Wireless Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) for Chronic Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN): A Proof-of-Concept Randomized Clinical Trial.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) affects approximately 30 to 60% of people who receive neurotoxic chemotherapy. CIPN is associated with impaired quality of life and function and has few effective treatments. This 6-site, subject and assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial (RCT) was designed to assess 1) preliminary efficacy (ie, alpha pre-specified at .2) of a wearable, app-controlled, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) device for chronic CIPN and 2) feasibility of conducting a confirmatory trial within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) (NCT04367480). The primary outcome was the EORTC-CIPN20. The main secondary outcomes were individual symptoms assessed daily (via 0-10 numeric rating scales). The primary analysis was an analysis of covariance (outcome: EORTC-CIPN20, fixed effect: arm, covariates: baseline EORTC-CIPN20 and site). Secondary analyses used a similar analysis of covariance models (excluding site) for each symptom on subgroups of subjects with ≥4 out of 10 for that symptom at baseline. 142 eligible subjects were randomized and received a device; 130 (91%) completed the study. The difference between groups in the EORCT-CIPN20 at the endpoint (placebo-active) was 1.05 (95% Confidence Interval: -.56, 2.67; P = .199). The difference between groups for the individual symptoms was as follows: hot/burning pain: 1.37 (-.33, 3.08; P = .112), sharp/shooting pain: 1.21 (-.37, 2.79; P = .128), cramping: 1.35 (-.32, 3.02; P = .110), tingling: .23 (-.61, 1.08; P = .587), numbness: .27 (-.51, 1.05; P = .492). An RCT of an app-controlled TENS device for chronic CIPN with excellent retention is feasible in the NCORP. Preliminary efficacy evidence suggests that TENS is promising for pain and cramping from CIPN. A confirmatory RCT of TENS for painful CIPN is highly warranted. PERSPECTIVE: Daily, home-based TENS therapy demonstrates promising efficacy for painful CIPN symptoms in this proof-of-concept randomized clinical trial. Future confirmatory trial is warranted.

Complete Response to Dual Immunotherapy in a Young Adult with Metastatic Alveolar Soft Part Sarcoma Enabled by a Drug Recovery Program in a Community Practice.

Alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) is an extremely rare tumor that frequently occurs in adolescent and young adults (AYA). Survival is poor for patients with metastatic and/or relapsed disease not amenable to local control, and limited therapeutic options are available. A major barrier to cancer care in the United States AYA population is lack of access to coordinated care and appropriate therapies for those who lack insurance or who are underinsured. We report a 25-year-old unemployed, uninsured, single mother who presented with a 12.8 × 21 cm soft tissue thigh mass with heterogeneous avidity, max standardized uptake value of 9, with metastatic disease to the ipsilateral inguinal lymph nodes and to the bilateral lungs. After local control of the primary mass was obtained, a recently developed, comprehensive drug replacement program (DRP) was used to gain access to nivolumab, and after frank progression was noted, ipilimumab was added every 6 weeks. No biomarkers associated with response to immunotherapy were identified. After four cycles, a complete response was observed and patient remains disease free 36 months after beginning dual immunotherapy treatment. We obtained immunotherapy agents through a DRP and describe the development and the utility of this program in the community setting. Our report highlights both first documented sustained complete response to sequenced immunotherapy in an AYA with ASPS as well as a comprehensive DRP, which enabled access to therapy for our patient.

