Mandrekar, Sumithra J.

Abstract INTRODUCTION Participating in a clinical trial is a personal choice and an individual experience. Several barriers to recruitment of high risk men and women in chemoprevention trials have been documented; however, to our knowledge, there are no existing reports on participant satisfaction in such trials. Therefore, our aim was to describe and evaluate participants’ perception of their experience with participating in chemoprevention trials conducted by CPN by summarizing the 5-item “Was It Worth It” (WIWI) tool for each trial and across the trials, and according to race/ethnicity, sex, age, site, and organ of primary interest. METHODS Because participants who participate in chemoprevention trials tend to be at increased cancer-risk, but otherwise healthy, the WIWI tool can help answer simple questions about participants’ assessment of whether or not participation in such a trial was worthwhile. The WIWI tool was consistently administered at the end of the intervention period in each trial conducted by CPN; since 2003, 7 trials have completed the study intervention period and are included in the results reported here. RESULTS The scientific focus of the 7 trials targeted 5 organs: breast, colorectum, esophageal, hepatobiliary, and lung. Of the 485 participants registered to these 7 trials, 419 (86.4%) were non-Hispanic white, 19 (3.9%) non-Hispanic black, 32 (6.6%) Hispanic, 14 (2.9%) other race/ethnicity, and 1 (0.2%) unknown race/ethnicity; there were 120 (24.7%) females. In total, 446 (92.0%) participants completed the WIWI questionnaire at the end of their respective intervention period. Across the trials, 93% [95% CI] [90.6%, 95.4%] of the participants indicated that participation was worthwhile and 92% [89.5%, 94.5%] reported that they would participate again. Additionally, 414 (92.8%) participants indicated that they would recommend participating in the current research study to others, while 10 (2.3%) indicated that they would not and 22 (4.9%) were uncertain. Furthermore, several participants provided actionable feedback to the question “If there was one thing that could have been done to improve your experience in this research study, what would it be?” Participant feedback on overall changes in quality of life and on their expectations with participation in the trial was positive but more nuanced, varying according to trial and participant composition. CONCLUSION In this dataset of chemoprevention trial participants enrolled through the CPN consortium, highly favorable feedback was evident with respect to the overall study experience, suggesting that the recruitment and retention methods employed are facilitating success. These data can be used to help advance the NCI accrual quality improvement program in developing/enhancing strategies to improve accrual, retention, and adherence as well as enhance participant diversity in subsequent trials. Citation Format: David Zahrieh, Ryan P. McMurray, Nathan R. Foster, Paul J. Limburg, Sumithra J. Mandrekar. Participant satisfaction with cancer chemoprevention clinical trials: The Mayo Clinic Cancer Prevention Network (CPN) experience [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 5092.

Abstract Event-free survival (EFS) is controversial as an end point for speeding approvals in newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML). We aimed to examine the robustness of EFS, specifically timing of complete remission (CR) in defining induction failure and impact of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The study included 1884 untreated AML patients enrolled across 5 trials conducted through Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology using anthracycline and cytarabine induction chemotherapy. EFS was defined as time from randomization/registration to induction failure, relapse, or death. Three definitions of induction failure were evaluated: failure to achieve CR by 60 days after randomization/registration, failure to achieve CR by the end of all protocol-defined induction courses, and failure to achieve CR by the end of all protocol-defined treatment. We considered either censoring or no censoring at time of non–protocol-mandated HCT. Although relapse and death are firm end points, the determination of induction failure was not consistent across studies. There was minimal impact of censoring at HCT on EFS estimates; however, median EFS estimates differed considerably based on the timing of CR in defining induction failure, with the magnitude of difference being large enough in most cases to lead to incorrect conclusions about efficacy in a single-arm trial, if the trial definition was not consistent with the definition used for the historical control. Timing of CR should be carefully examined in the historical control data used to guide the design of single-arm trials using EFS as the primary end point. Trials were registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT00085124, #NCT00416598, # NCT00651261, #NCT01238211, and #NCT01253070.

