Citations

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Background: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (>10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p <0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare lymphoma with a median age at diagnosis of 60-70 years. Front line therapy has traditionally been bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in older patients and then Bruton Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) for relapsed disease. Due to their efficacy, BTKi are now being combined with chemotherapy as induction treatment. The TRIANGLE trial of R-CHOP/R-DHAP +/- ibrutinib +/- transplant showed the benefit of adding a BTKi in young patients (Dreyling M, 2022). The SHINE trial, a phase III trial of BR +/- ibrutinib in patients >65 years, showed a significant improvement in median PFS (81 months vs. 53 months) (Wang M, 2022). However, this came with an increase in toxicity with more treatment related deaths in the ibrutinib arm (11% vs. 6%) and no difference in overall survival. Therefore, a better tolerated approach is still needed in older patients. A phase II study of rituximab + indefinite ibrutinib in 50 patients >65 years demonstrated efficacy of frontline BTKi with a 96% ORR and 71% CR (Jain P, 2021). However, a disadvantage of BTKi therapy is continuous treatment until disease progression or intolerance. In this study half of patients required dose reductions and almost a third of patients stopped treatment due to drug toxicity, most frequently atrial fibrillation or bleeding. If front line intermittent BTKi therapy is as effective as continuous therapy, it could minimize cumulative toxicity. A052101 (NCT05976763), an Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trial, is a randomized phase 3 multicenter trial of upfront zanubrutinib that asks the question “in older patients with previously untreated MCL who obtain a CR with zanubrutinib-rituximab, is it safe and equally effective to stop treatment and restart it upon disease progression rather than continuing indefinitely?” The A052101 trial is enrolling pts with previously untreated MCL who are either >70 years old or 60-69 years old but are not transplant candidates due to cardiac ejection fraction <45%, DLCO <60% of predicted, creatinine clearance <70, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of >2, or a Cumulative Illness Rating Scales score of >6. Key exclusion criteria include: history of a severe bleeding disorder or clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias. Patients will take zanubrutinib 320 mg daily and rituximab/rituximab biosimilar once monthly for 6 cycles. Patients with less than partial response after 6 cycles will go off study treatment. Patients with a complete remission will be randomized in a 1:1 manner to intermittent treatment versus continuous treatment. Randomization will be stratified by age (60-69 years vs ≥70 years) and MIPI score. Those randomized to the continuous arm will receive zanubrutinib until intolerance or disease progression. Those randomized to the intermittent arm will stop all study drugs after those initial 6 cycles and will restart zanubrutinib at first disease progression and continue it until intolerance or second disease progression. In order to make the study results generalizable to clinical practice, disease progression will be defined by clinical parameters rather than minimal residual disease testing. The primary objective of this study is to compare time from randomization to first progression or death (PFS1) in the continuous treatment arm to the time to second progression or death (PFS2) in the intermittent treatment arm. The primary evaluation will be to determine whether, for patients in a CR, active monitoring followed by retreatment with zanubrutinib therapy upon disease progression will result in non-inferior clinical outcomes compared to indefinite zanubrutinib. Serial quality of life testing and adverse event monitoring will be performed throughout the study to gain a full understanding of the impact of continuous vs intermittent zanubrutinib on patients' lives. A052101 has the potential to change management of older patients with previously untreated MCL. If our study demonstrates that the time to second progression/death when using the stop and retreat strategy is non-inferior to time to first progression/death when using continuous BTK therapy, then it might lead to a new standard of care in this patient population. This could result in decreased health care costs, decreased toxicity and improved quality of life for older patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document detailing core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials, including physical function (PF). This study aimed to develop analytic methods and visualizations of patient-reported PF in patients with cancer. Methods We applied an estimand framework to a patient-reported tolerability endpoint to develop data summaries cross-sectionally and over time, along with visualizations. We accomplished this through iterative feedback with clinicians, statisticians, and FDA stakeholders using three clinical trial datasets in hematologic malignancies. Graphical approaches were applied to three datasets in hematologic malignancies: (1) patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms enrolled in MPN-RC 111/112 trials completed EORTC QLQ-C30 over 12 months; (2) patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR-T cell therapy or autologous transplant who completed FACT questionnaires over 6 months; and (3) patients with multiple myeloma or amyloidosis who completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire over 6 months. Zoom polls were administered to two stakeholder groups (clinicians/clinical investigators and patient advocates) to elicit feedback. Results Visualizations included stacked bar charts, line plots of arithmetic mean changes from baseline, pie charts, waffle plots, and waterfall plots of PF data. Graphics considered scaled scores and individual items and included delineation of PRO completion rate at each time point. Confidence intervals and reference lines were included as applicable, and colorblind accessible colors were implemented to ensure inclusivity of all visualizations. Data summaries over time reporting “worst” change were difficult to interpret. In terms of stakeholders’ preference, patients preferred stacked bar charts while clinicians equally favored stacked bar charts and line plots; both patients and clinicians preferred waterfall plots to pie charts. Patient feedback highlighted the need for various graphics to convey group level trends and granular individual-patient level information. Conclusion Patient-reported PF informs the evaluation of treatment tolerability in cancer trials. Data summaries and visualizations of physical function developed through an iterative process were reviewed favorably by patients, clinicians and FDA stakeholders in this study. Future work to systematically assess accuracy of interpretation of the various analytic and visualization methods is a necessary next step across clinical, regulatory, payer and patient stakeholders. Trial registration NCT01259817, NCT01259856

