Basch, Ethan

e24176 Background: Decision aids for prostate cancer treatment can improve knowledge, but the relative effect of pre-consultation and within-consultation DAs is not known. Methods: We conducted a parallel design, 2-by-2 factorial, 4-arm, cluster-RCT in urology practices affiliated with the NCI’s Alliance research base. We compared patient knowledge immediately after consultation (%12-item% correct) intervention arms compared to usual care. We used mixed effects regression modeling to assess effect of interventions on knowledge adjusting for site-clustering, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic White; Other), age (years), clinical stage (T1-3), PSA, and Gleason score. Results: 15 of 21 randomized centers accrued 158 pts from Nov 2017 to June 2019. The arm delivering both DAs (n = 3 sites) recruited 25 pts. The pre-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 39 pts. The within-consultation DA arm (n = 4 sites) recruited 44 pts. The no DA arm (n = 4 sites) accrued 50 pts. Overall, mean age was 64; 54% were AA; 73% had T1 stage; median Gleason = 7; and median PSA = 7. The combined DAs group, followed by pre-consultation reported higher median knowledge (75% and 67%, respectively). The within-consultation and no DA arms both reported median knowledge scores (58%). Within arm, inter-site standard deviations in mean knowledge scores ranged from 0.164 in in the pre-consultation arm to 0.232 in the usual care arm. Neither pre-consultation nor within-consultation DAs had statistically significant effects (p = .15 and p = .99, respectively). Pre-specified adjusted difference [97.5% CIs], comparing the pre-consultation DA and the within-consultation DA with the control was 9.4% [-7.3%, 26.2%] and -0.4% [-16.9%, 16.1%], respectively. Intra-cluster correlation (ICC) coefficient was high (.24). No interaction effects were identified (p = .98). A post-hoc analysis comparing any DA vs usual care found a mean adjusted difference [95% CI] of 5.6% [-8.5%, 19.8%] (p = 0.40), 63.9% for any DA and 58.3% for usual care. Conclusions: Possible knowledge gains associated with some DAs for early prostate cancer were obscured by larger-than-expected intra-cluster correlation effects associated with the primary outcome. How interventions were used was not measured. Support:UG1CA189823; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org ; R01 MD008934-06. Clinical trial information: NCT03103321 .

7044 Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

1016 Background: The ph III EMBRACE trial of E vs physician’s choice of tx led to FDA approval of E as ≥3rd-line tx for MBC pts with prior exposure to anthracyclines/taxanes. The ph III BOLD 301 trial of E vs capecitabine in advanced BC treated with anthracyclines/taxanes showed a nonsignificant trend to improved median OS for all pts; pre-planned analysis by HER2 status revealed a nominally significant benefit for HER2- pts. Methods: RU011201I is an investigator initiated ph III trial with 1:1 randomization to E (1.4 mg/m2 D1,8 q21days) vs P (90 mg/m2 D1,8,15 q28days) within strata defined by (neo)adjuvant taxanes (yes/no), HR status (+/-), and line of tx (1st/2nd). Pts had measurable or non-measurable disease by RECIST v1.1; new or progressive mets; peripheral neuropathy (PN) gr<2; ≤1 prior chemotx regimens for advanced or MBC. Asymptomatic brain mets with stable MRIs for >3 mos were allowed. (Neo)adjuvant taxanes were allowed if >12 mos between tx completion and disease recurrence. Radiographic studies occur q12wks. Survival data are collected q12wks after the Off-Tx Visit. Pts reported side effects weekly; post-baseline symptomatic AE rates worse than baseline were compared between arms using Fisher’s exact tests. We report clinical outcomes and the primary objective related to PRO-CTCAE use. Results: 201 pts enrolled 3/2014 - 5/2018 with 33.8 mos median f/u; 3 are on tx as of 2/20/20 (1E, 2P). Pt characteristics were the same between E vs P: median age 62 yrs (range 27-85); 42% prior taxane; 78% ER+; 70% starting 1st line tx. Baseline lesion distribution was similar except for lung mets (37E, 53P). No difference was seen between E vs P in PFS (5.7 vs 5.9 mos; P=0.72), OS (18.1 vs 16.4 mos; P=0.75), TTF (5.3 vs 4.9 mos; P=0.82), DOR (10.8 vs 12.3 mos; P=0.84), or number of metastatic events (55 vs 54). 37E and 36P pts required ≥1 dose reduction. Hematologic toxicities ≥ gr 3 were higher with E (40 vs 22%). PN events were similar: 56 vs 58 total, 4 vs 7 motor, 52 vs 51 sensory. Median duration of PN and median time to 1st PN event were 74 vs 140 and 56 vs 41 days. Worsened numbness/tingling severity and other pt-reported AE rates were similar, but worsened numbness/tingling interference (63% vs 78%, P=0.04) and vomiting frequency (35% vs 57%, P=0.005) were lower with E. Conclusions: Clinical outcomes were equivalent with E vs P as 1st/2nd line tx for HER2- advanced BC. The nature and severity of PN were similar between arms, but time of onset, duration, and interference with daily living favor E. E may be a suitable treatment option in this setting. Clinical trial information: NCT02037529 .