PURPOSE The mode of action of targeted cancer agents (TCAs) differs from classic chemotherapy, which leads to concerns about the role of RECIST in evaluating tumor response in trials with TCAs. We investigated the performance of RECIST using a pooled database from 50 clinical trials with at least one TCA. METHODS We examined the impact of the number of target lesions (TLs) on within-patient variability of tumor response. The prognostic effect of TL response (at 12 weeks or on study on the basis of a maximum five TLs) on survival was studied through landmark and time-dependent Cox models adjusted for baseline tumor load, occurrence of new lesions, or unequivocal progression of nontarget disease. RESULTS Data were obtained from 23,259 patients with cancer (36% lung, 28% colorectal, 11% breast, and 25% other); 15,620 received TCAs, predominantly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, as a single agent (37%), combined with other TCAs (7%), or as chemotherapy (56%); 28% received chemotherapy only; and 5% received best supportive care or placebo. A total of 17,222 patients contributed to the analyses. Within-patient variability decreased with increasing number of TLs, similarly for TCAs (with/without chemotherapy) and chemotherapy only. Mixed responses occurred proportionally in all treatment classes. Landmark analyses showed an ordinal relationship between percentage change from baseline to 12 weeks and overall survival, and demonstrated a clear distinction between tumor shrinkage and progressive disease according to RECIST. Time-dependent analysis showed no marked improvement in the ability to predict survival on the basis of TL tumor growth compared with nontarget progression or new lesion occurrence, regardless of treatment. Similar results were seen for major tumor types and different classes of TCAs. CONCLUSION This work reinforces that RECIST version 1.1 perform well for response assessment of TCAs.

Abstract Novel treatment strategies are needed for older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). This randomized phase 2 trial compared the efficacy and safety of 20 mg/m2 of IV decitabine on days 1 to 10 alone (arm A) with those of 1.3 mg/m2 of subcutaneous bortezomib (arm B) on days 1, 4, 8, and 11 for up to 4 10-day cycles followed by monthly 5-day cycles. Previously untreated AML patients age ≥60 years (excluding those with FLT3 mutations and favorable-risk cytogenetics) without restrictions in performance status (PS) or organ function were eligible. Median age was 72.4 years (range, 60.5-92.3 years); 31 patients (19%) had baseline PS ≥2, 35 (22%) had an antecedent hematological disorder, 58 had (39%) adverse cytogenetics, and 7 (5%) and 23 (14%) had abnormal cardiac or renal function. There were no statistically significant differences in overall survival (OS) or responses between the 2 treatment arms. The overall response rate (complete remission + complete remission with incomplete blood count recovery) was 39% (n = 64), with median OS of 9.3 months. Nineteen responders (31%) underwent allogeneic stem cell transplantation. The most common adverse event was febrile neutropenia, and there were no unexpected toxicities. Adding bortezomib to decitabine did not improve outcomes, but responses were better than those in previous trials using 5-day decitabine cycles. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01420926.

2534 Background: The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 were derived from an international collaborative effort supported by data from clinical trials (16 studies, 9147 patients) on cytotoxic chemotherapy (CT), providing a standard tool for response assessment. RECIST’s role has been questioned for TCA. Using a pooled individual patient database (IPD) from clinical trials performed by industry and cooperative groups, we assessed whether modifications to RECIST are required to evaluate antitumor activity of TCA. Methods: Data were collected from phase 2 and 3 clinical trials testing TCA in solid tumors. To study the occurrence of mixed responses, the variability of response of lesions within patients was studied. Furthermore, response was correlated with survival through landmark analyses and time dependent Cox models. Results: Clinical data were obtained from 23,259 patients, mainly with lung (36%), colorectal (28%) or breast cancer (11%). 15,620 patients (67%) received a TCA, mainly transduction or angiogenesis inhibitors, either as single agent (37%) or combined with other TCAs (7%) or CT (56%); 28% received CT only and 5% best supportive care or placebo. Within-patient variability reduced as the number of lesions used for response assessment increased, and did so similarly for TCAs (+/- CT) and CT. Mixed responses seemed to occur similarly across these treatment categories as well. Landmark analyses showed improving overall survival by % tumor shrinkage and a clear distinction between the effect of tumor shrinkage and progressive disease (PD) according to RECIST 1.1. This was confirmed by time dependent analysis. In addition target lesion growth showed no marked improvement in overall survival prediction over and above the other components of RECIST 1.1 PD (new lesions, non-target PD), regardless of treatment (TCA, CT or both) received. Similar results were seen focusing on major tumor types and classes of TCA. Conclusions: Using a large IPD dataset we demonstrated that RECIST 1.1 performs equally well for response assessment of TCA as for CT. No modifications are required.