Dueck, A. C.

AbstractIntroductionLittle empirical work has been done to examine differences between mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnosed in research settings with longitudinal data (incident MCI) and MCI diagnosed in clinical settings (prevalent MCI). Because Alzheimer's disease progresses over a clinicopathological continuum, we examined the cognitive differences between these two different sources of MCI patients.MethodsWe compared 52 consecutively identified patients with prevalent amnestic MCI with 53 incident amnestic MCI participants from the Arizona APOE study. Neuropsychological data from common tests were compared encompassing four cognitive domains and one global indicator.ResultsPrevalent MCI cases performed significantly worse than incident MCI cases on global as well as domain‐specific measures.DiscussionBy the time patients seek evaluation for memory loss, they have more severe single domain, amnestic MCI than research subjects with incident MCI. Studies of MCI should distinguish incident and prevalent not just single‐ and multiple‐domain MCI.

As new cancer treatment regimens demonstrate increased potential to improve patients’ survival, more focus is directed toward the quality of that extension of life and to obtaining additional information from patients regarding their experience with treatment. The utility of capturing patient-reported treatment-related symptoms to complement traditional clinician-rated symptomatic adverse event reporting is well-documented. The National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library aimed at capturing patient-reported symptoms to inform the patient perspective on a treatment’s tolerability. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recommended using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in clinical trials. A practical guideline is needed to inform a priori selection of specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items for use in any given industry-sponsored oncology clinical trial. Standardizing this selection process will foster systematic and consistent data collection as part of drug development and enhance our knowledge on how to use patient-relevant information as part of a treatment’s risk/benefit assessment. This article presents methods and consensus recommendations for selecting specific Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events items to include in early-phase and late-phase oncology clinical trials.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

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.

Abstract Purpose: p95HER2 is a truncated form of HER2 that confers resistance to trastuzumab in vitro, but clinical results have been conflicting to date. Given that p95HER2 levels correlate with total HER2 expression levels, which confer better outcomes, we sought to evaluate the p95HER2/HER2 ratio in the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0337 and N98-32-52 trials. Experimental Design: The HERmark assay and VeraTag technology (Monogram Biosciences) were used to measure total HER2 and p95HER2 expression levels in 91 patient samples. Results: In the multivariate model, increasing total HER2 level was significantly associated with longer (OS; HR, 0.33; P = 0.002) and decreasing p95HER2 level was significantly associated with longer OS (HR, 4.2; P = 0.01). Total HER2 expression level was significantly associated with longer progression-free survival (PFS) (HR, 0.57; P = 0.04), whereas p95HER2 level was not (HR, 1.7; P = 0.25). However, there was a positive association between p95HER2 and total HER2 expression levels (R2 = 0.48; P < 0.001). Consistent with our hypothesis, the ratio of p95HER2/HER2 was significantly associated with worsening PFS (HR, 1.7; P = 0.04) and OS (HR, 2.8; P = 0.002). Patients with the highest tertile of p95HER2/HER2 values had significantly less favorable PFS (HR, 1.8; P = 0.06) and OS (HR, 2.3; P = 0.02). Conclusions: A high p95HER2/HER2 ratio identified patients with metastatic breast cancer with poor outcomes on trastuzumab-based therapies. Further investigation of the p95HER2/HER2 ratio as a potential prognostic or predictive biomarker for HER2-targeted therapy is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 24(13); 3053–8. ©2018 AACR.

Background/Objectives Behavioral problems in individuals with Alzheimer's disease ( AD ) impose major management challenges. Current prevention strategies are anchored to cognitive outcomes, but behavioral outcomes may provide another, clinically relevant opportunity for preemptive therapy. We sought to determine whether personality changes that predispose to behavioral disorders arise during the transition from preclinical AD to mild cognitive impairment ( MCI ). Design Longitudinal observational cohort study. Setting Academic medical center. Participants Members of an apolipoprotein E ( APOE ) ɛ4 genetically enriched cohort of Maricopa County residents who were neuropsychiatrically healthy at entry (N = 277). Over a mean interval of 7 years, 25 who developed MCI and had the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness Personality Inventory—Revised ( NEO ‐ PI ‐R) before and during the MCI transition epoch were compared with 252 nontransitioners also with serial NEO ‐ PI ‐R administrations. Intervention Longitudinal administration of the NEO ‐ PI ‐R and neuropsychological test battery. Measurements Change in NEO ‐ PI ‐R factor scores (neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness) from entry to the epoch of MCI diagnosis or an equivalent follow‐up duration in nontransitioners. Results NEO ‐ PI ‐R neuroticism T‐scores increased significantly more in MCI transitioners than in nontransitioners (mean 2.9, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 0.9–4.9 vs 0, 95% CI = −0.7–0.7, P = .02), and openness decreased more in MCI transitioners than in nontransitioners (−4.8, 95% CI = −7.3 to −2.4 vs −1.0, 95% CI = −1.6 to −0.4, P < .001). Concurrent subclinical but statistically significant changes in behavioral scores worsened more in MCI transitioners than nontransitioners for measures of depression, somatization, irritability, anxiety, and aggressive attitude. Conclusion Personality and subclinical behavioral changes begin during the transition from preclinical AD to incident MCI and qualitatively resemble the clinically manifest behavioral disorders that subsequently arise in individuals with frank dementia.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to provide a simple, descriptive health‐status profile for cancer patients with bone metastases, based on the EuroQol EQ‐5D, a tool commonly used to measure health utility scores, and to evaluate its association with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a legacy pain‐assessment tool. Although pain is one of five health‐status dimensions measured by the EQ‐5D, our understanding of how pain relates to the other EQ‐5D dimensions is limited.MethodsWe derived data from 5500 patients with bone metastases who completed the EQ‐5D and BPI. Regression analyses examined how BPI severity and interference scores correlated with EQ‐5D utility scores and how BPI items associated with EQ‐5D items, for the entire sample and by disease‐type subgroup.ResultsRegardless of cancer site, the percentage of patients reporting moderate/severe problems in each of the five EQ‐5D dimensions were pain/discomfort, 78%; usual activities, 58%; mobility, 55%; anxiety/depression, 57%; and self‐care, 26%. BPI pain interference explained more of the variability in the EQ‐5D utility scores than did pain severity (R2 = 41% vs. 34%). BPI worst pain, average pain, pain now, interference with general activity, and interference with work significantly predicted EQ‐5D pain/discomfort, with odds ratio estimates <1.ConclusionsPain/discomfort was the worst‐rated dimension of the EQ‐5D in this population, but the relationship of this item to BPI pain severity was modest, suggesting that the single pain item of the EQ‐5D may be of limited utility in studies for which pain is an endpoint.SignificanceHealth‐status dimensions include more than pain. We examine the contribution of pain severity and pain‐related functional interference in determining the health status of cancer patients with bone metastases. The pain dimension from a health‐status measure may be an inadequate metric in clinical trials/clinical practice when pain is an important outcome.