Search

Purpose Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials. Methods In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles. Results PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle. Conclusion For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

IMPORTANCE: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. RESULTS: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

PURPOSE: To measure financial toxicity and explore its association with quality of life (QOL) in an emerging population of survivors: advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey and medical record review. SAMPLE: 106 survivors (39% response). Median time since start of immunotherapy was 36.4 months (range: 14.2, 133.9). METHODS: The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity, and the EORTC-QLQ30 assessed QOL and functioning across five domains. Data were collected online, by phone, or in clinic. FINDINGS: Younger patients (

Context Summarizing 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. Objectives Apply 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. Methods Proportions of maximum PRO-CTCAE severity levels and median toxicity index were computed by arm using all trial data and adjusting for baseline symptoms. Results Group-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. Conclusion The 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.

OBJECTIVES: Asking “Was it worth it?” (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment’s benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients’ perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. METHODS: A three-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end-of-treatment in cancer patients on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (PRO-AEs) and disease response. RESULTS: 65 patients completed the questionnaire. 40(62%)/16(25%)/9(14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to “Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?” [Item 1], respectively; 39(60%)/12(18%)/14(22%) to “If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?” and 40(62%)/14(22%)/11(17%) to “Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?” Patients responding yes to Item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain/no (mean 23.0 versus 11.3 weeks, p

180 Background: Financial toxicity affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with decreased treatment adherence and poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate financial toxicity among patients undergoing cancer treatment. We evaluated the effect of monthly patient-reported financial toxicity screening as part of a larger digital monitoring intervention. Methods: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (“PRO practices”) or usual care (“control practices”). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys containing symptom, functioning, and financial toxicity screening questions for up to one year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 (“Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”), at any time compared to baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. Results: 1,191 patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared to 39.0% of patients treated at control practices (p = 0.01). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that financial toxicity screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. Conclusions: Screening for financial toxicity as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduces the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials.In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles.PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle.For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores.gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

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.

BackgroundImmune checkpoint inhibitors (CIs) have revolutionized treatment of advanced melanoma, leading to an emerging population of long-term survivors. Survivors’ quality of life (QOL) and symptom burden are poorly understood. We set out to evaluate symptom burden and QOL in patients with advanced melanoma alive more than 1 year after initiating CI therapy.MethodsCross-sectional surveys, accompanied by chart review of patients with advanced melanoma treated with CIs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, completed therapy, and were alive >1 year after treatment initiation. Surveys were administered between February and August 2018. Surveys included: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30, EuroQOL, items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Fatigue Severity Scale.ResultsWe included 90 patients. The most common CI regimens were ipilimumab plus nivolumab (53%) and pembrolizumab (41%); most patients (71%) were not treated in clinical trials. Median time from CI therapy initiation was 40 months and from last dose was 28 months. Fatigue was reported by 28%, with higher fatigue scores in women than men; 12% reported difficulty sleeping. Aching joints (17%) and muscles (12%) were fairly common. Level of functioning was generally high. Overall QOL was excellent though 40% reported ‘some or moderate’ problems with anxiety/depression and 31% with pain/discomfort.ConclusionsAfter CI therapy, long-surviving advanced melanoma patients commonly report fatigue but otherwise have moderate symptom burden and good QOL. Ensuring appropriate symptom management will optimize clinical outcomes for these patients.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Symptomatic adverse event (AE) monitoring is essential in cancer clinical trials to assess patient safety, as well as inform decisions related to treatment and continued trial participation. As prior research has demonstrated that conventional concordance metrics (e.g., intraclass correlation) may not capture nuanced aspects of the association between clinician and patient-graded AEs, we aimed to characterize differences in AE grading thresholds between doctors (MDs), registered nurses (RNs), and patients using the Bayesian Graded Item Response Model (GRM). From the medical charts of 393 patients aged 26–91 (M = 62.39; 43% male) receiving chemotherapy, we retrospectively extracted MD, RN and patient AE ratings. Patients reported using previously developed Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) patient-language adaptations called STAR (Symptom Tracking and Reporting). A GRM was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between MDs, RNs and patients. Clinicians have overall higher average grading thresholds than patients when assessing diarrhea, dyspnea, nausea and vomiting. However, RNs have lower grading thresholds than patients and MDs when assessing constipation. The GRM shows higher variability in patients’ AE grading thresholds than those obtained from clinicians. The present study provides evidence to support the notion that patients report some AEs that clinicians might not consider noteworthy until they are more severe. The availability of GRM methodology could serve to enhance clinical understanding of the patient symptomatic experience and facilitate discussion where AE grading discrepancies exist. Future work should focus on capturing explicit AE grading decision criteria from MDs, RNs, and patients.

