Shinn, Eileen H.

Abstract Background: The PALLAS trial (ABCSG-42, AFT-05, BIG-14-03) investigates adjuvant palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) versus ET alone in patients (pts) with HR+/HER2− early breast cancer. While palbociclib improves outcomes in metastatic settings, final analysis from PALLAS did not demonstrate benefit in survival outcomes from the addition of palbociclib to ET. A number of pts discontinued palbociclib before the planned 2 year duration though degree of palbociclib exposure was not associated with clinical outcomes. This analysis explores factors predictive of palbociclib early discontinuation and dose reductions, including baseline characteristics, toxicities, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Using the safety population of 5736 pts (2840 receiving palbociclib + ET), we assessed early palbociclib discontinuation within a competing-risks framework (competing events: progression, death). Cumulative incidence curves (Aalen-Johansen estimates) and cause-specific hazard models were used to explore associations with clinical and demographic factors (age, menopausal status, stage, race, endocrine therapy type), key toxicities (neutropenia, anemia, nausea), and baseline PROs (patient assessed quality of life [QoL], anxiety, fatigue, pain, frailty/ dependency, depression, and low income. financial difficulties). An automated model selection based on the Akaike information criterion (AIC) starting from the cause-specific hazard model incorporating all considered predictors including PROs. Results: Early discontinuation of palbociclib not due to progression or death occurred in 1171 pts (41.3%); an additional 343 pts (12.1%) stopped due to results of a futility analysis. In 108 (3.8%) and 2 (0.1%) pts treatment was discontinued due to progression or death. Median time to early discontinuation was 7.7 months in pts that discontinued treatment (median interquartile range 3.45-13.60). Very early discontinuation (≤3 months) occurred in 261 pts (9.2%). Dose reductions to 100mg and 75mg occurred in 1566 pts (55.2%) and 951 pts (33.6%) of 2840 pts, respectively. In univariable analyses, higher age, lower N-stage, and specific baseline PROs (baseline QoL, fatigue, anxiety, depression, frailty/ dependency and financial difficulties) were linked with increased risk of discontinuation. The best-fitting multivariable model identified age, nodal stage (N-stage), low quality of life (QoL), and low income as key predictors of early treatment discontinuation. Conclusions: In the PALLAS trial, our findings highlight the importance of integrating PROs into risk prediction of early treatment discontinuation. Additionally, when starting pts on oral targeted therapies in the adjuvant setting, symptom control, social work and financial counseling resources may support pts at higher risk of non-adherence. This is in line with findings from the ESMO Breast QoL analysis (Bjelic-Radisic et al.), which emphasized the added value of subjective patient-reported outcomes alongside objective clinical parameters in understanding treatment burden and adherence. Support: AFT, ABCSG, Pfizer, ECOG-ACRIN, NSABP Foundation, GBG, BIG; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02513394. Citation Format: M. Vetter, A. Wiencierz, M. Gnant, D. Hlauschek, C. Kurzeder, C. Grasic Kuhar, N. Zdenkowski, E. Shinn, J. Suga, D. Egle, J. Meisel, S. Antolin-Novoa, E. Munzone, T. Haddad, S. Loibl, A. Holynskyj, C. Fesl, A. Dueck, A. DeMichele, E. Mayer, on behalf of the PALLAS groups and investigators (ABCSG, AFT, BIG,PReCOG, GBG, NSABP). Predictors of early discontinuation of adjuvant palbociclib in early HR+/ HER2- breast cancer: final analysis of the PALLAS trial integrating patient-reported outcomes [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-07-14.

