 months and the other with stable disease at 6.5 months. A 5-fold increase in tumor specific CTLs was not achieved in any patient. Conclusions: Aero-GM-CSF therapy administered at up to 2,000 ug/dose appears safe and seems to correlate with increased frequencies of tumor specific CTLs in a dose-dependent fashion. Further dose escalation followed by clinical efficacy testing is warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

PURPOSE: This article summarizes the third step of a research program to identify variables that supplement the predictive power of the the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) for survival. The objective was to produce a simple, practical, stratification factor for phase III oncology clinical trials involving patients with advanced malignant disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was administered to 729 patients with metastatic colorectal or lung cancers. Patients provided a Karnofsky index and appetite rating while physicians provided a survival estimate and the ECOG-PS. Scores for each item were categorized as having a positive, neutral, or negative indication for survival. A patient was classified as having a relatively good prognosis if three or more of the four items showed a positive indication, a bad prognosis if three or more items were negative, and an uncertain prognosis otherwise (Good/Bad/Uncertain [GBU] index). RESULTS: The GBU index improved on the prognostic power of a Cox model quartile index and PS alone and increased the accuracy of survival classification estimates by 5% to 10% more than ECOG-PS alone. For patients with PS of 0 or 1, significant survival patterns exist between GBU groups (P= .002 and .0001, respectively). CONCLUSION: The GBU index may be recommended as a supplementary stratification factor for certain future phase III trials in metastatic lung or colorectal cancer where patient heterogeneity is a particular concern. The GBU represents a relatively modest increase to the cost and patient burden of a clinical trial given the additional control that is achieved over the potentially confounding concomitant to the treatment variable.