Daily Lisinopril vs Placebo for Prevention of Chemoradiation-Induced Pulmonary Distress in Patients With Lung Cancer (Alliance MC1221): A Pilot Double-Blind Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation (CRT) is an integral treatment modality for patients with locally advanced lung cancer. It has been hypothesized that current use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor during CRT may be protective for treatment-related lung damage and pneumonitis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Study-eligible patients receiving curative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) were randomly assigned to 20 mg of lisinopril or placebo once daily during and up to 3 months after RT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was adverse event profiling. Multiple patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, including the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Questionnaire, were applied with a symptom experience questionnaire. Exploratory comparative statistics were used to detect differences between arms with χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis testing. RESULTS: Five institutions enrolled 23 patients. However, accrual was less than expected. Eleven and 12 patients were in the placebo and lisinopril arms, respectively (mean age, 63.5 years; male, 62%). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Eighteen patients (86%) were former or current smokers. The primary endpoint was met; neither arm had grade 3 or higher hypotension, acute kidney injury, allergic reaction (medication-induced cough), or anaphylaxis (medication-related angioedema). Few PRO measures suggested that compared with the placebo arm, patients receiving lisinopril had less cough, less shortness of breath, fewer symptoms from lung cancer, less dyspnea with both walking and climbing stairs, and better overall quality of life (for all, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although underpowered because of low accrual, our results suggest that there was a clinical signal for safety-and possibly beneficial by limited PRO measures-in concurrently administering lisinopril during thoracic CRT to mitigate or prevent RT-induced pulmonary distress. Our results showed that a definitive, larger-scale, randomized phase 3 trial is needed in the future.

Recruiting colorectal cancer survivors to a surveillance study: Barriers and successful strategies.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survival rates are increasing. Effective strategies to recruit CRC survivors to surveillance studies are needed. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the barriers encountered while recruiting CRC survivors to a study assessing their surveillance care experiences. METHODS: The study included three phases: (I) focus groups/key informant interviews; (II) cognitive interviews; and (III) a statewide population-based telephone survey. PARTICIPANTS: In Phases I-II, clinic-based data and cancer center registries were used to identify CRC survivors who had received CRC resection within the past 18 months. In Phase III, survivors who had received CRC resection within the past two years were identified via a statewide, population-based cancer registry. RESULTS: In Phase I, 16 survivors participated in focus groups at two National Cancer Center-affiliated sites (response rate=29.6%). Eighteen additional survivors participated in individual interviews (response rate=50%). In Phase II, 11 survivors participated in cognitive interviews (response rate=81.8%). In Phase III, 150 survivors participated in the statewide survey (response rate=62.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Group-based/in-person recruitment efforts were unsuccessful due to scheduling barriers, lack of transportation, and remaining discomfort from previous resection surgery. Telephone-based data collection strategies produced higher response rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To enhance CRC surveillance research, future studies could incorporate CRC survivor-centered recruitment strategies.

N08C9 (Alliance): A Phase 3 Randomized Study of Sulfasalazine Versus Placebo in the Prevention of Acute Diarrhea in Patients Receiving Pelvic Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: To provide confirmatory evidence on the use of sulfasalazine to reduce enteritis during pelvic radiation therapy (RT), following 2 prior single-institution trials suggestive that benefit existed. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A multi-institution, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was designed to assess the efficacy of sulfasalazine versus placebo in the treatment of RT-related enteritis during RT including the posterior pelvis (45.0-53.5 Gy) and conducted through a multicenter national cooperative research alliance. Patients received 1000 mg of sulfasalazine or placebo orally twice daily during and for 4 weeks after RT. The primary endpoint was maximum severity of diarrhea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0). Toxicity and bowel function were assessed by providers through a self-administered bowel function questionnaire taken weekly during RT and for 6 weeks afterward. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled in the trial between April 29, 2011, and May 13, 2013, with evenly distributed baseline factors. At the time of a planned interim toxicity analysis, more patients with grade ≥3 diarrhea received sulfasalazine than received placebo (29% vs 11%, P=.04). A futility analysis showed that trial continuation would be unlikely to yield a positive result, and a research board recommended halting study treatment. Final analysis of the primary endpoint showed no significant difference in maximum diarrhea severity between the sulfasalazine and placebo arms (P=.41). CONCLUSIONS: Sulfasalazine does not reduce enteritis during pelvic RT and may be associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. This trial illustrates the importance of confirmatory phase 3 trials in the evaluation of symptom-control agents.

Repeated measures analyses of dermatitis symptom evolution in breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy in a phase 3 randomized trial of mometasone furoate vs placebo (N06C4 [alliance]).