AbstractBackgroundBreast cancer patients experienced heightened anxiety during the pandemic. Also, modifications to clinical trial activities allowing for virtual platforms, local assessments, and greater flexibility were introduced to facilitate participation. We sought to evaluate the association between pandemic‐related anxiety and willingness to participate in trials and how pandemic‐era modifications to trial activities affect the decision to participate.MethodsWe conducted an online survey from August to September, 2021 of patients with breast cancer assessing pandemic‐related anxiety; clinical trials knowledge and attitudes; willingness to participate during and before the pandemic; and how each modification affects the decision to participate. Fisher's exact tests evaluated differences in proportions and two‐sample t‐tests evaluated differences in means. The association of pandemic‐related anxiety with a decline in willingness to participate during compared to prior to the pandemic was modeled using logistic regression.ResultsAmong 385 respondents who completed the survey, 81% reported moderate–severe pandemic‐related anxiety. Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during the pandemic than prior [2.97 (SD 1.17) vs. 3.10 (SD 1.09), (p < 0.001)]. Severe anxiety was associated with higher odds of diminished willingness to participate during the pandemic compared to prior (OR 5.07). Each of the modifications, with the exception of opting out of research‐only blood tests, were endorsed by >50% of respondents as strategies that would increase their likelihood of deciding to participate.ConclusionsWhile pandemic‐related anxiety was associated with diminished willingness to participate in trials, the leading reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation were unrelated to the pandemic but included worries about not getting the best treatment, side effects, and delaying care. Patients view trial modifications favorably, supporting continuation of these modifications, as endorsed by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Abstract Background: Historically, less than 10% of adult patients with cancer enroll in clinical trials, however, enrollment dropped further at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to trial participation during the pandemic have not been reported. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey on the impact of the pandemic on willingness to participate in breast cancer trials, we assessed reasons for reluctance to participate in trials during the pandemic. Methods: US residents who self-reported a breast cancer diagnosis were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21-9/30/21. Respondents indicated whether they were current trial participants and, if not, their willingness to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic using a 5-point scale (0-not at all willing to 4-definitely willing). Respondents who were not current trial participants and who were not “definitely willing” to consider participation during the pandemic were characterized as “reluctant” and asked to select reasons for their reluctance from a checklist. Pandemic-related anxiety was assessed on an 11-point scale (0-no anxiety to 10-worst anxiety possible). Respondents indicated how the option to conduct trial activities online would affect their decision to participate in a trial (much less likely, somewhat less likely, would not affect my decision, somewhat more likely, or much more likely). In exploratory analyses, we evaluated whether pandemic-related anxiety and favorable reactions towards opportunities to conduct trial activities online were associated with reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic due to fear of SARS-CoV-2 exposure. Means were compared with two sample t-tests and proportions with Fisher’s exact tests. Results: Of 385 survey respondents, 185 (48%) were characterized as reluctant to consider trial participation during the pandemic. Among these 185, median age was 55 (range 25-80), 85.7% were non-Hispanic White, 48.1% had metastatic disease and 44.2% received care at academic centers. Reasons for reluctance to consider trial participation during the pandemic cited by ≥15% of the 185 reluctant respondents are shown in the Table. Respondents who selected fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance to consider participating in a trial during the pandemic had higher mean pandemic-related anxiety (7.0 vs 5.2, p&lt; 0.001). These respondents were more likely to indicate telemedicine doctor visits (p=0.01), virtual consents (p=0.001) and online study questionnaires (p=0.001) would make them somewhat or much more likely to participate in trials than respondents who did not select fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 as a reason for their reluctance. Conclusions: Reasons for reluctance of patients with breast cancer to consider participation in clinical trials during the pandemic are multifactorial. Although concerns about safety and efficacy remain prominent, fear of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 drives unwillingness to participate in &gt;25% of reluctant patients. Trial accrual may benefit from incorporation of electronic activities when possible. Table Citation Format: Karen L. Smith, Carolyn Mead-Harvey, Gina L. Mazza, Albert E. Holler, Eileen Shinn, Elizabeth Frank, Michelle Melisko, Cyd Eaton, Jeannine M. Salamone, Teri Pollastro, Patricia Spears, Antonio C. Wolff, Gabrielle B. Rocque. Reasons for Reduced Willingness to Participate in Clinical Trials During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium (TBCRC) 057 Survey [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2022 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2022 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2023;83(5 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-08-07.

