Citations

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.

9001 Background: Ginseng is popularly used as a treatment for fatigue, one of the most common and disabling symptoms in people diagnosed with cancer. It is termed an “adaptogen”, thought to help the body combat negative effects of stress. This trial was to evaluate 2,000 mg American Ginseng versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue (CRF). Methods: Patients with cancer undergoing or having completed curative intent treatment and experiencing fatigue, rated at least 4 on a numeric analogue fatigue scale (1-10) for ≥1 month, were eligible. Exclusion criteria included CNS lymphoma, brain malignancies, or prior use of ginseng or chronic systemic steroids. Other etiologies for fatigue, such as pain and sleep, were also excluded. Patients were randomized to receive, in a double blind manner, 2,000 mg/d of American Ginseng or placebo in BID dosing for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in the general subscale of the Multidimensional Fatigue Symptom Inventory (MFSI) at 4 weeks. Other MFSI subscales and the fatigue-inertia subscale of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) were also analyzed. Data were transformed to a 0-100 scale. Results: 364 patients were enrolled from 10/2008 to 07/2011. Data at 4 and 8 weeks are provided for several fatigue endpoints in the table below; higher numbers are better. Mental, emotional and vigor subscales of the MFSI were not significantly different between arms. There were no statistically significant differences in any grade of toxicity or self reported side effects between ginseng and placebo. Conclusions: This trial provides data to support that American Ginseng reduces general and physical CRF over 8 weeks without side effects. The treatment did not provide significant reductions in fatigue at 4 weeks and did not impact mental, emotional, and vigor dimensions of fatigue. [Table: see text]

6133 Background: Patient (pt) trial experience may give insight to quality of life (QOL) factors affecting accrual, retention and outcome. While pts are vital to clinical trial success, we know little about their post-trial opinions. This trial examined pt opinion of their trial and treatment decision making (TDM). Methods: Pts enrolled on designated North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) phase II or III treatment trials completed the TDM Control Preferences Scale at baseline and the Was It Worth It (WIWI) satisfaction assessment at the ends of cycle 1 and active protocol treatment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of pts reporting worthwhile participation. Fisher Exact tests compared pt opinion across subgroups. Results: As of 01/15/2012, 264 pts were enrolled on 25 protocols and treated at 79 sites. 86% of pts were in phase II studies and 89% had stage IV disease. At the end of cycle 1, pts felt the trial was worthwhile (74%), would do it again (85%), and would recommend it to others (82%). 85% of pts reported undiminished QOL and only 7% rated the trial worse than expected. End of treatment responses were similar. Satisfaction rates varied by tumor site (p=0.04). 11% of pts having tumor response rated the trial as not worthwhile, and 66% of pts with progressive disease rated it worthwhile (see table). Pts with concordant preferred and actual TDM roles rated participation higher than pts with discordant TDM roles (see table). Conclusions: Most pts endorsed their clinical trial experience. Contrary to popular beliefs, treatment outcome did not have an overwhelming impact on pt satisfaction, and was just one of many factors such as TDM role discordance. Assessing pt satisfaction will inform future study design that can potentially improve pt accrual and retention. [Table: see text]

