Dueck, Amylou C.

Abstract The Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute to allow patients to directly report their side effects, enhancing the accuracy and patient‐centeredness of cancer clinical trial adverse event reporting. Clinician‐based reporting often misses the full range of patient symptoms, resulting in underreporting of side effects. The selection of adverse events for patient reporting must be defined in advance and consistently applied across all study arms. Investigators can use core symptom sets, including diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea, alongside tailored items specific to the treatments being studied. PRO‐CTCAE has demonstrated similar scores across electronic, paper‐based, and automated telephone administration methods. PRO‐CTCAE administration typically occurs before start of treatment and regularly throughout treatment, with the administration frequency tailored to the expected trajectory of side effects. Ensuring high survey completion rates is essential for PRO‐CTCAE success. Standard reporting can include tabular reporting of the proportion of patients with any (score ≥1) and high (score ≥3) levels of symptoms at the individual item level. A baseline‐adjustment approach should be applied to account for symptoms before start of treatment to isolate treatment‐emergent adverse events. The distribution of PRO‐CTCAE scores at each time point can be visualized using stacked bar charts. PRO‐CTCAE integration into cancer clinical trials is crucial for capturing a comprehensive range of treatment‐related symptomatic adverse events and improving the evaluation of therapy tolerability. Ongoing research continues to refine its implementation, supported by regulatory guidance.

526 Background: The PALLAS trial (NCT02513394) investigated the efficacy of the addition of palbociclib (palbo) to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) to reduce breast cancer recurrence. Previous analyses of this trial have not shown significant benefit of combination palbo+ET over ET alone. Given prior data showing that extent of neutropenia is associated with response to palbo and other cell cycle-specific therapies, we evaluated whether extent of neutropenia could identify responders to palbo in the adjuvant setting. Methods: PALLAS is a global, open-label, phase III trial that randomized patients (pts) with stage II-III hormone-receptor positive, HER2-negative breast cancer to receive ET for ≥5 years with or without standard-dose palbo for 2 years in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint is invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). For this exploratory analysis, the palbo population was classified into pts with treatment-emergent high-grade neutropenia (HGN) with maximum grade ≥3 (absolute neutrophil count <1000), or low-grade/no neutropenia (LGN) with maximum grade <2; these groups were compared to each other and to the ET alone group for 5-year iDFS outcomes. Logistic regression examined individual baseline characteristics associated with HGN during the first 3 cycles within the palbo group. Impact of HGN during the first 3, 6, and 12 cycles on iDFS was tested using univariate and multivariable landmark Cox regression. Results: The safety population included 5736 pts, 2840 allocated to palbo+ET, 2896 to ET alone. Prior publications reported no new safety signals, low rates of serious infection, and no grade 5 treatment-related events. The palbo+ET group consisted of 1006 (35.4%) LGN and 1834 (64.6%) HGN. 5-year iDFS results are shown in the table. Pts who received palbo+ET and developed HGN by the end of cycle 6 had significantly improved 5-year iDFS compared to those who received ET alone (p=0.04), which remained statistically significant when adjusting for body mass index (BMI), prior chemotherapy, and race. Multivariable logistic regression showed lower BMI, prior chemotherapy, Asian race, and prior mastectomy were significantly associated with HGN (all p<0.05). Conclusions: In this exploratory analysis of the phase III PALLAS adjuvant trial, addition of palbo to ET appeared to be superior to ET alone in pts who developed HGN in the first 6 cycles of treatment but not in those who had LGN. These findings are consistent with observations in the metastatic setting suggesting that neutropenia could be a useful biomarker for palbo concentration and efficacy. Clinical trial information: NCT02513394 . Maximum grade neutropenia measured at end of cycle: 5-year iDFS Palbo+ET HGN (%) Palbo+ET LGN (%) ET alone (%) Hazard Ratio p-value 3 84.9 84.4 1.06 0.54 84.9 82.9 1.17 0.06 6 85.6 84.9 1.08 0.44 85.6 83.4 1.19 0.04 12 86.3 85.9 1.06 0.57 86.3 85.0 1.12 0.20