PURPOSE: Radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicities over time have not been well quantified. We examined during and immediately following radiation therapy skin toxicities over time in a randomized study of mometasone furoate vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with breast cancer undergoing radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomized. Symptoms related to skin toxicity were addressed weekly using provider-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v3.0) and 4 patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys. We applied repeated measures and risk analysis methodologies. RESULTS: One hundred seventy-six patients were enrolled. By CTCAE, significant differences favoring mometasone were detected over time in all toxicities except skin striae, atrophy, and infection. Statistically significant differences between arms at baseline but not over time occurred for all Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Statistically significant differences occurred for all symptoms in the temporal profile of symptoms as measured by PRO surveys (all P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of longitudinal methods enhanced the ability of PRO tools to detect differences between study arms. Our results strengthened the conclusions of the original report that mometasone reduced acute skin toxicities. PRO surveys can accurately assess patients' experiences of symptom type and intensity over time and should be included in future clinical trials. For radiotherapy-related dermatological toxicity, we hypothesized that clinically significant differences over time, if any, can be found by repeated measures. We examined the acute skin toxicities in a randomized study of mometasone vs placebo during breast radiotherapy. For secondary end points, we showed that longitudinal methods enhanced the detection of differences between study arms and strengthened the conclusions from the original report. Frequent patient-reported outcome surveys over time should be included in future clinical trials.

Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. METHODS: Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. RESULTS: 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = -0.04 [-0.16-0.22]; tablet vs paper = -0.02 [-0.11-0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [-0.07-0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. CONCLUSIONS: Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637.

Race and Prevalence of Large Bowel Polyps Among the Low-Income and Uninsured in South Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Compared to whites, blacks have higher colorectal cancer incidence and mortality rates and are at greater risk for early-onset disease. The reasons for this racial disparity are poorly understood, but one contributing factor could be differences in access to high-quality screening and medical care. AIMS: The present study was carried out to assess whether a racial difference in prevalence of large bowel polyps persists within a poor and uninsured population (n = 233, 124 blacks, 91 whites, 18 other) undergoing screening colonoscopy. METHODS: Eligible patients were uninsured, asymptomatic, had no personal history of colorectal neoplasia, and were between the ages 45-64 years (blacks) or 50-64 years (whites, other). We examined the prevalence of any adenoma (conventional, serrated) and then difference in adenoma/polyp type by race and age categories. RESULTS: Prevalence for ≥1 adenoma was 37 % (95 % CI 31-43 %) for all races combined and 36 % in blacks <50 years, 38 % in blacks ≥50 years, and 35 % in whites. When stratified by race, blacks had a higher prevalence of large conventional proximal neoplasia (8 %) compared to whites (2 %) (p value = 0.06) but a lower prevalence of any serrated-like (blacks 18 %, whites 32 %; p value = 0.02) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (blacks 2 %, whites 8 % Chi-square p value; p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Within this uninsured population, the overall prevalence of adenomas was high and nearly equal by race, but the racial differences observed between serrated and conventional polyp types emphasize the importance of taking polyp type into account in future research on this topic.

ReCAP: Impact of Multidisciplinary Care on Processes of Cancer Care: A Multi-Institutional Study.

PURPOSE: The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP). METHODS: The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non­small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool­with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)­to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt. RESULTS: A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer. CONCLUSION: MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas.

