Diabetic Mastopathy as a Radiographically Occult Palpable Breast Mass

Diabetic mastopathy is an uncommon, benign disease of the breast that can occur in women with diabetes and clinically mimic breast cancer. We describe a patient with long-standing type 1 diabetes who presented with a palpable breast mass with negative imaging findings on mammography, ultrasonography, and breast MRI. Surgical biopsy and histopathology confirmed diabetic mastopathy. We use this case to highlight the recognition, radiographic features, pathology, and management of this benign breast condition and emphasize that, in diabetic patients, the differential diagnosis of a new breast mass should include diabetic mastopathy

Beyond maximum grade: modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies

Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the whole range of haematological malignancies in the past two decades. Although cure rates for aggressive malignancies have increased, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematological cancer. Population-based data have shown that 5-year survival for patients with chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma has improved markedly. This improvement is a result of substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematological malignancies are now chronic diseases that are treated with continuously administered therapies that have unique side-effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators, and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events in haematological malignancies. The issues pertaining to assessment of adverse events examined here are relevant to a range of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of haematology. The aim of this Commission is to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematological malignancies by critically examining the current process of adverse event assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem-cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval, and evaluating toxicity in real-world patients. We have identified a range of priority issues in these areas and defined potential solutions to challenges associated with adverse event assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematological malignancies

Patient-Reported Side Effect Bother:Understanding the Value of the Baseline Report

AIM: Patient-perceived treatment tolerability can affect patient ability and willingness to remain on therapy. We sought to examine completion rates for a single item of overall side effect bother at baseline and at the first on-treatment assessment, the association between this item with other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and the odds of early discontinuation due to clinician-assessed adverse events or reasons other than disease progression.METHODS: Data were from three commercial cancer trials in solid tumours, focusing on the safety population. The GP5 item from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) was used for side effect bother. Other PROs included items on specific symptoms, functional impacts and global health status, all drawn from validated measures. Descriptive statistics were used for completion rates, and correlation and logistic regression analyses were used to examine associations. GP5 was dichotomised as 0-1 ('low') versus 2-4 ('high').RESULTS: Completion rates were at or above 90% at baseline for all items. GP5 completion rates were 5% lower than completion rates for other items (89.8% versus 94.9%) at baseline, but this was not seen after baseline. Among patients with non-missing baseline GP5, 11.8-15.7% of cancer treatment-naïve patients reported high bother, compared with 23.9% of treatment-experienced patients. Patients with high bother at baseline had higher odds of early discontinuation compared with those with low bother, but this was not statistically significant after covariate adjustment.CONCLUSIONS: Continued collection of the GP5 item and concomitant work aiming to understand reasons for missingness as well as interpretation is important for evaluating tolerability in cancer trials.</p

Assessment of Adverse Events From the Patient Perspective in a Phase 3 Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Standard adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology clinical trials has historically relied on clinician grading, which prior research has shown can lead to underestimation of rates of symptomatic AEs. Industry sponsors are beginning to implement in trials the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), which was developed to allow patients to self-report symptomatic AEs and improve the quality of symptomatic AE detection. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the feasibility of implementing PRO-CTCAE in a prespecified correlative analysis of the phase 3 COMET-2 trial and enumerate statistically significant between-group differences in symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE and the CTCAE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This correlative study of 119 men in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMET-2 trial with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had undergone at least 2 prior lines of systemic treatment was conducted from March 2012 to July 2014. Participants completed PRO-CTCAE items using an automated telephone system from home prior to treatment and every 3 weeks during treatment. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2018 to June 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The proportion of patients who completed expected PRO-CTCAE self-reports was computed as a measure of feasibility. RESULTS Among the 119 men in the study (median age, 65 years [range, 44-80 years]), 534 of 587 (91.0%) expected PRO-CTCAE self-reports were completed, with consistently high rates of completion throughout participation. Rates of self-report adherence were similar between groups (cabozantinib s-maleate, 286 of 317 [90.2%]; and mitoxantrone hydrochloride-prednisone, 248 of 270 [91.9%]). Of 12 measured, patient-reported PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs, 4 reached statistical significance when comparing the proportion of patients with at least 1 postbaseline score greater than 0 between groups (differences ranged from 20.1% to 34.1% with higher proportions in the cabozantinib group; all P < .05), and use of a method for accounting for preexisting symptoms at baseline yielded 7 AEs with statistically significant differences between groups (differences ranged from 20.5%to 41.2%with higher proportions in the cabozantinib group; all P < .05). In the same analysis using investigator-reported CTCAE data, no statistically significant differences were found between groups for any symptomatic AEs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE PRO-CTCAE data collection was feasible and improved the accuracy of symptomatic AE detection in a phase 3 cancer trial. This analysis adds to mounting evidence of the feasibility and value of patient-reported AEs in oncology, which should be considered for inclusion in cancer trials that incorporate AE evaluation

Editorial: The Innate and Adaptive Immune Response Are Both Involved in Drug‐Induced Autoimmunity

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142541/1/art40371_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142541/2/art40371.pd

Clinician vs Patient Reporting of Baseline and Postbaseline Symptoms for Adverse Event Assessment in Cancer Clinical Trials

Many patients enter cancer clinical trials with baseline symptoms. Notably, the current clinician reporting mechanism for symptomatic adverse events (AEs) via the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) does not formally distinguish between symptoms present at baseline vs those that develop during a trial. Therefore, AE estimation in clinical trials may include symptoms that predate trial entry. This raises concern that the cumulative incidence of patient-reported AEs may be high, particularly if preexisting symptoms related to other causes (eg, comorbidities, prior treatment) are attributed to study drugs

Correction to: Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2

Correction to "Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting

An Exploratory Analysis of the “Was It Worth It?” Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment

Objectives: Asking “Was it worth it?” (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients’ perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. Methods: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. Results: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to “Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?” (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to “If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?”; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to “Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?” Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (−2.5 vs −0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks

Intratumoral Administration of Secondary Lymphoid Chemokine and Unmethylated Cytosine-phosphorothioate-guanine Oligodeoxynucleotide Synergistically Inhibits Tumor Growth in Vivo

Secondary lymphoid tissue chemokine (SLC), which is expressed in T cell zones of secondary lymphoid organs, including the spleen and lymph nodes, strongly recruits both T lymphocytes and mature dendritic cells. As appropriate interaction of tumor-specific T cells and mature dendritic cells, equipped with tumor antigens, is a prerequisite for effective T cell immunity against established tumors, we mobilized lymphocytes and dendritic cells to tumor sites by intratumoral injection of secondary lymphoid tissue chemokine-Fc (SLC-Fc) fusion protein using the B16F10 murine melanoma model. Activation of dendritic cells, another prerequisite for the effective activation of naïve tumor-specific T cells, was achieved by the addition of immunostimulatory cytosine-phosphorothioate-guanine oligodeoxynucleotide (CpG-ODN) into the tumor site. Intratumoral administration of SLC-Fc or CpG-ODN revealed antitumor effects against B16F10 murine melanoma grown in the subcutaneous space. Co-treatment of SLC-Fc and CpG-ODN displayed synergistic effects in reducing the tumor size. The synergistic antitumor effect in co-treatment group was correlated with the synergistic/additive increase in the infiltration of CD4+ T cells and CD11c+ dendritic cells in the tumor mass compared to the single treatment groups. These results suggest that the combined use of chemokines and adjuvant molecules may be a possible strategy in clinical tumor immunotherapy