Citations

Abstract Background Anxiety is a common symptom experienced by patients with cancer, who are increasingly interested in non-pharmacologic symptom management. Acupressure, a noninvasive intervention thought to impact the neurohormonal axis, has shown promise in reducing anxiety. However, research on acupressure for anxiety in patients with cancer has been limited. Methods Individuals receiving chemotherapy, who reported baseline anxiety, were eligible for this study. Consenting participants received one 15-minute nurse-led acupressure session and completed pre- and post-intervention surveys. The primary endpoint was a change in anxiety. Participants were also asked about symptoms of nausea, pain, well-being, relaxation, worry, and distress. Participants were invited to learn self-acupressure techniques. These participants were asked to complete a final survey 1-week post-intervention. Results Thirty adult patients participated in this study. Mean baseline anxiety was 5 on a 0 to 10 Likert scale. Immediate post-intervention anxiety scores significantly improved for all thirty patients to an average of 2.0 (P < .001). Mean nausea scores improved from 1.5 at baseline to 0 post-intervention (P < .001), and pain scores improved from 2.0 at baseline to 1.0 post-intervention (P = .001). Participants reported significant improvement in sense of wellbeing (P = .0004), distress (P < .001), ability to achieve relaxation (P < .001), and ability to control their worries (P < .001). The improvement in anxiety, well-being, and relaxation was sustained at one week. 100% of participants stated that they would recommend acupressure for symptom management. Conclusion Acupressure is a promising non-pharmacologic intervention for the management of cancer-associated anxiety.

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.

PURPOSE Hot flashes are a common side effect reported by men receiving androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for the treatment of prostate cancer. We sought to determine whether oxybutynin could improve hot flash symptoms in men with prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with prostate cancer receiving a stable regimen of ADT with at least 28 hot flashes per week were randomly assigned to receive either oxybutynin 2.5 mg twice daily, oxybutynin 5 mg twice daily, or matching placebo for 6 weeks. The primary end point was the change in patient-reported hot flash scores since baseline at 6 weeks. Additional outcomes included incidence of adverse events (AEs), changes since baseline in Hot Flash–Related Daily Interference Scale (HFRDIS) scores, and patient-reported symptoms. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients were enrolled, with the 81 participants eligible for final analysis reporting an average of 10.1 (standard deviation [SD], 5.55) hot flashes per day and an average daily hot flash score of 18.2 (SD, 13.5) included in final analysis. On average, patients on the placebo arm, 2.5 mg oxybutynin arm, and 5 mg oxybutynin arm had reductions in hot flashes/day of 2.15, 4.77 ( P = .02), and 6.89 ( P < .001), respectively. Daily hot flash scores for placebo, 2.5 mg oxybutynin, and 5 mg oxybutynin reduced by an average of 4.85, 9.94 ( P = .07), and 13.95 ( P = .002) points, respectively. No treatment-related grade 3+ AEs occurred. HFRDIS total scores improved by 14.2 and 20.7 points in the 2.5 mg ( P = .042) and 5 mg ( P < .01) oxybutynin arms, respectively, compared with a 3.1-point improvement with placebo. CONCLUSION Oxybutynin is superior to a placebo for the management of ADT-associated hot flashes in men with prostate cancer.