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Age-related cataract in men in the selenium and vitamin e cancer prevention trial eye endpoints study: a randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Observational studies suggest a role for dietary nutrients such as vitamin E and selenium in cataract prevention. However, the results of randomized clinical trials of vitamin E supplements and cataract have been disappointing and are not yet available for selenium. OBJECTIVE: To test whether long-term supplementation with selenium and vitamin E affects the incidence of cataract in a large cohort of men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT) Eye Endpoints Study was an ancillary study of the Southwest Oncology Group-coordinated SELECT, a randomized placebo-controlled 4-arm trial of selenium and vitamin E conducted among 35,533 men, 50 years and older for African American participants and 55 years and older for all other men, at 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico. A total of 11,267 SELECT participants from 128 SELECT sites participated in the SELECT Eye Endpoints ancillary study. INTERVENTIONS: Individual supplements of selenium (200 µg per day from L-selenomethionine) and vitamin E (400 IU per day of all rac-α-tocopheryl acetate). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident cataract was defined as a lens opacity, age related in origin, and responsible for a reduction in best-corrected visual acuity to 20/30 or worse based on self-reports confirmed by medical record review. Cataract extraction was defined as the surgical removal of an incident cataract. RESULTS: During a mean (SD) of 5.6 (1.2) years of treatment and follow-up, 389 cases of cataract were documented. There were 185 cataracts in the selenium group and 204 in the no selenium group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95 % CI, 0.75-1.11; P = .37). For vitamin E, there were 197 cases in the treated group and 192 in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95 % CI, 0.84-1.25; P = .81). Similar results were observed for cataract extraction. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: These data from a large cohort of apparently healthy men indicate that long-term daily supplementation with selenium and/or vitamin E is unlikely to have a large beneficial effect on age-related cataract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00784225.

A phase I/II study of bortezomib in combination with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and concurrent thoracic radiation therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer: North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG)-N0321.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the advances in radiation techniques and chemotherapy, survival with current platinum-based chemotherapy and concomitant thoracic radiation remains dismal. Bortezomib, a proteasome inhibitor, modulates apoptosis and cell cycle through disruption of protein degradation. The combination of bortezomib and carboplatin/paclitaxel and concurrent radiation in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer was evaluated in this phase I/II study. METHODS: Patients with histologic or cytologic confirmed stage III nonmetastatic non-small-cell lung cancer who were candidates for radiation therapy were eligible. In the phase I portion, patients received escalating doses of bortezomib, paclitaxel, and carboplatin concomitantly with thoracic radiation (60 Gy/30 daily fractions) using a modified 3 + 3 design. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion was the 12-month survival rate (12MS). A one-stage design with an interim analysis yielded 81% power to detect a true 12MS of 75%, with a 0.09 level of significance if the true 12MS was 60% using a sample size of 60 patients. Secondary endpoints consisted of adverse events (AEs), overall survival, progression-free survival, and the confirmed response rate. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients enrolled during the phase I portion of the trial, of which four cancelled before receiving treatment, leaving 27 evaluable patients. Of these 27 patients, two dose-limiting toxicities were observed, one (grade 3 pneumonitis) at dose level 1 (bortezomib at 0.5 mg/m, paclitaxel at 150 mg/m, and carboplatin at area under the curve of 5) and one (grade 4 neutropenia lasting ≥8 days) at dose level 6 (bortezomib 1.2 mg/m, paclitaxel 175 mg/m, and carboplatin at area under the curve of 6). During the phase I portion, the most common grade 3 of 4 AEs were leukopenia (44%), neutropenia (37%), dyspnea (22%), and dysphagia (11%). Dose level 6 was declared to be the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) and the phase II portion of the study opened. After the first 26 evaluable patients were enrolled to the RP2D, a per protocol interim analysis occurred. Of these 26 patients, 23 (88%) survived at least 6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 70-98%), which was enough to continue to full accrual per study design. However, due to slow accrual, the study was stopped after 27 evaluable patients were enrolled (6-phase I RP2D; 21-phase II). Of these 27 patients, the 12MS was 73% (95% CI, 58-92%), the median overall survival was 25.0 months (95% CI, 15.6-35.8), and the median progression-free survival was 8.4 months (95% CI, 4.1-10.5). The confirmed response rate was 26% (seven of 27; 95% CI, 11-46%), consisting of four partial responses and three complete responses. Grade 3+ and grade 4+ AEs occurred in 82% and 56% of patients, respectively. One patient experienced grade 5 pneumonitis that was possibly related to the treatment. Grade 3 and 4 hematological toxicities were observed in 82% and 56% patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bortezomib to concurrent carboplatin/paclitaxel and radiation seemed to be feasible, although associated with increased hematological toxicities. A favorable median overall survival of 25 months suggests a potential benefit for this regimen.

