Rates of and Factors Associated With Patient Withdrawal of Consent in Cancer Clinical Trials.

Importance: Patient withdrawal of consent from a cancer clinical trial is defined as a patient's volitional cessation of participation in all matters related to a trial. It can undermine the trial's purpose, make the original sample size and power calculations irrelevant, introduce bias between trial arms, and prolong the time to trial completion. Objective: To report rates of and baseline factors associated with withdrawal of consent among patients in cancer clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite observational cohort study was conducted through the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology. Patient withdrawal was defined as a patient's voluntary termination of consent to participate anytime during trial conduct. Baseline patient- and trial-based factors were investigated for their associations with patient withdrawal within the first 2 years using logistic regression models. All patients who participated in cancer therapeutic clinical trials conducted within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology from 2013 through 2019 were included. The data lock date was January 23, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The percentage of patients who withdrew consent in 2 years and factors associated with withdrawal of consent. Results: A total of 11 993 patients (median age, 62 years; 67% female) from 58 trials were included. Within 2 years, 1060 patients (9%) withdrew from their respective trials. Two-year rates of withdrawal were 5.7%, 7.6%, 8.5%, 7.8%, 8.4%, 9.5%, and 9.8% for each of the respective years from 2013 through 2019. In multivariable analyses, Hispanic ethnicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.67; 95% CI, 1.30-2.15; P < .001), randomized design with placebo (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.38-1.94; P < .001), and patient age 75 years and older (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.12-1.72; P = .003) were associated with higher likelihood of withdrawal by 2 years. Use of radiation was associated with patient retention (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.86; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, rates of withdrawal of consent were less than 10% and appeared consistent over time. Factors that are associated with withdrawal of consent should be considered when designing trials and should be further studied to learn how they can be favorably modified.

Successes and lessons learned in database development for national multi-site cancer care delivery research trials: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology experience.

INTRODUCTION: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) coordinated trials utilize Medidata Rave® (Rave) as the primary clinical data capture system. A growing number of innovative and complex cancer care delivery research (CCDR) trials are being conducted within the Alliance with the aims of studying and improving cancer-related care. Because these trials encompass patients, providers, practices, and their interactions, a defining characteristic of CCDR trials is multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings. Consequently, CCDR trials necessitated innovative strategies for database development, centralized data management, and data monitoring in the presence of these real-world multilevel relationships. Having real trial experience in working with community and academic centers, and having recently implemented five CCDR trials in Rave, we are committed to sharing our strategies and lessons learned in implementing such pragmatic trials in oncology. METHODS: Five Alliance CCDR trials are used to describe our approach to analyzing the database development needs and the novel strategies applied to overcome the unanticipated challenges we encountered. The strategies applied are organized into 3 categories: multilevel (clinic, clinic stakeholder, patient) enrollment, multilevel quantitative and qualitative data capture, including nontraditional data capture mechanisms being applied, and multilevel data monitoring. RESULTS: A notable lesson learned in each category was (1) to seek long-term solutions when developing the functionality to push patient and non-patient enrollments to their respective Rave study database that affords flexibility if new participant types are later added; (2) to be open to different data collection modalities, particularly if such modalities remove barriers to participation, recognizing that additional resources are needed to develop the infrastructure to exchange data between that modality and Rave; and (3) to facilitate multilevel data monitoring, orient site coordinators to the their trial's multiple study databases, each corresponding to a level in the hierarchy, and remind them to establish the link between patient and non-patient participants in the site-facing NCI web-based enrollment system. CONCLUSION: Although the challenges due to multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings were surmountable, our shared experience can inform and foster collaborations to collectively build on our past successes and improve on our past failures to address the gaps.

Rates of Guideline-Concordant Surgery and Adjuvant Chemotherapy Among Patients With Early-Stage Lung Cancer in the US ALCHEMIST Study (Alliance A151216).

