A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF BILEVEL POSITIVE AIRWAY PRESSURE DEVICE AND HIGH FLOW OXYGEN FOR PERSISTENT DYSPNEA IN

Background: Dyspnea is a common and distressing symptom among patients with advanced cancer. The role of bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP) and Vapotherm in the relief of dyspnea have not been well defined. We aimed to determine and to compare the efficacy of BIPAP and VapoTherm for cancer related dyspnea. Methods: In this randomized, open-label, crossover study, we randomly assigned advanced cancer patients with persistent dyspnea >=3/10 to either Vapotherm for 2 hours followed by BiPAP for 2 hours, or BiPAP followed by Vaptherm. A variable washout period was instituted between interventions. The primary end point was change in numeric rating scale before and after each intervention. We planned to enroll 50 patients in total. Results: Among the 803 patients screened over the last 8 months, 62 (26%) were eligible, and 16 (2%) were enrolled so far. Five patients completed the entire study successfully, 4 discontinued the study prematurely due to prolonged relief of dyspnea, and 7 dropped out for various reasons, including inability to tolerate BiPAP (N=3), anxiety (N=2), fatigue (N=1) and pain requiring opioids (N=1). The median baseline numeric rating score for dyspnea was 7/10 (interquartile range (IQR) 5-8), and the median baseline Borg score was 4/10 (3-7). Interim analysis revealed that BiPAP was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -3 (N=10, IQR -6.3 to -1, p=0.007) and modified Borg score of -1 (N=10, IQR -3 to 0.3, p=0.058), while Vapotherm was associated with a median change in numeric rating score of -2 (N=9, IQR -3 to -1, p=0.011) and modified Borg score of -2.5 (N=8, IQR -5.5 to -0.1, p=0.051). Among the 5 individuals who completed the entire study, 2 preferred Vapotherm, 2 favored BiPAP, and 1 liked both. The respiratory rate decreased and the oxygen saturation improved with both interventions. No significant toxicities were observed. Conclusions: We were successfully able to enroll patients onto this clinic trial. Our preliminary results suggest that BiPAP and Vapotherm are highly efficacious in providing relief for patients with persistent refractory dyspnea. A direct comparison of the two interventions will be done upon study completion. Further research is necessary to confirm our findings.

CLINICAL TRIAL ENROLLMENT IN A MULTIDISCIPLINARY PROSTATE CANCER

Purpose: Clinical oncology trials are hampered by low accrual rates. Less than 5% of adult cancer patients are treated on a clinical trial. We aimed to evaluate clinical trial enrollment in our Multidisciplinary Prostate Cancer Clinic and to assess if a clinical trial initiative, introduced in 2006, increased our trial enrollment.Methods: Prostate cancer patients with non-metastatic disease who were seen in the clinic from 2004 to 2008 were included in the analysis. Men were categorized by whether they were seen before or after the clinical trial enrollment initiative started in 2006. The initiative included posting trial details in the clinic, educating patients about appropriate clinical trial options during the treatment recommendation discussion, and providing patients with documentation of trials offered to them. Univariate and multivariate (MVA) logistic regression analysis evaluated the impact of patient characteristics and the clinical trial initiative on clinical trial enrollment.Results: The majority of the 1,370 men were white (83%), and lived within the surrounding counties or state (69.4%). Median age was 64.2 years. Seventy-three point five percent enrolled in at least one trial and 28.5% enrolled in more than one trial. Sixty-seven percent enrolled in laboratory studies, 18% quality of life studies, 13% novel studies, and 3.7% procedural studies. On MVA, men seen in later years (p < 0.0001) were more likely to enroll in trials. The proportion of men enrolling increased from 38.9% to 84.3% (p<0.0001) after the clinical trial initiative. On MVA, older men (p < 0.0001) were less likely to enroll in clinical trials. There was a trend toward men in the high-risk group being more likely to participate in clinical trials (p = 0.056). There was a second trend for men of Hispanic, Asian, Native American and Indian decent being less likely to participate in clinical trials (p = 0.054).Conclusion: Clinical trial enrollment in the multidisciplinary clinic increased after introduction of a clinical trial initiative. Older men were less likely to enroll in trials. We speculate we achieved high enrollment rates because 1) specific trials are discussed at time of treatment recommendations, 2) we provide a letter documenting offered trials and 3) we introduce patients to the research team at the same clinic visit if they are interested in trial participation.