A single-centre study evaluating a geriatric screening tool in oncology phase I trial patients.

BACKGROUND: Though cancer is more prevalent in the older population, this patient group are underrepresented in phase I oncology trials. AIMS: We evaluated the use of a geriatric screening tool (SAOP3) in patients of 70 years of age or older who attended a Phase I Clinical Trials Unit, with the aim of assessing the feasibility of the tool and identifying potential unmet needs in this patient group. METHODS: Twenty-two patients over the age of 70 completed the SAOP3 questionnaire. Geriatric impairments and needs were analysed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative responses were grouped in themes using structured thematic analysis. RESULTS: All of patients triggered at least 1 geriatric domain, most commonly mobility. Six core themes were identified as being important to the patient including family, friends and positivity. On cognition assessment over 20% of patients triggered as requiring further cognitive assessment. The group had a relatively high screen fail risk. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, routine geriatric screening withSAOP3 was feasible and identified areas of patient need. Results highlight the prevalence of psychological distress and cognitive impairment. Geriatric screening offers an opportunity for prehabilitation prior to trial and support during trial participation to optimise safety and improve trial access.

Multidisciplinary interventions in a specialist Drug Development Unit to improve family history documentation and onward referral of patients with advanced cancer to cancer genetics services.

BACKGROUND: Molecular aberrations in cancer may represent therapeutic targets, and, if arising from the germline, may impact further cancer risk management in patients and their blood relatives. Annually, 600-700 patients are referred for consideration of experimental drug trials in the Drug Development Unit (DDU) in our institution. A proportion of patients may merit germline genetic testing because of suspicious personal/family history or findings of tumour-based testing. We aimed to assess the impact of different multidisciplinary interventions on family history taking and referral rates from DDU to Cancer Genetics Unit (CGU). METHODS: Over 42 months, three interventions were undertaken at different intervals: (1) embedding a genetics provider in the DDU review clinic, (2) 'traffic light' system flagging cancers with a heritable component and (3) virtual multidisciplinary meeting (MDM). Comparative analyses between intervals were undertaken, including referral rates to CGU, investigations and patient outcomes. Family history taking in a sample of 20 patients managed in each interval was assessed by a retrospective chart review. RESULTS: Frequency of family history taking and referral to CGU, increased with each intervention, particularly, the virtual MDM (40% vs 85%). Referral rates increased over the study period, from 0.1 referral/week (5/year, 0.36% total referrals) to 1.2/week (projected 63/year, 3.81%). Forty-four (52%) patients referred required germline testing; in three of whom, variants were identified. Non-attendance rates were low (6, 7%). CONCLUSION: Patients in the DDU are unique, with long cancer histories and often short estimated life expectancy. Multidisciplinary working between CGU and DDU facilitates germline testing of those patients who may otherwise miss the opportunity.

A study of motivations and expectations of patients seen in phase 1 oncology clinics.

BACKGROUND: To better inform clinical practice, this study was aimed at capturing patients' motivations for enrolling in phase 1 trials and at quantifying their expectations of the benefits, risks, and commitment associated with clinical trials and the impact of the initial consultation on their expectations. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, quantitative study of newly referred adult patients considering their first phase 1 oncology trial. Participants completed questionnaires before they were seen and an abbreviated follow-up version after their consultation. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 396 (99%) and 301 (76%) before and after the clinic, respectively. Participants ranked the possibility of tumor shrinkage (84%) as the most important motivation for considering a phase 1 trial; this was followed by no alternative treatments (56%), their physician's recommendation (44%), and the fact that the research might benefit others (38%). When they were asked about the potential personal benefit, 43% predicted tumor shrinkage initially. After the consultation, this increased to 47%. Fourteen percent of patients expected a cure. When asked about risks, 71% of the participants expected moderate side effects. When asked about expectations of time commitments, a majority of patients did not anticipate weekly visits, although this was understood by 93% of patients after the consultation. Overall, patients were keen to consider trials and when asked before and after the consultation 72% and 84% were willing to enroll in studies, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports that more than 80% of patients enroll in early-phase clinical oncology trials motivated by the potential of a clinical benefit, with approximately half expecting tumor shrinkage and approximately a tenth anticipating a cure. The typical phase 1 response rate is 4% to 20%, and this discrepancy exemplifies the challenges faced by patients and healthcare professionals during their interactions for phase 1 studies. Cancer 2016;122:3501-3508. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

A phase I study of a new nucleoside analogue, OSI-7836, using two administration schedules in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetic profile of the novel nucleoside analogue OSI-7836 in patients with advanced solid malignancies. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: OSI-7836 was initially given as a 60-minute i.v. infusion on day 1 every 21 days. In view of its dose-limiting toxicities, the administration time was amended to a 5-minute bolus, and subsequently, the schedule was amended to weekly for 4 weeks followed by a 2-week rest. Blood and urine samples were collected for pharmacokinetic studies. Analyses of cytokines and lymphocyte subsets were added later in the study to elucidate a mechanism for the severe fatigue and lymphocyte depletion observed in earlier patients. RESULTS: Thirty patients received a total of 61 treatment cycles. Fatigue was the main dose-limiting toxicity. Maximum-tolerated dose was defined as 300 mg/m2 in the 60-minute infusion, (three times per week) schedule; 400 mg/m2 in the 5-minute bolus infusion, (three times per week) schedule; and 100 mg/m2 in the weekly schedule. Other common toxicities were nausea, vomiting, rash, fever, and a flu-like syndrome. There were no clinically significant hematologic toxicities. Following the initial dose, OSI-7836 was eliminated from plasma with a median (range) elimination half-life of 48.3 minutes (22.6-64.8 minutes). Lymphocyte subset analysis showed a significant drop in B cell counts, which persisted to day 14 and beyond. Cytokine analysis showed significant elevations of interleukin-6 and interleukin-10 in all patients who received > or = 200 mg/m2 OSI-7836. Best response was disease stabilization in seven patients. CONCLUSION: OSI-7836 was associated with excessive fatigue, and despite changes in its schedule and duration of administration, we did not observe an improvement in its tolerability. Its potentially selective effect on B lymphocytes could be exploited in further studies in specific hematologic malignancies.