Schrag, Deborah

3070 Background: A multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA technology to detect cancer and predict cancer signal origin (CSO) has potential to efficiently identify malignancies for which effective screening modalities do not exist. A previous version of a blood-based MCED test demonstrated favorable classification and test characteristics. Samples from the ongoing PATHFINDER study were reanalyzed in a prespecified interim analysis to evaluate performance of a more recent version of the test with an updated classifier (eg, updated CSO localization, hematological signal threshold) that is planned for clinical implementation as a general multi-cancer screening tool. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study in which results (cancer signal detected/not detected and predicted CSO) using a previous version of the MCED test are returned to investigators, and those with a signal detected undergo further diagnostic testing. In this prespecified interim analysis, samples from those enrolled as of October 6, 2020 were reanalyzed with the more recent version of the MCED test (these results were not returned to investigators). The positive predictive value (PPV) for cancer detection, overall CSO accuracy, and concordance between the two test versions were assessed. Results: A total of 4011/4047 (99%) participants (pts) were analyzable (mean [SD] age 63.9 [8.7] years, 62% female, 92% white, 24% with prior cancer history, 39% ever smoker [4% current], 6% with genetic cancer predisposition). Cancer signal was detected in 0.95% (38/4011). A total of 27/38 also had signal detected by the previous version of the MCED test, including 19 who reached diagnostic resolution (13 with cancer diagnosis and 6 without); 11/38 were discordant positives. Nine different cancer types were detected in the 13 pts (2 stage I, 3 stage II, 2 stage III, and 3 stage IV); 1 had no AJCC stage expected, 1 metastatic recurrence and 1 stage evaluation underway. A conservative minimal PPV assuming all discordant positives are false positives, was 43.3% (13/30, 95% CI 27.4-60.8%) based on 19 pts with diagnostic resolution and 11 discordant positives. High negative percent agreement (PA) 99.7% (99.5-99.8%) between the two test versions was observed. Positive PA of 43.5% (95% CI, 31.9-55.9%) was consistent with the more stringent threshold for hematologic signal in the recent MCED version, as most discrepant cases had hematologic CSO with the previous MCED test. Among 13 detected cancers, accuracy of the top CSO prediction was 92.3% (12/13, 95% CI 66.7-99.6%). Conclusions: In this prespecified interim analysis, the more recent version of the MCED test detected cancers with high PPV and high accuracy of CSO prediction, supporting readiness for use in clinical practice. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

3010 Background: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is an interventional, prospective study evaluating implementation of a blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test that uses targeted methylation-based cfDNA analysis to detect multiple cancer types and simultaneously predict cancer signal origin (CSO). We present a prespecified interim analysis of PATHFINDER evaluating an MCED test in a clinical setting. Methods: Participants (pts; ≥50y) were enrolled into 2 risk cohorts: non-elevated and elevated (smoking history, prior cancer [ > 3y post treatment], or genetic predisposition). MCED test results (cancer signal detected/not detected) were returned to investigators; pts with a signal detected also received a CSO prediction and underwent further diagnostic testing by their medical team. The primary objective was to assess the extent of diagnostic testing needed to achieve diagnostic resolution (eg, time to resolution, number/type of tests). Secondary endpoints included positive predictive value (PPV) and a measure of test satisfaction (following diagnostic resolution [signal detected] and post test [signal not detected]). Results: PATHFINDER consented 6796 pts before closing accrual on 12/4/20; as of October 6, 2020, 4086 consented, 4047 enrolled, and 4033 analyzable pts were included in the interim analysis (62.4% female, 92.1% white). Two study-related adverse events (anxiety of mild severity) were reported. Cancer signal was detected in 1.5% (62/4033) of pts; 40/62 reached diagnostic resolution to date. Kaplan-Meier estimate of median time to resolution was 78 (95% CI, 54-151) days. Among 40 pts that reached diagnostic resolution, ≥1 imaging test was performed in 93% (37/40); ≥1 invasive procedure was performed in 72% (13/18) versus 18% (4/22) of pts with diagnostic resolution of cancer versus no cancer, respectively. Based on results to date, PPV was 45% (95% CI, 30.7-60.2%; 18/40). Of 18 cancer diagnoses, 11 were solid tumors (3 stage IV, 6 stages I-III, 1 metastatic recurrence, 1 missing stage), and 7 were hematologic malignancies (1 stage IV, 4 stages I-III, 2 without AJCC stage). Accuracy of the top CSO prediction in true positives was 82.4% (95% CI, 59.0-93.8%; 14/17). Most pts were satisfied with the test (43.7% extremely satisfied, 30.7% very satisfied, 14.6% satisfied). Signal detection rate and test satisfaction were similar in the 2 risk cohorts; PPV tended to be higher in the elevated risk cohort, as expected. Conclusions: An interim analysis of this return of results study demonstrated promising MCED test results. Of 40 pts achieving diagnostic resolution, nearly half had a diagnostic workup confirming cancer; CSO was predicted with high accuracy for detected cancers. Taken together with the rarity of adverse events and high test satisfaction, these results support the feasibility of clinical implementation. Full enrollment cohort data will be available at the meeting. Clinical trial information: NCT04241796.

