Search

Background: National cancer registries are valuable tools to analyze patterns of care and clinical outcomes; yet, missing data may impact the accuracy and generalizability of these data. We sought to evaluate the association between missing data and overall survival (OS). Methods: Using the NCDB (National Cancer Database) and SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, End Results Program), we assessed data missingness among patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer from 2010 to 2014. Key variables included demographic (age, race, ethnicity, insurance, education, income), tumor (grade, ER, PR, HER2, TNM stages), and treatment (surgery in both databases; chemotherapy and radiation in NCDB). OS was compared between those with and without missing data using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Overall, 775,996 patients in the NCDB and 263,016 in SEER were identified; missing at least 1 key variable occurred for 29% and 13%, respectively. Of those, the overwhelming majority (NCDB 80%; SEER 88%) were missing tumor variables. When compared to patients with complete data, missingness was associated with a greater risk of death: NCDB HR 1.23 (99% CI 1.21–1.25) and SEER HR 2.11 (99% CI 2.05–2.18). Patients with complete tumor data had higher unadjusted OS estimates than that of the entire sample: NCDB 82.7% vs 81.8% and SEER 83.5% vs 81.7% for 5-year OS. Conclusions: Missingness of select variables is not uncommon within large national cancer registries and is associated with a worse OS. Exclusion of patients with missing variables may introduce unintended bias into analyses and result in findings that underestimate breast cancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Quality measurement has become a priority for national healthcare reform, and valid measures are necessary to discriminate hospital performance and support value‐based healthcare delivery. The Commission on Cancer (CoC) is the largest cancer‐specific accreditor of hospital quality in the United States and has implemented Quality of Care Measures to evaluate cancer care delivery. However, none has been formally tested as a valid metric for assessing hospital performance based on actual patient outcomes. Methods: Eligibility and compliance with the Quality of Care Measures are reported within the National Cancer Database, which also captures data for robust patient‐level risk adjustment. Hospital‐level compliance was calculated for the core measures, and the association with patient survival was tested using Cox regression. Results: Seven hundred sixty‐eight thousand nine hundred sixty‐nine unique cancer cases were included from 1323 facilities. Increasing hospital‐level compliance was associated with improved survival for only two measures, including a 35% reduced risk of mortality for the gastric cancer measure G15RLN (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.58–0.72) and a 19% reduced risk of mortality for the colon cancer measure 12RLN (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.77–0.85). For the lung cancer measure LNoSurg, increasing compliance was paradoxically associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR 1.14, 95% CI 1.08–1.20). For the remaining measures, hospital‐level compliance demonstrated no consistent association with patient survival. Conclusion: Hospital‐level compliance with the CoC's Quality of Care Measures is not uniformly aligned with patient survival. In their current form, these measures do not reliably discriminate hospital performance and are limited as a tool for value‐based healthcare delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) have a poor prognosis and limited therapeutic options. In this phase Ib/II clinical trial, we established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RPTD) for the combination of capecitabine and ziv-aflibercept, and then we evaluated the efficacy of the combination in patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic CRC.Methods: All patients were required to have a Karnofsky Performance Status > 70% and adequate organ function. The phase Ib dose escalation cohort included patients with advanced solid tumors who had progressed on all standard therapies. Using a standard 3 + 3 design, we identified the MTD and RPTD for the combination. Fifty patients with metastatic CRC who had progressed on or were intolerant of a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab were then enrolled in a single-arm phase II expansion cohort, and were treated at the RPTD. Prior EGFR antibody therapy was required for subjects with RAS wildtype tumors. The primary endpoint for the expansion cohort was progression-free survival (PFS) at two months. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS).Results: A total of 63 patients were enrolled and evaluable for toxicity (13 dose escalation; 50 expansion). The MTD and RPTD were: capecitabine 850 mg/m2, P.O. bid, days 1-14, and ziv-aflibercept 6 mg/kg I.V., day 1, of each 21-day cycle. In the expansion cohort, 72% of patients were progression-free at two months (95% confidence interval [CI], 60-84%). Median PFS and OS were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3-4.5) and 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.8-10.0), respectively. Among all patients evaluable for toxicity, the most common treatment related adverse events (all grade [%]; grade ≥ 3 [%]) included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (41%; 6%), hypertension (33%; 22%), and mucositis (19%; 5%). RNA was isolated from archived tumor specimens and gene expression analyses revealed no association between angiogenic biomarkers and clinical outcomes.Conclusion: The combination of capecitabine and ziv-aflibercept at the RPTD demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability. PFS at 2 months in patients with chemotherapy refractory metastatic CRC was significantly greater than that in historical controls, indicating that this combination warrants further study.Trial Registration: This clinical trial was registered in the www.clinicaltrials.gov system as NCT01661972 on July 31, 2012. