Search

ContextSummarizing longitudinal symptomatic adverse events during clinical trials is necessary for understanding treatment tolerability. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) provides insight for capturing treatment tolerability within trials. Tolerability summary measures, such as the maximum score, are often used to communicate the potential negative symptoms both in the medical literature and directly to patients. Commonly, the proportions of present and severe symptomatic adverse events are used and reported between treatment arms among adverse event types. The toxicity index is also a summary measure previously applied to clinician-reported CTCAE data.ObjectivesApply the toxicity index to PRO-CTCAE data from the COMET-2 trial alongside the maximum score, then present and discuss considerations for using the toxicity index as a summary measure for communicating tolerability to patients and clinicians.MethodsProportions of maximum PRO-CTCAE severity levels and median toxicity index were computed by arm using all trial data and adjusting for baseline symptoms.ResultsGroup-wise statistical differences were similar whether using severity level proportions or the toxicity index. The impact of adjusting for baseline symptoms was equivalently seen when comparing arms using severity rates or the toxicity index.ConclusionThe toxicity index is a useful method when ranking patients from those with the least to most symptomatic adverse event burden. This study showed the toxicity index can be applied to PRO-CTCAE data. Though as a tolerability summary measure, further study is needed to provide a clear clinical or patient-facing interpretation of the toxicity index.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play an increasing role in the evaluation of oncology treatments. At the same time, single-arm trials are commonly included in regulatory approval submissions. Because of the high risk of biases, results from single-arm trials require careful interpretation. This benefits from a clearly defined estimand, or target of estimation. In this case study, we demonstrated how the ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework can be implemented in SATs with PRO endpoints. Methods: For the global quality of life outcome in a real single-arm lung cancer trial, a range of possible estimands was defined. We focused on the choice of the variable of interest and strategies to deal with intercurrent events (death, treatment discontinuation and disease progression). Statistical methods were described for each estimand and the corresponding results on the trial data were shown. Results: Each intercurrent event handling strategy resulted in its own estimated mean global quality of life over time, with a specific interpretation, suitable for a corresponding clinical research aim. In the setting of this case study, a 'while alive' strategy for death and a 'treatment policy' strategy for non-terminal intercurrent events were deemed aligned with a descriptive research aim to inform clinicians and patients about expected quality of life after the start of treatment. Conclusions: The results show that decisions made in the estimand framework are not trivial. Trial results and their interpretation strongly depend on the chosen estimand. The estimand framework provides a structure to match a research question with a clear target of estimation, supporting specific clinical decisions. Adherence to this framework can help improve the quality of data collection, analysis and reporting of PROs in SATs, impacting decision making in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Previous randomized controlled trials have demonstrated benefit from remote symptom monitoring (RSM) with electronic patient-reported outcomes. However, the racial diversity of enrolled patients was low and did not reflect the real-world racial proportions for individuals with cancer. METHODS: This secondary, cross-sectional analysis evaluated engagement of patients with cancer in a RSM program. Patient-reported race was grouped as Black, Other, or White. Patient address was used to map patient residence to determine rurality using Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes and neighborhood disadvantage using Area Deprivation Index. Key outcomes included (1) being approached for RSM enrollment, (2) declining enrollment, (3) adherence with RSM via continuous completion of symptom surveys, and (4) withdrawal from RSM participation. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were estimated from modified Poisson models with robust SEs. RESULTS: Between May 2021 and May 2023, 883 patients were approached to participate, of which 56 (6%) declined RSM. Of those who enrolled in RSM, a total of 27% of patients were Black or African American and 67% were White. In adjusted models, all patient population subgroups of interest had similar likelihoods of being approached for RSM participation; however, Black or African American patients were more than 3× more likely to decline participation than White participants (RR, 3.09 [95% CI, 1.73 to 5.53]). Patients living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to decline (RR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.24 to 1.02]), but less likely to adhere to surveys (RR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.97]). All patient populations had a similar likelihood of withdrawing. CONCLUSION: Black patients and individuals living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are at risk for lower engagement in RSM. Further work is needed to identify and overcome barriers to equitable participation. Black patients and individuals living in more disadvantaged neighborhoods are at risk for lower engagement in remote symptom monitoring [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ImportanceIn cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials.ObjectiveTo examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014.ResultsOf the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ

Background FOLFIRI is a standard regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We hypothesized that a pharmacogenomic-directed strategy where more efficient irinotecan metabolizers (UGT1A1 *1/*1 homozygotes and *1/*28 heterozygotes) receive higher-than-standard irinotecan doses would improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to non-genotype selected historical controls with acceptable toxicity. Methods In this phase II multicenter study irinotecan dosing in first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab for mCRC was based on UGT1A1 genotype with *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 patients receiving 310 mg/m2, 260 mg/m2, and 180 mg/m2, respectively. Primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were investigator and patient-reported adverse events, and estimation of overall survival (OS). Results One-hundred patients were enrolled with 91 evaluable for PFS and 83 evaluable for best response. Median PFS was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 15.4), shorter than the anticipated alternative hypothesis of 14 months. PFS by genotype was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 17.4) for *1/*1, 14.6 months (90% CI 11.8, 17.5) for *1/*28, and 6 months (90% CI 2.3, 7.7) for *28/28, respectively. OS was 24.5 months (90% CI 19.1, 30.7) and by genotype was 26.5 (90% CI 19.1, 32.9), 25.9 (90% CI 17.6, 37.7), and 13.4 (90% CI 2.3, 20.5) months for *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28, respectively. G3/4 toxicity was similar between all subgroups, including diarrhea and neutropenia. Conclusions A pharmacogenomic-directed irinotecan strategy improved PFS in the *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes with higher rates of neutropenia and similar rates of diarrhea compared to expected with standard FOLFIRI dosing. However, improvements in response rate and PFS were modest. This strategy should not change standard practice for mCRC patients in the first-line setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Standard investigator-based adverse events (AE) assessment is via CTCAE for clinical trials. However, including the patient perspective through PRO (patient-reported outcomes) enhances clinicians' understanding of patient toxicity and fosters early detection of AEs. We assessed longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE within clinical workflow in a phase II trial. Materials and methods As a sub-study in a phase II trial of genotype-directed irinotecan dosing evaluating efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving FOLFIRI and bevacizumab, patients reported on 13 AEs generating a PRO-CTCAE form. The primary objective was to estimate forms completed by patients and clinicians at least 80% of time. Secondary objectives were estimating concordance and time to first score of specific symptoms between patient and clinician pairs. Results Feasibility of longitudinal PRO-CTCAE integration was met as 96% of patients and clinician-patient pairs completed at least 80% of PRO-CTCAE forms available to them with 79% achieving 100% completion. Concordance between patient and clinician reporting a severe symptom was 73% with 24 disconcordant pairs, 21 involved patients who reported a severe symptom that the clinician did not. Although protocol-mandated dose reductions were guided by CTCAE not PRO-CTCAE responses, the median time to dose reduction of 2.53 months, and the time-to-event curve closely approximated time to patient-reported toxicity. Conclusion Longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE paired CTCAE proved feasible. Compared to clinicians, patients reported severe symptoms more frequently and earlier. Patient-reported toxicity more closely aligned with dose decreases indicating incorporation into routine clinical practice may enhance early detection of toxicity improving patient safety and quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo recommend methods for assessing quality of care via patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life.MethodsA Technical Expert Panel was assembled by the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. An environmental scan and structured literature review were conducted to identify quality programs that integrate PRO-PMs. Key methodological considerations in the design, implementation, and analysis of these PRO-PM data were systematically identified. Recommended methods for addressing each identified consideration were developed on the basis of published patient-reported outcome (PRO) standards and refined through public comment. Literature review focused on programs using PROs to assess performance and on PRO guidance documents.ResultsThirteen PRO programs and 10 guidance documents were identified. Nine best practices were developed, including the following: provide a rationale for measuring the outcome and for using a PRO-PM; describe the context of use; select a measure that is meaningful to patients with adequate psychometric properties; provide evidence of the measure's sensitivity to differences in care; address missing data and risk adjustment; and provide a framework for implementation, interpretation, dissemination, and continuous refinement.ConclusionMethods for integrating PROs into performance measurement are available.

BackgroundAbiraterone acetate, an androgen biosynthesis inhibitor, improves overall survival in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after chemotherapy. We evaluated this agent in patients who had not received previous chemotherapy.MethodsIn this double-blind study, we randomly assigned 1088 patients to receive abiraterone acetate (1000 mg) plus prednisone (5 mg twice daily) or placebo plus prednisone. The coprimary end points were radiographic progression-free survival and overall survival.ResultsThe study was unblinded after a planned interim analysis that was performed after 43% of the expected deaths had occurred. The median radiographic progression-free survival was 16.5 months with abiraterone-prednisone and 8.3 months with prednisone alone (hazard ratio for abiraterone-prednisone vs. prednisone alone, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.62; P

Abstract Background We propose a novel framework for management of cancer survivorship: electronic patient Self-Assessment and Management (SAM). SAM is a framework for transfer of information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice. Methods Patients who participate in the SAM system are contacted by email at regular intervals and asked to complete validated questionnaires online. Patient responses on these questionnaires are then analyzed in order to provide patients with real-time, online information about their progress and to provide them with tailored and standardized medical advice. Patient-level data from the questionnaires are ported in real time to the patient's health care provider to be uploaded to clinic notes. An initial version of SAM has been developed at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) for aiding the clinical management of patients after surgery for prostate cancer. Results Pilot testing at MSKCC and UCSF suggests that implementation of SAM systems are feasible, with no major problems with compliance (> 70% response rate) or security. Conclusion SAM is a conceptually simple framework for passing information to and from patients in such a way as to increase both the patient's and the health care provider's understanding of the patient's progress, and to help ensure that patient care follows best practice.