Sloan, Jeff A.

6075 Background: Failing to meet patient expectations for participating in treatment decisions impacts satisfaction with care, but it is unknown whether this translates into QOL deficits. As part of a larger survey of cancer survivors conducted by the American Cancer Society (ACS), data were gathered on the role patients in Minnesota preferred and the role actually experienced during the treatment decision-making process. Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with one of the ten most common cancers in 2000 completed a survey containing the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the SF-36, and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). Fisher’s exact tests compared role preference distributions across demographic categories. Two-sample t-tests compared the POMS and SF-36 scores between patients whose preferred role preference was concordant with the role experienced and those with discordant preferred and actual roles. Results: 33% of the 599 consenting patients preferred an active role in treatment decision-making, 52% preferred a collaborative role, and 13% preferred a passive role. The actual roles experienced were 33% active, 50% collaborative, 17% passive. Over 88% of patients had concordant preferred and actual roles. Patients with concordant roles had higher SF-36 physical scores (45 vs 40, p=0.004), higher vitality (50 vs 42, p=0.005), less fatigue (70.2 vs 60.1, p=0.001), better concentration (84 vs 79, p=0.008) and better overall mood (77 vs 73, p=0.006). Role preference differed across gender (p=0.0002) in that more women preferred a collaborative role than men (57.8% vs 45.5%) and fewer women preferred a passive role (9% vs 17.3%). Patients under age 50 experienced more active roles in treatment decisions than those aged 50+ (p=0.04). Patients reporting an active actual role had higher SF-36 physical scores (p=0.005) and higher POMS vigor subscale scores (p=0.04). There were no differences in QOL scores for preferred roles. Conclusions: Patients who experienced discordance between their preferred role and their experience reported substantial QOL deficits in both physical and emotional domains. Oncologists can improve patient satisfaction with care and QOL by meeting patient expectations with respect to the amount of input they have in making treatment decisions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

5028 Background: Edmonston vaccine strains of MV have significant antitumor activity against ovarian cancer xenografts (Peng et al, Cancer Res, 2002). Oncolytic selectivity is due to overexpression of the MV CD46 receptor in ovarian cancer cells. Furthermore, engineering the virus to express the marker peptide CEA (MV-CEA) allows real time monitoring of viral gene expression/propagation in vivo. Methods: We are conducting a Phase I trial of MV-CEA in patients (pts) with recurrent, taxol and platinum refractory, ovarian or primary peritoneal carcinoma. Eligible pts should have protective anti-MV antibody (ab) titers and normal CEA levels. A standard phase I cohorts of three statistical design is employed. MV-CEA is administered IP via a port-a-cath, q 4 wks for up to 6 cycles. Results: To date, 12 pts have received viral doses from 103 to 106 TCID50. No dose-limiting toxicity has been observed. Most common toxicities included grade 1–2 nausea (4 pts); grade 1–2 fatigue (4 pts); grade 1 fever (3 pts); grade 1 abdominal pain (2 pts). One pt had grade 2–3 arthralgias in cycles 4–6. There was no treatment induced immunosuppression as assessed by DTH, CD4, CD8, immunoglobulin and complement levels, no significant increase in the titers of anti-MV abs in serum or ascites in response to treatment, and no development of anti-CEA abs. Viral genomes were detected in the peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 2 asymptomatic pts by QRT-PCR. No CEA elevation in the serum was observed in the dose range tested, and there was no viral shedding in urine or mouth gargle specimens. Testing of pt tumor samples for CD46 by IHC demonstrated overexpression of the target receptor in 7/8 pts. Best objective response was stable disease (2 - 9 mo duration) in 5 pts, while 3 pts had significant decrease in CA125 levels, of 44%, 72%, and 78%, respectively. Conclusions: In this first human application of an engineered oncolytic MV strain, we have observed excellent tolerance after repeat IP administration of the virus. Despite the low doses employed so far, there is early evidence of biologic activity. Dose escalation continues to the target dose of 109 TCID50. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