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RPTD), as well as the safety and tolerability of PF-03446962, a monoclonal antibody targeting activin receptor like kinase 1 (ALK-1), in combination with regorafenib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.Methods: The first stage of this study was a standard "3 + 3" open-label dose-escalation scheme. Cohorts of 3-6 subjects were started with 120 mg of regorafenib given PO daily for 3 weeks of a 4 week cycle, plus 4.5 mg/kg of PF-03446962 given IV every 2 weeks. Doses of both drugs were adjusted according to dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Plasma was collected for multiplexed ELISA analysis of factors related to tumor growth and angiogenesis.Results: Seventeen subjects were enrolled, of whom 11 were deemed evaluable. Seven subjects were enrolled at dose level 1, and four were enrolled at level - 1. Overall, three DLTs were observed during the dose-escalation phase: two in level 1 and one in level - 1. A planned dose-expansion cohort was not started due to early termination of the clinical trial. Common adverse events were infusion-related reaction, fatigue, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, abdominal pain, dehydration, nausea, back pain, anorexia, and diarrhea. One subject achieved stable disease for 5.5 months, but discontinued treatment due to adverse events.Conclusions: The regimen of regorafenib and PF-03446962 was associated with unacceptable toxicity and did not demonstrate notable clinical activity in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer treatment costs are not routinely addressed in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery. Thus, we sought to characterize cost awareness and communication among surgeons treating breast cancer. Methods: We conducted a self-administered, confidential electronic survey among members of the American Society of Breast Surgeons from 1 July to 15 September 2018. Questions were based on previously published or validated survey items, and assessed surgeon demographics, cost sensitivity, and communication. Descriptive summaries and cross-tabulations with Chi-square statistics were used, with exact tests where warranted, to assess findings. Results: Of those surveyed (N = 2293), 598 (25%) responded. Surgeons reported that 'risk of recurrence' (70%), 'appearance of the breast' (50%), and 'risks of surgery' (47%) were the most influential on patients' decisions for breast cancer surgery; 6% cited out-of-pocket costs as significant. Over half (53%) of the surgeons agreed that doctors should consider patient costs when choosing cancer treatment, yet the majority of surgeons (58%) reported 'infrequently' (43%) or 'never' (15%) considering patient costs in medical recommendations. The overwhelming majority (87%) of surgeons believed that patients should have access to the costs of their treatment before making medical decisions. Surgeons treating a higher percentage of Medicaid or uninsured patients were more likely to consistently consider costs (p < 0.001). Participants reported that insufficient knowledge or resources (61%), a perceived inability to help with costs (24%), and inadequate time (22%) impeded cost discussions. Notably, 20% of participants believed that discussing costs might impact the quality of care patients receive. Conclusions: Cost transparency remains rare, however in shared decisions for breast cancer surgery, improved cost awareness by surgeons has the potential to reduce financial hardship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Controversy exists over the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced (stages II-III) rectal cancer (LARC) patients who demonstrate pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. We conducted a retrospective analysis to determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy imparts survival benefit among this population.Methods: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify LARC patients with pCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. The cohort was stratified by receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy. Multiple imputation and a Cox proportional hazards model were employed to estimate the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival.Results: There were 24,418 patients identified in the NCDB with clinically staged II or III rectal cancer who received neoadjuvant chemoradiation. Of these, 5606 (23.0%) had pCR. Among patients with pCR, 1401 (25%) received adjuvant chemotherapy and 4205 (75%) did not. Patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy were slightly younger, more likely to have private insurance, and more likely to have clinically staged III disease, but did not differ significantly in comparison to patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy with respect to race, sex, facility type, Charlson comorbidity score, histologic tumor grade, procedure type, length of stay, or rate of 30-day readmission following surgery. On adjusted analysis, receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy was associated with a lower risk of death at a given time compared to patients