Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes. RESULTS: Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with cancer experience a high symptom burden, which is associated with poor health outcomes and increased health care utilization. However, studies investigating symptom monitoring interventions in this population are lacking. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a symptom monitoring intervention to improve symptom management in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with advanced cancer who were admitted to the inpatient oncology service to a symptom monitoring intervention or usual care. Patients in both arms self-reported their symptoms daily (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports presented graphically with alerts for moderate/severe symptoms during daily team rounds. The primary end point of the study was feasibility. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of participants hospitalized >2 days completed >2 symptom reports. We observed daily rounds to determine whether clinicians discussed and developed a plan to address patients' symptoms. We used regression models to assess intervention effects on patients' symptoms throughout their hospitalization, readmission risk, and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: Among 150 enrolled patients (81.1% enrollment), 94.2% completed >2 symptom reports. Clinicians discussed 60.4% of the symptom reports and developed a plan to address the symptoms highlighted by the symptom reports 20.8% of the time. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had a greater proportion of days with lower psychological distress (B = 0.12, P = 0.008), but no significant difference in the proportion of days with improved Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-physical symptoms (B = 0.07, P = 0.138). Intervention patients had lower readmission risk (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = 0.224), although this difference was not significant. We found no significant intervention effects on hospital LOS (B = 0.16, P = 0.862). CONCLUSIONS: This symptom monitoring intervention is feasible and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy for improving patients' symptoms and readmission risk.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02891993.

ROMANA 3: a phase 3 safety extension study of anamorelin in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with cachexia.

BACKGROUND: Cancer anorexia-cachexia is a debilitating condition frequently observed in NSCLC patients, characterized by decreased body weight, reduced food intake, and impaired quality of life. Anamorelin, a novel selective ghrelin receptor agonist, has anabolic and appetite-enhancing activities. PATIENTS AND METHODS: ROMANA 3 was a safety extension study of two phase 3, double-blind studies that assessed safety and efficacy of anamorelin in advanced NSCLC patients with cachexia. Patients with preserved Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2 after completing 12 weeks (w) on the ROMANA 1 or ROMANA 2 trials (0-12 weeks) could enroll in ROMANA 3 and continue to receive anamorelin 100 mg or placebo once daily for an additional 12w (12-24 weeks). The primary endpoint of ROMANA 3 was anamorelin safety/tolerability (12-24 weeks). Secondary endpoints included changes in body weight, handgrip strength (HGS), and symptom burden (0-24 weeks). RESULTS: Of the 703 patients who completed ROMANA 1 and ROMANA 2, 513 patients entered ROMANA 3 (anamorelin, N = 345, mean age 62.0 years; placebo, N = 168; mean age 62.2 years). During ROMANA 3, anamorelin and placebo groups had similar incidences of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs; 52.2% versus 55.7%), grade ≥3 TEAEs (22.4% versus 21.6%), and serious TEAEs (12.8% versus 12.6%). There were 36 (10.5%) and 23 (13.8%) deaths in the anamorelin and placebo groups, respectively; none were drug-related. Improvements in body weight and anorexia-cachexia symptoms observed in the original trials were consistently maintained over 12-24 weeks. Anamorelin, versus placebo, significantly increased body weight from baseline of original trials at all time points (P < 0.0001) and improved anorexia-cachexia symptoms at weeks 3, 6, 9, 12, and 16 (P < 0.05). No significant improvement in HGS was seen in either group. CONCLUSION: During the 12-24 weeks ROMANA 3 trial, anamorelin continued to be well tolerated. Over the entire 0-24w treatment period, body weight and symptom burden were improved with anamorelin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ROMANA 1 (NCT01387269), ROMANA 2 (NCT01387282), and ROMANA 3 (NCT01395914).

Factors associated with depression and anxiety symptoms in family caregivers of patients with incurable cancer.

