Reeve, Bryce B.

PURPOSE Remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve symptom control and physical function among patients with advanced cancer. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are similar across demographic groups. This exploratory analysis of the PRO-TECT trial examined whether the effects of electronic symptom monitoring varied by race, age, sex, and educational attainment. METHODS PRO-TECT was a cluster randomized trial conducted across 52 US community oncology practices comparing weekly electronic symptom monitoring with usual care (UC). Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors receiving systemic therapy were enrolled (N = 1,191). Participants in the PRO arm completed weekly symptom surveys including the PRO-CTCAE, triggering alerts to the care team for severe or worsening symptoms. Patients chose whether to complete weekly PROs online or via telephone-based interactive voice response not requiring Internet access. Outcomes were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 symptom control and physical function scales. Subgroup analyses were performed by race (Black v White), age (<65 v ≥65 years), sex (male v female), and educational attainment (≤high school v >high school). RESULTS From baseline to 3 months, PRO participants showed greater improvements in symptom control (+2.37 v −0.20, P = .002) and physical function (+1.54 v −0.93, P = .02) versus UC. Benefits were most pronounced among younger, female, Black, and less educated participants. Black participants in the PRO arm were more likely to report that symptom reporting made them feel more in control of their care compared with White participants. CONCLUSION Electronic symptom monitoring improved quality-of-life outcomes overall, including among groups who have historically experienced higher symptom burden or barriers to communication. Remote PRO systems may represent an equitable strategy to enhance cancer care delivery.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

11106 Background: Patients with cancer take different types of medication (e.g., enteral, parenteral), with varying treatment schedules, in various settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medication in response to toxicity. To measure medication nonadherence in this heterogenous population, we modified and pilot-tested a self-report measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral medication, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence), in adults with cancer. Methods: Participants were ≥21 years, on active cancer treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and spoke English and/or Spanish. A branching logic was added to allow participants to select the setting where they take cancer medication: 1) only at home, 2) only in clinic, or 3) partly at home/partly in clinic. Based on administration setting, participants reported nonadherence to medications their clinician expected them to take over a given reference period (1 week for home and 1 month for clinic medications). Participants then reported on setting-relevant reasons for nonadherence. Survey instructions/items were refined in an iterative process using feedback from a patient investigator committee and participant cognitive interviews. During interviews, we asked participants about the interpretation of instructions/items, recall period, and comprehensiveness of reasons for nonadherence, regardless of their own adherence. After initial testing in English, a Spanish version was developed through transcreation. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence vs. any nonadherence). For all participants who received clinic medications, concordance between chart abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. Results: Of 55 participants who completed the surveys and interviews (67% in English; 33% in Spanish), 87% were female and 44% identified as Latino. The majority (73%) had breast cancer; 60% had metastatic disease. 12 of 45 who received medication in clinic reported nonadherence as did 8 of 35 who took medication at home. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both recall periods. All reasons for nonadherence were perceived as relevant to themselves or other patients. There was 89% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted adherence for clinic-administered medication. To improve concordance, changes were made to the formatting and instructions. Of 12 participants who completed the final version of the survey for clinic-administered medication, there was 100% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted nonadherence. Conclusions: Our results support the reliability and validity of modified DOSE-Nonadherence for cancer patients. This instrument can be used to better identify nonadherence to cancer medications in a population of adult patients with cancer receiving various treatment regimens.

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.

Abstract Disparities in care, treatment-related toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 15-39 years) with cancer are under-addressed partly because of limited collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The AYA years include key developmental milestones distinct from younger and older patients, and cancer interrupts attainment of critical life goals. Lack of consensus on a standardized approach to assess HRQoL and treatment-related toxicity in AYA CCTs has limited the ability to improve patient outcomes. The National Cancer Institute’s Clinical Trials Network AYA PRO Task Force was assembled to reach consensus on a core set of PROs and foster its integration into AYA CCTs. Eight key considerations for selecting the core PRO AYA battery components were identified: relevance to AYAs; importance of constructs across the age continuum; prioritization of validated measures; availability of measures without licensing fees; availability in multiple languages; applicability to different cancer types and treatments; ability to measure different HRQoL domains and toxicities; and minimized burden on patients and sites. The Task Force used a modified Delphi approach to identify key components of the PRO battery. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Measurement System met all criteria and were selected to assess HRQoL and treatment toxicity, respectively. Investigators are rapidly incorporating the recommendations of the Task Force into AYA trials. Inclusion of a standardized assessment of HRQoL and treatment toxicities in AYA CCTs is a vital first step to develop interventions to improve health outcomes for AYAs diagnosed with cancer.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Background: The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) has been psychometrically evaluated in multiple heart failure (HF) populations, but the comparability of its psychometric properties between men and women is unknown. Methods: Data from 3 clinical trials (1 in stable HF with preserved ejection fraction, 1 each in stable and acute HF with reduced ejection fraction) and 1 prospective cohort study (stable HF with reduced ejection fraction), incorporating 6773 men and 3612 women with HF, were used to compare the construct validity, internal and test-retest reliability, ability to detect change, predict mortality and hospitalizations and minimally important differences between the 2 sexes. Interactions of the KCCQ overall summary and subdomain scores by sex were independently examined. Results: The KCCQ-Overall Summary score correlated well with New York Heart Association functional class in both sexes across patients with stable (correlation coefficient: −0.40 in men versus −0.49 in women) and acute (−0.37 in men versus −0.34 in women) HF. All KCCQ subdomains demonstrated concordant relationships with relevant comparison standards with no significant interactions by sex in 19 of 21 of these construct validity analyses. All KCCQ scores were equally predictive and other psychometric evaluations showed similar results by sex: test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.94 in men versus 0.92 in women), responsive to change (standardized response mean 1.01 in both sexes), as were the minimally important differences and internal reliability. Conclusions: The psychometric properties of the KCCQ, in terms of validity, prognosis, reliability, and sensitivity to change, are comparable in men and women with HF with preserved ejection fraction and HF with reduced ejection fraction.

Pulmonary hypertension resulting from chronic lung disease such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and interstitial lung disease is categorized by the World Health Organization as Group 3 pulmonary hypertension. To identify the symptoms and impacts of World Health Organization Group 3 pulmonary hypertension and to capture data related to the patient experience of this disease, qualitative research interviews were undertaken with 3 clinical experts and 14 individuals with pulmonary hypertension secondary to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease. Shortness of breath, fatigue, cough, and swelling were the most frequently reported symptoms of pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease, and shortness of breath was further identified as the single most bothersome symptom for most patients (71.4%). Interview participants also described experiencing a number of impacts related to pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary hypertension symptoms, including limitations in the ability to perform activities of daily living and impacts on physical functioning, family life, and social life as well as emotional impacts, which included frustration, depression, anxiety, isolation, and sadness. Results of these qualitative interviews offer an understanding of the patient experience of pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease, including insight into the symptoms and impacts that are most important to patients in this population. As such, these results may help guide priorities in clinical treatment and assist researchers in their selection of patient‐reported outcome measures for clinical trials in patients with pulmonary hypertension due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or interstitial lung disease.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group 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 adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.