How to report toxicity associated with targeted therapies?

Critical gaps in understanding treatment outcomes in adolescents and young adults with lymphoma: A review of current data

Adolescents and young adults (AYA) with lymphoma experience treatment-related effects in the short and long term that impact their quality of life and survivorship experience. The effort to improve outcomes for AYA lymphoma survivors requires understanding the available literature, identifying current knowledge deficits, designing better clinical trials incorporating the patient perspective, using novel tools to bridge data gaps and building survivorship guidelines that translate research to clinical practice. This review article summarizes the current state of lymphoma treatment-related outcomes in AYAs and provides future direction.

Using recurrent time-to-event models with multinomial outcomes to generate toxicity profiles

Most clinical studies, which investigate the impact of therapy simultaneously, record the frequency of adverse events in order to monitor safety of the intervention. Study reports typically summarise adverse event data by tabulating the frequencies of the worst grade experienced but provide no details of the temporal profiles of specific types of adverse events. Such 'toxicity profiles' are potentially important tools in disease management and in the assessment of newer therapies including targeted treatments and immunotherapy where different types of toxicity may be more common at various times during long-term drug exposure. Toxicity profiles of commonly experienced adverse events occurring due to exposure to long-term treatment could assist in evaluating the costs of the health care benefits of therapy. We show how to generate toxicity profiles using an adaptation of the ordinal time-to-event model comprising of a two-step process, involving estimation of the multinomial response probabilities using multinomial logistic regression and combining these with recurrent time to event hazard estimates to produce cumulative event probabilities for each of the multinomial adverse event response categories. Such a model permits the simultaneous assessment of the risk of events over time and provides cumulative risk probabilities for each type of adverse event response. The method can be applied more generally by using different models to estimate outcome/response probabilities. The method is illustrated by developing toxicity profiles for three distinct types of adverse events associated with two treatment regimens for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Understanding Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Mantle Cell Lymphoma

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a unique lymphoma that is heterogeneous in its clinical course, and lacks consensus treatment approaches. It is often treated with immunochemotherapy at diagnosis and chronic therapies in relapse. Despite significant advances in therapy, MCL remains incurable. Maintaining patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is an important treatment goal. Assessment of HRQOL elucidates the impact of an illness and its treatment on patients' lives. This review highlights the relevance of HRQOL assessment in MCL, evaluates existing evidence, current knowledge gaps and challenges in HRQOL assessment, and defines future directions for improving HRQOL evaluation in MCL patients.

The effect of age on efficacy, safety and patient-centered outcomes with rucaparib: A post hoc exploratory analysis of ARIEL3, a phase 3, randomized, maintenance study in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase 3 trial ARIEL3, maintenance treatment with the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor rucaparib provided clinical benefit versus placebo for patients with recurrent, platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Here, we evaluate the impact of age on the clinical utility of rucaparib in ARIEL3.

METHODS

Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma with ≥2 prior platinum-based chemotherapies who responded to their last platinum-based therapy were enrolled in ARIEL3 and randomized 2:1 to rucaparib 600 mg twice daily or placebo. Exploratory, post hoc analyses of progression-free survival (PFS), patient-centered outcomes (quality-adjusted PFS [QA-PFS] and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity [Q-TWiST]), and safety were conducted in three age subgroups (<65 years, 65-74 years, and ≥75 years).

RESULTS

Investigator-assessed PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo in patients aged <65 years (rucaparib n = 237 vs placebo n = 117; median, 11.1 vs 5.4 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.25-0.43]; P < 0.0001) and 65-74 years (n = 113 vs n = 64; median, 8.3 vs 5.3 months; HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.29-0.63]; P < 0.0001) and numerically longer in patients aged ≥75 years (n = 25 vs n = 8; median, 9.2 vs 5.5 months; HR 0.47 [95% CI 0.16-1.35]; P = 0.1593). QA-PFS and Q-TWiST were significantly longer with rucaparib than placebo across all age subgroups. Safety of rucaparib was generally similar across the age subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Efficacy, patient-centered outcomes, and safety of rucaparib were similar between age subgroups, indicating that all eligible women with recurrent ovarian cancer should be offered this therapeutic option, irrespective of age. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01968213.

Patient-Centered Outcomes in ARIEL3, a Phase III, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Rucaparib Maintenance Treatment in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Carcinoma

PURPOSE

To investigate quality-adjusted progression-free survival (QA-PFS) and quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) in a post hoc exploratory analysis of the phase III ARIEL3 study of rucaparib maintenance treatment versus placebo.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to rucaparib (600 mg twice per day) or placebo. QA-PFS was calculated as progression-free survival function × the 3-level version of the EQ-5D questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) index score function. Q-TWiST analyses were performed defining TOX as the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) or the mean duration in which a patient experienced grade ≥ 2 TEAEs of nausea, vomiting, fatigue, and asthenia. Q-TWiST was calculated as μTOX × TOX + TWiST, with μTOX calculated using EQ-5D-3L data.

