Noble, Brie N.

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.

Abstract Background This secondary analysis of a phase I clinical trial illustrates integrated summary and visualization of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) data and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) data at baseline and through the first cycle of treatment for tolerability review during dose-cohort evaluation in a phase I trial. Methods This study uses data from a phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed a summary of cycle 1 PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data for the first dose-level cohort. This summary is intended to demonstrate reporting that would be reviewed to inform a decision about proceeding to the next dose level in a dose escalation trial. Results Cycle 1 CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE data for 4 patients enrolled in the first dose cohort are summarized as narrative and tabular summaries and visualized using swimmer and butterfly plots. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one CTCAE grade 3 or higher adverse event, and all 4 (100%) patients had at least one PRO-CTCAE composite score of 3 during cycle 1. All 4 (100%) patients had at least one symptom for which PRO-CTCAE suggested greater symptom burden than was reflected in CTCAE. Conclusions In this illustrative summary of a dose cohort, PRO-CTCAE complemented CTCAE reporting by capturing patient-reported symptomatic burden that was not always fully reflected by clinician-graded adverse events. Reviewing PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data together during dose-cohort evaluation may enrich discussions on safety and tolerability in phase I trials.

e13611 Background: Decentralized cancer care models may reduce treatment burden for patients with advanced prostate cancer (CaP), particularly those facing mobility, transportation, of scheduling challenges. However, prospective patient-reported experience and quality-of-life data comparing home- versus clinic-based oncology care remain limited. Mayo Clinic Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) is a patient-centered program designed to deliver selected standard-of-care cancer therapies in the home with virtual clinical oversight. This observational study evaluated patient-reported experience, feasibility, safety, and quality of life among men with advanced or metastatic CaP receiving care at home. Methods: Men with advanced/metastatic CaP receiving active standard-of-care therapy including hormone-based treatments, oral anticancer therapies, anti-bone resorptive agents, or intravenous chemotherapy who were participating in a CCBW randomized trial were enrolled into a companion observational study. After confirmation of treatment tolerance in clinic, patients received home-based care for 24 weeks (Arm A) or in-clinic care for 8 weeks followed by home-based care for 16 weeks (Arm B). Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and Weeks 8, 16, and 24, using CAHPS-based measures and CCBW-specific surveys assessing overall cancer care experience, patient preference for site of care, comfort with home infusions, functional/symptom assessment and quality of life. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results: Eighteen participants were analyzed (Arm A n = 10; Arm B n = 8). Participants were medically stable, and predominantly insured by Medicare. Survey completion was 100% at baseline and 83% at all follow-up time points. At Weeks 16 and 24 when all respondents had received home-based care, 100% and 92% reported being “quite a bit” or “very much” comfortable receiving treatment at home. Communication with at-home and remote nursing teams was rated highly, and most respondents reported transition, scheduling, and equipment use easy or very easy. At Weeks 16 and 24, 45% and 40% of respondents reported improved quality of life from receiving home-based care, with no reports of worsening. No emergency department visits, hospitalizations, or urgent care visits occurred in either arm. Conclusions: In this prospective, observational study, home-based oncology care delivered through CCBW was feasible, safe, and associated with high patient satisfaction among men with advanced CaP receiving diverse systemic therapies. These findings support further evaluation and expansion of decentralized care integrating home-based treatment with virtual clinical oversight.

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.

Abstract Background Little is known regarding outcomes for patients prescribed antibiotics on discharge from the hospital to nursing homes (NHs). We quantified the association between suboptimal antibiotic prescribing and clinical outcomes at discharge to NHs. Methods This was a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of adult (age &gt;18 years) patients prescribed systemic antibiotics on discharge from 9 acute care hospitals in Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin to a NH from 2016 – 2018. Study data were electronically extracted from hospital and NH electronic health records and supplemented with chart review. Suboptimal antibiotic therapy was determined by an infectious disease pharmacist or physician using clinical information (e.g., antibiotic regimen, indication, and culture results) available at discharge. Outcomes included emergency department (ED) visits, hospital readmissions, or Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) within 30 days of hospital discharge. Comparison of outcomes between patients with suboptimal and non-suboptimal antibiotic therapy were tested by chi-squared tests. Results Among 280 included patients, mean (SD) age was 76.0 (11.5) years, 35.7% (n=100) were male, and median (IQR) inpatient length of stay was 6 (4-9) days. The most prevalent antibiotic indications were urinary tract infections (n =109, 38.9%), lung indications (n=60, 21.4%), and prophylaxis (n=29, 10.4%). Among 317 antibiotic prescriptions, the most frequently prescribed antibiotic classes were cephalosporins (n=83, 29.6%), fluoroquinolones (n=57, 20.4%), and beta-lactam/beta-lactamase-inhibitors (n=40, 14.3%). Fifty-eight patients (20.7%) were prescribed suboptimal antibiotic therapy on hospital discharge. There were no significant differences in the frequency of 30-day ED visits (14% vs 11%, p=0.76) or hospital readmission (19% vs 18%, p=0.94) between patients prescribed and not prescribed suboptimal antibiotics; however, suboptimal antibiotics were significantly associated with CDI within 30 days of discharge (10% vs 2%, p=0.01). Conclusion Suboptimal antibiotic prescribing on discharge to NHs was associated with increased risk of CDI within 30 days of discharge. This finding may inform interventions to improve antibiotic prescribing on discharge to NHs. Disclosures YoungYoon Ham, PharmD, Gilead: Honoraria Jon P. Furuno, PhD, Merck & Co., Inc: Grant/Research Support

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age &gt;65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of &gt;3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score &lt;3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 &gt;3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age &lt;65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores &gt;3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score &gt;3 (vulnerable) vs &lt;3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment &gt;65 and &lt;65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age &gt;65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 &lt;3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 &gt;3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 &gt;3 group (all p&lt;0.01). In adults &lt;65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 &gt;3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 &lt;3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3, all p&lt;0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 &gt;3 vs &lt;3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p&lt;0.05). The VES-13 &gt;3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES &lt;3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 &gt;3 group (5.6 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 &lt;3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults &gt;65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 &gt;3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 &lt;3) when compared to VES-13 &lt;3 at years 1 and 2 (all p&lt;0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 &gt;3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 &lt;3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.

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: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (&gt;10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p &lt;0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

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