Andrea Denicoff

Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institutes (NCIs) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.

Recommended Patient-Reported Core Set of Symptoms to Measure in Adult Cancer Treatment Trials

BACKGROUND The National Cancer Institutes Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee held a clinical trials planning meeting (September 2011) to identify a core symptom set to be assessed across oncology trials for the purposes of better understanding treatment efficacy and toxicity and to facilitate cross-study comparisons. We report the results of an evidence-synthesis and consensus-building effort that culminated in recommendations for core symptoms to be measured in adult cancer clinical trials that include a patient-reported outcome (PRO). METHODS We used a data-driven, consensus-building process. A panel of experts, including patient representatives, conducted a systematic review of the literature (2001-2011) and analyzed six large datasets. Results were reviewed at a multistakeholder meeting, and a final set was derived emphasizing symptom prevalence across diverse cancer populations, impact on health outcomes and quality of life, and attribution to either disease or anticancer treatment. RESULTS We recommend that a core set of 12 symptoms--specifically fatigue, insomnia, pain, anorexia (appetite loss), dyspnea, cognitive problems, anxiety (includes worry), nausea, depression (includes sadness), sensory neuropathy, constipation, and diarrhea--be considered for inclusion in clinical trials where a PRO is measured. Inclusion of symptoms and other patient-reported endpoints should be well justified, hypothesis driven, and meaningful to patients. CONCLUSIONS This core set will promote consistent assessment of common and clinically relevant disease- and treatment-related symptoms across cancer trials. As such, it provides a foundation to support data harmonization and continued efforts to enhance measurement of patient-centered outcomes in cancer clinical trials and observational studies.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials: Taking Stock, Moving Forward

To evaluate and improve the use of cancer trial end points that reflect the patients own perspective, the National Cancer Institute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006. The 13 preceding articles in this special issue of the Journal were commissioned in preparation for or in response to the PROACT conference, which was cosponsored by the American Cancer Society. Drawing from these articles and also commentary from the conference itself, this concluding report takes stock of what has been learned to date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III, phase II, and symptom management trials in cancer and identifies ways to improve the scientific soundness, feasibility, and policy relevance of PROs in trials. Building on this synthesis of lessons learned, this article discusses specific administrative policies and management procedures to improve PRO data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings; opportunities afforded by recent methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collection and analysis to enhance the scientific soundness and cost efficiency of PRO use in trials; and the importance of better understanding the usefulness of PRO data to the full spectrum of cancer decision makers, including patients and families, health providers, public and private payers, regulatory agencies, and standards-setting organizations.

Effect of R-verapamil on the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel in women with breast cancer.

PURPOSE To study the effect of the multidrug-resistance reversal agent R-verapamil on the pharmacokinetic behavior of paclitaxel. METHODS Six women with breast cancer who received paclitaxel as a 3-hour infusion with and without R-verapamil were monitored with frequent plasma sampling up to 24 hours postinfusion. Paclitaxel concentrations were measured using a reverse-phase high-pressure liquid chromatography assay. RESULTS Concomitant administration of R-verapamil resulted in a decrease in mean (+/- SD) paclitaxel clearance from 179 +/- 67 mL/min/m2 to 90 +/- 34 mL/min/m2 (P < .03) and in a twofold increase in paclitaxel exposure (area under the curve [AUC]). The mean end-infusion paclitaxel concentration was also twofold higher: 5.1 +/- 1.8 mumol/L versus 11.3 +/- 4.1 mumol/L (P < .03). CONCLUSION The alteration in paclitaxel pharmacokinetics when paclitaxel and R-verapamil are coadministered complicates the interpretation of response and toxicity data from clinical trials of this drug combination.

Phase I/II study of 72-hour infusional paclitaxel and doxorubicin with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE We conducted a phase I/II trial of concurrently administered 72-hour infusional paclitaxel and doxorubicin in combination with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) in patients with previously untreated metastatic breast cancer and bidimensionally measurable disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS We defined the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of concurrent paclitaxel and doxorubicin administration and then studied potential pharmacokinetic interactions between the two drugs. Forty-two patients who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer received 296 total cycles of paclitaxel and doxorubicin with G-CSF. RESULTS The MTD was determined to be paclitaxel 180 mg/m2 and doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 each by 72-hour infusion with G-CSF. Diarrhea was the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) of this combination, with three of three patients developing abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan evidence of typhlitis (cecal thickening) at the dose level above the MTD. All patients developed grade 4 neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count [ANC] < 500 microL), generally less than 5 days in duration. This combination was generally safely administered at dose levels at or below the MTD. The overall response rate was 72% (28 of 39 patients; 95% confidence interval [CI], 55% to 85%), with 8% complete responses (CRs) (three of 39; 95% CI, 2% to 21%) and a median response duration of 9 months. The median overall survival time for all patients is 23 months, with a median follow-up duration of 28 months. Pharmacokinetic studies showed that administration of paclitaxel and doxorubicin together by 72-hour infusion did not affect the steady-state concentrations of either drug. CONCLUSION Concurrent 72-hour infusional paclitaxel and doxorubicin can be administered safely, but is associated with significant toxicity. The overall response rate of this combination in untreated metastatic breast cancer patients is similar to that achieved with other doxorubicin-based combination regimens. The modest complete response rate achieved suggests that this schedule of paclitaxel and doxorubicin administration does not produce significant additive or synergistic cytotoxicity against breast cancer.

