Search

IMPORTANCE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) recognize days spent at home (home time) vs in a hospital or nursing facility as an important factor in treatment decision making. No study has adequately described home time among older adults with AML. OBJECTIVE: To describe home time among older adults with AML (aged ≥66 years) and compare home time between 2 common treatments: anthracycline-based chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents (HMAs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults aged 66 years or older with a new diagnosis of AML from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in 2004 to 2016 was identified. Individuals were stratified into anthracycline-based therapy, HMAs, or chemotherapy, not otherwise specified (NOS) using claims. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was home time, quantified by subtracting the total number of person-days spent in hospitals and nursing facilities from the number of person-days survived and dividing by total person-days. A weighted multinomial regression model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate adjusted home time was used. RESULTS: The cohort included 7946 patients with AML: 2824 (35.5%) received anthracyclines, 2542 (32.0%) HMAs, and 2580 (32.5%) were classified as chemotherapy, NOS. Median (IQR) survival was 11.0 (5.0-27.0) months for those receiving anthracyclines and 8.0 (3.0-17.0) months for those receiving HMAs. Adjusted home time for all patients in the first year was 52.4%. Home time was highest among patients receiving HMAs (60.8%) followed by those receiving anthracyclines (51.9%). Despite having a shorter median survival, patients receiving HMAs had more total days at home and 33 more days at home in the first year on average than patients receiving anthracyclines (222 vs 189). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This retrospective study of older adults with AML using SEER-Medicare data and propensity score weighting suggests that the additional survival afforded by receiving anthracycline-based therapy was entirely offset by admission to the hospital or to nursing facilities.

#Implementation of #ePROs in real world settings, lessons learned

Background In cancer treatment trials, the standard source of adverse symptom data is clinician reporting by use of items from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Patient self-reporting has been proposed as an additional data source, but the implications of such a shift are not understood. Methods Patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and their clinicians independently reported six CTCAE symptoms and Karnofsky Performance Status longitudinally at sequential office visits. To compare how patient's vs clinician's reports relate to sentinel clinical events, a time-dependent Cox regression model was used to measure associations between reaching particular CTCAE grade severity thresholds with the risk of death and emergency room visits. To measure concordance of CTCAE reports with indices of daily health status, Kendall tau rank correlation coefficients were calculated for each symptom with EuroQoL EQ-SD questionnaire and global question scores. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results A total of 163 patients were enrolled for an average of 12 months (range = 1-28 months), with a mean of 11 visits and 67 (41%) deaths. CTCAE reports were submitted by clinicians at 95% of visits and by patients at 80% of visits. Patients generally reported symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians. Statistically significant associations with death and emergency room admissions were seen for clinician reports of fatigue (P< .001), nausea (P= .01), constipation (P= .038), and Karnofsky Performance Status (P< .001) but not for patient reports of these items. Higher concordance with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores was observed for patient-reported symptoms than for clinician-reported symptoms. Conclusions Longitudinally collected clinician CTCAE assessments better predict unfavorable clinical events, whereas patient reports better reflect daily health status. These perspectives are complementary, each providing clinically meaningful information. Inclusion of both types of data in treatment trial results and drug labels appears to be warranted. J Natl Cancer Inst 2009;101:1624-1632 DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djp386

The act of diagnosis requires that patients be placed in a binary category of either having or not having a certain disease. Accordingly, the diseases of particular concern for industrialized countries--such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, or depression--require that a somewhat arbitrary cut-point be chosen on a continuous scale of measurement (for example, a fasting glucose level >6.9 mmol/L [>125 mg/dL] for type 2 diabetes). These cut-points do not adequately reflect disease biology, may inappropriately treat patients on either side of the cut-point as 2 homogenous risk groups, fail to incorporate other risk factors, and are invariable to patient preference. This article discusses risk prediction as an alternative to diagnosis: Patient risk factors (blood pressure, age) are combined into a single statistical model (risk for a cardiovascular event within 10 years) and the results are used in shared decision making about possible treatments. The authors compare and contrast the diagnostic and risk prediction approaches and attempt to identify the types of medical problem to which each is best suited.