4020 Background: In previously treated patients (pts) with advanced extra-pancreatic NET (epNET) or pancreatic NET (pNET), cabozantinib (cabo) demonstrated improved progression-free survival compared to placebo (pbo) in the CABINET trial (NCT03375320). Here we present HRQOL data from CABINET. Methods: Pts with previously treated unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic epNET or pNET were randomized (2:1) in separate cohorts to receive cabo 60 mg daily vs pbo. HRQOL was an exploratory endpoint measured using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-GI.NET21, Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), and PRO-CTCAE questionnaires. Optional participation was by paper surveys at baseline and every 12 weeks (wks) until disease progression or new anticancer therapy. Mean changes from baseline were compared between treatment arms at wk12 using general linear mixed models. Minimally important within-arm improvements and between-arm differences were defined as 8 points on the C30 Global Health Status (GHS)/QOL Scale. PGIC was dichotomized as improved vs unchanged/worsened and compared using Chi-squared tests. Rates of pt-reported adverse events (AEs) by PRO-CTCAE were baseline-adjusted and compared using Fisher’s exact tests. Results: 172 pts (113 cabo, 59 pbo) with epNET and 81 pts (53 cabo, 28 pbo) with pNET consented for survey participation. Pts completed 524 (82%) of 640 expected surveys across baseline, wk12, and wk24. For epNET, C30 GHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 9.5, standard error (SE) 2.2, p < 0.001) but not pbo (mean change 0.2, SE 3.1, p = 0.95) resulting in significantly different mean changes from baseline between arms (p = 0.02). For pNET, C30 QHS/QOL was significantly improved at wk12 in pts receiving cabo (mean change 8.0, SE 3.0, p = 0.008) but not pbo (mean change 6.8, SE 4.4, p = 0.12); mean changes from baseline did not statistically differ between arms (p = 0.82). No significant differences in mean changes from baseline at wk12 in C30 Physical, Role, Emotional, Cognitive and Social Function were observed between arms in the epNET or pNET cohorts. In both cohorts at wk12, pts on cabo reported improved overall status as measured by PGIC more often than those on pbo (epNET: 38% vs 19%, p = 0.04; pNET: 57% vs 18%, p = 0.006). Rates of pt-reported AEs were statistically significantly higher in cabo for diarrhea (68% vs 53%), hand-foot syndrome (57% vs 26%), mouth or throat sores (47% vs 27%), and dysgeusia (67% vs 37%) [all p < 0.05]. GI.NET21 data will be presented. Conclusions: Although cabo is associated with pt-reported AEs consistent with its known safety profile, global HRQOL was maintained. A higher proportion of patients receiving cabo reported improved overall status. Results support cabo as a treatment option for pts with previously treated advanced NET that preserves patient HRQOL. Clinical trial information: NCT03375320 .

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.

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.

PURPOSE Emoji are digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion in electronic communication. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of two patient-reported scales that incorporate emoji. METHODS The Emoji Response Scale developed for this study has two parts: the Emoji-Ordinal and Emoji-Mood scales. A pilot study was designed to validate the ordinal nature of the Emoji-Ordinal Scale. Twenty patients were shown all possible pairs of five emoji and asked to select the most positive from each pair. The psychometric ordering was assessed using Coombs unfolding and Thurstone scaling. A separate pilot study was designed to determine which emoji to include in the Emoji-Mood Scale. Ten common feelings experienced by patients with cancer were chosen by the study team. Patients and providers were asked to select the one emoji that best represented each feeling from the selection. The most commonly selected emotions and representative emoji were chosen for the Emoji-Mood Scale. In a randomized study of 294 patients, Spearman correlations, Wilcoxon tests, and Bland-Altman analyses determined the construct validity of the scales compared with Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASA) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. RESULTS Ninety-five percent of patients selected the same ordering among the ordinal emoji, and Thurstone scaling confirmed the ordinal nature of the response scale. The construct validity of the scales was high with correlations between the Emoji-Ordinal Scale and the LASA scale of 0.70 for emotional well-being, 0.72 for physical well-being, 0.74 for overall quality of life, and –0.81 for fatigue. Emoji-Mood Scale ratings were strongly related to PROMIS global mental, global physical, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and social activity scales ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION This study provides evidence that scales incorporating emoji are valid for collecting patient-reported outcomes.

