Satele, Daniel

Abstract Background Older adults remain underrepresented in prospective trials of immunotherapy for advanced lung cancer. To estimate pembrolizumab adverse events, we conducted a multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label phase 2 trial of oncologist-choice first-line pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy for older adults with advanced lung adenocarcinoma. Methods Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A171901 enrolled patients aged 70 years and older with stage IV or recurrent lung adenocarcinoma starting oncologist’s choice of first-line pembrolizumab with or without carboplatin and pemetrexed. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients experiencing a solicited grade 3 or greater adverse event within 6 months. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, quality of life, and association of a geriatric assessment toxicity risk score with severe adverse events. Results Among 95 evaluable patients, 43 (45.3%) received pembrolizumab and 52 (54.7%) received pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy. Median age was 77 years (range = 70-92 years); 11.6% had an E Performance Status of 2 or higher. During 6 months of treatment, 25.6% (95% CI = 13.5% to 41.2%) experienced a solicited grade 3 or greater adverse event in the monotherapy group and 42.3% (95% CI = 28.7% to 56.8%) in the combination group. Median overall survival was 16.4 months (95% CI = 10.1 to not estimable) with monotherapy and 29.9 months (95% CI = 16.4 to not estimable) with combination therapy. Quality of life worsened during treatment. The geriatric assessment toxicity risk score was not associated with severe adverse events with pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy. Conclusions Older adults with advanced lung adenocarcinoma receiving pembrolizumab with or without chemotherapy had comparable adverse event rates to those in prior registration trials that excluded medically frail patients. These findings can inform shared decision making and support inclusion of older adults in future trials. Clinical Trial NCT04533451 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04533451)

Background/Objectives. Decades of research have failed to uncover effective approaches to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Increased interest in placebo response as a potentially under-recognized confounder in CIPN trials was recently sparked by the results of a multisite NCI-funded phase II-III CIPN prevention study of duloxetine, a promising serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that enhances pain-inhibitory mechanisms within the central nervous system. Study findings revealed high and nearly equivalent response rates in three randomized treatment groups—little to no CIPN was reported by 65.2%, 66.0%, and 68.0% of study participants who received duloxetine 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo treatment, respectively. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo response rates from seven randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials conducted over the past 20 years and comprising 191 placebo participants that were specifically testing interventions for oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and that serially collected patient responses on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to identify trial- and patient-specific factors that predicted higher placebo response rates from a participant-level pooled analysis. Results. The placebo response rate was 10.0% [95% CI: 5.8%, 16.6%] when response was defined more conservatively as patients reporting no neuropathy at all. When the placebo response was defined more broadly based on patients reporting no or a little neuropathy, the placebo response rate was higher (39.6% [95% CI: 27.4%, 53.2%]). Male participants, receipt of oxaliplatin, and a 2:1 randomization ratio favoring the intervention arm were individually associated with a higher placebo response. Conclusions. High placebo response rates can threaten scientific progress toward identifying effective treatments for cancer treatment-associated side effects, like CIPN. Careful attention to study design factors, participant eligibility, and patient and research staff expectations may help to minimize placebo response rates in future CIPN intervention studies.

Rural patients are often underrepresented in cancer clinical trials. This is a secondary analysis of a study that tested short (2000 word) versus long (6000 word) consent forms with a focus on rurality. Among 240 patients, 89 (37%) were rural. Seventy-one (80%) rural and 117 (77%) nonrural patients signed a consent form of any length ( P = .68). Forty-one of 47 (87%) rural patients signed a short consent form; in contrast, 30 of 42 (71%) signed a long form. These trends suggest rural patients are more likely to sign short consent forms. Further study is indicated.