6108 Background: This pilot study evaluated whether providing clinicians with patient(pt) QOL results and symptom management pathways linked to QOL domains at the time of clinical appointment would result in improvement in QOL and treatment (tx) satisfaction. The objective was to obtain preliminary effect size estimates and logistical evidence for design of a larger, definitive trial. Methods: Oncology pts receiving 5-7 weeks of radiotherapy (RT) electronically completed QOL assessments (LASA) at baseline and biweekly prior to seeing clinicians. Was It Worth It (WIWI) and Interpersonal Patient-Provider Relationship (IPPRS) were measured at tx end. Pt endpoints (pro-rated primary endpoint LASA area under the curve (AUC), LASA changes from baseline, and WIWI responses) and clinician endpoints (IPPRS) were compared between the control group (Phase 1: no QOL feedback) and the intervention group (Phase 2: QOL feedback) via Wilcoxon, Chi-square and Fisher Exact tests. There was 80% power to detect a 10 point difference in average AUC. Results: 148 pts enrolled (79 Phase 1, 69 Phase 2) from 11/28/2008 to 09/20/2011 (sites GI (27%), Lung (22%) and Head and Neck (52%)). 68% received RT and chemo. There were consistently moderate effect sizes observed but no statistically significant differences in any AUC nor end of tx change from baseline scores. 20% fewer pts in phase 2 reported clinical deficits in overall QOL (pain). In pts receiving 7 weeks of RT, end of tx average overall QOL, mental well-being (WB), physical WB and pain severity were significantly better in Phase 2 pts. WIWI results showed 76% found participation worthwhile, 95% would participate again, and 92% would recommend the study to others. No differences between groups were found in communication between clinicians and pts (IPPRS). Conclusions: Preliminary estimates indicate potentially clinically significant improvements of moderate effect size in mental and physical WB and pain severity when clinicians received QOL real time with symptom management pathways. Further study is warranted in larger trial setting.

3617 Background: In metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), previous studies suggested potential relationships between certain drug metabolizing (DM) genes (DPYD, ERCC2, GSTP1 and TYMS) and QOL prior to receipt of chemotherapy (Sloan, Plenary Session ASCO 2004). The current study is the first to examine relationships between similar DM genes and QOL in stage III CC pts. Methods: 1,583 CC pts on a randomized adjuvant stage III, phase III trial received FOLFOX, FOLFIRI, or either +/- Cetuximab. Genomic DNA and baseline QOL data via linear analogue self assessment (LASA) scales with 4 QOL variables were obtained. 53 DM SNPs were selected for known functional effect within potential regulatory sites. Two-sample t-tests assessed differences in QOL between pts with variants and wild-type status. Differences of at least 10 points on a 0-100 point QOL score were considered clinically significant. Results: 14 relationships between DM genes and QOL were detected at the nominal p < 0.05 level; six of these were related to DPYD, ERCC2, GSTP1 and TYMS. Relationships were also observed at the 0.05 level with polymorphisms of genes DPYS, ERCC1, MGMT, MTHFR, OPRT and UGT1A1 based on unadjusted and adjusted association tests. GSTP1 I105V and OPRT 5’UTR 28 A>G markers differed on fatigue scores (p=0.04, 0.005, respectively). Variants on MTHFR R594Q were associated with higher mental acuity scores (p=0.02). These relationships remained after adjusting for age, gender, race, T stage, PS, disease site, lymph nodes involved, and grade. The robustness of the observed associations varied with the multiple comparison adjustment method. Conclusions: Similar to the earlier study of stage IV CRC, we observed a possible relationship in pts with Stage III CC with regard to DM genes and QOL, although these relationships were more modest than observed in Stage IV pts. These DM genes may be in linkage disequilibrium with other genetic variants that more directly affect behavior and QOL. Further genome wide association studies are needed to clarify these relationships.

1557 Background: Peripheral neuropathy (PN), a common and intrusive side effect of chemotherapy in clinical trials, has been assessed via the clinician-rated common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and/or patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (Morton, ASCO, 2005). We assessed the relative sensitivity of CTCAE and PRO measures for evaluating interventions for preventing and ameliorating CIPN. Methods: Data from285 patients in two prevention trials (N05C3, N04C7) and 432 patients from three intervention trials (N00C3, N01C3, N06CA) were analyzed separately. CTCAE version 3.0 item for neuropathy was compared to 2 NCCTG numerical analogue CIPN items, 6 EORTC CIPN20 individual items, 2 McGill Pain Questionnaire items, and one Brief Pain Inventory item. The sample size provided over 80% power to detect a true Spearman rank correlation of 0.15 assessed the relationship between CTCAE and PRO measures. Results: Results from both the prevention and treatment trials were similar in terms of the relationship between the CTCAE and PRO measures. No correlation coefficients between the CTCAE and any of the PRO items at baseline were above 0.35, with the majority around 0.2. Higher scores for the numbness items were observed than for the CTCAE in 47% of the patients at baseline and 39% during treatment in the treatment trials. Many patients had severe numbness PRO scores but mild CTCAE scores (12%) at baseline and (8%) during treatment in the treatment trials. Results for the numbness and tingling PRO measures were redundant. The correlations of the CTCAE with pain were weak, all below 0.35 at baseline with differences as much as 29 points on average on a 0-100 transformed scale. Conclusions: The CTCAE and PRO measures of PN measure different constructs. The CTCAE includes both functional and ADL/motor aspects which may or may not be related to the singular constructs of pain, numbness, tingling, or adjectival characteristics of pain assessed by the PRO measures. The two measures cannot be used in place of each other.