e18612 Background: Effective communication of treatment tolerability data is essential for clinical decision making and improved patient outcomes, yet standardized approaches to the analysis and visualization of tolerability data in cancer clinical trials are currently limited. To address this need, the Standardization Working Group (SWG) was established within the NCI Cancer Moonshot Tolerability Consortium. This abstract describes the SWG’s initiative to develop a publicly accessible online toolkit with a comprehensive set of guidelines, references, and resources for graphical displays of tolerability data. Methods: A multidisciplinary group of PRO researchers including biostatisticians, clinicians, epidemiologists, and representatives from the NCI and FDA convened monthly to discuss toolkit development and content. Considerations for standardization of graphical displays of tolerability data included (1) types of graphical displays, (2) incorporation of missing data, (3) labeling and color schemes, and (4) software to produce graphical displays. For consistency, considerations of tolerability relied on the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE), which includes 124 items assessing the frequency, severity, interference, and/or presence of 78 symptomatic adverse events. Graphical displays were generated using simulated PRO-CTCAE data and summarized by composite score (range 0-3).Color schemes that were Section 508 compliant and color blindness accessible were created. Surveys were distributed to 68 consortium members to assess preferences and interpretability of the graphical displays. Results: The SWG created graphical displays for PRO-CTCAE data, including bar charts, butterfly plots, and Sankey diagrams and compiled SAS macros and R functions to do so. Graphical displays made available in the toolkit maximize the use of PRO-CTCAE data, incorporate missingness, support between-arm comparisons, and present data longitudinally over treatment cycles or study timepoints. Survey results for labeling and color schemes were summarized and informed a list of short labels for PRO-CTCAE items (e.g., “radiation burns” for “skin burns from radiation”) and standardized color schemes for use in graphical displays. Survey results were also summarized to provide insight into PRO researchers’ ability to accurately interpret the graphical displays. Conclusions: Standardizinggraphical displays is important for improving the communication and interpretation of tolerability data. The type of graphical display used depends on the purpose of the analysis and should be tailored to the intended audience, including patients. This toolkit will provide a comprehensive resource with best practice recommendations.

1016 Background: The ph III EMBRACE trial of E vs physician’s choice of tx led to FDA approval of E as ≥3rd-line tx for MBC pts with prior exposure to anthracyclines/taxanes. The ph III BOLD 301 trial of E vs capecitabine in advanced BC treated with anthracyclines/taxanes showed a nonsignificant trend to improved median OS for all pts; pre-planned analysis by HER2 status revealed a nominally significant benefit for HER2- pts. Methods: RU011201I is an investigator initiated ph III trial with 1:1 randomization to E (1.4 mg/m2 D1,8 q21days) vs P (90 mg/m2 D1,8,15 q28days) within strata defined by (neo)adjuvant taxanes (yes/no), HR status (+/-), and line of tx (1st/2nd). Pts had measurable or non-measurable disease by RECIST v1.1; new or progressive mets; peripheral neuropathy (PN) gr3 mos were allowed. (Neo)adjuvant taxanes were allowed if >12 mos between tx completion and disease recurrence. Radiographic studies occur q12wks. Survival data are collected q12wks after the Off-Tx Visit. Pts reported side effects weekly; post-baseline symptomatic AE rates worse than baseline were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact tests. We report clinical outcomes and the primary objective related to PRO-CTCAE use. Results: 201 pts enrolled 3/2014 - 5/2018 with 33.8 mos median f/u; 3 are on tx as of 2/20/20 (1E, 2P). Pt characteristics were the same between E vs P: median age 62 yrs (range 27-85); 42% prior taxane; 78% ER+; 70% starting 1st line tx. Baseline lesion distribution was similar except for lung mets (37E, 53P). No difference was seen between E vs P in PFS (5.7 vs 5.9 mos; P=0.72), OS (18.1 vs 16.4 mos; P=0.75), TTF (5.3 vs 4.9 mos; P=0.82), DOR (10.8 vs 12.3 mos; P=0.84), or number of metastatic events (55 vs 54). 37E and 36P pts required ≥1 dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities ≥ gr 3 were higher with E (40 vs 22%). PN events were similar: 56 vs 58 total, 4 vs 7 motor, 52 vs 51 sensory. Median duration of PN and median time to 1st PN event were 74 vs 140 and 56 vs 41 days. Worsened numbness/tingling severity and other pt-reported AE rates were similar, but worsened numbness/tingling interference (63% vs 78%, P=0.04) and vomiting frequency (35% vs 57%, P=0.005) were lower with E. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were equivalent with E vs P as 1st/2nd line tx for HER2- advanced BC. The nature and severity of PN were similar between arms, but time of onset, duration, and interference with daily living favor E. E may be a suitable treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02037529 .

