Basch, Ethan

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 There is growing scientific interest in incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs) to assess tolerability, inform dose selection, and guide later stage trial design. However, research indicates that PRO objectives in DFOTs are often unclear. The Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Trials-Research Objectives Recommendations (OPTIMISE-ROR) project was established to support trialists to effectively incorporate PROs into DFOTs. METHODS Using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework, guideline development included the following: (1) a methodological review of published DFOTs incorporating PROs; (2) candidate item generation, refined through expert consultation; (3) a two-round international multistakeholder Delphi survey (N = 109 in Round 1 [October 2024]; N = 96 in Round 2 [December 2024]); and (4) an independently chaired virtual consensus meeting (N = 31; January 2025) where multidisciplinary, international experts reviewed and voted to finalize items for inclusion. RESULTS Consensus was reached on six recommendations emphasizing three core PRO tolerability concepts: overall side effect impact, symptomatic adverse events, and overall health-related quality of life. The integration of PROs to inform final dose recommendations in dose escalation and optimization trials should be considered, regardless of trial design. The recommendations highlight the importance of PRO data analysis over time and across dose levels, defining PRO research objectives as descriptive or statistically powered, and assessing PRO-related end points to guide end point selection for subsequent studies. CONCLUSION This foundational guidance outlines key PRO research objectives in DFOTs. By facilitating the systematic integration of PROs, this guidance supports the utilization of patient-centered evidence for the tolerability and efficacy assessment of therapies to inform dose escalation, optimization, and regulatory evaluation—ultimately contributing to the development of safer, more effective therapies.

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.

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.

PURPOSE Many trials ask patients to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via the web, excluding patients unable to use/access the Internet. The PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ) also offered a telephone interface option (interactive voice response [IVR]). We compared patients choosing IVR versus web on alert rates to nurses and clinical outcomes to determine if a telephone option can close disparities in symptom management. METHODS PRO-TECT randomized 26 community oncology practices to the PROM intervention arm where concerning symptoms generated automated alerts to nurses. IVR and web patients were compared for social determinants of health (SDOH) using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. After accounting for clustering and confounders, we used generalized estimating equations to compare alert rates, mixed models for quality of life (QOL) at 3 months, and Cox regression for emergency visits and survival at 12 months. RESULTS Among 593 patients, 215 (36%) chose IVR and 378 (64%) chose web. IVR patients were older (65.2 v 60.8 years) and were more often rural residents (32% v 23%), Black (27% v 11%), and with less education (54% v 27% ≤high school; all P < .01). Patients choosing IVR had more surveys with concerning symptoms (49% v 37%) and nurses felt clinical attention was warranted more often (4.8 surveys v 3.4 surveys; all P < .001) but ultimately experienced similar benefits as web in QOL, emergency visits, and survival. CONCLUSION One third of community patients choose a telephone option over the web for reporting PROMs during cancer care. These patients are disproportionately from SDOH backgrounds at risk of poor clinical outcomes and have higher symptom management needs but ultimately experience similar clinical benefits as patients choosing the web. PROM programs should offer web alternatives to close disparities in symptom management.

PURPOSE Monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems can improve cancer outcomes and is increasingly recommended. Optimal implementations of ePROs in routine clinical care are not yet known. Perspectives from clinicians, clinic staff, and patients who used ePROs can provide real-world insights for optimizing the design, efficiency, and effectiveness of future implementations. METHODS Providers, clinic staff, and patients receiving treatment for metastatic cancer from community oncology practices that implemented ePROs as part of the national PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) participated in semi-structured interviews related to ePROs. Perceptions from clinicians on perceived benefits, usefulness, acceptability, impact on quality of care, and required effort; from staff on clinical integration and effort; and from patients on ease of use, usefulness, and effort were collected. Themes, subthemes, and recommendations were identified via a standardized coding-based directed thematic analytic approach. RESULTS Ninety-eight clinic members and 67 patients participated from 25 intervention sites. Four themes were identified: (1) positive impact of ePROs on cancer care quality, communication, and relationship-building; (2) ePRO system usability; (3) challenges to ePRO integration with clinical workflow; and (4) recommendations for improving ePRO systems and implementation. Subthemes related to the impact of ePROs on cancer care included enhanced communication with care team, increased awareness of symptoms, and increased ability to self-manage symptoms. Actionable recommendations for future initiatives were to engage and train clinicians, staff, and organizational support for ePRO-related activities; tailor content of ePRO surveys to be clinically actionable; integrate ePRO alert notifications and reports with existing information systems; and optimize integration of ePROs with existing clinic workflow processes. CONCLUSION Experiences of care team members and patients were positive, with actionable recommendations identified to guide future ePRO implementations.

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.