Basch, Ethan

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.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

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.

PURPOSE Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices ( P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

LBA2 Background: Radiation with sensitizing fluoropyrimidine (5FUCRT) is a standard curative intent treatment for LARC. It improves disease-free survival (DFS) by decreasing pelvic recurrence but has short- and long-term toxicity. The PROSPECT trial compares FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT (intervention) to 5FUCRT (control) for neoadjuvant treatment prior to TME for LARC. Methods: Eligible patients (pts) had cT2N+, cT3N-, cT3N+ rectal cancers deemed appropriate for neoadjuvant therapy prior to low anterior resection with TME. Pts with distal, T4 tumors, threatened radial margins or > 4 enlarged lymph nodes were ineligible. Pts were randomized 1:1 without blinding. Pts in the control group received 5FUCRT with 5040 cGy over 5.5 weeks with either capecitabine or 5FU. Pts in the intervention group had 6 cycles of mFOLFOX6 followed by restaging. If tumor regression was > 20%, then TME was performed without radiation; if < 20%, 5FUCRT was given before TME. DFS was the 1°outcome, defined as time from randomization to any recurrence or death, analyzed in the per-protocol population. One interim analysis was conducted with α spending = 0.001. Noninferiority (NI) of the intervention could be claimed if the upper limit of the 2-sided 90.2% confidence interval (CI) of the DFS hazard ratio did not exceed 1.29 (NI margin). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), local recurrence free survival, R0 resection, pathologic complete response (CR), and toxicity. Results: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1194, pts were randomized and 1128 initiated protocol-assigned treatment. Median age was 57, 34.5% were women and 61.9% had clinically positive nodes. 53 of 585 pts in the intervention group (9%) received preop 5FUCRT. DFS was analyzed after 227 events and median follow-up of 58 months. Conclusions: FOLFOX chemotherapy with selective use of 5FUCRT is non-inferior to 5FUCRT for neoadjuvant treatment of LARC prior to low anterior resection with TME. Patients and physicians have alternative strategies for management of LARC. Clinical trial information: NCT01515787 . [Table: see text]

PURPOSE The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

180 Background: Financial toxicity affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with decreased treatment adherence and poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate financial toxicity among patients undergoing cancer treatment. We evaluated the effect of monthly patient-reported financial toxicity screening as part of a larger digital monitoring intervention. Methods: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (“PRO practices”) or usual care (“control practices”). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys containing symptom, functioning, and financial toxicity screening questions for up to one year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 (“Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”), at any time compared to baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. Results: 1,191 patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared to 39.0% of patients treated at control practices (p = 0.01). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that financial toxicity screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. Conclusions: Screening for financial toxicity as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduces the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.