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

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

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

Background The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates). Objective The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software. Methods Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested. Results Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001). Conclusions Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01031641 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/708hTjlTl).

BACKGROUND The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates). OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software. METHODS Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested. RESULTS Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01031641 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/708hTjlTl)

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.

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 �� 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 �� < 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.

e23090 Background: Patients with metastatic melanoma (MMel) who achieve durable long-term responses to checkpoint inhibitors (CI) represent a new type of cancer survivor, but their long-term quality of life (QOL) is poorly described. We measured symptom burden and long-term QOL in MMel patients treated with CIs at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK). Methods: Between February and August 2018 we performed a cross-sectional survey of adult patients with MMel treated with CI at MSK beginning at least 12 months prior to this study. Surveys were self-administered online using RedCap. We assessed patient treatment experience and QOL using the PRO-CTCAE bank, EORTC, EQ-5D, and Fatigue Severity Scale. We performed chart abstraction to assess extent of cancer burden, ECOG status, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), concurrent medical conditions, and immune-related adverse events (irAEs) developing during or after treatment. For analysis, we dichotomized age (< 65 vs ≥65) and months from CI initiation (< 25 vs ≥25). Results: We enrolled 107 patients (39% survey response rate); 106 completed surveys. Participants were 57.0% male and 93.5% white, with median age 60.5 years (IQR: 51.1, 67.5 years). 79.4% had a CCI of 0 at start of CI; preexisting autoimmune disorders were rare. Median time since CI initiation was 36.4 months (range: 14.2, 133.9 months). Median length of CI treatment was 7.3 months (IQR: 2.1, 24.3 months); 15 patients were on treatment at the time of survey completion. Among those off treatment at the time of survey completion, median time off treatment was 27.1 months (IQR: 16.7, 40.4 months). The most common irAEs were rash (34.6%), colitis (24.3%), thyroiditis (19.6%), hepatitis (18.7%), and hypophysitis (13.1%). irAEs did not differ by age. Few patients reported symptoms at time of survey, most commonly aching joints (18%), fatigue (14%), aching muscles (13%), and difficulty sleeping (11%). Few (< 12%) had difficulty with physical, role, emotional, cognitive, or social functioning and almost none (1%) reported anxiety, depression or pain on the EQ-5D. QOL was excellent, with a median of 83.3% on the EQ-5D global health score and no differences based on toxicities or time from treatment. Conclusions: Long-term survivors of MMel patients report few burdensome symptoms after CI therapy and have excellent QOL.