Importance: Standard treatment for resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) includes anatomic resection with adequate lymph node dissection and adjuvant chemotherapy for appropriate patients. Historically, many patients with early-stage NSCLC have not received such treatment, which may affect the interpretation of the results of adjuvant therapy trials. Objective: To ascertain patterns of guideline-concordant treatment among patients enrolled in a US-wide screening protocol for adjuvant treatment trials for resected NSCLC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 2833 patients with stage IB to IIIA NSCLC (per American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition criteria) who enrolled in the Adjuvant Lung Cancer Enrichment Marker Identification and Sequencing Trial (ALCHEMIST) screening study (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A151216) from August 18, 2014, to April 1, 2019, and who did not enroll in a therapeutic adjuvant clinical trial; patients had tumors of at least 4 cm and/or with positive lymph nodes. Statistical analysis was conducted from June 1, 2020, through October 1, 2021. Exposures: Care patterns were ascertained overall and by sociodemographic and clinical factors, including age, sex, race and ethnicity, educational level, marital status, geography, histologic characteristics, stage, genomic variant status, smoking history, and comorbidities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Five outcomes are reported: whether patients (1) had anatomic surgical resection, (2) had adequate lymph node dissection (≥1 N1 nodal station plus ≥3 N2 nodal stations), (3) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, (4) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, and (5) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: Of the 2833 patients (1505 women [53%]; mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.2] years) included in this analysis, 2697 (95%) had anatomic surgical resection, 1513 (53%) had adequate lymph node dissection, 1617 (57%) received any adjuvant chemotherapy, 1237 (44%) received at least 4 cycles of adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy, and 965 (34%) received any cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Rates were similar across race and ethnicity. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that among participants in a screening protocol for adjuvant clinical trials for resected early-stage NSCLC, just 53% underwent adequate lymph node dissection, and 57% received adjuvant chemotherapy, despite indications for such treatment. These results may affect the interpretation of adjuvant trials. Efforts are needed to optimize the use of proven therapies for early-stage NSCLC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02194738.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cancer Clinical Trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had widespread impact on healthcare, resulting in modifications to how we perform cancer research, including clinical trials for cancer. The impact of some healthcare workers and study coordinators working remotely and patients minimizing visits to medical facilities impacted clinical trial participation. Clinical trial accrual dropped at the onset of the pandemic, with improvement over time. Adjustments were made to some trial protocols, allowing telephone or video-enabled consent. Certain study activities were permitted to be performed by local healthcare providers or at local laboratories to maximize patients' ability to continue on study during these challenging times. We discuss the impact of COVID-19 on cancer clinical trials and changes at the local, cooperative group, and national level.

Integration of immunotherapy into adjuvant therapy for resected non-small-cell lung cancer: ALCHEMIST chemo-IO (ACCIO).

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) causes significant mortality each year. After successful resection of disease stage IB (>4 cm) to IIIA (per AJCC 7), adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy improves median overall survival and is the standard of care, but many patients still experience recurrence of disease. An adjuvant regimen with greater efficacy could substantially improve outcomes. Pembrolizumab, a programmed cell death-1 inhibitor, has become an important option in the treatment of metastatic NSCLC. ALCHEMIST is a clinical trial platform of the National Cancer Institute that includes biomarker analysis for resected NSCLC and supports therapeutic trials including A081801 (ACCIO), a three-arm study that will evaluate both concurrent chemotherapy plus pembrolizumab and sequential chemotherapy followed by pembrolizumab to standard of care adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT04267848 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Long-Term Results of a Trial of Concurrent Chemotherapy and Escalating Doses of Radiation for Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: NCCTG N0028 (Alliance).

