Dueck, A. C.

Abstract Background Patients’ self-report of their symptoms can provide important data for the evaluation of treatment benefit and tolerability of oncology drugs. Contemporary treatment approaches, including immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies, have unique toxicities based on their novel mechanisms of action. This scoping review aimed to summarize evidence from existing reviews and clinical practice guidelines to examine the type and prevalence of toxicities including symptomatic adverse events (sympAEs) for adult cancer patients to inform clinical care and therapeutic trials. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed using predefined eligibility criteria. Thirty-one literature reviews and 3 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria and were selected for review and data abstraction. Results Findings from this scoping review demonstrated several leading sympAEs that were reported across immunotherapy and targeted therapy drugs, including fatigue, diarrhea, and rash. In addition to these more prevalent sympAEs, there were some less frequently reported class-specific sympAEs, which had potential for significant harm or disability to the patient if not properly identified and treated. Many studies reported toxicities as AEs or syndromes solely using data reported by clinicians without additional self-report from patients. Conclusion We identified several core sympAEs experienced by patients participating in oncology trials using immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents, which has implications for future trial design and drug labeling. Future cancer trials should assess patient-reported sympAEs based on the identified drug mechanism to inform the tolerability of these newer agents and enhance patient safety during trial participation and clinical care.

PURPOSE Emoji are digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion in electronic communication. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of two patient-reported scales that incorporate emoji. METHODS The Emoji Response Scale developed for this study has two parts: the Emoji-Ordinal and Emoji-Mood scales. A pilot study was designed to validate the ordinal nature of the Emoji-Ordinal Scale. Twenty patients were shown all possible pairs of five emoji and asked to select the most positive from each pair. The psychometric ordering was assessed using Coombs unfolding and Thurstone scaling. A separate pilot study was designed to determine which emoji to include in the Emoji-Mood Scale. Ten common feelings experienced by patients with cancer were chosen by the study team. Patients and providers were asked to select the one emoji that best represented each feeling from the selection. The most commonly selected emotions and representative emoji were chosen for the Emoji-Mood Scale. In a randomized study of 294 patients, Spearman correlations, Wilcoxon tests, and Bland-Altman analyses determined the construct validity of the scales compared with Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASA) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. RESULTS Ninety-five percent of patients selected the same ordering among the ordinal emoji, and Thurstone scaling confirmed the ordinal nature of the response scale. The construct validity of the scales was high with correlations between the Emoji-Ordinal Scale and the LASA scale of 0.70 for emotional well-being, 0.72 for physical well-being, 0.74 for overall quality of life, and –0.81 for fatigue. Emoji-Mood Scale ratings were strongly related to PROMIS global mental, global physical, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and social activity scales ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION This study provides evidence that scales incorporating emoji are valid for collecting patient-reported outcomes.

AbstractBackgroundCALGB 30610 trial demonstrated that once daily thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) was not superior compared to standard twice daily TRT, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer. Quality of life outcomes may help oncologists decide the best treatment approach.MethodsA total of 417 patients on CALGB 30610 participated in the quality‐of‐life substudy (CALGB 70702), which included the FACT Trial Outcome Index‐Lung Cancer (FACT‐L TOI), FACT‐Esophageal Cancer (FACT‐E) Eating and Swallowing Indices, ECOG Acute Esophagitis Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), difficulty swallowing, EQ‐5D, and treatment convenience assessment at baseline, 3, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after starting TRT. Primary end points included FACT‐L TOI and FACT‐E at 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline were compared between arms using general linear mixed models.ResultsFACT‐L worsening was more in the twice daily arm at week 3 (–1.0 vs. –7.0). FACT‐L TOI worsening was less at week 3 (–2.9 vs. –7.6) and greater at week 12 (–7.6 vs. –2.8) in the once daily arm. The once daily arm had a lower EQ‐5D index worsening at 3 weeks (0.01 vs. –0.02). Increase in acute esophagitis score (1.06 vs. 2.89; p < .001) and difficulty swallowing (0.39 vs. 1.14) were greater in the twice daily arm at week 3. A total of 74.5% of patients on the once daily arm felt that treatment was convenient, compared to 67% of patients in the twice daily arm (p = .03).ConclusionsThe once daily arm had better quality‐of‐life scores earlier during treatment and was perceived to be more convenient.

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

Abstract Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often collected in cancer clinical trials. Data obtained from trials with PROs are essential in evaluating participant experiences relating to symptoms, financial toxicity, or health-related quality of life. Although most features of clinical trial design, implementation, and analyses apply to trials with PROs, several considerations are unique. In this paper, we focus on specific issues such as selection of the tool, timing and frequency of assessments, and data collection methods. We discuss how the estimand framework can be used in connection with PROs, properties of common estimation methods, and handling of missing outcomes. With a plethora of literature available, we aim to summarize best practices and pragmatic approaches to the design and analysis of the studies incorporating PROs.

