Ethan Basch

Abiraterone in Metastatic Prostate Cancer without Previous Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND Abiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy. METHODS In this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS The study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P<0.001). Over a median follow-up period of 22.2 months, overall survival was improved with abiraterone-prednisone (median not reached, vs. 27.2 months for prednisone alone; hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.93; P=0.01) but did not cross the efficacy boundary. Abiraterone-prednisone showed superiority over prednisone alone with respect to time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy, opiate use for cancer-related pain, prostate-specific antigen progression, and decline in performance status. Grade 3 or 4 mineralocorticoid-related adverse events and abnormalities on liver-function testing were more common with abiraterone-prednisone. CONCLUSIONS Abiraterone improved radiographic progression-free survival, showed a trend toward improved overall survival, and significantly delayed clinical decline and initiation of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. (Funded by Janssen Research and Development, formerly Cougar Biotechnology; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00887198.).

American Society of Clinical Oncology Provisional Clinical Opinion: The Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care

PURPOSE An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCOs membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing data from major studies. This PCO addresses the integration of palliative care services into standard oncology practice at the time a person is diagnosed with metastatic or advanced cancer. CLINICAL CONTEXT Palliative care is frequently misconstrued as synonymous with end-of-life care. Palliative care is focused on the relief of suffering, in all of its dimensions, throughout the course of a patients illness. Although the use of hospice and other palliative care services at the end of life has increased, many patients are enrolled in hospice less than 3 weeks before their death, which limits the benefit they may gain from these services. By potentially improving quality of life (QOL), cost of care, and even survival in patients with metastatic cancer, palliative care has increasing relevance for the care of patients with cancer. Until recently, data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrating the benefits of palliative care in patients with metastatic cancer who are also receiving standard oncology care have not been available. RECENT DATA Seven published RCTs form the basis of this PCO. PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION Based on strong evidence from a phase III RCT, patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer should be offered concurrent palliative care and standard oncologic care at initial diagnosis. While a survival benefit from early involvement of palliative care has not yet been demonstrated in other oncology settings, substantial evidence demonstrates that palliative care-when combined with standard cancer care or as the main focus of care-leads to better patient and caregiver outcomes. These include improvement in symptoms, QOL, and patient satisfaction, with reduced caregiver burden. Earlier involvement of palliative care also leads to more appropriate referral to and use of hospice, and reduced use of futile intensive care. While evidence clarifying optimal delivery of palliative care to improve patient outcomes is evolving, no trials to date have demonstrated harm to patients and caregivers, or excessive costs, from early involvement of palliative care. Therefore, it is the Panels expert consensus that combined standard oncology care and palliative care should be considered early in the course of illness for any patient with metastatic cancer and/or high symptom burden. Strategies to optimize concurrent palliative care and standard oncology care, with evaluation of its impact on important patient and caregiver outcomes (eg, QOL, survival, health care services utilization, and costs) and on society, should be an area of intense research. NOTE ASCOs provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision making and identify questions and settings for further research. Because of the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patients individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical trials and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical practice. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCOs PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. METHODS We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. RESULTS Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. CONCLUSION Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.

Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: results of a questionnaire-based study

BACKGROUND The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) are used as standard practice in trials of cancer treatments by clinicians to elicit and report toxic effects. Alternatively, patients could report this information directly as patient-reported outcomes, but the accuracy of these reports compared with clinician reports remains unclear. We aimed to compare the reporting of symptom severity reported by patients and clinicians. METHODS Between March and May, 2005, a questionnaire with 11 common CTCAE symptoms was given to consecutive outpatients and their clinicians (physicians and nurses) in lung and genitourinary cancer clinics in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Patients completed a version that used language adapted from the CTCAE for patient self-reporting. The results from the questionnaire were compared with clinician reporting of the same symptoms. FINDINGS Of 435 patients and their clinicians asked to take part in the study, 400 paired surveys were completed. For most symptoms, agreement between patient and clinician was high, and most discrepancies were within a grade difference of one point. Agreement was higher for symptoms that could be observable directly, such as vomiting and diarrhoea, than for more subjective symptoms, such as fatigue and dyspnoea. Differences in symptom reporting rarely would have changed treatment decisions or dosing, and patients assigned greater severity to symptoms more than did clinicians. No significant differences were recorded between the results when the questionnaire was completed by the patient before or after the clinician. INTERPRETATION Patient reporting of symptoms could add to the current approach to symptom monitoring in cancer treatment trials. Future research should assess the effect of self reporting on clinical outcomes and efficiency, and the use of real-time collection of patient-reported outcomes for early detection of potentially serious adverse events.

