Blinder, Victoria

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.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

11106 Background: Patients with cancer take different types of medication (e.g., enteral, parenteral), with varying treatment schedules, in various settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medication in response to toxicity. To measure medication nonadherence in this heterogenous population, we modified and pilot-tested a self-report measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral medication, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence), in adults with cancer. Methods: Participants were ≥21 years, on active cancer treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and spoke English and/or Spanish. A branching logic was added to allow participants to select the setting where they take cancer medication: 1) only at home, 2) only in clinic, or 3) partly at home/partly in clinic. Based on administration setting, participants reported nonadherence to medications their clinician expected them to take over a given reference period (1 week for home and 1 month for clinic medications). Participants then reported on setting-relevant reasons for nonadherence. Survey instructions/items were refined in an iterative process using feedback from a patient investigator committee and participant cognitive interviews. During interviews, we asked participants about the interpretation of instructions/items, recall period, and comprehensiveness of reasons for nonadherence, regardless of their own adherence. After initial testing in English, a Spanish version was developed through transcreation. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence vs. any nonadherence). For all participants who received clinic medications, concordance between chart abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. Results: Of 55 participants who completed the surveys and interviews (67% in English; 33% in Spanish), 87% were female and 44% identified as Latino. The majority (73%) had breast cancer; 60% had metastatic disease. 12 of 45 who received medication in clinic reported nonadherence as did 8 of 35 who took medication at home. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both recall periods. All reasons for nonadherence were perceived as relevant to themselves or other patients. There was 89% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted adherence for clinic-administered medication. To improve concordance, changes were made to the formatting and instructions. Of 12 participants who completed the final version of the survey for clinic-administered medication, there was 100% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted nonadherence. Conclusions: Our results support the reliability and validity of modified DOSE-Nonadherence for cancer patients. This instrument can be used to better identify nonadherence to cancer medications in a population of adult patients with cancer receiving various treatment regimens.

Abstract Background: Patients with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than patients who have a pathologic complete response (pCR). Escalation of therapy in patients with RD using post-neoadjuvant T-DM1 has become the new standard of care, leading to improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes, and central nervous system recurrences are a challenge. More effective treatment strategies are urgently needed. Alliance A011801 (CompassHER2 RD) is an escalation trial for patients with high-risk HER2+ RD after neoadjuvant systemic therapy, evaluating the addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to post-neoadjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Patients with high-risk HER2+ RD (i.e., ER-, node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1 + placebo, vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of paclitaxel and trastuzumab +/- pertuzumab. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (~15-30% will be participants in the CompassHER2 pCR de-escalation companion trial [NCT04266249]; these patients must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801). Patients who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is improved with addition of tucatinib to T-DM1 in patients with HER2+ EBC with RD after neoadjuvant systemic therapy; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in patients with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints are also being evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-), and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 patients; activation and estimated completion dates are 01/6/21 and ~ 01/2028. Accrual as of 7/10/2023: 438 patients. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Citation Format: Ciara O'Sullivan, Karla Ballman, Linda McCall, Tyler Zemla, Anna Weiss, Melissa Mitchell, Victoria Blinder, Nadine Tung, William Irvin, Myounghee Lee, Sailaja Kamaraju, Matthew Goetz, W. Fraser Symmans, Virginia Borges, Ian Krop, Ann Partridge, Lisa Carey. A011801 (CompassHER2 RD): Postneoadjuvant T-DM1 + tucatinib/placebo in patients with residual HER2-positive invasive breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl):Abstract nr PO3-18-11.

PURPOSE Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices ( P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

180 Background: Financial toxicity affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with decreased treatment adherence and poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate financial toxicity among patients undergoing cancer treatment. We evaluated the effect of monthly patient-reported financial toxicity screening as part of a larger digital monitoring intervention. Methods: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (“PRO practices”) or usual care (“control practices”). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys containing symptom, functioning, and financial toxicity screening questions for up to one year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the EORTC QLQ-C30 (“Has your physical condition or medical treatment caused you financial difficulties?”), at any time compared to baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. Results: 1,191 patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared to 39.0% of patients treated at control practices (p = 0.01). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that financial toxicity screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. Conclusions: Screening for financial toxicity as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduces the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

TPS595 Background: Patients (pts) with HER2+ early breast cancer (EBC) and invasive residual disease (RD) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) have a higher risk of relapse than pts with a pathologic complete response (pCR). Post neoadjuvant T-DM1 has improved invasive disease-free survival (iDFS), but pts with estrogen receptor (ER)-negative or nodal RD have suboptimal outcomes and recurrences in the central nervous system are a problem. More effective treatment strategies are needed. The CompassHER2 trials, EA1181 and A011801, leverage pCR to tailor post neoadjuvant therapy in HER2+ EBC. EA1181 is a NAT de-escalation trial of a taxane, trastuzumab and pertuzumab (THP) in clinical stage II-III HER2+ EBC; pts with a pCR complete HP +/- adjuvant radiation (RT) +/- endocrine therapy (ET). A011801 is an escalation trial for pts with high risk HER2+ RD after NAT, examining addition of the HER2 selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) tucatinib to adjuvant T-DM1. Methods: Eligibility and Intervention: Pts. with high-risk HER2+ RD (e.g. ER-,node-positive, or both) after a predefined course of neoadjuvant HER2-directed treatment are randomized 1:1 to adjuvant T-DM1+ placebo (pb), vs. T-DM1 and tucatinib with adjuvant RT +/- ET. Eligibility criteria include completion of ≥ 6 cycles of NAT, including ≥ 9 weeks of T and H +/- P. All chemotherapy (CT) must be completed preoperatively unless participating in EA1181 (̃15-30% enrollees); these pts must receive postoperative CT to complete ≥ 6 cycles prior to enrollment on A011801. Pts who received prior HER2-targeted TKIs or antibody-drug conjugates are ineligible. Objectives: The primary objective is to determine if iDFS is higher with addition of T-DM1 to tucatinib in pts with HER2+ EBC with RD after NAT; secondary endpoints include overall survival, breast cancer free survival, distant recurrence-free survival, brain metastases-free survival and disease-free survival. Correlative objectives include the association of i) tumor infiltrating lymphocyte (TILs) levels in the primary tumor and RD with iDFS, ii) TILs with tucatinib benefit, iii) iDFS and circulating tumor cells (CTC) at serial timepoints and iv) the magnitude of benefit of tucatinib (iDFS) in pts with/without detectable pretreatment CTCs. Quality of life and pharmacokinetic endpoints will also be evaluated. Statistics: A011801 is a prospective, double-blind, randomized, phase III superiority trial; stratified by i) receipt of postoperative CT (Y/N), ii) hormone receptor-status (+/-),and iii) pathologic lymph node status (+/-). The study targets an absolute difference of 5% in iDFS (control vs. experimental arm 82% & 87%, HR = 0.7), with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and power of 80%. The sample size is 981; target accrual = 1031 pts; activation and completion dates are 01/6/21 and ̃ 01/2028. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882; Seagen Inc; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04457596 Clinical trial information: NCT04457596.