Bates, Susan E

PURPOSE There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

Importance Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is an increasingly used treatment strategy for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Little research has been conducted on cancer care delivery during NT, and the standards for optimal delivery of NT have not been defined. Objective To develop consensus best practices for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Design, Setting, and Participants This study used a modified Delphi approach consisting of 2 rounds of voting, and a series of virtual conferences (from October to December 2023) to reach expert consensus on candidate best practice statements generated from a systematic review of the literature and expert opinion. An interdisciplinary panel was formed including 47 North American experts from surgical, medical, and radiation oncology, radiology, pathology, gastroenterology, integrative oncology, anesthesia, pharmacy, nursing, cancer care delivery research, and nutrition as well as patient and caregiver stakeholders. Main Outcome and Measures Statements that reached 75% agreement or greater were included in final consensus statements. Results Of the 47 participating panel members, 27 (57.64%) were male, and the mean (SD) age was 47.6 (8.2) years. Physicians reported completing training a mean (SD) 14.6 (8.6) years prior and seeing a mean (SD) 110.6 (38.4) patients with PDAC annually; 35 (77.7%) were in academic practice. Final consensus was reached on 82 best practices for delivering NT. Of these, 38 statements focused on pre-NT practices, including diagnosis and staging (n = 15), evaluation and optimization (n = 20), and decision-making (n = 3); 29 statements defined best practices during NT, including initiation (n = 3), delivery of therapy (n = 8), restaging practices (n = 12), and management of complications during NT (n = 6); and 15 best practices were identified to guide treatment post-NT, focusing on surgery (n = 7), pathology (n = 4), and follow-up (n = 3). Conclusions Using a modified Delphi consensus technique, best practice guidelines were developed focusing on the optimal standards for delivering NT to patients with localized PDAC. Given the prognostic importance of completing multimodality therapy, efforts to standardize and optimize the delivery of NT represent an immediate opportunity to decrease care variation and improve outcomes for patients with PDAC. Future research should focus on validating and implementing best practice standards into clinical practice.

Abstract Background Multiple preclinical studies have shown cytotoxic synergy involving combinations of poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors and topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) inhibitors, but such combinations have proven too toxic in clinical trials. Liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) achieved similar intratumoral exposure with better antitumor activity than the conventional TOP1 inhibitor irinotecan in preclinical models. Tumor targeted delivery of TOP1 inhibitor using nal-IRI and an intermittent schedule of administration of PARP inhibitor may provide a tolerable combination. Methods A phase I study was performed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of escalating doses of nal-IRI and the PARP inhibitor veliparib in patients with solid tumors resistant to standard treatments. Nal-IRI was administered on days 1 and 15 and veliparib on days 5-12 and 19-25 in 28-day cycles. Results Eighteen patients were enrolled across 3 dose levels. Five patients encountered dose–limiting toxicities, including grade 3 diarrhea lasting more than 72 h in 3 patients and 1 patient each with grade 4 diarrhea and grade 3 hyponatremia. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities included diarrhea (50% of patients), nausea (16.6%), anorexia, and vomiting (11.1% each) (Table 1). There was no difference in frequencies of adverse events based on UGT1A1*28 status or prior opioid use (Table 1). Conclusion The clinical trial was terminated due to high frequency of unacceptable gastrointestinal toxicities, which precluded dose escalation of veliparib in combination with nal-IRI (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02631733).

In this issue of The Oncologist, Agarwal et al. report negative results from a phase I trial of LFA102. Although “negative” in terms of antitumor activity, the study provides useful pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information. Future trials evaluating PRLR blockers alone and in combination with other agents may still be warranted in patients with breast and prostate cancer.

Purpose Romidepsin (depsipeptide or FK228) is a member of a new class of antineoplastic agents active in T-cell lymphoma, the histone deacetylase inhibitors. On the basis of observed responses in a phase I trial, a phase II trial of romidepsin in patients with T-cell lymphoma was initiated. Patients and Methods The initial cohort was limited to patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL), or subtypes mycosis fungoides or Sézary syndrome, who had received no more than two prior cytotoxic regimens. There were no limits on other types of therapy. Subsequently, the protocol was expanded to enroll patients who had received more than two prior cytotoxic regimens. Results Twenty-seven patients were enrolled onto the first cohort, and a total of 71 patients are included in this analysis. These patients had undergone a median of four prior treatments, and 62 patients (87%) had advanced-stage disease (stage IIB, n = 15; stage III, n= 6; or stage IV, n = 41). Toxicities included nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and transient thrombocytopenia and granulocytopenia. Pharmacokinetics were evaluated with the first administration of romidepsin. Complete responses were observed in four patients, and partial responses were observed in 20 patients for an overall response rate of 34% (95% CI, 23% to 46%). The median duration of response was 13.7 months. Conclusion The histone deacetylase inhibitor romidepsin has single-agent clinical activity with significant and durable responses in patients with CTCL.