Search

Abstract Polatuzumab vedotin (Pola) is an approved therapy in combination with rituximab and bendamustine for relapsed or refractory diffuse large B‐cell lymphoma (RR‐DLBCL) based on positive results of the landmark phase II randomised G029365 trial. However, trial results for many approved novel therapies in RR‐DLBCL have not been replicated in routine care cohorts, as RR‐DLBCL patient populations are heterogeneous and trial eligibility is increasingly restrictive. We evaluated outcomes from pola ± bendamustine and rituximab in patients with RR‐DLBCL enrolled in a compassionate access program with no alternative treatment options identified via the Australasian Lymphoma and Related Diseases Registry according to their eligibility for the original phase II published study. Of 58 eligible patients, 74% met the criteria deeming them ineligible for the G029365 original study at the time of pola's commencement. Median progression‐free survival and overall survival in our cohort were 2.3 and 3.5 months, respectively. In contrast to the landmark trial cohort, more of our patients ceased therapy prior to completion, the majority due to progressive disease and only 8/58 received any subsequent treatment. Dismal outcomes in this Australian real‐world population demonstrate trial eligibility is challenging to meet, and newer treatments can be difficult to deliver in routine care. Clinically applicable results from therapeutic studies require trial cohorts to reflect representative clinical populations wherever possible, and more research is required to address the benefit of novel agents in the increasing majority who are ineligible for modern studies.

Abstract Background The impact of prior cancer history on survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients remains unknown. The present study assessed the impact of prior cancer history on survival of patients with hypopharyngeal cancer. Methods Patients with primary hypopharyngeal cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. One‐to‐one PSM, Kaplan–Meier method, and log‐rank test were performed for survival analysis. Results We included 5017 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer. Prior cancer history had no significant impact on overall survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients in comparison with those without prior cancer history (p = 0.845, after PSM). Subgroup analysis showed that prior cancer history had no significant effect on overall survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients. Conclusion More hypopharyngeal cancer patients with prior cancer history should be considered for clinical trials. However, further prospective studies are needed.

Participants enrolled in cardiovascular disease (CVD) randomized controlled trials are not often representative of the population living with the disease. Older adults, children, women, Black, Indigenous and People of Color, and people living in low- and middle-income countries are typically under-enrolled in trials relative to disease distribution. Treatment effect estimates of CVD therapies have been largely derived from trial evidence generated in White men without complex comorbidities, limiting the generalizability of evidence. This review highlights barriers and facilitators of trial enrollment, temporal trends, and the rationale for representativeness. It proposes strategies to increase representativeness in CVD trials, including trial designs that minimize the research burden on participants, inclusive recruitment practices and eligibility criteria, diversification of clinical trial leadership, and research capacity-building in under-represented regions. Implementation of such strategies could generate better and more generalizable evidence to reduce knowledge gaps and position the cardiovascular trial enterprise as a vehicle to counter existing healthcare inequalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The impact of prior cancer history on survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients remains unknown. The present study assessed the impact of prior cancer history on survival of patients with hypopharyngeal cancer. Methods: Patients with primary hypopharyngeal cancer diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 were extracted from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to balance baseline characteristics. One‐to‐one PSM, Kaplan–Meier method, and log‐rank test were performed for survival analysis. Results: We included 5017 patients with hypopharyngeal cancer. Prior cancer history had no significant impact on overall survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients in comparison with those without prior cancer history (p = 0.845, after PSM). Subgroup analysis showed that prior cancer history had no significant effect on overall survival of hypopharyngeal cancer patients. Conclusion: More hypopharyngeal cancer patients with prior cancer history should be considered for clinical trials. However, further prospective studies are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives We sought to evaluate the impact of baseline anxiety levels on drug placebo separation and drug and placebo response in acutely psychotic schizophrenic subjects. Methods In this post-hoc analysis, modified intent-to-treat Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale data were obtained from a phase 2, multi-center, 5 week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of KarXT in hospitalized adults with DSM-5 schizophrenia experiencing an acute exacerbation or relapse of symptoms. We investigated the impact of anxiety on drug placebo separation and drug and placebo response in 2 ways. In the first set of analyses, we dichotomized the data based on the absence or presence of anxiety symptoms. In the second set of analyses, we categorized subjects by levels of anxiety. All analyses were conducted using generalized linear models with normal distribution and identity link function. Results On average, subjects entering the trial were suffering from a moderate level of anxiety. Subjects with no baseline anxiety had a significant increase in placebo response, a decrease in drug response and did not separate drugs from placebo. With increasing levels of baseline anxiety, a larger drug placebo difference was observed. Discussion Our analyses identified that absence of anxiety at baseline was associated with a loss of signal at end of treatment between drug and placebo driven by a differential effect on placebo and treatment response. The effect observed was not related to the overall baseline symptom severity and was not mediated by improvement in anxiety itself. Interpretation of the results is caveated by the retrospective nature of the analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background A history of prior cancer commonly results in exclusion from cancer clinical trials. However, whether a prior cancer history has an adversely impact on clinical outcomes for patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) remains largely unknown. We therefore aimed to investigate the impact of prior cancer history on these patients. Methods We identified patients with advanced prostate cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan–Meier method and the Cox proportional hazard model were utilized for survival analysis. Results A total of 19,772 eligible APC patients were included, of whom 887 (4.5 %) had a history of prior cancer. Urinary bladder (19 %), colon and cecum (16 %), melanoma of the skin (9 %) malignancies, and non-hodgkin lymphoma (9 %) were the most common types of prior cancer. Patients with a history of prior cancer had slightly inferior overall survival (OS) (AHR = 1.13; 95 % CI [1.02–1.26]; P = 0.017) as compared with that of patients without a prior cancer diagnosis. Subgroup analysis further indicated that a history of prior cancer didn’t adversely impact patients’ clinical outcomes, except in patients with a prior cancer diagnosed within 2 years, at advanced stage, or originating from specific sites, including bladder, colon and cecum, or lung and bronchus, or prior chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Conclusions A large proportion of APC patients with a prior cancer history had non-inferior survival to that of patients without a prior cancer diagnosis. These patients may be candidates for relevant cancer trials.

