Patient-Reported Financial Burden of Treatment for Colon or Rectal Cancer.

Importance: The longitudinal experience of patients is critical to the development of interventions to identify and reduce financial hardship. Objective: To evaluate financial hardship over 12 months in patients with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC) undergoing curative-intent therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, longitudinal cohort study was conducted between May 2018 and July 2020, with time points over 12 months. Participants included patients at National Cance Institute Community Oncology Research Program sites. Eligibility criteria included age at least 18 years, newly diagnosed stage I to III CRC, not started chemotherapy and/or radiation, treated with curative intent, and able to speak English. Data were analyzed from December 2022 through April 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was financial hardship, measured using the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST), which assesses the psychological domain of financial hardship (range, 0-44; higher score indicates better financial well-being). Participants completed 30-minute surveys (online or paper) at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: A total of 450 participants (mean [SD] age, 61.0 [12.0] years; 240 [53.3%] male) completed the baseline survey; 33 participants (7.3%) were Black and 379 participants (84.2%) were White, and 14 participants (3.1%) identified as Hispanic or Latino and 424 participants (94.2%) identified as neither Hispanic nor Latino. There were 192 participants (42.7%) with an annual household income of $60 000 or greater. There was an improvement in financial hardship from diagnosis to 12 months of 0.3 (95% CI, 0.2 to 0.3) points per month (P < .001). Patients with better quality of life and greater self-efficacy had less financial toxicity. Each 1-unit increase in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (rapid version) score was associated with an increase of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9) points in COST score (P < .001); each 1-unit increase in self-efficacy associated with an increase of 0.6 (95% CI, 0.2 to 1.0) points in COST score (P = .006). Patients who lived in areas with lower neighborhood socioeconomic status had greater financial toxicity. Neighborhood deprivation index was associated with a decrease of 0.3 (95% CI, -0.5 to -0.1) points in COST score (P = .009). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that interventions for financial toxicity in cancer care should focus on counseling to improve self-efficacy and mitigate financial worry and screening for these interventions should include patients at higher risk of financial burden.

Randomized Phase III Study of Enzalutamide Compared With Enzalutamide Plus Abiraterone for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer (Alliance A031201 Trial).

PURPOSE: Enzalutamide and abiraterone both target androgen receptor signaling but via different mechanisms. The mechanism of action of one drug may counteract the resistance pathways of the other. We sought to determine whether the addition of abiraterone acetate and prednisone (AAP) to enzalutamide prolongs overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Men with untreated mCRPC were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive first-line enzalutamide with or without AAP. The primary end point was OS. Toxicity, prostate-specific antigen declines, pharmacokinetics, and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS) were also examined. Data were analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach. The Kaplan-Meier estimate and the stratified log-rank statistic were used to compare OS between treatments. RESULTS: In total, 1,311 patients were randomly assigned: 657 to enzalutamide and 654 to enzalutamide plus AAP. OS was not statistically different between the two arms (median, 32.7 [95% CI, 30.5 to 35.4] months for enzalutamide v 34.2 [95% CI, 31.4 to 37.3] months for enzalutamide and AAP; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; one-sided P = .03; boundary nominal significance level = .02). rPFS was longer in the combination arm (median rPFS, 21.3 [95% CI, 19.4 to 22.9] months for enzalutamide v 24.3 [95% CI, 22.3 to 26.7] months for enzalutamide and AAP; HR, 0.86; two-sided P = .02). However, pharmacokinetic clearance of abiraterone was 2.2- to 2.9-fold higher when administered with enzalutamide, compared with clearance values for abiraterone alone. CONCLUSION: The addition of AAP to enzalutamide for first-line treatment of mCRPC was not associated with a statistically significant benefit in OS. Drug-drug interactions between the two agents resulting in increased abiraterone clearance may partly account for this result, although these interactions did not prevent the combination regimen from having more nonhematologic toxicity.

Phase IB/II Randomized Study of FOLFIRINOX Plus Pegylated Recombinant Human Hyaluronidase Versus FOLFIRINOX Alone in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: SWOG S1313.