Objective The long-term effects of disease and treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are poorly understood. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of pain in a sample of CRC survivors up to 10 years post-treatment. Design One hundred cancer-free CRC survivors were randomly chosen from an institutional database and completed a telephone survey using the Brief Pain Inventory, Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire-Short Form, Quality of Life Cancer Survivor Summary, Brief Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, and Fear of Recurrence Questionnaire. Results Participants were primarily Caucasian (90%) married (69%) males (53.5%) with a mean age of 64.7 years. Chronic pain was reported in 23% of CRC survivors, with a mean moderate intensity rating (mean = 6.05, standard deviation = 2.66) on a 0–10 rating scale. Over one-third (39%) of those with pain attributed it to their cancer or treatment. Chi-square and t -test analyses showed that survivors with pain were more likely to be female, have lower income, be more depressed and more anxious, and show a higher endorsement of suicidal ideation than CRC survivors without chronic pain. On average, pain moderately interfered with daily activity. Conclusions Chronic pain is likely a burdensome problem for a small but not inconsequential minority of CRC survivors requiring a biopsychosocial treatment approach to improve recognition and treatment. Open dialogue between clinicians and survivors about physical and emotional symptoms in long-term follow-up is highly recommended.

The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library.Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients.One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated.This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.

Purpose Patient-reported outcomes are increasingly used in routine outpatient cancer care to guide clinical decisions and enhance communication. Prior evidence suggests good patient compliance with reporting at scheduled clinic visits, but there is limited evidence about compliance with long-term longitudinal reporting between visits. Patients and Methods Patients receiving chemotherapy for lung, gynecologic, genitourinary, or breast cancer at a tertiary cancer center, with access to a home computer and prior e-mail experience, were asked to self-report seven symptomatic toxicities via the Web between visits. E-mail reminders were sent to participants weekly; patient-reported high-grade toxicities triggered e-mail alerts to nurses; printed reports were provided to oncologists at visits. A priori threshold criteria were set to determine if this data collection approach merited further development based on monthly (≥ 75% participants reporting at least once per month on average) and weekly compliance rates (60% at least once per week). Results Between September 2006 and November 2010, 286 patients were enrolled (64% were women; 88% were white; median age, 58 years). Mean follow-up was 34 weeks (range, 2 to 214). On average, monthly compliance was 83%, and weekly compliance was 62%, without attrition until the month before death. Greater compliance was associated with older age and higher education but not with performance status. Compliance was greatest during the initial 12 weeks. Symptomatic illness and technical problems were rarely barriers to compliance. Conclusion Monthly compliance with home Web reporting was high, but weekly compliance was lower, warranting strategies to enhance compliance in routine care settings.

Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings. A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21). The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.

Background PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Methods Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. Results 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. Conclusions Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. Trial registration NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637

Purpose Adverse symptom event reporting is vital as part of clinical trials and drug labeling to ensure patient safety and inform risk-benefit decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of adverse event reporting of different clinicians for the same patient for the same visit. Methods A retrospective reliability analysis was completed for a sample of 393 cancer patients (42.8% men; age 26-91, M = 62.39) from lung (n = 134), prostate (n = 113), and Ob/Gyn (n = 146) clinics. These patients were each seen by two clinicians who independently rated seven Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) symptoms. Twenty-three percent of patients were enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials. Results The average time between rater evaluations was 68 min. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for constipation (0.50), diarrhea (0.58), dyspnea (0.69), fatigue (0.50), nausea (0.52), neuropathy (0.71), and vomiting (0.46). These values demonstrated stability over follow-up visits. Two-point differences, which would likely affect treatment decisions, were most frequently seen among symptomatic patients for constipation (18%), vomiting (15%), and nausea (8%). Conclusion Agreement between different clinicians when reporting adverse symptom events is moderate at best. Modification of approaches to adverse symptom reporting, such as patient self-reporting, should be considered.

Understanding the potential profile of adverse events associated with cancer treatment is essential in balancing safety versus benefits. Multiple stakeholders make use of this information for decision making, including patients, clinicians, researchers, regulators, and payors. Currently, adverse events are reported by clinical research staff, yet evidence suggests that this may contribute to underreporting of symptom events. Direct patient reporting via electronic interfaces offers a promising mechanism to enhance the efficiency and precision of our current approach and may complement clinician reports of adverse events. The National Cancer Institute has contracted to develop and test an item bank and software system for directly eliciting adverse symptom event information from patients in cancer clinical research, called the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. The validity, usability, and scalability of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events prototype are currently being examined in academic and community-based settings.

