Background-The continual reassessment method (CRM) is an adaptive model-based design used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose in dose finding clinical trials. A way to evaluate the sensitivity of a given CRM model including the functional form of the dose-toxicity curve, the prior distribution on the model parameter, and the initial guesses of toxicity probability at each dose is using indifference intervals. While the indifference interval technique provides a succinct summary of model sensitivity, there are infinitely many possible ways to specify the initial guesses of toxicity probability. In practice, these are generally specified by trial and error through extensive simulations.

PurposeThe proteasome inhibitor bortezomib may enhance activity of chemoimmunotherapy in lymphoma. We evaluated dose-escalated bortezomib plus standard cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (CHOP) plus rituximab (R) in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL).Patients and MethodsSeventy-six subjects with untreated DLBCL (n = 40) and MCL (n = 36) received standard CHOP every 21 days (CHOP-21) with R plus bortezomib at 0.7 mg/m2(n = 4), 1.0 mg/m2(n = 9), or 1.3 mg/m2(n = 63) on days 1 and 4 for six cycles.ResultsMedian age was 63 years (range, 20 to 87), and International Prognostic Index (IPI) scores were generally unfavorable (39% with IPI of 2, and 49% with IPI of 3 to 5), as were Mantle Cell Lymphoma International Prognostic Index scores in patients with MCL (28% intermediate risk and 39% high risk). Toxicity was manageable, including neuropathy in 49 subjects (8% grade 2 and 4% grade 3) and grade 3/4 anemia (13%), neutropenia (41%), and thrombocytopenia (25%). For DLBCL, the evaluable overall response rate (ORR) was 100% with 86% complete response (CR)/CR unconfirmed (CRu; n = 35). Intent-to-treat (ITT, n = 40) ORR was 88% with 75% CR/CRu, 2-year progression-free survival (PFS) of 64% (95% CI, 47% to 77%) and 2-year overall survival (OS) of 70% (95% CI, 53% to 82%). For MCL, the evaluable ORR was 91% with 72% CR/CRu (n = 32). The ITT (n = 36) ORR was 81% with 64% CR/CRu, 2-year PFS 44% (95% CI, 27% to 60%) and 2-year OS 86% (95% CI, 70% to 94%). IPI and MIPI correlated with survival in DLBCL and MCL, respectively. Unlike in DLBCL treated with R-CHOP alone, nongerminal center B cell (non-GCB) and GCB subtypes had similar outcomes.ConclusionBortezomib with R-CHOP-21 can be safely administered and may enhance outcomes, particularly in non-GCB DLBCL, justifying randomized studies.

For chronic hepatitis C that is nonresponsive to prior interferon monotherapy, combination therapy is more effective than re-treatment with interferon alone. Response rates remain less than 20% even in the most responsive subgroups, demonstrating a need for better therapeutic options.

The 6-minute walk test is used in clinical practice and clinical trials of lung diseases; however, it is not clear whether replicate tests need to be performed to assess performance. Furthermore, little is known about the impact of walking course layout on test performance. We conducted 6-minute walks on 761 patients with severe emphysema (mean +/- SD FEV1% predicted = 26.3 +/- 7.2) who were participants in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial. Four hundred seventy participants had repeated walks on a separate day. The second test was improved by an average of 7.0 +/- 15.2% (66.1 +/- 146 feet, p < 0.0001, by paired t test), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.88 between days. The course layout had an effect on the distance walked. Participants tested on continuous (circular or oval) courses had a 92.2-foot longer walking distance than those tested on straight (out and back) courses. Course length had no significant effect on walking distance. The training effect found in these patients with severe emphysema is less than in previous reports of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Furthermore, the layout of the track may influence the 6-minute walk performance.

PURPOSE Women have more adverse events (AEs) from chemotherapy than men, but few studies have investigated sex differences in immune or targeted therapies. We examined AEs by sex across different treatment domains. METHODS We analyzed treatment-related AEs by sex in SWOG phase II and III clinical trials conducted between 1980 and 2019, excluding sex-specific cancers. AE codes and grade were categorized using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome–Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events; laboratory-based or observable/measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic v nonhematologic). Multivariable logistic regression was used, adjusting for age, race, and disease prognosis. Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined. RESULTS In total, N = 23,296 patients (women, 8,838 [37.9%]; men, 14,458 [62.1%]) from 202 trials experiencing 274,688 AEs were analyzed; 17,417 received chemotherapy, 2,319 received immunotherapy, and 3,560 received targeted therapy. Overall, 64.6% (n = 15,051) experienced one or more severe (grade ≥ 3) AEs. Women had a 34% increased risk of severe AEs compared with men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.34; 95% CI, 1.27 to 1.42; P < .001), including a 49% increased risk among those receiving immunotherapy (OR = 1.49; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.78; P < .001). Women experienced an increased risk of severe symptomatic AEs among all treatments, especially immunotherapy (OR = 1.66; 95% CI, 1.37 to 2.01; P < .001). Women receiving chemotherapy or immunotherapy experienced increased severe hematologic AE. No statistically significant sex differences in risk of nonhematologic AEs were found. CONCLUSION The greater severity of both symptomatic AEs and hematologic AEs in women across multiple treatment modalities indicates that broad-based sex differences exist. This could be due to differences in AE reported, pharmacogenomics of drug metabolism/disposition, total dose received, and/or adherence to therapy. Particularly large sex differences were observed for patients receiving immunotherapy, suggesting that studying AEs from these agents is a priority.

Plasma DNA concentration may not be sensitive or specific enough for cancer screening or diagnosis, even when combined with CA 125. AI was detected with high specificity in plasma DNA from patients with ovarian cancer and should be studied further as a screening tool.

No abstract

SUMMARYThe continual reassessment method (CRM) is an adaptive model-based design used to estimate the maximum tolerated dose in phase I clinical trials. Asymptotically, the method has been shown to select the correct dose given that certain conditions are satisfied. When sample size is small, specifying a reasonable model is important. While an algorithm has been proposed for the calibration of the initial guesses of the probabilities of toxicity, the calibration of the prior distribution of the parameter for the Bayesian CRM has not been addressed. In this paper, we introduce the concept of least informative prior variance for a normal prior distribution. We also propose two systematic approaches to jointly calibrate the prior variance and the initial guesses of the probability of toxicity at each dose. The proposed calibration approaches are compared with existing approaches in the context of two examples via simulations. The new approaches and the previously proposed methods yield very similar results since the latter used appropriate vague priors. However, the new approaches yield a smaller interval of toxicity probabilities in which a neighboring dose may be selected.