Gajra, Ajeet

e21545 Background: A nocebo is an inert substance that causes adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the favorably positive (placebo) effects of an inert substance, few studies have examined negative (nocebo) effects, particularly in older patients who sometimes experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. Methods: This study focused on placebo/nocebo-exposed patients who participated in two double-blind, placebo-controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) 97-24-51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group (ACOSOG) Z9001, with the goal of reporting comparative, age-based adverse event rates. Results: Among the 446 patients who received placebo/nocebo exclusively, 161 were 65 years of age or older at the time of respective trial entry; 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients 65 years of age or older and those younger: rate ratio (99% confidence intervals (CI): 1.01 (0.47, 2.02) with similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom-driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and trial resulted in no significant age-based rate differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70. Conclusions: A nocebo effect appears to occur irrespective of age. This observation suggests that adverse events should be taken no less seriously in older than in younger cancer patients and that education to manage patients’ expectations from cancer therapy might improve tolerability. [Table: see text]

BACKGROUND A nocebo is an inert substance associated with adverse events. Although previous studies have examined the positive (placebo) effects of such inert substances, few have examined negative (nocebo) adverse event profiles, particularly in older patients who have higher morbidity and can experience frequent and severe adverse events from cancer therapy. METHODS This study focused on placebo/nocebo‐exposed patients who participated in 2 double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, cancer therapeutic studies, namely, North Central Cancer Therapy Group trial NCCTG 97‐24‐51 and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group trial Z9001, with the goal of reporting the comparative, age‐based adverse event rates, as reported during the conduct of these trials. RESULTS Among the 446 patients who received only placebo/nocebo and who were the focus of the current report, 161 were aged ≥65 years at the time of respective trial entry, and 5234 adverse events occurred. Unadjusted adverse event rates did not differ significantly between patients aged ≥65 years and younger patients (rate ratio, 1.01; 99% confidence interval, 0.47‐2.02), and the findings were similar findings for grade 2 or worse adverse events and for all symptom‐driven adverse events (for example, pain, loss of appetite, anxiety). Adjustment for sex, ethnicity, baseline performance score, and individual trial resulted in no significant age‐based differences in adverse event rates. Similar findings were observed with an age threshold of 70 years. CONCLUSIONS Adverse events are equally common in older and younger cancer patients who are exposed to nocebo and thus require the same degree of clinical consideration regardless of age. Cancer 2017;123:4193–4198. © 2017 American Cancer Society .

AbstractBackgroundStudies point to a direct association between social support and better cancer outcomes. This study examined whether baseline social support is associated with better survival and fewer chemotherapy‐related adverse events in older, early‐stage breast cancer patients.MethodsThis study is a pre‐planned secondary analysis of CALGB 49907/Alliance A171301, a randomized trial that compared standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine in breast cancer patients 65 years of age or older. A subset reported on the extent of their social support with questionnaires that were completed 6 times over 2 years.ResultsThe median age of this 331‐patient cohort was 72 years (range: 65, 90); 179 (55%) were married, and 210 (65%) lived with someone. One hundred forty‐five patients (46%) described a social network of 0–10 people; 110 (35%) of 11–25; and 58 (19%) of 26 or more. The Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) social support survey revealed that the median scores (range) for emotional/informational, tangible, positive social interaction, and affectionate social support were 94 (3, 100), 94 (0, 100), 96 (0, 100), and 100 (8, 100), respectively. Social support scores appeared stable over 2 years and higher (more support) than in other cancer settings. No statistically significant associations were observed between social support and survival and adverse events in multivariate analyses. However, married patients had smaller tumors, and those with arthritis reported less social support.ConclusionAlthough social support did not predict survival and adverse events, the exploratory but plausible inverse associations with larger tumors and arthritis suggest that social support merits further study. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Abstract Background: In CALGB-49907 (NEJM 2009;360:2055), older patients (pts) with ESBC were randomized to standard adjuvant chemo (AC or CMF versus capecitabine). The objective of this secondary QoL analysis is to assess if pts’ BL chemo preference (CP, defined as high or low), is associated with the following during and after completion of chemo: self and professional-reported toxicity, changes in mental health, function, QoL, recurrence-free (RFS) and overall (OS) survival. Patients and Methods: Of 633 trial pts 350 participated in the QoL substudy; 145/350 pts completed the BL assessment regarding CP. CP was measured by asking the amount of benefit women would require to choose adjuvant chemo in a hypothetical situation, irrespective of chemo agents. Women who chose chemo for an increase in OS of ≤12 months (mo) were designated as high chemo preference (HCP) and those who chose >12 mo were designated low chemo preference (LCP). CP associations were evaluated with: BL perception of self-health and perceived QoL on chemo; patient reported outcomes (PROs), changes in function and QoL (based on EORTC-QLQ-C30); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale); observed grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) by NCI common toxicity criteria (CTC v2.0). Pts were assessed at midtreatment and at 1, 12, 18 and 24 mo post-treatment. Chi-square tests, t-tests, and Cox models were used for categorical, continuous, and time-to-event variables, respectively. Results: The demographic and tumor characteristics of women (median age 71) who provided CP at BL were not different from women in the QoL subset or from non-QoL pts. 68/145 (47%) women had a HCP. CP groups did not differ based on age, surgery type, tumor and nodal stage, hormone receptor status, performance status, chemo assignment, education, marital or employment status except the LCP group had a higher proportion of white women (95% vs. 78%, p=0.004). At BL, there were no differences in perception of self-health based on CP but women with LCP predicted QoL on chemo to be worse than women with HCP (p=0.006) and reported greater nausea/vomiting. Mid-treatment, LCP pts reported worse nausea/vomiting, financial worries, and cancer symptoms. Post-treatment, LCP pts had worse constipation (at 1 mo) and financial worries (at 24 mo). There were no differences based on CP for dyspnea, pain, fatigue, insomnia, anxiety or depression at any timepoint. Mid-treatment, LCP women reported lower QoL and worse social, emotional and physical function compared to HCP women. These scores were not significantly different after treatment completion. LCP women had significantly higher rates of grade 3-5 AEs (53 vs. 34%, p=0.02) during treatment but these did not persist post-therapy. CP was not significantly associated with OS (HR =0.75, p=0.36) or RFS (HR=0.94, p=0.84). Conclusions: LCP at BL was associated with lower QoL, worse physical symptoms, AEs and function mid-therapy, but not mental health. Mid-therapy declines in women with LCP largely reversed post-therapy. This information may be useful for oncology professionals to counsel older ESBC pts with LCP receiving adjuvant chemo. Citation Format: Ajeet Gajra, Linda McCall, Hyman B Muss, Harvey J Cohen, Aminah Jatoi, Karla V Ballman, Ann H Partridge, Linda Sutton, Barbara A Parker, Gustav Magrinat, Jaqueline M Lafky, Arti Hurria. Association of patient preference for adjuvant chemotherapy (chemo) at baseline (BL) with toxicity, mental health, function, quality of life (QoL) and survival in older women with early stage breast cancer (ESBC) [CALGB 49907 Alliance] [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-15-07.