Doxepin rinse versus placebo in the treatment of acute oral mucositis pain in patients receiving head and neck radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy: a phase III, randomized, double-blind trial (NCCTG-N09C6 [Alliance]).

PURPOSE: Painful oral mucositis (OM) is a significant toxicity during radiotherapy for head and neck cancers. The aim of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was to test the efficacy of doxepin hydrochloride in the reduction of radiotherapy-induced OM pain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 155 patients were randomly allocated to a doxepin oral rinse or a placebo for the treatment of radiotherapy-related OM pain. Patients received a single dose of doxepin or placebo on day 1 and then crossed over to receive the opposite agent on a subsequent day. Pain questionnaires were administered at baseline and at 5, 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Patients were then given the option to continue doxepin. The primary end point was pain reduction as measured by the area under the curve (AUC) of the pain scale using data from day 1. RESULTS: Primary end point analysis revealed that the AUC for mouth and throat pain reduction was greater for doxepin (-9.1) than for placebo (-4.7; P < .001). Crossover analysis of patients completing both phases confirmed that patients experienced greater mouth and throat pain reduction with doxepin (intrapatient changes of 4.1 for doxepin-placebo arm and -2.8 for placebo-doxepin arm; P < .001). Doxepin was associated with more stinging or burning, unpleasant taste, and greater drowsiness than the placebo rinse. More patients receiving doxepin expressed a desire to continue treatment than did patients with placebo after completion of each of the randomized phases of the study. CONCLUSION: A doxepin rinse diminishes OM pain. Further studies are warranted to determine its role in the management of OM.

An evaluation of a community-academic-clinical partnership to reduce prostate cancer disparities in the South.

Engaging partners in the planning, implementation, and evaluation of cancer education programs is critical for improving the health of our communities. A 2-year pilot education intervention on prostate cancer decision making and participation in medical research was funded by the National Cancer Institute. The partnership involving community members and clinical staff at a cancer center was used to develop recruitment strategies and plan for the implementation of the intervention with African-American middle-age and older men and female family members. We assessed partners' perceptions of this community-academic-clinical research collaboration. In year 2, eight project advisory council members were selected among existing partners and year 1 participants to serve as a formal committee. Council members were required to participate in telephone and in person meetings and actively support recruitment/implementation efforts. At the conclusion of the project, 20 individuals (all clinical and community partners, including the eight advisory council members) were invited to complete a survey to assess their perceived impact of the collaboration on the community and provide suggestions for future collaborations. Most partners agreed that their organization benefitted from the collaboration and that various aspects of the advisory council process (e.g., both formal and informal communication) worked well. The most noted accomplishment of the partnership related to leveraging the collaboration to make men more knowledgeable about prostate cancer decision making. Suggested improvements for future collaborations included distributing more frequent updates regarding project successes. Evaluating partners' perceptions of this collaboration provided important recommendations for future planning, implementation, and evaluation of community-based cancer education programs.

Developing partnerships and recruiting dyads for a prostate cancer informed decision making program: lessons learned from a community-academic-clinical team.

Prostate cancer (PrCA) is the most commonly diagnosed non-skin cancer among men. PrCA mortality in African-American (AA) men in South Carolina is ~50% higher than for AAs in the U.S as a whole. AA men also have low rates of participation in cancer research. This paper describes partnership development and recruitment efforts of a Community-Academic-Clinical research team for a PrCA education intervention with AA men and women that was designed to address the discordance between high rates of PrCA mortality and limited participation in cancer research. Guided by Vesey's framework on recruitment and retention of minority groups in research, recruitment strategies were selected and implemented following multiple brainstorming sessions with partners having established community relationships. Based on findings from these sessions culturally appropriate strategies are recommended for recruiting AA men and women for PrCA education research. Community-based research recruitment challenges and lessons learned are presented.

