Le‐Rademacher, Jennifer

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important prognostic patient-reported outcome in oncology. Because prior studies suggest that HRQOL is, in part, heritable, we performed a GWAS to elucidate genetic factors associated with HRQOL in breast cancer survivors. Physical and mental HRQOL were measured via paper surveys that included the PROMIS-10 physical and mental health domain scales in 1442 breast cancer survivors participating in the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry (MCBDR). In multivariable regression analyses, age and financial concerns were significantly associated with global physical health (age: p = 1.6 × 10−23; financial concerns: p = 4.8 × 10−40) and mental health (age: p = 3.5 × 10−7; financial concerns: p = 2.0 × 10−69). Chemotherapy was associated with worse global mental health (p = 0.01). In the GWAS, none of the SNPs reached the genome-wide association significance threshold of 5 × 10−8 for associations with either global physical or global mental health, however, a cluster of SNPs in SCN10A, particularly rs112718371, appeared to be linked to worse global physical health (p = 5.21 × 10−8). Additionally, SNPs in LMX1B, SGCD, PARP12 and SEMA5A were also moderately associated with worse physical and mental health (p < 10−6). These biologically plausible candidate SNPs warrant further study as possible predictors of HRQOL.

Background: Earlier studies report a direct association between diseases of the skin—particularly those on the face—and depression. However, to our knowledge, such associations have not been examined in patients with non-squamous, non-basal call skin cancers. Methods: The primary goal was to assess whether malignant skin disease—specifically on the face as opposed to other sites—was associated with depression. The medical records of patients with cutaneous cancer (either primary or metastatic but non-squamous, non-basal cell) were reviewed for the relevant data. Results: One hundred and sixty-five patients were studied. Only 23 patients (14%) had metastases to the face, and 115 (70%) had a readily viewable skin cancer. Twenty-one patients (13%) developed depression after a diagnosis of cutaneous cancer (of note, the rate of missing data for depression was 37%). Only one patient with facial cutaneous cancer manifested depression, yielding an odds ratio for not developing depression (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 4.4 (0.5,35); p = 0.13. Depression appeared to occur more often in women (62% versus 43%), patients with a history of depression (52% versus 6%), and younger patients (median age with and without depression 55 years and 67 years, respectively). Conclusion: In contrast to other cutaneous diseases, no association was found between cutaneous cancer to the face and depression. Nonetheless, high rates of missing data underscore the need to focus on depression in patients with cutaneous cancers in the future.

This article introduces the adverse event (AE) burden score. The AE burden by treatment cycle is a weighted sum of all grades and AEs that the patient experienced in a cycle. The overall AE burden score is the total AE burden the patient experienced across all treatment cycles. AE data from two completed Alliance multi-center randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, with different AE profiles (NCCTG 97-24-51: 176 patients, and A091105: 83 patients), were utilized for illustration. Results of the AE burden score analyses corroborated the trials’ primary results. In 97-24-51, the overall AE burden for patients on the treatment arm was 2.2 points higher than those on the placebo arm, with a higher AE burden for patients who went off treatment early due to AE. Similarly, in A091105, the overall AE burden was 1.6 points higher on the treatment arm. On the placebo arms, the AE burden in 97-24-51 remained constant over time; and increased in later cycles in A091105, likely attributable to the increase in disease morbidity. The AE burden score enables statistical comparisons analogous to other quantitative endpoints in clinical trials, and can readily accommodate different trial settings, diseases, and treatments, with diverse AE profiles.

Background Lymphedema is an adverse effect of breast cancer treatment that causes swelling and pain in the arm and hand. We tested 2 lymphedema prevention interventions and their impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) in a group‐randomized trial at 38 cooperative group sites within the United States. Methods Patients were recruited before breast surgery. Sites were randomly assigned to education‐only (EO) lymphedema prevention or education plus exercise and physical therapy (LEAP). Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in arm volume at any time from baseline to 18 months postsurgery. HRQOL was assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast plus 4 lymphedema items (FACT‐B+4). Longitudinal mixed model regression analysis, adjusting for key demographic and clinical variables, examined participants' HRQOL by intervention group and lymphedema status. Results A total of 547 patients (56% LEAP) were enrolled and completed HRQOL assessments. The results revealed no differences between the interventions in preventing lymphedema ( P = .37) or HRQOL (FACT‐B+4 total score; P = .8777). At 18 months, the presence of lymphedema was associated with HRQOL at borderline significance ( P = .0825). However, African American patients reported greater lymphedema symptoms ( P = .0002) and better emotional functioning ( P = .0335) than patients of other races or ethnicities. Lower HRQOL during the intervention was associated with younger age ( P ≤ .0001), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status >0 ( P = .0002), ≥1 positive lymph nodes ( P = .0009), having no education beyond high school ( P < .0001), having undergone chemotherapy ( P = .0242), and having had only axillary node dissection or sentinel node biopsy versus both ( P = .0007). Conclusion The tested interventions did not differ in preventing lymphedema or in HRQOL outcomes. African American women reported greater HRQOL impacts due to lymphedema symptoms than women of other races or ethnicities.

