Langlais, Blake

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.

Abstract Background This secondary analysis of a phase I clinical trial illustrates integrated summary and visualization of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) data and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) data at baseline and through the first cycle of treatment for tolerability review during dose-cohort evaluation in a phase I trial. Methods This study uses data from a phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed a summary of cycle 1 PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data for the first dose-level cohort. This summary is intended to demonstrate reporting that would be reviewed to inform a decision about proceeding to the next dose level in a dose escalation trial. Results Cycle 1 CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE data for 4 patients enrolled in the first dose cohort are summarized as narrative and tabular summaries and visualized using swimmer and butterfly plots. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one CTCAE grade 3 or higher adverse event, and all 4 (100%) patients had at least one PRO-CTCAE composite score of 3 during cycle 1. All 4 (100%) patients had at least one symptom for which PRO-CTCAE suggested greater symptom burden than was reflected in CTCAE. Conclusions In this illustrative summary of a dose cohort, PRO-CTCAE complemented CTCAE reporting by capturing patient-reported symptomatic burden that was not always fully reflected by clinician-graded adverse events. Reviewing PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data together during dose-cohort evaluation may enrich discussions on safety and tolerability in phase I trials.

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.

Abstract The Patient‐Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO‐CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute to allow patients to directly report their side effects, enhancing the accuracy and patient‐centeredness of cancer clinical trial adverse event reporting. Clinician‐based reporting often misses the full range of patient symptoms, resulting in underreporting of side effects. The selection of adverse events for patient reporting must be defined in advance and consistently applied across all study arms. Investigators can use core symptom sets, including diarrhea, fatigue, and nausea, alongside tailored items specific to the treatments being studied. PRO‐CTCAE has demonstrated similar scores across electronic, paper‐based, and automated telephone administration methods. PRO‐CTCAE administration typically occurs before start of treatment and regularly throughout treatment, with the administration frequency tailored to the expected trajectory of side effects. Ensuring high survey completion rates is essential for PRO‐CTCAE success. Standard reporting can include tabular reporting of the proportion of patients with any (score ≥1) and high (score ≥3) levels of symptoms at the individual item level. A baseline‐adjustment approach should be applied to account for symptoms before start of treatment to isolate treatment‐emergent adverse events. The distribution of PRO‐CTCAE scores at each time point can be visualized using stacked bar charts. PRO‐CTCAE integration into cancer clinical trials is crucial for capturing a comprehensive range of treatment‐related symptomatic adverse events and improving the evaluation of therapy tolerability. Ongoing research continues to refine its implementation, supported by regulatory guidance.

Purpose: To evaluate the role of women physicians in thyroid eye disease (TED) research and clinical care and describe relevance for academic medicine and patient access. Methods: A cross-sectional study of TED-related publications indexed on PubMed in 2000, 2010, and 2020, and of completed or currently active clinical trials was conducted. Author, journal, and principal investigator (PI) characteristics were noted. Author/PI gender was determined from institutional profile or subsequently via a previously described Google-based algorithm. American Society of Ophthalmic Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (ASOPRS), American Board of Ophthalmology (ABO), and American Thyroid Association (ATA) information was obtained via direct communication. Trends in participation of men and women were evaluated. Results: A total of 444 manuscripts (61 from 2000; 117 from 2010; 266 from 2020) were included. The percentage of women as first and senior authors increased from 2000 to 2020 (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0003, resp.). First author gender distribution was near equal in 2020 (52.6% men, 47.4% women [p = 0.39]), whereas senior authors remained mostly men (68.0% men, 32.0% women [p < 0.0001]). As of 2020, the gender imbalance of senior authors was greater on multidisciplinary author teams (74.8% men, 25.2% women) compared with single specialty author teams (62.2% men, 37.8% women). Of the 98 TED-related clinical trials included, 34 had women PIs (35%). The percentage of women as members in ASOPRS, ABO, and ATA all increased significantly from 2000 to 2020, but remained disproportionately men in 2020 (all p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Gender-based discrepancies persist in TED research, especially among senior authors, who determine research direction, and on multidisciplinary teams, which reflect the preferred model of care. Further efforts are required to determine whether these findings affect patients with TED.

