Regorafenib dose optimization study (ReDOS): Randomized phase II trial to evaluate dosing strategies for regorafenib in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)–An ACCRU Network study.
611 Background: Regorafenib is an oral multikinase inhibitor with survival benefit in refractory mCRC patients (pts). Toxicities such as Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES), fatigue and hypertension (HTN) have limited its use. Despite absence of supportive data, various dosing or interval scheduling have been implemented into clinical practice. Methods: A randomized phase II study of regorafenib dose-escalation (Arm A: 80 mg/day, weekly dose escalation if no significant drug-related toxicities, up to 160 mg/day) vs. standard dose (Arm B: 160 mg/day) in pts with mCRC for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Pts were randomized 1:1:1:1 to arms A1 and B1 (Pre-emptive Clobetasol for PPES); A2 and B2 (Reactive Clobetasol). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who completed 2 cycles of treatment and initiated the 3rd in Arm A (Pooled A1 + A2) vs. Arm B (Pooled B1 + B2). Superiority for Arm A was to be declared if the one-sided p-value calculated using Fisher’s exact method was less than 0.2. Results: From June 2015 to June 2017, 123 pts were randomized with 116 (A = 54, B = 62) evaluable for the primary endpoint. Demographic data were well balanced with overall median age of 61yrs (range: 29-81), M/F (61/39%) and ECOG PS 0/1 (37/63%) and KRAS MT/WT/UNK (47/44/9%).The study met its primary endpoint with 43% of pts on Arm A initiating the 3rd vs. only 25% of pts Arm B [one-sided p-value 0.028]. Median Overall Survival (OS) was improved in Arm A vs. Arm B (9.0 mos vs. 5.9 mos; p = 0.094). Median Progression Free Survival (PFS) was 2.5 mos for Arm A vs. 2.0 mos for Arm B (p=0.553). Overall rates of grade 3/4 toxicity were more favorable for Arm A vs. Arm B (% PPES 15 vs. 16, HTN 7 vs. 15 and fatigue 13 vs. 18, respectively). Multiple QOL parameters were improved in A vs. B primarily at week 2 of the first cycle. Conclusion: A strategy with weekly dose escalation of regorafenib from 80 mg to 160 mg/day was found to be superior to a starting dose of 160 mg/day. These results establish a new standard for optimizing regorafenib dosing. Further data on outcomes of preemptive vs. reactive clobetasol strategies are undergoing analysis and will be presented later. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.
A patient-reported outcome driven case management system for hematology/oncology patients.
104 Background: Lymphedema (LE), a side effect of BC treatment, affects 8%–56% of women. The study tested the effectiveness of an education only vs education + exercise intervention on LE incidence in a group randomized trial (NCT00376597) of 38 cooperative group sites. Methods: Newly diagnosed women with stage I-III BC were consented and arm circumference and range of motion were measured pre-surgery. After surgery, patients (pts) were enrolled based on the randomization assignment of their treating institution, stratified by their type of node dissection (sentinel or axillary), and received either: education only: its causes, signs, symptoms and risk reduction strategies, or education + personalized exercise instruction from a physical therapist, with elastic compression garments to wear during heavy arm use and air travel. Pts completed surveys and arm measurements at baseline (BL), 12 and 18 months with the LE endpoint defined as ≥ 10% difference in limb volume at any time from BL to 18 months or physician diagnosis of LE. Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) tests were used to compare the LE-free rate between arms, adjusted for type of biopsy. Logistic regression assessed predictors of LE. Results: 568 pts were enrolled, 45% in education only, and 55% in education + exercise, with 554 (98%) included in the analyses. Pts were on average 57.7 years, White (83%), non-Hispanic (92%) and married (62%). 47% only had sentinel node dissection, 35% had mastectomy, and 37% had chemotherapy. The LE-free rate was 58% in education only vs 55% in education + exercise (CMH p = 0.73). Predictors of LE included surgery type (lumpectomy vs mastectomy, OR = 2.22, p < 0.001) and chemotherapy (no vs yes, OR = 1.73, p = 0.02), after adjusting for BMI and type of node dissection. Only one-third wore the sleeve at least 75% of the time and only 50% did LE exercises at least weekly. Conclusions: There was no difference by intervention arm in LE incidence by 18 months. Poor adherence in the education + exercise arm may have been a factor. Additional analyses will assess quality of life, body image and knowledge about LE by arm. Further research is needed to effectively prevent LE in pts after BC surgery. Research Support: UL1TR001409; U10CA037447, UG1CA189823 Clinical trial information: NCT00376597.
