Using Survivorship Care Plans to Enhance Communication and Cancer Care Coordination: Results of a Pilot Study.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To compare a structured cancer survivorship care plan (SCP) transition visit versus an SCP transition visit coupled with a coordinated follow-up visit from the primary care provider (PCP).
. DESIGN: Pilot randomized, controlled study.
. SETTING: REX Cancer Hospital, a community cancer center in Raleigh, North Carolina.
. SAMPLE: 34 adults completing treatment with curative intent. 
. METHODS: Patients and PCPs completed measures at baseline and at six weeks. Wilcoxon signed rank and rank sum tests were used for comparisons of SCP only versus SCP with PCP follow-up visit, as well as between high- and low-activated patients.
. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Confidence in survivorship information and survivor concerns.
. FINDINGS: The intervention was feasible and acceptable to patients and their PCPs. All patients (N = 34) had less contradictory information about care after SCP receipt. PCPs reported improved confidence in patients, regardless of intervention arm. Highly activated or empowered patients benefited more and had increased confidence and fewer concerns about cancer care. 
. CONCLUSIONS: The SCP interventions led to increased confidence in survivorship information, but some benefits were greater for highly activated patients. PCPs also had improved confidence in survivorship care after SCP receipt, whether or not they saw the patient in follow-up. A larger study is needed to further explore these findings and the changes over time.
. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses can be instrumental in facilitating the development and delivery of SCP to survivors and PCPs.

A phase II study of lapatinib, a dual EGFR and HER-2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and HER-2 tyrosine kinases may be involved in activation of androgen receptor and progression of prostate cancer. They represent potential therapeutic targets in prostate cancer. Lapatinib is an oral inhibitor of EGFR and HER-2. The objective of this study is to assess the preliminary clinical efficacy of lapatinib in the therapy of castration-resistant prostate cancer. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, patients with rising PSA on androgen deprivation therapy and not having received chemotherapy were eligible. They were treated with lapatinib at a dose of 1,500 mg once daily. The primary end point was a >50% confirmed PSA decline from baseline; safety, tolerability, and time to PSA progression were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients enrolled in the study had a median age of 73 years and a baseline PSA of 21.6 ng/ml. Seven patients had no radiologic evidence of metastatic disease, while the remaining patients had bone or measurable disease or both. Treatment was well tolerated with only grade 3 treatment-related toxicities being diarrhea (14%) and rash (3%). One of 21 evaluable patients had >50% reduction in PSA, while another patient had 47% reduction in PSA with an ongoing duration of response of 45+ months. The median time to PSA progression was 29 days. CONCLUSIONS: Lapatinib showed single agent activity in a small subset of unselected patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer, as measured by PSA. Future trials should explore a trial design with time-to-event end points and predictive biomarkers and a combination with other agents.

Phase I study of concurrent weekly docetaxel, high-dose intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for high-risk prostate cancer.

UNLABELLED: Study Type - Therapy (phase 1) Level of Evidence 2a What's known on the subject? and What does the study add? High-risk and locally advanced prostate cancers are difficult to cure with the standard regimen of radiation therapy (RT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT). Multiple studies have explored the addition of docetaxel chemotherapy in attempt to improve patient outcomes. Prior Phase I studies have shown that docetaxel 20 mg/m(2) is a safe dose, when given concurrently with 70 Gy of radiation. But current standard RT for prostate cancer uses higher doses, and it is unclear if concurrent chemotherapy is safe with modern RT. This is a Phase I study that explored the addition of concurrent docetaxel chemotherapy to modern RT (intensity-modulated RT to 78 Gy) plus ADT. The study showed that weekly docetaxel at 20 mg/m(2) is safe with modern RT. At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, biochemical progression-free survival was 94%. This triple-therapy regimen is safe and promising for further evaluation in prospective trials. OBJECTIVE: • To evaluate in a phase I trial, the feasibility of adding concurrent weekly docetaxel chemotherapy to high-dose intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for treatment of high-risk prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: • Patients with high-risk prostate cancer were treated with a luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonist (starting 2-3 months before IMRT and lasting 2 years), IMRT of 78 Gy to the prostate and seminal vesicles, and weekly docetaxel during RT. • All patients had computed tomography and bone scans to exclude metastatic disease. • A standard 3 + 3 design was used for docetaxel dose escalation. Successive patients were treated on dose levels of 10, 15, and 20 mg/m(2) of weekly docetaxel. RESULTS: • In all, 18 patients participated in the study: 15 (83%) had Gleason 8-10 disease; the other three had either clinical T3 disease and/or a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level of >20 ng/mL. • Grade 3 diarrhoea (a defined dose-limiting toxicity, DLT) occurred in one patient in each of the first two dose levels. However, when the cohorts were expanded, no further DLT was seen. • Weekly docetaxel at 20 mg/m(2) (dose level 3) was successfully given without DLT. • No patient had grade 4 or 5 toxicity. • At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, all patients achieved a PSA nadir of <1 ng/mL, including 13 patients who had an undetectable PSA level. The 2-year biochemical progression-free survival was 94%. CONCLUSION: • A dose of 20 mg/m(2) of weekly docetaxel given concurrently with high-dose IMRT and ADT appears safe for further study in patients with high-risk prostate cancer.

A randomized phase II trial of first-line treatment with gemcitabine, erlotinib, or gemcitabine and erlotinib in elderly patients (age ≥70 years) with stage IIIB/IV non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Single-agent gemcitabine is a standard of care for elderly patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, but novel therapies are needed for this patient population. METHODS: We performed a noncomparative randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine, erlotinib, or the combination in elderly patients (age ≥70 years) with stage IIIB or IV non-small cell lung cancer. Patients were randomized to arms: A (gemcitabine 1200 mg/m on days 1 and 8 every 21 days), B (erlotinib 150 mg daily), or C (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m on days 1 and 8 every 21 days and erlotinib 100 mg daily). Arms B and C were considered investigational; the primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival. RESULTS: Between March 2006 and May 2010, 146 eligible patients received protocol therapy. The majority of the patients (82%) had stage IV disease, 64% reported adenocarcinoma histology, 90% reported current or previous tobacco use, and 28% had a performance status of 2. The 6-month progression-free survival rate observed in arms A, B, and C was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI] 11-35), 24% (95% CI 13-36), and 25% (95% CI 15-38), respectively; the median overall survival observed was 6.8 months (95% CI 4.8-8.5), 5.8 months (95% CI 3.0-8.3), and 5.6 months (95% CI 3.5-8.4), respectively. The rate of grade ≥3 hematological and nonhematological toxicity observed was similar in all three arms. The best overall health-related quality of life response did not differ between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: Erlotinib or erlotinib and gemcitabine do not warrant further investigation in an unselected elderly patient population.