Patient values in patient-provider communication about participation in early phase clinical cancer trials:a qualitative analysis before and after implementation of an online value clarification tool intervention

Background: Patients with advanced cancer who no longer have standard treatment options available may decide to participate in early phase clinical trials (i.e. experimental treatments with uncertain outcomes). Shared decision-making (SDM) models help to understand considerations that influence patients’ decision. Discussion of patient values is essential to SDM, but such communication is often limited in this context and may require new interventions. The OnVaCT intervention, consisting of a preparatory online value clarification tool (OnVaCT) for patients and communication training for oncologists, was previously developed to support SDM. This study aimed to qualitatively explore associations between patient values that are discussed between patients and oncologists during consultations about potential participation in early phase clinical trials before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. Methods: This study is part of a prospective multicentre nonrandomized controlled clinical trial and had a between-subjects design: pre-intervention patients received usual care, while post-intervention patients additionally received the OnVaCT. Oncologists participated in the communication training between study phases. Patients’ initial consultation on potential early phase clinical trial participation was recorded and transcribed verbatim. Applying a directed approach, two independent coders analysed the transcripts using an initial codebook based on previous studies. Steps of continuous evaluation and revision were repeated until data saturation was reached. Results: Data saturation was reached after 32 patient-oncologist consultations (i.e. 17 pre-intervention and 15 post-intervention). The analysis revealed the values: hope, perseverance, quality or quantity of life, risk tolerance, trust in the healthcare system/professionals, autonomy, social adherence, altruism, corporeality, acceptance of one’s fate, and humanity. Patients in the pre-intervention phase tended to express values briefly and spontaneously. Oncologists acknowledged the importance of patients’ values, but generally only gave ‘contrasting’ examples of why some accept and others refuse to participate in trials. In the post-intervention phase, many oncologists referred to the OnVaCT and/or asked follow-up questions, while patients used longer phrases that combined multiple values, sometimes clearly indicating their weighing. Conclusions: While all values were recognized in both study phases, our results have highlighted the different communication patterns around patient values in SDM for potential early phase clinical trial participation before and after implementation of the OnVaCT intervention. This study therefore provides a first (qualitative) indication that the OnVaCT intervention may support patients and oncologists in discussing their values. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Registry: NL7335, registered on July 17, 2018.</p

Decisional Conflict after Deciding on Potential Participation in Early Phase Clinical Cancer Trials:Dependent on Global Health Status, Satisfaction with Communication, and Timing

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Early phase clinical trials are an essential part of modern drug development and thus the advance of anti-cancer therapies for patients. However, deciding whether to participate in such trials can be complex and patients have reported decisional conflict (i.e., unresolved decisional needs). The aim of our study was to untangle several factors that contribute to decisional conflict in patients with advanced cancer who have recently been asked to decide whether to participate in early phase clinical trials. We found that patients experienced less decisional conflict if they had a better global health status, higher satisfaction, and made their decision sooner. Other factors, such as the decision to (not) participate, did not prove to be the best indicators for decisional conflict. With these insights, we can start to build hypotheses on how to improve the decision-making process for patients with end-stage cancer, which can ultimately improve their quality of life. ABSTRACT: When standard treatment options are not available anymore, patients with advanced cancer may participate in early phase clinical trials. Improving this complex decision-making process may improve their quality of life. Therefore, this prospective multicenter study with questionnaires untangles several contributing factors to decisional conflict (which reflects the quality of decision-making) in patients with advanced cancer who recently decided upon early phase clinical trial participation (phase I or I/II). We hypothesized that health-related quality of life, health literacy, sense of hope, satisfaction with the consultation, timing of the decision, and the decision explain decisional conflict. Mean decisional conflict in 116 patients was 30.0 (SD = 16.9). Multivariate regression analysis showed that less decisional conflict was reported by patients with better global health status (β = −0.185, p = 0.018), higher satisfaction (β = −0.246, p = 0.002), and who made the decision before (β = −0.543, p < 0.001) or within a week after the consultation (β = −0.427, p < 0.001). These variables explained 37% of the variance in decisional conflict. Healthcare professionals should realize that patients with lower global health status and who need more time to decide may require additional support. Although altering such patient intrinsic characteristics is difficult, oncologists can impact the satisfaction with the consultation. Future research should verify whether effective patient-centered communication could prevent decisional conflict

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation–positive hairy cell leukemia

BRAF V600E is the key oncogenic driver mutation in hairy cell leukemia (HCL). We report the efficacy and safety of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation–positive HCL. This open-label, phase 2 study enrolled patients with BRAF V600E mutation–positive HCL refractory to first-line treatment with a purine analog or relapsed after ≥2 prior lines of treatment. Patients received dabrafenib 150 mg twice daily plus trametinib 2 mg once daily until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per criteria adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Consensus Resolution guidelines. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Fifty-five patients with BRAF V600E mutation–positive HCL were enrolled. The investigator-assessed ORR was 89.0% (95% confidence interval, 77.8%-95.9%); 65.5% of patients had a complete response (without minimal residual disease [MRD]: 9.1% [negative immunohistochemistry of bone marrow {BM} biopsy], 12.7% [negative BM aspirate flow cytometry {FC}], 16.4% [negative immunohistochemistry and/or FC results]; with MRD, 49.1%), and 23.6% had a partial response. The 24-month DOR was 97.7% with 24-month PFS and OS rates of 94.4% and 94.5%, respectively. The most common treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (58.2%), chills (47.3%), and hyperglycemia (40.0%). Dabrafenib plus trametinib demonstrated durable responses with a manageable safety profile consistent with previous observations in other indications and should be considered as a rituximab-free therapeutic option for patients with relapsed/refractory BRAF V600E mutation–positive HCL. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT02034110.</p

