Jeffrey Crawford

Aim: Stakeholder engagement is central to comparative effectiveness research yet there are gaps in definitions of success. We used a framework developed by Lavallee et al. defining effective engagement criteria to evaluate stakeholder engagement during a pragmatic cluster-randomized trial. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were developed from the framework and completed to learn about members' experiences. Interviews were analyzed in a deductive approach for themes related to the effective engagement criteria. Results: Thirteen members participated and described: respect for ideas, time to achieve consensus, access to information and continuous feedback as areas of effective engagement. The primary criticism was lack of diversity. Discussion: Feedback was positive, particularly among themes of respect, trust and competence, and led to development of a list of best practices for engagement. The framework was successful for evaluating engagement. Conclusion: Standardized frameworks allow studies to formally evaluate their stakeholder engagement approach and develop best practices for future research.

BACKGROUND: Weight loss (WL) has been associated with shorter survival in patients with advanced cancer, while obesity has been associated with longer survival. Integrating body mass index (BMI) and WL provides a powerful prognostic tool but has not been well-studied in lung cancer patients, particularly in the setting of clinical trials. METHODS: We analysed patient data (n = 10 128) from 63 National Cancer Institute sponsored advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC) trials. Risk matrices were created using BMI and WL percentage, which were divided into 'grades' based on median survival. Relationships between survival, BMI and WL percentage were examined using Kaplan-Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models with restricted cubic splines. RESULTS: For NSCLC, a twofold difference was noted in median survival between the BMI > 28 and WL ≤ 5% group (13.5 months) compared with the BMI < 20 and WL > 5% group (6.6 months). These associations were less pronounced in SCLC. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant survival differences between grades for both NSCLC and SCLC (log-rank, P < 0.0001). In Stage IV NSCLC, Cox PH analyses with restricted cubic splines demonstrated significant associations between BMI and survival in both WL ≤ 5% (P = 0.0004) and >5% (P = 0.0129) groups, as well as in WL > 5% in Stage III (P = 0.0306). In SCLC, these relationships were more complex. CONCLUSIONS: BMI and WL have strong associations with overall survival in patients with advanced lung cancer, with a greater impact seen in NSCLC compared with SCLC. The integration of a BMI/WL grading scale may provide additional prognostic information and should be included in the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in future clinical trials in advanced lung cancer.

Management of hematologic abnormalities in cancer pose tremendous challenges in the care of patients. Clinically significant anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia can limit the ability to treat the malignancy effectively and can profoundly impact patient morbidity and mortality. These present as manifestations of the malignant process or as acquired sequelae from cancer treatment, such as systemic chemotherapy. In this chapter, we review the pathophysiologic mechanisms and appropriate clinical management of hematologic abnormalities that arise during the care of cancer patients. Therapeutic agents developed to mitigate the complications related to these hematologic abnormalities will also be discussed.

INTRODUCTION: S1400F is a non-match substudy of Lung Cancer Master Protocol (Lung-MAP) evaluating the immunotherapy combination of durvalumab and tremelimumab to overcome resistance to anti-programmed death ligand 1 (PD-(L)1) therapy in patients with advanced squamous lung carcinoma (sq non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC)). METHODS: Patients with previously treated sqNSCLC with disease progression after anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy, who did not qualify for any active molecularly targeted Lung-MAP substudies, were eligible. Patients received tremelimumab 75 mg plus durvalumab 1500 mg once every 28 days for four cycles then durvalumab alone every 28 days until disease progression. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (RECIST V.1.1). Primary and acquired resistance cohorts, defined as disease progression within 24 weeks versus ≥24 weeks of starting prior anti-PD-(L)1 therapy, were analyzed separately and an interim analysis for futility was planned after 20 patients in each cohort were evaluable for response. RESULTS: A total of 58 eligible patients received drug, 28 with primary resistance and 30 with acquired resistance to anti-PD-(L)1 monotherapy. Grade ≥3 adverse events at least possibly related to treatment were seen in 20 (34%) patients. The response rate in the primary resistance cohort was 7% (95% CI 0% to 17%), with one complete and one partial response. No responses were seen in the acquired resistance cohort. In the primary and resistance cohorts the median progression-free survival was 2.0 months (95% CI 1.6 to 3.0) and 2.1 months (95% CI 1.6 to 3.2), respectively, and overall survival was 7.7 months (95% CI 4.0 to 12.0) and 7.6 months (95% CI 5.3 to 10.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Durvalumab plus tremelimumab had minimal activity in patients with advanced sqNSCLC progressing on prior anti-PD-1 therapy.Trial registration numberNCT03373760.

BACKGROUND: Pegfilgrastim, a long-acting granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), is commonly used to prevent febrile neutropenia (FN), a potentially life-threatening complication, following myelosuppressive chemotherapy. The FDA label for pegfilgrastim specifies that it should not be administered 14 days before or within 24 h of administration of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, precluding the use of pegfilgrastim in biweekly (Q2W) regimens. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines support the use of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens. The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational studies that describe the effectiveness and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in preventing FN among patients receiving Q2W regimens. METHODS: An Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library literature search was conducted to evaluate the evidence regarding efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of prophylactic pegfilgrastim versus no prophylactic pegfilgrastim or prophylaxis with other G-CSF in patients who were receiving Q2W chemotherapy regimens with high (> 20%) or intermediate (10-20%) risk of FN for a non-myeloid malignancy. Studies that addressed absolute or relative risk of FN, grade 1-4 neutropenia, all-cause or any hospitalization, dose delays or dose reductions, adverse events, or mortality were included. Studies where the comparator was a Q3W chemotherapy regimen with primary prophylactic pegfilgrastim were also included. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 2258 publications. Thirteen publications met the eligibility criteria, including eight retrospective, one prospective, one phase 1 dose escalation study, and three RCTs. In nine of the 13 studies reporting incidence of FN, and in seven of the nine studies reporting incidence of neutropenia, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim in patients receiving Q2W regimens resulted in decreased or comparable rates of FN or neutropenia compared with patients receiving filgrastim, no G-CSF, lipefilgrastim or pegfilgrastim in Q3W regimens. In six of the nine studies reporting safety data, lower or comparable safety profiles were observed between pegfilgrastim and comparators. CONCLUSIONS: In a variety of non-myeloid malignancies, administration of prophylactic pegfilgrastim was efficacious in reducing the risk of FN in patients receiving high- or intermediate-risk Q2W regimens, with an acceptable safety profile. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42019155572 .