Abstract Background The CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trials showed survival benefit of cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab, respectively, in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with sorafenib who had good performance status (ECOG 0‐1) and liver function (Child‐Pugh‐A). This study characterizes subsequent treatments received by HCC patients after sorafenib, and determines the proportion of patients eligible for novel therapies if strict eligibility criteria (SEC) were utilized compared to more liberal modified eligibility criteria (MEC, including ECOG 2, Child‐Pugh‐B7). Methods HCC patients who received sorafenib between 2008 and 2017 were included from the Canadian HCC CHORD Database. Patients were classified as eligible or ineligible based on available CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trial SEC or MEC. Median overall survival (mOS) was assessed using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Results A total of 730 patients were identified; and 172 (23.6%) received subsequent treatment. Patients who received subsequent treatment had longer mOS than those who did not (12.1 vs 3.3 months; P

Brain metastases cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cancer. In the era of precision oncology and immunotherapy, there are rapidly evolving systemic treatment options. These novel therapies may have variable intracranial efficacy, and patients with brain metastases remain a population of special interest. Typically, only patients with stable, asymptomatic and/or treated brain metastases are enrolled in clinical trials, or may be excluded altogether, particularly in the setting of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Consequently, this leads to significant concerns on the external validity of clinical trial evidence to real-world clinical practice. Here we describe the current trends in cancer clinical trial eligibility for patients with brain metastases in both early and late phase trials, with a focus on targeted and immunotherapies. We evaluate recent newly FDA approved therapies and the clinical trial evidence base leading to approval. This includes analysis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, requirements for baseline screening for brain metastases, surveillance cerebral imaging and incorporation of trial endpoints for patients with brain metastases. Finally, the use of alternative sources of data such as real-world evidence with registries and collaborative studies will be discussed.

