Mead‐Harvey, Carolyn

Abstract BACKGROUND Cognitive symptoms are common among cancer patients treated with intracranial radiation but inadequately assessed and suboptimally treated, owing in part to the time-consuming and resource-intensive nature of formal neuropsychological testing. Through remote administration of brief cognitive assessments and symptom-directed interventions, decentralization uniquely addresses this problem. METHODS In this single-site phase 2 fully decentralized clinical trial (NCT06377696), patients treated with radiation therapy (RT) for primary or metastatic brain tumors undergo cognitive evaluations with the application, Mayo Test Drive, and the Short Test of Mental Status (STMS; via telehealth or in person), at baseline and every three months for one year. Participants are provided wearable devices for health promotion. Half the participants are randomized to metformin to evaluate this agent’s efficacy in treating RT-related cognitive symptoms. Target enrollment is 100 participants. RESULTS Seventy-three patients (median age 45.5, 46% female) with brain tumors who received RT were enrolled May 2024 to May 2025. In this unplanned interim analysis, we evaluated the impact of decentralization on study participation. Thirty-six participants (49%) reported a primary residence greater than 150 miles from our institution. Seven patients were consented remotely, the remainder in person. Of 380 study-related visits (201 STMS, 179 treatment toxicity checks) 216 (57%) were completed by telehealth. Thirty-two of 336 (9.5%) study-related lab draws were completed at locations outside our institution. Wearable device data was continuously collected, with median 3022 steps tracked per patient per day on study. 190/250 (76%) quality-of-life surveys sent digitally were completed to date. CONCLUSION Decentralization implemented as part of this clinical trial enabled participation despite significant distance from our institution and facilitated study-related assessments through digital solutions, eliminating the need for travel. Our findings demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a fully decentralized supportive care trial in neuro-oncology, which can increase participation and accelerate evaluation of novel therapeutics.

Abstract BACKGROUND Access to in-person evaluations is challenging for patients with glioma due to disease-related disability and distance from specialized neuro-oncology centers. Telehealth is an alternative to in-person evaluations, but acceptability of and therapy compliance with this model has not been prospectively evaluated. METHODS In this single-arm non-randomized pragmatic clinical trial, we compared patient satisfaction with telehealth and in-person assessments among patients with glioma undergoing chemotherapy with temozolomide. Participants acted as their own controls, alternating between telehealth and in-person visits. Patient satisfaction with care delivered was evaluated by Press-Ganey surveys with Likert response scales (1-5, 1=very poor, 5=very good). A digital pill diary (DPD) was implemented to track chemotherapy compliance. RESULTS We accrued 30 patients (median age 59, 38% female) between October 2024 and May 2025. Half of the patients (n=15) reported a primary residence greater than 150 miles from our institution. Surveys from 25 participants were reviewed, with 17/25 completing one or more surveys following an in-person visit, and 21/25 completing one or more surveys following a telehealth visit. Overall average Press-Ganey scores were similar between the two visit modalities with high scores (telehealth=4.8; in-person=4.7). Median scores for specific modalities were similarly highly rated: likelihood of recommending practice to others (telehealth=5.0; in-person=5.0), concern the care provider showed (telehealth=5.0, in-person=4.7), provider’s discussion of treatment options (telehealth=5.0, in-person=5.0), provider effort to include patients in decision-making (telehealth=5.0, in-person=5.0). DPDs used to monitor treatment compliance indicated adherence to all prescribed doses of temozolomide in 75/79 cycles; the other 4 (of 79) treatment cycles were halted per provider instructions. CONCLUSION This interim assessment demonstrates feasibility of treating patients with similar patient satisfaction of care delivered between telehealth and in-person visits. The DPD was effective in tracking chemotherapy administration. Additional results including visit type preference and acute care utilization data are maturing.

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.

Background/Objectives: Autoimmune inner ear disease (AIED) causes sensorineural hearing loss that classically presents as fluctuating, asymmetric loss of hearing. Associated vestibular and other ear symptoms can be present in many patients. First-line treatment of AIED is high-dose corticosteroids. AIED can present either as a primary condition limited to ear involvement or secondary, as part of an underlying systemic autoimmune rheumatic disease, the most common of which include vasculitis and relapsing polychondritis. We described our cohort of primary AIED, including demographics, treatment, and outcomes. We excluded from this review sensorineural hearing loss in the context of vasculitis and relapsing polychondritis. Methods: We performed a chart review of patients with the diagnosis of AIED at Mayo Clinic and compared the cohort by sex. Results: Thirty-one patients met the inclusion criteria. The mean age was 48.5 years, and 17 were men. Patients were initially evaluated at the Department of Otorhinolaryngology or Internal Medicine, and 29 patients were subsequently referred to the Department of Rheumatology, with a mean of 12.2 weeks after the first evaluation. Treatment with corticosteroids showed improvement in hearing and vestibular symptoms during the first month but no further improvement by the end of the third month. Other immunosuppressive medications were used with various degrees of response. Methotrexate was the second most used therapy, with 11 of 17 patients reporting an improvement in symptoms. Conclusions: Corticosteroid therapy is an effective initial treatment for AIED and should be followed with corticosteroid-sparing agents to prevent further damage to the cochlea.