LBA9006 Purpose: Many patients who receive EGFR inhibitors develop an acneiform rash, and anecdotal reports suggest tetracycline is effective in treating it. To our knowledge, however, no rigorous trials have ever been published to substantiate this approach. This double- blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted to assess the role of tetracycline in preventing EGFR inhibitor-induced rash and/or reducing its severity. Methods: 61 patients were randomly assigned to tetracycline 500 mg orally twice a day×4 weeks versus an identical, similarly prescribed placebo. Eligibility criteria required all patients to have begun an EGFR inhibitor </= 7 days prior with no rash at study entry. Patients were to be followed for 8 weeks. Physician assessments of rash incidence, severity, and adverse events, occurred at 4 and 8 weeks. Patients completed a weekly rash diary, quality of life questionnaire (SKINDEX-16), and EGFR inhibitor compliance questionnaire. Thirty patients per group provides 90% power to detect a difference in rash incidence (the primary endpoint) of 40% between groups and of rejecting the null hypothesis of equal proportions with a type I error of 5% (2-sided). Results: Treatment arms were balanced on baseline characteristics, drop out rates, and rates of discontinuation of the EGFR inhibitor. Rash incidence was comparable across arms. Physicians reported that 16 tetracycline-treated patients (70%) and 22 placebo-exposed patients (76%) developed a rash (p=0.61). However, tetracycline appears to have lessened rash severity. By week 4, physician-reported grade 2 rash occurred in 17% of tetracycline-treated patients (n=4) and 55% of placebo- exposed patients (n=16); (p=0.04). Tetracycline-treated patients reported better scores on certain quality of life parameters (SKINDEX-16), such as skin burning or stinging, skin irritation, and being bothered by a persistence/recurrence of a skin condition. Adverse events were comparable across arms. Conclusion: Tetracycline did not prevent EGFR inhibitor-induced rashes. However, diminished rash severity and improved quality of life suggest this antibiotic merits further study. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9116 Background: Hot flashes affect 75 % to 90 % of women transitioning to menopause and are a major cause of morbidity among breast cancer survivors. Levetiracetam, a popular anticonvulsant, is a centrally active agent that anecdotally appeared to reduce hot flashes in clinical practice. This phase II trial sought to evaluate the efficacy of levetiracetam in reducing hot flashes among women with a history of breast cancer or women who did not wish to take estrogen therapy for fear of an increased risk of breast cancer. Methods: Women who were experiencing bothersome hot flashes (≥ 14 times per week, for ≥ 1 month) were eligible. A single arm pilot study design based on previous work was used with a planned sample size of 30 patients. The patients did not receive any study medication during the first week (baseline week). At the beginning of the second week, patients were started on levetiracetam (500 mg), and were to increase the dose by 500 mg each week to a goal of 1,000 mg twice daily. Hot flash diaries were completed daily. The primary endpoint was hot flash score (frequency times average severity). The change from week 1 (baseline) to week 5, the last treatment week, was analyzed by paired t-test and related Wilcoxon procedures. Results: A total of 30 women were enrolled onto this study in eight months. All patients were eligible. 19 women completed all 4 weeks of the study treatment and provided complete data. After treatment with levetiracetam for 4 weeks, mean hot flash scores were reduced by 57% (95% CI 39%-75%), while mean hot flash frequencies were reduced by 53% (95% CI 38%-68%), reductions being greater than what would be expected with a placebo. There were significant improvements, compared to baseline week data, in sweating, hot flash distress, and satisfaction with hot flash control. Eight subjects stopped the study drug due to treatment related adverse events (grade I/II), with the most frequently reported being somnolence, fatigue and dizziness. Conclusions: While levetiracetam appears to be a promising therapy for the treatment of hot flashes, further study is needed to better substantiate the toxicity and efficacy of this drug before it can be more definitively recommended for use in clinical practice. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9021 Background: Physician-reported performance status (PS) is an important prognostic factor in advanced malignancies and is a commonly used stratification variable in cancer clinical trials. However, the extent, predictors, and prognostic importance of disagreement in PS assessment between physicians and patients have not been examined. Methods: Using NCCTG clinical trials from 1987–1990 (J Clin Oncol 19(15):3539–3546, 2001), we analyzed the difference and agreement of PS (ECOG and Karnofsky [KPS]) and nutritional status assessments reported by physicians and patients individually. The degree of disagreement was analyzed using paired t-test. Overall mortality was estimated by Kaplan-Meier method. The effect of disagreement on overall survival was analyzed by Cox regression. Independent predictors of disagreement were identified by logistic regression. Results: 1,636 patients with advanced lung and colorectal cancer had a median survival of 9.8 months (95% CI, 9.4 to 10.4). Percent agreement between patients and physicians about KPS, ECOG PS, and appetite/nutritional status was 32.9%, 43.4% and 42.0% respectively. Physicians were more likely to rate patients better than individual patients were to rate themselves: ECOG (Mean 0.91 vs 1.30, p<.0001), KPS (Mean 83.3 vs. 81.7, p<0.0001), appetite/nutritional status (Mean 1.6 vs. 2.1, p<0.0001). Inability to work, depression and less than a high school education were independently associated with disagreement. An increased risk of death was observed for patient and physician disagreement on KPS (HR=1.15, 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.27 p=0.01) and appetite/nutritional status (HR=1.39, 95% CI, 1.26 to 1.54 p<0.0001). Conclusions: Patients and physicians frequently disagree about patient PS, with physicians tending to rate patients higher than patients do themselves. Baseline patient demographic factors that independently predict disagreement have been identified. Disagreement confers an increased risk of death in the setting of advanced malignancies. These findings illustrate limitations of physician-only assessed PS. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