Phase I crossover study of paclitaxel with r-verapamil in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

PURPOSE We conducted a phase I crossover study of escalating doses of both paclitaxel (Taxol; Bristol-Myers, Squibb, Princeton, NJ) and r-verapamil, the less cardiotoxic stereoisomer, in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-nine patients refractory to paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion were treated orally with r-verapamil every 4 hours starting 24 hours before the same-dose 3-hour paclitaxel infusion and continuing for a total of 12 doses. Once the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) of the combination was determined, seven additional patients who had not been treated with either drug were evaluated to determine whether the addition of r-verapamil altered the pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel. Consenting patients had tumor biopsies for P-glycoprotein (Pgp) expression before receiving paclitaxel and after becoming refractory to paclitaxel therapy. RESULTS The MTD of the combination was 225 mg/m2 of r-verapamil every 4 hours with paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion. Dose-limiting hypotension and bradycardia were observed in three of five patients treated at 250 mg/m2 r-verapamil. Fourteen patients received 32 cycles of r-verapamil at the MTD as outpatient therapy without developing cardiac toxicity. The median peak and trough serum verapamil concentrations at the MTD were 5.1 micromol/L (range, 1.9 to 6.3), respectively, which are within the range necessary for in vitro modulation of Pgp-mediated multidrug resistance (MDR). Increased serum verapamil concentrations and cardiac toxicity were observed more frequently in patients with elevated hepatic transaminases and bilirubin levels. Hematologic toxicity from combined paclitaxel and r-verapamil was significantly worse compared with the previous cycle of paclitxel without r-verapamil. In the pharmacokinetic analysis, r-verapamil delayed mean paclitaxel clearance and increased mean peak paclitaxel concentrations. CONCLUSION r-Verapamil at 225 mg/m2 orally every 4 hours can be given safely with paclitaxel 200 mg/m2 by 3-hour infusion as outpatient therapy and is associated with serum levels considered active for Pgp inhibition. The addition of r-verapamil significantly alters the toxicity and pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel.

The National Cancer Institute–American Society of Clinical Oncology Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Summary and Recommendations

INTRODUCTION Many challenges to clinical trial accrual exist, resulting in studies with inadequate enrollment and potentially delaying answers to important scientific and clinical questions. METHODS The National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) cosponsored the Cancer Trial Accrual Symposium: Science and Solutions on April 29-30, 2010 to examine the state of accrual science related to patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational influences, and identify new interventions to facilitate clinical trial enrollment. The symposium featured breakout sessions, plenary sessions, and a poster session including 100 abstracts. Among the 358 attendees were clinical investigators, researchers of accrual strategies, research administrators, nurses, research coordinators, patient advocates, and educators. A bibliography of the accrual literature in these three major areas was provided to participants in advance of the meeting. After the symposium, the literature in these areas was revisited to determine if the symposium recommendations remained relevant within the context of the current literature. RESULTS Few rigorously conducted studies have tested interventions to address challenges to clinical trials accrual. Attendees developed recommendations for improving accrual and identified priority areas for future accrual research at the patient/community, physician/provider, and site/organizational levels. Current literature continues to support the symposium recommendations. CONCLUSIONS A combination of approaches addressing both the multifactorial nature of accrual challenges and the characteristics of the target population may be needed to improve accrual to cancer clinical trials. Recommendations for best practices and for future research developed from the symposium are provided.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Symptom Management Research Sponsored by the National Cancer Institute

For almost 30 years, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has sponsored health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures in cancer research as a means of including the patients experience. The scope of NCIs research in symptom management and HRQOL is described with attention to its evolution over time and the next steps, through the Clinical Trials Working Group Recommendations.

Racial/ethnic differences in clinical trial enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and reasons for decline among patients at sites in the National Cancer Institute's Community Cancer Centers Program

This study examined racial/ethnic differences among patients in clinical trial (CT) enrollment, refusal rates, ineligibility, and desire to participate in research within the National Cancer Institutes Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) Clinical Trial Screening and Accrual Log.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the interventions benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.