Mitchell, Sandra A.

Background/Objectives: The PRO-CTCAE Average Composite Score (ACS), calculated as the mean of PRO-CTCAE composite scores, summarizes overall symptom and side effect burden. This study evaluated the test–retest reliability, responsiveness to change, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to group differences in the ACS. Methods: Analyses used the original PRO-CTCAE validation dataset, including lung (n = 174), breast (n = 222), and head and neck (n = 139) cancer cohorts, and data from the COMET-2 randomized phase III trial comparing cabozantinib (n = 53) and mitoxantrone–prednisone (n = 54) in men with previously treated prostate cancer. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from two-way mixed-effects models for agreement. Responsiveness was evaluated by relating ACS change scores (Visit 1 minus follow-up Visit 2) to patient-reported global ratings of change (GRC; worsened, unchanged, or improved) using standardized response means (SRMs) and Jonckheere–Terpstra trend tests. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing mean ACS values between ECOG performance status groups (0–1 vs. 2–4). Sensitivity to treatment group differences was assessed using model-based area-under-the-curve (AUC) comparisons of longitudinal ACS trajectories. Results: Test–retest reliability was acceptable, with ICCs among GRC-defined stable patients of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70–0.87) in lung cancer, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77–0.89) in breast cancer, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63–0.86) in head and neck cancer; ICCs based on assessments completed one day apart ranged from 0.88 to 0.90. The ACS demonstrated responsiveness, with SRMs of 0.30/0.15/−0.37 (lung), 0.29/0.14/−0.40 (breast), and −0.01/−0.20/−0.56 (head/neck) for improved/no-change/worsened groups, respectively, and significant monotonic trends across GRC categories (all p < 0.01). Known-groups validity was supported by conceptually expected differences in ACS values across distinct levels of self-reported patient-reported physical functioning and ECOG performance status categories. Mean ACS values were lower among patients with good versus limited physical functioning (0.71 vs. 1.23 in lung cancer, 0.52 vs. 1.19 in breast cancer, and 0.69 vs. 1.29 in head and neck cancer) and among patients with ECOG PS 0–1 versus 2–4 (0.93 vs. 1.31, 0.74 vs. 1.22, and 0.90 vs. 1.06, respectively). In COMET-2, higher symptom burden was detected in the cabozantinib arm compared with the mitoxantrone–prednisone arm (AUC difference = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.2–2.8, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The ACS demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, responsiveness, and known-groups validity across multiple cancer populations. These findings support its use as a complementary summary measure of overall symptomatic adverse event burden alongside individual symptom-level analyses.

Background: The PRO-CTCAE provides patient-reported data on symptomatic AEs. A summary metric—the ACS—reflecting total AE burden can be calculated by averaging AE-level composite scores at a given timepoint for each participant. This study investigated the psychometric properties and interpretability of this PRO-CTCAE ACS in patients with breast, lung, or head/neck cancers. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a PRO-CTCAE validation dataset comprising 940 adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02158637). We focused on empirically recommended symptom terms for three cancer sites. Analyses included Spearman’s correlations, coefficient alpha, and eigenvalues from the correlation matrices, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to assess ACS interpretability in the lung cohort. Results: Mean composite score inter-correlations were moderate (0.30–0.35), and coefficient alphas were high (0.81–0.91). Eigenvalue ratios and CFA supported retention of a single factor/component, with suitable model fit indices. ACS correlated highly with factor scores and the first principal component from the PCA. Reduced sets of terms produced reliable scores that closely approximated the full set scores and aligned with external criteria. LPA in the lung subgroup identified four latent classes; ACS differentiated high vs. low symptom burden groups but did not distinguish the two groups expressing distinct symptom profiles. Conclusion: The ACS demonstrated structural validity through adequately fitting linear factor models and effectively summarized symptomatic AE burden. However, similar ACS values may mask clinically distinct symptomatic AE profiles, underscoring the value of both summary metrics and profile-based approaches.

AbstractCancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium’s conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Electronic health record–linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. Methods Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). Results Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. Conclusion Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record–based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

PURPOSE The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.