Dabrafenib plus trametinib in BRAFV600E-mutated rare cancers:the phase 2 ROAR trial

BRAFV600E alterations are prevalent across multiple tumors. Here we present final efficacy and safety results of a phase 2 basket trial of dabrafenib (BRAF kinase inhibitor) plus trametinib (MEK inhibitor) in eight cohorts of patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers: anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (n = 36), biliary tract cancer (n = 43), gastrointestinal stromal tumor (n = 1), adenocarcinoma of the small intestine (n = 3), low-grade glioma (n = 13), high-grade glioma (n = 45), hairy cell leukemia (n = 55) and multiple myeloma (n = 19). The primary endpoint of investigator-assessed overall response rate in these cohorts was 56%, 53%, 0%, 67%, 54%, 33%, 89% and 50%, respectively. Secondary endpoints were median duration of response (DoR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. Median DoR was 14.4 months, 8.9 months, not reached, 7.7 months, not reached, 31.2 months, not reached and 11.1 months, respectively. Median PFS was 6.7 months, 9.0 months, not reached, not evaluable, 9.5 months, 5.5 months, not evaluable and 6.3 months, respectively. Median OS was 14.5 months, 13.5 months, not reached, 21.8 months, not evaluable, 17.6 months, not evaluable and 33.9 months, respectively. The most frequent (=20% of patients) treatment-related adverse events were pyrexia (40.8%), fatigue (25.7%), chills (25.7%), nausea (23.8%) and rash (20.4%). The encouraging tumor-agnostic activity of dabrafenib plus trametinib suggests that this could be a promising treatment approach for some patients with BRAFV600E-mutated advanced rare cancers. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: .Y

A phase 1 study of PARP-inhibitor ABT-767 in advanced solid tumors with BRCA1/2 mutations and high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer

Purpose This phase 1 study examined safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor ABT-767 in patients with advanced solid tumors and BRCA1/2 mutations or with high-grade serous ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer. Methods Patients received ABT-767 monotherapy orally until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Dose was escalated from 20 mg once daily to 500 mg twice daily (BID). Dose-limiting toxicities, recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), food effect, objective response rate, and biomarkers predicting response were determined. Results Ninety-three patients were treated with ABT-767; 80 had a primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer. ABT-767 demonstrated dose-proportional PK up to 500 mg BID and half-life of ~2 h. Food had no effect on ABT-767 bioavailability. Most common grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were nausea, fatigue, decreased appetite, and anemia. Anemia showed dose-dependent increase. RP2D was 400 mg BID. Objective response rate by RECIST 1.1 was 21% (17/80) in all evaluable patients and 20% (14/71) in evaluable patients with ovarian cancer. Response rate by RECIST 1.1 and/or CA-125 was 30% (24/80) in patients with ovarian cancer. Mutations in BRCA1 or BRCA2, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and platinum sensitivity were associated with tumor response. Median progression-free survival was longer for HRD positive (6.7 months) versus HRD negative patients (1.8 months) with ovarian cancer. Conclusions ABT-767 had an acceptable safety profile up to the established RP2D of 400 mg BID and dose-proportional PK. Patients with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, HRD positivity, and platinum sensitivity were more sensitive to ABT-767

Realizing better doctor-patient dialogue about choices in palliative care and early phase clinical trial participation: towards an online value clarification tool (OnVaCT)

Contains fulltext : 213620.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Core values of patients with advanced cancer considering participation in an early-phase clinical trial: a qualitative study

Objective: This article identifies the core values that play a role in patients’ decision-making process about participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. Methods: Face-to-face, semi-structured serial interviews (n = 22) were performed with thirteen patients with advanced cancer recruited in two Dutch specialized cancer centers. In a cyclic qualitative analysis process, open and axial coding of the interviews finally led to an overview of the values that are woven into patients’ common language about cancer and clinical trials. Results: Six core values were described, namely, acceptance creates room for reconsideration of values, reconciliation with one’s fate, hope, autonomy, body preservation, and altruism. Previously found values in advanced cancer, such as acceptance, hope, autonomy, and altruism, were further qualified. Reconciliation with one’s fate and body preservation were highlighted as new insights for early-phase clinical cancer trial literature. Conclusions: This article furthers the understanding of core values that play a role in the lives and decision-making of patients with advanced cancer who explore participation in early-phase clinical cancer trials. These values do not necessarily have to be compatible with one another, making tragic choices necessary. Understanding the role of core values can contribute to professional sensitivity regarding what motivates patients’ emotions, thoughts, and decisions and help patients reflect on and give words to their values and preferences. It supports mutual understanding and dialog from which patients can make decisions according to their perspectives on a good life for themselves and their fellows in the context of participation in an early-phase clinical cancer trial