Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

A phase 2 trial of consolidation pembrolizumab following concurrent chemoradiation for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer: Hoosier Cancer Research Network LUN 14-179.

BACKGROUND: Five-year overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is poor. Until recently, a standard of care was concurrent chemoradiation alone. Patients with metastatic NSCLC treated with anti-programmed death 1 antibodies have demonstrated improved OS. This trial evaluated pembrolizumab as consolidation therapy after concurrent chemoradiation in patients with unresectable stage III disease. METHODS: Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC received concurrent chemoradiation with cisplatin and etoposide, cisplatin and pemetrexed, or carboplatin and paclitaxel and 59.4 to 66.6 Gy of radiation. Patients with nonprogression of disease were enrolled and received pembrolizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 12 months). The primary endpoint was the time to metastatic disease or death (TMDD). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and OS. RESULTS: The median follow-up for 93 patients (92 for efficacy) was 32.2 months (range, 1.2-46.6 months). The median TMDD was 30.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.7 months to not reached), which was significantly longer than the historical control of 12 months (P < .0001). The median PFS was 18.7 months (95% CI, 12.4-33.8 months), and the median OS was 35.8 months (95% CI, 24.2 months to not reached). The 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS estimates were 81.2%, 62.0%, and 48.5%, respectively. Forty patients (43.5%) completed 12 months of treatment (median number of cycles, 13.5). Symptomatic pneumonitis (grade 2 or higher) was noted in 16 patients (17.2%); these cases included 4 grade 3 events (4.3%), 1 grade 4 event (1.1%), and 1 grade 5 event (1.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Consolidation pembrolizumab after concurrent chemoradiation improves TMDD, PFS, and OS in comparison with historical controls of chemoradiation alone. Rates of grade 3 to 5 pneumonitis were similar to those reported with chemoradiation alone.

N083E (Alliance): long-term outcomes of patients treated in a pilot phase II study of docetaxel, carboplatin, trastuzumab, and lapatinib as adjuvant therapy for early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The addition of lapatinib (L) to trastuzumab (T) was previously found to be synergistic in preclinical models and in the neoadjuvant setting. Prior to the results of the ALTTO trial, this study assessed the safety and feasibility of adding L to the standard adjuvant docetaxel, carboplatin, and trastuzumab (TCH) regimen in early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer (HER2+ BC). METHODS: In this single-arm, 2-stage, phase II study, patients with stages I-III HER2+ BC received TCH plus L at 1000 mg daily for a total of 12 months. The primary endpoint was the safety and tolerability, including the rate of diarrhea. Secondary endpoints included adverse event (AE) profile using the NCI CTCAE v3.0 and cardiac safety. RESULTS: Thirty eligible patients were enrolled. Median follow-up is 5.3 years. Diarrhea was the most common AE with 50% Grade (G)1/2 and 43% G3 diarrhea. However, it was responsive to dose reduction of L (750 mg) and institution of anti-diarrheal medications. Cardiovascular AE were infrequent and no patients experienced congestive heart failure while on treatment. CONCLUSION: TCHL was a tolerable regimen at a starting L dose of 750 mg PO daily when given concurrently with chemotherapy.

Safe Handling of Hazardous Drugs: ASCO Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide 2019 ASCO standards on the safe handling of hazardous drugs. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on closed system transfer devices was performed to May 2017 using PubMed. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, and Google Scholar were used to search for studies of medical surveillance and external ventilation/health effects of exposure to vapors to November 2017. Available standards were considered for endorsement. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The search for primary research found no studies that addressed health outcomes as they relate to the identified interventions of interest. The ASCO Expert Panel endorses the best practices for safe handling of hazardous drugs as issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, US Pharmacopeia Chapter 800, and Oncology Nursing Society with clarifications in four key areas: medical surveillance, closed system transfer devices, external ventilation of containment secondary engineering controls or containment segregated compounding areas, and alternative duties. CONCLUSION: The ASCO standards address the need for clear standards concerning safe handling of hazardous oncology drugs. More research is needed in several key areas to quantify the level of risk associated with handling hazardous drugs in current workplace settings where the hierarchy of controls is consistently applied. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/safe-handling-standards .

