Elizabeth S. Frank

Recommendations for Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research in Adult Oncology

Examining the patients subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.

Use of adjuvant bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents in breast cancer: A Cancer Care Ontario and American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline

Purpose To make recommendations regarding the use of bisphosphonates and other bone-modifying agents as adjuvant therapy for patients with breast cancer. Methods Cancer Care Ontario and ASCO convened a Working Group and Expert Panel to develop evidence-based recommendations informed by a systematic review of the literature. Results Adjuvant bisphosphonates were found to reduce bone recurrence and improve survival in postmenopausal patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer. In this guideline, postmenopausal includes patients with natural menopause or that induced by ovarian suppression or ablation. Absolute benefit is greater in patients who are at higher risk of recurrence, and almost all trials were conducted in patients who also received systemic therapy. Most studies evaluated zoledronic acid or clodronate, and data are extremely limited for other bisphosphonates. While denosumab was found to reduce fractures, long-term survival data are still required. Recommendations It is recommended that, if available, zoledronic acid (4 mg intravenously every 6 months) or clodronate (1,600 mg/d orally) be considered as adjuvant therapy for postmenopausal patients with breast cancer who are deemed candidates for adjuvant systemic therapy. Further research comparing different bone-modifying agents, doses, dosing intervals, and durations is required. Risk factors for osteonecrosis of the jaw and renal impairment should be assessed, and any pending dental or oral health problems should be dealt with prior to starting treatment. Data for adjuvant denosumab look promising but are currently insufficient to make any recommendation. Use of these agents to reduce fragility fractures in patients with low bone mineral density is beyond the scope of the guideline. Recommendations are not meant to restrict such use of bone-modifying agents in these situations. Additional information at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-adjuvant-bisphosphonates-guideline , www.asco.org/guidelineswiki , https://www.cancercareontario.ca/guidelines-advice/types-of-cancer/breast .

Recommendations for Obesity Clinical Trials in Cancer Survivors: American Society of Clinical Oncology Statement

Observational evidence has established a relationship between obesity and cancer risk and outcomes. Interventional studies have demonstrated the feasibility and benefits of lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis, and guidelines recommend weight management and regular physical activity in cancer survivors; however, lifestyle interventions are not a routine part of cancer care. The ASCO Research Summit on Advancing Obesity Clinical Trials in Cancer Survivors sought to identify the knowledge gaps that clinical trials addressing energy balance factors in cancer survivors have not answered and to develop a roadmap for the design and implementation of studies with the potential to generate data that could lead to the evidence-based incorporation of weight management and physical activity programs into standard oncology practice. Recommendations highlight the need for large-scale trials evaluating the impact of energy balance interventions on cancer outcomes, as well as the concurrent conduct of studies focused on dissemination and implementation of interventions in diverse populations of cancer survivors, including answering critical questions about the degree of benefit in key subgroups of survivors. Other considerations include the importance of incorporating economic metrics into energy balance intervention trials, the need to establish intermediate biomarkers, and the importance of integrating traditional and nontraditional funding sources. Establishing lifestyle change after cancer diagnosis as a routine part of cancer care will require a multipronged effort to overcome barriers related to study development, funding, and stakeholder engagement. Given the prevalence of obesity and inactivity in cancer survivors in the United States and elsewhere, energy balance interventions hold the potential to reduce cancer morbidity and mortality in millions of patients, and it is essential that we move forward in determining their role in cancer care with the same care and precision used to test pharmacologic and other interventions.

Randomized phase III trial evaluating the role of weight loss in adjuvant treatment of overweight and obese women with early breast cancer (Alliance A011401): study design

Excess body weight is a poor prognostic factor in women with early breast cancer, but the effect of weight loss on the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality in women who are overweight or obese at the time of breast cancer diagnosis has not been evaluated. The Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial, also known as A011401, is testing the impact of a telephone-based weight loss program on invasive disease-free survival in 3136 women with a body mass index ≥27 kg/m2 who have recently been diagnosed with stage II-III, HER-2 negative breast cancer. Secondary outcomes of the trial include the impact of the weight loss intervention on overall survival, body weight, physical activity, dietary intakes, incidence of comorbidities, serum biomarkers and patient reported outcomes. Participants are randomized 1:1 to a 2-year, telephone-based weight loss intervention or to an education control group. The intervention is delivered through 42 telephone calls, delivered by health coaches based at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Calls are supplemented by an intervention workbook, as well as a number of tools to help facilitate weight loss. Intervention goals include loss of 10% of baseline body weight, achieved through caloric restriction and increased physical activity. This large-scale study testing the impact of purposeful weight loss after cancer diagnosis on the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality has the potential to make weight loss programs a standard part of breast cancer treatment.

