O’Mara, Ann M.

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.

Abstract Although recent scientific advances have improved our understanding of basic biological mechanisms underlying chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), few interventions are available to prevent or treat CIPN. Although some biological targets from preclinical studies show promise in nonhuman animal models, few targets have been translated to successful clinical trials. To address this problem, the National Cancer Institute’s Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened a meeting of experts in the CIPN and oncology symptom management fields to participate in a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM). Investigators presented data from preclinical and translational studies for possible CIPN interventions; these were evaluated for readiness of randomized clinical trial testing by experts, and recommendations were provided. Breakout sessions were convened to discuss and develop future studies. The CTPM experts concluded that there is compelling evidence to move forward with selected pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. Several key feasibility issues need to be addressed, however. These include identification of optimal outcome measures to define the CIPN phenotype, establishment of parameters that guide the evaluation of clinically meaningful effects, and adoption of approaches for inclusion of translational and biomarker and/or genetic measures. The results of the CTPM provide support for conducting clinical trials that include both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches, alone or in combination, with biomarkers, genetics, or other measures designed to inform underlying CIPN mechanisms. Several working groups were formed to design rigorous CIPN clinical trials, the results of which are ongoing.

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.

Background In view of the large number of families engaged in caregiving, this study was initiated to describe informal cancer care provision from the perspective of the caregiver. Methods A professional data collection site was used to convene focus groups in four cities. Participants included 63 caregivers, 87% of whom were female, mean age of 56 years. Caregivers responded to an open-ended question regarding the challenges of providing care. The study utilized qualitative analysis of verbatim transcripts. Transcript coding with four independent raters, using an iterative process, achieved a high inter-rater reliability. Results The project elucidates self-reported concerns confronted in cancer caregiving. Five primary themes emerged: supportive care demands, emotional toll, impact on health status, coping strategies, and rewards and affirmation. Providing supportive care introduced a balancing act in caregivers’ lives as they attempted to address complex and overlapping roles. They felt alone in their decisions, were under-prepared for tasks they assumed, and tried to shield the care recipient. Conclusions This qualitative approach confirmed past research while identifying novel concepts related to maintaining well-being and a sense of purpose despite caregiving hardships. Some aspects of caregiver suffering were identified. Caregiver self-regulation strategies revealed by this work suggest ideas for psychosocial interventions caregivers could use to protect themselves and the care recipient from impending distress.

BACKGROUND A set of common cancer‐related and treatment‐related symptoms has been proposed for quality of care assessment and clinical research. Using data from a large, multicenter, prospective study, the authors assessed the effects of disease site and stage on the percentages of patients rating these proposed symptoms as moderate to severe. METHODS The severity of 13 symptoms proposed to represent “core” oncology symptoms was rated by 3106 ambulatory patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung, regardless of disease stage or phase of care; 2801 patients (90%) repeated the assessment 4 to 5 weeks later. RESULTS At the time of the initial assessment, approximately 33% of the patients reported ≥ 3 symptoms in the moderate‐to‐severe range; 11 of the 13 symptoms were rated as moderate to severe by at least 10% of all patients and 6 were rated as moderate to severe by at least 20% of those receiving active treatment. Fatigue/tiredness was the most severe symptom, followed by disturbed sleep, pain, dry mouth, and numbness/tingling. More patients with lung cancer and patients receiving active treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms. Percentages of symptomatic patients increased by disease stage, less adequate response to therapy, and declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms were stable across both assessments. CONCLUSIONS The results of the current study support a core set of moderate to severe symptoms that are common across outpatients with solid tumors, that can guide consideration of progression‐free survival as a trial outcome, and that should be considered in clinical care and in assessments of quality of care and treatment benefit. Cancer 2013;119:4333–4340 . © 2013 American Cancer Society .