In the oncology community, opioids recently have become the cornerstone of cancer pain management. This has led to a rapid increase in opioid prescribing in an effort to address the growing public health problem of chronic pain. A new paradigm in noncancer pain management has emerged, that of risk assessment and stratification in opioid therapy. Techniques foreign to cancer pain management have now become commonplace in the noncancer pain setting, such as the use of monitoring compliance via urine drug screens. Amidst these strides in opioid use for pain management, cancer has been changing. The survival rate has increased, and a group of these patients with chronic pain were treated with opioid therapy. With opioid exposure being longer and against the backdrop of prescription drug abuse, the question is how much of the adaptation of the risk management paradigm in chronic pain management is to be imported to cancer pain management?

Introduction 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. Methods We enrolled patients with untreated, advanced lung adenocarcinomas with measurable disease and no contraindications to bevacizumab. Participants received paclitaxel, 90 mg/m 2 , pemetrexed, 500 mg/m 2 , and bevacizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 14 days for 6 months and continued to receive pemetrexed and bevacizumab every 14 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Results Of the 44 patients treated, 50% were women; the median age was 61 years and 89% had a Karnofsky performance status of at least 80%. We genotyped 38 patients with the following results: Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog gene ( KRAS ), 16; anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene ( ALK ), three; B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase gene ( BRAF ) V600E, two; erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 gene ( HER2 ) / phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha gene ( PIK3CA ), one; epidermal growth factor receptor gene ( EGFR ) exon 20 insertion, one; and driver 15, none. A total of 23 patients achieved a PR (52%, 95% confidence interval: 37–68), including seven of 16 with KRAS -mutant tumors. The overall survival rate at 2 years was 43% with a median of 17 months (95% confidence interval: 10–29). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included elevated alanine transaminase level (16%), fatigue (16%), leukopenia (9%), anemia (7%), elevated aspartate transaminase level (7%), edema (5%), and pleural effusions (5%). Two patients died of respiratory failure without disease progression. Conclusions The PPB regimen produced a high response rate in patients with lung adenocarcinomas regardless of mutational status. Survival and toxicities were comparable to those in the phase II reports testing platinum-containing doublets with bevacizumab. These results justify use of the PPB regimen in fit patients in whom three-drug regimens including bevacizumab are appropriate.

Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.

Background: Clinicians can miss up to half of patients’ symptomatic toxicities in cancer clinical trials and routine practice. Although patient-reported outcome questionnaires have been developed to capture this information, it is unclear whether clinicians will make use of patient-reported outcomes to inform their own toxicity documentation, or to prompt symptom management activities. Methods: 44 lung cancer patients that participated in a phase 2 treatment trial self-reported 13 symptomatic toxicities derived from the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Karnofsky Performance Status via tablet computers in waiting areas immediately preceding scheduled visits. During visits, clinicians viewed patients’ self-reported toxicity and performance status ratings on a computer interface and could agree or disagree/reassign grades (“shared” reporting). Agreement of clinicians with patient-reported grades was tabulated, and compared using weighted kappa statistics. Clinical actions in response to patient-reported severe (grade 3/4) toxicities were measured (e.g. treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, supportive medications). For comparison, 45 non-trial patients with lung cancer being treated in the same clinic by the same physicians were simultaneously enrolled in a parallel cohort study in which patients also self-reported toxicity grades but reports were not shared with clinicians (“non-shared” reporting). Results: Toxicities and performance status were reported by patients and reviewed by clinicians at (780/782) 99.7% of study visits in the phase 2 trial which used “shared” reporting. Clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time with kappas 0.82–0.92. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of severe patient-reported toxicities. In the “non-shared” reporting comparison group, clinicians agreed with patients 56% of the time with kappas 0.04–0.48 (significantly worse than shared reporting for all symptoms), and clinical actions were taken in response to 44% of severe patient-reported toxicities. Conclusion: Clinicians will frequently agree with patient-reported symptoms and performance status, and will use this information to guide documentation and symptom management. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00807573).

