Schrag, Deborah

PURPOSE Remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve symptom control and physical function among patients with advanced cancer. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are similar across demographic groups. This exploratory analysis of the PRO-TECT trial examined whether the effects of electronic symptom monitoring varied by race, age, sex, and educational attainment. METHODS PRO-TECT was a cluster randomized trial conducted across 52 US community oncology practices comparing weekly electronic symptom monitoring with usual care (UC). Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors receiving systemic therapy were enrolled (N = 1,191). Participants in the PRO arm completed weekly symptom surveys including the PRO-CTCAE, triggering alerts to the care team for severe or worsening symptoms. Patients chose whether to complete weekly PROs online or via telephone-based interactive voice response not requiring Internet access. Outcomes were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 symptom control and physical function scales. Subgroup analyses were performed by race (Black v White), age (<65 v ≥65 years), sex (male v female), and educational attainment (≤high school v >high school). RESULTS From baseline to 3 months, PRO participants showed greater improvements in symptom control (+2.37 v −0.20, P = .002) and physical function (+1.54 v −0.93, P = .02) versus UC. Benefits were most pronounced among younger, female, Black, and less educated participants. Black participants in the PRO arm were more likely to report that symptom reporting made them feel more in control of their care compared with White participants. CONCLUSION Electronic symptom monitoring improved quality-of-life outcomes overall, including among groups who have historically experienced higher symptom burden or barriers to communication. Remote PRO systems may represent an equitable strategy to enhance cancer care delivery.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) shows marked heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, from indolent to highly aggressive disease. Alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and DNA damage repair genes are linked to poor patient outcomes, yet how the interaction and co-occurrence of these alterations impact prognosis remains unclear. We leveraged the AACR Project GENIE prostate cancer cohort to assess the prognostic impact of individual and concomitant gene alterations, focusing on key PC drivers (BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, RB1). METHODS: the study was conducted in two stages: (i) identification of candidate alterations at individual gene level through a systematic literature review, followed by analyzing the prevalence and co-occurrence of genes in the AACR Project GENIE Public Release (PR) dataset. (ii) Prognostic analysis of the pre-selected biomarkers in the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative (BPC) cohort. Analyses were performed in three clinical settings (entire BPC cohort, n=1114; subgroup of patients with localized disease at diagnosis, n=837; and subgroup of patients with metastatic PC with a biopsy collected before or at the time of mPC, n=455) using two statistical approaches: univariate analysis (UA) and inverse probability weighting using propensity scores (PS). Cox models were applied to estimate overall survival hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: after integrating the findings from the systematic review with the analysis of the GENIE PR (n=5684), 107 individual genes and 122 co-occurring alterations were selected for study. In the GENIE BPC (n=1114 patients) 75% were M0 at diagnosis, and 67% presented metastatic PC at any time. Alteration prevalence was: TP53, 25%; PTEN, 15%; BRCA2, 4%; RB1, 4%; co-alterations included, PTEN-TP53 (6.4%), RB1-TP53 (2.1%), PTEN-RB1 (1.3%), and BRCA2-TP53 (1.2%). All four key genes showed a statistically significant prognostic impact in the entire cohort with UA (BRCA2, HR:1.9; TP53, HR:2.6; PTEN, HR:2.4; RB1, HR:4.1, all p&lt;0.001). Results were consistent in the subgroup analysis and when using PS. Additional genes such as FANCA, PIK3CA, and MYC were also associated with poor outcomes. Among co-alterations, BRCA2-TP53 (HR:2.0, p=0.05), RB1-TP53 (HR:3.6, p&lt;0.001), PTEN-TP53 (HR:2.4, p&lt;0.001); PTEN-RB1 (HR:5.5, p&lt;0.001), and PTEN-TP53-RB1 (HR:9.0, p&lt;0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor survival, with consistent effects across subgroups and analytical methods. Other combinations including MYC-TP53 (HR 2.2, p&lt;0.001) and PIK3CA-TP53 (HR 3.2, p&lt;0.001), also showed independent prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and BRCA2, alone and in combination, independently associate with poor prognosis. Co-alteration patterns such as PTEN-TP53-RB1 define aggressive molecular subsets. This evidence supports integrating genomic interaction patterns for enhancing clinical risk models and guiding precision patient management. Furthermore, this study highlights the potential of AACR Project GENIE to enable data-driven development of biomarker-informed patient care strategies. Citation Format: Pablo Cresta Morgado, Victor Navarro, Guillermo Vilacampa, Haitham Alatoom, Manuel Ramos del Rio, Irbaz Riaz, Shawn Sweeney, Nikolaus Schultz, Ken Kehl, Gregory Riely, Wasim Abida, Katherine Panageas, Deborah Schrag, Philippe Bedard, Christine Micheel, Xindi Guo, Chelsea Nayan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Joaquin Mateo. Genomic prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer from the AACR GENIE cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment; 2026 Jan 20-22; Philadelphia PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(2_Suppl):Abstract nr A013.

Abstract Blood-based multicancer early detection (MCED) tests represent a new approach for cancer detection. To gain insights into the utility of various approaches of evaluating a cancer signal detected (CSD) test result, we evaluated diagnostic journeys of a subset of 6,662 participants in PATHFINDER who had a CSD on both an initial and refined version of an MCED test that also provided a prediction of cancer signal origin (CSO). We sought to determine whether CSO prediction–guided diagnostic evaluations led to diagnostic resolution; whether participants with known risk factors for cancer beyond age alone and a negative initial diagnostic evaluation had a cancer diagnosis during study follow-up; the utility of whole-body imaging in reaching diagnostic resolution; and differences in the diagnostic journeys needed to reach diagnostic resolution for both true- and false-positive results. Of the 39 participants in this analysis, 82% (32/39) achieved diagnostic resolution after the initial evaluation, including 78% (25/32) who reached resolution specifically with a CSO prediction–directed workup. Eighteen percent (7/39) required additional evaluation for persistent clinical suspicion of cancer, all of whom achieved resolution (3 with and 4 without cancer). Whole-body imaging contributed to diagnostic resolution in only 49% of CSD cases. Approximately 90% of true- and false-positive cases had imaging tests; more true positives versus false positives (81.0% vs. 38.9%) had nonsurgical and/or surgical procedures. In conclusion, CSO prediction–directed evaluations enabled diagnostic resolution for most participants, although some with negative initial evaluations but persistent suspicion of cancer required additional testing. Prevention Relevance: MCED testing has the potential to increase detection of cancer at earlier stages. As MCED testing is a new technology, there are few data on the diagnostic journeys patients undergo following testing. We observed that for most patients, CSO prediction–directed workups were efficient, leading to diagnostic resolution after initial evaluation.

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.

Abstract Background Guidelines for follow-up after locoregional breast cancer treatment recommend imaging for distant metastases only in the presence of patient signs and/or symptoms. However, guidelines have not been updated to reflect advances in imaging, systemic therapy, or the understanding of biological subtype. We assessed the association between mode of distant recurrence detection and survival. Methods In this observational study, a stage-stratified random sample of women with stage II-III breast cancer in 2006-2007 and followed through 2016 was selected, including up to 10 women from each of 1217 Commission on Cancer facilities (n = 10 076). The explanatory variable was mode of recurrence detection (asymptomatic imaging vs signs and/or symptoms). The outcome was time from initial cancer diagnosis to death. Registrars abstracted scan type, intent (cancer-related vs not, asymptomatic surveillance vs not), and recurrence. Data were merged with each patient’s National Cancer Database record. Results Surveillance imaging detected 23.3% (284 of 1220) of distant recurrences (76.7%, 936 of 1220 by signs and/or symptoms). Based on propensity-weighted multivariable Cox proportional hazards models, patients with asymptomatic imaging compared with sign and/or symptom detected recurrences had a lower risk of death if estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) negative, HER2 negative (triple negative; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.54 to 0.99), or HER2 positive (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.33 to 0.80). No association was observed for ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative (HR = 1.14, 95% CI = 0.91 to 1.44) cancers. Conclusions Recurrence detection by asymptomatic imaging compared with signs and/or symptoms was associated with lower risk of death for triple-negative and HER2-positive, but not ER- or PR-positive, HER2-negative cancers. A randomized trial is warranted to evaluate imaging surveillance for metastases results in these subgroups.

Abstract Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758

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.

Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.