Mazza, Gina L

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a rare lymphoma with a median age at diagnosis of 60-70 years. Front line therapy has traditionally been bendamustine-rituximab (BR) in older patients and then Bruton Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (BTKi) for relapsed disease. Due to their efficacy, BTKi are now being combined with chemotherapy as induction treatment. The TRIANGLE trial of R-CHOP/R-DHAP +/- ibrutinib +/- transplant showed the benefit of adding a BTKi in young patients (Dreyling M, 2022). The SHINE trial, a phase III trial of BR +/- ibrutinib in patients >65 years, showed a significant improvement in median PFS (81 months vs. 53 months) (Wang M, 2022). However, this came with an increase in toxicity with more treatment related deaths in the ibrutinib arm (11% vs. 6%) and no difference in overall survival. Therefore, a better tolerated approach is still needed in older patients. A phase II study of rituximab + indefinite ibrutinib in 50 patients >65 years demonstrated efficacy of frontline BTKi with a 96% ORR and 71% CR (Jain P, 2021). However, a disadvantage of BTKi therapy is continuous treatment until disease progression or intolerance. In this study half of patients required dose reductions and almost a third of patients stopped treatment due to drug toxicity, most frequently atrial fibrillation or bleeding. If front line intermittent BTKi therapy is as effective as continuous therapy, it could minimize cumulative toxicity. A052101 (NCT05976763), an Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trial, is a randomized phase 3 multicenter trial of upfront zanubrutinib that asks the question “in older patients with previously untreated MCL who obtain a CR with zanubrutinib-rituximab, is it safe and equally effective to stop treatment and restart it upon disease progression rather than continuing indefinitely?” The A052101 trial is enrolling pts with previously untreated MCL who are either >70 years old or 60-69 years old but are not transplant candidates due to cardiac ejection fraction <45%, DLCO <60% of predicted, creatinine clearance <70, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of >2, or a Cumulative Illness Rating Scales score of >6. Key exclusion criteria include: history of a severe bleeding disorder or clinically significant cardiac arrhythmias. Patients will take zanubrutinib 320 mg daily and rituximab/rituximab biosimilar once monthly for 6 cycles. Patients with less than partial response after 6 cycles will go off study treatment. Patients with a complete remission will be randomized in a 1:1 manner to intermittent treatment versus continuous treatment. Randomization will be stratified by age (60-69 years vs ≥70 years) and MIPI score. Those randomized to the continuous arm will receive zanubrutinib until intolerance or disease progression. Those randomized to the intermittent arm will stop all study drugs after those initial 6 cycles and will restart zanubrutinib at first disease progression and continue it until intolerance or second disease progression. In order to make the study results generalizable to clinical practice, disease progression will be defined by clinical parameters rather than minimal residual disease testing. The primary objective of this study is to compare time from randomization to first progression or death (PFS1) in the continuous treatment arm to the time to second progression or death (PFS2) in the intermittent treatment arm. The primary evaluation will be to determine whether, for patients in a CR, active monitoring followed by retreatment with zanubrutinib therapy upon disease progression will result in non-inferior clinical outcomes compared to indefinite zanubrutinib. Serial quality of life testing and adverse event monitoring will be performed throughout the study to gain a full understanding of the impact of continuous vs intermittent zanubrutinib on patients' lives. A052101 has the potential to change management of older patients with previously untreated MCL. If our study demonstrates that the time to second progression/death when using the stop and retreat strategy is non-inferior to time to first progression/death when using continuous BTK therapy, then it might lead to a new standard of care in this patient population. This could result in decreased health care costs, decreased toxicity and improved quality of life for older patients with mantle cell lymphoma. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document detailing core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials, including physical function (PF). This study aimed to develop analytic methods and visualizations of patient-reported PF in patients with cancer. Methods We applied an estimand framework to a patient-reported tolerability endpoint to develop data summaries cross-sectionally and over time, along with visualizations. We accomplished this through iterative feedback with clinicians, statisticians, and FDA stakeholders using three clinical trial datasets in hematologic malignancies. Graphical approaches were applied to three datasets in hematologic malignancies: (1) patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms enrolled in MPN-RC 111/112 trials completed EORTC QLQ-C30 over 12 months; (2) patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR-T cell therapy or autologous transplant who completed FACT questionnaires over 6 months; and (3) patients with multiple myeloma or amyloidosis who completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire over 6 months. Zoom polls were administered to two stakeholder groups (clinicians/clinical investigators and patient advocates) to elicit feedback. Results Visualizations included stacked bar charts, line plots of arithmetic mean changes from baseline, pie charts, waffle plots, and waterfall plots of PF data. Graphics considered scaled scores and individual items and included delineation of PRO completion rate at each time point. Confidence intervals and reference lines were included as applicable, and colorblind accessible colors were implemented to ensure inclusivity of all visualizations. Data summaries over time reporting “worst” change were difficult to interpret. In terms of stakeholders’ preference, patients preferred stacked bar charts while clinicians equally favored stacked bar charts and line plots; both patients and clinicians preferred waterfall plots to pie charts. Patient feedback highlighted the need for various graphics to convey group level trends and granular individual-patient level information. Conclusion Patient-reported PF informs the evaluation of treatment tolerability in cancer trials. Data summaries and visualizations of physical function developed through an iterative process were reviewed favorably by patients, clinicians and FDA stakeholders in this study. Future work to systematically assess accuracy of interpretation of the various analytic and visualization methods is a necessary next step across clinical, regulatory, payer and patient stakeholders. Trial registration NCT01259817, NCT01259856

