Citations

PURPOSE Patients with advanced, well-differentiated extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (epNETs) have limited systemic treatment options. Pazopanib, an oral multikinase inhibitor with activity against vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-2 and -3, PDGFR-alpha and-beta, and c-Kit, was tested for efficacy in epNET. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, phase II study of pazopanib (800 mg once daily) versus placebo in low- to intermediate-grade epNET with radiologic progressive disease (PD) within 12 months of study entry. Previous somatostatin analog (SSA) was required for midgut tumors, and concurrent SSA was allowed. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review. Unblinding and crossover were allowed if PD was confirmed by central review. RESULTS One hundred seventy-one patients (97 pazopanib and 74 placebo) were randomly assigned between September 2013 and October 2015. The majority had a midgut primary site (75%) and previous SSA treatment (93%). About half (49%) of the patients had functional tumors. The median follow-up was 61 months (95% CI, 60 to 63). Median PFS was 11.8 versus 7.6 months in pazopanib versus placebo, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.37 to 0.79]; P < .001); 49 placebo patients crossed over to pazopanib. There was no significant difference in overall survival between the treatment arms. Rates of grade 3 or greater adverse events (regardless of attribution) were higher in pazopanib versus placebo (84% v 47%; P < .001), as were grade 5 death events (8% v 0%, P = .017). CONCLUSION Pazopanib compared with placebo significantly improves PFS in patients with progressive epNET, confirming that the VEGF signaling pathway is a valid target for therapy in epNET. However, after integrating the associated risks relative to the benefits, further development of pazopanib in this clinical context is not planned.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

Abstract More than half of randomized phase 3 oncology trials fail to meet their primary endpoints, often despite favorable results from phase 1 and phase 2 trials. One potential reason for this high failure rate is effect size selection practices for powering these trials. In a systematic review of phase 3 oncology trials published in 10 top medical journals in 2023, we identified a pattern of effect size overestimation for survival endpoints, where the expected hazard ratios (average HR = 0.66) were stronger than those observed in the primary analyses (average HR = 0.72; 2-sided signed-rank test P = .0035). Across 111 trials, 82 of 143 (57.3%) observed hazard ratios for primary survival endpoints were weaker than expected; among 5 journals with 2023 impact factors between 9.9 and 56.7 (vs 58.7-98.4 for the top 5 journals), this ratio was 70.2% (59/84). These results suggest that phase 3 oncology trials are likely underpowered, contributing to the high failure rates in oncology research.

LBA1551 Background: Traditional cancer therapy is primarily delivered in clinical settings, imposing logistical, emotional, and financial burdens, particularly on rural and underserved patients. While international studies have demonstrated the safety of home-based chemotherapy, no randomized U.S. trials have evaluated this approach. Mayo Clinic’s CCBW program aims to expand access to high-quality cancer care by providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring, command center and paramedic support. This pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluates feasibility and impact of home-based versus in-clinic cancer directed therapy on patient preference, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Methods: Adult patients (ECOG 0-2) receiving chemotherapy or hormonal therapy at Mayo Clinic Florida were randomized 1:1 after confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic to receive (1) home-based care for 24 weeks or (2) in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks. Target accrual is 200 patients. A planned interim analysis after 50 enrollments assessed accrual, data completeness, technical challenges, safety, and study outcomes. The primary endpoint is patient ratings of their overall cancer care experience (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) at 8 weeks. 200 patients provide 80% power to detect a 0.45 standard deviation difference in mean ratings between arms with a 2-sided 2-sample t-test (α=0.05) and 20% missing data rate. Secondary endpoints are patient preference, comfort with home infusions, treatment worthwhileness, functional/symptom assessments (EORTC QLQ-F17, PRO-CTCAE, GP5), grade ≥3 AEs, hospitalizations, and overall survival. Cost is a tertiary endpoint. The trial is IRB-approved (#23001719) and registered (NCT05969860). Results: Enrollment began 8/23/23. As of 2/21/25, 52 patients (26 per arm) were enrolled and 36 started protocol treatment. Common cancers were breast (38%), colorectal (21%), prostate (19%), and multiple myeloma (14%). 64% (28/44) of patients were female; 84% identified as White, 14% as Black, and 2% as multiple races. Median distance to clinic was 20 miles (range 2-66). After 8 weeks, patients in both arms rated their overall cancer care experience highly (mean [SD]=9.69 [0.85] versus 9.54 [0.66] for home-based vs. in-clinic care, n=26). After 24 weeks, 73% preferred home-based care, 18% had no preference, and 9% preferred in-clinic care; 100% felt comfortable with home infusions. No grade ≥3 AEs related to location of care have occurred. Conclusions: Early findings support the feasibility, safety, and high patient acceptability of home-based cancer therapy. No safety concerns related to care location were observed and most patients preferred home-based treatment. Ongoing accrual and analysis will assess clinical outcomes and cost implications. Clinical trial information: NCT05969860 .

