An adverse event capture and management system for cancer studies

Rates of laboratory adverse events by course in paediatric leukaemia ascertained with automated electronic health record extraction: a retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group

BACKGROUND

Adverse events are often misreported in clinical trials, leading to an incomplete understanding of toxicities. We aimed to test automated laboratory adverse event ascertainment and grading (via the ExtractEHR automated package) to assess its scalability and define adverse event rates for children with acute myeloid leukaemia and acute lymphoblastic leukaemia.

METHODS

For this retrospective cohort study from the Children's Oncology Group (COG), we included patients aged 0-22 years treated for acute myeloid leukaemia or acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at Children's Healthcare of Atlanta (Atlanta, GA, USA) from Jan 1, 2010, to Nov 1, 2018, at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014, and at the Texas Children's Hospital (Houston, TX, USA) from Jan 1, 2011, to Dec 31, 2014. The ExtractEHR automated package acquired, cleaned, and graded laboratory data as per Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5 for 22 commonly evaluated grade 3-4 adverse events (fatal events were not evaluated) with numerically based CTCAE definitions. Descriptive statistics tabulated adverse event frequencies. Adverse events ascertained by ExtractEHR were compared to manually reported adverse events for patients enrolled in two COG trials (AAML1031, NCT01371981; AALL0932, NCT02883049). Analyses were restricted to protocol-defined chemotherapy courses (induction I, induction II, intensification I, intensification II, and intensification III for acute myeloid leukaemia; induction, consolidation, interim maintenance, delayed intensification, and maintenance for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia).

FINDINGS

Laboratory adverse event data from 1077 patients (583 from Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, 200 from the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, and 294 from the Texas Children's Hospital) who underwent 4611 courses (549 for acute myeloid leukaemia and 4062 for acute lymphoblastic leukaemia) were extracted, processed, and graded. Of the 166 patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, 86 (52%) were female, 80 (48%) were male, 96 (58%) were White, and 132 (80%) were non-Hispanic. Of the 911 patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, 406 (45%) were female, 505 (55%) were male, 596 (65%) were White, and 641 (70%) were non-Hispanic. Patients with acute myeloid leukaemia had the most adverse events during induction I and intensification II. Hypokalaemia (one [17%] of six to 75 [48%] of 156 courses) and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) increased (13 [10%] of 134 to 27 [17%] of 156 courses) were the most prevalent non-haematological adverse events in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia, as identified by ExtractEHR. Patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia had the greatest number of adverse events during induction and maintenance (eight adverse events with prevalence ≥10%; induction and maintenance: anaemia, platelet count decreased, white blood cell count decreased, neutrophil count decreased, lymphocyte count decreased, ALT increased, and hypocalcaemia; induction: hypokalaemia; maintenance: aspartate aminotransferase [AST] increased and blood bilirubin increased), as identified by ExtractEHR. 187 (85%) of 220 total comparisons in 22 adverse events in four AAML1031 and six AALL0923 courses were substantially higher with ExtractEHR than COG-reported adverse event rates for adverse events with a prevalence of at least 2%.

INTERPRETATION

ExtractEHR is scalable and accurately defines laboratory adverse event rates for paediatric acute leukaemia; moreover, ExtractEHR seems to detect higher rates of laboratory adverse events than those reported in COG trials. These rates can be used for comparisons between therapies and to counsel patients treated on or off trials about the risks of chemotherapy. ExtractEHR-based adverse event ascertainment can improve reporting of laboratory adverse events in clinical trials.

FUNDING

US National Institutes of Health, St Baldrick's Foundation, and Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma With Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus Treated With Transarterial Chemoembolization and Sorafenib vs. 125Iodine Implantation

Background and Aims

This study investigated the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with CT-guided ¹²⁵iodine seed implantation for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with first-branch portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT).

Methods

This prospective, controlled, multicenter study included HCC patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease and PVTT in the right and/or left portal veins. Patients were treated with either TACE and sorafenib or TACE and CT-guided ¹²⁵iodine seed implantation and regularly evaluated for clinical response and adverse events, with treatment termination resulting from declining clinical status, loss to follow-up, or death.