PURPOSE: Pegylated recombinant human hyaluronidase (PEGPH20) degrades hyaluronan (HA) and, in combination with chemotherapy, prolongs survival in preclinical models. The activity of PEGPH20 with modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) was evaluated in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had untreated mPC, a performance status of 0 to 1, and adequate organ function. Tumor HA status was not required for eligibility. After a phase Ib dose-finding study of mFOLFIRINOX plus PEGPH20, the phase II open-label study randomly assigned patients (1:1) to the combination arm or to mFOLFIRINOX alone (n = 138). The primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: PEGPH20 dosages of 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks were more tolerable than twice-weekly dosages used in the phase I study, so 3 µg/kg every 2 weeks was the phase II dosage. An amendment instituted enoxaparin prophylaxis in the PEGPH20 combination arm as a result of increased thromboembolic (TE) events. The planned interim futility analysis when 35 deaths (of 103 analyzable patients) occurred resulted in an OS hazard ratio (HR) of 2.07 that favored the control arm, and the study was closed to accrual. The treatment-related grade 3 to 4 toxicity was significantly increased in the PEGPH20 combination arm relative to control (odds ratio, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.1). The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX arm was 14.4 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 15.7 months) versus 7.7 months (95% CI, 4.6 to 9.3 months) in the PEGPH20 combination arm. CONCLUSION: Addition of PEGPH20 to mFOLFIRINOX seems to be detrimental in patients unselected for tumor HA status. This combination caused increased toxicity (mostly GI and TE events) and resulted in decreased treatment duration compared with mFOLFIRINOX alone. The median OS in the mFOLFIRINOX control arm (14.4 months) is, to our knowledge, the longest yet reported and can be considered for patients with good PS.

Pazopanib plus cetuximab in recurrent or metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: an open-label, phase 1b and expansion study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is a hallmark of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), and a mechanism of resistance to EGFR inhibition. We investigated the safety and potential activity of pazopanib, an angiogenesis inhibitor, plus cetuximab, an EGFR inhibitor, in patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. METHODS: We did an open-label, single-centre, dose-escalation phase 1b trial using a standard 3 + 3 design, followed by an expansion cohort phase. Eligible participants were patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed recurrent or metastatic HNSCC, aged at least 18 years, had measurable disease as per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. During dose escalation, pazopanib oral suspension was administered daily in 8-week cycles at doses of 200 mg/day, 400 mg/day, 600 mg/day, or 800 mg/day, with cetuximab given intravenously once per week (400 mg/m2 first dose and 250 mg/m2 in consecutive cycles). The primary endpoint was to determine the maximum tolerated dose or recommended phase 2 dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab. Analyses were done per protocol. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01716416, and it is ongoing but closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2013, and April 4, 2017, we enrolled 22 patients into the phase 1b, dose-escalation phase of the trial. A maximum tolerated dose of pazopanib in combination with cetuximab was not reached. Single dose-limiting toxic events (all grade 3) during dose escalation occurred with pazopanib 400 mg/day (neutropenia with infection), 600 mg/day (proteinuria), and 800 mg/day (fatigue). The established recommended phase 2 dose for the combination was 800 mg/day of pazopanib during cycles of 8 weeks each, plus cetuximab 400 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1, then cetuximab 250 mg/m2 weekly. A further nine patients were enrolled into the expansion cohort and treated with the established recommended phase 2 dose. The most common (grade 3-4) adverse events for all patients were hypertension (ten [32%] of 31), lymphocyte count decrease (seven [23%]), and dysphagia (seven [23%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. 11 (35%; 95% CI 19·2-54·6) of 31 patients achieved an overall response, as assessed by the investigator; two (6%) had a complete response and nine (29%) a partial response. Tumour responses were also observed in six (55%) of 11 patients with platinum-naive and cetuximab-naive disease, three (25%) of 12 patients with cetuximab-resistant disease, and five (28%) of 18 patients with platinum-resistant disease. INTERPRETATION: Pazopanib oral suspension at a dose of 800 mg/day was feasible to administer in combination with standard weekly cetuximab for patients with recurrent or metastatic HNSCC. Encouraging preliminary antitumour activity was observed with this combination therapy and warrants further validation in randomised trials. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis.