LBA2 Background: We previously reported significant benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, and emergency room utilization outcomes from a large single-center randomized controlled trial comparing web-based symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs. usual care in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00578006). We now present overall survival results from this trial. Methods: Patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were randomly assigned to self-report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers (“PRO intervention”), or to usual care. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits and nurses received email alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. Overall survival was tabulated based on medical records and Social Security Death Index data, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between arms using a log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for age, sex, race, education level, and cancer type. Results: Between September 2007 and January 2011, 766 patients were randomized, with median age 61 (range 26-91), 86% white, 58% female, and 22% with less than high school education. Cancer types included genitourinary (32% of patients), gynecologic (23%), breast (19%), and lung cancer (26%). Survival results were assessed in June 2016 after a median follow up of 7 years and 517/766 (67%) of participants had died. Median overall survival in the PRO intervention arm was 5 months longer than the control arm (31.2 vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.03). In the multivariable model, results remained statistically significant with a hazard ratio of 0.832 (p = 0.04; 95% CI; 0.696, 0.995). Conclusions: Systematic symptom monitoring during outpatient chemotherapy using web-based patient-reported outcomes confers overall survival benefits. These single-center results are being further evaluated in a national multicenter implementation trial. Clinical trial information: NCT00578006.

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 new quality standard for cancer care established in 2008 by the Institute of Medicine requires that the psychosocial domain be integrated into routine cancer care. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has incorporated this standard in its accreditation requirements for 1500 cancer centers in the country, to be fully implemented by 2015. Oncology offices and clinics are developing procedures for quickly identifying distressed patients and referring them to appropriate mental health professionals. The American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), the Association of Oncology Social Work, and the Oncology Nursing Society are currently drafting recommendations to assist clinics in complying with accreditation requirements. A critical component of this new quality standard is assuring that those who need mental health services are referred to the appropriate resource. A large disconnect exists in most communities between oncology and mental health professionals because they treat very different patient populations. Therefore, oncology staff may have difficulty identifying mental health professionals for patients in need of psychological help. This step can be simplified by use of the APOS Helpline. This article discusses the unique role of the APOS Referral Helpline in the context of this new era of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.

Purpose In clinical trials, traditional monitoring methods, paper documentation, and outdated collection systems lead to inaccuracies of study information and inefficiencies in the process. Integrated electronic systems offer an opportunity to collect data in real time. Patients and Methods We created a computer software system to collect 13 patient-reported symptomatic adverse events and patient-reported Karnofsky performance status, semi-automated RECIST measurements, and laboratory data, and we made this information available to investigators in real time at the point of care during a phase II lung cancer trial. We assessed data completeness within 48 hours of each visit. Clinician satisfaction was measured. Results Forty-four patients were enrolled, for 721 total visits. At each visit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflecting toxicity and disease-related symptoms were completed using a dedicated wireless laptop. All PROs were distributed in batch throughout the system within 24 hours of the visit, and abnormal laboratory data were available for review within a median of 6 hours from the time of sample collection. Manual attribution of laboratory toxicities took a median of 1 day from the time they were accessible online. Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online within a median of 2 days from the time of imaging. All clinicians and 88% of data managers felt there was greater accuracy using this system. Conclusion Existing data management systems can be harnessed to enable real-time collection and review of clinical information during trials. This approach facilitates reporting of information closer to the time of events, and improves efficiency, and the ability to make earlier clinical decisions.

TPS629Background: Receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy + trastuzumab is particularly important for pts with HER2+ breast cancers because of the significantly improved outcomes that trastuzumab-based chemotherapy regimens provide. However, many older pts do not receive HER2-directed therapy. T-DM1 has a favorable toxicity profile and proven efficacy in advanced disease, and is a promising therapy option for treating older pts. Methods: In this phase II, single-arm, multicenter, open-label protocol at 15 U.S. ACCRU centers, we will administer adjuvant T-DM1 to pts aged ≥ 65. T-DM1 will be administered at 3.6 mg/kg IV every 21 days for one year. Longitudinal geriatric assessments (GA), biomarkers of aging, and patient-reported outcomes (PRO-CTCAE) will be collected. Specific Aims: The primary endpoint is 5-year invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, toxicity, and site of first recurrence. Correlative endpoints include associations of toxicity and clinical endpoints w...