Background Lymphedema affects many women who are treated for breast cancer. We examined the effectiveness of an education‐only (EO) versus education plus sleeve compression/exercise intervention (lymphedema education and prevention [LEAP]) on lymphedema incidence and range of motion (ROM) in a group‐randomized trial across 38 cooperative group sites. Methods The treating institution was randomly assigned to either EO or LEAP by a study statistician. All patients at a treating institution participated in the same intervention (EO or LEAP) to minimize contamination bias. Participants completed surveys, arm volume measurements, and self‐reported ROM assessments before surgery and at 12 and 18 months after surgery. Lymphedema was defined as a ≥10% difference in limb volume at any time post‐surgery up to 18 months after surgery or diagnosis by a health provider. Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel tests were used to compare lymphedema‐free rates between groups, stratified by lymph node surgery type. Self‐reported ROM differences were compared between groups. Results A total of 554 participants (56% LEAP) were included in the analyses. At 18 months, lymphedema‐free rates were 58% (EO) versus 55% (LEAP) ( P = .37). ROM for both arms was greater in LEAP versus EO at 12 months; by 18 months, most women reported full ROM, regardless of group. In LEAP, only one‐third wore a sleeve ≥75% of the time; 50% performed lymphedema exercises at least weekly. Conclusion Lymphedema incidence did not differ by intervention group at 18 months. Poor adherence in the LEAP group may have contributed. However, physical therapy may speed recovery of ROM. Further research is needed to effectively reduce the incidence and severity of lymphedema in patients who have breast cancer.

Abstract Cancer is a disease of aging and, as the world's population ages, the number of older persons with cancer is increasing and will make up a growing share of the oncology population in virtually every country. Despite this, older patients remain vastly underrepresented in research that sets the standards for cancer treatments. Consequently, most of what we know about cancer therapeutics is based on clinical trials conducted in younger, healthier patients, and effective strategies to improve clinical trial participation of older adults with cancer remain sparse. For this systematic review, the authors evaluated published studies regarding barriers to participation and interventions to improve participation of older adults in cancer trials. The quality of the available evidence was low and, despite a literature describing multifaceted barriers, only one intervention study aimed to increase enrollment of older adults in trials. The findings starkly amplify the paucity of evidence‐based, effective strategies to improve participation of this underrepresented population in cancer trials. Within these limitations, the authors provide their opinion on how the current cancer research infrastructure must be modified to accommodate the needs of older patients. Several underused solutions are offered to expand clinical trials to include older adults with cancer. However, as currently constructed, these recommendations alone will not solve the evidence gap in geriatric oncology, and efforts are needed to meet older and frail adults where they are by expanding clinical trials designed specifically for this population and leveraging real‐world data.

AbstractBackgroundEligibility criteria and endpoints for cancer cachexia trials—and whether weight loss should be included—remain controversial. Although most cachexia trials enrol patients after initial cancer diagnosis, few studies have addressed whether weight loss well after a cancer diagnosis is prognostic.MethodsWe pooled data from non‐small cell lung cancer patients from prospectively conducted trials within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (1998–2008), a nationally funded infrastructure. We examined (i) weight data availability and weight changes and (ii) survival.ResultsA total of 822 patients were examined. Of these, 659 (80%) were on treatment at the beginning of Cycle 2 of chemotherapy; weight was available for 656 (80%). By Cycles 3 and 4, weight was available for 448 (55%) and 384 (47%), respectively. From baseline to immediately prior to Cycle 2, 208 (32%) gained weight; 225 (34%) lost <2% of baseline weight; and 223 (34% of 656) lost 2% or more. Median survival from the beginning of Cycle 2 was 13.0, 10.9, and 6.9 months for patients with weight gain, weight loss of <2%, and weight loss of 2% or more, respectively. In multivariate analyses, adjusted for age, sex, performance score, type of treatment, and body mass index, weight loss of 2% or more was associated with poor overall survival compared with weight gain [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.66; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.33–2.07; P < 0.001] and compared with weight loss of <2% (HR = 1.57; 95% CI: 1.27–1.95; P < 0.001). Although weight loss of <2% was not associated with poorer overall survival compared with weight gain, it was associated with poorer progression‐free survival (HR = 1.24; 95% CI: 1.01–1.51; P = 0.036). Similar findings were observed in a separate 255‐patient validation cohort.ConclusionsWeight should be integrated into cancer cachexia trials because of its ease of frequent measurement and sustained prognostic association.

12007 Background: Up to 96% of patients with high grade glioma (HGG) report moderate to severe fatigue. Armodafinil, the R-enantiomer of modafinil, is a psychostimulant with low potential for abuse that has shown potential for improving severe fatigue in HGG patients. Methods: In this phase III double blinded placebo-controlled study, adults with HGG and moderate to severe fatigue, > 4 weeks after completing radiotherapy, were randomized to receive armodafinil daily (150 mg or 250 mg) or placebo for a total of 8 weeks. The primary outcome was efficacy in treating severe fatigue. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of tolerability, neurocognitive function, and quality of life. Patients were evaluated at baseline, 4 and 8 weeks. Results: A total of 328 patients were enrolled between 6/3/13-3/1/19. There were 103 (150 mg arm), 97 (250 mg arm) and 97 (placebo arm) evaluable patients with primary endpoint data available. The median age was 60 years (20-85) with a median Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) worst fatigue score of 8 (6-10). 60.3% were male, 80.5% received concomitant chemotherapy, and 39.7% were on corticosteroids. The global fatigue score at end of weeks 4 and 8 were lower than at baseline (p<0.0001) and in the 250 mg arm than placebo (p=0.0356) and was higher for corticosteroid users than non-users (p=0.0002). There was no statistically significant difference for clinically meaningful improvement in BFI usual fatigue score from baseline to end of week 8 between the three arms (p=0.9601). Patients reported an improvement in concentration at week 4 from baseline on the 150 mg arm(P=0.0311). There was no statistically significant difference on neurocognitive tests from baseline to end of week 4 (p>0.05) or week 8 (p>0.05) between arms. More patients reported insomnia on the 250 mg arm (p=0.0083). Conclusions: There is no meaningful benefit of the use of armodafinil to reduce moderate to severe fatigue in patients with HGG. In certain cases there may be benefit of armodafinil 150 mg to aid concentration without the risk of insomnia.Support: UG1CA189823;U10CA180868 (NRG). Clinical trial information: NCT01781468 .