Search

Purpose: Chemoradiation (CRT) is an integral treatment modality for patients with locally advanced lung cancer. It has been hypothesized that current use of an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor during CRT may be protective for treatment-related lung damage and pneumonitis., Methods and Materials: We conducted a pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Study-eligible patients receiving curative thoracic radiation therapy (RT) were randomly assigned to 20 mg of lisinopril or placebo once daily during and up to 3 months after RT. All patients received concurrent chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was adverse event profiling. Multiple patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys, including the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale, Function Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Lung Cancer Questionnaire, were applied with a symptom experience questionnaire. Exploratory comparative statistics were used to detect differences between arms with χ 2 and Kruskal-Wallis testing., Results: Five institutions enrolled 23 patients. However, accrual was less than expected. Eleven and 12 patients were in the placebo and lisinopril arms, respectively (mean age, 63.5 years; male, 62%). Baseline characteristics were balanced. Eighteen patients (86%) were former or current smokers. The primary endpoint was met; neither arm had grade 3 or higher hypotension, acute kidney injury, allergic reaction (medication-induced cough), or anaphylaxis (medication-related angioedema). Few PRO measures suggested that compared with the placebo arm, patients receiving lisinopril had less cough, less shortness of breath, fewer symptoms from lung cancer, less dyspnea with both walking and climbing stairs, and better overall quality of life (for all, P < .05)., Conclusions: Although underpowered because of low accrual, our results suggest that there was a clinical signal for safety-and possibly beneficial by limited PRO measures-in concurrently administering lisinopril during thoracic CRT to mitigate or prevent RT-induced pulmonary distress. Our results showed that a definitive, larger-scale, randomized phase 3 trial is needed in the future., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: To provide confirmatory evidence on the use of sulfasalazine to reduce enteritis during pelvic radiation therapy (RT), following 2 prior single-institution trials suggestive that benefit existed., Methods and Materials: A multi-institution, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial was designed to assess the efficacy of sulfasalazine versus placebo in the treatment of RT-related enteritis during RT including the posterior pelvis (45.0-53.5 Gy) and conducted through a multicenter national cooperative research alliance. Patients received 1000 mg of sulfasalazine or placebo orally twice daily during and for 4 weeks after RT. The primary endpoint was maximum severity of diarrhea (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0). Toxicity and bowel function were assessed by providers through a self-administered bowel function questionnaire taken weekly during RT and for 6 weeks afterward., Results: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled in the trial between April 29, 2011, and May 13, 2013, with evenly distributed baseline factors. At the time of a planned interim toxicity analysis, more patients with grade ≥3 diarrhea received sulfasalazine than received placebo (29% vs 11%, P=.04). A futility analysis showed that trial continuation would be unlikely to yield a positive result, and a research board recommended halting study treatment. Final analysis of the primary endpoint showed no significant difference in maximum diarrhea severity between the sulfasalazine and placebo arms (P=.41)., Conclusions: Sulfasalazine does not reduce enteritis during pelvic RT and may be associated with a higher risk of adverse events than placebo. This trial illustrates the importance of confirmatory phase 3 trials in the evaluation of symptom-control agents., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system., Methods: Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed., Results: 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = -0.04 [-0.16-0.22]; tablet vs paper = -0.02 [-0.11-0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [-0.07-0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper., Conclusions: Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration., Trial Registration: NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637.

Importance: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)., Objective: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items., Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit., Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30)., Results: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006)., Conclusions and Relevance: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.