Citations

Background Interatrial shunt device (IASD) effects have been described in patients with heart failure and ejection fractions (EFs) ≥40%. However, baseline characteristics that correlate with greatest hemodynamic effects are unknown. On the basis of fundamental principles, we hypothesized that larger pressure gradients between left and right atria would yield greater shunt flow and greater hemodynamic effects. Methods and Results REDUCE LAP-HF (Reduce Elevated Left Atrial Pressure in Patients With Heart Failure) was a multicenter study that investigated IASD safety and performance. Sixty-four patients with EF ≥40% underwent device implantation followed by hemodynamic assessments at rest and exercise, including pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP, surrogate for left atrial pressure) and central venous pressure (CVP). At 6 months, IASD resulted in an average pulmonary-to-systemic blood flow ratio of 1.27 and increased exercise tolerance. The PCWP-CVP gradient (ie, the driving pressure for shunt flow) decreased at peak exercise from 16.8±6.9 to 11.4±5.5 mm Hg, because of increased CVP (17.5±5.4 to 20.3±7.9 mm Hg; P =0.04) and decreased PCWP (34.1±7.6 to 31.6±8.0 mm Hg; P =0.025). Baseline PCWP-CVP gradient during exercise correlated with changes of both PCWP-CVP and PCWP: Δ(PCWP-CVP)=10.0−0.89·(PCWP-CVP) baseline ( r 2 =0.56) and ΔPCWP=7.54−0.60·(PCWP-CVP) baseline ( P =0.001). Hemodynamics of patients with EF ≥50% and those with EF <50% responded similarly to IASD. Conclusions In heart failure patients with EF ≥40%, IASD significantly reduced PCWP and PCWP-CVP at peak exercise. Patients with higher baseline PCWP-CVP gradient had greater reductions in both parameters at follow-up. Results were sustained through 12 months and were independent of whether EF was ≥50% or between 40% and 49%. Additional studies will help further define the baseline hemodynamic predictors of exercise, hemodynamic, and clinical efficacy of the IASD. Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01913613.

e21681 Background: Maintaining quality of life with minimal symptoms is an important goal of cancer treatment. We surveyed patients undergoing cancer treatment about their preferences for information about the long-term symptom burden associated with their current treatment. Methods: Patients undergoing active cancer treatment were enrolled at two large cancer centers from 1/2014 to 7/2015. At the time of enrollment patients reported their household income, employment, performance status and their agreement with the statement, “It would be useful to know the percentage of patients having persistent symptoms more than a year after getting the same treatment I am getting.” Treatment intention (curative vs. palliative) was reported by the treating oncologist. Results: 196 patients completed the survey. The mean age was 55.7 (range 20-80); 54% were female, 69% were white, and 60% were receiving palliative treatment. The majority (83%) of patients either strongly agreed or somewhat agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. In univariable analyses, this preference did not significantly differ based on patient-reported performance status, sex, age, treatment intent, race, or household income. Using a more stringent criterion to dichotomize the outcome, 59% of participants strongly agreed that it would be helpful to have information about future symptoms. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent were significantly more likely to strongly agree (72% vs. 51%, p = 0.0035). In a multivariable analysis adjusting for age, sex, income level, employment status, and patient-reported performance status, participants undergoing curative versus palliative treatment had 3.1 times the odds (95% CI 1.47-6.65) of strongly agreeing. Conclusions: The majority of patients undergoing cancer treatment wanted to know what symptoms to expect in the future, and this was independent of patient demographics. Patients undergoing treatment with curative intent are significantly more likely to want this information than patients undergoing palliative treatment. Symptom data collected through research studies and registries should be summarized by treatment and other key predictors and made available to patients.