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

12038 Background: CIPN, primarily associated with sensory neuropathy rather than motor or autonomic dysfunction, is a potentially long-term complication of cancer treatment including taxanes and platinums (T/Ps), and can negatively impact quality of life for breast cancer (BC) survivors. This project aims to quantify the severity of neuropathic symptoms at one and three years after diagnosis in BC survivors, comparing recipients of T/P to non-recipients. Methods: In the Mayo Clinic Breast Registry (MCBDR), a longitudinal cohort, surveys and medical record data from patients with stage 1-3 BC were used to understand the burden of neuropathic symptoms at 1- and 3-years post-diagnosis (denoted as Y1 and Y3). Y1 and Y3 raw scores from The Quality of Life Questionnaire-Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 (CIPN20) composite (CIPN20-C) and sensory subscale (CIPN-S) were converted to a 0-100 point scale, with lower scores corresponding to worse symptoms. Patients with BC recurrence prior to Y3 or incomplete surveys were excluded. We used two sample t-tests and multivariable linear regression modeling to compare recipients of T/P to non-recipients of T/P (with threshold for statistical significance p <0.05). Results: 786 patients were included, 112 of whom (14.2%) received T/P. T/P recipients were younger (p<0.001), more likely to have Stage II/III disease (p<0.001), and less likely to have received endocrine therapy (p<0.001). Univariate analyses revealed worse CIPN20-C score at Y1 (p=0.02) and worse CIPN20-S scores (p=0.004) at Y1 and Y3 in T/P recipients compared to non-recipients (Table). However, differences between the groups were no longer statistically significant after adjustment for age, stage and endocrine therapy. Conclusions: In this cohort, neuropathic symptom severity at Y1 and Y3 after a breast cancer diagnosis did not differ between recipients of taxane and/or platinum agents and nonrecipients after adjustment for age, stage, and endocrine therapy. These data may reassure patients and clinicians who are concerned about CIPN and considering use of these chemotherapies in this setting. Patient demographics and CIPN20 results. Clinical characteristic T/P recipients Non-recipients of T/P Age at diagnosis, mean (SD) 55.3 (11.6)* 59.8 (11.9) White race, N (%) 108 (96.4%) 660 (97.9%) Clinical stage II/III, N (%) 76 (68.5%)* 250 (37.5%) Endocrine therapy, N (%) 73 (65.2%)* 636 (94.4%) Diabetes mellitus, N (%) 9 (8.9%) 52 (8.6%) Y1 CIPN20-C score, mean (SD) 89.6 (10.9)* 92.0 (9.7) Y3 CIPN-C score, mean (SD) 89.4 (11.4) 91.1 (9.7) Y1 CIPN20- S score, mean (SD) 87.3 (15.1)* 91.3 (13.0) Y3 CIPN20-S score, mean (SD) 88.2 (14.1)* 91.1 (11.7) *Statistically significant (p <0.05) on univariate analysis.

524 Background: Antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) play a key role in treating renal cell carcinoma and other solid organ malignancies, but TKIs cause bothersome side effects that frequently necessitate dose reductions or treatment holds. Olanzapine has been useful for palliating symptoms from classical chemotherapies and advanced cancer, but its effect on TKI-related symptoms is largely unknown. This retrospective study aimed to estimate the efficacy of olanzapine for TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, weight loss, and insomnia. Methods: All patients prescribed olanzapine with lenvatinib, cabozantinib, axitinib, or tivozanib at Mayo Clinic between January 1, 2018, and June 30, 2024 were assessed for inclusion. For baseline symptom assessment, clinical care team notes documenting the presence or absence of symptoms and indication(s) for starting olanzapine were reviewed. For response assessment, clinical notes and patient portal messages from the first three months after starting olanzapine were evaluated for qualitative descriptions of change in symptom burden. Relevant data were extracted as direct quotations, which were reviewed by the research team and categorized as “improved,” “worsened,” “stable,” or “missing data.” Each symptom domain was analyzed independently when olanzapine was prescribed for multiple interrelated symptoms. Results: A total of 60 patients who received olanzapine for the treatment of TKI-related adverse effects were included. The most common documented indication for olanzapine was nausea without vomiting (n=35), followed by anorexia (n=25), nausea with vomiting (n=16), weight loss (n=16), and insomnia (n=11). In 32 cases (53%), olanzapine was prescribed for multiple, simultaneous symptoms. Response rates for each symptom domain are shown in the table. In addition, prior to olanzapine, 34 patients (57%) had documented weight loss. Following olanzapine, 50% (n=17) gained weight (median increase: 6.1 kg; range: 2.0 - 10.7 kg), 26% (n=9) stabilized their weight (±1 kg), and 24% (n=8) continued to lose weight. Clinicians utilized a TKI dose reduction within one week of olanzapine initiation in 5 cases (8.3%), and 3 of these patients could resume the higher dose of TKI after starting olanzapine. Only 4 patients (7%) discontinued olanzapine within 3 months due to perceived side effects. Conclusions: Olanzapine appears to be effective in treating TKI-induced nausea, vomiting, anorexia, insomnia, and weight loss. Prospective randomized placebo-controlled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Improvedn (%) Worsened n (%) Stablen (%) Missing Datan (%) Nausea without emesis 32 (84) 3 (8) 1 (3) 2 (5) Nausea with emesis 13 (93) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1 (7) Anorexia 26 (74) 2 (6) 4 (11) 3 (9) Insomnia 11 (85) 0 (0) 2 (15) 0 (0)

