Denicoff, Andrea

Abstract The increase in the complexity of cancer clinical trials over the past several decades has led to a dramatic growth in trial cost and operational burden. The extent and frequency of data collection, particularly in late-phase trials that enroll many participants, have been major contributors to this problem. The Clinical Trials and Translational Research Advisory Committee of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) recently assessed the effect of these stressors on the NCI National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and recommended that data collection in late-phase NCTN trials be limited to data elements essential to address the primary and secondary objectives of the trial. The purpose of this commentary is to describe the rationale for this recommendation, progress toward implementation, and the development of new streamlined standard practices for data collection for late-phase NCTN trials effective January 1, 2025.

PURPOSE Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

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.

1596 Background: Structured feedback from community oncologists regarding trial design rarely occurs. Survey templates were created to assess trial feasibility, design and scientific interest from the community, with the aim of improving accrual. We report results from a survey regarding redesign of the Phase III CODEL trial for newly diagnosed 1p/19q codeleted AG, which employed this approach. Methods: A field-tested, online survey template was tailored for CODEL and emailed to U.S. and international oncologists. The survey assessed (a) practice changes resulting from ASCO 2012 data from RTOG 9402 (abstract # 2008b) and EORTC 26951 (abstract # 2); (b) scientific interest in a redesigned trial; and (c) potential accrual issues. Respondents reviewed a brief trial concept and answered 15 questions anonymously via a web-based system. Results: 173 oncologists completed the survey over 2 weeks in Sept 2012(48% US, 52% Int’l; 35% med oncs, 31% rad oncs, 29% neuro-oncs). Results from the 2 prior studies substantially influenced clinicians’ treatment decisions for patients with newly diagnosed 1p19q codeleted AG--from only 9% recommending RT+PCV prior to the ASCO reports, to 46% after the results were presented. Previously, 25% recommended RT alone, and after ASCO, no one did. Most indicated strong interest in the revised CODEL research questions, trial design, randomization arms, and in re-opening the revised trial. The most interesting schema was a 3-arm design (selected by 45% of respondents): (RT + procarbazine, CCNU and vincristine chemotherapy [PCV]) vs. (RT + Temozolomide [TMZ]) vs. (TMZ alone), with neuro-oncs (49%) preferring it most, and rad oncs least (36%). The second most interesting choice (27%) was RT+PCV vs. RT+TMZ; the third choice (20%) was RT+TMZ vs. TMZ alone. Most (61%) felt patients would accept any arm. Respondents encountered eligible patients frequently enough to meet projected CODEL accrual goals. Conclusions: Survey findings significantly influenced decisions on how best to redesign the CODEL trial. Rapid, web-based surveys of community oncologists can provide important feedback regarding level of interest, which might facilitate timely accrual and trial completion.

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.

e16569 Background: The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Cancer Trials Support Unit (CTSU) provides access to NCI-sponsored trials. To participate in a multi-center trial, sites must first complete the trial’s Protocol Specific Requirements (PSRs); interested sites are listed as “pending” in the CTSU database until all PSRs are completed. The aim of this investigation was to examine site activation delays for a study with multiple start-up steps and evaluate an intervention directed at helping sites more rapidly open it to patient accrual. Methods: NCCTG N0577, an anaplastic glioma trial named CODEL, was identified as a slow accruing trial with many sites listed as pending activation in the CTSU’s database (>85%; n=227 pending). Most N0577 pending sites had 1-2 incomplete PSRs (with 75% requiring only a neurocognitive certification), and we suspected that sites were not aware of these requirements. To accelerate site activation for N0577, we created an intervention using Awareness Theory. First, N0577 was amended to streamline the neurocognitive certification process. We then generated email lists of the 227 pending sites’ PIs (n=21; note: many were PIs of multiple sites) and their respective administrators (n=46), and created tailored email notices by PSR category explaining the necessary steps to complete N0577 activation at their site or to report their site as not planning to participate. Emails were sent to sites via the CTSU. Results: 31 sites (14%) registered activity for N0577 within 3 weeks of the intervention. Of these, 22 changed status to “approved,” 2 were disapproved, 1 withdrew, and 6 made changes but remained pending. This represents a marked increase (+520%) in site activity of the CTSU Regulatory Support Service (RSS) for N0577, compared with the monthly average (5 events/mo) during the preceding 6 months. Accrual is being monitored to observe for any increases and will be reported. Conclusions: Complicated and incomplete PSRs delay site activation of multi-center trials and may impact accrual. Streamlining PSR processes and early monitoring of CTSU site activation with notifications to sites of outstanding PSRs for trials can increase the timeliness of sites opening trials, with the potential to improve accrual.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute–sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.