RESULTS

The visit cutoff was Apr 15, 2017. Mean QA-PFS was significantly longer with rucaparib versus placebo in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (375 randomly assigned to rucaparib v 189 randomly assigned to placebo; difference, 6.28 months [95% CI, 4.85 to 7.47 months]); BRCA-mutant cohort (130 rucaparib v 66 placebo; 9.37 months [95% CI, 6.65 to 11.85 months]); homologous recombination deficient (HRD) cohort (236 rucaparib v 118 placebo; 7.93 months [95% CI, 5.93 to 9.53 months]); and BRCA wild-type/loss of heterozygosity (LOH) low patient subgroup (107 rucaparib v 54 placebo; 2.71 months [95% CI, 0.31 to 4.44 months]). With TOX defined using grade ≥ 3 TEAEs, the difference in mean Q-TWiST (rucaparib v placebo) was 6.88 months (95% CI, 5.71 to 8.23 months), 9.73 months (95% CI, 7.10 to 11.94 months), 8.11 months (95% CI, 6.36 to 9.49 months), and 3.35 months (95% CI, 1.66 to 5.40 months) in the ITT population, BRCA-mutant cohort, HRD cohort, and BRCA wild-type/LOH low patient subgroup, respectively. Q-TWiST with TOX defined using select grade ≥ 2 TEAEs also consistently favored rucaparib.

CONCLUSION

The significant differences in QA-PFS and Q-TWiST confirm the benefit of rucaparib versus placebo in all predefined cohorts.

Longitudinal Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis to evaluate tolerability: a case study of lenalidomide in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance) trial

Evaluation of tolerability is increasingly relevant for patients with haematological malignancies treated with chronically administered therapies. Adverse events from these agents might affect the ability of patients to tolerate treatment over time. Conventional toxicity tables that include the incidence of high-grade adverse events, defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, do not provide information on the time profile of these adverse events or reflect the continuous, lower grade symptomatic toxicities that are particularly relevant to treatment tolerability for patients living with indolent disease. Modern approaches to the evaluation and reporting of toxicity that capture the tolerability of treatment to the patient are imperative. In this Viewpoint, we present a focused, pilot, and longitudinal Toxicity over Time analysis of adverse events from lenalidomide and lenalidomide with rituximab in patients with follicular lymphoma treated in the CALGB 50401 (Alliance; NCT00238238) trial to define the trajectory of adverse events and quantify the burden of continuous, low-grade events. Toxicity over Time analyses provided clinically relevant descriptions of neutropenia and fatigue trajectories caused by lenalidomide that were not identified by standard analysis of the maximum grade events defined by the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Systematic, rigorous incorporation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials will be crucial to our understanding of the tolerability of chronically administered therapies in patients with haematological malignancies.

Modernizing adverse events analysis in oncology clinical trials using alternative approaches: rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial

In oncology clinical research, the analysis and reporting of adverse events is of major interest. A consistent depiction of the safety profile of a new treatment is as crucial in establishing how to use it as its antitumor activity. The advent of new therapeutics has led to major changes in the management of patients and targeted therapies or immune checkpoint inhibitors are administered continuously for months or even years. However, the classical methods of adverse events analysis are no longer adequate to properly assess their safety profile. Indeed, the worst grade method and time-to-event analysis cannot capture the duration or the evolution of adverse events induced by extended treatment durations. Many authors have highlighted this issue and argue that the analysis of safety data from clinical trials should be modernized by considering the dimension of time and the recurrent nature of adverse events. This paper aims to illustrate the limitations of current methods and discusses the value of alternative approaches such as the prevalence function, Q-TWiST, the ToxT and the recurrent event approaches. The rationale and design of the MOTIVATE trial, which aims to model the evolution of toxicities over time using the prevalence function in patients treated by immunotherapy, is also presented ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03447483; Date of registration: 27 February 2018).

The importance of jointly analyzing treatment administration and toxicity associated with targeted therapies: a case study of regorafenib in soft tissue sarcoma patients

Background

Different methods have been proposed to analyze adverse events (AEs) associated with targeted therapies. While these AEs lead to dose adjustments for many patients, conventional reporting methods do not take drug administration into consideration. This paper underlines the importance of jointly reporting AEs and drug administration using prevalence, and proposes a complementary approach to reporting.

Patients and methods

The prevalence method estimates the probability of progression-free patients being in a particular health state (state 1: AEs with full dose; state 2: AEs with reduced dose; state 3: no AEs with reduced dose) at different time points. To take into account the impact of dose adjustments on efficacy, the weighted prevalence method can be used by assigning utility weights to the different health states. The benefit of these methods was illustrated using data from a phase II trial of regorafenib.