Background: Financial toxicity (FT), or the negative impact of medical expenses experienced by patients, is a known adverse effect of cancer treatment that result in worse health outcomes for patients. However, there is limited literature investigating FT in lymphoma with even less data on predictors such as age, gender, and socioeconomic factors. As lymphoma treatment options expand, it is vital to understand the impact of these treatments on patients' financial well-being. We investigate FT through patient reported outcomes from the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO), a large multi-institution prospective cohort study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed NHL were enrolled into the LEO cohort from 2015-2020. Clinical, pathology and treatment data were abstracted from medical records, and participants were offered self-administered surveys at enrollment and selected follow-up time points. Participants were included if they completed at least four of six survey questions on FT adapted from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) within the first year after diagnosis. Questions focused on either material hardship (unable to cover costs; file for bankruptcy; borrow money; work extra job or hours) or psychological stress (worried about paying large medical bills). We evaluated FT as answering positively to any question (any vs none). Associations with FT were evaluated using chi-squared tests. All analyses were performed using R (v4.2.2). Results: 3202 patients completed at least four survey questions relating to FT. Mean age at diagnosis was 62 years (18-94), 56% were male, and majority identified as white (90%). Characteristics associated with FT are reported (p&lt;0.001). FT was more likely in younger patients: 18-25 years (64%, 30/47), 26-44 years (73%, 299/313), and 45-64 years (58%, 799/1375) as compared to those 65-79 years (36%, 459/1272) and ≥80 years (35%, 69/195). FT was highest in patients without a high school diploma (54%, 45/84), followed by patients with a high school diploma (52%, 209/402), and an associate's degree (57%, 358/627). It was lowest in patients with a bachelor's (45%, 224/296) or post-graduate degree (39.6%, 216/545). Higher FT was seen in those receiving disability income (65%, 47/72); whereas less FT was seen in retired patients (36%, 299/828). FT rates inversely correlated with income: 65% for income &lt; $21,000 (184/283), 61% for $21,000- $39,999 (224/370) and 60% for $40,000-$65,999 (293/491). Lower FT noted for income range of $66,000-$106,000 (47%, 323/681) or &gt; $106,000 (37%, 324/872). Patients separated from a partner (82.9%, 19/23) had the highest FT, followed by patients living with a partner (64%, 48/75), divorced (56%, 103/184), and never married (53.4%, 79/148). Patients who were married (47%, 793/1672) or widowed (41%, 60/146) reported the lowest FT. Higher FT was reported in DLBCL (55%, 631/1146), MCL (55%, 172/315), and TCL (53%, 119/226) when compared to FL (44%, 327/746), MZL (44%, 137/316), and other NHL (44%, 200/453). This is likely related to treatment as more FT was seen in patients who received an anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy (54%, 1066/1963) versus non-systemic (43%, 120/278) and observation (35%, 168/483). In multivariable analyses, FT strongly correlated with age at diagnosis, household income, and treatment type. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for the most significant category within each variable are as follows: age per 1 year (0.96, [0.95-0.97]), income &gt; $106,000 vs &lt; $21,000 (0.28, [0.21-0.38]), and observation vs anthracycline and/or alkylator (0.56, [0.44-0.71]). Conclusion: Nearly 50% of patients with lymphoma experience FT, seen as material hardship and psychological stress, within the first year of diagnosis. Patients with a younger age (18-44), less education, and lower household income reported higher levels of FT; whereas those who were retired or married/widowed reported lower FT. Lymphoma subtypes that require more anthracycline and/or alkylator containing therapy imposed higher FT. Understanding these risk factors can help clinicians identify patients who may benefit from additional resources during lymphoma management.