Role of bone-modifying agents in metastatic breast cancer: An American Society of Clinical oncology-cancer Care Ontario focused guideline update

Purpose To update, in collaboration with Cancer Care Ontario (CCO), key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline on the role of bone-modifying agents (BMAs) in metastatic breast cancer. This focused update addressed the new data on intervals between dosing and the role of BMAs in control of bone pain. Methods A joint ASCO-CCO Update Committee conducted targeted systematic literature reviews to identify relevant studies. Results The Update Committee reviewed three phase III noninferiority trials of dosing intervals, one systematic review and meta-analysis of studies of de-escalation of BMAs, and two randomized trials of BMAs in control of pain secondary to bone metastases. Recommendations Patients with breast cancer who have evidence of bone metastases should be treated with BMAs. Options include denosumab, 120 mg subcutaneously, every 4 weeks; pamidronate, 90 mg intravenously, every 3 to 4 weeks; or zoledronic acid, 4 mg intravenously every 12 weeks or every 3 to 4 weeks. The analgesic effects of BMAs are modest, and they should not be used alone for bone pain. The Update Committee recommends that the current standard of care for supportive care and pain management-analgesia, adjunct therapies, radiotherapy, surgery, systemic anticancer therapy, and referral to supportive care and pain management-be applied. Evidence is insufficient to support the use of one BMA over another. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines and www.asco.org/guidelineswiki .

Responsibilities of Data Monitoring Committees Consensus Recommendations

Background: A data monitoring committee (DMC) has special responsibilities for protecting the safety of clinical trial participants. Few guidance documents are available that address the operations and mechanics of establishing, serving on, or reporting to a DMC. This article provides a practical guide to sponsors, institutions, and individuals responsible for, or serving on, a DMC. Methods: A workgroup of professionals from academia and not-for-profit and commercial organizations that included investigators, statisticians, patient advocates, and ethicists met to define the essential elements of planning, coordinating, and populating a DMC. All members of the group have formed, served on, advised, or worked with DMCs. Results: The group outlined the objectives and mechanics of running a DMC, including operational and practical considerations, membership characteristics, roles, members’ liability, and indemnification. Further, it delineated the roles and responsibilities of each DMC member. Conclusions: The group recommended practices for each phase of the DMC process from inception through execution of a clinical trial, with appropriate considerations for confidentiality. The group’s practical guidance should assist in comprehensive oversight of appropriate clinical trials and should help DMC members execute their obligations with greater assurance.

A stakeholder-driven approach to improve the informed consent process for palliative chemotherapy

OBJECTIVE Patients often anticipate cure from palliative chemotherapy. Better resources are needed to convey its risks and benefits. We describe the stakeholder-driven development and acceptability testing of a prototype video and companion booklet supporting informed consent (IC) for a common palliative chemotherapy regimen. METHODS Our multidisciplinary team (researchers, advocates, clinicians) employed a multistep process of content development, production, critical evaluation, and iterative revisions. Patient/clinician stakeholders were engaged throughout using stakeholder advisory panels, featuring their voices within the intervention, conducting surveys and qualitative interviews. A national panel of 57 patient advocates, and 25 oncologists from nine US practices critiqued the intervention and rated its clarity, accuracy, balance, tone, and utility. Participants also reported satisfaction with existing chemotherapy IC materials. RESULTS Few oncologists (5/25, 20%) or advocates (10/22, 45%) were satisfied with existing IC materials. In contrast, most rated our intervention highly, with 89-96% agreeing it would be useful and promote informed decisions. Patient voices were considered a key strength. Every oncologist indicated they would use the intervention regularly. CONCLUSION Our intervention was acceptable to advocates and oncologists. A randomized trial is evaluating its impact on the chemotherapy IC process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Stakeholder-driven methods can be valuable for developing patient educational interventions.

