Zylla, Dylan M.

PURPOSE Remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve symptom control and physical function among patients with advanced cancer. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are similar across demographic groups. This exploratory analysis of the PRO-TECT trial examined whether the effects of electronic symptom monitoring varied by race, age, sex, and educational attainment. METHODS PRO-TECT was a cluster randomized trial conducted across 52 US community oncology practices comparing weekly electronic symptom monitoring with usual care (UC). Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors receiving systemic therapy were enrolled (N = 1,191). Participants in the PRO arm completed weekly symptom surveys including the PRO-CTCAE, triggering alerts to the care team for severe or worsening symptoms. Patients chose whether to complete weekly PROs online or via telephone-based interactive voice response not requiring Internet access. Outcomes were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 symptom control and physical function scales. Subgroup analyses were performed by race (Black v White), age (<65 v ≥65 years), sex (male v female), and educational attainment (≤high school v >high school). RESULTS From baseline to 3 months, PRO participants showed greater improvements in symptom control (+2.37 v −0.20, P = .002) and physical function (+1.54 v −0.93, P = .02) versus UC. Benefits were most pronounced among younger, female, Black, and less educated participants. Black participants in the PRO arm were more likely to report that symptom reporting made them feel more in control of their care compared with White participants. CONCLUSION Electronic symptom monitoring improved quality-of-life outcomes overall, including among groups who have historically experienced higher symptom burden or barriers to communication. Remote PRO systems may represent an equitable strategy to enhance cancer care delivery.

Abstract Background The legal climate for cannabis use has dramatically changed with an increasing number of states passing legislation legalizing access for medical and recreational use. Among cancer patients, cannabis is often used to ameliorate adverse effects of cancer treatment. Data are limited on the extent and type of use among cancer patients during treatment and the perceived benefits and harms. This multicenter survey was conducted to assess the use of cannabis among cancer patients residing in states with varied legal access to cannabis. Methods A total of 12 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers, across states with varied cannabis-access legal status, conducted surveys with a core questionnaire to assess cannabis use among recently diagnosed cancer patients. Data were collected between September 2021 and August 2023 and pooled across 12 cancer centers. Frequencies and 95% confidence intervals for core survey measures were calculated, and weighted estimates are presented for the 10 sites that drew probability samples. Results Overall reported cannabis use since cancer diagnosis among survey respondents was 32.9% (weighted), which varied slightly by state legalization status. The most common perceived benefits of use were for pain, sleep, stress and anxiety, and treatment side effects. Reported perceived risks were less common and included inability to drive, difficulty concentrating, lung damage, addiction, and impact on employment. A majority reported feeling comfortable speaking to health-care providers though, overall, only 21.5% reported having done so. Among those who used cannabis since diagnosis, the most common modes were eating in food, smoking, and pills or tinctures, and the most common reasons were for sleep disturbance, followed by pain and stress and anxiety with 60%-68% reporting improved symptoms with use. Conclusion This geographically diverse survey demonstrates that patients use cannabis regardless of its legal status. Addressing knowledge gaps concerning benefits and harms of cannabis use during cancer treatment is critical to enhance patient-provider communication.

PURPOSE Orteronel (TAK-700) is a nonsteroidal 17,20-lyase inhibitor suppressing androgen synthesis. We evaluated the clinical benefit of orteronel when added to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. METHODS In this open-label randomized phase III study, patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to ADT with orteronel (300 mg oral twice daily; experimental arm) or ADT with bicalutamide (50 mg oral once daily; control arm). The primary objective was the comparison of overall survival (OS), targeting a 33% improvement in median survival. A stratified log-rank test with a one-sided P ≤ .022 would indicate statistical significance. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 7 months (≤ 0.2 v 0.2 to ≤ 4 v > 4 ng/mL), and adverse event profile. RESULTS Among 1,279 patients included in the analysis, 638 were randomly assigned to the ADT plus orteronel arm and 641 to the control arm. The median age was 68 years; 49% had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 years, there was a significant improvement in PFS (median 47.6 v 23.0 months, hazard ratio 0.58; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.67; P < .0001) and PSA response at 7 months ( P < .0001), but not in OS (median 81.1 v 70.2 months, hazard ratio 0.86; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.02; P = .040, one-sided). More grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in the experimental versus the control arms (43% v 14%). Postprotocol life-prolonging therapy was received by 77.4% of patients in the control arm and 61.3% of patients in the orteronel arm. CONCLUSION The study did not meet the primary end point of improved OS with orteronel. The lack of correlation of PFS and PSA response with OS raises concerns over assumption of their consistent surrogacy for OS in the context of extensive postprotocol therapy in this setting.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

5001 Background: Tak is an oral selective nonsteroidal 17, 20-lyase inhibitor that blocks the synthesis of gonadal and adrenal androgens. We evaluated the clinical benefit of Tak with ADT in pts with newly diagnosed mHSPC. Methods: Pts with mHSPC with a Zubrod performance status (PS) of 0-2 and a PSA of ≥ 2 ng/ml were randomized 1:1 to ADT+Tak (300 mg twice daily) or ADT+Bic (50 mg daily). Stratification factors included PS (0-1 vs ≥2), extent of disease (minimal vs extensive), and receipt of ADT prior to registration (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were progression free survival (PFS; based on PSA, imaging or clinical progression), PSA at 7 months (≤0.2 vs 0.2 < PSA; ≤-4 vs. > 4 ng/ml) and adverse event (AE) profile. With 2.75 yrs to accrue 1,186 eligible pts and 3 additional yrs of follow-up, we would have 90% power to determine a 33% improvement in OS from 54 to 72 mos (1-sided α = 0.025). A final analysis was pre-specified after 523 deaths using a 1-sided α = 0.022 to account for interim analyses. Results: Between 3/2013 and 7/2017, 1,313 pts were randomized and 1,279 were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis (32 pts were ineligible and 2 pts withdrew consent). Median age was 68 yrs and 10% of subjects were Black. Median PSA was 30 ng/mL (range 2-6710) and 49% of pts had extensive disease. After a median follow-up of 4.9 yrs, PFS and PSA response were significantly improved with Tak over Bic but no significant improvement in OS was observed (Table). More grade 3/4 AEs occurred in Tak vs. Bic arms (43% vs. 14%), and included hypertension (20% vs. 5%) and fatigue (5% vs. 2%). Five pts in Tak and 1 pt in the Bic arm had grade 5 AE. Conclusions: Despite clinically meaningful improvement in various outcome measures with Tak+ADT over Bic+ADT in this representative population of mHSPC, the improvement in OS did not meet the pre-specified criteria for statistical significance. The median OS of 70 mos in the control arm (standard ADT) was higher than that reported in contemporary phase 3 trials in this setting, and 16 mos higher than originally estimated. This trial sets a new landmark for survival estimates when pts with mHSPC have access to multiple approved subsequent life-prolonging therapies. Funding: NIH/NCI/NCTN grants U10CA180888, U10CA180819, U10CA180820; U10CA180821; and in part by Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Takeda Pharmaceutical Company LTD) Clinical trial information: NCT01809691. [Table: see text]