Background: Indolent non-Hodgkin lymphomas (iNHL) are incurable and disproportionately affect adults age &gt;65 in whom frailty and functional impairment can impact disease management. The Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13) is a 13-item screening tool that incorporates age, self-rated health, physical function limitations, and functional disabilities to identify vulnerable older community-dwelling adults. Adults with a VES-13 score of &gt;3 have a fourfold increased risk of death or functional decline over 2 years as compared to adults with a score &lt;3 (Saliba et al, JAGS 2001). Our team previously showed that VES-13 &gt;3 was associated with a higher risk of 1-year mortality in NHL (OR 3.26, 95% CI 2.15-4.96, Fama et al, ASH 2019), including in adults age &lt;65. In this study, we determined whether VES-13 scores &gt;3 were associated with quality of life (QOL) changes in adults with iNHL across the age spectrum. Methods: We used the Lymphoma Epidemiology of Outcomes (LEO) Cohort Study to identify adults enrolled from 2015-2020 with grade 1-3A follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FL, MZL) who completed the VES-13 at enrollment and QOL surveys at enrollment and follow-up. The LEO Cohort Study enrolls participants within 6 months of diagnosis and collects information on disease status, QOL, health behaviors, and patient-reported functional assessment. For this analysis we included QOL measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) at years 1 and 2 post-enrollment. The FACT-G total score was the sum of 4 subscales (range): physical (PWB, 0-28), social/family (SFWB, 0-28), emotional (EWB, 0-24), and functional (FWB, 0-28) well-being. A higher FACT-G total score (range 0-108) indicated better overall QOL. VES-13 scores ranged from 0 (lowest risk for death or decline) to 10+ (highest risk). Generalized linear mixed models evaluated changes in QOL from baseline based on VES-13 score &gt;3 (vulnerable) vs &lt;3 (non-vulnerable), within groups by age at enrollment &gt;65 and &lt;65. Results: Our study included 1,186 participants: 42% age &gt;65, 54% female, 84% non-Hispanic White, 10% Hispanic, 3.3% Black, and 1.4% Asian/Pacific Islander. Most (68%) were diagnosed with FL. FLIPI was high risk for 20%, and MALT-IPI was high risk for 23%. In the VES-13 &lt;3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 86.5 (12.0), PWB 21.0 (3.5), SFWB 24.3 (4.3), EWB 18.8 (3.7), and FWB 22.3 (4.9). In the VES-13 &gt;3 group, the mean (SD) baseline FACT-G total score was 70.4 (16.5), PWB 15.4 (5.6), SFWB 22.3 (5.5), EWB 17.5 (4.5), and FWB 15.3 (6.4); all significantly lower than the VES-13 &gt;3 group (all p&lt;0.01). In adults &lt;65, 63 (9%) had a VES-13 &gt;3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline in PWB at years 1 and 2 when compared to VES-13 &lt;3 (changes in baseline PWB were 2.1, 2.9 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs 0.2, 0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3, all p&lt;0.05). Similarly, we observed improvement in FWB from baseline at years 1 and 2 in the VES-13 &gt;3 vs &lt;3 group (2.4, 2.9 vs 0.4, -0.1, respectively all p&lt;0.05). The VES-13 &gt;3 group had a decline in their EWB at 1 year vs the VES &lt;3 group (-0.5 vs 1.2, respectively, p=0.003). At year 2, total FACT-G improved from baseline in the VES-13 &gt;3 group (5.6 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs -0.5 for VES-13 &lt;3, p=0.002). SFWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. In adults &gt;65, 83 (17%) had a VES-13 &gt;3, which was associated with a significant improvement from baseline PWB (1.3, 1.5 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 0.1, -0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3), FWB (3.3, 2.2 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 0.5, 0.1 for VES-13 &lt;3), and total FACT-G score (5.2, 3.4 for VES-13 &gt;3 vs. 1.0, -0.4 for VES-13 &lt;3) when compared to VES-13 &lt;3 at years 1 and 2 (all p&lt;0.05). SFWB and EWB changes from baseline did not differ between groups. While there was improvement from baseline PWB and FWB in the VES-13 &gt;3 group, QOL scores across all subscales remained below the VES-13 &lt;3 group in the study period for both age groups. Statistical significance was maintained in models adjusted for baseline characteristics, including initial treatment strategy (observation, systemic, vs local) for both age groups. Conclusion: Although the vulnerable group reported worse QOL throughout the study period compared to the non-vulnerable group, survivors in the vulnerable group saw greater improvement in their physical and functional well-being at 1- and 2-years post-diagnosis. Additional analyses are underway to identify drivers of improvement in physical and functional well-being in vulnerable adults diagnosed with iNHL.