INTRODUCTION: This phase I/II trial was designed to determine the maximally tolerated dose of thoracic radiotherapy as part of a combined modality approach. This report includes the long-term outcomes of patients treated on this study. The phase II portion was never completed, as RTOG-0617 opened before it was concluded. METHODS: In this study, the maximally tolerated dose was defined as 74 Gy of radiation in 37 fractions. Twenty-five patients with unresectable NSCLC were treated with 2-Gy daily fractions and concurrent weekly carboplatin and paclitaxel. Of these patients, 20 had stage III disease and five had stage I or II disease. RESULTS: Patients were followed until death or for a minimum of 5 years in the case of survivors. The median and 5-year survivals were 42.5 months and 20% for all patients, 52.9 months and 40% in patients with stages I or II disease, and 39.8 months and 15% in patients with stage III disease. CONCLUSIONS: The median survival of the stage III patients was quite favorable. We believe that this may have been due to a robust central review program of radiotherapy plans before treatment, ensuring compliance with protocol guidelines along with very low exposure of the heart to radiotherapy. Further improvements in 5-year survival will likely require research on both systemic therapy and thoracic radiotherapy. Potential therapeutic modalities that may aid in these efforts include immunotherapy, targeted therapy, improved imaging, adaptive radiotherapy, simultaneous integrated boost techniques, novel dose fractionation regimens, and charged particle therapy.

Analysis of longitudinal quality-of-life data in high-risk operable patients with lung cancer: results from the ACOSOG Z4032 (Alliance) multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies have suggested that low baseline quality-of-life (QOL) scores predict worse survival in patients undergoing lung cancer surgery. However, these studies involved average-risk patients undergoing lobectomy. We report QOL results from a multicenter trial, American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4032, which randomized high-risk operable patients to sublobar resection (SR), or SR with brachytherapy, and included longitudinal QOL assessments. METHODS: Global QOL, using the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF36), and the dyspnea score from the University of California, San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire (SOBQ) scale, was measured at baseline, 3, 12, and 24 months. SF36 physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores were standardized and adjusted for age and gender normals, with scores <50 indicating below-average health status. SOBQ scores were transformed to a 0-100 (poor-excellent) scale. Aims were to: (1) determine the impact of baseline scores on recurrence-free survival, overall survival, and 30-day adverse events (AEs); and (2) identify subgroups (surgical approach, resection type. tumor location, tumor size, respiratory function) with a ≥ 10-point decline or improvement in QOL after SR. RESULTS: Two hundred twelve eligible patients were included. There were no significant differences in baseline QOL scores between arms. Median baseline PCS, MCS, and SOBQ scores were 42.7, 51.1, and 70.8, respectively. There were no differences in grade-3+ AEs, overall survival, or recurrence-free survival in patients with baseline scores ≤ median versus > median values, except for a significantly worse overall survival for patients with baseline SOBQ scores ≤ median value. There were no significant differences between the study arms in percentage change of QOL scores from baseline to 3, 12, or 24 months. Further comparison combining the 2 arms demonstrated a higher percentage of patients with a ≥ 10-point decline in SOBQ scores with segmentectomy compared with wedge resection (40.5% vs 21.9%, P = .03) at 12 months, with thoracotomy versus video-assisted thoracic surgery (VATS) (38.8% vs 20.4%, P = .03) at 12 months, and T1b versus T1a tumors (46.9% vs 23.5%, P = .020) at 24 months. A ≥ 10-point improvement in PCS score was seen at 3 months with VATS versus thoracotomy (16.5% vs 3.6%, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk operable patients, poor baseline QOL scores were not predictive for worse overall or recurrence-free survival, or for higher risk for AEs following SR. VATS was associated with improvement in physical function at 3 months, and improved dyspnea scores at 12 months, lending support for the preferential use of VATS when SR is undertaken.