Adverse Symptom Event Reporting by Patients vs Clinicians: Relationships With Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND In cancer treatment trials, the standard source of adverse symptom data is clinician reporting by use of items from the National Cancer Institutes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Patient self-reporting has been proposed as an additional data source, but the implications of such a shift are not understood. METHODS Patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and their clinicians independently reported six CTCAE symptoms and Karnofsky Performance Status longitudinally at sequential office visits. To compare how patients vs clinicians reports relate to sentinel clinical events, a time-dependent Cox regression model was used to measure associations between reaching particular CTCAE grade severity thresholds with the risk of death and emergency room visits. To measure concordance of CTCAE reports with indices of daily health status, Kendall tau rank correlation coefficients were calculated for each symptom with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores. Statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS A total of 163 patients were enrolled for an average of 12 months (range = 1-28 months), with a mean of 11 visits and 67 (41%) deaths. CTCAE reports were submitted by clinicians at 95% of visits and by patients at 80% of visits. Patients generally reported symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians. Statistically significant associations with death and emergency room admissions were seen for clinician reports of fatigue (P < .001), nausea (P = .01), constipation (P = .038), and Karnofsky Performance Status (P < .001) but not for patient reports of these items. Higher concordance with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores was observed for patient-reported symptoms than for clinician-reported symptoms. CONCLUSIONS Longitudinally collected clinician CTCAE assessments better predict unfavorable clinical events, whereas patient reports better reflect daily health status. These perspectives are complementary, each providing clinically meaningful information. Inclusion of both types of data in treatment trial results and drug labels appears to be warranted.

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.

Integration of Palliative Care Into Standard Oncology Care: American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Update

Purpose To provide evidence-based recommendations to oncology clinicians, patients, family and friend caregivers, and palliative care specialists to update the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology care for all patients diagnosed with cancer. Methods ASCO convened an Expert Panel of members of the ASCO Ad Hoc Palliative Care Expert Panel to develop an update. The 2012 PCO was based on a review of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) by the National Cancer Institute Physicians Data Query and additional trials. The panel conducted an updated systematic review seeking randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, as well as secondary analyses of RCTs in the 2012 PCO, published from March 2010 to January 2016. Results The guideline update reflects changes in evidence since the previous guideline. Nine RCTs, one quasiexperimental trial, and five secondary analyses from RCTs in the 2012 PCO on providing palliative care services to patients with cancer and/or their caregivers, including family caregivers, were found to inform the update. Recommendations Inpatients and outpatients with advanced cancer should receive dedicated palliative care services, early in the disease course, concurrent with active treatment. Referral of patients to interdisciplinary palliative care teams is optimal, and services may complement existing programs. Providers may refer family and friend caregivers of patients with early or advanced cancer to palliative care services.

The PCORI Perspective on Patient-Centered Outcomes Research

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established as part of the US Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 to fund patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research, extending the concept of patient-centeredness from health care delivery to health care research. In the United States, patient-centered outcomes research is new and not defined in the legislation, and the rationale is unclear to many. In this Viewpoint, we address 2 related questions: What does patientcenteredness in research mean? Why conduct patientcentered outcomes research? The essence of the PCORI definition of patientcentered outcomes research is the evaluation of questions and outcomes meaningful and important to patients and caregivers. The definition rests on the axiom that patients have unique perspectives that can change and improve the pursuit of clinical questions. Relevant to both the definition and rationale is the hypothesis that including the perspectives of end users of the research, which include patients, physicians, and other health care stakeholders, will enhance the relevance of research to actual health decisions these end users face. In turn, increased relevance is hypothesized to improve uptake of the evidence and improve the likelihood that patients will achieve the health outcomes they desire. Although this proposed causal chain is readily understood in relation to questions of direct interest to pa

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.

Effect of abiraterone acetate and prednisone compared with placebo and prednisone on pain control and skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: exploratory analysis of data from the COU-AA-301 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate potently disrupts intracrine androgen receptor signalling pathways implicated in the progression of the disease, including bone metastases. We assessed data for pain control and skeletal-related events prospectively collected as part of the randomised, phase 3 COU-AA-301 trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS The COU-AA-301 trial enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom one or two lines of chemotherapy (one docetaxel based) had been unsuccessful and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 2 or less. Pain intensity and interference of pain with daily activities were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire at baseline, day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of each treatment cycle thereafter until discontinuation. We assessed, with prospectively defined response criteria that incorporated analgesic use, clinically meaningful changes in pain intensity and interference with daily living. We measured time to first occurrence of skeletal-related events, which we defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation to bone, or bone surgery, and regularly assessed them throughout the study. Pain palliation was assessed in patients who had clinically significant baseline pain, whereas all other analyses were done in the overall intention-to-treat population. COU-AA-301 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638690. FINDINGS Median follow-up was 20·2 months (IQR 18·4-22·1). In patients with clinically significant pain at baseline, abiraterone acetate and prednisone resulted in significantly more palliation (157 of 349 [45·0%] patients vs 47 of 163 [28·8%]; p=0·0005) and faster palliation (median time to palliation 5·6 months [95% CI 3·7-9·2] vs 13·7 months [5·4-not estimable]; p=0·0018) of pain intensity than did prednisone only. Palliation of pain interference (134 of 223 [60·1%] vs 38 of 100 [38·0%], p=0·0002; median time to palliation of pain interference 1·0 months [95% CI 0·9-1·9] vs 3·7 months [2·7-not estimable], p=0·0004) and median duration of palliation of pain intensity (4·2 months [95% CI 3·0-4·9] vs 2·1 months [1·4-3·7]; p=0·0056) were significantly better with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only. In the overall population, median time to occurrence of first skeletal-related event was significantly longer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only (25·0 months [95% CI 25·0-not estimable] vs 20·3 months [16·9-not estimable]; p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and prednisone offer significant benefits compared with prednisone alone in terms of pain relief, delayed pain progression, and prevention of skeletal-related events. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development and Janssen Global Services.