1564 Background: Physical function (PF) is a core outcome in cancer trials that can inform treatment tolerability. PF can be assessed across modalities including by patient (pt) report, clinician (clin) report, performance tests and digital sensors. The optimal approach for PF measurement has not been defined. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study evaluating PF in pts initiating chemotherapy for breast cancer or lymphoma followed over 9 months. We used an electronic platform (Hugo) to aggregate serially assessed pt-reported PF, clin- and pt-reported ECOG performance status (PS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and wearable (Fitbit) data. We evaluated feasibility in all pts; associations among PF measures and the ability of PF measures to detect change were evaluated in pts with both baseline (BL) and 3-month (3M) data. We used Pearson correlations to assess the relationship of average daily steps with measures of PF. To assess change, we compared each PF measure from BL to 3M using a 2-sided α=.05 paired t-test. Results: Of the208 pts enrolled, 193 (93%) and 159 (76%) completed surveys, and 121 (58%) and 124 (60%) provided wearable data (evaluable: ≥1 day data) at BL and 3M, respectively. When requiring a stringent BL with 4+ days of data with ≥1 weekend day to be evaluable, 88 (42%) and 120 (58%) provided wearable data at BL and 3M. At both BL and 3M, pt-reported PF was generally more highly correlated with wearable-derived daily steps than clin-reported PF and 6MWT were (Table). Significant declines in PF were observed for pt- and clin-reported PF (all p<0.05), but not other modalities. Conclusions: Longitudinalassessment of multi-modal PF data including pragmatic wearable data collection was feasible in pts receiving chemotherapy. Pt-reported PF was the only modality that was both correlated with step count and able to detect change. Additional wearable metrics, correlations among PF measurements and outcomes, and clinically meaningful change scores will be reported. Optimal PF measurement may improve future reporting of treatment tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT05214144 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE Limited evidence exists regarding methotrexate (MTX) resumption after patients with lymphoma receive glucarpidase for toxic MTX levels and acute kidney injury (AKI). METHODS This retrospective review included adults with lymphoma treated with glucarpidase after MTX at Mayo Clinic between January 31, 2020, and October 10, 2022. Descriptive statistics summarize patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS Of 11 patients treated with glucarpidase after MTX, seven (64%) were rechallenged with MTX. Indications for MTX rechallenge included confirmed CNS disease (n = 6, 86%) and intravascular lymphoma (n = 1, 14%). Compared with the nonrechallenged subgroup, before receiving MTX that required glucarpidase rescue, the rechallenged patients had lower median pretreatment serum creatinine (Scr; 0.7 v 1.2 mg/dL), and none had AKI with previous MTX doses, n = 0 (0%) versus n = 2 (50%). During the MTX dose requiring glucarpidase rescue, the rechallenged group had lower median peak Scr (1.26 v 3.32 mg/dL) and lower incidence of AKI stage III (n = 1 [14%] v n = 3 [75%]), and none of the rechallenged patients required renal replacement therapy (RRT; n = 0 [0%] v n = 1 [25%]). At the first rechallenge after glucarpidase administration, the median MTX dose reduction was 56% (range, 46%-75%), and the lowest used dose when prescribed according to each treatment protocol schedule was 1.5 g/m2. Two (29%) patients experienced AKI (n = 1 stage I, n = 1 stage II) after MTX rechallenge. Zero patients required RRT, and zero required another glucarpidase administration. Six (86%) patients completed all recommended MTX doses. CONCLUSION In selected adults with lymphoma who required glucarpidase for toxic MTX levels after administration of high-dose MTX, resumption of MTX therapy at lower doses is safe. Patients selected for MTX resumption had experienced less severe AKI during the previous cycle compared with those not selected for MTX resumption.

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated remarkable response rates in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Still, most patients eventually progress. Patterns of progression after ICIs are not well described and are essential to defining the role of local therapies in combination with ICIs. We identified patients who received ICIs for HL between 2013 and 2022. Fludeoxyglucose-18 positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) before initiating ICI and at progression on/after ICI were reviewed, and areas of active HL were recorded. An exploratory analysis of treatable progression included patients with ≤5 sites of disease on pre-ICI FDG-PET and progression only at pre-ICI sites. Ninety patients were identified; 69 had complete records, and of these, 32 (52%) had relapsed at ICI initiation, 17 (25%) were refractory, and 16 (23%) received ICI as first-line therapy. Forty-five of 69 patients had ≤5 sites of disease (limited) on pre-ICI FDG-PET. Patients with &gt;5 sites of disease had a higher risk of progression, and every site of disease &gt;5 sites conferred an additional 1.2x higher chance of progression. At a median follow-up of 4.0 years, 41 of 69 patients had progressed on/after ICIs (cumulative incidence 66.4%), and of these, 22 of 41 patients progressed only at pre-ICI sites (cumulative incidence 39.4%). In an exploratory analysis, the cumulative incidence of a treatable progression among 45 patients with limited disease was 34%. The cumulative incidence of any progression among this cohort was 58.9%. More than one-third of patients with limited disease before ICIs experienced progression only at pre-ICI sites of disease. These patients could be candidates for radiation during or after ICIs.

