Alliance A221805: Duloxetine to Prevent Oxaliplatin-Induced Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study
PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.
Patient-targeted education (ePRO-E) to increase ePRO intent within an Alliance clinical trial (A221805-SI1)
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.
Adverse Event Burden Score—A Versatile Summary Measure for Cancer Clinical Trials
This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials’ primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.
Adverse event (AE) attribution in symptom intervention and cancer prevention trials.
Radiofrequency ablation of stage IA non–small cell lung cancer in medically inoperable patients: Results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4033 (All
Purpose: This phase II study was undertaken to define the efficacy and pharmacodynamics of R115777, a farnesyl transferase inhibitor, in the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods: Forty-four patients with measurable stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or stage IV disease received 193 courses of treatment (median, 2.0; range, 1 to 22) with R115777 300 mg administered orally twice daily for 21 of every 28 days. Buccal mucosa samples and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) were collected before and after 8 days of treatment to evaluate inhibition of farnesyl transferase in vivo. Results: No objective complete or partial responses were documented. Seven patients (16%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 8% to 31%) had disease stabilization for greater than 6 months. Median survival was 7.7 months (95% CI, 6.5 to 10.5) and time to progression was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.1). The most severe toxicity was neutropenia (9% grade 3, 7% grade 4) and the most common toxicities were anemia (50% grade 1 or 2, 5% grade 3) and anorexia (50% grade 1 or 2, 2% grade 3). Mild peripheral neuropathy occurred in 25% of patients. Evidence of farnesyl transferase inhibition was documented in 83% of patients. Conclusion: Single-agent R115777 was well tolerated in patients with advanced NSCLC, but demonstrated minimal clinical activity. Inhibition of farnesylation in vivo was consistently documented. On the basis of promising results of farnesyl transferase inhibitor combinations with standard chemotherapy agents, future studies of this agent in NSCLC should be in combination with systemic chemotherapy.