Lavoie Smith, Ellen M

Background/Objectives. Decades of research have failed to uncover effective approaches to prevent chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), a common side effect of neurotoxic chemotherapy. Increased interest in placebo response as a potentially under-recognized confounder in CIPN trials was recently sparked by the results of a multisite NCI-funded phase II-III CIPN prevention study of duloxetine, a promising serotonin–norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor that enhances pain-inhibitory mechanisms within the central nervous system. Study findings revealed high and nearly equivalent response rates in three randomized treatment groups—little to no CIPN was reported by 65.2%, 66.0%, and 68.0% of study participants who received duloxetine 30 mg, 60 mg, or placebo treatment, respectively. Methods. We performed a meta-analysis of placebo response rates from seven randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trials conducted over the past 20 years and comprising 191 placebo participants that were specifically testing interventions for oxaliplatin- and paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy and that serially collected patient responses on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire for Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy questionnaire. Additionally, we sought to identify trial- and patient-specific factors that predicted higher placebo response rates from a participant-level pooled analysis. Results. The placebo response rate was 10.0% [95% CI: 5.8%, 16.6%] when response was defined more conservatively as patients reporting no neuropathy at all. When the placebo response was defined more broadly based on patients reporting no or a little neuropathy, the placebo response rate was higher (39.6% [95% CI: 27.4%, 53.2%]). Male participants, receipt of oxaliplatin, and a 2:1 randomization ratio favoring the intervention arm were individually associated with a higher placebo response. Conclusions. High placebo response rates can threaten scientific progress toward identifying effective treatments for cancer treatment-associated side effects, like CIPN. Careful attention to study design factors, participant eligibility, and patient and research staff expectations may help to minimize placebo response rates in future CIPN intervention studies.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase II study (Alliance A221805) was to screen two doses of duloxetine for preventing sensory oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). METHODS Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive once daily 30 mg duloxetine, 60 mg duloxetine, or placebo. Eligible participants had stage II to III colorectal cancer and no baseline neuropathy, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, were age 25 years and older, and received oxaliplatin via one of the following doses and schedules: 85 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks (6 or 12 doses) or 130 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks (4 doses). Duloxetine/placebo was taken once daily beginning day 1 of cycle 1 and continued for 17 weeks. The primary end point, a composite response reflecting sensory OIPN symptom severity and onset, was measured in weeks 19-21 using a validated participant-reported outcome survey assessing extremity numbness, tingling, and pain. Response was defined as a participant-reported highest score of ≤2 (ie, 1 = not at all; 2 = a little) on survey items. To be evaluable for the response end point, eligible participants must have initiated oxaliplatin and submitted ≥1 postbaseline OIPN survey. RESULTS Of the 199 participants (n = 66, 30 mg duloxetine; n = 66, 60 mg duloxetine; n = 67, placebo), 46, 47, and 50 (N = 143, 71.8%), respectively, were evaluable for primary end point analysis based on modified intention-to-treat criteria. Participant mean age was 55.1 years (standard deviation = 10.4). Most were White (n = 113, 80.7%) and male (n = 82, 58.6%). The proportion of responders among those receiving placebo (68.0%) was similar to those receiving duloxetine 30 mg (65.2%) or 60 mg (66.0%). Duloxetine adherence rates, measured via pill counts—30 mg (54%), 60 mg (57%), and placebo (59%) groups—were low (<75%). CONCLUSION Duloxetine is not more promising than placebo for preventing sensory OIPN.

Abstract Background The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study. Methods The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. Results Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05). Conclusions ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

PURPOSE To describe clinical research professionals (CRPs)’ experiences with electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data collection systems in oncology clinical trials and identify correlates of CRPs' attitude toward technology. METHODS An online survey was conducted among 210 CRPs from 125 National Cancer Institute–funded research sites. Measures included CRPs' demographic characteristics, working years, employment locations, and previous experiences with various types of ePROs. Their attitude toward technology was measured by the Technology Attitude Scale-Adapted. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare two subdomains of attitude (perceived usefulness [PU] and perceived ease of use [PEU]). Multiple linear regression was used to explore correlates of (1) overall attitude, (2) PU, and (3) PEU. The significance level was 5%. RESULTS Participants' median age was 41 years (range, 21-67). Most were female (90%) and White (82%). More than half of the participants had previous experiences with web-based ePROs using patients' own devices (72%) or site-/sponsor-provided on-site devices (eg, kiosks or tablets; 64%). CRPs who were 60 years or older (β = −0.32, P < .05) or worked for 10-20 years (β = −0.11, P < .05) had relatively negative attitudes, controlling for other factors. Previous experiences with more ePRO types were associated with more positive attitudes (β = 0.08, P = .02). Similar correlates were found with PU but not with PEU. CONCLUSION This study revealed that CRPs had various experiences with ePRO systems and attitudes toward technology. Age, working years, and previous experiences with ePROs were correlates of overall attitude toward technology and PU. These findings suggest necessary targeted training to facilitate ePRO use in oncology clinical trials by improving CRPs' awareness and attitude toward technology.

While oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN) is more common and severe in patients who receive the previous standard, 6-month oxaliplatin-based treatment, we hypothesized that OIPN was still pervasive in patients who received shorter, 3-month-treatment regimens. Using six EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 questions that quantify numbness (N), tingling (T) and shooting/burning pain (P) in upper/lower distal extremities, our aim is to quantify patient-reported responses over 3 months (6 cycles) of oxaliplatin regarding symptom-specific timing, location and severity. For each question, patients were asked how each of the sensory symptoms had affected them during the preceding week, with 1 = “Not at all”, 2 = “A little”, 3 = “Quite a bit” and 4 = “Very much”. The proportional odds model for the cumulative log odds of response that allowed symptom-specific patient heterogeneity to be obtained was applied to a pooled dataset from the placebo arms of two multisite OIPN prevention trials and fit separately to the upper/lower distal extremities. For each symptom, we report the cycle-specific marginal probabilities for each response. In 141 patients, substantial patient heterogeneity in the likelihood, at a given cycle, of a more severe response for a symptom was present. Distinct patterns in the probabilities for each response over time for N and T were observed between the upper/lower distal extremities, while the probabilities of a response >1 for P was largely negligible in both locations. Despite the decrease in exposure to oxaliplatin from 6 to 3 months, OIPN was still pervasive with patients experiencing considerable N and T in the fingers (or hands) and toes (or feet).

PURPOSE To update the ASCO guideline on the recommended prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors. METHODS An Expert Panel conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify new studies. RESULTS The search strategy identified 257 new references, which led to a full-text review of 87 manuscripts. A total of 3 systematic reviews, 2 with meta-analyses, and 28 primary trials for prevention of CIPN in addition to 14 primary trials related to treatment of established CIPN, are included in this update. RECOMMENDATIONS The identified data reconfirmed that no agents are recommended for the prevention of CIPN. The use of acetyl-l-carnitine for the prevention of CIPN in patients with cancer should be discouraged. Furthermore, clinicians should assess the appropriateness of dose delaying, dose reduction, substitutions, or stopping chemotherapy in patients who develop intolerable neuropathy and/or functional impairment. Duloxetine is the only agent that has appropriate evidence to support its use for patients with established painful CIPN. Nonetheless, the amount of benefit from duloxetine is limited. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

AimsChemotherapy‐induced peripheral neuropathy (PN) is a treatment limiting toxicity of paclitaxel. We evaluated if EPHA genetic variation (EPHA4, EPHA5, EPHA6, and EPHA8) is associated with PN sensitivity by accounting for variability in systemic paclitaxel exposure (time above threshold).MethodsGermline DNA from 60 patients with breast cancer was sequenced. PN was measured using the 8‐item sensory subscale (CIPN8) of the patient‐reported CIPN20. Associations for 3 genetic models were tested by incorporating genetics into previously published PN prediction models integrating measured paclitaxel exposure and cumulative treatment. Significant associations were then tested for association with PN‐related treatment disruption.ResultsEPHA5 rs7349683 (minor allele frequency = 0.32) was associated with increased PN sensitivity (β‐coefficient = 0.39, 95% confidence interval 0.11–0.67, p = 0.007). Setting a maximum tolerable threshold of CIPN8 = 30, optimal paclitaxel exposure target is shorter for rs7349683 homozygous (11.6 h) than heterozygous (12.6 h) or wild‐type (13.6 h) patients. Total number of missense variants (median = 0, range 0–2) was associated with decreased PN sensitivity (β‐coefficient: −0.42, 95% confidence interval −0.72 to −0.12, P = .006). No association with treatment disruption was detected for the total number of missense variants or rs7349683.ConclusionIsolating toxicity sensitivity by accounting for exposure is a novel approach, and rs7349683 represents a promising marker for PN sensitivity that may be used to individualize paclitaxel treatment.

532 Background: Chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common, debilitating paclitaxel side effect that has been primarily attributed to cumulative systemic paclitaxel exposure. Paclitaxel dose-adjustment to achieve target systemic exposure decreases but does not eliminate severe CIPN, suggesting some patients are inherently CIPN-sensitive. Ephrin ( EPHA) polymorphisms have been reported to increase CIPN occurrence (Baldwin 2012, Leandro-Garcia 2013, Boora 2016) but replication has been challenging, perhaps due to the inability to isolate CIPN-sensitivity by accounting for systemic exposure differences. The study purpose was to determine if EPHA genetic variants previously associated with CIPN occurrence are associated with CIPN-sensitivity. Methods: PN was assessed at baseline and weekly using the 8-item sensory subscale (CIPN8) of the patient-reported EORTC CIPN20 in patients receiving paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly x 12. EPHA4, EPHA5, EPHA6, and EPHA8 were sequenced in germline DNA. Associations with higher PN-sensitivity were tested for three genetic models (total variants, coding variants, and rs7349683) by incorporating genetics into previously published CIPN8 predictive models that included measured paclitaxel exposure. Significant associations were tested for association with higher risk of PN-related treatment disruption (i.e. dose decrease, delay, or discontinuation). Results: In the 59 included patients, carrying EPHA5 rs7349683 was associated with greater CIPN sensitivity (beta coefficient: 0.40, standard error: 0.14, p = 0.005), indicating these patients had a greater increase in CIPN8 during treatment than would be predicted based on cumulative paclitaxel exposure. Rs7349683 was not associated with increased PN-induced treatment disruption, perhaps due to the low number of events (n = 19). Conclusions: Using a novel approach that isolates CIPN-sensitivity by accounting for measured paclitaxel exposure, our results provide further evidence that EPHA5 rs7349683 may be a promising marker for CIPN. If additional validation studies confirm this association, genetic testing could enable personalized treatment strategies to prevent CIPN in patients with breast cancer.