e11051 Background: Limited data exist on patient (pt) experience and work productivity (WP) in MBC. VIRGO is a prospective OCS following >1200 pts with locally advanced or MBC receiving 1st-line hormonal therapy (HT) or chemotherapy (CT) in a real-world setting. We report baseline characteristics of 277 pts from the VIRGO PRO substudy and correlations between health-related quality of life (HRQoL), symptoms, activities of daily living, and WP. Methods: Symptom severity and interference (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory [MDASI]), functional status (Activity Level Scale [ALS] from the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) and WP (Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire) were assessed. Pts rated their HRQoL during the past week on a scale of 0–10. Results: See table. The five most severe symptoms at baseline were fatigue, decreased sexual interest, disturbed sleep, drowsiness, and emotional distress; these were reported with less severity in the HT cohort (24%-37% vs 42%-59%). Overall MDASI severity and interference correlated with WP measures in the CT (R = 0.46 to 0.78) and HT cohorts (0.36 to 0.94). Mean of the five most severe symptoms also significantly correlated with WP indices (R = 0.47 to 0.66). HRQoL correlated (p < 0.05) with all WP measures (R = -0.46 to -0.56) in the CT cohort and with % impairment while working (R = -0.65) and % overall work impairment (R = -0.71) in the HT cohort. In univariate regression analysis, MDASI symptom interference score was the best predictor of reduced WP (R2 = 0.52 while working; R2 = 0.48 for nonwork activities). Conclusions: MBC pts receiving CT and HT report significant work impairment. Results indicate moderate correlations between WP indices, HRQoL and symptom burden. [Table: see text]

9513 Background: The need for more research in N/V control is exemplified by agents that are costly, interfere with cytochrome P450 metabolism, and inadequately address delayed N/V. Based on pilot data, there was justification for evaluating whether gabapentin could improve the prevention of delayed N/V from highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: Patients (pts) about to receive HEC were randomized to prophylactic treatment with 20 mg of dexamethasone (dex) and a 5HT3 receptor antagonist (RA) on the day of chemotherapy, followed by either gabapentin (gaba) 300 mg BID and dex or placebo (plac) and dex. Gaba/plac was started the evening of the day of chemotherapy and continued through day 5 of the first chemotherapy cycle. Dex was given at 8 mg BID days 2-3, then 4 mg BID for day 4, in both arms. The primary endpoint was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications day 2-6, using a nausea and vomiting diary. The percent of CR were compared in each group by Fisher’s exact test. Secondary outcomes included the Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLIE), satisfaction, and a side effect questionnaire. Results: 430 pts were enrolled in this study between 5/2009 and 2/2011. 47% of pts in the gaba arm and 41% in the plac arm had a CR (p=.23). At some time during days 2-6, 30% in the gaba and plac arms experienced emesis, and 45% and 53% in the gaba and plac arms, respectively, took rescue medication. Mean diary nausea scores over days 2-6 ranged from 0.9 – 1.2 (gaba arm) and 1.0-1.3 (plac arm)(7 = the worst); mean number of diary emetic episodes ranged from 0.1 -0.3 (gaba arm) and 0.1-0.2 (plac arm). The FLIE was not significantly different between arms. Mean vomiting satisfaction was 9.1 in both arms and for nausea was 8.3 for gaba, 8.1 for plac (10= totally satisfied). There were no significant differences in toxicities by CTCAE provider grading or by self-report. Conclusions: In this study, gaba did not improve delayed N/V. Overall, there was little emesis and nausea severity was low. Patients were satisfied with the control of their N/V, irrespective of arm. The use of standard prophylactic guidelines that include a 5HT3RA and dex provided good control of N/V for most patients. Clinical trial information: NCT00880191.