6523 Background: Treatment for most types of cancer results in work disruptions. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for not working during cancer therapy using a patient-reported outcome tool. Methods: Patients of all cancer types, who were undergoing treatment with curative or palliative intent, were enrolled in a survey-based study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the North Carolina Cancer Hospital from 1/2014 to 7/2015. All patients working full- or part- time at the time of cancer diagnosis were included in this analysis. Patient reported outcomes were collected using a survey tool at any time during active cancer treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was self-reported work status at the time of survey completion. Results: Of 119 patients who were working before their cancer diagnosis, 68% were working at the time of survey completion. The mean age was 52.9 (range 20-80). Younger age was associated with working: 82% of patients age < 40 were working during treatment vs. 31% of patients age > 65 (p=0.01). The number of days patients reported being completely unable to work in the past month was significantly associated with work status; only 26% of patients who missed > 10 days continued to work compared to 69% who missed ≤ 10 days (p<0.01). Patients who report having a flexible work schedule were 23% more likely to continue to work during treatment (69% vs. 46%, p=0.01). In a multivariable model controlling for having an employer contingent health plan, and household income > 200% of the federal poverty level (fpl), only age, having a flexible work schedule, and inability to work > 10 days were independently associated with work status during treatment (Table). Conclusions: Having a flexible work schedule allowed for more work interruptions without job loss. Patients who are likely to miss more than 10 days of work and who have inflexible work schedules are at high risk of unemployment and should be targeted for employment retention initiatives. [Table: see text]

Background and Purpose― We aimed to determine whether low-frequency electric field navigated repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation avoiding motor cortex could improve arm motor function in hemiplegic stroke patients when combined with motor training. Methods― Twelve outpatient US rehabilitation centers enrolled participants between May 2014 and December 2015. We delivered 1 Hz active or sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation to noninjured motor cortex before each of eighteen 60-minute therapy sessions over a 6-week period, with outcomes measured at 1 week and 1, 3, and 6 months after end of treatment. The primary end point was the percentage of participants improving ≥5 points on upper extremity Fugl-Meyer score 6 months after end of treatment. Secondary analyses assessed changes on the upper extremity Fugl-Meyer and Action Research Arm Test and Wolf Motor Function Test and safety. Results― Of 199 participants, 167 completed treatment and follow-up because of early discontinuation of data collection. Upper extremity Fugl-Meyer gains were significant for experimental ( P <0.001) and sham groups ( P <0.001). Sixty-seven percent of the experimental group (95% CI, 58%–75%) and 65% of sham group (95% CI, 52%–76%) improved ≥5 points on 6-month upper extremity Fugl-Meyer ( P =0.76). There was also no difference between experimental and sham groups in the Action Research Arm Test ( P =0.80) or the Wolf Motor Function Test ( P =0.55). A total of 26 serious adverse events occurred in 18 participants, with none related to the study or device, and with no difference between groups. Conclusions― Among patients 3 to 12 months poststroke, goal-oriented motor rehabilitation improved motor function 6 months after end of treatment. There was no difference between the active and sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation trial arms. Clinical Trial Registration― URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02089464.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

PurposeBevacizumab improves progression-free survival but not overall survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer. E5103 tested the effect of bevacizumab in the adjuvant setting in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative disease.Patients and MethodsPatients were assigned 1:2:2 to receive placebo with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) followed by weekly paclitaxel (arm A), bevacizumab only during AC and paclitaxel (arm B), or bevacizumab during AC and paclitaxel followed by bevacizumab monotherapy for 10 cycles (arm C). Random assignment was stratified and bevacizumab dose adjusted for choice of AC schedule. Radiation and hormonal therapy were administered concurrently with bevacizumab in arm C. The primary end point was invasive disease–free survival (IDFS).ResultsFour thousand nine hundred ninety-four patients were enrolled. Median age was 52 years; 64% of patients were estrogen receptor positive, 27% were lymph node negative, and 78% received dose-dense AC. Chemotherapy-associated adverse events including myelosuppression and neuropathy were similar across all arms. Grade ≥ 3 hypertension was more common in bevacizumab-treated patients, but thrombosis, proteinuria, and hemorrhage were not. The cumulative incidence of clinical congestive heart failure at 15 months was 1.0%, 1.9%, and 3.0% in arms A, B, and C, respectively. Bevacizumab exposure was less than anticipated, with approximately 24% of patients in arm B and approximately 55% of patients in arm C discontinuing bevacizumab before completing planned therapy. Five-year IDFS was 77% (95% CI, 71% to 81%) in arm A, 76% (95% CI, 72% to 80%) in arm B, and 80% (95% CI, 77% to 83%) in arm C.ConclusionIncorporation of bevacizumab into sequential anthracycline- and taxane-containing adjuvant therapy does not improve IDFS or overall survival in patients with high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative breast cancer. Longer duration bevacizumab therapy is unlikely to be feasible given the high rate of early discontinuation.