PURPOSE Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) have shown similar diagnostic performance in detection of breast cancer. Limited CEM data are available for high-risk breast cancer screening. The purpose of the study was to prospectively investigate the efficacy of supplemental screening CEM in elevated risk patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS A prospective, single-institution, institutional review board–approved observational study was conducted in asymptomatic elevated risk women age 35 years or older who had a negative conventional two-dimensional digital breast tomosynthesis screening mammography (MG) and no additional supplemental screening within the prior 12 months. RESULTS Four hundred sixty women were enrolled from February 2019 to April 2021. The median age was 56.8 (range, 35.0-79.2) years; 408 of 460 (88.7%) were mammographically dense. Biopsy revealed benign changes in 22 women (22/37, 59%), high-risk lesions in four women (4/37, 11%), and breast cancer in 11 women (11/37, 30%). Fourteen cancers (10 invasive, tumor size range 4-15 mm, median 9 mm) were diagnosed in 11 women. The overall supplemental cancer detection rate was 23.9 per 1,000 patients, 95% CI (12.0 to 42.4). All cancers were grade 1 or 2, ER+ ERBB2–, and node negative. CEM imaging screening offered high specificity (0.875 [95% CI, 0.844 to 0.906]), high NPV (0.998 [95% CI, 0.993 to 1.000), moderate PPV1 (0.164 [95% CI, 0.076 to 0.253), moderate PPV3 (0.275 [95% CI, 0.137 to 0.413]), and high sensitivity (0.917 [95% CI, 0.760 to 1.000]). At least 1 year of imaging follow-up was available on all patients, and one interval cancer was detected on breast MRI 4 months after negative screening CEM. CONCLUSION A pilot trial demonstrates a supplemental cancer detection rate of 23.9 per 1,000 in women at an elevated risk for breast cancer. Larger, multi-institutional, multiyear CEM trials in patients at elevated risk are needed for validation.

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 .

5006 Background: The PRESTO trial (NCT03009981) showed that in patients with biochemically relapsed prostate cancer following radical prostatectomy with a PSA doubling time of ≤ 9 months and without evidence of metastatic disease by conventional imaging, intensified androgen receptor blockade for 52 weeks (androgen deprivation therapy [ADT] plus apalutamide [Apa], or ADT plus Apa and abiraterone acetate [Abi] plus prednisone) prolonged PSA progression-free survival compared to ADT alone (Aggarwal et al, JCO 2024). Here we report the HRQOL results. Methods: HRQOL measures included the Hot Flash Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS), Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC)-26 Sexual domain, PROMIS Fatigue Short Form and EQ-5D-5L, which assesses overall HRQOL in the 504 randomized patients. Published minimally important difference thresholds for these HRQOL measures are: HFRDIS 1.66 points, EPIC Sexual 10-12, PROMIS Fatigue 3-5, and EQ-5D-5L 0.06. General linear mixed modeling was used to estimate between-arm mean differences in HRQOL according to an intent-to-treat approach. Results: Mean changes from baseline to end of treatment (EOT) for each arm and for each HRQOL measure are summarized in Table. No statistically significant mean difference was reported between intensified androgen receptor blockade (Arm B, Arm C) vs ADT alone (Arm A) in any HRQOL measure. Further, numerical differences across arms for all HRQOL measures are below published minimally clinically important difference thresholds. Conclusions: Intensified androgen receptor blockade with Apa or Apa/Abi added to 52 weeks of ADT improves PSA progression-free survival without negatively affecting HRQOL. These HRQOL results add further support to intensification of androgen blockade in patients with high-risk biochemically recurrent prostate cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03009981 . [Table: see text]

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 .

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.