Feasibility assessment of patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in multicenter cancer clinical trials

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling “too ill” in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials

Capmatinib in MET Exon 14-Mutated or MET-Amplified Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUNDAmong patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC),METexon 14 skipping mutations occur in 3 to 4% andMETamplifications occur in 1 to 6%. Capmatinib, a selective inhibitor of the MET receptor, has shown activity in cancer models with various types of MET activation.METHODSWe conducted a multiple-cohort, phase 2 study evaluating capmatinib in patients withMET-dysregulated advanced NSCLC. Patients were assigned to cohorts on the basis of previous lines of therapy andMETstatus (METexon 14 skipping mutation orMETamplification according to gene copy number in tumor tissue). Patients received capmatinib (400-mg tablet) twice daily. The primary end point was overall response (complete or partial response), and the key secondary end point was response duration; both end points were assessed by an independent review committee whose members were unaware of the cohort assignments.RESULTSA total of 364 patients were assigned to the cohorts. Among patients with NSCLC with aMETexon 14 skipping mutation, overall response was observed in 41% (95% confidence interval [CI], 29 to 53) of 69 patients who had received one or two lines of therapy previously and in 68% (95% CI, 48 to 84) of 28 patients who had not received treatment previously; the median duration of response was 9.7 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 13.0) and 12.6 months (95% CI, 5.6 to could not be estimated), respectively. Limited efficacy was observed in previously treated patients withMETamplification who had a gene copy number of less than 10 (overall response in 7 to 12% of patients). Among patients withMETamplification and a gene copy number of 10 or higher, overall response was observed in 29% (95% CI, 19 to 41) of previously treated patients and in 40% (95% CI, 16 to 68) of those who had not received treatment previously. The most frequently reported adverse events were peripheral edema (in 51%) and nausea (in 45%); these events were mostly of grade 1 or 2.CONCLUSIONSCapmatinib showed substantial antitumor activity in patients with advanced NSCLC with aMETexon 14 skipping mutation, particularly in those not treated previously. The efficacy inMET-amplified advanced NSCLC was higher in tumors with a high gene copy number than in those with a low gene copy number. Low-grade peripheral edema and nausea were the main toxic effects.Pathogenesis and treatment of chronic pulmonary disease

Targeted therapies in small cell lung cancer: A review

Small cell lung cancer (SCLC) is an aggressive form of lung cancer that is characterized by a rapid doubling time, early onset of dissemination and high sensitivity to chemotherapy. Despite the potential for cure in patients with limited disease with concurrent chemoradiation and an initial good response to chemotherapy in extensive disease, there is a high chance of disease relapse with an overall poor median survival for both stages. With increasing translational research and a better understanding of the molecular basis of cancer, a number of molecular targets have been identified in various preclinical studies. This review summarizes potentially viable targets and new agents that have been developed and employed in recent, ongoing and future clinical trials to attempt to improve clinical outcomes in this disease