Impact of brachytherapy on local recurrence rates after sublobar resection: results from ACOSOG Z4032 (Alliance), a phase III randomized trial for high-risk operable non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: A major concern with sublobar resection (SR) for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is high local recurrence (LR). Adjuvant brachytherapy may reduce LR This multicenter randomized trial compares SR to SR with brachytherapy (SRB). PATIENTS AND METHODS: High-risk operable patients with NSCLC ≤ 3 cm were randomly assigned to SR or SRB. The primary end point was time to LR, where LR included recurrence at the staple line (local progression), in the primary tumor lobe away from the staple line, and in ipsilateral hilar nodes. The trial was designed to have a 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.315 in favor of SRB, using a one-sided type I error rate of 0.05 with a sample size of 100 eligible patients in each arm. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-four patients were randomly assigned; 222 patients were evaluable for intent-to-treat analysis. Median age was 71 years (range, 49 to 87 years). No differences were found in baseline characteristics. Median follow-up time was 4.38 years (range, 0.04 to 5.59 years). There was no difference in time to LR (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.98; log-rank P = .98) or in the types of LR. Local progression occurred in only 17 (7.7%) of 222 patients. In patients with potentially compromised margins (margin < 1 cm, margin-to-tumor ratio < 1, positive staple line cytology, wedge resection, nodule size > 2.0 cm), SRB did not reduce LR, although trends favored the SRB arm. This was most marked in 14 patients with positive staple line cytology (HR, 0.22; P = .24). Three-year overall survival rates were similar for patients in the SR (71%) and SRB (71%) arms (P = .97). CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy did not reduce LR after SR. This finding may have been related to closer attention to parenchymal margins by surgeons participating in this study.

Patient perceptions of stool DNA testing for pan-digestive cancer screening: a survey questionnaire.

AIM: To explore patient interest in a potential multi-organ stool-DNA test (MUST) for pan-digestive cancer screening. METHODS: A questionnaire was designed and mailed to 1200 randomly-selected patients from the Mayo Clinic registry. The 29-item survey questionnaire included items related to demographics, knowledge of digestive cancers, personal and family history of cancer, personal concern of cancer, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening behavior, interest in MUST, importance of test features in a cancer screening tool, and comparison of MUST with available CRC screening tests. All responses were summarized descriptively. χ(2) and Rank Sum Test were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Completed surveys were returned by 434 (29% aged 50-59, 37% 60-69, 34% 70-79, 52% women). Most participants (98%) responded they would use MUST. In order of importance, respondents rated multi-cancer detection, absence of bowel preparation, safety and noninvasiveness as most attractive characteristics. For CRC screening, MUST was preferred over colorectal-only stool-DNA testing (53%), occult blood testing (75%), colonoscopy (84%), sigmoidoscopy (91%), and barium enema (95%), P < 0.0001 for each. Among those not previously screened, most (96%) indicated they would use MUST if available. Respondents were confident in their ability to follow instructions to perform MUST (98%). Only 9% of respondents indicated that fear of finding cancer was a concern with MUST, and only 3% indicated unpleasantness of stool sampling as a potential barrier. CONCLUSION: Patients are receptive to the concept of MUST, preferred MUST over conventional CRC screening modalities and valued its potential feature of multi-cancer detection.

Impact of disease progression date determination on progression-free survival estimates in advanced lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced lung cancer, overall survival is largely influenced by progression status. Because progression-free survival (PFS)-based endpoints are controversial, the authors evaluated the impact of the progression date (PD) determination approach on PFS estimates. METHODS: Individual patient data from 21 trials (14 North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials and 7 Southwest Oncology Group trials) were used. The reported PD (RPD) was defined as either the radiographic scan date or the clinical deterioration date. PD was determined using Method 1 (M1), the RPD; M2, 1 day after the last progression-free scan; M3, midpoint between the last progression-free scan and the RPD; and M4, an interval-censoring approach. PFS was estimated using Kaplan-Meier (M1-M3), and maximum-likelihood (M4) methods. Simulation studies were performed to understand the impact of the length of time elapsed between the last progression-free scan and the PD on time-to-progression estimates. RESULTS: PFS estimates using the RPD were the highest, and M2 was the most conservative. M3 and M4 were similar because the majority of progressions occurred during treatment (ie, frequent disease assessments). M3 was influenced less by the length of the assessment schedules (percentage difference from the true time-to-progression, <1.5%) compared with M1 (11% to 30%) and M2 (-8% to -29%). The overall study conclusion was unaffected by the method used for randomized trials. CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of difference in the PFS estimates was large enough to alter trial conclusions in patients with advanced lung cancer. The results indicate that standards for PD determination, the use of sensitivity analyses, and randomized trials are critical when designing trials and reporting efficacy using PFS-based endpoints.

