Dueck, A. C.

Key Points After hydroxycarbamide therapy in high-risk ET, ruxolitinib showed no improvement for complete or partial response rates compared with BAT. Ruxolitinib significantly improved some disease-related symptoms, but rates of thrombosis, hemorrhage, or transformation were not different.

Abstract Background: Preclinical evidence indicates that increased insulin-like growth factor receptor-1 (IGF1R) signaling interferes with the action of trastuzumab suggesting a possible mechanism of trastuzumab resistance. Thus, we evaluated IGF1R prevalence, relationship with demographic data, and association with disease-free survival (DFS) of patients randomized to chemotherapy alone (Arm A) or chemotherapy with sequential (Arm B) or concurrent trastuzumab (Arm C) in the prospective phase III HER2+ adjuvant N9831 trial. Experimental Design: IGF1R protein expression was determined in tissue microarray sections (three cores per block; N = 1,197) or in whole tissue sections (WS; N = 537) using IHC (rabbit polyclonal antibody against IGF1R β-subunit). A tumor was considered positive (IGF1R+) if any core or WS had ≥1+ membrane staining in >0% invasive cells. Median follow-up was 8.5 years. Results: Of 1,734 patients, 708 (41%) had IGF1R+ breast tumors. IGF1R+ was associated with younger age (median 48 vs. 51, P = 0.007), estrogen receptor/progesterone receptor positivity (78% vs. 35%, P < 0.001), nodal positivity (89% vs. 83%, P < 0.001), well/intermediate grade (34% vs. 24%, P < 0.001), tumors ≥2 cm (72% vs. 67%, P = 0.02) but not associated with race or tumor histology. IGF1R did not affect DFS within arms. Between Arms A and C, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.48 (P ≤ 0.001) and 0.68 (P = 0.009), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.17). Between Arms A and B, patients with IGF1R+ and IGF1R− tumors had DFS HRs of 0.83 (P = 0.25) and 0.69 (P = 0.01), respectively (Pinteraction = 0.42). Conclusions: In contrast to preclinical studies that suggest a decrease in trastuzumab sensitivity in IGF1R+ tumors, our adjuvant data show benefit of adding trastuzumab for patients with either IGF1R+ and IGF1R− breast tumors. Clin Cancer Res; 23(15); 4203–11. ©2016 AACR.

ASCO believes that high-quality observational studies can advance evidence-based practice for cancer care and are complementary to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Observational studies can generate hypotheses by evaluating novel exposures or biomarkers and by revealing patterns of care and relationships that might not otherwise be discovered. Researchers can then test these hypotheses in RCTs. Observational studies can also answer or inform questions that either have not been or cannot be answered by RCTs. In addition, observational studies can be used for postmarketing surveillance of new cancer treatments, particularly in vulnerable populations. The incorporation of observational research as part of clinical decision making is consistent with the position of many leading institutions. ASCO identified five overarching recommendations to enhance the role of observational research in clinical decision making: (1) improve the quality of electronic health data available for research, (2) improve interoperability and the exchange of electronic health information, (3) ensure the use of rigorous observational research methodologies, (4) promote transparent reporting of observational research studies, and (5) protect patient privacy.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Abstract Effective assessment and management of pain in patients with cancer is strengthened by the patient's report of how much pain interferes with daily functioning. This requires a clear delineation of different levels of pain interference. We derived optimal cutpoints for differentiating between mild, moderate, and severe pain interference assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and describe the prevalence and characteristics of pain-induced functional impairment in patients with cancer. Data were pooled across 3 Phase III pivotal trials. Patient-completed questionnaires included the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ5D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General Measure (FACT-G), and BPI. Optimal cutpoints for categorizing pain interference into 3 levels were derived using analysis of variance, with different cutpoint sets for BPI total interference (BPI-PITS, the average score of all 7 items), activity-related interference (BPI-WAW, the average score of work, general activity, and walking), and mood-related interference (BPI-REM, the average score of relations with others, enjoyment of life, and mood) as independent variables and EQ5D–visual analog scale and total FACT-G score as dependent variables. To validate the cutpoints, we assessed whether interference categories were in concordance with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) levels. The optimal cutpoints were (2,5) for BPI-PITS, (2,6) for BPI-WAW, and (2,5) for BPI-REM. The mild (<2), moderate (2-5 or 2-6), and severe (>5 or >6) pain interference groups were significantly concordant with ECOG-PS levels (P < 0.0001). We empirically derived patient-reported pain interference categories in relation to clinician-rated performance status. These cutpoints may facilitate the conduct and interpretation of clinical evaluation, symptom epidemiology, and clinical trials.

AbstractPatients with indolent non‐Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) have multiple treatment options yet there is no consensus as to the best initial therapy. Lenalidomide, an immunomodulatory agent, has single agent activity in relapsed lymphoma. This trial was conducted to assess feasibility, efficacy, and safety of adding lenalidomide to rituximab, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (LR‐CD) in untreated indolent NHL patients requiring therapy. This was a single institution phase II trial. Treatment consisted of IV rituximab 375 mg/m2 day 1; oral lenalidomide 20 mg days 1–21; cyclophosphamide 250 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; and dexamethasone 40 mg days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of a 28‐day cycle. Treatment continued 2 cycles beyond best response for a maximum of 12 cycles without rituximab maintenance. Thirty‐three patients were treated. Median age was 68 (43–83 years). 39% had stage IV disease. Histologic subtypes included 8 follicular lymphoma (FL), 7 marginal zone lymphoma (MZL) (1 splenic, 2 extranodal, and 4 nodal), 15 Waldenström's macroglobulinemia (WM), 1 lymphoplasmacytic lymphoma, 1 small lymphocytic lymphoma, and 1 low‐grade B‐cell lymphoma with plasmacytic differentiation (unable to be classified better as MZL or LPL). Hematologic toxicity was the most common adverse event. Median time of follow‐up was 23.4 months (range 1.8–50.9). The overall response rate was 87.9%, with 30.3% complete response. The median duration of response was 38.7 months. The median progression free survival was 39.7 months, while median overall survival (OS) has not yet been reached. Lenalidomide can be safely added to a simple regimen of rituximab, oral cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone and is an effective combination as initial therapy for low‐grade B‐cell NHL.