AbstractINTRODUCTIONWe previously demonstrated that single‐domain amnestic mild cognitive impairment (SDAm‐MCI) detected through longitudinal neuropsychological testing in our research cohort is less severe than in clinically incident symptomatic individuals. This study aims to replicate and expand this work using a National Alzheimer's Coordinating Center dataset.METHODSParticipants were classified into two groups: those enrolled with normal cognition (Normal Enrollees) and those enrolled with SDAm‐MCI (Amnestic Enrollees). Groups were compared at the time of diagnosis and on rates of cognitive decline post‐diagnosis.RESULTSAt SDAm‐MCI diagnosis, Normal Enrollees were 17% to 39% less impaired on memory tasks, after which the slope of change over time steepened compared to their pre‐symptomatic change and was steeper than in Amnestic Enrollees.DISCUSSIONIncident MCI detected through longitudinal neuropsychological testing is initially milder but may progress more steeply than in clinically established MCI. Sensitive assessment of cognitive decline is essential for capturing early changes that are more likely to be amenable to therapeutic treatment.Highlights Longitudinal cognitive evaluation detects symptomatic Alzheimer's disease earlier than mental status exams. At the time of diagnosis, converters were less impaired compared to initially symptomatic patients. Converters’ cognition declined more steeply than initially symptomatic patients. Sensitive cognitive tests are essential to capture early changes, given new disease‐modifying therapies.

Introduction: Phase I trials are designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability of new treatments. Review of adverse events (AEs) experienced by trial participants is a critical aspect of these early phase trials. Current practice for safety and tolerability data collection is for clinicians to evaluate AEs using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Past work has demonstrated that clinicians may miss or underreport symptomatic AEs. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) is an item library of questions for patients to self-report symptomatic AEs in clinical trials that is complementary to the CTCAE. PRO-CTCAE offers a patient-centric method for capturing symptomatic AEs, which may be missed or underreported by clinicians. The PRO-CTCAE library includes questions using patient friendly terms to assess frequency, severity, and interference of symptomatic AEs on 0-4 verbal descriptor scales (e.g., severity is rated by patients as none, mild, moderate, severe, or very severe). The goal of the current work was to demonstrate how to incorporate AE information from PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE into a Phase I dose review report. Methods: We used data from a Phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Therapy was administered on 28-day cycles. Patients completed questionnaires on an electronic device on days 1, 8, 15, and 22 of the first cycle of treatment. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed an example dose review report. The report summarized data for one dose level in which 4 patients were treated. These 4 patients comprised the first patient cohort enrolled in the available Phase I clinical trial. The report was intended to be representative of the type of report that would be reviewed to make a decision about the next dose level for a new cohort of patients. Results: The final dose review report included narratives for each patient generated by the statistical team based on patient-reported and physician-graded AEs in cycle 1, tabular summaries integrating CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE, and novel graphical presentation of PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE, including swimmer plots and butterfly plots for symptoms listed as dose limiting toxicity criteria. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one grade 3+ AE, as assessed by CTCAE, and 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one score 3 symptomatic AE, as assessed by PRO-CTCAE. All 4/4 (100%) patients had at least one reported symptom on the PRO-CTCAE that was not captured by CTCAE or was reported at a lower grade by CTCAE. Multiple versions of the example dose review report were presented to the study team and iterative feedback was solicited from clinicians and statisticians. Feedback highlighted the usefulness of narratives and patient-level graphical displays. Narratives within the dose review report were refined to focus on treatment emergent AEs, minimizing text and succinctly presenting baseline symptoms where relevant. Symptom-level graphics of combined PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE grades were preferred over graphics consolidating data for multiple symptoms. Final graphics and report will be presented. Conclusions: We demonstrated that PRO-CTCAE, which captures patient-reported symptoms, complements traditional AE reporting and that reporting PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE jointly in a Phase I dose level report can provide a more complete picture of safety and tolerability in the Phase I setting.