Comparison of continuous versus categorical tumor measurement-based metrics to predict overall survival in cancer treatment trials.

PURPOSE: The categorical definition of response assessed via the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors has documented limitations. We sought to identify alternative metrics for tumor response that improve prediction of overall survival. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Individual patient data from three North Central Cancer Treatment Group trials (N0026, n = 117; N9741, n = 1,109; and N9841, n = 332) were used. Continuous metrics of tumor size based on longitudinal tumor measurements were considered in addition to a trichotomized response [TriTR: response (complete or partial) vs. stable disease vs. progression). Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for treatment arm and baseline tumor burden, were used to assess the impact of the metrics on subsequent overall survival, using a landmark analysis approach at 12, 16, and 24 weeks postbaseline. Model discrimination was evaluated by the concordance (c) index. RESULTS: The overall best response rates for the three trials were 26%, 45%, and 25%, respectively. Although nearly all metrics were statistically significantly associated with overall survival at the different landmark time points, the concordance indices (c-index) for the traditional response metrics ranged from 0.59 to 0.65; for the continuous metrics from 0.60 to 0.66; and for the TriTR metrics from 0.64 to 0.69. The c-indices for TriTR at 12 weeks were comparable with those at 16 and 24 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous tumor measurement-based metrics provided no predictive improvement over traditional response-based metrics or TriTR; TriTR had better predictive ability than best TriTR or confirmed response. If confirmed, TriTR represents a promising endpoint for future phase II trials.

Thirty- and ninety-day outcomes after sublobar resection with and without brachytherapy for non-small cell lung cancer: results from a multicenter phase III study.

OBJECTIVE: Sublobar resection (SR) is commonly used for patients considered high risk for lobectomy. Nonoperative therapies are increasingly being reported for patients with similar risk because of perceived lower morbidity. We report 30- and 90-day adverse events (AEs) from American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4032, a multicenter phase III study for high-risk patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Data from 222 evaluable patients randomized to SR (n = 114) or SR with brachytherapy (n = 108) are reported. AEs were recorded using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, Version 3.0, at 30 and 90 days after surgery. Risk factors (age, percent baseline carbon monoxide diffusion in the lung [DLCO%], percent forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1%], upper lobe vs lower lobe resections, performance status, surgery approach, video-assisted thoracic surgery vs open and extent, and wedge vs segmentectomy) were analyzed using a multivariable logistic model for their impact on the incidence of grade 3 or higher (G3+) AEs. Respiratory AEs were also specifically analyzed. RESULTS: Median age, FEV1%, and DLCO% were similar in the 2 treatment groups. There was no difference in the location of resection (upper vs lower lobe) or the use of segmental or wedge resections. There were no differences between the groups with respect to "respiratory" G3+ AEs (30 days: 14.9% vs 19.4%, P = .35; 0-90 days: 19.3% vs 25%, P = .31) and "any" G3+ AEs (30 days: 25.4% vs 30.6%, P = .37; 0-90 days: 29.8% vs 37%, P = .25). Further analysis combined the 2 groups. Mortality occurred in 3 patients (1.4%) by 30 days and in 6 patients (2.7%) by 90 days. Four of the 6 deaths were thought to be due to surgery. When considered as continuous variables, FEV1% was associated with "any" G3+ AE at days 0 to 30 (P = .03; odds ratio [OR] = 0.98) and days 0 to 90 (P = .05; OR = 0.98), and DLCO% was associated with "respiratory" G3+ AE at days 0 to 30 (P = .03; OR = 0.97) and days 0 to 90 (P = .05; OR = 0.98). Segmental resection was associated with a higher incidence of any G3+ AE compared with wedge resection at days 0 to 30 (40.3% vs 22.7%; OR = 2.56; P < .01) and days 0 to 90 (41.5% vs 29.7%; OR = 1.96; P = .04). The median FEV1% was 50%, and the median DLCO% was 46%. By using these median values as potential cutpoints, only a DLCO% of less than 46% was significantly associated with an increased risk of "respiratory" and "any" G3+ AE for days 0 to 30 and 0 to 90. CONCLUSIONS: In a multicenter setting, SR with brachytherapy was not associated with increased morbidity compared with SR alone. SR/SR with brachytherapy can be performed safely in high-risk patients with non-small cell lung cancer with low 30- and 90-day mortality and acceptable morbidity. Segmental resection was associated with increased "any" G3+ AE, and DLCO% less than 46% was associated with "any" G3+ AE and "respiratory" G3+ AE at both 30 and 90 days.

