Mendoza, Tito

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 Background Instruments to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) should generate high-quality evidence. Reliable PRO evidence is essential to policymakers, in conjunction with outcomes such as survival and radiological response, to understand the net clinical benefit of antitumor treatments. This study aimed to establish the content validity of 215 identified PRO measures used in patients with brain tumors. Methods A survey (n = 148 items) was developed reflecting aspects of the WHO International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Patients with brain tumors, their proxies, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) were asked to rate each survey item on relevance. An item was considered a relevant issue if ≥25% of the patients or proxies or ≥50% of the HCPs considered that item to be an issue. Next, all items in the identified PRO measures were linked to ICF and relevant items in the survey, and the percentage of content coverage was calculated. Results In total, 114 patients, 71 proxies, and 65 HCPs from different countries completed the survey. Fifty-six of 148 (37.8%) items in the survey were considered relevant. The most important aspects mentioned by both patients and proxies were difficulty concentrating, difficulty remembering, multitasking, and handling stress. Depending on the definition, between 35% and 49% of PRO measures were considered to have sufficient content validity (≥80% coverage). Conclusion The content validity was insufficient in more than half of the identified PRO measures, particularly multidimensional measures. Future research should investigate whether different approaches to PRO assessment better meet the needs of all stakeholders.

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.

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.

Abstract Background: The current standard operation for proximal gastric and gastroesophageal junction (P/GEJ) cancers with limited esophageal extension is total gastrectomy (TG). TG is associated with impaired appetite and weight loss, which is caused by a decreased level of ghrelin and anemia due to intrinsic factor loss and vitamin B12 malabsorption. Theoretically, proximal gastrectomy (PG) can mitigate these problems by preserving gastric function. However, PG with direct esophagogastric reconstruction is associated with severe postoperative reflux, delayed gastric emptying, and poor quality of life (QoL). Minimally invasive PG (MIPG) with antireflux techniques has been increasingly performed by experts but is technically demanding owing to its complexity. Moreover, the actual advantages of MIPG over minimally invasive TG (MITG) with regards to postoperative QoL are unknown. Our overall objective of this study is to determine the short-term QoL benefits of MIPG. Our central hypotheses are that MIPG is safe and that patients have improved appetite after MIPG with effective antireflux techniques, which leads to an overall QoL improvement when compared with MITG. Methods: Enrollment of a total of 60 patients in this prospective survey-collection study is expected. Procedures (MITG versus MIPG, antireflux techniques for MIPG [double-tract reconstruction versus the double-flap technique]) will be chosen based on surgeon and/or patient preference. Randomization is not considered feasible because patients often have strong preferences regarding MITG and MIPG. The primary outcome is appetite level (reported on a 0-10 scale) at 3 months after surgery. With an expected 30 patients per cohort (MITG versus MIPG), this study will have 80% power to detect a one-point difference in appetite level. Patient-reported outcomes will be longitudinally collected (including questions about appetite and reflux), and specific QoL items, body weight, body mass index and ghrelin, albumin, and hemoglobin levels will be compared. Discussion: Surgeons from the US, Japan, and South Korea formed this collaboration with the agreement that the surgical approach to P/GEJ cancers is an internationally important but controversial topic that requires immediate action. At the completion of the proposed research, our expected outcome is the establishment of the benefit and safety of MIPG. Trial Registration Number: This trial was registered with Clinical Trials Reporting Program Registration under the registration number NCI-2022-00267 on January 11, 2022, as well as with ClinicalTrials.gov under the registration number NCT05205343 on January 11, 2022.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Abstract Background The Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Patient-Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) working group aims to provide guidance on the use of PROs in brain tumor patients. PRO measures should be of high quality, both in terms of relevance and other measurement properties. This systematic review aimed to identify PRO measures that have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Methods A systematic literature search for articles published up to June 25, 2020 was conducted in several electronic databases. Pre-specified inclusion criteria were used to identify studies using PRO measures assessing symptoms, (instrumental) activities of daily living [(I)ADL] or health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in adult patients with glioma, meningioma, primary central nervous system lymphoma, or brain metastasis. Results A total of 215 different PRO measures were identified in 571 published and 194 unpublished studies. The identified PRO measures include brain tumor-specific, cancer-specific, and generic instruments, as well as instruments designed for other indications or multi- or single-item study-specific questionnaires. The most frequently used instruments were the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20 (n = 286 and n = 247), and the FACT-Br (n = 167), however, the majority of the instruments were used only once or twice (150/215). Conclusion Many different PRO measures assessing symptoms, (I)ADL or HRQoL have been used in brain tumor studies to date. Future research should clarify whether these instruments or their scales/items exhibit good content validity and other measurement properties for use in brain tumor patients.

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.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to provide a simple, descriptive health‐status profile for cancer patients with bone metastases, based on the EuroQol EQ‐5D, a tool commonly used to measure health utility scores, and to evaluate its association with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a legacy pain‐assessment tool. Although pain is one of five health‐status dimensions measured by the EQ‐5D, our understanding of how pain relates to the other EQ‐5D dimensions is limited.MethodsWe derived data from 5500 patients with bone metastases who completed the EQ‐5D and BPI. Regression analyses examined how BPI severity and interference scores correlated with EQ‐5D utility scores and how BPI items associated with EQ‐5D items, for the entire sample and by disease‐type subgroup.ResultsRegardless of cancer site, the percentage of patients reporting moderate/severe problems in each of the five EQ‐5D dimensions were pain/discomfort, 78%; usual activities, 58%; mobility, 55%; anxiety/depression, 57%; and self‐care, 26%. BPI pain interference explained more of the variability in the EQ‐5D utility scores than did pain severity (R2 = 41% vs. 34%). BPI worst pain, average pain, pain now, interference with general activity, and interference with work significantly predicted EQ‐5D pain/discomfort, with odds ratio estimates <1.ConclusionsPain/discomfort was the worst‐rated dimension of the EQ‐5D in this population, but the relationship of this item to BPI pain severity was modest, suggesting that the single pain item of the EQ‐5D may be of limited utility in studies for which pain is an endpoint.SignificanceHealth‐status dimensions include more than pain. We examine the contribution of pain severity and pain‐related functional interference in determining the health status of cancer patients with bone metastases. The pain dimension from a health‐status measure may be an inadequate metric in clinical trials/clinical practice when pain is an important outcome.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.