10554 Background: Age at diagnosis is a prognostic factor in patients with RMS. We sought to determine whether AYA with metastatic alveolar (ARMS) or embryonal (ERMS) RMS had a different failure-free survival (FFS) compared to younger patients, and to identify treatment related factors that may be associated with outcome. Methods: COG ARST0431 patients were reviewed. The incidence of toxicities (AE, grade3/4 using CTCAEv3) by age was determined in 4 reporting periods (RP: wks 1-6; RP2:7-19; RP3: 20-34; RP4: 35-54). The AEs in younger patients (<=13 years) were compared with those in AYA. Fisher’s exact test was used to compare differences between the groups. Results: Of 109 patients, 60 (55%) were AYA. In RP1, they were more likely to have nausea/vomiting (4.1 vs. 16.9%, p=0.06), pain (6.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.05), and metabolic disturbances (4.1 vs. 20.3%, p=0.02) compared to younger patients. In RP4, older patients trended to have less infection (15.8 vs. 30.1, p=0.07). All other toxicities were similar between the two age cohorts in the other RPs. AYA were less likely to complete therapy (52 vs. 73%, p=0.03) and more likely (in RP 4) to have unplanned dose modifications (outside of protocol guidelines) (23 vs. 2.7%). Of patients that completed therapy, there was no age-related difference in the time to completion. As shown in the table, younger patients had better 3-yr FFS, driven by a lower FFS for AYA with ARMS. Conclusions: This evaluation suggests that AYA with RMS were less likely to complete therapy and experienced a higher prevalence of pain and nausea compared to younger patients; the role of reporting bias and reasons for treatment discontinuation need further study. Children were more likely than AYA to have infection. Inferior FFS was only seen in AYA with ARMS suggesting a clear need for novel therapies for these patients. This study may be underpowered to demonstrate significant differences in other toxicities or in FFS among ERMS patients. [Table: see text]

6533 Background: Although it can be rewarding, caring for patients with cancer is also demanding and stressful. Oncologists work long hours, supervise administration of highly toxic therapy, and continually observe death and suffering. While isolated studies have explored burnout in national samples of U.S. oncologists (last in 2003), little is known about the personal and professional characteristics related to burnout and career satisfaction. Methods: Between October 2012 - January 2013, ASCO conducted a national surveyof ~3000 U.S. oncologists evaluating burnout and career satisfaction. The survey sample was constructed from the member registry to include an equal number of men/women and an equal proportion of individuals from all career stages (<10 yrs, 10-19 yrs, >20 yrs). Validated tools were used to assess burnout and well-being. Results: As of January 2012, 1041 (35%) oncologists had returned surveys (median age 52 years; 50% women). Among responders, 355 (34%) were in academic practice (AP) and 447 (43%) in private practice (PP) with the remainder in other settings (e.g. military, veterans, industry). Oncologists worked an average of 51 hours/week and saw a mean of 51 outpatients/week. Although average hours worked for oncologists in PP and academic practice were similar (AP=54.6/wk; PP=54.2/wk), profound differences in other practice characteristics were observed with respect to sub-specialization (AP=81%; PP=17%), time devoted to clinical care, patients seen per week (AP=37; PP=74), time devoted to education, and method of compensation. Relative to 2011, 23% of oncologists reported a >10% decline in take home pay in 2012 (>10% decline AP=8%; PP=34%). Overall, 454 (45%) of oncologists had at least one symptom of burnout (e.g. emotional exhaustion, depersonalization) on the Maslach Burnout Inventory (AP=47%; PP=51%; p=0.19). While a majority were satisfied with their career (83%) and specialty (80%) choice, both measures of career satisfaction were lower for PP relative to AP (all p<0.005). Conclusions: Burnout is common among oncologists. Detailed multivariate analyses to identify personal and professional characteristics associated with burnout and career satisfaction are underway and will be presented.