Search

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our healthcare delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs increasingly are emphasizing research agendas that involve evidence development, comparative-effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For more than 25 years, the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused, provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Development of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) requires adequate measures of this symptom. A guidance document from the Food and Drug Administration offers criteria for the formulation and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials to support drug or device labeling claims.Methods: An independent working group, ASCPRO (Assessing Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes), has begun developing recommendations for the measurement of symptoms in oncology clinical trials. The recommendations of the Fatigue Task Force for measurement of CRF are presented here.Results: There was consensus that CRF could be measured effectively in clinical trials as the sensation of fatigue or tiredness, impact of fatigue/tiredness on usual functioning, or as both sensation and impact. The ASCPRO Fatigue Task Force constructed a definition and conceptual model to guide the measurement of CRF. ASCPRO recommendations do not endorse a specific fatigue measure but clarify how to evaluate and implement fatigue assessments in clinical studies. The selection of a CRF measure should be tailored to the goals of the research. Measurement issues related to various research environments were also discussed.Conclusions: There exist in the literature good measures of CRF for clinical trials, with strong evidence of clarity and comprehensibility to patients, content and construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in conditions in which one would expect them to change (assay sensitivity), and sufficient evidence to establish guides for interpreting changes in scores. Direction for future research is discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Fatigue and anxiety are common and significant symptoms reported by cancer patients. Few studies have examined the trajectory of multidimensional fatigue and anxiety, the relationships between them and with quality of life., Methods: Breast cancer patients (n = 580) from community oncology clinics and age-matched controls (n = 364) completed fatigue and anxiety questionnaires prior to chemotherapy (A1), at chemotherapy completion (A2), and six months post-chemotherapy (A3). Linear mixed models (LMM) compared trajectories of fatigue /anxiety over time in patients and controls and estimated their relationship with quality of life. Models adjusted for age, education, race, BMI, marital status, menopausal status, and sleep symptoms., Results: Patients reported greater fatigue and anxiety compared to controls at all time points (p's < 0.001, 35% clinically meaningful anxiety at baseline). From A1 to A2 patients experienced a significant increase in fatigue (β = 8.3 95%CI 6.6,10.0) which returned to A1 values at A3 but remained greater than controls' (p < 0.001). General, mental, and physical fatigue subscales increased from A1 to A2 remaining significantly higher than A1 at A3 (p < 0.001). Anxiety improved over time (A1 to A3 β =  - 4.3 95%CI -2.6,-3.3) but remained higher than controls at A3 (p < 0.001). Among patients, fatigue and anxiety significantly predicted one another and quality of life. Menopausal status, higher BMI, mastectomy, and sleep problems also significantly predicted change in fatigue., Conclusion: Breast cancer patients experience significant fatigue and anxiety up to six months post-chemotherapy that is associated with worse quality of life. Future interventions should simultaneously address anxiety and fatigue, focusing on mental and physical fatigue subdomains.

Background: To the authors' knowledge, the empiric identification of agents and interventions to mitigate chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has resulted in only 1 agent that modestly mitigates it and no agents or interventions that prevent its development. This speaks to the need for a mechanistic understanding of CIPN to develop effective interventions., Methods: To understand the extent to which mechanistic understanding of CIPN is being translated into the development of interventions, the National Cancer Institute conducted a review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s portfolio of investigator-initiated grants, the literature regarding CIPN mechanisms, and the clinical trials listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database from January 1, 2011, to May 22, 2019., Results: A total of 69 NIH-supported grants and 95 published articles were identified that evaluated mechanistic pathways of 7 different chemotherapy agents that cause CIPN. The review also identified 35 clinical trials that investigated agents or devices with which to treat CIPN. Only 3 trials incorporated a mechanistic rationale to support the choice of the intervention., Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, very little of the mechanistic understanding of the development of CIPN is being translated into intervention rationale in clinical trials that evaluate interventions to mitigate CIPN. Efforts to incentivize this translation are needed., (© 2020 American Cancer Society.)

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding., (Published by Oxford University Press 2019. This work is written by US Government employees and is in the public domain in the US.)