6587 Background: Recently the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE was developed to augment clinically graded adverse events with information reported directly by patients on clinical trials (Basch, 2009). The validation and potential application of PRO-CTCAE in phase I clinical trials are of great interest as toxicity is the primary endpoint. Methods: Selected PRO-CTCAE items (21 items measuring 12 symptomatic adverse events) corresponding to the major adverse events required to be graded clinically were collected in an ongoing phase I clinical trial of weekly cilengitide and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01276496). PRO-CTCAE was administered in a paper booklet by a clinical research associate prior to treatment on days 1, 8 and 15 of their regular visits. These PRO-CTCAE items were summarized descriptively in comparison to clinician-assessed CTCAE ver 4.0 (NCI, 2009) during the first cycle. As a pilot study to assess feasibility of PRO-CTCAE in phase I trials, PRO-CTCAE was not intended for determination of dose-limiting toxicity. Results: Twelve patients were accrued to two separate doses of cilengitide and paclitaxel. The median age was 56 (range 36—67) and half of patients were female. All patients had an ECOG performance score <= 1. Over 90% of patients had received prior surgery and chemotherapy. All but one patient completed weekly PRO-CTCAE during the first cycle, the only patient refused to complete weeks 2 and 3 did not give a reason. PRO-CTCAE captured most of the symptomatic adverse events reflected in clinician-assessed CTCAE. Some symptomatic adverse events were not reported clinically by CTCAE but were reported by patients by PRO-CTCAE. Overall, PRO-CTCAE items indicated slightly more severe degree of symptoms experienced by patients than those reported in CTCAE. Conclusions: This is the first study that PRO-CTCAE items were integrated within regular study visits in a phase I trial. The administration of PRO-CTCAE has been proved feasible and fruitful, providing consistent and enhanced symptomatic toxicity from the patient point of view. The addition of PRO-CTCAE did not significantly increase patient burden. Clinical trial information: NCT01276496.

9047 Background: Symptomatic adverse events (AE) in cancer trials are reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). To integrate the patient perspective into AE reporting, NCI contracted (HHSN261201000043C) to create a patient-reported outcomes companion tool (PRO-CTCAE). We report the validity and reliability of PRO-CTCAE’s 124 items reflecting 78 symptomatic AEs. Methods: English-speaking subjects (n=869; 44% male; median [mdn] age 59; 32% racial/ethnic minority; 34% high school or less; 17% ECOG Performance Status [PS] 2-4) receiving treatment for a range of cancers at 4 NCI-designated cancer centers and 5 sites in NCI's Community Cancer Centers Program completed a web-based survey in clinic including PRO-CTCAE and EORTC QLQ-C30. Pearson correlations were computed between PRO-CTCAE items and QLQ-C30 scales. Differences in PRO-CTCAE item scores between clinician-reported ECOG PS (0-1 vs 2-4) groups were computed. Test-retest reliability of 48 prespecified items was evaluated in a subset (n=79). Results: Correlations in the expected direction were observed for 116/124 PRO-CTCAE items with the QLQ-C30 global health scale (mdn r=-.21; range .08 to -.57). Stronger correlations were seen for PRO-CTCAE items with conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains: fatigue with physical, role and social functioning (-.54 to -.66); anxiety and depression with emotional functioning (-.54 to -.70); and concentration and memory problems with cognitive functioning (-.62 to -.72) [all p <0.001]. Fatigue, nausea, vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation and diarrhea items strongly correlated with corresponding QLQ-C30 symptom scales (.69 to .79, all p <0.001). Scores for 98/124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2-4 vs 0-1 group (mdn effect size .3). Test-retest reliability was observed across all tested items (mdn intraclass correlation coeff .77; range .53 to .96). Conclusions: Results demonstrate favorable validity and reliability of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Further testing in multicenter treatment trials is underway.

AbstractBackgroundBladder cancer (BC) patients with advanced disease have poor outcomes. The use of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) could lead to improvements in symptom management and hence quality of life (QoL). The aim of this study is to report correlations between selected PROs and QoL and thus to present symptoms that influence QoL. Identification of these symptoms during treatment can lead to earlier symptom management and thus secure improvements in QoL.MethodsBC patients in chemo‐ or immunotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease reported weekly PROs for the duration of their treatment. The PROs included EORTC QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐BLM30 and 45 selected PRO‐CTCAE items. Spearman's correlation analysis was performed for all PRO‐CTCAE items and QLQ‐C30 global QoL and subdomains.ResultsIn this study, 78 BC patients reported 724 questionnaires. Spearman's analysis showed significant correlations between almost all PRO‐CTCAE items and the expected domain of QoL. The PRO‐CTCAE items with the strongest correlations with QoL were anxiety (F, frequency item) and emotional function (rs = −0.603, P < .0001), concentration (S, severity item) and cognitive function (rs = −0.704, P < .0001), discouraged (F) and emotional function (rs = −0.659, P < .0001), fatigue (S) and role function (rs = −0.659, P < .0001) and sad (F) and emotional function (rs = −0.711, P < .0001). The weakest correlations were found for the PRO‐CTCAE items urinary frequency, incontinence and urge, all with variations in the direction and significance of the correlations.ConclusionsThis study delivers information on which PROs may influence QoL for patients in clinical trials or daily clinic. Psychological issues have a strong impact on QoL and should be dealt with during treatment to secure the best possible QoL for BC patients.