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology.

The use of clinical pathways in oncology care is increasingly important to patients and oncology providers as a tool for enhancing both quality and value. However, with increasing adoption of pathways into oncology practice, concerns have been raised by ASCO members and other stakeholders. These include the process being used for pathway development, the administrative burdens on oncology practices of reporting on pathway adherence, and understanding the true impact of pathway use on patient health outcomes. To address these concerns, ASCO's Board of Directors established a Task Force on Clinical Pathways, charged with articulating a set of recommendations to improve the development of oncology pathways and processes, allowing the demonstration of pathway concordance in a manner that promotes evidence-based, high-value care respecting input from patients, payers, and providers. These recommendations have been approved and adopted by ASCO's Board of Directors on August 12, 2015, and are presented herein.

Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix Tool to Improve the Quality of Research Conduct in the Community.

PURPOSE: Several publications have described minimum standards and exemplary attributes for clinical trial sites to improve research quality. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the clinical trial Best Practice Matrix tool to facilitate research program improvements through annual self-assessments and benchmarking. The tool identified nine attributes, each with three progressive levels, to score clinical trial infrastructural elements from less to more exemplary. The NCCCP sites correlated tool use with research program improvements, and the NCI pursued a formative evaluation to refine the interpretability and measurability of the tool. METHODS: From 2011 to 2013, 21 NCCCP sites self-assessed their programs with the tool annually. During 2013 to 2014, NCI collaborators conducted a five-step formative evaluation of the matrix tool. RESULTS: Sites reported significant increases in level-three scores across the original nine attributes combined (P<.001). Two specific attributes exhibited significant change: clinical trial portfolio diversity and management (P=.0228) and clinical trial communication (P=.0281). The formative evaluation led to revisions, including renaming the Best Practice Matrix as the Clinical Trial Assessment of Infrastructure Matrix (CT AIM), expanding infrastructural attributes from nine to 11, clarifying metrics, and developing a new scoring tool. CONCLUSION: Broad community input, cognitive interviews, and pilot testing improved the usability and functionality of the tool. Research programs are encouraged to use the CT AIM to assess and improve site infrastructure. Experience within the NCCCP suggests that the CT AIM is useful for improving quality, benchmarking research performance, reporting progress, and communicating program needs with institutional leaders. The tool model may also be useful in disciplines beyond oncology.

Reforming the community research program: from Community Clinical Oncology Program to the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

Community research has been an integral and influential component of the National Research Program since the late 1970s. Institutionalization of community research in the Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) has resulted in successful collaborations, meaningful accrual, achievement of quality standards, and translation of research into clinical practice. Although the national clinical trial system is undergoing modernization and improvement, the success of the CCOP and minority-based CCOP in cancer treatment, prevention, and control research is being extended to include cancer care delivery research in the newly created National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program. This article briefly presents a historic perspective of community involvement in federally sponsored clinical trials and introduces the continued involvement in the newly created NCI program.

A phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of pilocarpine for vaginal dryness: North Central Cancer Treatment group study N04CA.

Vaginal dryness is a common problem for which effective and safe nonestrogenic treatments are needed. Based on preliminary promising data that pilocarpine attenuated vaginal dryness, the current trial was conducted. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial design was used to compare pilocarpine, at target doses of 5 mg twice daily and 5 mg four times daily, with a placebo. Vaginal dryness was recorded by patient-completed questionnaires at baseline and weekly for 6 weeks after study initiation. The primary endpoint for this study was the area under the curve summary statistic composed of the longitudinal responses obtained at baseline and through the 6 weeks of treatment to a numerical analogue scale asking patients to rate their perceived amount of vaginal dryness. The primary analysis was carried out by a single t test using a two-side alternative to compare the collective pilocarpine treatment arms with the collective placebo arms. A total of 201 patients enrolled in this trial. The primary analysis, comparing vaginal dryness symptoms in the collective pilocarpine arms against the placebo arm, did not reveal any benefit for the pilocarpine treatment. This finding was confirmed by other secondary analyses. Toxicity evaluation revealed more nausea, sweating, rigors, and urinary frequency with the pilocarpine arms compared with the placebo arm.

