Dueck, Amylou C.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Introduction TP53 alterations (TP53+) are seen in <5% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) but are more common in accelerated/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP) [Luque Paz D, et al 2020]. While pts with low-burden TP53+ (Variant allele frequency (VAF) <5%) may remain stable for years [Kubesova et al, 2018]; biallelic loss of TP53 is thought to confer higher risk for progression [Li et al, 2022] and worse overall survival (OS) than non-TP53+ pts [Rolles et al, 2023]. However, TP53 abnormalities have not been incorporated into currently utilized molecular based prediction models (MIPSS or MIPSS70) or compared with currently validated high molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (mut). We report the outcomes of the largest cohort of TP53+ MPN pts to date in comparison with HMR mut, and identify a VAF cut-off associated with highest risk of progression to MPN-AP/BP. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 2583 MPN pts from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) with at least one next generation sequencing (NGS) performed. Deidentified data from an additional cohort of 8 TP53+ MPN pts was received from University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center (UMiami). Patient characteristics such as MPN subtype, gender, age at MPN diagnosis, driver mutation, thrombosis history were recorded. We also recorded date of transformation to MPN-AP/BP, dates of NGS testing, mutational and cytogenetic data, and survival status. We defined multi-hit TP53 as presence of =/>2 TP53mut, VAF > 50% or TP53 mutation + 17p deletion. Additional cohorts of pts with HMR mut (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, U2AF1, SRSF2 as per MIPSS70v.2) from MSH and non-TP53+ pts from the MPN-Research Consortium Tissue Bank were used as comparator arms. Patient characteristics were compared between TP53 single-hit and multi-hit using Chi-Sq test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare leukemic transformation and OS, respectively, between groups. Successive VAF levels with minimum groups of 25% of the total cohort were used to identify an optimal VAF cut-off. Results Of the 2583 MPN pts from MSH and MSK, 66 pts (2.6%) were found to have a TP53 mutation. Including 8 additional pts from UMiami, we analyzed a total of 74 TP53+ MPN pts; 40 single-hit and 34 multi-hit. Median age at MPN diagnosis was 61 years with a male predominance (60%). Distribution of driver mut was similar in single-hit vs multi-hit cohort with JAK2V617F being the most common (58%), whereas 11% of pts had triple negative disease . Thrombotic history was available for 45 TP53+ pts, with a high frequency of venous/arterial thrombosis (21/45 or 46.7%) in the TP53+ group as compared to 18.5% in the non-TP53+ MPN cohort (p= 0.0001). A significantly higher number of multi-hit TP53+ pts had a concurrent complex karyotype (79% vs 24% in single-hit; p<.001). MPN diagnosis at the time of detection of TP53+ was ET/PV (25.7%), MF (44.6%), MDS/MPN overlap syndrome (6.8%), MPN-U (2.7%) and MPN-AP/BP (20.3%), respectively. One or more genetic samples with TP53+ was available prior to transformation to MPN-AP/BP in 77% of pts (21/34 multi-hit; 36/40 single-hit) while a TP53+ was detected at the time of MPN-AP/BP diagnosis in the rest. Multi-hit TP53+ was associated with a significantly higher incidence of transformation to MPN-AP/BP as compared to single-hit; [65% vs 17.5%; HR=4.08 (1.71-9.71), p=0.0015]. Compared with HMR mut, multi-hit (HR=2.41; p=0.004) but not single-hit (HR=0.53; p=.277) TP53+ MPN pts were found to have a significantly increased risk of MPN-AP/BP transformation. One-year OS from the time of mutation detection was significantly inferior for both multi-hit (53.3%) and single-hit (75%) TP53+ pts as compared to HMR mut (98.8%, p=<.001). Cut-point analysis identified VAF >36% to be associated with the highest risk of transformation (HR=3.08) with lowest p-value (0.002). Conclusions Multi-hit TP53 alterations are associated with a significantly increased risk of leukemic evolution as compared to previously validated HMR mut, whereas both multi and single-hit TP53 mut are associated with worse OS highlighting the importance of TP53 in MPN disease progression.