Results

This study demonstrated a significant between-group difference in median overall survival (OS); therefore, it was terminated early. A total of 123 patients were included in this study, with 52 patients in the TACE-sorafenib group and 71 patients in the TACE-¹²⁵iodine group, without significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. The median OS was 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.105–10.495) in the TACE-sorafenib group and 13.8 months (95% CI: 9.519–18.081) in the TACE-¹²⁵iodine group. In a subgroup analysis of type IIa versus type IIb PVTT, the median OS was 17.5 months for type IIa and 7.1 months for IIb in the TACE-¹²⁵iodine group. The median OS was 9.3 months for IIa and 4.0 months for IIb in the TACE-sorafenib group. Univariate and multivariate analyses confirmed that the PVTT type and treatment strategy were significant independent factors affecting OS. The objective response rates (ORR) for intrahepatic lesions and PVTT showed significant differences between groups. Most patients in both groups experienced minor adverse events related to TACE. The overall incidence of sorafenib-related adverse events or toxic effects was 90.4% in TACE-sorafenib group. In the TACE-¹²⁵iodine group, the incidence of pneumothorax and minor hepatic subcapsular hemorrhage were 7.04% and 9.86%, respectively.

Conclusions

This study showed that TACE-¹²⁵iodine treatment significantly enhanced survival of patients with HCC and type II PVTT, especially subtype IIa, with minimal adverse events.

Clinical Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trials Database, identifier ChiCTR-ONN-16007929.

Serious Adverse Events Reporting in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials of Colorectal Cancer Treatments: A Systematic Analysis

Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.

Evolution of Hematology Clinical Trial Adverse Event Reporting to Improve Care Delivery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reporting of adverse events on hematology clinical trials is crucial to understanding the safety of standard treatments and novel agents. However, despite the importance of understanding toxicities, challenges in capturing and reporting accurate adverse event data exist.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, adverse events are reported manually on most hematology clinical trials. Especially on phase III trials, the highest grade of each adverse event during a reporting period is typically reported. Despite the effort committed to AE reporting, studies have identified underreporting of adverse events on hematologic malignancy clinical trials, which raises concern about the true understanding of safety of treatment that clinicians have in order to guide patients about what to expect during therapy. In order to address these concerns, recent studies have piloted alternative methods for identification of adverse events. These methods include automated extraction of adverse event data from the electronic health record, implementation of trigger or alert tools into the medical record, and analytic tools to evaluate duration of adverse events rather than only the highest adverse event grade. Adverse event reporting is a crucial component of clinical trials. Novel tools for identifying and reporting adverse events provide opportunities for honing and refining methods of toxicity capture and improving understanding of toxicities patients experience while enrolled on clinical trials.

Evaluating the Coverage of the HL7 ® FHIR ® Standard to Support eSource Data Exchange Implementations for use in Multi-Site Clinical Research Studies

The direct use of EHR data in research, often referred to as 'eSource', has long-been a goal for researchers because of anticipated increases in data quality and reductions in site burden. eSource solutions should rely on data exchange standards for consistency, quality, and efficiency. The utility of any data standard can be evaluated by its ability to meet specific use case requirements. The Health Level Seven (HL7 ^® ) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR ^® ) standard is widely recognized for clinical data exchange; however, a thorough analysis of the standard's data coverage in supporting multi-site clinical studies has not been conducted. We developed and implemented a systematic mapping approach for evaluating HL7 ^® FHIR ^® standard coverage in multi-center clinical trials. Study data elements from three diverse studies were mapped to HL7 ^® FHIR ^® resources, offering insight into the coverage and utility of the standard for supporting the data collection needs of multi-site clinical research studies.