97 Background: In order to maintain safety, clinical trial activities have been modified during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the TBCRC 057 survey, we assessed how pandemic-related modifications to trial activities affect breast cancer patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials. Methods: US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated whether each of 11 modifications to clinical trial activities would affect their decision to participate in a trial during or after the pandemic. Items evaluated modifications that involved changing the location of trial activities to closer to home, switching trial activities to telemedicine and making the trial schedule more flexible and convenient. Response options were “much less likely to participate”, “somewhat less likely to participate”, “would not affect my decision whether or not to participate”, “somewhat more likely to participate” and “much more likely to participate”. Current trial participants were asked to consider how modifications would affect their decision to participate in another trial. Results are reported descriptively. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 88.6% were non-Hispanic White, 52.5% had metastatic disease, 93% were receiving active treatment, 48.6% received care at an academic center and 9.6% were current trial participants. Changing location of trial activities was viewed favorably, with 70.2%, 64.6% and 54.1% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial blood tests, x-ray tests or doctor visits closer to home, respectively. Similarly, the option to complete trial activities electronically was viewed favorably, with 59.6%, 58.6% and 60.9% of respondents indicating they would be much or somewhat more likely to participate if they could complete trial doctor visits, consent and questionnaires via telemedicine, respectively. With regard to modifications to make the trial schedule more flexible and convenient, respondent feedback was also favorable. 71.4%, 67.7% and 82.4% of respondents indicated that requiring study site visits no more than once per 3 weeks, widening windows for trial activities and offering home delivery of oral study medications, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Finally, 30.4% and 51.7% indicated that the flexibility to opt-out of research-only blood tests and biopsies, respectively, would make them much or somewhat more likely to participate. Conclusions: Patients view modifications to trial activities implemented during the pandemic favorably. Trials should be flexible and the option to conduct study activities close to home or electronically when possible should be maintained during the pandemic and beyond.

1564 Background: Enrollment in clinical trials has declined during the COVID-19 pandemic. Simultaneously, breast cancer patients have reported heightened anxiety. We assessed whether breast cancer patients’ anxiety about the pandemic affects their willingness to participate in trials. Methods: English or Spanish-speaking US residents with breast cancer were eligible to complete the online REDCap survey 8/6/21 – 9/30/21. Respondents rated their anxiety about the pandemic on an 11-point scale from 0 (no anxiety) to 10 (worst anxiety possible). Anxiety scores were categorized as no/mild (0-3), moderate (4-6) or severe (7-10). Knowledge about trials was assessed with 11 true/false items and attitudes toward trials with the Attitudes Toward Cancer Trials Scales - Cancer Treatment Subscale (ATCTS-CTS). Respondents rated their willingness to participate in a breast cancer clinical trial before and during the pandemic on 5-point scales from 0 (not at all willing) to 4 (definitely willing). Trial participants were considered “definitely willing.” Change in willingness to participate in trials during the pandemic compared to prior was defined as a binary outcome, "less willing" vs "no less willing." Means were compared via t-test and mean difference was tested via paired t-test. Multivariable logistic regression was used to model the association of anxiety and other factors with being less willing to participate in trials during compared to prior to the pandemic. Results: Among 385 respondents, median age was 52 (range 25-85), 271 (70%) were non-Hispanic White and 202 (53%) had metastatic disease. 154 (40%) received care at academic centers and 37 (10%) were current trial participants. Most rated their anxiety as moderate (43%) or severe (38%). Mean willingness to participate in a trial was lower during compared to prior to the pandemic (2.97 vs 3.10; p < 0.0001). Fifty (13%) respondents were less willing to participate in a trial during the pandemic compared to prior. After controlling for covariates, those with severe anxiety had 5.07 times odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic compared to prior than those with no/mild anxiety (p = 0.01). For every 1-point increase in ATCTS-CTS score (indicating better attitude toward trials) there was a 3% decrease in the odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic (p = 0.006). For every 1-point increase in the clinical trials knowledge score (indicating more knowledge) there was a 15% decrease in the odds of being less willing to participate during the pandemic (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Pandemic-related anxiety is common in breast cancer patients and is associated with being less willing to participate in trials during the pandemic compared to prior. Education about trials, including safety modifications implemented during the pandemic, may mitigate anxiety and improve willingness to participate.