PURPOSE:This randomized, double-blind study sought to understand whether cancer clinical trial consent form verbosity detracts from patients' decision making on trial enrollment.METHODS:This trial tested mock consent forms of 2,000, 4,000, and 6,000 words. The first two comprised the two experimental arms and the third the control arm. Phase II was conducted to identify the promising arm, which, in phase III, was compared with the control arm. Each consent form described the same trial. Eligible adult patients reported a cancer history and English literacy. The primary end point used a patient-reported Likert scale to assess the relationship between information in the consent form and trial decision making.RESULTS:In phase II, 93 patients were accrued and prompted the selection of the 2,000-word consent form for phase III. In phase III, 182 patients were recruited, resulting in 240 total evaluable patients to compare the 2,000-word versus the 6,000-word arm (control). For the primary end point, 103 (84%) and 107 (91%) patients in the 2,000- and 6,000-word arms, respectively, strongly agreed or agreed with the following: “The information in this consent form helped me make a decision about whether or not to enroll in the trial” (two-sided, P = .14). Median time to read each consent form was 8 and 12 minutes, respectively (two-sided, P < .0001). Among those assigned these consent forms, 84% and 73%, respectively (two-sided, P = .04) signed or expressed a willingness to sign.CONCLUSION:This study's primary end point was not met. However, secondary outcomes suggest a need to further study the efficiency and efficacy of shorter consent forms for cancer clinical trial enrollment.

6587 Background: Recently the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE was developed to augment clinically graded adverse events with information reported directly by patients on clinical trials (Basch, 2009). The validation and potential application of PRO-CTCAE in phase I clinical trials are of great interest as toxicity is the primary endpoint. Methods: Selected PRO-CTCAE items (21 items measuring 12 symptomatic adverse events) corresponding to the major adverse events required to be graded clinically were collected in an ongoing phase I clinical trial of weekly cilengitide and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01276496). PRO-CTCAE was administered in a paper booklet by a clinical research associate prior to treatment on days 1, 8 and 15 of their regular visits. These PRO-CTCAE items were summarized descriptively in comparison to clinician-assessed CTCAE ver 4.0 (NCI, 2009) during the first cycle. As a pilot study to assess feasibility of PRO-CTCAE in phase I trials, PRO-CTCAE was not intended for determination of dose-limiting toxicity. Results: Twelve patients were accrued to two separate doses of cilengitide and paclitaxel. The median age was 56 (range 36—67) and half of patients were female. All patients had an ECOG performance score <= 1. Over 90% of patients had received prior surgery and chemotherapy. All but one patient completed weekly PRO-CTCAE during the first cycle, the only patient refused to complete weeks 2 and 3 did not give a reason. PRO-CTCAE captured most of the symptomatic adverse events reflected in clinician-assessed CTCAE. Some symptomatic adverse events were not reported clinically by CTCAE but were reported by patients by PRO-CTCAE. Overall, PRO-CTCAE items indicated slightly more severe degree of symptoms experienced by patients than those reported in CTCAE. Conclusions: This is the first study that PRO-CTCAE items were integrated within regular study visits in a phase I trial. The administration of PRO-CTCAE has been proved feasible and fruitful, providing consistent and enhanced symptomatic toxicity from the patient point of view. The addition of PRO-CTCAE did not significantly increase patient burden. Clinical trial information: NCT01276496.

6133 Background: Patient (pt) trial experience may give insight to quality of life (QOL) factors affecting accrual, retention and outcome. While pts are vital to clinical trial success, we know little about their post-trial opinions. This trial examined pt opinion of their trial and treatment decision making (TDM). Methods: Pts enrolled on designated North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase II or III treatment trials completed the TDM Control Preferences Scale at baseline and the Was It Worth It (WIWI) satisfaction assessment at the ends of cycle 1 and active protocol treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts reporting worthwhile participation. Fisher Exact tests compared pt opinion across subgroups. Results: As of 01/15/2012, 264 pts were enrolled on 25 protocols and treated at 79 sites. 86% of pts were in phase II studies and 89% had stage IV disease. At the end of cycle 1, pts felt the trial was worthwhile (74%), would do it again (85%), and would recommend it to others (82%). 85% of pts reported undiminished QOL and only 7% rated the trial worse than expected. End of treatment responses were similar. Satisfaction rates varied by tumor site (p=0.04). 11% of pts having tumor response rated the trial as not worthwhile, and 66% of pts with progressive disease rated it worthwhile (see table). Pts with concordant preferred and actual TDM roles rated participation higher than pts with discordant TDM roles (see table). Conclusions: Most pts endorsed their clinical trial experience. Contrary to popular beliefs, treatment outcome did not have an overwhelming impact on pt satisfaction, and was just one of many factors such as TDM role discordance. Assessing pt satisfaction will inform future study design that can potentially improve pt accrual and retention. [Table: see text]