Langlais, Blake T.

Background/Objectives: The PRO-CTCAE Average Composite Score (ACS), calculated as the mean of PRO-CTCAE composite scores, summarizes overall symptom and side effect burden. This study evaluated the test–retest reliability, responsiveness to change, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to group differences in the ACS. Methods: Analyses used the original PRO-CTCAE validation dataset, including lung (n = 174), breast (n = 222), and head and neck (n = 139) cancer cohorts, and data from the COMET-2 randomized phase III trial comparing cabozantinib (n = 53) and mitoxantrone–prednisone (n = 54) in men with previously treated prostate cancer. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from two-way mixed-effects models for agreement. Responsiveness was evaluated by relating ACS change scores (Visit 1 minus follow-up Visit 2) to patient-reported global ratings of change (GRC; worsened, unchanged, or improved) using standardized response means (SRMs) and Jonckheere–Terpstra trend tests. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing mean ACS values between ECOG performance status groups (0–1 vs. 2–4). Sensitivity to treatment group differences was assessed using model-based area-under-the-curve (AUC) comparisons of longitudinal ACS trajectories. Results: Test–retest reliability was acceptable, with ICCs among GRC-defined stable patients of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70–0.87) in lung cancer, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77–0.89) in breast cancer, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63–0.86) in head and neck cancer; ICCs based on assessments completed one day apart ranged from 0.88 to 0.90. The ACS demonstrated responsiveness, with SRMs of 0.30/0.15/−0.37 (lung), 0.29/0.14/−0.40 (breast), and −0.01/−0.20/−0.56 (head/neck) for improved/no-change/worsened groups, respectively, and significant monotonic trends across GRC categories (all p < 0.01). Known-groups validity was supported by conceptually expected differences in ACS values across distinct levels of self-reported patient-reported physical functioning and ECOG performance status categories. Mean ACS values were lower among patients with good versus limited physical functioning (0.71 vs. 1.23 in lung cancer, 0.52 vs. 1.19 in breast cancer, and 0.69 vs. 1.29 in head and neck cancer) and among patients with ECOG PS 0–1 versus 2–4 (0.93 vs. 1.31, 0.74 vs. 1.22, and 0.90 vs. 1.06, respectively). In COMET-2, higher symptom burden was detected in the cabozantinib arm compared with the mitoxantrone–prednisone arm (AUC difference = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.2–2.8, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The ACS demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, responsiveness, and known-groups validity across multiple cancer populations. These findings support its use as a complementary summary measure of overall symptomatic adverse event burden alongside individual symptom-level analyses.

Background: The PRO-CTCAE provides patient-reported data on symptomatic AEs. A summary metric—the ACS—reflecting total AE burden can be calculated by averaging AE-level composite scores at a given timepoint for each participant. This study investigated the psychometric properties and interpretability of this PRO-CTCAE ACS in patients with breast, lung, or head/neck cancers. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a PRO-CTCAE validation dataset comprising 940 adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02158637). We focused on empirically recommended symptom terms for three cancer sites. Analyses included Spearman’s correlations, coefficient alpha, and eigenvalues from the correlation matrices, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to assess ACS interpretability in the lung cohort. Results: Mean composite score inter-correlations were moderate (0.30–0.35), and coefficient alphas were high (0.81–0.91). Eigenvalue ratios and CFA supported retention of a single factor/component, with suitable model fit indices. ACS correlated highly with factor scores and the first principal component from the PCA. Reduced sets of terms produced reliable scores that closely approximated the full set scores and aligned with external criteria. LPA in the lung subgroup identified four latent classes; ACS differentiated high vs. low symptom burden groups but did not distinguish the two groups expressing distinct symptom profiles. Conclusion: The ACS demonstrated structural validity through adequately fitting linear factor models and effectively summarized symptomatic AE burden. However, similar ACS values may mask clinically distinct symptomatic AE profiles, underscoring the value of both summary metrics and profile-based approaches.