The use of Valeriana officinalis (Valerian) in improving sleep in patients who are undergoing treatment for cancer: a phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study (NCCTG Trial, N01C5).

Sleep disorders are a substantial problem for cancer survivors, with prevalence estimates ranging from 23% to 61%. Although numerous prescription hypnotics are available, few are approved for long-term use or have demonstrated benefit in this circumstance. Hypnotics may have unwanted side effects and are costly, and cancer survivors often wish to avoid prescription drugs. New options with limited side effects are needed. The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of a Valerian officinalis supplement for sleep in people with cancer who were undergoing cancer treatment. Participants were randomized to receive 450 mg of valerian-or placebo orally 1 hour before bedtime for 8 weeks. The primary end point was area under the curve (AUC) of the overall Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Secondary outcomes included the Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire, the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI), and the Profile of Mood States (POMS). Toxicity was evaluated with both self-reported numeric analogue scale questions and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0. Questionnaires were completed at baseline and at 4 and 8 weeks. A total of 227 patients were randomized into this study between March 19, 2004, and March 9, 2007, with 119 being evaluable for the primary end point. The AUC over the 8 weeks for valerian was 51.4 (SD = 16), while that for placebo was 49.7 (SD = 15), with a P value of 0.6957. A supplemental, exploratory analysis revealed that several fatigue end points, as measured by the BFI and POMS, were significantly better for those taking valerian over placebo. Participants also reported less trouble with sleep and less drowsiness on valerian than placebo. There were no significant differences in toxicities as measured by self-report or the CTCAE except for mild alkaline phosphatase increases, which were slightly more common in the placebo group. This study failed to provide data to support the hypothesis that valerian, 450 mg, at bedtime could improve sleep as measured by the PSQI. However, exploratory analyses revealed improvement in some secondary outcomes, such as fatigue. Further research with valerian exploring physiologic effects in oncology symptom management may be warranted.

Phase II trial of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and bevacizumab as first-line therapy for metastatic urothelial carcinoma: Hoosier Oncology Group GU 04-75.

PURPOSE: Novel approaches are needed for patients with metastatic urothelial cancer (UC). This trial assessed the efficacy and toxicity of bevacizumab in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine (CGB) as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic UC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic or unresectable UC received cisplatin 70 mg/m(2) on day 1, gemcitabine 1,000 to 1,250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8, and bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1, every 21 days. RESULTS: Forty-three patients with performance status of 0 (n = 26) or 1 (n = 17) and median age of 66 years were evaluable for toxicity and response. Grade 3 to 4 hematologic toxicity included neutropenia (35%), thrombocytopenia (12%), anemia (12%), and neutropenic fever (2%). Grade 3 to 5 nonhematologic toxicity included deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism (21%), hemorrhage (7%), cardiac (7%), hypertension (5%), and proteinuria (2%). Three treatment-related deaths (CNS hemorrhage, sudden cardiac death, and aortic dissection) were observed. Best response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors was complete response in eight patients (19%) and partial response in 23 patients (53%), for an overall response rate of 72%. Stable disease lasting ≥ 12 weeks occurred in four patients (9%), and progressive disease occurred in six patients (14%). With a median follow-up of 27.2 months (range, 3.5 to 40.9 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) was 8.2 months (95% CI, 6.8 to 10.3 months) with a median overall survival (OS) time of 19.1 months (95% CI, 12.4 to 22.7 months). The study-defined goal of 50% improvement in PFS was not met. CONCLUSION: CGB demonstrates promising OS and antiangiogenic treatment-related toxicities in the phase II setting of metastatic UC. The full risk/benefit profile of CGB in patients with metastatic UC will be determined by an ongoing phase III intergroup trial.

ASCO Provisional Clinical Opinion: Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients Receiving Cytotoxic Chemotherapy for Treatment of Malignant Diseases.

What does the ASCO provisional clinical opinion on hepatitis B virus mean for practices?

American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: chronic hepatitis B virus infection screening in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy for treatment of malignant diseases.