The impact of adjuvant brachytherapy with sublobar resection on pulmonary function and dyspnea in high-risk patients with operable disease: preliminary results from the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Z4032 trial.

BACKGROUND: Z4032 was a randomized study conducted by the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group comparing sublobar resection alone versus sublobar resection with brachytherapy for high-risk operable patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This evaluates early impact of adjuvant brachytherapy on pulmonary function tests, dyspnea, and perioperative (30-day) respiratory complications in this impaired patient population. METHODS: Eligible patients with stage I NSCLC tumors 3 cm or smaller were randomly allocated to undergo sublobar resection with (SRB group) or without (SR group) brachytherapy. Outcomes measured included the percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1%), percentage predicted carbon monoxide diffusion capacity (DLCO%), and dyspnea score per the University of California San Diego Shortness of Breath Questionnaire. Pulmonary morbidity was assessed per the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Outcomes were measured at baseline and 3 months. A 10% change in pulmonary function test or 10-point change in dyspnea score was deemed clinically meaningful. RESULTS: Z4032 permanently closed to patient accrual in January 2010 at 224 patients. At 3-month follow-up, pulmonary function data are currently available for 148 (74 SR and 74 SRB) patients described in this report. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between arms. In the SR arm, 9 patients (12%) reported grade 3 respiratory adverse events, compared with 12 (16%) in the SRB arm (P = .49). There was no significant change in percentage change in DLCO% or dyspnea score from baseline to 3 months within either arm. In the case of FEV1%, percentage change from baseline to 3 months was significant within the SR arm (P = .03), with patients reporting improvement in FEV1% at month 3. Multivariable regression analysis (adjusted for baseline values) showed no significant impact of treatment arm, tumor location (upper vs other lobe), or surgical approach (video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery vs thoracotomy) on 3-month FEV1%, DLCO%, and dyspnea score. There was no significant difference in incidence of clinically meaningful (10% pulmonary function or 10-point dyspnea score change) change between arms. Twenty-two percent of patients with lower-lobe tumors and 9% with upper-lobe tumors demonstrated 10% decline in FEV1% (odds ratio, 2.79; 95 confidence interval, 1.07-7.25; P = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant intraoperative brachytherapy in conjunction with sublobar resection did not significantly worsen pulmonary function or dyspnea at 3 months in a high-risk population with NSCLC, nor was it associated with increased perioperative pulmonary adverse events. Lower-lobe resection was the only factor significantly associated with clinically meaningful decline in FEV1%.

Radiofrequency ablation of medically inoperable stage IA non-small cell lung cancer: are early posttreatment PET findings predictive of treatment outcome?