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document detailing core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials, including physical function (PF). This study aimed to develop analytic methods and visualizations of patient-reported PF in patients with cancer. Methods We applied an estimand framework to a patient-reported tolerability endpoint to develop data summaries cross-sectionally and over time, along with visualizations. We accomplished this through iterative feedback with clinicians, statisticians, and FDA stakeholders using three clinical trial datasets in hematologic malignancies. Graphical approaches were applied to three datasets in hematologic malignancies: (1) patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms enrolled in MPN-RC 111/112 trials completed EORTC QLQ-C30 over 12 months; (2) patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR-T cell therapy or autologous transplant who completed FACT questionnaires over 6 months; and (3) patients with multiple myeloma or amyloidosis who completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire over 6 months. Zoom polls were administered to two stakeholder groups (clinicians/clinical investigators and patient advocates) to elicit feedback. Results Visualizations included stacked bar charts, line plots of arithmetic mean changes from baseline, pie charts, waffle plots, and waterfall plots of PF data. Graphics considered scaled scores and individual items and included delineation of PRO completion rate at each time point. Confidence intervals and reference lines were included as applicable, and colorblind accessible colors were implemented to ensure inclusivity of all visualizations. Data summaries over time reporting “worst” change were difficult to interpret. In terms of stakeholders’ preference, patients preferred stacked bar charts while clinicians equally favored stacked bar charts and line plots; both patients and clinicians preferred waterfall plots to pie charts. Patient feedback highlighted the need for various graphics to convey group level trends and granular individual-patient level information. Conclusion Patient-reported PF informs the evaluation of treatment tolerability in cancer trials. Data summaries and visualizations of physical function developed through an iterative process were reviewed favorably by patients, clinicians and FDA stakeholders in this study. Future work to systematically assess accuracy of interpretation of the various analytic and visualization methods is a necessary next step across clinical, regulatory, payer and patient stakeholders. Trial registration NCT01259817, NCT01259856

Objective: To assess the effect of a practice-level preoperative frailty screening and optimization toolkit (OPTI-Surg) on postoperative functional recovery and complications in elderly cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Background: Frailty is common in older adults. It increases the risk of poor postoperative functional recovery and complications. The potential for a practice-level screening/optimization intervention to improve outcomes is unknown. Methods: Thoracic, gastrointestinal, and urologic oncological surgery practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (UC), OPTI-Surg, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. OPTI-Surg consisted of the Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for referral interventions. Patients 70 years old or above undergoing curative intent surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was 8 weeks postoperative function (kcal/wk). The key secondary outcome was complications within 90 days. Mixed models were used to compare UC to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined. Results: From July 2019 to September 2022, 325 patients were enrolled in 29 practices. One hundred ninety-nine (64 UC, 135 OPTI-Surg) and 279 (78 UC, 201 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for primary and secondary analysis, respectively. UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in total caloric expenditure (2.2 UC, 2.0 OPTI-Surg) after adjusting for baseline function (P=0.53). UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in postoperative complications (25.6% UC, 35.3% OPTI-Surg, P=0.5). Conclusions: Frailty assessment was successfully performed, but the OPTI-Surg intervention did not improve postoperative function nor reduce postoperative complications compared with UC. Future analysis will explore practice-level factors associated with toolkit implementation and the differences between the coaching and noncoaching arms.

Abstract Background The PALLAS trial investigated the addition of palbociclib to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy reduces breast cancer recurrence. This pre-specified analysis was conducted to determine whether adjuvant palbociclib benefited patients diagnosed with lower risk stage IIA disease compared to those with higher stage disease. Methods PALLAS was an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial, representing a public-private partnership between Pfizer, the Austrian Breast Cancer Study Group and, the U.S. ALLIANCE Foundation. Patients diagnosed with stage II-III, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2/neu negative breast cancer who were within 12 months of diagnosis, and had completed all definitive therapy aside from endocrine therapy, which was started within 6 months prior to study entry. All patients were required to submit a formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor block. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (of physicians’ choice) for at least 5 years with or without 2 years of Palbociclib, administered orally at a starting dose of 125 mg daily, given for 21 days followed by a 7-day break. Results A total of 5,796 patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (including 1,010 with stage IIA) were enrolled. Median follow-up was 50 months for stage IIA patients and 43.1 months overall. In the stage IIA cohort, four-year iDFS in the palbociclib arm was 92.9% versus 92.1% for ET alone (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.48–1.19, p = 0.23). There was no differential benefit by histologic grade, chemotherapy receipt, age, or anatomic/clinical risk. Additionally, no benefit to palbociclib was seen in this cohort in invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), or overall survival (OS). For the stage IIB/III patients, 4-year iDFS was 85.3% for palbociclib + ET versus 83.6% for ET alone (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77–1.07, p = 0.24). Conclusions and Relevance: While there were substantial differences in outcome for stage IIA versus IIB/III patients at 4 years of follow-up, the addition of 2 years of palbociclib did not improve outcomes for patients, regardless of stage. Trial Registration: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov on July 31, 2015, and was assigned the clinical trial number (NCT02513394).