Li, Yuelin

Abstract Background Patients’ self-report of their symptoms can provide important data for the evaluation of treatment benefit and tolerability of oncology drugs. Contemporary treatment approaches, including immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies, have unique toxicities based on their novel mechanisms of action. This scoping review aimed to summarize evidence from existing reviews and clinical practice guidelines to examine the type and prevalence of toxicities including symptomatic adverse events (sympAEs) for adult cancer patients to inform clinical care and therapeutic trials. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed using predefined eligibility criteria. Thirty-one literature reviews and 3 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria and were selected for review and data abstraction. Results Findings from this scoping review demonstrated several leading sympAEs that were reported across immunotherapy and targeted therapy drugs, including fatigue, diarrhea, and rash. In addition to these more prevalent sympAEs, there were some less frequently reported class-specific sympAEs, which had potential for significant harm or disability to the patient if not properly identified and treated. Many studies reported toxicities as AEs or syndromes solely using data reported by clinicians without additional self-report from patients. Conclusion We identified several core sympAEs experienced by patients participating in oncology trials using immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents, which has implications for future trial design and drug labeling. Future cancer trials should assess patient-reported sympAEs based on the identified drug mechanism to inform the tolerability of these newer agents and enhance patient safety during trial participation and clinical care.

PURPOSE Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the fourth most common cancer in Africa, has a dismal overall survival of only 3 months like in sub-Saharan Africa. This is affected by the low gross domestic product and human development index, absence of coherent guidelines, and other factors. METHODS An open forum for HCC-experienced health care workers from Africa and the rest of the world was held in October 2021. Participants completed a survey to help assess the real-life access to screening, diagnoses, and treatment in the North and Southern Africa (NS), East and West Africa (EW), Central Africa (C), and the rest of the world. RESULTS Of 461 participants from all relevant subspecialties, 372 were from Africa. Most African participants provided hepatitis B vaccination and treatment for hepatitis B and C. More than half of the participants use serum alpha-fetoprotein and ultrasound for surveillance. Only 20% reported using image-guided diagnostic liver biopsy. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer is the most used staging system (52%). Liver transplant is available for only 28% of NS and 3% EW. C reported a significantly lower availability of resection. Availability of local therapy ranged from 94% in NS to 62% in C. Sorafenib is the most commonly used systemic therapy (66%). Only 12.9% reported access to other medications including immune checkpoint inhibitors. Besides 42% access to regorafenib in NS, second-line treatments were not provided. CONCLUSION Similarities and differences in the care for patients with HCC in Africa are reported. This reconfirms the major gaps in access and availability especially in C and marginally less so in EW. This is a call for concerted multidisciplinary efforts to achieve and sustain a reduction in incidence and mortality from HCC in Africa.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Abstract Background: Circulating Tumor cells (CTCs) are prognostic at baseline and first follow-up in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Using the most commonly used assay (CellSearch®), we have previously reported the ability to detect apoptotic vs. non-apoptotic CTCs in patients with MBC. However, there has been concern regarding the performance of the CellSearch® assay in patients with triple negative (TN) MBC. We hypothesized that CellSearch® is an effective assay in patients with TN MBC, and that CTC-apoptosis might further separate prognosis. Therefore, we studied CTCs in patients with TN MBC who participated in a prospective randomized phase II trial testing for activity of tigatuzumab (TIG) in combination with nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-PAC) conducted by the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (overall results reported by Forero A., et al, ASCO 2013). Methods: Whole blood (WB) was drawn into a CellSave tube at baseline, day 15, and day 29 and CTC counts were determined using the CXC CellSearch® kit. Apoptosis was characterized by staining with a monoclonal antibody that detects a neo-epitope on fragmented cytokeratin (M-30) and independently by visual inspection (nucleic condensation and/or fragmentation, as well as granular cytokeratin). Association between levels of CTCs and CTC-apoptosis with the overall response rate (ORR) and progression free survival (PFS) at baseline, day 15, and day 29 was assessed using logistic regression, Kaplan Meier curves, and Cox proportional hazards modeling. Results: Of the 60 patients entered into the trial, 52 were evaluable for CTCs. Of these, 19/52 (36.5%), 14/52 (26.9%), and 13/49 (26.5%) had elevated CTCs (≥5CTC/7.5 ml WB) at baseline, day 15, and day 29, respectively. Patients with elevated CTCs at each time point had worse PFS than patients with low or no CTCs. Hazard rates (HR) at baseline, day 15, and day 29 were 2.38 (95% CI: 1.27-4.45, p = 0.007), 2.87 (95% CI: 1.46-5.66, p = 0.002), and 3.40 (95% CI: 1.68-6.89, p = 0.001), respectively. The odds of overall response for those who had elevated CTCs compared to those who did not at baseline, day 15, and day 29, were 0.25 (95% CI: 0.073-0.81, p = 0.024), 0.18 (95% CI: 0.04-0.67, p = 0.014), and 0.06 (95% CI: 0.01-0.28, p = 0.001), respectively. There was no apparent prognostic effect comparing the degree of CTC-apoptosis vs. non-apoptosis. Conclusions: Similar to observations in other intrinsic subgroups, CTCs were detected in a large fraction of TN MBC patients at baseline using CellSearch® assay, and reductions in CTC levels reflected response. In these homogenously prospectively enrolled TN MBC patients, regardless of treatment, CTCs are prognostic at baseline, day 15, and day 29. It does not appear that analysis of CTC-apoptosis is prognostic. Supported by Susan G. Komen for the Cure, Veridex, LLC, Fashion Footwear Charitable Foundation of New York/QVC Presents Shoes on Sale™ (DFH), Associazione Sandro Pitigliani and by a studentship from FIRC (CP), Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation, The AVON Foundation, and The Breast Cancer Research Foundation. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2013;73(24 Suppl): Abstract nr P1-04-01.