Kluetz, Paul Gustav

PURPOSE Despite evidence of diagnostic accuracy but unclear long-term clinical benefit, national utilization patterns of prostate-specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) are undefined. METHODS We conducted a serial cross-sectional study to evaluate the use of PET imaging among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer using administrative claims from deidentified Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis database. Eligible patients included prevalent and incident prostate cancer cases. We calculated the proportions undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2024. We examined the association between regional-level contextual sociodemographic and health care characteristics, and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2024. RESULTS A total of 514,750 male beneficiaries age 40-89 years with prostate cancer were identified between 2016 and 2024. The proportion of individuals with prostate cancer undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [95% CI, 4.1 to 4.9] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 77.6 (95% CI, 76.2 to 79.1) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. Increases in PET were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET following approval in 2021, which increased from 0.8 (95% CI, 0.6 to 0.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2021 to 77.0 (95% CI, 75.5 to 78.5) per 1,000 in the second half of 2024, P < .001. PSMA-PET use in 2024 was higher in regions with greater education (99.3 v 114.6 per 1,000 in lowest [Q1] v highest [Q4] educated) and income (95.4 v 112.3 per 1,000 in Q1 v Q4 income) measures, P < .001. CONCLUSION PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice among commercial insurance beneficiaries with prostate cancer with higher adoption in geographic regions with higher income and education.

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 (&gt;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 &lt;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.

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

AbstractBackgroundThe use of electronic health record (EHR) data for research is limited by a lack of structure and a standard data model. The objective of the ICAREdata (Integrating Clinical Trials and Real‐World Endpoints Data) project was to structure key research data elements in EHRs using a minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE) data model to extract and transmit data.MethodsThe ICAREdata project captured two EHR data elements essential to clinical trials: cancer disease status and treatment plan change. The project was implemented in clinical sites participating in Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology trials. Data were extracted from EHRs and sent by secure Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resource messaging (a standard for exchanging EHRs) to a database. Selected elements were compared with corresponding data from the trial's electronic data capture (EDC) system, Medidata Rave.ResultsBy December 2023, data were extracted and transmitted from 10 sites for 35 patients, involving 367 clinical encounters across 15 clinical trials. Data through March 2023 demonstrated that concordance for the elements treatment plan change and cancer disease status was 79% and 34%, respectively. When disease evaluation was reported by both EHR and EDC (n = 15), there was 87% agreement on cancer disease status.ConclusionsDocumentation, extraction, and aggregation of structured data elements in EHRs using mCODE and ICAREdata methods is feasible in multi‐institutional cancer clinical trials. EDC as a reference data set allowed assessment of the completeness of EHR data capture. Future initiatives will focus on elements with shared definitions in clinical and research environments and efficient workflows.Plain Language Summary Clinical trials use electronic case report forms to report data, and data must be manually entered on these forms, which is costly and time consuming. ICAREdata methods use structured, organized data from clinical trials that can be more easily shared instead having to enter free text into electronic health records.

1564 Background: Physical function (PF) is a core outcome in cancer trials that can inform treatment tolerability. PF can be assessed across modalities including by patient (pt) report, clinician (clin) report, performance tests and digital sensors. The optimal approach for PF measurement has not been defined. Methods: In4M is a prospective observational study evaluating PF in pts initiating chemotherapy for breast cancer or lymphoma followed over 9 months. We used an electronic platform (Hugo) to aggregate serially assessed pt-reported PF, clin- and pt-reported ECOG performance status (PS), 6-minute walk test (6MWT) and wearable (Fitbit) data. We evaluated feasibility in all pts; associations among PF measures and the ability of PF measures to detect change were evaluated in pts with both baseline (BL) and 3-month (3M) data. We used Pearson correlations to assess the relationship of average daily steps with measures of PF. To assess change, we compared each PF measure from BL to 3M using a 2-sided α=.05 paired t-test. Results: Of the208 pts enrolled, 193 (93%) and 159 (76%) completed surveys, and 121 (58%) and 124 (60%) provided wearable data (evaluable: ≥1 day data) at BL and 3M, respectively. When requiring a stringent BL with 4+ days of data with ≥1 weekend day to be evaluable, 88 (42%) and 120 (58%) provided wearable data at BL and 3M. At both BL and 3M, pt-reported PF was generally more highly correlated with wearable-derived daily steps than clin-reported PF and 6MWT were (Table). Significant declines in PF were observed for pt- and clin-reported PF (all p<0.05), but not other modalities. Conclusions: Longitudinalassessment of multi-modal PF data including pragmatic wearable data collection was feasible in pts receiving chemotherapy. Pt-reported PF was the only modality that was both correlated with step count and able to detect change. Additional wearable metrics, correlations among PF measurements and outcomes, and clinically meaningful change scores will be reported. Optimal PF measurement may improve future reporting of treatment tolerability. Clinical trial information: NCT05214144 . [Table: see text]

34 Background: Prostate specific membrane antigen positron emission tomography (PSMA-PET) imaging improves prostate cancer visualization and has been proposed as a tool to guide treatment decisions. As PSMA-PET imaging agents were not approved in the United States (US) until December 2020, little is known about national patterns of PET imaging utilization. Methods: We conducted a dynamic cohort study to evaluate use of PET imaging among insurance beneficiaries aged 40-89 years with a diagnosis of prostate cancer using deidentified administrative claims from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis. We calculated the proportions of patients undergoing PET imaging in semiannual periods from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2022, examining tracers specific to prostate cancer, including PSMA-targeted agents as well as fluciclovine, sodium fluoride, and choline tracers. Cochran-Armitage tests were used to evaluate trends in the proportion of individuals receiving PET imaging over time. We also assessed the association between regional [hospital referral region (HRR)] level contextual sociodemographic and healthcare characteristics and regional use of PSMA-PET imaging in 2022 using chi-square tests. Results: There were 410,505 beneficiaries with prostate cancer identified in the study period. The semiannual proportion of patients undergoing PET imaging increased from 4.5 [(95% confidence interval (CI) 4.1-5.0] per 1,000 in the first half of 2016 to 41.7 (95% CI 40.6-42.9) per 1,000 in the second half of 2022, p<0.001. Increases in PET imaging were driven by uptake of PSMA-PET imaging, which increased from 0.7 (95% CI 0.6-0.9) per 1000 in the second half of 2021 to 37.5 (95% CI 36.4-38.6) per 1,000 in the second half of 2022, p<0.001. Following approvals of PSMA-PET agents, other forms of PET imaging rapidly decreased – from 18.2 (95% CI 17.4-18.9) per 1000 in the second half of 2021 to 4.6 (95% CI 4.3-5.0) per 1,000 in the same period of 2022, p<0.001. Compared to HRRs in quartile 1 (Q1), HRRs in Q4 of PSMA-PET use in 2022 had higher levels of education (25.0% with college education or higher in Q1 versus 29.4% in Q4, p=0.005) and median household income ($50,200 in Q1 versus $60,900 in Q4, p<0.001). Conclusions: In this study from a large commercial US health insurer, PSMA-PET was rapidly incorporated into clinical practice and is now the dominant prostate cancer radiotracer. However, the initial uptake of PSMA-PET may be accompanied by disparity, as our data suggests less use in areas with lower income and education measures.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.