Background: Physical function (PF) is an important outcome that can inform cancer treatment tolerability from a clinical and regulatory perspective. PF can be assessed through different modalities: patient-reported (PRO), clinician-reported (ClinRo), performance tests (PerfO), and digital sensors (wearables). No standard approach for PF measurement has been defined, and each modality bears unique implementation challenges. The Integrating 4 Measures to Assess Physical Function study (In4M, NCT05214144) characterized the performance of these PF modalities in patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, with a goal of guiding an assessment strategy in future cancer trials. Here we present feasibility results of the In4M study in patients with lymphoma. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study with longitudinal PF assessment of PROs, ClinRo, PerfO, and wearable sensor data for over 9 months in patients initiating chemotherapy for lymphoma or breast cancer at Mayo Clinic and Yale University. Patient-reported PF was assessed using several validated ePRO instruments, ClinRo utilized clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, PerfO was measured via 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and digital sensor data was obtained from a wearable (Fitbit) provided to all participants. We evaluated the feasibility of implementing these PF modalities through compliance outcomes and a study-specific exit survey. Descriptive statistics included medians and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies for categorical variables. We used a mixed model to estimate mean number of Fitbit compliant days per week. Results: Among 66 patients with lymphoma in the study (median age was 57 years; 52% were male), 90% self-reported as White, 4.9% as Black, 1.6% as Asian, 1.6% as American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1.6% as multiple races. Ethnicity was reported as non-Hispanic/Latino by 93% of patients. Education status was reported as more than high school by 92% of patients, and 49% reported full-time employment at time of enrollment. The overall ePROs completion rate was 80.7% for the entire study period. Baseline ePRO completion rate was 93.9%. Completion rate while undergoing chemotherapy was 91.3% and 75.4% in the post-treatment follow-up. The median time to complete ePROs was 4.1 minutes (IQR 2.8-5.9), ranging from 3.1 minutes for surveys with 37 questions to 5.6 minutes for surveys with 55 questions (survey length varied by timepoint). The baseline 6MWT was completed by 91% of patients. The most common reasons for not completing the baseline 6MWT were: patient refusal (50%, 3/6), patient not physically present (33%, 2/6), and unable to complete due to fatigue (17%, 1/6). The 3-month 6MWT was completed by 66% (40/61) of patients, with the most common reasons for missingness being: patient not physically present (38%, 8/21) and unable to complete due to fatigue (14%, 3/21). When considering the days when Fitbit was used, the median wear time was 21.3 hours (IQR 18.9-22.5) per day. The proportion of compliant days (>10 hours of wear time during waking hours) was 53% (IQR 20-84). The median of participants' average compliant days per week was 5.4 (IQR 4.3-6.1) days/week after enrollment, with a slight downward trend over time (-0.017 compliant days per week [95% CI: -0.021, -0.012, p <0.001] over each consecutive week in the study). The exit survey was completed by 39 (59%) patients. Most participants (85%) indicated they did not find the ePRO surveys burdensome to complete. Using the Fitbit (charging and syncing) was found to be manageable by most patients (87% and 84%, respectively). 60.8% of patients did not find the wearable bothersome to use, while the main themes reported by the remaining patients were related to the operation of the wearable itself (functions, small text size, forgetting login information) or discomfort (band material, wearing at night). Conclusion: Multi-modal assessment of PF with PRO, ClinRo, PerfO and wearable sensor data in patients with lymphoma undergoing treatment is feasible. Designing lymphoma therapeutic trials that incorporate at least one PF assessment modality, or assessment with a parsimonious combination of modalities, is achievable and may yield valuable insights into treatment tolerability for clinical and regulatory purposes.