who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.808; 95% CI 0.679-0.961; p = 0.016).Conclusion: Supporting existing NCCN guidelines, the findings from this study suggest that adjuvant chemotherapy improves survival for LARC with pCR following neoadjuvant chemoradiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Follow-up imaging after stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) is crucial to identify salvageable brain metastases (BM) recurrence. As optimal imaging intervals are poorly understood, we sought to build a predictive model for time to intracranial progression. Methods: Consecutive patients treated with SRS for BM at three institutions from January 1, 2002 to June 30, 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. We developed a model using stepwise regression that identified four prognostic factors and built a predictive nomogram. Results: We identified 755 patients with primarily non-small cell lung, breast, and melanoma BMs. Factors such as number of BMs, histology, history of prior whole-brain radiation, and time interval from initial cancer diagnosis to metastases were prognostic for intracranial progression. Per our nomogram, risk of intracranial progression by 3 months post-SRS in the high-risk group was 21% compared to 11% in the low-risk group; at 6 months, it was 43% versus 27%. Conclusion: We present a nomogram estimating time to BM progression following SRS to potentially personalize surveillance imaging. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although the management of localized anal canal squamous cell carcinomas is well established, the role of pelvic chemoradiation (CRT) in the treatment of patients presenting with synchronous metastatic (stage IV) disease is poorly defined. This study used a national cancer database to compare the overall survival (OS) rates of patients with synchronous metastatic disease receiving CRT to the pelvis and patients treated with chemotherapy (CT) alone.Methods: This study included adult patients with anal canal squamous cell carcinomas presenting with synchronous metastases diagnosed from 2004 to 2012. Multiple imputation and 2:1 propensity score matching were used to create a matched data set for testing. The proportional hazards model was used to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for the effect of the treatment group on OS. With only patients in the matched data set, the OS of the treatment groups was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method by treatment group.Results: This study started with an unmatched data set of 978 patients, and 582 patients were selected for the matched data set: 388 in the CRT group and 194 in the CT-alone group. The HR for the group effect was 0.75 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.92; P = .006). The median OS was 21.1 months in the CRT group (95% CI, 17.4-24.0 months) and 14.6 months in the CT group (95% CI, 12.2-18.4 months). The corresponding 5-year OS rates were 23% (95% CI, 18%-28%) and 14% (95% CI, 7%-21%), respectively.Conclusions: In this large series analyzing OS in patients with stage IV anal cancer, CRT was associated with improved OS in comparison with CT alone. Because of the lack of prospective data in this setting, this evidence will help to guide treatment approaches in this group of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence increasingly supports the integration of specialist palliative care (PC) into routine cancer care. A novel, fully integrated PC and medical oncology inpatient service was developed at Duke University Hospital in 2011. Objective: To assess the impact of PC integration on health care utilization among hospitalized cancer patients before hospice enrollment. Methods: Retrospective cohort study. Patients in the solid tumor inpatient unit who were discharged to hospice between September 1, 2009, and June 30, 2010 (pre-PC integration), and September 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012 (postintegration). Cohorts were compared on the following outcomes from their final hospitalization before hospice enrollment: intensive care unit days, invasive procedures, subspecialty consultations, radiographic studies, hospital length of stay, and use of chemotherapy or radiation. Cohort differences were examined with descriptive statistics and nonparametric tests. Results: Two hundred ninety-six patients were included in the analysis (133 pre-PC integration; 163 post-PC integration). Patient characteristics were similar between cohorts. Health care utilization was relatively low in both groups, although 26% and 24% were receiving chemotherapy at the time of admission or during hospitalization in the pre- and post-PC integration cohorts, respectively, and 6.8% in each cohort spent time in an intensive care unit. We found no significant differences in utilization between cohorts. Discussion: PC integration into an inpatient solid tumor service may not impact health care utilization during the final hospitalization before discharge to hospice. This likely reflects the greater benefits of integrating PC farther upstream from the terminal hospitalization, if one hopes to meaningfully impact utilization near the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To define the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RPTD), and assess safety and tolerability for the combination of pazopanib plus TH-302, an investigational hypoxia-activated prodrug (HAP), in adult patients with advanced solid tumors.Methods: This was an open-label, non-randomized, single-center, phase I trial consisting 2 stages. Stage 1 was a standard "3 + 3" dose escalation design to