Background Primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma (PMBCL) is an uncommon type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinicopathologic features are distinct from diffuse large B cell lymphoma, but it shares some clinical and biologic features with Nodular sclerosis classic Hodgkin lymphoma. Central nervous system (CNS) relapse appears to be rare in patients with PMBCL, with limited literature reporting a rate of approximately 1.5% to 4%. We examined the incidence of CNS relapse, treatment approaches and survival outcomes in patients with PMBCL. Methods Patients with newly diagnosed PMBCL seen at Mayo Clinic between 2002 and 2022 were identified using the prospective Mayo Clinic Lymphoma Database. Clinical features, treatment details and outcomes were abstracted from the medical record. Cumulative incidence of CNS relapse was analyzed with death as a competing risk. The association of CNS-IPI, systemic treatment, and CNS prophylaxis approach with CNS relapse rate was analyzed using competing risk models and descriptively. Event-free survival (EFS) for the cohort was defined as time from PMBCL diagnosis to first recorded CNS and/or systemic relapse or death from any cause. Overall survival (OS) was defined as time from PMBCL diagnosis (or CNS relapse) to death from any cause. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results A total of 124 PMBCL cases were identified. The median age at diagnosis was 37 years and 61% were female. The distribution of CNS-IPI was low-risk in 67 (61%), intermediate-risk in 41 (37%), and high-risk in 2 (2%). 64 patients (52%) received R-CHOP and 54 patients (44%) received R-DA-EPOCH as frontline therapy. High-dose methotrexate (HD-MTX) for CNS prophylaxis was administered to 6 patients (5%), 5 with R-CHOP and 1 with R-DA-EPOCH. 16 patients received intrathecal (IT) chemotherapy (methotrexate and/or cytarabine) for CNS prophylaxis, 3 with R-CHOP and 13 with R-DA-EPOCH. The median follow-up was 56.0 months. The 5-year EFS rate was 75.1% and the 5-year OS rate was 90.7% for the entire cohort. 20 patients had systemic relapse only and 3 had CNS relapse. The cumulative incidence of CNS relapse was 1.84% (95% CI 0.46%-7.17%) at 2 years and 2.92% (95% CI 0.50%-8.84%) at 5 years (Figure 1). No statistically significant association of CNS-IPI, systemic therapy or CNS prophylaxis regimen with CNS relapse rate was found in competing risk models; however, this analysis was limited by a small event number (n=3). Among the 3 patients with CNS relapse, 1 had high-risk CNS-IPI and 2 had intermediate risk. All 3 patients were treated initially with R-CHOP. Two patients did not receive any CNS prophylaxis and 1 patient received IT CNS prophylaxis. All three patients who had CNS relapse were female. Patient #1 was diagnosed at age 48 and had simultaneous CNS and systemic relapse 6 months later. The patient was treated with HD-MTX, temozolomide and rituximab for CNS relapse, and subsequently received multiple therapies for systemic disease including R-DHAP, R-ICE, and died 17 months after CNS relapse. Patient #2 was diagnosed at age 22 and had CNS relapse after 8.7 months, followed by systemic relapse 2 months later. The patient received HD-MTX, temozolomide and rituximab for CNS relapse, followed by systemic and whole-brain radiation therapy (RT) for both systemic and CNS relapse. Subsequently the patient received salvage chemotherapy, autologous and allogeneic stem cell transplant for systemic relapse. The patient died 26.8 months after CNS relapse. Patient #3 was diagnosed at age 24 and had systemic relapse after 20.7 months, followed by CNS relapse 5.4 months later. The patient received methotrexate and whole-brain RT following CNS relapse and died 1.2 months after CNS relapse. Besides these 3 patients, we identified 6 PMBCL patients with CNS relapse who were diagnosed at other medical centers and subsequently referred to our institution for management of refractory disease. The survival after CNS relapse was poor, with a median OS of 10.4 months (95% CI 5.6-15.2). Conclusion Our study showed that the CNS relapse rate (1.84% at 2 years and 2.92% at 5 years) was overall low in patients with PMBCL, consistent with previous reports. CNS relapse was associated with poor survival despite aggressive treatment approaches. Novel approaches utilizing biological risk factors for CNS relapse, such as circulating tumor DNA, are needed to identify patients with CNS relapse.