Cisplatin versus cetuximab given concurrently with definitive radiation therapy for locally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Whether or not cisplatin and cetuximab are similarly effective in improving outcomes when added to radiation therapy (RT) in squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck is unknown. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of patients treated with definitive RT and cisplatin (n = 18) or cetuximab (n = 29). RESULTS: T and N classifications, stage, human papillomavirus status and smoking history were balanced in the two groups; however, patients in the cisplatin group were younger and had a better performance status. Delivery of RT was similar between the two groups. Median follow-up was 23 (4-64) months. Disease-specific survival (DSS) at 3 years was 83% in the cisplatin group and 31% in the cetuximab group. Recurrent disease was more common in the cetuximab group compared with the cisplatin group (17 vs. 4 patients). Propensity score analysis to adjust for differences in patient characteristics which influenced treatment selection showed that DSS was indeed longer with cisplatin than with cetuximab (DSS hazard ratio 0.15, confidence interval 0.033, 0.66; p = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: DSS was superior in the patients given cisplatin with definitive RT compared to cetuximab with definitive RT due to a lower risk of recurrent disease in the cisplatin group. These observations could not be explained by differences between the two groups in the patient and tumor characteristics or in treatment delivery.

A phase 2 trial of induction nab-paclitaxel and cetuximab given with cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil followed by concurrent cisplatin and radiation for locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck.

BACKGROUND: Complete response (CR) at the primary tumor site as assessed by clinical examination following induction chemotherapy with PF (cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil [5-FU]) is a favorable predictive factor for overall survival and disease control in patients with locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck. In most series, the rate of CR at the primary site after induction PF was 20% to 30%. This study evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of induction nab-paclitaxel and cetuximab given with PF (ACPF) followed by definitive chemoradiation (CRT) in a phase 2 trial. METHODS: Patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck were treated with ACPF (nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m(2) /week; cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) /week; cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1; 5-FU 750 mg/m(2) /day on days 1 through 3) every 21 days for 3 cycles followed by CRT (cisplatin 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiation therapy [RT]). CR at the primary tumor site after 2 cycles of ACPF was the primary endpoint. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, of which 22 (73%) had large (T3/T4) primary tumors. The CR rate at the primary tumor site after 2 cycles of ACPF was 53% and the overall response rate was 100%. Twenty-nine (96%) patients completed 3 cycles of ACPF, 26 (90%) completed definitive RT per protocol, and 22 of the 27 evaluable patients (81%) received > 2 of the 3 planned doses of cisplatin with RT. The estimated 2-year overall and progression-free survival rates were 84% and 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Induction ACPF resulted in a high CR rate (53%) at the primary tumor site even in large tumors and did not adversely affect delivery of definitive CRT. Further investigation of ACPF is warranted.

Primary plasma cell leukemia: a Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database analysis between 1973 and 2004.

BACKGROUND: Primary plasma cell leukemia (PCL) is a rare plasma cell disorder, and current knowledge regarding survival in this disease is limited to small series of patients. Although there has been significant improvement in the survival of patients with multiple myeloma (MM) over the past few decades, it is not known whether there has been a similar trend for PCL. METHODS: The authors analyzed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database to evaluate the characteristics and survival of patients who had PCL compared with those of patients who had MM. RESULTS: Among 291 patients with PCL, the median age was 67 years (range, 19-98 years), the distribution of men and women was nearly equal, and the majority of patients were white (79.4%). The median overall survival (OS) was 4 months and the median disease-specific survival (DSS) was 6 months for patients with PCL; the 1-year, 2-year, and 5-year OS rates were 27.8%, 14.1%, and 6.4%, respectively. There were no survival differences noted according to sex or race. Patients aged<60 years were found to have a better median OS compared with patients aged>or=60 years (median OS, 7 months vs 3 months; P=.007), although the 5-year OS was equally poor in both groups (6.3% vs 6.4%, respectively). During the same period, 49,106 patients with MM were identified. Unlike MM, in which there has been a modest but statistically significant improvement in OS and DSS noted over time, no significant improvement was evident for PCL. CONCLUSIONS: The poor long-term outcome and the lack of survival improvement in PCL suggest the need for better therapeutic options for these patients.