Brain metastases cause significant morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced cancer. In the era of precision oncology and immunotherapy, there are rapidly evolving systemic treatment options. These novel therapies may have variable intracranial efficacy, and patients with brain metastases remain a population of special interest. Typically, only patients with stable, asymptomatic and/or treated brain metastases are enrolled in clinical trials, or may be excluded altogether, particularly in the setting of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis. Consequently, this leads to significant concerns on the external validity of clinical trial evidence to real-world clinical practice. Here we describe the current trends in cancer clinical trial eligibility for patients with brain metastases in both early and late phase trials, with a focus on targeted and immunotherapies. We evaluate recent newly FDA approved therapies and the clinical trial evidence base leading to approval. This includes analysis of inclusion and exclusion criteria, requirements for baseline screening for brain metastases, surveillance cerebral imaging and incorporation of trial endpoints for patients with brain metastases. Finally, the use of alternative sources of data such as real-world evidence with registries and collaborative studies will be discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A history of prior cancer commonly results in exclusion from cancer clinical trials. However, whether a prior cancer history has an adversely impact on clinical outcomes for patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) remains largely unknown. We therefore aimed to investigate the impact of prior cancer history on these patients.Methods: We identified patients with advanced prostate cancer diagnosed from 2004 to 2010 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance baseline characteristics. Kaplan-Meier method and the Cox proportional hazard model were utilized for survival analysis.Results: A total of 19,772 eligible APC patients were included, of whom 887 (4.5 %) had a history of prior cancer. Urinary bladder (19 %), colon and cecum (16 %), melanoma of the skin (9 %) malignancies, and non-hodgkin lymphoma (9 %) were the most common types of prior cancer. Patients with a history of prior cancer had slightly inferior overall survival (OS) (AHR = 1.13; 95 % CI [1.02-1.26]; P = 0.017) as compared with that of patients without a prior cancer diagnosis. Subgroup analysis further indicated that a history of prior cancer didn't adversely impact patients' clinical outcomes, except in patients with a prior cancer diagnosed within 2 years, at advanced stage, or originating from specific sites, including bladder, colon and cecum, or lung and bronchus, or prior chronic lymphocytic leukemia.Conclusions: A large proportion of APC patients with a prior cancer history had non-inferior survival to that of patients without a prior cancer diagnosis. These patients may be candidates for relevant cancer trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trials showed survival benefit of cabozantinib, regorafenib, and ramucirumab, respectively, in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with sorafenib who had good performance status (ECOG 0‐1) and liver function (Child‐Pugh‐A). This study characterizes subsequent treatments received by HCC patients after sorafenib, and determines the proportion of patients eligible for novel therapies if strict eligibility criteria (SEC) were utilized compared to more liberal modified eligibility criteria (MEC, including ECOG 2, Child‐Pugh‐B7). Methods: HCC patients who received sorafenib between 2008 and 2017 were included from the Canadian HCC CHORD Database. Patients were classified as eligible or ineligible based on available CELESTIAL, RESORCE, and REACH‐2 trial SEC or MEC. Median overall survival (mOS) was assessed using the Kaplan‐Meier method. Results: A total of 730 patients were identified; and 172 (23.6%) received subsequent treatment. Patients who received subsequent treatment had longer mOS than those who did not (12.1 vs 3.3 months; P <.001). Using SEC, only 13.1% of patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab. Expanding eligibility to include patients who meet MEC increased the proportion of eligible patients to 31.7%. Higher ineligibility for regorafenib and ramucirumab was driven by trial‐specific criteria, including sorafenib intolerance (28%) for RESORCE and AFP <400 (58.9%) for REACH‐2. Conclusions: A small proportion of real‐world HCC patients would be eligible for cabozantinib, regorafenib, or ramucirumab if SEC in clinical trials were followed, while more than double would be eligible if MEC were applied. Patients who received subsequent treatment had improved mOS, regardless of whether they met SEC or MEC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Metformin has plausible direct and indirect anti-cancer properties against pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells. However, metformin may only be efficacious in patients with inoperable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) without liver metastases. Absorption may be decreased by gastrointestinal symptoms and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We aimed to justify and inform a future phase III trial of metformin versus placebo on survival in inoperable PDAC by documenting prevalence of patients meeting eligibility criteria, gastrointestinal symptoms and PPI use. Methods: Patient notes with PDAC were reviewed at a large teaching hospital over 2 years. Study variables were obtained from multiple sources of information. Results: 141 participants were identified (51.8% female), of which 37.6% were not prescribed metformin at diagnosis and had no radiological hepatic metastases. Characteristics were similar between non-metformin and metformin users. In eligible patients, 65.2% reported nausea and vomiting and 46.2% were prescribed PPIs. Conclusion: Approximately, a third of all patients with inoperable PDAC are eligible for a future trial of metformin, allowing an estimate of the number of hospitals required for recruitment. Nausea and vomiting are common and should be managed effectively to prevent trial dropouts. PPI use is frequent and their influence on metformin's pharmacodynamic actions needs to be clarified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]