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers (FCs) are critically important for patients with cancer, yet they may experience psychological distress related to caregiving demands. We sought to describe rates of depression and anxiety in FCs of patients with incurable cancer and identify factors associated with these symptoms to determine those at greatest risk for psychological distress. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from a randomized trial of early palliative care. We assessed depression and anxiety using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale in patients within 8 weeks of diagnosis of incurable lung or gastrointestinal cancer and their FCs. We also assessed patients' quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General), coping strategies (Brief COPE), and their report of the primary goal of their cancer treatment. We used linear regression with purposeful selection of covariates to identify factors associated with FC depression and anxiety symptoms. RESULTS: We enrolled 78.6% (n = 275) of potentially eligible FCs. The majority were female (69.1%) and married to the patient (66.2%). While the proportion of FCs and patients reporting depression did not differ (16.4% versus 21.5%, P = 0.13), FCs were more likely to report anxiety compared with patients (42.2% versus 28.4%, P < 0.001). Patients' use of acceptance coping was associated with lower FC depression (B = -0.42, P < 0.001), while emotional support coping was associated with higher FC depression (B = 0.69, P = 0.001) and lower FC anxiety (B = -0.70, P < 0.001). Patient report that their primary goal of their treatment was to 'cure my cancer' was associated with higher FC depression (B = 0.72, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with incurable cancer and their FCs report high levels of depression and anxiety symptoms. We demonstrated that patients' coping strategies and prognostic understanding were associated with FC depression and anxiety symptoms, underscoring the importance of targeting these risk factors when seeking to address the psychological distress experienced by FCs.

Prognostic understanding, quality of life and mood in patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Little is known about how patients undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and their family caregivers (FC) perceive their prognosis. We examined prognostic understanding in patients undergoing HCT and their FC and its relationship with quality of life (QOL) and mood. We conducted a longitudinal study of patients (and FC) hospitalized for HCT. We used a questionnaire to measure participants' prognostic understanding and asked the oncologists to estimate patients' prognosis prior to HCT. We assessed QOL and mood weekly and evaluated the relationship between prognostic understanding, and QOL and mood using multivariable linear mixed models. We enrolled 90 patients undergoing (autologous (n=30), myeloablative (n=30) or reduced intensity allogeneic (n=30)) HCT. About 88.9% of patients and 87.1% of FC reported it is 'extremely' or 'very' important to know about prognosis. However, 77.6% of patients and 71.7% of FC reported a discordance and more optimistic prognostic perception compared to the oncologist (P<0.0001). Patients with a concordant prognostic understanding with their oncologists reported worse QOL (ß=-9.4, P=0.01) and greater depression at baseline (ß=1.7, P=0.02) and over time ((ß=1.2, P<0.0001). Therefore, Interventions are needed to improve prognostic understanding, while providing patients with adequate psychological support.

Implementing multiplexed genotyping of non-small-cell lung cancers into routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Personalizing non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy toward oncogene addicted pathway inhibition is effective. Hence, the ability to determine a more comprehensive genotype for each case is becoming essential to optimal cancer care. METHODS: We developed a multiplexed PCR-based assay (SNaPshot) to simultaneously identify >50 mutations in several key NSCLC genes. SNaPshot and FISH for ALK translocations were integrated into routine practice as Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments-certified tests. Here, we present analyses of the first 589 patients referred for genotyping. RESULTS: Pathologic prescreening identified 552 (95%) tumors with sufficient tissue for SNaPshot; 51% had ≥1 mutation identified, most commonly in KRAS (24%), EGFR (13%), PIK3CA (4%) and translocations involving ALK (5%). Unanticipated mutations were observed at lower frequencies in IDH and ß-catenin. We observed several associations between genotypes and clinical characteristics, including increased PIK3CA mutations in squamous cell cancers. Genotyping distinguished multiple primary cancers from metastatic disease and steered 78 (22%) of the 353 patients with advanced disease toward a genotype-directed targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Broad genotyping can be efficiently incorporated into an NSCLC clinic and has great utility in influencing treatment decisions and directing patients toward relevant clinical trials. As more targeted therapies are developed, such multiplexed molecular testing will become a standard part of practice.

A multicenter phase II trial of single-agent cetuximab in advanced esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is overexpressed in a significant proportion of esophageal and gastric carcinomas. Although previous studies have examined tyrosine kinase inhibitors of EGFR, there remains limited data regarding the role of EGFR-directed monoclonal antibody therapy in these malignancies. We carried out a multi-institutional phase II study of cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody against EGFR, in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-five patients with previously treated metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma were treated with weekly cetuximab, at an initial dose of 400 mg/m(2) followed by weekly infusions at 250 mg/m(2). Patients were followed for toxicity, treatment response, and survival. RESULTS: Treatment with cetuximab was well tolerated; no patients were taken off study due to drug-related adverse events. One (3%) partial treatment response was noted. Two (6%) patients had stable disease after 2 months of treatment. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.6 and 3.1 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although well tolerated, cetuximab administered as a single agent had minimal clinical activity in patients with metastatic esophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma. Ongoing studies of EGFR inhibitors in combination with other agents may define a role for these agents in the treatment of esophageal and gastric cancer.