PURPOSE An American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) provisional clinical opinion (PCO) offers timely clinical direction to ASCO's membership following publication or presentation of potentially practice-changing information. This PCO addresses recommendations for chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection screening in patients receiving cytotoxic or immunosuppressive chemotherapy for treatment of malignant diseases. CLINICAL CONTEXT: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued Recommendations for Identification and Public Health Management of Persons with Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection, recommending screening for hepatitis B infection (hepatitis B surface antigen [HBsAg], antihepatitis B core antigen [anti-HBc], and antibodies to HBsAg [anti-HBs]) for "persons receiving cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy (eg, chemotherapy for malignant diseases...)." PROVISIONAL CLINICAL OPINION: The evidence is insufficient to determine the net benefits and harms of routine screening for chronic HBV infection in individuals with cancer who are about to receive cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapy or who are already receiving therapy. Individuals with cancer who undergo certain cytotoxic or immunosuppressive therapies and have HBV infection or prior exposure to HBV may be at elevated risk of liver failure from HBV reactivation. As such, HBV screening requires clinical judgment. Physicians may consider screening patients belonging to groups at heightened risk for chronic HBV infection or if highly immunosuppressive therapy is planned. Highly immunosuppressive treatments include, but are not limited to, hematopoietic cell transplantation and regimens including rituximab. Screening based on a high risk of prior HBV exposure or risk of reactivation due to planned therapeutic regimens should include testing for HBsAg as a serologic marker for HBV infection. In some populations, testing for anti-HBc should also be considered. There is no evidence to support serologic testing for anti-HBs in this context. When evidence for chronic HBV infection is found, antiviral therapy before and throughout the course of chemotherapy may be considered to reduce the risk of HBV reactivation, although evidence from controlled trials of this approach is limited. Screening and/or treating HBV infection should not delay the initiation of chemotherapy. NOTE: ASCO's provisional clinical opinions (PCOs) reflect expert consensus based on clinical evidence and literature available at the time they are written, and are intended to assist physicians in clinical decision-making and identify questions and settings for further research. Due to the rapid flow of scientific information in oncology, new evidence may have emerged since the time a PCO was submitted for publication. PCOs are not continually updated and may not reflect the most recent evidence. PCOs address only the topics specifically identified in the PCO and are not applicable to interventions, diseases or stages of disease not specifically identified. PCOs cannot account for individual variation among patients, and cannot be considered inclusive of all proper methods of care or exclusive of other treatments. It is the responsibility of the treating physician or other health care provider, relying on independent experience and knowledge of the patient, to determine the best course of treatment for the patient. Accordingly, adherence to any PCO is voluntary, with the ultimate determination regarding its application to be made by the physician in light of each patient's individual circumstances. ASCO PCOs describe the use of procedures and therapies in clinical practice and cannot be assumed to apply to the use of these interventions in the context of clinical trials. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of ASCO's PCOs, or for any errors or omissions.

A phase II study of oral enzastaurin in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane containing regimen.

PURPOSE: Enzastaurin is a potent, serine-threonine kinase inhibitor which selectively targets PKCß and PI3K/AKT signaling pathways to reduce cell proliferation, induce apoptosis, and inhibit angiogenesis. As PKCbeta and PI3K/AKT signaling are both involved in breast cancer pathogenesis, this phase II study evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of enzastaurin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had histologically confirmed MBC with measurable disease, and must have received prior anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy, but not more than two prior regimens for MBC. Human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)-positive patients must have progressed on prior trastuzumab therapy. Enzastaurin, 1,125-mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 500 mg daily, was administered orally in 28-day cycles. Response was assessed every 2 cycles according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients enrolled between November 2006 and September 2007. Fourteen (66.7%) patients completed at least two cycles of therapy. No patients developed Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity. Grade 3 nonhematologic toxicity was rare (<5%) and most commonly attributed to MBC progression. There were no objective responses and no patients with stable disease for >/=6 months. Median progression-free survival was 1.68 months (95%CI: 1.02, 1.74). CONCLUSIONS: Enzastaurin monotherapy was well tolerated, but demonstrated no activity in patients with heavily pretreated MBC.