Association of Regional Intensity of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ Treatment With Likelihood of Breast Preservation

Importance Large regional variation exists in the use of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Although patients who do not receive initial radiotherapy for DCIS are candidates for subsequent BCS if they experience a second breast event, many undergo mastectomy instead. Objective To examine whether regional practice patterns of radiotherapy for DCIS affect the use of mastectomy in these patients. Design, Setting, and Participants A retrospective analysis of population-based databases (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results [SEER] and SEER-Medicare). Data were obtained for 2679 women in SEER with a diagnosis of DCIS between 1990 and 2011 and for 757 women in SEER-Medicare with a DCIS diagnosis between 1991 and 2009 who had not undergone radiotherapy for DCIS and experienced a subsequent breast cancer or DCIS diagnosis. Exposures Treatment intensity for primary DCIS (high, medium, low), as defined by separating health service areas (HSAs) into 3 clusters based on radiotherapy use. Main Outcomes and Measures Mastectomy vs BCS at a second breast event defined as DCIS recurrence or new invasive cancer. Results The median (SD) ages of the participants was 64 (13) years for the 2679 SEER population and 79 (6) years for the SEER-Medicare cohort. Residence in an HSA characterized by greater radiotherapy use for DCIS increased the likelihood of receiving mastectomy vs BCS at a subsequent breast event, even among women who had not previously received radiotherapy for DCIS. Adjusted odds ratios for receiving mastectomy were 1.43 (95% CI, 1.10-1.85) and 1.90 (95% CI, 1.27-2.84) in SEER and SEER-Medicare databases, respectively, among women residing in an HSA with the greatest radiotherapy use vs the least, corresponding to an adjusted increase from 40.8% to 49.6%, and from 38.6% to 54.5%. Conclusions and Relevance Areas with more radiotherapy use for DCIS had increased use of mastectomy at the time of a second breast event even among patients eligible for breast conservation. This association suggests that physician-related factors are affecting the likelihood of breast preservation.

Estrogen-receptor status and risk of contralateral breast cancer following DCIS

PurposeAs local therapies improve, contralateral breast cancer (CBC) risk for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may exceed the risk of a second ipsilateral breast cancer. We sought to determine whether estrogen-receptor (ER) status influenced CBC risk.MethodsWe identified women aged 40–79 with DCIS diagnosed between 1990 and 2002 using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. We used multivariable competing risk regression to examine predictors of time from index DCIS to CBC (invasive or in situ).ResultsMultivariable competing risk regression found ER status to be a highly significant predictor of CBC. The 10-year cumulative incidence was estimated to be 5.3% (95% CI 4.8–5.8%) among ER positive (ER+) cases and 3.3% (95% CI 2.6–4.0%) among ER negative (ER−).ConclusionsThis finding suggests that ER+ DCIS may represent a field effect that confers increased propensity for developing cancer across breast tissue, regardless of laterality. In contrast, ER− DCIS may represent an isolated local event. Given that the majority of DCIS is ER+, and only a minority of DCIS patients receive hormonal therapy, consideration of ER status may influence treatment and surveillance approaches.

Inhibition of MEK and ATR is effective in a B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia model driven by Mll-Af4 and activated Ras

Infant B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemias (B-ALLs) that harbor MLL-AF4 rearrangements are associated with a poor prognosis. One important obstacle to progress for this patient population is the lack of immunocompetent models that faithfully recapitulate the short latency and aggressiveness of this disease. Recent whole-genome sequencing of MLL-AF4 B-ALL samples revealed a high frequency of activating RAS mutations; however, single-agent targeting of downstream effectors of the RAS pathway in these mutated MLL-r B-ALLs has demonstrated limited and nondurable antileukemic effects. Here, we demonstrate that the expression of activating mutant N-Ras G12D cooperates with Mll-Af4 to generate a highly aggressive serially transplantable B-ALL in mice. We used our novel mouse model to test the sensitivity of Mll-Af4/N-Ras G12D leukemia to small molecule inhibitors and found potent and synergistic preclinical efficacy of dual targeting of the Mek and Atr pathways in mouse- and patient-derived xenografts with both mutations in vivo, suggesting this combination as an attractive therapeutic opportunity that might be used to treat patients with these mutations. Our studies indicate that this mouse model of Mll-Af4/N-Ras B-ALL is a powerful tool to explore the molecular and genetic pathogenesis of this disease subtype, as well as a preclinical discovery platform for novel therapeutic strategies.