Abstract Background: As the development and use of oral anticancer agents increases, it is critical to understand patient adherence to both standard and investigational agents. The open label, phase 3 multicenter PALLAS trial investigates whether adding 2 years of the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib (P) to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improves invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) over adjuvant ET alone in patients (pts) with HR- positive, HR2-negative, stage II-III breast cancer. Pts were randomly assigned to either Palbociclib (125 mg/day, 3 weeks on, 1 week off, in a 28-day cycle) plus ongoing provider/patient-choice adjuvant ET (P+ET) versus ET alone. We examined patient-reported adherence to ET +/- P during the first two years of study treatment. Methods: Adherence outcomes were measured in English-speaking pts in the U.S., UK, Ireland and Australia, Spanish-speaking pts in Spain and Mexico, and German-speaking pts in Germany and Austria. Adherence measures included drug diaries completed at each cycle, pill counts (for P only) collected at each study visit, and the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-4 item and the McHorney Adherence Estimator questionnaires completed at cycles 2, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 (22 months). Mean adherence for each cycle was defined as the average proportion of prescribed pills taken (via drug diary) across all patients who initiated that cycle. Persistence was defined as the duration of drug initiation to treatment cessation (via drug diary). Generalized estimating equations were used to model the “most adherent” pts on the Morisky (score = 5 vs score &lt;5) and “low risk” for adherence problems on the McHorney (score=0 vs score &gt;0) to compare the average difference between arms over time for ET, adjusting for baseline demographic and clinical variables. Results: 81% (N=4688) of PALLAS pts were included in this analysis. Median persistence to ET was 23.6 months in P + ET (n=2169), 23.7 months in ET alone (2136) and 20.4 months for P (n=2194). The number of pts who initiated each cycle for ET declined over time and was similar between arms; the decline was more marked for P (Table 1). Mean adherence range as measured by drug diary was 98.2-99.3% for ET in P+ET and 98.0 - 99.4% in ET alone; and for P, ranged from 93.4 - 98.8%. The adherence and persistence results were nearly identical whether measured by drug diary or pill count for P. The observed percent “most adherent” for P measured by the Morisky scale ranged from 71.9% - 79.6% and the percent “low risk” for adherence problems measured by the McHorney scale, 64.0% - 73.4%. The percent of pts “most adherent” and “low risk” for adherence problems to ET was higher, on average over time, in the P+ET group compared to ET alone (75% vs 68%, p&lt;0.01; 75% vs 72%, p=.05, respectively). Conclusions: Self-reported mean adherence for both P + ET and ET alone was strikingly high for pts who remained on therapy; persistence was also high with ET during the 2-year treatment period. Current analyses suggest that nonadherence to either P or ET was likely not a major contributor to the iDFS results seen in the overall PALLAS trial. These results illustrate the importance of measuring and monitoring patient adherence to oral study agents. Support: AFT, Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02513394) and EudraCT (2014-005181-30). https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Table 1.Adherence and persistence in PALLAS over the 24 month treatment periodPalbocicilb + ETETPalbociclibETETTreatment cycleMean Adherence (SD)N*Mean Adherence (SD)NMean Adherence (SD)N193.4 (13.8)229098.7 (6.1)230999.0 (5.2)2343294.7 (13.3)218198.8 (6.4)220398.4 (7.1)2206397.4 (10.1)211298.7 (7.3)214298.8 (6.3)2168497.6 (10.2)203598.6 (7.8)211099.0 (5.7)2154597.6 (11.1)197598.3 (7.9)209398.1 (8.3)2148698.1 (8.7)189998.7 (6.6)203798.5 (8.2)2116798.1 (9.3)185599.0 (6.3)201298.6 (7.3)2102898.0 (9.1)181098.2 (8.2)199798.1 (8.2)2092998.4 (7.4)173399.0 (6.4)196298.8 (6.8)20511098.3 (8.6)171499.2 (4.9)194699.0 (5.5)20381198.3 (8.0)169198.5 (7.3)193798.2 (8.2)20311298.7 (6.2)161299.1 (5.3)191098.7 (7.5)19861398.5 (7.7)159698.9 (6.4)189398.8 (7.1)19691497.9 (9.3)157698.4 (7.3)188298.0 (9.1)19611598.5 (6.9)151499.2 (4.6)185499.0 (6.0)19281698.2 (8.7)148699.1 (4.6)183599.1 (5.7)19131798.1 (9.8)147998.3 (7.8)182698.5 (6.4)19031898.7 (6.8)141699.3 (4.1)176899.2 (5.3)18601998.7 (7.3)140899.3 (3.8)175699.4 (3.1)18482098.4 (8.9)139798.9 (5.3)174298.7 (5.8)18382198.5 (7.5)130199.0 (6.1)167698.8 (7.1)17842297.8 (9.7)124698.8 (6.2)164799.2 (5.7)17692398.1 (8.8)118098.2 (8.5)161998.4 (8.0)17552498.8 (7.2)108699.0 (6.3)146898.9 (7.1)16192598.8 (6.7)99699.2 (5.2)143298.8 (7.1)15892697.9 (11.2)84599.1 (5.7)140998.6 (8.8)1578ET=Endocrine therapy * Number of pts who initiated the treatment cycle. Citation Format: Eileen Shinn, David Zahrieh, Angela DeMichele, Nick Zdenkowski, Julie Lemieux, Jun Mao, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Michelle Naughton, Georg Pfeiler, Karen Gelmon, Ingrid Mayer, Daniel Egle, Gabriele Zoppoli, Tiffany Traina, Miguel Martin Jiménez, Silvia Antolin Novoa, Tufia Haddad, Arlene Chan, Alistair Edward Ring, Antonio Wolff, Jose JuanPonce Lorenzo, Dhanusha Sabanathan, Hal Burstein, Zbigniew Ireneusz Nowecki, Gunda Pristauz-Telsnigg, Adam Brufsky, Meritxell Bellet-Ezquerra, Theodoros Foukakis, Yelena Novik, Gabor Rubovszky, Karoline Muehlbacher, Otto Metzger, Theodora Goulioti, Ernest Law, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey, Alex Zoroufy, Dominik Hlauschek, Christian Fesl, Erica Mayer, Michael Gnant. Adherence with adjuvant endocrine therapy with or without Palbociclib in the PALLAS trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-12-01.

Abstract Background: Quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer patients (pts) can be greatly impacted by initial treatment and ongoing therapy, particularly if side effects and symptoms are not well tolerated. The PALLAS trial investigated whether the addition of 2 years of palbociclib (palbo) to adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) over adjuvant ET alone. We report on the main patient-reported outcome (PRO) quality of life (QOL) and symptom severity results of this trial by treatment arm. Methods: PALLAS is an ongoing multicenter, open label phase 3 trial that enrolled hormone receptor positive, HER2-negative, stage II-III breast cancer patients at 406 cancer centers across 21 countries. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either 2 years of palbo (125mg/day, 3 weeks on 1 week off) plus ongoing provider or patient-choice adjuvant ET (palbo+ET) versus ongoing ET alone. The primary study endpoint was iDFS. Treatment with palbo in all pts stopped at the time of the second interim analysis (5/2020) due to futility; all pts then moved to follow up. The PRO analyses were triggered for completion after awareness of the pre-specified 469 iDFS cases in November 2020. Eight PRO endpoints were measured serially (i.e., day 1 of each monthly cycle for the first 3 months, then every 3 months for the first 2 years, and once at year 3). The endpoints were the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL score, the Brief Fatigue Inventory score, the modified Brief Pain Inventory severity and pain interference scores, the EORTC QLQ-BR23 alopecia score, and the Breast Cancer Prevention Trial hot flash symptoms, vaginal problems, and musculoskeletal pain scores. Linear mixed models compared the average difference between arms across time points during the initial 2-year treatment period adjusting for cycle 1 day 1 (C1D1) PRO scores, demographic and clinical variables. The average differences between arms (palbo+ET vs ET alone) and the two-sided (1-[0.05/8]) x 100% confidence intervals, adjusted for multiple comparisons, were calculated. Analysis of covariance compared the average between-arm differences by endpoint at 3 years. Results: The PRO intention to collect population included 4688 (81%) of the overall trial pts, and was clinically and demographically representative of the remaining 1073 pts. Each analysis population, with measures at C1D1 and at least 1 post-C1D1 assessment for each PRO endpoint, comprised ≥ 89% of the 4688 pts and the proportions were similar between arms. After adjustment for baseline covariates, on average, no clinically important differences between arms were observed for any of the eight endpoints over the 2 year treatment period (Table 1). All effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold. These PRO results were similar at the 3 year time point. Conclusions: No clinically significant differences in either patient-reported QOL or symptom severity were found, on