TPS1657 Background: Cancer treatments are traditionally administered in clinical settings, which can isolate patients from their familiar environments and exacerbate physical, psychosocial, and financial burdens. Travel requirements further amplify these challenges, particularly for underserved populations. Studies indicate that patients prefer receiving care at home, and international models have demonstrated the safety of home-delivered chemotherapy since the 1990s; however, no U.S. clinical trial data exists. In response, Mayo Clinic has developed the Cancer CARE (Connected Access and Remote Expertise) Beyond Walls (CCBW) program, a distributed cancer care delivery model that expands access to quality cancer care by bringing it to the home environment, providing in-home cancer treatment, lab testing, telemedicine, and community paramedic support. This trial evaluates the safety, acceptability, and impact of home-based subcutaneous (SC) nivolumab (Nivo) administration compared to in-clinic treatment within the CCBW initiative. Methods: This open-label, single-arm trial evaluates the impact of SC Nivo administration location—home versus infusion center—on patient reported cancer care experience, patient-preferred treatment location, acceptability, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0-1) receiving IV Nivo for an FDA-approved indication and residing within 75 miles of Mayo Clinic Florida will transition to SC Nivo, receiving two initial in-clinic cycles. If tolerated without injection reactions, four cycles will be administered at home before resuming in-clinic treatment. Exclusion criteria include concurrent investigational/standard treatments or contraindications to immunotherapy. Fifty patients will be enrolled, with an estimated 75% (n=38) providing cancer care ratings after 8 weeks in-clinic and 8 weeks at-home, offering 85% power to detect a mean difference in ratings of 0.50 standard deviations. The primary endpoint is within-patient change in cancer care rating (0–10 scale, CAHPS Cancer Care Survey) comparing 8 weeks of in-clinic vs. at-home care. Secondary endpoints include patient-preferred treatment location, comfort with home injections, safety (grade 3+ adverse events), function (EORTC QLQ-F17), symptoms (PRO-CTCAE), side effect impact (GP5), and healthcare utilization (ER visits, hospitalizations). Cost will be assessed as a tertiary endpoint. The trial has FDA approval (IND #170079), Mayo Clinic IRB approval (#23009663), and ClinicalTrials.gov registration (NCT06265285). Enrollment began in April 2024, with an expected accrual period of 24 months. To date, 10 patients have been enrolled, and final analysis is expected 2.5 years after trial activation. Clinical trial information: NCT06265285 .

11106 Background: Patients with cancer take different types of medication (e.g., enteral, parenteral), with varying treatment schedules, in various settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medication in response to toxicity. To measure medication nonadherence in this heterogenous population, we modified and pilot-tested a self-report measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral medication, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence), in adults with cancer. Methods: Participants were ≥21 years, on active cancer treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and spoke English and/or Spanish. A branching logic was added to allow participants to select the setting where they take cancer medication: 1) only at home, 2) only in clinic, or 3) partly at home/partly in clinic. Based on administration setting, participants reported nonadherence to medications their clinician expected them to take over a given reference period (1 week for home and 1 month for clinic medications). Participants then reported on setting-relevant reasons for nonadherence. Survey instructions/items were refined in an iterative process using feedback from a patient investigator committee and participant cognitive interviews. During interviews, we asked participants about the interpretation of instructions/items, recall period, and comprehensiveness of reasons for nonadherence, regardless of their own adherence. After initial testing in English, a Spanish version was developed through transcreation. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence vs. any nonadherence). For all participants who received clinic medications, concordance between chart abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. Results: Of 55 participants who completed the surveys and interviews (67% in English; 33% in Spanish), 87% were female and 44% identified as Latino. The majority (73%) had breast cancer; 60% had metastatic disease. 12 of 45 who received medication in clinic reported nonadherence as did 8 of 35 who took medication at home. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both recall periods. All reasons for nonadherence were perceived as relevant to themselves or other patients. There was 89% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted adherence for clinic-administered medication. To improve concordance, changes were made to the formatting and instructions. Of 12 participants who completed the final version of the survey for clinic-administered medication, there was 100% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted nonadherence. Conclusions: Our results support the reliability and validity of modified DOSE-Nonadherence for cancer patients. This instrument can be used to better identify nonadherence to cancer medications in a population of adult patients with cancer receiving various treatment regimens.

Abstract Interpreting cancer clinical trial results often depends on addressing issues of multiplicity. When testing multiple hypotheses, unreliable findings can occur by chance due to the inflation of the type I error rate, the probability of mistakenly rejecting the null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is true. In this setting, researchers may often set the type I error rate (or the alpha level) low to limit false positive findings and the interpretation of a causal relationship where none exists. Conversely, overly conservative type I error control may result in declaring findings, that do not meet multiplicity-adjusted alpha levels, as false when they are actually true, reducing opportunities for new discovery. This presentation focuses on multiplicity adjustment in the context of clinical trials conducted within the NCI’s Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Because federally sponsored trials often require long-term participation from patients and represent a substantial investment by taxpayers, striking the right balance between optimizing what is learned from these trials, while avoiding false positive results, should be a priority.