Mometasone furoate effect on acute skin toxicity in breast cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a phase III double-blind, randomized trial from the North Central Cancer Treatment Group N06C4.

PURPOSE: A two-arm, double-blind, randomized trial was performed to evaluate the effect of 0.1% mometasone furoate (MMF) on acute skin-related toxicity in patients undergoing breast or chest wall radiotherapy. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive breast carcinoma who were undergoing external beam radiotherapy to the breast or chest wall were randomly assigned to apply 0.1% MMF or placebo cream daily. The primary study endpoint was the provider-assessed maximal grade of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 3.0, radiation dermatitis. The secondary endpoints included provider-assessed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Grade 3 or greater radiation dermatitis and adverse event monitoring. The patient-reported outcome measures included the Skindex-16, the Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool, a Symptom Experience Diary, and a quality-of-life self-assessment. An assessment was performed at baseline, weekly during radiotherapy, and for 2 weeks after radiotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 176 patients were enrolled between September 21, 2007, and December 7, 2007. The provider-assessed primary endpoint showed no difference in the mean maximum grade of radiation dermatitis by treatment arm (1.2 for MMF vs. 1.3 for placebo; p = .18). Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicity was greater in the placebo group (p = .04), primarily from pruritus. For the patient-reported outcome measures, the maximum Skindex-16 score for the MMF group showed less itching (p = .008), less irritation (p = .01), less symptom persistence or recurrence (p = .02), and less annoyance with skin problems (p = .04). The group's maximal Skin Toxicity Assessment Tool score showed less burning sensation (p = .02) and less itching (p = .002). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving daily MMF during radiotherapy might experience reduced acute skin toxicity compared with patients receiving placebo.

Gabapentin for the management of hot flashes in prostate cancer survivors: a longitudinal continuation Study-NCCTG Trial N00CB.

Hot flashes are a complication of androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer. A phase III study showed that use of low-dose gabapentin was well tolerated and moderately decreased the frequency of hot flashes due to androgen deprivation therapy when taken for 4 weeks. The current study, an open-label continuation of the randomized study, examined the efficacy and toxicity of gabapentin when taken for (an additional) 8 weeks. Patients were allowed to start, or continue, gabapentin and to titrate the dose to maximum efficacy, up to 900 mg/d. They were asked to complete a hot flash diary daily and keep weekly logs of toxicity, satisfaction with hot flash control, and quality of life. The moderate reduction in hot flash frequency and severity in the randomized phase of the study appeared to be maintained during this continuation phase. Men originally receiving the placebo or lowest dose of gabapentin (300 mg/d) had improved hot flash control relative to that at the end of the randomized phase. Minimal adverse effects were reported. These findings suggest that low-dose gabapentin is moderately efficacious for at least 12 weeks of hot flash treatment in men undergoing androgen deprivation therapy for prostate cancer and seems to be well tolerated. (NCT00028572)

Brain metastases from melanoma: is there a role for concurrent temozolomide in addition to whole brain radiation therapy?

OBJECTIVES: This study was performed to evaluate the addition of temozolomide (TMZ) to whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for brain metastases from melanoma. METHODS: Seven patients with brain metastases from melanoma were treated on a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) trial (N0274) of TMZ plus WBRT. TMZ was given orally in doses of 200 mg/m² for 5 days every 4 weeks for up to 8 cycles. WBRT was started on the first day of TMZ and included the delivery of 3750 cGy in 15 fractions. In addition, separately analyzed was a cohort of 53 patients treated at the Mayo Clinic who received WBRT alone (39 patients) or WBRT plus TMZ (14 patients). RESULTS: The median survival of the 7 patients treated on N0274 was 3.6 months with 2 of 7 (29%) failing in brain and 5 of 7 (71%) failing elsewhere. For the other cohort of 53 patients, the median survival was 3.8 months with WBRT alone compared 4.3 months for WBRT plus TMZ (P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Patients did not appear to benefit from the addition of TMZ to WBRT for the treatment of their brain metastases. Further improvements in outcome will require research to discover more effective systemic therapy and RT techniques.