Results

Only 4.6% of progression-free patients developed mucositis/stomatitis (grade ≥2) at 3 months. The prevalence of patients not experiencing this AE but whose dose was reduced or treatment interrupted was 58.1%. The weighted prevalence of the regorafenib toxicity profile and dose reduction was higher in the control arm.

Conclusion

This case study confirms the importance of jointly analyzing AEs and drug administration. The weighted prevalence approach is an average score that incorporates the dimension of drug administration into AE assessment. This can be helpful for regulatory agencies as well as for clinicians to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of therapies in their treatment choice.

Clinical trial

NCT01900743.

Palliative chemotherapy in carcinoma nasopharynx

Introduction

Nasopharyngeal carcinoma is a rare malignancy. We conducted an audit of systemic therapies received in palliative setting in carcinoma nasopharynx and studied their outcomes.

Methods

Patients who underwent first-line palliative systemic chemotherapy between January 2014 and April 2017 for carcinoma nasopharynx at the department of medical oncology at authors' institute were selected for this analysis. Toxicities, responses, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed. In addition, a Quality-Adjusted Time without Symptoms or Toxicity analysis with threshold utility analysis was performed.

Results

Fifty-one patients were included in this analysis. The indication of palliative chemotherapy was locoregionally recurrent disease in 25 (49.0%) patients and metastatic disease in 26 (51.0%) patients. The overall response rate was 62.0% (n = 33). The median PFS was 225 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 164-274 days) and median OS was 513 days (95% CI: 286-931 days). The restricted mean TOX state duration was 2.6 days (95% CI: 0.3-4.9), restricted mean TWiST duration was 219.2 days (95% CI: 184.0-254.4), and restricted mean REL duration was 74.3 days (95% CI: 38.1-110.4).

Conclusion

Systemic cytotoxic therapy in nasopharyngeal cancers is associated with high response rates and clinically meaningful PFS; with low duration of time spent in adverse events.

A study of 1088 consecutive cases of electrolyte abnormalities in oncology phase I trials

Background

The incidence and clinical significance of electrolyte abnormalities (EAs) in phase I clinical trials are unknown. The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and severity of EAs, graded according to CTCAE, v4.03, to identify variables associated with EAs and their prognostic significance in a phase I population.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was performed of 1088 cases in 82 phase I clinical trials consecutively treated from 2011 to 2015 at the Drug Development Unit of the Royal Marsden Hospital. Cox regression analysis was performed to examine the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline characteristics, treating the occurrence of grade III/IV EAs as a time-varying covariate.

Results

The most common emergent EAs (all grades) were as follows: hyponatraemia 62%, hypokalaemia 40%, hypophosphataemia 32%, hypomagnesaemia 17% and hypocalcaemia 12%. Grade III/IV EAs occurred in 19% of cases. Grade III/IV EAs occurred during the dose-limiting toxicity window in 8.46% of cases. Diarrhoea was associated with hypomagnesaemia at all grades (p < 0.001), hyponatraemia at all grades (p = 0.006) and with G3/G4 hypokalaemia (p = 0.02). Baseline hypoalbuminaemia and hyponatraemia were associated with a higher risk of developing other EAs during the trial in the univariate analysis. Patients who developed grade III/IV EAs during follow-up had an inferior median OS (26 weeks vs 37 weeks, hazard ratio = 1.61; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

This is the first study to demonstrate the clinical significance of baseline hypoalbuminaemia and hyponatraemia, which are predictors of development of other EAs in phase I patients. Grade III/IV EAs are adverse prognostic factors of OS independent of serum albumin levels.

•

Patients who develop grade III/IV electrolyte abnormalities have poorer overall survival.

•

Hyponatraemia is linked to higher risk of developing other electrolyte abnormalities.

•

Hypoalbuminaemia is linked to higher risk of developing electrolyte abnormalities.

Clinical Trials in the Genomic Era

Personalization of therapy to target specific molecular pathways has been placed in the forefront of cancer research. Initial reports from clinical trials designed to select patients for appropriate treatment on the basis of tumor characteristics not only have generated considerable excitement but also have identified several challenges. These challenges include the overcoming of regulatory and logistic difficulties, identification of the best selection biomarkers and diagnostic platforms that can be applied in the clinical setting, definition of relevant outcomes in small preselected patient populations, and the design of methods that facilitate rapid enrollment and interpretation of clinical trials by aggregating data across histologically diverse malignancies with common genetic alterations. Furthermore, because our knowledge of the functional consequences of many genetic alterations lags, investigators and sponsors struggle with choosing between ideal clinical trial designs and more practical ones. These challenges are amplified when more than one biomarker is used to select patients for a combination of targeted agents. This review summarizes the current status and challenges of clinical trials in the genomic era and proposes ways to address these challenges.