9001 Background: Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms in people diagnosed with cancer. Ginseng is a popular herb for treatment of this. It has been termed an “adaptogen”, felt to be able to restore balance to the body; its potential anti-fatigue efficacy is supported by animal data. The purpose of this pilot trial was to evaluate three doses of American Ginseng versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue. Methods: Patients with a life expectancy = 6 months and a history of cancer-related fatigue who had been experiencing fatigue = 1 month were eligible. Exclusion criteria included prior use of ginseng, chronic systemic steroids and brain malignancies. Other etiologies for fatigue, such as pain, were also excluded. Participants were randomized to receive, in a double blind manner, placebo, 750 mg/d, 1,000 mg/d or 2,000 mg/d of American Ginseng in BID dosing for 8 weeks. Endpoints included The Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), the Vitality Subscale of the SF-36 and several numeric analogue questions of perceived benefit; endpoints were measured at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks. Area under the curve (AUC) and change from baseline were calculated. Results: Two hundred eighty two patients (69–72 per arm) were enrolled from 10/21/2005 to 07/05/2006. Available 8-week data are provided in the table below; higher numbers are better. There were no statistically significant differences in any grade of toxicity between active and placebo arms, and an equivalent number of patients discontinued the study due to adverse events in each arm. Conclusion: This randomized pilot trial provided data to suggest that American Ginseng doses of 1000–2000 mg/d may be effective for alleviating cancer related fatigue. Therefore, further study of American Ginseng in cancer survivors appears warranted. No significant financial relationships to disclose. [Table: see text]

11586 Background: Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib adverse event. However, no intervention has demonstrated efficacy in preventing or palliating this adverse event, short of modulating the regorafenib dose. Methods: The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS) was a randomized trial ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02368886 ); here we describe an a priori secondary analysis of ReDOS with the goal of assessing whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a potent corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day is more effective when prescribed pre-emptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the 1st 2 cycles of regorafenib. Results: Among 116 evaluable patients, 61 received pre-emptive clobetasol, and 55 reactive clobetasol. Baseline demographics were comparable between groups. During the 1st regorafenib cycle, 46% and 52% of patients developed HFSR with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.52). However, during the 2nd cycle, 56% (of 47 total patients) and 80% (of 41 total patients), developed this toxicity with pre-emptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = 0.02). Of note, during the 2nd cycle, rates of grade 1,2, and 3 HFSR were 40%, 11%, and 4% (pre-emptive) and 45%, 25%, and 10% (reactive) (p = 0.07). A sensitivity analysis to examine rates of no HFSR over all 2 regorafenib cycles showed that no HFSR occurred in 33% (of 61 total patients) with pre-emptive clobetasol versus 15% (of 55 total patients) with reactive clobetasol (p = 0.02). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised activities of daily living, including getting dressed, preparing meals, walking, and even driving, with seemingly worse descriptive outcomes in patients who received reactive therapy. No adverse events from clobetasol were reported. Conclusions: Compared to reactive therapy, pre-emptive topical clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced HFSR. Clinical trial information: NCT02368886.