AbstractBackgroundCALGB 30610 trial demonstrated that once daily thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) was not superior compared to standard twice daily TRT, in patients with limited stage small cell lung cancer. Quality of life outcomes may help oncologists decide the best treatment approach.MethodsA total of 417 patients on CALGB 30610 participated in the quality‐of‐life substudy (CALGB 70702), which included the FACT Trial Outcome Index‐Lung Cancer (FACT‐L TOI), FACT‐Esophageal Cancer (FACT‐E) Eating and Swallowing Indices, ECOG Acute Esophagitis Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), difficulty swallowing, EQ‐5D, and treatment convenience assessment at baseline, 3, 5, 7, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after starting TRT. Primary end points included FACT‐L TOI and FACT‐E at 12 weeks. Mean changes from baseline were compared between arms using general linear mixed models.ResultsFACT‐L worsening was more in the twice daily arm at week 3 (–1.0 vs. –7.0). FACT‐L TOI worsening was less at week 3 (–2.9 vs. –7.6) and greater at week 12 (–7.6 vs. –2.8) in the once daily arm. The once daily arm had a lower EQ‐5D index worsening at 3 weeks (0.01 vs. –0.02). Increase in acute esophagitis score (1.06 vs. 2.89; p < .001) and difficulty swallowing (0.39 vs. 1.14) were greater in the twice daily arm at week 3. A total of 74.5% of patients on the once daily arm felt that treatment was convenient, compared to 67% of patients in the twice daily arm (p = .03).ConclusionsThe once daily arm had better quality‐of‐life scores earlier during treatment and was perceived to be more convenient.

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 Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often collected in cancer clinical trials. Data obtained from trials with PROs are essential in evaluating participant experiences relating to symptoms, financial toxicity, or health-related quality of life. Although most features of clinical trial design, implementation, and analyses apply to trials with PROs, several considerations are unique. In this paper, we focus on specific issues such as selection of the tool, timing and frequency of assessments, and data collection methods. We discuss how the estimand framework can be used in connection with PROs, properties of common estimation methods, and handling of missing outcomes. With a plethora of literature available, we aim to summarize best practices and pragmatic approaches to the design and analysis of the studies incorporating PROs.

Abstract Background The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document detailing core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials, including physical function (PF). This study aimed to develop analytic methods and visualizations of patient-reported PF in patients with cancer. Methods We applied an estimand framework to a patient-reported tolerability endpoint to develop data summaries cross-sectionally and over time, along with visualizations. We accomplished this through iterative feedback with clinicians, statisticians, and FDA stakeholders using three clinical trial datasets in hematologic malignancies. Graphical approaches were applied to three datasets in hematologic malignancies: (1) patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms enrolled in MPN-RC 111/112 trials completed EORTC QLQ-C30 over 12 months; (2) patients with hematologic malignancies undergoing CAR-T cell therapy or autologous transplant who completed FACT questionnaires over 6 months; and (3) patients with multiple myeloma or amyloidosis who completed the PROMIS-29 questionnaire over 6 months. Zoom polls were administered to two stakeholder groups (clinicians/clinical investigators and patient advocates) to elicit feedback. Results Visualizations included stacked bar charts, line plots of arithmetic mean changes from baseline, pie charts, waffle plots, and waterfall plots of PF data. Graphics considered scaled scores and individual items and included delineation of PRO completion rate at each time point. Confidence intervals and reference lines were included as applicable, and colorblind accessible colors were implemented to ensure inclusivity of all visualizations. Data summaries over time reporting “worst” change were difficult to interpret. In terms of stakeholders’ preference, patients preferred stacked bar charts while clinicians equally favored stacked bar charts and line plots; both patients and clinicians preferred waterfall plots to pie charts. Patient feedback highlighted the need for various graphics to convey group level trends and granular individual-patient level information. Conclusion Patient-reported PF informs the evaluation of treatment tolerability in cancer trials. Data summaries and visualizations of physical function developed through an iterative process were reviewed favorably by patients, clinicians and FDA stakeholders in this study. Future work to systematically assess accuracy of interpretation of the various analytic and visualization methods is a necessary next step across clinical, regulatory, payer and patient stakeholders. Trial registration NCT01259817, NCT01259856