determine safety and the RPTD for TH-302 plus pazopanib combination. Stage 2 was an expanded cohort to better describe the tolerability and toxicity profile at the MTD. Pazopanib was orally dosed at 800 mg daily on days 1-28 for all cohorts. TH-302 was administered intravenously on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle at doses of 340 mg/m2 (cohort 1) or 480 mg/m2 (cohort 2). Dose limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed in the first 28-day cycle. Efficacy was assessed every 2 cycles.Results: Thirty patients were enrolled between December 2011 and September 2013. In the dose escalation stage, 7 patients were enrolled in the 340 mg/m2 TH-302 cohort and 6 patients in the 480 mg/m2 TH-302 cohort. Ten patients were evaluable for DLT. DLTs included grade 2 intolerable esophagitis (n = 1) in the 340 mg/m2 TH-302 cohort, and grade 3 vaginal inflammation (n = 1) and grade 3 neutropenia with grade 3 thrombocytopenia (n = 1, same patient) in the 480 mg/m2 TH-302 cohort. The 340 mg/m2 TH-302 cohort was determined to be MTD and RPTD. The most common treatment-related adverse events were hematologic (anemia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia), nausea/vomiting, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, constipation, fatigue, mucositis, anorexia, pain, and hypertension. Partial response (PR) was observed in 10% (n = 3) of patients, stable disease (SD) in 57% (n = 17), and progressive disease (PD) in 23% (n = 7). Due to toxicity, 3 patients were discontinued from study drug prior to first radiographic assessment but were included in these calculations. Disease control ≥6 months was observed in 37% of patients (n = 11).Conclusions: The RPTD for this novel combination is pazopanib 800 mg daily on days 1-28 plus TH-302 340 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Preliminary activity was seen in treatment-refractory cancers and supports potential value of co-targeting tumor angiogenesis and tumor hypoxia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (aNSCLC) face a significant symptom burden. Little is known about the frequency and severity of symptoms over time, so we longitudinally characterized patients' symptoms using the Patient Care Monitor (PCM) version 2.0, an electronic symptom-assessment tool.Methods: Ninety-seven patients with aNSCLC completed the PCM at up to four clinic visits. We analyzed symptom data by incidence, severity, type (functional vs. nonfunctional), proximity to death, and cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome status (CACS).Results: Functional concerns predominated, even in the non-CACS group. Average severity among the top 5 symptoms was worse for functional than nonfunctional items (mean difference 0.62, 95% CI 0.22-1.01, P = 0.003). Severe dyspnea and fatigue were the most prevalent nonfunctional symptoms; moderate/severe dyspnea was reported by at least 29% of patients, and fatigue by over 50%. Depression was reported infrequently, with over half of patients at each visit reporting "none"; moderate or severe depression was reported in only 2.5-9.3 and 3.4-6.2% of patients, respectively. The average number of moderate/severe symptoms increased with proximity to death; 84% reported moderate/severe fatigue in the last 3 months of life, compared to 48% at ≥ 12 months from death (P = 0.007).Conclusions: Patients with aNSCLC face a significant symptom burden, which increases with proximity to death. Symptom type and severity vary by proximity to death, but even patients without overt CACS report significant functional symptoms throughout. We recommend an individualized approach to palliative symptom intervention in advanced lung cancer, based on detailed symptom assessment and tracking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lessons Learned: Antitumor activity was observed in the study population.Dose modifications of cabozantinib improve long‐term tolerability.Biomarkers are needed to identify patient populations most likely to benefit.Further study of cabozantinib with or without panitumumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is warranted. Background: The epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibody panitumumab is active in patients with RAS wild‐type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but nearly all patients experience resistance. MET amplification is a driver of panitumumab resistance. Cabozantinib is an inhibitor of multiple kinases, including vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) and c‐MET, and may delay or reverse anti‐EGFR resistance. Methods: In this phase Ib clinical trial, we established the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of cabozantinib and panitumumab. We then treated an expansion cohort to further describe the tolerability and clinical activity of the RP2D. Eligibility included patients with KRAS WT mCRC (later amended to include only RAS WT mCRC) who had received prior treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab. Results: Twenty‐five patients were enrolled and treated. The MTD/RP2D was cabozantinib 60 mg p.o. daily and panitumumab 6 mg/kg I.V. every 2 weeks. The objective response rate (ORR) was 16%. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 3.7 months (90% confidence interval [CI], 2.3–7.1). Median overall survival (OS) was 12.1 months (90% CI, 7.5–14.3). Five patients (20%) discontinued treatment due to toxicity, and 18 patients (72%) required a dose reduction of cabozantinib. Conclusion: The combination of cabozantinib and panitumumab has activity. Dose reductions of cabozantinib improve tolerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]