Abstract Examining treatment effects in subgroups of patients defined by demographic, genetic, or clinical characteristics is increasingly of interest given the pursuit of personalized medicine and the importance of representation and equity in treatment decisions. The magnitude or even the direction of the treatment effect may vary across subgroups, and these differential treatment effects could have clinical implications. Subgroup analyses require caution in their interpretation, however, because of the high probability of a false-positive or false-negative conclusion. We outline study design and analysis considerations for responsibly investigating and reporting differential treatment effects across subgroups in oncology trials, with examples from the National Cancer Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network and Community Oncology Research Program. Recommendations include ensuring appropriate representation of patients from subgroups of interest, recognizing power and multiplicity limitations, and treating exploratory subgroup analyses as hypothesis generating rather than practice changing.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Introduction TP53 alterations (TP53+) are seen in &lt;5% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) but are more common in accelerated/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP) [Luque Paz D, et al 2020]. While pts with low-burden TP53+ (Variant allele frequency (VAF) &lt;5%) may remain stable for years [Kubesova et al, 2018]; biallelic loss of TP53 is thought to confer higher risk for progression [Li et al, 2022] and worse overall survival (OS) than non-TP53+ pts [Rolles et al, 2023]. However, TP53 abnormalities have not been incorporated into currently utilized molecular based prediction models (MIPSS or MIPSS70) or compared with currently validated high molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (mut). We report the outcomes of the largest cohort of TP53+ MPN pts to date in comparison with HMR mut, and identify a VAF cut-off associated with highest risk of progression to MPN-AP/BP. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 2583 MPN pts from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) with at least one next generation sequencing (NGS) performed. Deidentified data from an additional cohort of 8 TP53+ MPN pts was received from University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center (UMiami). Patient characteristics such as MPN subtype, gender, age at MPN diagnosis, driver mutation, thrombosis history were recorded. We also recorded date of transformation to MPN-AP/BP, dates of NGS testing, mutational and cytogenetic data, and survival status. We defined multi-hit TP53 as presence of =/&gt;2 TP53mut, VAF &gt; 50% or TP53 mutation + 17p deletion. Additional cohorts of pts with HMR mut (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, U2AF1, SRSF2 as per MIPSS70v.2) from MSH and non-TP53+ pts from the MPN-Research Consortium Tissue Bank were used as comparator arms. Patient characteristics were compared between TP53 single-hit and multi-hit using Chi-Sq test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare leukemic transformation and OS, respectively, between groups. Successive VAF levels with minimum groups of 25% of the total cohort were used to identify an optimal VAF cut-off. Results Of the 2583 MPN pts from MSH and MSK, 66 pts (2.6%) were found to have a TP53 mutation. Including 8 additional pts from UMiami, we analyzed a total of 74 TP53+ MPN pts; 40 single-hit and 34 multi-hit. Median age at MPN diagnosis was 61 years with a male predominance (60%). Distribution of driver mut was similar in single-hit vs multi-hit cohort with JAK2V617F being the most common (58%), whereas 11% of pts had triple negative disease . Thrombotic history was available for 45 TP53+ pts, with a high frequency of venous/arterial thrombosis (21/45 or 46.7%) in the TP53+ group as compared to 18.5% in the non-TP53+ MPN cohort (p= 0.0001). A significantly higher number of multi-hit TP53+ pts had a concurrent complex karyotype (79% vs 24% in single-hit; p&lt;.001). MPN diagnosis at the time of detection of TP53+ was ET/PV (25.7%), MF (44.6%), MDS/MPN overlap syndrome (6.8%), MPN-U (2.7%) and MPN-AP/BP (20.3%), respectively. One or more genetic samples with TP53+ was available prior to transformation to MPN-AP/BP in 77% of pts (21/34 multi-hit; 36/40 single-hit) while a TP53+ was detected at the time of MPN-AP/BP diagnosis in the rest. Multi-hit TP53+ was associated with a significantly higher incidence of transformation to MPN-AP/BP as compared to single-hit; [65% vs 17.5%; HR=4.08 (1.71-9.71), p=0.0015]. Compared with HMR mut, multi-hit (HR=2.41; p=0.004) but not single-hit (HR=0.53; p=.277) TP53+ MPN pts were found to have a significantly increased risk of MPN-AP/BP transformation. One-year OS from the time of mutation detection was significantly inferior for both multi-hit (53.3%) and single-hit (75%) TP53+ pts as compared to HMR mut (98.8%, p=&lt;.001). Cut-point analysis identified VAF &gt;36% to be associated with the highest risk of transformation (HR=3.08) with lowest p-value (0.002). Conclusions Multi-hit TP53 alterations are associated with a significantly increased risk of leukemic evolution as compared to previously validated HMR mut, whereas both multi and single-hit TP53 mut are associated with worse OS highlighting the importance of TP53 in MPN disease progression.