Two phase 3 trials, COMET-1 and COMET-2, have reported that cabozantinib did not significantly extend overall survival (OS) compared to prednisone and prednisone plus mitoxantrone, respectively, in post-docetaxel patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted a retrospective analysis of a combined data set from these trials to identify a benefit in subsets of patients according to prognostic risk factors. The prognostic ability of factors to predict survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Evaluation of potential beneficial subsets was performed using interaction terms between factors and cabozantinib. All tests were two-sided and p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 1147 post-docetaxel patients with mCRPC were available (1028 from COMET-1 and 119 from COMET-2). The following factors were prognostic for OS: age, disease-free interval, hemoglobin, prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, bone scan lesion area, lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and pain (all p<0.05). There was no interaction effect on survival between cabozantinib versus comparator arms and any prognostic group. After adjusting for prognostic factors, cabozantinib was associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.67–0.95; p=0.012). Further investigation of cabozantinib in a better-powered trial or a rational patient population based on a molecular biomarker may be warranted.

A multicenter randomized clinical trial in France found an overall survival benefit of web-based patient-reported outcome (PRO)–based surveillance after initial treatment for lung cancer compared with conventional surveillance. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this PRO-based surveillance in lung cancer patients.

IMPORTANCE: Significant controversy exists regarding whether physicians factor personal financial considerations into their clinical decision making. Within oncology, several reimbursement policies may incentivize physicians to increase health care use. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the financial incentives presented by oncology reimbursement policies affect physician practice patterns. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Studies evaluating an association between reimbursement incentives and changes in reimbursement policy on oncology care delivery were reviewed. Articles were identified systematically by searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Proquest Health Management, Econlit, and Business Source Premier. English-language articles focused on the US health care system that made empirical estimates of the association between a measurement of physician reimbursement/compensation and a measurement of delivery of cancer treatment services were included. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool was used to assess risk of bias. There were no date restrictions on the publications, and literature searches were finalized on February 14, 2018. FINDINGS: Eighteen studies were included. All were observational cohort studies, and most had a moderate risk of bias. Heterogeneity of reimbursement policies and outcomes precluded meta-analysis; therefore, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Most studies (15 of 18 [83%]) reported an association between reimbursement and care delivery consistent with physician responsiveness to financial incentives, although such an association was not identified in all studies. Findings consistently suggested that self-referral arrangements may increase use of radiotherapy and that profitability of systemic anticancer agents may affect physicians’ choice of drug. Findings were less conclusive as to whether profitability of systemic anticancer therapy affects the decision of whether to use any systemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To date, this study is the first systematic review of reimbursement policy and clinical care delivery in oncology. The findings suggest that some oncologists may, in certain circumstances, alter treatment recommendations based on personal revenue considerations. An implication of this finding is that value-based reimbursement policies may be a useful tool to better align physician incentives with patient need and increase the value of oncology care.

Introduction Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) allows patients to electronically self-report symptoms to their healthcare team for individual management. Clinical trials have demonstrated overarching benefits; however, little is known regarding patient-perceived benefits and limitations of RSM programs used during patient care.Methods This prospective qualitative study from December 2021 to May 2023 included patients with cancer participating in standard-of-care RSM at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in Birmingham, AL, and the Univeristy of South Alabama (USA) Health Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) in Mobile, AL. Semi-structured interviews focused on patient experiences with and perceptions surrounding RSM participation. Interviews occurred over the phone, via digital videoconference, or in person, at the convenience of the patient. Grounded theory was used to conduct content coding and identify recurring themes and exemplary quotes using NVivo.Results Forty patients (20 UAB, 20 MCI) were interviewed. Participants were predominately female (87.5%), aged 41-65 (50%), and married (57.5%). Data is consistent with local demographics, comprising mainly White (72.5%) and 27.5% Black individuals. Three main themes emerged regarding perceived benefits of RSM: (1) Facilitation of ProactiveManagement, identifying the patient’s needs and intervening earlier to alleviate symptom burden; (2) Promotion of Symptom Self-Management, providing patients autonomy in their cancer care; and (3) Improvement in Patient-Healthcare Provider Relationships, fostering genuine connections based on healthcare team’s responses. However, participants also noted Perceived Limitations of RSM; particularly when support of symptom management was unnecessary, ineffective, or felt impersonal.Conclusion This study focused on patient experiences when utilizing a RSM program while undergoing treatment for cancer and found benefits to its implementation that extended beyond symptom management. At the same time, patients noted drawbacks experienced during RSM, which can help with future tailoring of RSM programs. Patient perceptions should be regularly assessed and highlighted for successful and sustained implementation.