Abstract The Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute to allow patients to directly report their side effects, enhancing the accuracy and patient‐centeredness of cancer clinical trial adverse event reporting. Clinician‐based reporting often misses the full range of patient symptoms, resulting in underreporting of side effects. The selection of adverse events for patient reporting must be defined in advance and consistently applied across all study arms. Investigators can use core symptom sets, including diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea, alongside tailored items specific to the treatments being studied. PRO‐CTCAE has demonstrated similar scores across electronic, paper‐based, and automated telephone administration methods. PRO‐CTCAE administration typically occurs before start of treatment and regularly throughout treatment, with the administration frequency tailored to the expected trajectory of side effects. Ensuring high survey completion rates is essential for PRO‐CTCAE success. Standard reporting can include tabular reporting of the proportion of patients with any (score ≥1) and high (score ≥3) levels of symptoms at the individual item level. A baseline‐adjustment approach should be applied to account for symptoms before start of treatment to isolate treatment‐emergent adverse events. The distribution of PRO‐CTCAE scores at each time point can be visualized using stacked bar charts. PRO‐CTCAE integration into cancer clinical trials is crucial for capturing a comprehensive range of treatment‐related symptomatic adverse events and improving the evaluation of therapy tolerability. Ongoing research continues to refine its implementation, supported by regulatory guidance.

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.

Background. With increasing life expectancy, patients with HIV are more commonly acquiring other chronic diseases, such as end-stage lung disease, for which transplant may be the only effective solution. Until recently, HIV infection was considered a contraindication to lung transplant (LTx). As LTx in people living with HIV (PLWH) becomes more common, there remain limited data on outcomes in this population. Methods. Using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network Standard Transplant Analysis and Research file, we identified LTx recipients with HIV by either serostatus or nucleic acid testing. A control group of confirmed HIV-negative LTx recipients was propensity score matched on age, body mass index, primary diagnosis, and year of transplant. Patient characteristics, transplant parameters, survival, and postoperative outcomes were compared. Results. Fifty-nine LTx recipients with HIV were identified and compared with 236 HIV-negative controls. Among PLWH, cytomegalovirus status was more frequently positive (76.3% versus 58.9%, P = 0.014), and the median Lung Allocation Score at match was higher (44 versus 39, P = 0.004). PLWH were more likely to undergo dialysis postoperatively (18.6% versus 8.9%, P = 0.033), although other complication rates were similar. Fifty-three percent of LTx for PLWH occurred since 2020. One-year survival for PLWH was 91.2% versus 88.6% for controls (P = 0.620). Three-year survival for a smaller subset was also not statistically significant (HIV versus control: 82.6% versus 77.8%, respectively, P = 0.687). Conclusions. There was no difference in 1-y survival for LTx recipients living with HIV compared with a matched control group, supporting this group of patients as viable candidates for LTx.

Abstract Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor combined with platinum‐etoposide is the standard first‐line therapy for patients with extensive‐stage small cell lung cancer (ES‐SCLC). The phase 3 clinical trials that led to the approval of chemoimmunotherapy in ES‐SCLC excluded patients who had an Eastern Cooperative Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 2–3. Therefore, data on the efficacy of chemoimmunotherapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 are limited. Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients diagnosed with ES‐SCLC who received chemoimmunotherapy (atezolizumab or durvalumab) within the Mayo Clinic Health System between January 2016 and January 2021. The objective of this study was to compare the overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), and best clinical response to therapy in patients with an ECOG PS of 0–1 vs. patients with an ECOG PS of 2–3 who received chemoimmunotherapy for newly diagnosed ES‐SCLC. Results In total, 82 patients were included in the study. The mean ± standard deviation age was 68.1 ± 8.3 years. Of these, 56 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 0–1, and 26 patients were identified with an ECOG PS of 2–3. The median PFS was similar regardless of ECOG PS (5.8 months [95% CI, 4.3–6.0 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 4.1 months [95% CI, 3.8–6.9 months] in the ECOG PS 2–3; p = .2994). The median OS was also similar regardless of ECOG PS (10.6 months [95% CI, 8.4–13.4 months] in the ECOG PS 0–1 group vs. 9.3 months [95% CI, 4.9–12.8 months]; p = .2718) in the ECOG PS 2‐3 group. Conclusions The study results demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or OS among the ECOG PS 2–3 and ECOG PS 0–1 groups. Therefore, chemoimmunotherapy should be considered for patients who have ES‐SCLC with an ECOG PS of 2–3.

AbstractMyeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are characterized by significant symptom burden. Integrative medicine (IM) offers unique symptom management strategies. This study describes IM interventions utilized by MPN patients and the association with symptom burden, quality of life, depression, and fatigue adjusted for lifestyle confounders. MPN patients were surveyed online for IM utilization, MPN symptom burden (MPN‐Symptom Assessment Form Total Symptom Score), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), fatigue (Brief Fatigue Inventory), and a single question on overall quality of life. Measures were compared by IM participation and adjusted for alcohol and tobacco use, BMI, diet, and MPN type using multiple linear and logistic regression. A total of 858 participants were included in the analysis. Aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.01) were associated with lower mean symptom burden while massage (p =< 0.001) and support groups (p =< 0.001) were associated with higher levels of symptom burden. Higher quality of life was reported in massage (p = 0.04) and support groups (p = 0.002) while lower quality of life was noted in aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.001). A lower depression screening score was noted in those participating in aerobic activity (p = 0.006), yoga (p = 0.03), and strength training (p = 0.02). Lower fatigue was noted in those participating in aerobic activity (p =< 0.001) and strength training (p = 0.03) while higher fatigue was noted in those participating in massage (p =< 0.001) and breathing techniques (p = 0.02). Data available on request from the authors. This international survey of MPN patients on IM usage, has shown that patients who participated in a form of IM had a pattern of decreased levels of symptom burden, fatigue, depression, and higher QoL, as adjusted for health lifestyle practices overall.

AbstractBackgroundPhiladelphia chromosome negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs), including essential thrombocythemia, polycythemia vera, and myelofibrosis, have severe function‐limiting symptom burden that is experienced by the majority of patients. Previous studies have suggested that depression may be present in over a quarter of MPN patients, but to date no studies have evaluated the relationship between depression and other variables such as symptoms.MethodsA 70‐item internet based survey regarding fatigue and mood symptoms was developed by a multidisciplinary team of MPN investigators, patients and patient advocates including Patient Health Questionnaire and the Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form was completed by over 1300 patients with MPN diagnosis.ResultsThere were 309 respondents (23%) with PHQ‐2 scores ≥ 3. In this analysis, we found worse systemic symptom burden in individuals reporting depressive symptoms.ConclusionThis analysis suggests the importance of depression in contributing to as well as confounding symptomatology in MPN patients, and suggests that this critical variable should also be addressed by clinicians and researchers alike when comprehensively assessing symptom burden etiologies.

Abstract Introduction Some Alzheimer's disease biomarker studies found amyloid changes 20 years or more in advance of expected symptoms, while cognitive changes lagged for more than a decade, but this apparent lag might reflect the sensitivities of the biomarker and cognitive assays used. How far in advance of incident amnestic mild cognitive impairment (MCI) does cognition begin to decline? Methods Longitudinal neuropsychological study of an apolipoprotein E e4 enriched cohort of cognitively normal individuals at entry. Linear mixed models for MCI converters (n = 65) and nonconverters (n = 719) fitted for each neuropsychological measure; annual changes compared between groups before and after linear model intersections (inflection points). Results 34 of 35 cognitive measures and 9 of 18 behavioral measures declined faster post‐inflection in the MCI converters; the earliest cognitive inflection point was nearly 20 years in advance of MCI diagnosis. Discussion The preclinical duration of cognitive and behavioral changes approaches the earliest reported biomarker changes.