Effect of selenium and vitamin E on risk of prostate cancer and other cancers: the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT).

CONTEXT: Secondary analyses of 2 randomized controlled trials and supportive epidemiologic and preclinical data indicated the potential of selenium and vitamin E for preventing prostate cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether selenium, vitamin E, or both could prevent prostate cancer and other diseases with little or no toxicity in relatively healthy men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial (Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial [SELECT]) of 35,533 men from 427 participating sites in the United States, Canada, and Puerto Rico randomly assigned to 4 groups (selenium, vitamin E, selenium + vitamin E, and placebo) in a double-blind fashion between August 22, 2001, and June 24, 2004. Baseline eligibility included age 50 years or older (African American men) or 55 years or older (all other men), a serum prostate-specific antigen level of 4 ng/mL or less, and a digital rectal examination not suspicious for prostate cancer. INTERVENTIONS: Oral selenium (200 microg/d from L-selenomethionine) and matched vitamin E placebo, vitamin E (400 IU/d of all rac-alpha-tocopheryl acetate) and matched selenium placebo, selenium + vitamin E, or placebo + placebo for a planned follow-up of minimum of 7 years and a maximum of 12 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prostate cancer and prespecified secondary outcomes, including lung, colorectal, and overall primary cancer. RESULTS: As of October 23, 2008, median overall follow-up was 5.46 years (range, 4.17-7.33 years). Hazard ratios (99% confidence intervals [CIs]) for prostate cancer were 1.13 (99% CI, 0.95-1.35; n = 473) for vitamin E, 1.04 (99% CI, 0.87-1.24; n = 432) for selenium, and 1.05 (99% CI, 0.88-1.25; n = 437) for selenium + vitamin E vs 1.00 (n = 416) for placebo. There were no significant differences (all P>.15) in any other prespecified cancer end points. There were statistically nonsignificant increased risks of prostate cancer in the vitamin E group (P = .06) and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the selenium group (relative risk, 1.07; 99% CI, 0.94-1.22; P = .16) but not in the selenium + vitamin E group. CONCLUSION: Selenium or vitamin E, alone or in combination at the doses and formulations used, did not prevent prostate cancer in this population of relatively healthy men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00006392.

Phase III randomized placebo-controlled trial of two doses of megestrol acetate as treatment for menopausal symptoms in women with breast cancer: Southwest Oncology Group Study 9626.

PURPOSE: Prior progestin studies treating hot flashes in women have been short duration and single dose. This study tests the progestin megestrol acetate (MA) at two doses versus placebo over 6 months. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with T1-3, N0-1, M0 breast cancer were eligible after completion of surgery and chemotherapy and at least 4 months of tamoxifen (if prescribed). Women were required to have at least 10 hot flashes of any severity or at least five severe episodes per week. Patients were randomly assigned to placebo, MA 20 mg, or MA 40 mg for 3 months. Success at 3 months was defined as completion of treatment with a >or= 75% reduction in hot flashes from baseline. If success was achieved, drug treatment for another 3 months was given on the same blinded arm; if not, open-label MA 20 mg was added to blinded study drug and continued for 3 months. Other menopausal symptoms were also assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty eight eligible women were randomly assigned (286 eligible), of whom 85% were on tamoxifen, 40% had over 63 hot flashes/week, and 75% had vasomotor symptoms for >or= 6 months. Success at 3 months was 14% on placebo, 65% on 20 mg, and 48% on 40 mg (both MA doses superior to placebo; P < .0001). Most successes at 3 months were maintained at 6 months (77% on 20 mg and 81% on 40 mg). CONCLUSION: MA significantly reduced vasomotor symptoms with durable benefit over 6 months. MA 20 mg/d is the preferred dose. There was no significant impact on other menopausal symptoms.