Objective The Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) was designed to yield separate scores for pain intensity and interference. It has been proposed that the pain interference factor can be further broken down into unique factors of affective (e.g., mood) and activity (e.g., work) interference. The purpose of this analysis was to confirm this affective/activity interference dichotomy. Patients and Methods A retrospective confirmatory factor analysis was completed for a sample of 184 individuals diagnosed with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (age 40–86, mean = 65.46, 77% White non-Hispanic) who had been administered the BPI as part of Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9480. A one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models that were developed based on the design of the instrument. Results Root mean squared error of approximation (0.075), comparative fit index (0.971), and change in chi-square, given the corresponding change in degrees of freedom (13.33, P

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).To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items.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.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).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).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.

6583 Background: It has been shown that patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) is feasible during routine chemotherapy, and that patients report AEs that clinicians otherwise miss. It is not known if this approach is feasible in a treatment trial; whether clinicians will agree or disagree with patent-reported AE grades; or if clinicians will take actions based on patients' AE reports. Methods: Patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer enrolling in a single-arm phase 2 trial of paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (NCT00807573) reported 13 validated plain language questions adapted from the NCI's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), via iPads in waiting areas before each visit. Patients’ grades were transmitted to an investigator web page via which clinicians could agree or reassign each of the CTCAE grades, which were then transmitted to the institutional database as the official reported AEs for the trial. The proportion of patients and clinicians reporting AEs at each visit was tabulated with an a priori average compliance threshold set at 75% to conclude feasibility of the approach. The rate of clinician agreement with patient grades was computed. The frequency of clinical actions in response to patient-reported grade 3/4 AEs was calculated (ie, chemotherapy dose modification, ER referral, supportive medication). Results: 44 patients were enrolled between 1/09-9/11 (mean age 59; 50% female; 93% white), encompassing 721 total clinic visits (median 10; range 1-65). Patients reported AEs at visits 99.6% of the time and clinicians 98.7% of the time. Median time between patient self-reports and clinician reviews was 1 hour (range 0.2-18). Across symptoms, clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time (weighted kappas .83 to .92), increasing the grade 5% of the time and decreasing it 2%. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of patient-reported grade 3/4 AEs. 71% of clinicians stated patient reporting informed their toxicity grading. Conclusions: Collection of patient-reported AEs at clinic visits via computer is feasible in a chemotherapy trial. Clinicians agree with patients’ self-reported AE grades and act on this information.

e17560 Background: Use of electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly employed in patient care and oncology research. However, these systems can be difficult to use, preventing adoption and deployment. The objective is to evaluate the patient usability of the National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) Measurement System. Methods: PRO-CTCAE is an item bank of 124 questions evaluating 78 symptomatic adverse events, as well as a software system that includes a web-based and interactive voice response system [IVRS] to administer these items to patients, and electronic features to customize survey creation, schedule survey administration, export data, and generate alerts and reports. A protocol was developed for two rounds of usability testing to evaluate understanding and ease of navigation reported by patients undergoing cancer treatment. Software was refined between rounds and retested. Patients were asked to login and complete PRO-CTCAE items either in clinic or at home, then were immediately debriefed (semi-scripted) by a trained interviewer. Results: 173 patients at 3 cancer centers and affiliated community network sites were enrolled in the study between 1/11-5/12 (45% male; 32% non-white; 26% high school or less). Usability issues identified in Round 1 (N=37) included difficulty in using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and problems with system login. Modifications included increasing size of buttons, improving the progress bar feature, and simplifying the interface to focus users on survey questions. In Round 2 (N=136), remaining issues were related to general difficulty with Internet use, such as navigating to the URL. IVRS testing indicated high scores of ease of use and completion of items, but users had difficulty adding unique symptoms to the system. Conclusions: Iterative usability testing identified improvements to web-based and IVRS for patient self-reporting and achieved a more favorable user experience. The feasibility of integrating PRO-CTCAE into trials to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients is currently being evaluated in the cancer cooperative groups.