Background: Few adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15-39 years old) enroll onto cancer clinical trials, which hinders research otherwise having the potential to improve outcomes in this unique population. Prior studies have reported that AYAs are more likely to receive cancer care in community settings. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has led efforts to increase trial enrollment through its network of NCI-designated cancer centers (NCICC) combined with community outreach through its Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP; replaced by the NCI Community Oncology Research Program in 2014)., Methods: Using AYA proportional enrollment (the proportion of total enrollments who were AYAs) as the primary outcome, we examined enrollment of AYAs onto SWOG therapeutic trials at NCICC, CCOP, and non-NCICC/non-CCOP sites from 2004 to 2013 by type of site, study period (2004-08 vs 2009-13), and patient demographics., Results: Overall, AYA proportional enrollment was 10.1%. AYA proportional enrollment decreased between 2004-2008 and 2009-2013 (13.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001), and was higher at NCICCs than at CCOPs and non-NCICC/non-CCOPs (14.1% vs 8.3% and 9.2%, respectively; P < .001). AYA proportional enrollment declined significantly at all three site types. Proportional enrollment of AYAs who were Black or Hispanic was significantly higher at NCICCs compared with CCOPs or non-NCICC/non-CCOPs (11.5% vs 8.8, P = .048 and 11.5% vs 8.6%, P = .03, respectively)., Conclusion: Not only did community sites enroll a lower proportion of AYAs onto cancer clinical trials, but AYA enrollment decreased in all study settings. Initiatives aimed at increasing AYA enrollment, particularly in the community setting with attention to minority status, are needed., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies., Materials and Methods: Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission., Results: Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term., Discussion: Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting., Conclusions: Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is an important clinical problem in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Nationwide longitudinal studies are needed to understand the trajectory and severity of CRCI in specific cognitive domains., Patients and Methods: The overall objective of this nationwide, prospective, observational study conducted within the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Research Program was to assess trajectories in specific cognitive domains in patients with breast cancer (stage I-IIIC) receiving chemotherapy, from pre- (A1) to postchemotherapy (A2) and from prechemotherapy to 6 months postchemotherapy (A3); controls were assessed at the same time-equivalent points. The primary aim assessed visual memory using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery Delayed Match to Sample test by longitudinal mixed models including A1, A2, and A3 and adjusting for age, education, race, cognitive reserve score, and baseline anxiety and depressive symptoms. We also assessed trajectories of CRCI in other aspects of memory as well as in attention and executive function with computerized, paper-based, and telephone-based cognitive tests., Results: In total, 580 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 53.4 years) and 363 controls (mean age, 52.6 years) were assessed. On the Delayed Match to Sample test, the longitudinal mixed model results revealed a significant group-by-time effect ( P < .005); patients declined over time from prechemotherapy (A1) to 6 months postchemotherapy (A3; P = .005), but controls did not change ( P = .426). The group difference between patients and controls was also significant, revealing declines in patients but not controls ( P = .017). Several other models of computerized, standard, and telephone tests indicated significantly worse performance by patients compared with controls from pre- to postchemotherapy and from prechemotherapy to 6 months postchemotherapy., Conclusion: This nationwide study showed CRCI in patients with breast cancer affects multiple cognitive domains for at least 6 months postchemotherapy.

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 < 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.

Purpose: To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)., Methods and Materials: Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed., Results: Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick.", Conclusions: Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Stagnant outcomes for adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15 to 39 years old) with cancer are partly attributed to poor enrollment onto clinical trials. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) was developed to improve clinical trial participation in the community setting, where AYAs are most often treated. Further, many CCOP sites had pediatric and medical oncologists with collaborative potential for AYA recruitment and care. For these reasons, we hypothesized that CCOP sites enrolled proportionately more AYAs than non-CCOP sites onto Children's Oncology Group (COG) trials., Methods: For the 10-year period 2004 through 2013, the NCI Division of Cancer Prevention database was queried to evaluate enrollments into relevant COG studies. The proportional enrollment of AYAs at CCOP and non-CCOP sites was compared and the change in AYA enrollment patterns assessed. All sites were COG member institutions., Results: Although CCOP sites enrolled a higher proportion of patients in cancer control studies than non-CCOP sites (3.5% v 1.8%; P < .001), they enrolled a lower proportion of AYAs (24.1% v 28.2%, respectively; P < .001). Proportional AYA enrollment at CCOP sites decreased during the intervals 2004 through 2008 and 2009 through 2013 (26.7% v 21.7%; P < .001)., Conclusion: Despite oncology practice settings that might be expected to achieve otherwise, CCOP sites did not enroll a larger proportion of AYAs in clinical trials than traditional COG institutions. Our findings suggest that the CCOP (now the NCI Community Oncology Research Program) can be leveraged for developing targeted interventions for overcoming AYA enrollment barriers., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

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<.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<.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.

The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The aim of this study was to understand the current environment around clinical research relating to nursing education and practice. This descriptive study analyzed data from 33 in-depth interviews with faculty members, nurse executives, staff development directors, and practicing nurses, as well as an online interactive brainstorming session with 28 deans of schools of nursing (or their designee). Patterns and themes that emerged within each group were identified and analyzed in relation to study objectives. Central themes emerged around participants' knowledge and attitudes about clinical research education for baccalaureate nursing students, factors enhancing or inhibiting inclusion of clinical research content in baccalaureate nursing programs, and professional roles nursing students could expect to assume after graduation. Although the participants agreed that mastery of clinical research knowledge and related skills is important, there was no agreement whether nurses should receive this education and training in baccalaureate programs or in staff development., (Copyright 2014, SLACK Incorporated.)

Background: The National Cancer Institute's Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee held a clinical trials planning meeting (September 2011) to identify a core symptom set to be assessed across oncology trials for the purposes of better understanding treatment efficacy and toxicity and to facilitate cross-study comparisons. We report the results of an evidence-synthesis and consensus-building effort that culminated in recommendations for core symptoms to be measured in adult cancer clinical trials that include a patient-reported outcome (PRO)., Methods: We used a data-driven, consensus-building process. A panel of experts, including patient representatives, conducted a systematic review of the literature (2001-2011) and analyzed six large datasets. Results were reviewed at a multistakeholder meeting, and a final set was derived emphasizing symptom prevalence across diverse cancer populations, impact on health outcomes and quality of life, and attribution to either disease or anticancer treatment., Results: We recommend that a core set of 12 symptoms--specifically fatigue, insomnia, pain, anorexia (appetite loss), dyspnea, cognitive problems, anxiety (includes worry), nausea, depression (includes sadness), sensory neuropathy, constipation, and diarrhea--be considered for inclusion in clinical trials where a PRO is measured. Inclusion of symptoms and other patient-reported endpoints should be well justified, hypothesis driven, and meaningful to patients., Conclusions: This core set will promote consistent assessment of common and clinically relevant disease- and treatment-related symptoms across cancer trials. As such, it provides a foundation to support data harmonization and continued efforts to enhance measurement of patient-centered outcomes in cancer clinical trials and observational studies., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.)

Background: The effective management of fatigue in patients with cancer requires a clear delineation of what constitutes nontrivial fatigue. The authors defined numeric cutpoints for fatigue severity based on functional interference and described the prevalence and characteristics of fatigue in patients with cancer and survivors., Methods: In a multicenter study, outpatients with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer rated their fatigue severity and symptom interference with functioning on the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory numeric scale of 0 to 10. Ratings of symptom interference guided the selection of numeric rating cutpoints between mild, moderate, and severe fatigue levels. Regression analysis identified significant factors related to reporting moderate=severe fatigue ., Results: The statistically optimal cutpoints were 4 for moderate fatigue and 7 for severe fatigue. Moderate=severe fatigue was reported by 983 of 2177 patients (45%) undergoing active treatment and was more likely to occur in patients receiving treatment with strong opioids (odds ratio [OR], 3.00), those with a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR, 2.00), those who had >5% weight loss within 6 months (OR, 1.60), those who were receiving >10 medications (OR, 1.58), those with lung cancer (OR, 1.55), and those with a history of depression (OR, 1.42). Among survivors (patients with complete remission or no evidence of disease, and not currently receiving cancer treatment), 29% of patients (150 of 515 patients) had moderate=severe fatigue that was associated with poor performance status (OR, 3.48) and a history of depression (OR, 2.21)., Conclusions: The current study statistically defined fatigue severity categories related to significantly increased symptom interference. The high prevalence of moderate=severe fatigue in both actively treated patients with cancer and survivors warrants the promoting of the routine assessment and management of patient-reported fatigue.

