Basch, Ethan

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.

Background More than half of the 40,000 incident rectal cancer patients in the United States each year are diagnosed at clinical stage II and III (locally advanced stage). For this group, high rates of cure can be achieved with the combination of pelvic radiation and sensitizing 5-fluorouracil (chemoradiation), surgery and chemotherapy, but treatment is long, arduous and toxicities are substantial. The PROSPECT trial (N1048, NCT01515787) was designed to determine whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) could be used as an alternative to neoadjuvant chemoradiation without compromising treatment outcomes and to spare these patients excess toxicity. The statistical design balanced the twin co-primary goals of achieving low local and distant recurrence rates. Study design features contended with the need for stringent safeguards given limited phase II data, the need for straightforward criteria to facilitate both accrual and protocol fidelity and the importance of patients’ perspectives on symptom burden and treatment toxicity. Methods PROSPECT is an ongoing multi-site two-group seamless phase II/III randomized trial comparing standard neoadjuvant chemoradiation versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy with selective use of chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Challenges addressed in the design and conduct of PROSPECT have included the following: (1) setting safety thresholds given limited single-center phase II data, (2) establishing workable eligibility criteria, (3) balancing competing time to local and distant recurrence as co-primary endpoints and (4) obtaining reliable and complete data for patients’ symptom burden. The design and implementation challenges, choices, modifications and their implications for the design of future national cooperative group clinical trials are presented. Results PROSPECT incorporated stringent thresholds for both complete surgical resection (R0) and the time to local recurrence as early stopping rules. When predetermined stopping criteria were not met after evaluation of the first 366 participants in the randomized phase II, the study transitioned seamlessly to phase III with cumulative accrual of over 1000 participants. Eligibility criteria stipulating rectal tumor location based on distance from the anal verge were unworkable, and the protocol was amended to a more pragmatic approach that assigned surgeons with primary responsibility for determining eligibility. Central radiology review was feasible and in some cases prompted discontinuation of protocol treatment. Participation in toxicity reporting using the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was uniformly high and was well accepted by participants from over 200 sites in the United States, Canada and Switzerland. Conclusion The strategies used to overcome these obstacles may inform the design of other studies that involve multi-modality treatment interventions, particularly trials where implementation of consistent criteria for eligibility and outcomes across hundreds of practice settings is necessary.