Patient-reported outcome driven case management system for hematology and oncology patients.
229 Background: Modern clinical practice places time restrictions on the amount of information and processing that can be done in a typical office visit. Meeting patient needs within the healthcare system is often inefficient and ineffective, contributing to patient and clinician dissatisfaction and suboptimal outcomes. We developed a point-of-care case management system for oncology clinical practices adapted from an algorithm initially designed for patients with diabetes. The system’s goal is to obtain patient-reported quality of life (QOL) outcomes and provide clinicians with information regarding QOL issues to address. Methods: Literature review and focus groups of oncology patients were used to identify key patient concerns. The program was adapted for cancer patients to collect the identified patient concern including QOL, fatigue, pain and other cancer-specific issues scored on a scale of 0-10. Suggested actions and available resources were identified for the patient/clinician based on the issue selected. We performed a pilot study involving 20 cancer patients to assess feasibility, and administered a “was it worth it survey” (WIWI). Results: The resultant hematology/oncology electronic system includes a set of eight primary “buttons”: Personal Relationships, Emotional health, Physical healthy, Cancer diagnosis and treatment, Health behaviors, Money, Care planning and Something else. Every “button” was selected, most commonly Cancer diagnosis and treatment 6/20 (30%). The median (range) reported QOL, fatigue and pain were 7 (1-10), 4 (0-8), 2 (0-8), respectively. The average completion of the tool took 4 minutes. One hundred percent of patients who took the survey thought it was worth it, would participate again and recommend it to others. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize in a small pilot of patients. All of the identified categories were chosen and relevant to our patient population. This tool has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, reduce the burden on clinicians and distribute case management activities to the most appropriate providers. Next steps include initiating a larger prospective protocol to assess if this tool improves QOL over time.
Pilot evaluation of citalopram for alleviation of hot flashes in women with inadequate hot flash control with venlafaxine
AbstractPatients with light chain amyloidosis (AL) often have delayed diagnosis and present with significant symptomatology; this may result in decreased quality of life (QOL). We prospectively employ a “Hematology Patient Reported Symptom Screen” (HPRSS), which is three questions about fatigue, pain, and QOL, scored 0–10. The aim of this study is to better understand QOL and determine if HPRSS parameters predict for clinical outcomes. From 2009 to 2014, 302 newly diagnosed AL patients were included. Baseline median scores [interquartile range] for fatigue, pain, and QOL were 6 [3,7], 2 [0,5], 5 [3,8], respectively. Median overall survival was 53 months, with 102 (34%) deaths in the first year. There were significant differences in baseline HPRSS between those that lived longer than one year and early death patients in the domains of fatigue (5 [IQR 3, 7] vs. 7 [IQR 5, 8], P < 0.0001) and QOL (6 [IQR 4, 8] vs. 5 [IQR 3, 7], P = 0.006). On univariate analysis fatigue, QOL, physician‐reported performance status, autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT), and Mayo stage were prognostic for survival. On multivariate analysis Mayo stage, ASCT, and baseline fatigue remained independently prognostic. When analyses were restricted to the 125 patients with HPRSS measurements at 12 months, we found that over time QOL scores improved significantly 6 [IQR 3.5, 8] → 7 [IQR 5, 8] (P = 0.01). Asking AL patients to rate their fatigue and QOL has predictive value. Baseline patient reported fatigue is an independent prognostic factor for survival. Survival at one year was associated with significant improvement in QOL.
Quality of Life Analysis of a Radiation Dose–Escalation Study of Patients With Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer