Smith, Thomas J.

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.

TPS5118 Background: Novel androgen receptor pathway inhibitors (ARPIs) improve overall survival (OS) in patients (pts) with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) in conjunction with testosterone suppression (TS) relative to TS alone. However, the duration of treatment required to derive clinical benefit is unclear, as is whether continuous treatment is requisite for optimal cancer outcomes. Favorable PSA declines have been associated with prolonged OS in clinical trials testing TS + ARPIs. We thus designed this single-arm Phase 2 trial to test the hypothesis that pts who achieve exceptional response to upfront TS + ARPI can suspend treatment, allowing for T recovery and improvement in quality of life while maintaining favorable clinical outcomes. Methods: Eligible pts had mHSPC by conventional imaging with PSA ≥ 5 ng/ml and T ≥ 150 ng/dl (or not known to have been hypogonadal) prior to starting treatment, have been receiving TS for 540-750 days and ARPI for ≥ 360 days, and have achieved PSA < 0.2 ng/ml (stable or falling for 3 consecutive measurements) with castrate T <50 ng/dl at the time of enrollment. Intermittent ADT for biochemical recurrence prior to mHSPC diagnosis, prior local therapy, prior radiation to metastatic sites, and up to 6 cycles of docetaxel in mHSPC are permitted. Pts who underwent surgical castration, received ARPI prior to mHSPC diagnosis, or are receiving experimental treatment for mHSPC or participating in a clinical trial that does not allow for TS or ARPI interruption are excluded. After enrollment, pts discontinue both TS and ARPI and are followed with PSA and T levels every 3 months, conventional CT/MRI and bone scan at least every 6 months, and FACT-P questionnaire for patient-reported outcomes every 6 months. Treatment re-initiation triggers are PSA increase to ≥ 5 ng/ml, radiographic change (progressive disease per modified RECIST 1.1 on CT/MRI or unconfirmed progressive disease per PCWG3 on bone scan), or symptoms attributable to prostate cancer. Subsequent management is per physician discretion. The primary endpoint is remaining treatment-free with eugonadal T (> 150 mg/dl) 18 months after the start of treatment interruption, with 75 pts to be enrolled to differentiate 18-month treatment free rates of 0.30 (null hypothesis) and 0.45 (alternative hypothesis). Secondary endpoints include time to eugonadal T, duration off treatment, and changes in patient-reported outcomes. Exploratory endpoints include radiographic progression-free survival, time to next treatment, OS, and correlation of tissue- and blood-based biomarkers with clinical endpoints. The study was activated in July 2022 and accrual is ongoing throughout the NCTN. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org , Veracyte Inc. Clinical trial information: NCT05241860 .

LBA12004 Background: Hot flashes are among the most common adverse events impacting quality of life reported by patients receiving androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. Oxybutynin is an effective therapy for reducing frequency and severity of hot flashes in women. Pilot information supports that this drug may also benefit men with hot flashes related to ADT. Methods: Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomized to receive either oral oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice a day, oxybutynin 5 mg twice a day, or matching placebo doses for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores (determined by multiplying the number of hot flashes by the mean hot flash severity [grade 0: none, 1: mild, 2: moderate, 3: severe, and 4: very severe]) from baseline to 6 weeks, as measured by a daily hot flash diary. A total of 87 patients provided 76% power to reject the null hypothesis of no between-arm mean difference in hot flash score reduction from baseline to 6 weeks, when comparing each oxybutynin arm to the combined placebo arms. This was based on a two-sided contrast estimated from a generalized linear mixed model, α= 0.10, intraclass correlation of 0.50, population standardized mean difference of 0.50, and 10% missing data rate. Results: 88 patients were accrued between 10/28/21 and 12/02/23. Six patients cancelled before starting treatment and one was ineligible, leaving 81 analyzed patients with a median age of 68. Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms with patients reporting an average of 10.15 (SD = 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.23 (SD = 13.48) at enrollment. On average, patients on the placebo arm, low dose oxybutynin arm, and high dose oxybutynin arm had reductions of 2.15, 4.77, and 6.89 hot flashes/day, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in hot flashes/day (p < 0.001), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.02). Daily hot flash scores for the same three protocol arms reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94, and 13.95 points, respectively. Compared to placebo arm patients, high dose oxybutynin arm patients had a greater reduction in daily hot flash scores (p = 0.002), as did low dose oxybutynin arm patients (p = 0.07). No treatment-related grade 3+ adverse events occurred. The most commonly reported oxybutynin-related grade 2 adverse event was dry mouth. Conclusions: Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of hot flashes in men associated with androgen deprivation therapy and appears to be well tolerated. Support: UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT04600336 .

ASCO Rapid Recommendations Updates highlight revisions to select ASCO guideline recommendations as a response to the emergence of new and practice-changing data. The rapid updates are supported by an evidence review and follow the guideline development processes outlined in the ASCO Guideline Methodology Manual . The goal of these articles is to disseminate updated recommendations, in a timely manner, to better inform health practitioners and the public on the best available cancer care options. See the Appendix for disclaimers and other important information ( Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 , online only).

