Dueck, A. C.

Introduction: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. Methods: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. Results: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. Conclusion: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

AbstractBackgroundMyeloid neoplasms (myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], myelofibrosis, and chronic myelomonocytic [CMML]) are aggressive hematological malignancies for which, despite recent approvals, novel therapies are needed to improve clinical outcomes. The hedgehog (HH) pathway is one of the main pathways for cancer stem cells survival and several HH inhibitors (HHi) are approved in clinical practice.MethodsSonidegib (SON), an oral HHi, was tested in this phase 1/1b trial in combination with azacitidine (AZA, 75 mg/m2 days ×7) in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic MN or acute myeloid leukemia (AML).ResultsSixty‐two patients (28 [45%] newly diagnosed) were treated in this study, including 10 patients in the dose‐finding component and 52 patients in phase 1b. SON 200 mg oral daily on days 1–28 each cycle was deemed the recommended dose for phase 1b. Out of 21 rrAML patients, two achieved response (one complete response/one morphologic leukemia‐free state) with no responses seen in seven r/r MDS/CMML patients. In newly diagnosed AML/MDS, response was seen in six (three had complete remission, two had morphological leukemia‐free status) of 27 patients. Median overall survival was 26.4 and 4.7 months for newly diagnosed MDS and AML, respectively. Safety was satisfactory with common (>20%) side effects including fatigue, constipation, nausea, cough, insomnia, and diarrhea. Only 7% of patients died in the study, and none of the deaths were deemed related to treatment.ConclusionsOur study shows that AZA + SON are a safe combination in a patient with MN. Similar to other hedgehog inhibitors, this combination yielded limited response rate in patients with myeloid neoplasms.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to date been anecdotal. Here, we conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV therapy and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding T-cell lymphoma (TCL) patients. A single IV dose of VSV-IFNβ-NIS was administered to patients with relapsed refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DL). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNβ-NIS (7 multiple myeloma, 7 TCL, 1 acute myeloid leukemia); 3 patients were treated at each DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 x 1011 TCID50), and 6 at DL4 (1.7 x 1011 TCID50). There were no dose limiting toxicities. 3 of 7 patients with TCL had RECIST responses: a 3-month PR at DL2, a 6-month PR and a durable CR ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion and no infectious virus shedding was detected. Plasma interferon-β levels, a biomarker of VSV-IFNβ-NIS replication, peaked between 4h and 48h post infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased ell free DNA in her plasma, a very high peak IFNβ level of 18,213 pg/ml, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNβ-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. Further clinical testing is warranted. (This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03017820).

Abstract Background Previous literature often indicates that binary longitudinal data, such as responder analysis with patient-reported outcomes to evaluate treatment risks and benefits in cancer randomized controlled trials, need complex statistical approaches for a thorough evaluation of the treatment effect and consequently elaborated clinical design and power calculation for prospective trials. This simulated analysis aims to evaluate six common statistical techniques used for binary longitudinal data to explore the feasibility and overall functionality of these methods in comparison to more complex modeling techniques. Methods We simulated data to represent a typical clinical trial design, with dichotomous outcome, and treatment vs control group at three waves T1, T2, and T3. We evaluated five sample size conditions ranging from small to large with 1,000 replicates each. We then evaluated results from six statistical techniques (Generalized linear model [GLM] with generalized estimating equations [GEE], Generalized linear mixed model [GLMM], Logistic regression, Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel [CMH], Chi-square, and Fisher’s Exact test) and their ability in detecting difference between treatment groups under different conditions. Results While less elaborated models always achieved convergence, the convergence rate of GLMM with unstructured covariance matrix ranged from 7–43%. The proportion of detected significant differences between control and treatment expectedly increased with the increasing of the sample size but remained somewhat similar across modeled outcome and sample size scenarios. Conclusions Overall results indicated that, with careful consideration, straightforward modelling approaches which require less assumptions in design and power calculation are sufficient to ensure meaningful, adequately powered, evaluation of treatment effect.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Abstract Background Anthracycline use in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is hindered by cumulative exposure limits and risk of cardiotoxicity. Pixantrone, a novel aza-anthracenedione with structural similarities to mitoxantrone and anthracyclines, is theorized to exhibit less cardiotoxicity, mainly due to lack of iron binding. We conducted a randomized phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing schedules of pixantrone in patients with refractory HER2-negative MBC. Methods Intravenous pixantrone was administered at 180 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (group A) versus 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (group B). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), median 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life, and serial assessment of circulating tumor cells. A 20% ORR was targeted as sufficient for further testing of pixantrone in this patient population. Results Forty-five patients were evaluable, with 2 confirmed partial responses in group A and 1 in group B. The trial was terminated due to insufficient activity. Overall median PFS and OS were 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-4.1) and 16.8 (95% CI: 8.9-21.6) months, respectively. Notable overall grade 3-4 adverse events were the following: neutrophil count decrease (62%), fatigue (16%), and decrease in ejection fraction (EF) (4%). Conclusion Pixantrone has insufficient activity in the second- and third-line MBC setting. It appears, however, to have limited cardiotoxicity. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01086605).