Mao, Jun J.

PURPOSE Improving care transitions for patients with cancer discharged from the hospital is considered an important component of quality care. Digital monitoring has the potential to better the delivery of transitional care through improved patient-provider communication and enhanced symptom management. However, remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have not been widely implemented for oncology patients after discharge, an innovative setting in which to apply this technology. METHODS We implemented a RPM intervention which identifies medical oncology patients at discharge, monitors their symptoms for 10 days, and intervenes as necessary to manage symptoms. We evaluated the feasibility (>50% patient engagement with symptom assessment), appropriateness (symptom alerts), and acceptability (net promoter score >0.7) of the intervention and the initial effect on acute care visits and return on investment. RESULTS During the study period, January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, we evaluated 2,257 medical oncology discharges representing 1,857 unique patients. We found that 65.9% of patients discharged (N = 1,489) completed at least one symptom assessment postdischarge and of them, 45.5% (n = 678) generated a severe symptom alert that we helped to manage. Patients expressed high satisfaction with the intervention with a net promoter score of 84%. In preliminary analysis of patients with GI malignancies (n = 449), we found a nonsignificant decrease in 30-day readmissions for the intervention cohort (n = 269) by 5.8% as compared with the control (n = 180; from 33.3% to 27.5%; P = .22). CONCLUSION Digital transitional care management was feasible and demonstrated that patients transitioning from the hospital to home have a substantial symptom burden. The intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction but will require further refinement and evaluation to increase its impact on 30-day readmission.

PURPOSE The aim of this joint guideline is to provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and other health care providers on integrative approaches to managing pain in patients with cancer. METHODS The Society for Integrative Oncology and ASCO convened an expert panel of integrative oncology, medical oncology, radiation oncology, surgical oncology, palliative oncology, social sciences, mind-body medicine, nursing, and patient advocacy representatives. The literature search included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 1990 through 2021. Outcomes of interest included pain intensity, symptom relief, and adverse events. Expert panel members used this evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations. RESULTS The literature search identified 227 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS Among adult patients, acupuncture should be recommended for aromatase inhibitor–related joint pain. Acupuncture or reflexology or acupressure may be recommended for general cancer pain or musculoskeletal pain. Hypnosis may be recommended to patients who experience procedural pain. Massage may be recommended to patients experiencing pain during palliative or hospice care. These recommendations are based on an intermediate level of evidence, benefit outweighing risk, and with moderate strength of recommendation. The quality of evidence for other mind-body interventions or natural products for pain is either low or inconclusive. There is insufficient or inconclusive evidence to make recommendations for pediatric patients. More research is needed to better characterize the role of integrative medicine interventions in the care of patients with cancer. Additional information is available at https://integrativeonc.org/practice-guidelines/guidelines and www.asco.org/survivorship-guidelines .

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 <5) and “low risk” for adherence problems on the McHorney (score=0 vs score >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<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.