Abstract Background: Overexpression of COX-2 has been associated with worse outcome in NSCLC. In C30203, we found that administration of the selective COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib in addition to chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC improved outcome (progression free and overall survival, PFS, OS) in pts with moderate to high COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC). C30801 was designed to prospectively confirm that finding. Patients and Methods: Pts with NSCLC (stage IIIb with pleural effusion, IV 6th ed) were pre-registered and biopsy specimens analyzed for COX-2 by IHC. Pts with COX-2 expression > or = 2, PS 0-2 and normal organ function were eligible. Chemotherapy was determined by histology: carboplatin (AUC = 6), pemetrexed (500 mg/m2) d 1, q21 days for pts with non-squamous NSCLC; carboplatin(AUC=5.5) d1, gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) d 1,8 for pts with squamous histology. Randomization was to celecoxib (400 mg bid) (Arm A) or placebo (Arm B). The primary endpoint was to demonstrate improvement in PFS in patients with COX-2 index >=4 with hazard ratio of 0.645. Results: The study was halted by the DSMB for futility after 312 of the planned 322 pts were randomized. The current analysis is based upon the first 300 pts. There were no significant differences between the groups (Table). There was a possible harmful effect for COX-2 inhibition in the COX-2 2-3 subset (OS HR = 1.75, p =.0977). Toxicity was similar for both arms. Subset analyses evaluating histology, chemotherapy regimen, incremental COX-2 expression did not demonstrate any advantage for COX-2 inhibition. Conclusions: 1. COX-2 expression by IHC failed to select pts who could benefit from selective COX-2 inhibition. 2. COX-2 inhibition did not significantly increase toxicity associated with chemotherapy or increase cardiovascular morbidity. 3. We will evaluate other possible determinants of toxicity and response to COX-2 inhibition. OutcomeArm AArm BCOX-2 2-3 (n=37)COX-2 > or = 4 (n=111)COX-2 2-3 (n=46)COX-2 > or = 4 (n=106)PFS (months)4.404.934.606.11OS (months)9.0310.5814.8512.68 Citation Format: Martin J. Edelman, Xiaofei Wang, Lydia Hodgson, Richard T. Cheney, Maria Baggstrom, Thomas Sachdev, Ajeet Gajra, Erin Bertino, Karen Reckamp, Julian Molina, Joan Schiller, Kisha Mitchell-Richards, Paula Friedman, Jon Ritter, Everett Vokes, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Phase III randomized, placebo controlled trial of COX-2 inhibition in addition to standard chemotherapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC):CALGB 30801 (Alliance). [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr CT238. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-CT238

Lung cancer is a disease of the elderly. In older patients, the management of a malignancy as complex and potentially as lethal as lung cancer is challenging. Despite the fact that a large proportion of patients with non–small-cell lung cancer are elderly, information remains scant on how best to treat these patients. The goal of this review is to discuss the published literature and to provide guidance on how to treat elderly patients within three broad stages: (1) metastatic cancer, (2) early-stage cancer after surgery, and (3) locally advanced inoperable cancer. Because decisions on how and when to prescribe systemic treatment can be particularly difficult, this review focuses heavily on chemotherapy-related treatment decisions with some discussion of emerging data on the use of the comprehensive geriatric assessment.