IMPORTANCE: In 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. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 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. RESULTS: Of 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 &lt; 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

IMPORTANCE: Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) among authors of clinical practice guidelines have the potential to influence treatment recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To quantify FCOIs with industry among authors of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We assessed FCOIs occurring during 2014 among NCCN guideline authors in the United States. All were physician members of the NCCN guideline committees for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer as of the end of 2014. The data source for FCOIs was Open Payments, which is publically reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This study was cross-sectional. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of NCCN authors having FCOIs with industry; the average amount received from industry sources per author. RESULTS: Of 125 guideline authors, 108 (86%) had at least 1 reported FCOI. Authors received an average of $10 011 (range, $0-$106 859) in general payments (GPs), which include consulting, meals, lodging, and similar transfers of value, and $236 066 (range $0-$2 756 713) in industry research payments (RPs), including funding associated with clinical trials. Approximately 84% of authors received GPs, while 47% received RPs. Eight (6%) had FCOIs in excess of the $50 000 net and/or $20 000 single-company maximums stipulated by NCCN. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among NCCN guideline authors, FCOIs involving RPs were of greater value, while those involving GPs were more prevalent. Although FCOIs may result from engaging in important scholarship, FCOIs may still influence guideline authors in counterproductive ways. Research is needed to understand how best to manage author FCOIs during guideline creation.

In recent years, patient-reported outcomes have become increasingly collected and integrated into electronic health records. However, there are few cross-cutting recommendations and limited guidance available in this rapidly developing research area. Our goal is to report key findings from a 2013 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute workshop on this topic and a summary of actions that followed from the workshop, and present resulting recommendations that address patient, clinical and research/quality improvement barriers to regular use. These findings provide actionable guidance across research and practice settings to promote and sustain widespread adoption of patient-reported outcomes across patient populations, healthcare settings and electronic health record systems.

ABSTRACTIntroduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflect how patients feel and function as conveyed directly by patients themselves, for example symptoms and physical functioning. PRO measures can be included in any phase of product development as primary, secondary, or exploratory endpoints to understand the impact of treatment on the patient experience.Areas covered: In this review, the authors describe approaches commonly used to assess PROs in drug development programs, including how to select or develop outcomes and measures, implement these in trials, and analyze data. Barriers and facilitators for effectively including PROs in clinical trials are discussed, and strategies for making labeling claims based on PRO data are noted.Expert opinion: Early planning with PRO experts is recommended to assure a successful PRO strategy in a product development program. Outcomes that are meaningful to patients should be rationally identified early in a product development program based on qualitative work, literature search and/or assumed mechanism of action. Measures corresponding to those outcomes should be selected or developed, with demonstration of robust psychometric properties in a related patient population. Ideally, these measures will be tested prior to a pivotal trial to support the design and analysis in the pivotal trial. Selection of timing and mode of assessments should be specified a priori and justified. If a labeling claim is sought, a statistical plan should be pre-specified. Strategies to minimize and handle missing data in analyses should be planned up front.

Many patients with lung cancers cannot receive platinum-containing regimens owing to comorbid medical conditions. We designed the PPB (paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab) regimen to maintain or improve outcomes while averting the unique toxicities of platinum-based chemotherapies.

IMPORTANCE: Agreement between patient- and practitioner-reported toxic effects during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare patient-reported symptom severity and practitioner-reported toxic effects among patients receiving chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-four patients participating in a phase 2 trial of deintensified chemoradiotherapy for oropharyngeal carcinoma were included in the present study (conducted from February 8, 2012, to March 2, 2015). Most treatment (radiotherapy, 60 Gy, with concurrent weekly administration of cisplatin, 30 mg/m2) was administered at academic medical centers. Included patients had no prior head and neck cancers, were 18 years or older, and had a smoking history of 10 pack-years or less or more than 10 pack-years but 30 pack-years or less and abstinent for the past 5 years. Cancer status was untreated human papillomavirus or p16-positive squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx or unknown head and neck primary site; and cancer staging was category T0 to T3, category N0 to N2c, M0, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1. Baseline, weekly, and posttreatment toxic effects were assessed by physicians or nurse practitioners using National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 4.0. Patient-reported symptom severity was measured using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize raw agreement between CTCAE grades and PRO-CTCAE severity ratings. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline, weekly, and posttreatment toxic effects assessed using CTCAE, version 4.0, and PRO-CTCAE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Raw agreement indices between patient-reported toxic effects, including symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities (score range, 0 [none] to 4 [very severe]), and practitioner-measured toxic effects, including swallowing, oral pain, and hoarseness (score range, 1 [mild] to 5 [death]). RESULTS: Of the 44 patients included in the analysis (39 men, 5 women; mean [SD] age, 61 [8.4] years), there were 327 analyzable pairs of CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE symptom surveys and no treatment delays due to toxic effects. Patient-reported and practitioner-reported symptom severity agreement was high at baseline when most symptoms were absent but declined throughout treatment as toxic effects increased. Most disagreement was due to lower severity of toxic effects reported by practitioners (eg, from 45% agreement at baseline to 27% at the final week of treatment for pain). This was particularly noted for domains that are not easily evaluated by physical examination, such as anxiety and fatigue (eg, severity of fatigue decreased from 43% at baseline to 12% in the final week of treatment). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Practitioner-reported toxic effects are lower than patient self-reports during head and neck chemoradiotherapy. The inclusion of patient-reported symptomatic toxic effects provides information that can potentially enhance clinical management and improve data quality in clinical trials.