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate initial experience with (18)F-FDG PET/CT after pulmonary radiofrequency ablation of stage IA non-small cell lung cancer to determine whether treatment success or residual disease can be predicted with early postablation PET. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty patients with medically inoperable stage IA non-small cell lung cancer (12 men, 18 women; median age, 76 years; range, 60-87 years) underwent outpatient CT-guided radiofrequency ablation over a 33-month period. Mean tumor size was 2.0 cm (range, 1.3-2.9 cm). PET/CT was performed within 60 days before radiofrequency ablation (RFA), within 4 days after RFA, and 6 months after RFA. Metabolic response was categorized as complete response or partial or no response at early post-RFA PET/CT and complete response, partial response, or progressive metabolic disease at 6-month post-RFA PET/CT and was compared with the 1-year clinical event rate (death, disease progression at contrast-enhanced CT, or repeat ablation). RESULTS: Early PET/CT images, obtained within 4 days of RFA, were evaluable for 26 patients (23 at 6 months). Patients with a complete metabolic response at early PET/CT had a 1-year event rate of 43%, whereas those with partial or no response or disease progression had a 1-year event rate of 67% (p = 0.27). Patients with a complete metabolic response at 6-month PET/CT had a 1-year event rate of 0%. Those with a partial response and those with disease progression had an overall event rate of 75% (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Early post-RFA PET/CT is not necessary and 6-month post-RFA PET/CT findings correlate better with clinical outcome at 1 year.

Exploring therapeutic decisions in elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer: results and conclusions from North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0222.

How do oncologists choose therapy for the elderly? Oncologists assigned patients aged 65 years or older with incurable non-small cell lung cancer to: (a) carboplatin (AUC = 2) + paclitaxel 50 mg/m(2) days 1, 8, 15 (28-day cycle × 4) followed by gefitinib; or (b) gefitinib 250 mg/day. With (a), 12 of 34 were progression-free at 6 months; median time to cancer progression was 3.9 months. With (b), the same occurred in 11 of 28 patients with the latter being 4.9 months. The most common reason for conventional chemotherapy was oncologists' opinion that the cancer was aggressive, and for gefitinib alone, patients' reluctance to receive chemotherapy. Interestingly, age had no influence.

Evaluation of the value of attribution in the interpretation of adverse event data: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group investigation.

PURPOSE: In March 1998, Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) version 2.0 introduced the collection of attribution of adverse events (AEs) to study drug. We investigate whether attribution adds value to the interpretation of AE data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients in the placebo arm of two phase III trials-North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trial 97-24-51 (carboxyamino-triazole v placebo in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer) and American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z9001 (imatinib mesylate v placebo after resection of primary gastrointestinal stromal tumors)-were studied. Attribution was categorized as unrelated (not related or unlikely) and related (possible, probable, or definite). RESULTS: In total, 398 patients (84 from Trial 97-24-51 and 314 from Trial Z9001) and 7,736 AEs were included; 47% and 50% of the placebo-arm AEs, respectively, were reported as related. When the same AE was reported in the same patient on multiple visits, the attribution category changed at least once 36% and 31% of the time. AE type and sex (Trial Z9001) and AE type and performance status (Trial 97-24-51) were associated with a higher likelihood of AEs being deemed related. CONCLUSION: Nearly 50% of AEs were reported as attributed to study drug on the placebo arm of two randomized clinical trials. These data provide strong evidence that AE attribution is difficult to determine, unreliable, and of questionable value in interpreting AE data in randomized clinical trials.

A front-line window of opportunity phase 2 study of sorafenib in patients with advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N0326.