Abstract Background Racial disparities in patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g., symptoms, financial burden) among patients with cancer are well documented. Prior studies have attributed such disparities to patient- and provider-level factors, but less is known about the contribution of practice-level factors. Hospital racial composition of patients has been linked to disparities in care quality and outcomes, but questions remain regarding whether oncology practice racial composition mediates racial disparities. Using 2017-2020 data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03249090), we examined racial disparities in PROs among patients with metastatic cancer, and whether oncology practice racial composition accounted for observed disparities. Methods Our sample included 1099 patients (n=198 Black; n=901 White) from 51 community oncology practices across the US. Predictors of interest were patient race (Black vs. White) and practice-reported racial composition (Black patient population >20% vs. ≤20%). Patient-reported outcome metrics included pain, appetite loss, fatigue, nausea, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial burden, measured at baseline and at 1- and 3-month follow-up using the EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Raw EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were standardized to range from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). We estimated multilevel linear mixed models predicting each PRO as a function of patient race, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors, followed by further adjustment for practice racial composition. Results Twelve out of fifty-one (23.5%) practices reported a Black racial composition of >20%, with 41.6% of Blacks and 14.5% Whites receiving care at these practices. Across all practices, Blacks reported worse pain (β=5.5, p=0.02), nausea (β=2.5, p=0.04) and financial burden (β=7.6, p<0.01), but less fatigue (β=-4.1, p=0.05) when compared with Whites. Regardless of race, patients receiving care at practices with a Black racial composition of >20% reported more pain (β=5.5, p=0.01), appetite loss (β=8.1, p<0.01), fatigue (β=5.1, p=0.01), nausea (β=2.3, p=0.05), dyspnea (β=4.3, p=0.04), and insomnia (β=4.8, p=0.03) than patients receiving care at practices comprised of ⇐20% Blacks. Practice racial composition did not mediate racial disparities in PROs. Conclusion Racial disparities in PROs were observed among patients treated at US community oncology practices. Practice racial composition was associated with multiple PROs, regardless of patient race, but racial disparities in PROs were not explained by practice racial composition. These findings suggest that identifying and addressing the needs of practices serving a disproportionate share of Black patents may be one effective strategy to mitigate practice-level disparities in cancer outcomes. Citation Format: Cleo A. Samuel, Olive Mbah, Wendi Elkins, Marjory Charlot, Amylou Dueck, Brenda F. Ginos, Jennifer Jansen, Deborah Schrag, Patty Spears, Angela Stover, Ethan Basch. Separate and unequal: Examining the role of race and site of care on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer (AFT-39) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-119.

