Bennett, Antonia V

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.

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.

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.

Objectives To estimate the proportion and correlates of self-reported financial difficulty among patients with multiple myeloma (MM) or chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL). Setting Sixty-six US community and minority oncology practices affiliated with the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Programme (NCORP). Participants A total of 521 patients (=18 years) with MM or CLL consented and 416 responded to a survey (completion rate=79.8%). Respondents had a MM diagnosis (74.0%), an associate degree or higher (53.4%), were White (89.2%), insured (100%) and treated with clinician-administered drugs (68.0%). Study design Observational, theoretical model and protocol-based patient survey administered between May 2019 and June 2020. Primary and secondary outcome measures Financial difficulty was assessed using a single-item measure, the EORTC QLQC30: Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties in the past year? and using an any-or-none composite measure of 22 items assessing financial difficulty, worries and the use of cost-coping strategies. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed the association of financial difficulty with diagnosis, socioeconomic and treatment characteristics. Results About 16.8% reported experiencing financial difficulty using the single-item measure and 60.3% using the composite measure. Most frequently endorsed items in the composite measure were financial worry about having to pay large medical bills related to cancer and difficulty paying medical bills. Financial difficulty using the single-item measure was associated with having MM vs CLL (adjusted OR (aOR), 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.84; p=0.02), having insurance other than Medicare (aOR, 2.53; 95% CI, 1.37 to 4.66; p=0.003), being non-White (aOR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.72; p=0.04) and having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.64; p=0.001). Financial difficulty using the composite measure was associated with having a high school education or below (aOR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p=0.03). Conclusions US patients with MM and CLL report financial difficulty, especially those with low socio-economic status. Interventions are needed to mitigate patients financial difficulty. Trial registration number NCT03870633 .

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.

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.

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.

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.