BACKGROUND: The current study was conducted to assess the efficacy and toxicity of sorafenib as front-line therapy in patients with stage IIIB (pleural effusion) or IV nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients received sorafenib 400 mg twice daily by mouth continuously, and were evaluated every 2 weeks during the first 8 weeks. Patients who manifested clinical progression during this period proceeded to receive standard of care. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective tumor response. A 2-stage Fleming design was used such that if at most 1 confirmed partial response (PR) or complete response was observed in the first 20 patients (stage 1), the treatment would be considered ineffective, and further enrollment would be discontinued. RESULTS: Only 1 PR was observed in the first 20 patients. By the time of study closure, 5 additional patients who were already being screened for study inclusion were enrolled. Of the 25 patients (15 women, 10 men; 4 stage IIIB, 21 stage IV; median age, 67 years [range, 45-85 years]), there were 3 (12%) PRs and 6 (24%) cases with stable disease observed. The median time-to-progression and progression-free survival was 2.8 months. Seven (28%) patients remained progression-free at 24 weeks. No grade 3 or higher hematologic adverse events were observed. Thirteen (52%) patients had a grade 3 nonhematologic adverse event, with fatigue (20%), diarrhea (8%), and dyspnea (8%) being the most common. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is not effective as front-line therapy in the general unselected NSCLC population. The window of opportunity design is feasible for estimating the activity of novel compounds.

Phase II trial of oral topotecan and intravenous carboplatin with G-CSF support in previously untreated patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer: A North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the response rate and toxicities of the combination of oral topotecan and carboplatin in patients with untreated extensive stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC). Previous studies have suggested improved outcomes with a topoisomerase I inhibitor in combination with a platinum agent. METHODS: Twenty-six patients with previously untreated, ES-SCLC were evaluable in this phase II trial. All patients received oral topotecan 2.0 mg/m per day on days 1 through 5 and carboplatin at an area under curve of 5 on day 5. Treatment was repeated every 21 days up to a total of 6 cycles. All patients received G-CSF. RESULTS: There were no complete responses and 16 partial responses, for an overall response rate of 62% (95% CI: 41-80). Median time to progression was 6.0 months (95% CI: 4-8), with a median overall survival of 12 months (95% CI: 8-16). This study was closed to accrual early with 26 of a planned 39 patients enrolled because of grade 5 adverse events in 4 (15%) patients (3 neutropenic infections, 1 sudden cardiac death). Eighty-five percent of patients experienced grade 3 or higher hematologic events. The most common severe nonhematologic events included diarrhea, vomiting, dyspnea, hypoxia, and hypotension. CONCLUSIONS: Although this drug regimen has activity as first-line therapy in ES-SCLC, it is associated with excessive hematologic toxicity, which occurred in spite of growth factor support. Despite promising survival estimates, this particular combination and dose level of oral topotecan and carboplatin cannot be recommended.

Endpoints in phase II trials for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the relationships between progression-free survival (PFS), response, confirmed response, and failure-free survival (FFS) with overall survival (OS) to assess their suitability as primary endpoints in phase II trials for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. METHODS: Individual data of 284 patients from four phase II trials were pooled. Progression status and response were modeled as time dependent variables in a multivariable (adjusted for baseline age, gender, stage, and performance status) Cox proportional hazards model for OS, stratified by trial. Subsequently, Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the impact of PFS, response, confirmed response, and FFS on subsequent survival, using landmark analysis at 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks. Model discrimination was evaluated using the concordance index (c-index). RESULTS: The overall median OS, PFS, and FFS were 9.6, 3.7, and 2.8 months, and the response and confirmed response rates were 21 and 15%, respectively. Both progression status and response as time dependent covariates were significantly associated with OS (p < 0.0001; p = 0.009). PFS and FFS at 12 weeks significantly predicted for subsequent survival with the strongest c-index and hazard ratio combination in landmark analyses (hazard ratio, c-index: PFS: 0.39, 0.67; FFS: 0.37, 0.67). The c-indices for response and confirmed response were low (0.59-0.60), indicating their inability to sufficiently discriminate subsequent patient survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: FFS or PFS at 12 weeks is a stronger predictor of subsequent patient survival compared with tumor response and should be routinely used as endpoints in phase II trials for advanced non-small cell lung cancer.