Objective: To assess the effect of a practice-level preoperative frailty screening and optimization toolkit (OPTI-Surg) on postoperative functional recovery and complications in elderly cancer patients undergoing major surgery. Background: Frailty is common in older adults. It increases the risk of poor postoperative functional recovery and complications. The potential for a practice-level screening/optimization intervention to improve outcomes is unknown. Methods: Thoracic, gastrointestinal, and urologic oncological surgery practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) were randomized 1:1:1 to usual care (UC), OPTI-Surg, or OPTI-Surg with an implementation coach. OPTI-Surg consisted of the Edmonton Frail Scale and guided recommendations for referral interventions. Patients 70 years old or above undergoing curative intent surgery were eligible. The primary outcome was 8 weeks postoperative function (kcal/wk). The key secondary outcome was complications within 90 days. Mixed models were used to compare UC to the 2 OPTI-Surg arms combined. Results: From July 2019 to September 2022, 325 patients were enrolled in 29 practices. One hundred ninety-nine (64 UC, 135 OPTI-Surg) and 279 (78 UC, 201 OPTI-Surg) were evaluable for primary and secondary analysis, respectively. UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in total caloric expenditure (2.2 UC, 2.0 OPTI-Surg) after adjusting for baseline function (P=0.53). UC and OPTI-Surg patients did not significantly differ in postoperative complications (25.6% UC, 35.3% OPTI-Surg, P=0.5). Conclusions: Frailty assessment was successfully performed, but the OPTI-Surg intervention did not improve postoperative function nor reduce postoperative complications compared with UC. Future analysis will explore practice-level factors associated with toolkit implementation and the differences between the coaching and noncoaching arms.

Abstract Background The PALLAS trial investigated the addition of palbociclib to standard adjuvant endocrine therapy reduces breast cancer recurrence. This pre-specified analysis was conducted to determine whether adjuvant palbociclib benefited patients diagnosed with lower risk stage IIA disease compared to those with higher stage disease. Methods PALLAS was an international, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase III trial, representing a public-private partnership between Pfizer, the Austrian Breast Cancer Study Group and, the U.S. ALLIANCE Foundation. Patients diagnosed with stage II-III, hormone-receptor-positive, HER2/neu negative breast cancer who were within 12 months of diagnosis, and had completed all definitive therapy aside from endocrine therapy, which was started within 6 months prior to study entry. All patients were required to submit a formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tumor block. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard adjuvant endocrine therapy (of physicians’ choice) for at least 5 years with or without 2 years of Palbociclib, administered orally at a starting dose of 125 mg daily, given for 21 days followed by a 7-day break. Results A total of 5,796 patients with HR+/HER2- early breast cancer (including 1,010 with stage IIA) were enrolled. Median follow-up was 50 months for stage IIA patients and 43.1 months overall. In the stage IIA cohort, four-year iDFS in the palbociclib arm was 92.9% versus 92.1% for ET alone (HR 0.75, 95%CI 0.48–1.19, p = 0.23). There was no differential benefit by histologic grade, chemotherapy receipt, age, or anatomic/clinical risk. Additionally, no benefit to palbociclib was seen in this cohort in invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS), locoregional relapse-free survival (LRFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), or overall survival (OS). For the stage IIB/III patients, 4-year iDFS was 85.3% for palbociclib + ET versus 83.6% for ET alone (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77–1.07, p = 0.24). Conclusions and Relevance: While there were substantial differences in outcome for stage IIA versus IIB/III patients at 4 years of follow-up, the addition of 2 years of palbociclib did not improve outcomes for patients, regardless of stage. Trial Registration: The study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov on July 31, 2015, and was assigned the clinical trial number (NCT02513394).