Introduction TP53 alterations (TP53+) are seen in &lt;5% of patients (pts) with chronic myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) but are more common in accelerated/blast phase (MPN-AP/BP) [Luque Paz D, et al 2020]. While pts with low-burden TP53+ (Variant allele frequency (VAF) &lt;5%) may remain stable for years [Kubesova et al, 2018]; biallelic loss of TP53 is thought to confer higher risk for progression [Li et al, 2022] and worse overall survival (OS) than non-TP53+ pts [Rolles et al, 2023]. However, TP53 abnormalities have not been incorporated into currently utilized molecular based prediction models (MIPSS or MIPSS70) or compared with currently validated high molecular-risk (HMR) mutations (mut). We report the outcomes of the largest cohort of TP53+ MPN pts to date in comparison with HMR mut, and identify a VAF cut-off associated with highest risk of progression to MPN-AP/BP. Methods We retrospectively reviewed 2583 MPN pts from Mount Sinai Hospital (MSH) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) with at least one next generation sequencing (NGS) performed. Deidentified data from an additional cohort of 8 TP53+ MPN pts was received from University of Miami Sylvester Cancer Center (UMiami). Patient characteristics such as MPN subtype, gender, age at MPN diagnosis, driver mutation, thrombosis history were recorded. We also recorded date of transformation to MPN-AP/BP, dates of NGS testing, mutational and cytogenetic data, and survival status. We defined multi-hit TP53 as presence of =/&gt;2 TP53mut, VAF &gt; 50% or TP53 mutation + 17p deletion. Additional cohorts of pts with HMR mut (ASXL1, EZH2, IDH1/2, U2AF1, SRSF2 as per MIPSS70v.2) from MSH and non-TP53+ pts from the MPN-Research Consortium Tissue Bank were used as comparator arms. Patient characteristics were compared between TP53 single-hit and multi-hit using Chi-Sq test for categorical variables and Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables. Cumulative incidence function and Kaplan-Meier method were used to compare leukemic transformation and OS, respectively, between groups. Successive VAF levels with minimum groups of 25% of the total cohort were used to identify an optimal VAF cut-off. Results Of the 2583 MPN pts from MSH and MSK, 66 pts (2.6%) were found to have a TP53 mutation. Including 8 additional pts from UMiami, we analyzed a total of 74 TP53+ MPN pts; 40 single-hit and 34 multi-hit. Median age at MPN diagnosis was 61 years with a male predominance (60%). Distribution of driver mut was similar in single-hit vs multi-hit cohort with JAK2V617F being the most common (58%), whereas 11% of pts had triple negative disease . Thrombotic history was available for 45 TP53+ pts, with a high frequency of venous/arterial thrombosis (21/45 or 46.7%) in the TP53+ group as compared to 18.5% in the non-TP53+ MPN cohort (p= 0.0001). A significantly higher number of multi-hit TP53+ pts had a concurrent complex karyotype (79% vs 24% in single-hit; p&lt;.001). MPN diagnosis at the time of detection of TP53+ was ET/PV (25.7%), MF (44.6%), MDS/MPN overlap syndrome (6.8%), MPN-U (2.7%) and MPN-AP/BP (20.3%), respectively. One or more genetic samples with TP53+ was available prior to transformation to MPN-AP/BP in 77% of pts (21/34 multi-hit; 36/40 single-hit) while a TP53+ was detected at the time of MPN-AP/BP diagnosis in the rest. Multi-hit TP53+ was associated with a significantly higher incidence of transformation to MPN-AP/BP as compared to single-hit; [65% vs 17.5%; HR=4.08 (1.71-9.71), p=0.0015]. Compared with HMR mut, multi-hit (HR=2.41; p=0.004) but not single-hit (HR=0.53; p=.277) TP53+ MPN pts were found to have a significantly increased risk of MPN-AP/BP transformation. One-year OS from the time of mutation detection was significantly inferior for both multi-hit (53.3%) and single-hit (75%) TP53+ pts as compared to HMR mut (98.8%, p=&lt;.001). Cut-point analysis identified VAF &gt;36% to be associated with the highest risk of transformation (HR=3.08) with lowest p-value (0.002). Conclusions Multi-hit TP53 alterations are associated with a significantly increased risk of leukemic evolution as compared to previously validated HMR mut, whereas both multi and single-hit TP53 mut are associated with worse OS highlighting the importance of TP53 in MPN disease progression.

Background/Aims: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE ® ) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. Methods: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. Results: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event ( r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κ weighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores ( r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event ( r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely ( r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. Conclusions: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.