average, between participants in the two PALLAS treatment arms while either taking palbo+ET or ET alone, or after study-wide termination of palbo. In general, the addition of palbociclib in the adjuvant breast cancer setting did not contribute to increased symptom burden within this survivorship population. Further analyses will examine the relationship between PROs and treatment discontinuation by arm and study time point. Support: AFT, Pfizer, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org Table 1.Results of the Patient-Reported QOL and Symptom Severity Analyses Between the Two Treatment Arms During the First 2 Years of PALLASPRO Endpoint *Palbo + ET Adjusted average score (95% CI)ET alone Adjusted average score (95% CI)Average Difference + (Palbo + ET vs ET alone)[99.38% CI] Clinically ++ Important DifferenceEORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL71.7 (71.2, 72.2)74.0 (73.5, 74.5)-2.3 (-3.3, -1.4)**NoBrief Fatigue Inventory Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.1 (2.0, 2.1)0.2 (0.1, 0.3)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Severity Score2.3 (2.2, 2.3)2.4 (2.4, 2.5)-0.2 (-0.3, -0.1)NoModified Brief Pain Inventory - Interference Score1.7 (1.6, 1.7)1.7 (1.6, 1.7)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoEORTC QLQ-BR23 Alopecia1.4 (1.4, 1.4)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)0.1 (0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Hot Flash Symptoms1.2 (1.2, 1.3)1.2 (1.2, 1.3)0.0 (-0.1, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Vaginal Problems0.8 (0.8, 0.8)0.8 (0.7, 0.8)0.0 (0.0, 0.1)NoBreast Cancer Prevention Trial - Musculoskeletal Pain1.2 (1.2, 1.2)1.3 (1.3, 1.3)-0.1 (-0.2, 0.0)No* For the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/QOL subscale, higher scores indicate better QOL. For all other PRO endpoints, higher scores indicate worse symptom levels. ** The lower bound of the one-sided CI (adjusted for multiple comparisons) was -3.3. Because the lower limit is greater than the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -3.44, non-inferiority of palbo+ET relative to ET-alone was concluded. The non-inferiority margin corresponds to a 0.2 SD in the EORTC QLQ-C30 global health/QOL score. +The average difference was adjusted for the following baseline covariates: Cycle 1 day 1 score, region (if applicable), age category, first adjuvant ET, race, ethnicity, N-stage, T-stage, histological grade, PgR, prior chemotherapy, ECOG Performance Status. ++Based on each instrument’s published clinically relevant cut-offs, if available. After calculating Cohen’s d treatment effect sizes, (i.e. by dividing the average difference by the ET-alone arm standard deviation from cycle 1 day 1), all effect sizes were below the pre-specified 0.2 threshold, and would not be considered clinically important. Citation Format: Michelle Joy Naughton, David Zahrieh, Michael Gnant, Nicholas Zdenkowski, Julie Lemieux, Jun J Mao, Vesna Bjelic-Radisic, Eileen Shinn, Marija Balic, Christoph Thomssen, Jane Neisel, Manuel Ruiz-Echarri, Sibylle Loibl, Claudine Isaacs, David Cameron, Fernando Manuel Henao Carrasco, Matthew Goetz, Viktor Wette, Gustavo Werutsky, Hope Rugo, Marcus Vetter, Ling-Ming Tseng, Kathy Miller, Florian Fitzal, Juan Miguel Gil Gil, Haeseong Park, Barbro Linderholm, Emilio Bajetta, Zoneddy Dayao, Aleix Prat, Karin Ehrhardt, Otto Metzger, Amal Arahmani, Ernest Law, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey, Alex Zoroufy, Amylou Dueck, Dominik Hlauschek, Angela DeMichele, Erica Mayer. Quality of life and symptom severity in the PALLAS randomized trial of palbociclib with adjuvant endocrine therapy in early breast cancer (AFT-05) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P4-10-01.

Members of the Translational Breast Cancer Research Consortium conducted an expert‐driven literature review to identify a list of domains and to evaluate potential measures of these domains for inclusion in a list of preferred measures. Measures were included if they were easily available, free of charge, and had acceptable psychometrics based on published peer‐reviewed analyses. A total of 22 domains and 52 measures were identified during the selection process. Taken together, these measures form a reliable and validated list of measurement tools that are easily available and used in multiple cancer trials to assess patient‐reported outcomes in relevant patients.