PURPOSE Over 50% of households in the United States have at least one musician—many musicians are also breast cancer survivors. This group has not been well studied, and given the level of fine sensory-motor skill required for musicianship, we hypothesized that musicians experience unique manifestations of breast cancer treatment toxicities. METHODS A nine-item Musical Toxicity Questionnaire (MTQ) was distributed to patients who had consented to participate in the Mayo Clinic Breast Cancer Registry. The MTQ screened participants by asking if they played a musical instrument or sang in the last 10 years: questions populated for those who answered yes. Respondents were asked if they noticed difficulty with their musical endeavor during or after breast cancer treatment, defined as acute musical toxicity (AMT). The questionnaire asked which side effect and cancer-directed therapy most influenced musical ability, what musical attributes were affected, and the timeline of resolution. Multivariable and classification tree analyses assessed relationships between AMT and treatment characteristics. RESULTS Of 1,871 survey respondents, 29% (535/1,871) self-identified as musicians. Over a quarter (27%, 144/535) reported AMT, and for 57% (82/144), AMT had not resolved at the time of survey. Of the treatments each participant received, chemotherapy was most often reported as most negatively impactful (63/89 who received chemotherapy, 71%). Decreased endurance was the most common musical difficulty (64% of those with AMT, 92/144), followed by decreased accuracy, trouble playing/singing quickly, and difficulty using proper technique. Multivariable and classification tree analyses revealed that receipt of chemotherapy was most strongly correlated with AMT. CONCLUSION These results will help oncology care teams counsel musicians, answer questions about impacts on musicality, and provide a timeline for resolution of musical symptoms.

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) from oxaliplatin and taxane drugs is a bothersome toxicity. Palmitoylethanolamide (PEA) has been reported to improve myelinated nerve fiber function in patients experiencing painful CIPN. We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of PEA in patients with established CIPN. Methods: Eligible patients were adults who had pain, numbness, tingling, or other symptoms of CIPN for at least three months following completion of paclitaxel, oxaliplatin, or cisplatin-based chemotherapy. Study patients were randomized to one of the two treatment groups (PEA versus placebo, both administered either once or twice daily). The CIPN20 questionnaire was assessed weekly. Results: A total of 17 males and 71 females participated in the study; most had neuropathy from paclitaxel. Most (85%) finished 8 weeks of treatment. There was no suggestion that either of the PEA arms did any better than the combined placebo arms. There was no signal of significant toxicity differences between the three study arms. Quality of life outcome measures were similar between the study arms, as were cognitive function evaluations. Discussion: PEA failed to improve established CIPN. Future trials might explore whether PEA may be effective in preventing CIPN or cognitive changes based on data that suggest it may be helpful in this situation. Conclusions: PEA failed to improve established chemotherapy-induced neuropathy.

Background: Patients have been known to use cannabinoids for treating established chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) based on anecdotal information and retrospective reports suggesting that such might be beneficial. In response, a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized, pilot clinical trial was developed to evaluate whether resultant data would support a phase III trial for testing whether a cannabidiol (CBD) cream might improve CIPN. Methods: Forty patients with established CIPN were randomized, in a double-blinded manner, to topical CBD or a placebo cream. The study product was applied for 2 weeks, followed by a crossover for 2 weeks. Neuropathy was evaluated using the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)–CIPN20, the Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment Tool, and the Global Impression of Change instruments. Side effects were recorded by symptom diaries. Results: The EORTC-CIPN20 scores were similar in the patients receiving CBD versus the placebo. Likewise, the toxicity scores were similar in patients who received the CBD versus the placebo. Conclusions: This pilot trial did not support that the studied CBD isolate cream improved painful established CIPN. It was well tolerated overall. Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT05388058