Schrag, Deborah

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.

Abstract Objective The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. Materials and Methods Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. Results Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. Discussion Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. Conclusions Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

6520 Background: Breast cancer follow-up guidelines recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of signs/symptoms. However, data supporting this recommendation predates the current era of improved imaging and targeted therapies based on molecular subtype. The objective was to assess the relationship between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods: A stage-stratified random sample of Stage II-III breast cancer patients diagnosed in 2006-7 was selected from NCDB records from 1,217 CoC-accredited facilities (10/hospital n = 10,853). Women were categorized by subtype: 1) ER or PR+/HER2-; 2) ER and PR-/Her2- (triple negative); 3) HER2+. Medical records abstracted for 5-years post-surgery supplemented NCDB data and assessed distant recurrence and mode of detection (prompted by signs/symptoms or surveillance imaging), imaging (chest CT, abdomen/pelvis CT/MRI, head CT/MRI, bone scan, PET/CT), death date. The relationship between mode of recurrence detection and days from initial cancer diagnosis to death was assessed using propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression stratified by subtype. Propensity weights, based on receipt of surveillance systemic imaging, accounted for sociodemographic and tumor/treatment factors. Results: 5-year distant recurrence was 22.3% for triple negative, 14.8% HER2+, and 11.2% for ER or PR+/ HER2- patients. Asymptomatic imaging detected recurrence in 22.9% and signs/symptoms in 77.1%. Patients with asymptomatic as compared to sign/symptom detected recurrences had reduced risk of death in 5 years if triple negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.50-0.93) or HER2+ (HR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.24-0.65) with no significant association for ER or PR+/HER2- (HR = 1.2, 95% CI = 0.88-1.51). This translated to a between-group difference in weighted median survival of 5 months for triple negative and 13 months for HER2+ patients. Conclusions: This is the first nationally representative study to show a survival advantage with asymptomatic detection of distant metastases for patients, with the benefit limited to triple negative and HER2+ disease. Further research to confirm observational findings is warranted.

LBA2 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

LBA2 Background: We previously reported significant benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, and emergency room utilization outcomes from a large single-center randomized controlled trial comparing web-based symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs. usual care in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00578006). We now present overall survival results from this trial. Methods: Patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were randomly assigned to self-report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers (“PRO intervention”), or to usual care. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits and nurses received email alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. Overall survival was tabulated based on medical records and Social Security Death Index data, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between arms using a log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for age, sex, race, education level, and cancer type. Results: Between September 2007 and January 2011, 766 patients were randomized, with median age 61 (range 26-91), 86% white, 58% female, and 22% with less than high school education. Cancer types included genitourinary (32% of patients), gynecologic (23%), breast (19%), and lung cancer (26%). Survival results were assessed in June 2016 after a median follow up of 7 years and 517/766 (67%) of participants had died. Median overall survival in the PRO intervention arm was 5 months longer than the control arm (31.2 vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.03). In the multivariable model, results remained statistically significant with a hazard ratio of 0.832 (p = 0.04; 95% CI; 0.696, 0.995). Conclusions: Systematic symptom monitoring during outpatient chemotherapy using web-based patient-reported outcomes confers overall survival benefits. These single-center results are being further evaluated in a national multicenter implementation trial. Clinical trial information: NCT00578006.

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.