AbstractObjectiveThe objective was to qualitatively synthesize all reported cases of complications, adverse effects, side effects, or harms arising from the use of scrambler therapy (ST).Methods and DesignA systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials registry, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched from database inception to December 10, 2021. Case reports/series, abstracts, retrospective studies, and prospective studies (e.g., open-label trials, randomized controlled trials) pertaining to ST and any description of a complication, adverse effect, side effect, or harm were screened. The search protocol was developed a priori and registered via the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO ID: CRD42021291838).ResultsA total of six RCTs, 19 prospective open-label trials, and 11 case series / case reports met the inclusion criteria, comprising 1,152 total patients. Two patients experienced contact dermatitis, and one patient reported minor ecchymosis that resolved without intervention. This yielded a composite complication rate of 0.26% (3/1,152). There were zero reported serious adverse events.ConclusionsWhen used in accordance with the treatment protocols described by the United States Food and Drug Administration and device manual, ST is associated with a reported composite complication rate that is orders of magnitude lower than those of invasive neuromodulation devices. ST neuromodulation is a safe alternative for patients who cannot undergo invasive neuromodulation device implantation because of either risk or preference.

PURPOSE To update the ASCO guideline on the recommended prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies. RESULTS The search strategy identified 257 new references, which led to a full-text review of 87 manuscripts. A total of 3 systematic reviews, 2 with meta-analyses, and 28 primary trials for prevention of CIPN in addition to 14 primary trials related to treatment of established CIPN, are included in this update. RECOMMENDATIONS The identified data reconfirmed that no agents are recommended for the prevention of CIPN. The use of acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of CIPN in patients with cancer should be discouraged. Furthermore, clinicians should assess the appropriateness of dose delaying, dose reduction, substitutions, or stopping chemotherapy in patients who develop intolerable neuropathy and/or functional impairment. Duloxetine is the only agent that has appropriate evidence to support its use for patients with established painful CIPN. Nonetheless, the amount of benefit from duloxetine is limited. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

PURPOSE To provide evidence-based guidance on the clinical management of cancer cachexia in adult patients with advanced cancer. METHODS A systematic review of the literature collected evidence regarding nutritional, pharmacologic, and other interventions, such as exercise, for cancer cachexia. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews of RCTs published from 1966 through October 17, 2019. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations. RESULTS The review included 20 systematic reviews and 13 additional RCTs. Dietary counseling, with or without oral nutritional supplements, was reported to increase body weight in some trials, but evidence remains limited. Pharmacologic interventions associated with improvements in appetite and/or body weight include progesterone analogs and corticosteroids. The other evaluated interventions either had no benefit or insufficient evidence of benefit to draw conclusions on efficacy. Limitations of the evidence include high drop-out rates, consistent with advanced cancer, as well as variability across studies in outcomes of interest and methods for outcome assessment. RECOMMENDATIONS Dietary counseling may be offered with the goals of providing patients and caregivers with advice for the management of cachexia. Enteral feeding tubes and parenteral nutrition should not be used routinely. In the absence of more robust evidence, no specific pharmacological intervention can be recommended as the standard of care; therefore, clinicians may choose not to prescribe medications specifically for the treatment of cancer cachexia. Nonetheless, when it is decided to trial a drug to improve appetite and/or improve weight gain, currently available pharmacologic interventions that may be used include progesterone analogs and short-term (weeks) corticosteroids.

9075 Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common dose-limiting side effect of chemotherapy, remains without known effective interventions. Preliminary data support that Scrambler therapy, a device which treats pain via non-invasive cutaneous electrostimulation, is beneficial for the treatment of CIPN. This pilot trial was performed to investigate the effect of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of CIPN. Methods: Eligible patients included those age ≥18 years, ECOG PS ≤2, life expectancy ≥3 months, with pain or CIPN symptoms of ≥1 month duration and tingling or pain ≥4/10 during the prior week. Patients were treated with Scrambler therapy to the affected area for up to 10 daily 30 minute sessions. Symptoms were monitored daily during therapy using a questionnaire to measure symptoms of neuropathy with a numerical analogue scale. Results: We report on the first 11 CIPN patients, enrolled between 7/18/2011 and 12/12/2011, 3 men and 8 women; mean age 57 years. Patients had history of exposure to various chemotherapeutic agents and the majority had symptoms >2 years. The table portrays data at baseline, at the end of the 10 planned days of therapy, and the percent changes from baseline to the end of treatment, regarding patient reported pain, tingling, and numbness over the preceding 24 hours. There were no adverse events. Persistent benefit out to 5 weeks was seen in some patients; maturing data will be available by May 2012. Descriptive summary statistics formed the basis of data analysis. Further patients are being entered on this trial. Conclusions: Scrambler therapy appears to be beneficial in the treatment of CIPN. A prospective placebo-controlled clinical trial should be performed to confirm these preliminary findings. [Table: see text]

128 Background: Treatment for neoplastic fevers and sweating (NFS) is usually accomplished successfully with non-steroidal drugs (NSAIDs) such as naproxen, but such therapies may be contraindicated in some patients due to drug interactions, bleeding diathesis, renal disease, or cirrhosis. Options for treating NFS in such patients are limited. Methods: We report the first use of oxybutynin (OxyB), commonly used for hyperhidrosis and increasingly used for hormonally mediated hot flashes (Smith TJ, NEJM 2018; Leon-Ferre R, SABCS 2018, under review in JNCI Cancer Spectrum, for NFS in NSAID-ineligible or refractory patients. Results: Two patients with NFS were treated. The first was a 70 year old (yo) woman with cholangiocarcinoma with 3 months of NFS for whom naproxen was ineffective and who was starting chemotherapy. Within 2 hours after 2.5 mg OxyB q12h her sweating was gone, and her fever, which had been up to 100.4F, never resumed. The second was a 52 yo male with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma who was prescribed 2.5 mg q12h OxyB with lysis of his fever within hours and cessation of his sweating. To date, over one month has passed with no reduction in efficacy. Conclusions: OxyB may be a successful treatment modality for patients with NFS who cannot be treated with or are refractory to NSAIDs. Further research is warranted to ensure stability of results over time and to monitor for side effects.