Background: Understanding the determinants of fatigue worsening may help distinguish between different fatigue phenotypes and inform clinical trial designs., Methods: Patients with invasive cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung were enrolled from multiple sites. At enrollment during an outpatient visit and 4 or 5 weeks later, patients rated their symptoms on a numerical rating scale from zero to 10. A 2-point change on that scale was considered clinically significant for a change in fatigue. Effects of demographic and clinical factors on patient-reported fatigue were examined using logistic regression models., Results: In total, 3123 patients were enrolled at baseline, and 3032 patients could be analyzed for fatigue change. At baseline, 23% of patients had no fatigue, 35% had mild fatigue, 25% had moderate fatigue, and 17% had severe fatigue. Key parameters in a model of fatigue worsening included fatigue at baseline (odds ratio [OR], 0.75), disease status (OR, 1.99), performance status (OR, 1.38), history of depression (OR, 1.28), patient perception of bother because of comorbidity (OR, 1.26), and treatment exposures, including recent cancer treatment (OR, 1.77) and receipt of corticosteroids (OR, 1.37). The impact of sex was examined only in patients with colorectal and lung cancer, and it was a significant factor, with men most likely to experience worsening of fatigue (OR, 1.46)., Conclusions: Predictors of fatigue worsening included multiple factors that were difficult to modify, including the baseline fatigue level, sex, disease status, performance status, recent cancer treatment, bother because of comorbidity, and history of depression. Future fatigue prevention and treatment trial designs should account for key predictors of worsening fatigue., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Background: A set of common cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms has been proposed for quality of care assessment and clinical research. Using data from a large, multicenter, prospective study, the authors assessed the effects of disease site and stage on the percentages of patients rating these proposed symptoms as moderate to severe., Methods: The severity of 13 symptoms proposed to represent "core" oncology symptoms was rated by 3106 ambulatory patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung, regardless of disease stage or phase of care; 2801 patients (90%) repeated the assessment 4 to 5 weeks later., Results: At the time of the initial assessment, approximately 33% of the patients reported ≥ 3 symptoms in the moderate-to-severe range; 11 of the 13 symptoms were rated as moderate to severe by at least 10% of all patients and 6 were rated as moderate to severe by at least 20% of those receiving active treatment. Fatigue/tiredness was the most severe symptom, followed by disturbed sleep, pain, dry mouth, and numbness/tingling. More patients with lung cancer and patients receiving active treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms. Percentages of symptomatic patients increased by disease stage, less adequate response to therapy, and declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms were stable across both assessments., Conclusions: The results of the current study support a core set of moderate to severe symptoms that are common across outpatients with solid tumors, that can guide consideration of progression-free survival as a trial outcome, and that should be considered in clinical care and in assessments of quality of care and treatment benefit., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

Objective: To highlight health related quality of life (HRQOL) measures and published outcomes in phase III clinical trials in the four major cancers: breast, prostate, colorectal, and lung., Data Sources: Peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, and abstracts published between 1990 and 2009., Conclusion: Over the past 20 years there has been an upsurge in the number and types of HRQOL measures used in phase III cancer treatment trials. Results of trials reported after 2001 indicate a significant increase in specific treatment or disease-related symptom measures in lieu of or as companions to global HRQOL measures. Currently, open NCI-supported trials are incorporating a large number of targeted treatment- and/or disease-related measures., Implications for Nursing Practice: Clinicians can use these data to help patients better understand the spectrum and severity of symptomatic toxicities they will experience with cancer treatment., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In response to a 2005 solicitation from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, 16 investigators received funding to test interventions that would reduce the barriers that prevent cancer patients from receiving adequate and appropriate symptom management therapies. Since the awards have been issued, the investigators have met two times and have identified a number of challenges to implementing their respective studies. A survey was conducted that focused on their experiences with hiring and retaining study personnel, gaining Institutional Review Board approval, incurring unexpected costs, challenges to accruing participants, and a listing of standard measures used in the study. The survey was completed online by the Principal Investigator for each project in late 2006 and the initial results were confirmed one year later by resending the initial survey and by a follow-up telephone call. All but one Principal Investigator completed the survey. Obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, hiring and recruiting research personnel, establishing subcontracts, and accruing research subjects were the primary challenges experienced by the investigators. This palliative care solicitation achieved more than its original intent of stimulating research in overcoming barriers to delivering cancer symptom management, palliative care and end-of-life care. From a survey on the challenges and issues that emerged from their projects, grantees were able to identify specific hurdles and their unique solutions that may help other investigators as they plan their program of research.

To evaluate and improve the use of cancer trial end points that reflect the patient's own perspective, the National Cancer Institute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006. The 13 preceding articles in this special issue of the Journal were commissioned in preparation for or in response to the PROACT conference, which was cosponsored by the American Cancer Society. Drawing from these articles and also commentary from the conference itself, this concluding report takes stock of what has been learned to date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III, phase II, and symptom management trials in cancer and identifies ways to improve the scientific soundness, feasibility, and policy relevance of PROs in trials. Building on this synthesis of lessons learned, this article discusses specific administrative policies and management procedures to improve PRO data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings; opportunities afforded by recent methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collection and analysis to enhance the scientific soundness and cost efficiency of PRO use in trials; and the importance of better understanding the usefulness of PRO data to the full spectrum of cancer decision makers, including patients and families, health providers, public and private payers, regulatory agencies, and standards-setting organizations.

For almost 30 years, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has sponsored health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures in cancer research as a means of including the patient's experience. The scope of NCI's research in symptom management and HRQOL is described with attention to its evolution over time and the next steps, through the Clinical Trials Working Group Recommendations.

Major findings are presented from a workshop on Quality of Life Assessment in Cancer Symptom Management Trials, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. Data-driven research reports focused on 3 topics, 1) the rationale and utility of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment, 2) conceptual models, and 3) measurement and design issues. Recommendations for including HRQOL assessment cited the potential value of: capturing additional treatment effects (eg, fatigue + depression); describing the patient experience; predicting patient prognosis; identifying potential adverse effects; observing interactions among symptoms; calculating quality adjusted survival and cost-effectiveness; and generating new hypotheses. Recommendations for developing more fully developed conceptual models focused on maintaining clear distinctions among symptoms, function, summary measures of HRQOL, and global HRQOL assessments; identifying symptom clusters; pursuing hypotheses about whether clustering is better explained as symptom-related or as patient-related (genetic predispositions); and gaining a better understanding of the dynamic and reciprocal influences of symptoms on each other. With respect to measurement and design issues, because different HRQOL measures cover different domains with various degrees of sensitivity, there is a need to select measures that are carefully tailored to the study's hypotheses. Finally, there is a growing appreciation that trials must be powered to test for effects on secondary endpoints.

Purpose: To identify major research-design issues in proposals submitted by investigators in the Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) for clinical trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for cancer-symptom management., Methods: We conducted content analysis of all scientific reviews of concepts and protocols submitted by the CCOP to the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to identify research challenges in conducting clinical trials designed to evaluate CAM interventions for cancer-symptom management., Results: Since the inception of the NCI Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine in 1998, a total of 46 symptom-management studies using CAM interventions have been proposed by CCOP investigators, with 20 studies now in progress comprising 22% of the current total CCOP symptom-management portfolio. Proposals fell into four categories: complex natural products; nutritional therapeutics; mind-body interventions; and alternative medical systems. The most significant research-design issues arose as a consequence of the lack of preclinical data for CAM interventions and the lack of quality-control standards comparable with those used in regulating new pharmaceutical agents., Conclusion: Across the different types of CAM interventions, the most common problems found in proposed research designs are related to unwarranted assumptions about the consistency and standardization of CAM interventions, the need for data-based justifications for the study hypotheses, and the need to implement appropriate quality control and monitoring procedures during the course of the trial. To advance the state of the science, future research must address these critical issues if CAM interventions are to be evaluated rigorously and have a consequent impact on clinical practice and general public awareness.

Purpose: To examine how quality of life (QOL) is prospectively conceptualized, defined, and measured in the symptom management clinical trials supported by the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP)., Methods: All QOL research objectives, rationales, assessment instruments, symptoms treated, and types of interventions from the CCOP symptom management portfolio of clinical trials were extracted and analyzed., Results: QOL assessments were proposed in 68 (52%) of the 130 total CCOP symptom management trials initiated since 1987. A total of 22 global QOL instruments were identified. Both the frequency of symptom management trials and the frequency of QOL assessment have increased significantly over time. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Uniscale instruments were the most widely used QOL instruments, included in 55% of trials assessing QOL. The conceptual framework for QOL inclusion was limited to univariate relationships between symptom relief and global improvements in QOL. No consistent associations were found between QOL assessment and either the symptoms targeted or types of interventions., Conclusion: To advance the state of the science, research protocols need to provide more explicit rationales for assessing QOL in symptom management trials and for the selection of the QOL instrument(s) to be used. Conceptual frameworks that specify the hypothesized links between the specific symptom(s) being managed, interactions with other symptoms, different domains of QOL, and global QOL also need to be more precisely described. Methodologic and conceptual advances in QOL symptom management trials are critical to fulfill the promise of alleviating suffering and improving the QOL of cancer patients.

To enhance the teaching of students to assess quality of life of patients with serious disease, the AACE Palliative Cancer Education Section has developed a teaching module. The module, which focuses on four desired learning objectives, is to be used in an hour-long small-group session. The authors describe the development of the module, as well as its objectives, teaching method, evaluation, and future challenges.