Reporting of toxic adverse effects of anticancer treatments by clinicians generally results in the underreporting of these toxicities. Patient-reported outcomes, which fully reflect the experiences of patients receiving treatment, offer an alternative to reporting of toxicities by clinicians. In this Perspective, the authors describe the barriers and challenges to routine integration of patient-reported outcomes into clinical trials, and describe the PRO–CTCAE, which is designed to help circumvent some of these challenges.

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants’ median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P &lt; .05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P &lt; .05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r = 0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P ≤ .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Data reported directly by patients about how they feel and function are rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States, in contrast to Europe and to nononcology labeling in the United States, where this practice is more common. Multiple barriers exist, including challenges unique to oncology trials, and industry’s concerns regarding cost, logistical complexities, and the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) rigorous application of its 2009 guidance on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. A panel consisting of representatives of industry, FDA, the PRO Consortium, clinicians, and patients was assembled at a 2014 workshop cosponsored by FDA to identify practical recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Key recommendations included increasing proactive encouragement by FDA to clinical trial sponsors for including PROs in drug development programs; provision of comprehensive PRO plans by sponsors to FDA early in drug development; promotion of an oncology-specific PRO research agenda; development of an approach to existing (“legacy”) PRO measures, when appropriate (focused initially on symptoms and functional status); and increased FDA and industry training in PRO methodology. FDA has begun implementing several of these recommendations.

The Integrated Cancer Information and Surveillance System (ICISS) facilitates population-based cancer research by developing extensive information technology systems that can link and manage large data sets. Taking an interdisciplinary “team science” approach, ICISS has developed data, systems, and methods that allow researchers to better leverage the power of big data to improve population health.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in North Carolina. This issue brief summarizes cancer statistics for the state; highlights important issues facing cancer patients, caregivers, providers, and policy makers; discusses the state’s novel resources for cancer care research; and explores ways of managing this public health problem in order to improve outcomes for the people of North Carolina.

Effective patient care and efficient drug development require accurate tools to assess treatment effects. For metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), response biomarkers have historically been poorly reproducible, inaccurate, inconsistently applied, or only loosely associated with tangible clinical benefits such as survival. However, the field of response assessments for prostate cancer is maturing, in compliance with a rigorous process defined by analytic validation, clinical validation, and clinical qualification. For example, bone imaging with technetium-99m scintigraphy has historically been poorly used in prostate cancer clinical trials and routine patient care, and frequently has led to poor decision-making. However, contemporary clinical trial consensus criteria (Prostate Cancer Working Group 2 [PCWG2]) have standardized the definition of progression on bone scintigraphy and the clinical trials endpoint of radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS). A validated bone scan interpretation form captures the relevant data elements. rPFS and the forms have been undergoing prospective testing in multiple phase III studies. The first of these trials demonstrated a high degree of reproducibility and correlation with overall survival, and rPFS was used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for approval of abiraterone in chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are another class of assays with significant promise as response-indicator biomarkers. CTC enumeration has undergone analytic validation and has been FDA-cleared for monitoring patients with prostate cancer in conjunction with other clinical methods. It is not yet a surrogate for survival. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are direct indicators of patient benefit. The assays to measure PROs must undergo each of the steps of biomarker development, and are increasingly being standardized and used as clinical trial endpoints. In this review, we critically assess each of these classes of novel biomarkers—imaging, CTC, and PROs—in regard to the quality of data supporting their use to monitor clinical outcomes in advanced prostate cancer.