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.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

Abstract Background: Early detection decreases patient mortality for many cancers, but prevailing paradigms focus on distinct screening modalities for each cancer type. A minimally invasive test that detects multiple tumor types could substantially reduce cancer mortality and improve screening efficiency. In preliminary studies, we showed that a targeted methylation cell-free DNA (cfDNA) test can detect cancer and determine the tissue of origin (TOO) of abnormally methylated cfDNA with high sensitivity and specificity; however, blood was collected at the time of diagnosis and results were not disclosed to inform care. The current study includes disclosure of results to the study investigator to understand the care pathways prompted by a “signal detected” test result, and the benefits, harms, and burdens associated with a multi-cancer detection test. Methods: PATHFINDER (NCT04241796) is a prospective, longitudinal, multi-center clinical study. Approximately 6,200 participants with varying levels of cancer risk will be enrolled at 5-10 clinical sites in the United States. Participants must be ≥50 years of age. If participants have at least 1 of the following–a smoking history of ≥100 cigarettes, a genetic cancer predisposition, or a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy with definitive treatment completed &gt;3 years prior to enrollment–they are eligible for the Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 4340); otherwise, they are eligible for the Non-Elevated Risk Cohort (n = 1860). Individuals being evaluated for cancer or who have a history of invasive or hematologic malignancy within 3 years of enrollment will be excluded. Blood drawn at study sites will be analyzed at GRAIL, Inc. (Menlo Park, CA). Participants and study investigators will be informed of the test results. Participants with “signal not detected” results will be advised to continue routine clinical care, including age- and risk-based cancer screening. Those with “signal detected” test results will be informed of the predicted origin and undergo diagnostic evaluation. The primary study objective is to determine the extent of diagnostic testing required to achieve diagnostic resolution following a “signal detected” test result, defined as the date when the study investigator determines to end diagnostic evaluation triggered by a “signal detected” test result. Health resource utilization, the number and types of tests and time required to reach this point, is the primary endpoint. Secondary objectives include evaluation of test performance (specificity, positive predictive value, and TOO accuracy), and assessment of participants' perceptions about the test and changes in anxiety and health-related quality of life. Exploratory aims include assessment of the number and types of invasive cancer diagnoses among participants with “signal not detected” test results and changes in attitude toward adherence to guideline-recommended screening. Citation Format: Lincoln Nadauld, Charles H. McDonnell III, Minetta C. Liu, Eric Klein, Tomasz M. Beer, Deborah Schrag, Andrew G. Hudnut, Richard Whittington, Bruce Taylor, Joanna Tierney, Catherine Marinac, Jafi Lipson, Margarita Lopatin, Karen C. Chung, Eric Fung, Anne-Renee Hartman, Geoffrey R. Oxnard. The PATHFINDER Study: Assessment of the implementation of an investigational multi-cancer early detection test into clinical practice [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr CT291.

7018 Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network 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 AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

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.

102 Background: Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory mCRC; it is unknown if the addition of bevacizumab would improve outcomes. We studied the efficacy and safety of CBI compared with CI in patients (pts) with RAS wildtype, irinotecan-refractory mCRC. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, pts with RAS wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy who failed at least 1 irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimen and received bevacizumab in at least 1 prior line of therapy were randomized 1:1 to irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose), cetuximab 500 mg/m2, and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg vs CI every 2 wks until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models stratified by number of prior lines of therapy and bevacizumab receipt in immediate prior line were performed. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). The study was closed early in January 2018 for reasons related to accrual and funding after enrollment of 36 out of a planned 60 pts. Results: Between July 2015 and December 2017, 36 pts were randomized (19 to CBI, 17 to CI). 34 pts (94%) were treated with 2 or more prior chemotherapy regimens. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 vs 5.5 mo for CBI and CI arms, respectively (log-rank P =0.76; multivariable HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 vs 10.2 mo for CBI and CI (log-rank P= 0.04; multivariable HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 37% for CBI vs 12% for CI ( P =0.13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of pts receiving CBI vs 35% for CI ( P =0.46). Conclusions: In this prematurely discontinued trial, there were non-significant increases in PFS and ORR and a statistically significant 9.5 mo increase in median OS in favor of CBI compared to CI. Further investigation of CBI for treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02292758.