Improving symptom control and reducing toxicities for pediatric patients with hematological malignancies

The continuing improvement in pediatric cancer survival over time is largely attributable to the availability of intensive therapies. Increasing attention has been focused on addressing the physical and psychosocial impacts of cancer and cancer treatments. Evidence from adult oncology suggests that routine symptom screening and feedback to health care providers can improve patient-clinician communication, reduce distress, and improve quality of life and may even increase survival. Many questions remain regarding implementation of routine symptom screening in pediatric cancer care, including the best symptom assessment instrument and the reporter type and feasibility of integration with electronic health records (EHRs). Nonsymptom adverse events are also important, for both routine clinical care and adverse event reporting for patients enrolled in clinical trials. However, traditional mechanisms for reporting adverse events lead to substantial inaccuracies and are labor intensive. An automated approach for abstraction from EHRs is a potential mechanism for improving accuracy and reducing workload. Finally, identification of symptom and nonsymptom toxicities must be paired with prophylactic and therapeutic strategies. These strategies should be based on clinical practice guidelines that synthesize evidence and use multiprofessional, multidisciplinary expertise to place this evidence in clinical context and create recommendations. How best to implement clinical practice guidelines remains a challenge, but EHR order sets and alerts may be useful. In summary, although survival is excellent for pediatric patients receiving cancer therapies, more focus is needed on identification of symptoms and nonsymptom toxicities and their management. The EHR may be useful for promoting better supportive care through these mechanisms.

Accelerating the Adoption of eSource in Clinical Research: A Transcelerate Point of View

For almost a decade, regulators and pharmaceutical industry groups have been interested in electronic source (eSource) in clinical trials (Nordo et al. in Learn Health Syst 3:e10076, 2019). eSource may provide efficiencies and value; however, eSource adoption is fragmented and slow. Acceleration of eSource adoption is a critical step in modernizing the conduct of clinical trials. The desired future state is one in which all source data, acquired through any context (e.g., healthcare delivery, chronic disease management) and actor (e.g., healthcare professional, patient, caregiver), are completely electronic, adequate in quality, and fully acceptable in clinical trial submissions by regulators worldwide. Achieving this desired future state requires transformative change management to foster adoption and minimize the burden of implementing eSource. Realizing this vision requires collaborative and dedicated efforts from multiple stakeholders, including patients, clinical trial participants, sites, technology vendors, standards organizations, regulators, payers, and sponsors. Stakeholders should align upon guidance to promote data integrity, data privacy, data security, and interoperability. The eSource revolution requires open dialogue, inclusive of shared learnings among stakeholders, to collectively and rapidly advance adoption. Adoption of eSource will optimize clinical research by enabling faster access to research data and more rapid decision-making, increasing clinical trial efficiency. Furthermore, adoption of eSource will improve data integrity by allowing direct data flow from the source to the sponsor’s system, with minimal or no human intervention. This paper provides the TransCelerate point of view (POV) and recommendations to achieve the future state vision of complete utilization of eSource data in clinical trials and builds on previous TransCelerate eSource publications.

Use of EHRs data for clinical research: Historical progress and current applications

The benefits of reusing EHR data for clinical research studies are numerous. They portend the opportunity to bring new therapies to patients sooner, potentially at a lower cost, and to accelerate learning health cycles-through faster data acquisition in clinical research studies. Metrics have proven that time can be saved, workflow and processes streamlined, and data quality increased significantly. Pilot projects and now actual investigational trials used for regulatory submissions have shown that these benefits support the transformation of clinical research by leveraging EHRs for research. Panelists at a recent collaborative focused on bridging clinical research and clinical care offered varying perspectives on how the latest standards and technologies could be leveraged to facilitate data transfer from EHR systems into clinical research databases, as well as the associated improvements in data quality. Panelists also discussed other avenues to leverage EHR in clinical research. Improvements and exciting possibilities notwithstanding, much work remains. Data ownership and access, attention to metadata and structured data for data sharing, and broader adoption of global standards are key areas for collaboration. With the steady increase in adoption of EHRs around the world, this is an excellent time for all stakeholders to work together and create an environment such that EHRs can be used more readily for research. The capacity for research can thus be increased to provide more high-quality information that will contribute to rapid continuous learning health systems from which all patients can benefit.