The goal of comparative effectiveness research (CER) is to explain the differential benefits and harms of alternate methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition or to improve the delivery of care. To inform decision making, information from the patient’s perspective that reflects outcomes that patients care about are needed and can be collected rigorously using appropriate patient-reported outcomes (PRO). It can be challenging to select the most appropriate PRO measure given the proliferation of such questionnaires over the past 20 years.

Abstract: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the “PRO-CTCAE.” The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI’s cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.

In 2005, the US Department of Defense, through the US Army Medical Research and Materiel Command, Office of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs, created a funding mechanism to form a clinical trials consortium to conduct phase I and II studies in prostate cancer. This is the first report of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Consortium (PCCTC).

Reported utilisation of prescription drug use concurrently with herbal or vitamin products have increased, placing an estimated 15 million patients at risk of potential drug–supplement interactions. This systematic review aims to consolidate relevant herb and supplement interactions data available for some of the more common classes of interactions experienced by clinicians. These classes include: hypoglycaemic/hyperglycaemics; hypotensive/hypertensives, diuretics, sedatives, cardiac glycosides, monoamine oxidase inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, laxatives, immunomodulators, agents that may increase the risk of bleeding or clotting, agents that may be hepatotoxic, agents that may have hormonal properties, and agents with cytochrome P450 enzyme activity. The format is designed to promote use as a decision support tool for healthcare providers.

This systematic review discusses the proposed uses, dosing parameters, adverse effects, toxicology, interactions and mechanism of action of kava. The widespread concern regarding the potential hepatotoxicity of kava is discussed. A recommendation is made to consolidate and analyse available reports and to continue postmarket surveillance in an international repository to prevent duplicates and promote collection of thorough details at the time of each report so that any association with kava is clearly defined.

St. John’s wort is an herb commonly used in Europe for decades and more recently the topic of scientific investigation in this country. St. John’s wort has been found more effective than placebo and equally as effective as tricyclic antidepressants in the short-term management of mild-tomoderate depression. Comparisons to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors have provided equivocal data. While it is generally well tolerated in clinical use, there is accumulating evidence of significant interactions with drugs. This evidence-based presentation of the literature includes a brief description of pharmacodynamics and clinical applications, followed by a systematic review of adverse effects, toxicity, and drug interactions.

Real-world evidence is increasingly valued by regulators and payers. Central to this evidence base is patient-reported outcome data describing the impact of drugs on quality of life, daily activities and symptoms. Here, we highlight key challenges with current real-world, patient-reported outcome data and describe collaborative next steps for international stakeholders to overcome these issues.

•Bone pain is the leading PRO in contemporary trials of advanced prostate cancer, however pre-approval studies have not addressed a therapeutic agent's ability to palliate pain in a manner to use for regulatory approval.•A multi-center, phase II clinical trial examining the use of Radium-223 enrolled 29 patients with metastatic CRPC and brief pain inventory (BPI) score >3, with primary endpoint defined as >30% decline in BPI score by week 8, confirmed at week 12•Primary endpoint was met in 43% of patients, easily satisfying the protocol-defined threshold for expansion to second phase, but accrual was slow and did not proceed to second phase.•This was the first prospective trial examining Ra223 in pain palliation using standard doses and contemporary pain endpoints Ra223, and demonstrated Ra223’s ability to palliate pain in a clinically meaningful manner in nearly half of enrolled patients

Computed tomography (CT) has limited diagnostic accuracy for staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a novel imaging modality incorporating functional imaging with improved soft tissue characterization. This pilot study evaluated the use of preoperative FDG-PET/MRI for staging of MIBC.

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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522443

Introduction:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), defined as any report on the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient without interpretation by anyone else, play an increasingly important role in drug development. In 2009 the FDA issued final guidance on using PRO measures to support labeling claims, to incorporate the patient perspective into the drug approval process. The 21stCentury Cures Act emphasizes PROs as a differentiating element in the FDA approval process of new drugs, beyond traditional clinical outcome measures. Further, recent data has shown that intervention based on PROs can improve survival in metastatic cancers (Basch et al; 2017). The incorporation of PROs into the labeling of new drugs for malignant hematology disorders has not been studied and is the subject of this investigation.

Background:Online patient and caregiver self-reporting for symptom and toxicity monitoring during chemotherapy can inform proactive clinical management and ameliorate serious adverse events. In adults, patient-reported symptom monitoring during chemotherapy improves quality of life, decreases hospitalizations, and lengthens survival. The feasibility of this approach in pediatrics has not been established. This study assesses the implementation of daily electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring for pediatric oncology patients hospitalized for chemotherapy.