TOXICAN: a guide for grading dermatological adverse events of cancer treatments

PURPOSE

The dermatological toxicity of cancer treatments is frequent and sometimes debilitating. Its reference classification, the NCI-CTCAE (National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events), is sometimes difficult to use and does not include yet the newest toxicities. Our objective was to create a guide, TOXICAN, based on the CTCAE, which is easy to use in everyday practice and which facilitates the recognition and grading of these dermatological toxicities.

METHODS

This guide was developed by a working group ("GESTIM") comprising oncodermatologists, allergists, pathologists, and researchers from Nantes University Hospital. It was based on the dermatological toxicities found in the CTCAE and adapted to daily practice. These toxicities were grouped into categories and associated with photographs of typical cases to aid recognition. A simplified grading scale derived from the CTCAE was also created. This booklet was validated by means of user evaluation, and then the Delphi consensus method.

RESULTS

We selected 32 dermatological toxicities, including 12 created by our group, sorted into 7 categories: skin rash, dry skin/pruritus, hyperkeratotic papules, palmoplantar changes, hair and nail changes, mucosal changes, and others. Our simplified grading scale only differed from the CTCAE for one item, urticaria. Three items were modified after evaluation by the user group and 11 after application of the Delphi method.

CONCLUSION

The objective of our practical guide is to facilitate the use of the CTCAE for recognizing and grading dermatological toxicity of cancer treatments in order to provide optimal guidance for therapeutic adaptations. Its impact on clinical practice remains to be evaluated.

Using electronic medical record data to report laboratory adverse events

Despite the importance of adverse event (AE) reporting, AEs are under-reported on clinical trials. We hypothesized that electronic medical record (EMR) data can ascertain laboratory-based AEs more accurately than those ascertained manually. EMR data on 12 AEs for patients enrolled on two Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials at one institution were extracted, processed and graded. When compared to gold standard chart data, COG AE report sensitivity and positive predictive values (PPV) were 0-21·1% and 20-100%, respectively. EMR sensitivity and PPV were >98·2% for all AEs. These results demonstrate that EMR-based AE ascertainment and grading substantially improves laboratory AE reporting accuracy.

Efficacy and Tolerability of Solifenacin 5 mg Fixed Dose in Korean Children with Newly Diagnosed Idiopathic Overactive Bladder: a Multicenter Prospective Study

We investigated the efficacy and tolerability of solifenacin 5 mg fixed dose in children with newly diagnosed idiopathic overactive bladder (OAB). A total of 34 children (male/female patients = 16/18) aged under 13 years (mean age: 7.2 ± 2.3; range: 5-12) who were newly diagnosed with OAB from January 2012 to September 2014 were prospectively evaluated with open-label protocol. All patients were treated with solifenacin 5 mg fixed dose once daily for at least 4 weeks. The efficacy and tolerability of solifenacin were evaluated 4, 8, and 12 weeks after the initiation of treatment. The mean voiding frequency during daytime was decreased from 9.4 ± 3.0 to 6.5 ± 2.3 times after the 12-week treatment (P < 0.001). The mean total OAB symptom score (OABSS) decreased from 7.7 ± 4.2 to 3.1 ± 3.1 after the 12-week treatment (P < 0.001). The urgency and urgency urinary incontinence (UUI) domains significantly improved from the 12-week treatment, and complete resolution of urgency occurred in 38.9% of patients and the percentage of children with UUI among urgent patients decreased from 79.4% to 57.1%. According to 3-day voiding diaries, the average bladder capacity increased from 90.4 ± 44.4 to 156.2 ± 67.3 mL (P < 0.001). Drug-induced adverse effects (AEs) were reported in 7 patients (20.6%). Our results indicate that solifenacin 5 mg fixed dose is effective against OAB symptoms, and its tolerability is acceptable without significant AEs in children with OAB.