TPS2099 Background: Gliomas are the most common primary central nervous system (CNS) malignancy in adults, accounting for 26.3% of all brain tumors. Care at high volume centers is associated with an overall survival benefit, but access to in-person evaluations can be challenging due to disease-related neurological disability and loss of income. Telehealth represents a convenient and efficient alternative to in-person evaluations, but acceptability and comparative safety of this care delivery modality has not been prospectively evaluated among glioma patients undergoing chemotherapy. Methods: This single-arm non-randomized pragmatic clinical trial evaluates patient satisfaction with, and safety of video-enabled telehealth assessments compared to in-person evaluations for patients with glioma undergoing temozolomide chemotherapy. The study includes adult patients with a diagnosis of glioma requiring adjuvant temozolomide chemotherapy. Participants act as their own controls, alternating between in-person and telehealth assessments while undergoing chemotherapy dosed per standard of care. Monitoring labs are completed locally and transmitted electronically. For participants without access to Wi-Fi or a device (e.g. mobile phone or computer), cellular-enabled tablet devices are provided to facilitate appointments and completion of electronic study components. All participants who travel to in-person appointments are reimbursed for travel expenses. The primary outcome measure is patient satisfaction with care delivered, as measured by institutional Press-Ganey survey scores obtained following telehealth and in-person assessments. A key secondary outcome measure is completion rate of planned oral chemotherapy, tracked using a digital pill diary incorporated into our institutional electronic health record. The digital diary allows real-time tracking of chemotherapy adherence and adverse events experienced by participants. Other secondary outcomes include acute care utilization days following telehealth and in-person visits (defined as emergency department evaluations and days of inpatient stay), neurologic disability as measured by the Neurologic Assessment in Neuro-Oncology (NANO) scale, and disease related quality of life measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30. All participant surveys are self-reported and completed electronically. This decentralized pragmatic clinical trial provides unprecedented, prospective real-world data on utilization of telehealth services compared to in-person visits for patients undergoing chemotherapy for glioma. We expect the data generated to inform the design and conduct of future decentralized interventional neuro-oncology trials. NCT06625047 opened for enrollment in October 2024, 16 of 30 intended participants were accrued as of January 2025. Clinical trial information: NCT06625047 .

Context.— A monthly pathology journal club has met for 24 years. It was established to help members stay apprised of the literature relevant to diagnostic pulmonary pathology. Objective.— To assess whether the journal club met its goal and to report on opportunities identified for improvement. Design.— To determine whether articles chosen for discussion as opposed to notation were more significant, Scopus citation indices for article types reviewed from January 2007 to November 2023 were compared. A survey of current faculty was undertaken to determine if the club was meeting expectations and to identify improvement opportunities. Results.— Articles from January 2007 to November 2023 included 858 discussed and 3385 noted. Mean (SD) citation count was 103.0 (409.80) for discussion and 64.9 (259.77) for notation articles ( P < .001). The citation count was noticeably right skewed, as articles with high citation counts inflated the mean. Members were mostly satisfied with the way the journal club was structured and managed. Members most valued the summary of the articles, followed by the live discussion. Opportunities for improvement included decreasing the number of journals scanned, decreasing detail in summaries, and using generative artificial intelligence (AI) to facilitate summary generation. A pilot using AI anecdotally reduced preparatory time, but the human-edited summary included more specific context, critical commentary, and enhanced take-home messages, providing a more nuanced analysis. Conclusions.— The journal club met its initial goal. Opportunities for improvement have been identified including the use of generative AI to facilitate article summarization.

Objectives To compare postoperative complication rates of patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) with patients without MetS after holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) for management of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Patients and Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients aged >40 years who underwent HoLEP at our institution from 2007 to 2022. Criteria for MetS were diagnoses of at least three of the following: diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, or obesity (body mass index ≥30 kg/m 2 ). Uni‐ and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare the likelihood of immediate, 30‐day, and 90‐day complications between groups. Results A total of 1500 patients were included with a median (interquartile range) age of 70 (65–76) years. Patients with MetS were more likely to develop complications at both 30 and 90 days, including urinary incontinence, irritative voiding symptoms, and bleeding ( P < 0.001). After adjusting for potential confounders, patients with MetS had a greater than three times odds of both 30‐ and 90‐day complications compared to patients without MetS (30‐day adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.21–5.01, P < 0.001; and 90‐day aOR 3.64, 95% CI 2.49–5.31, P < 0.001). Conclusion Metabolic syndrome was associated with a three‐fold likelihood of 30‐ and 90‐day complications after HoLEP. This could be an important factor to consider in preoperative counselling and patient selection.

Objective: Pulmonary involvement is commonly observed in anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV), presenting with manifestations such as diffuse alveolar hemorrhage, inflammatory infiltrates, pulmonary nodules, and tracheobronchial disease. We aimed to identify distinct subgroups of tracheobronchial disease patterns in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibody (ANCA)-associated vasculitis (AAV) using latent class analysis (LCA), and to evaluate their clinical characteristics and outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged >18 years diagnosed with AAV and tracheobronchial disease between 1 January 2002 and 6 September 2022. Patients with follow-up <6 months were excluded. LCA was employed to identify disease subtypes based on 10 pre-defined indicators. Maximum likelihood estimation with 10 repetitions per model ensured robustness in model selection, guided by the Akaike information criterion (AIC). Patient and disease characteristics were summarized and compared across predicted classes. Statistical analyses included Kruskal–Wallis and Fisher’s exact tests for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. The primary outcome was time to relapse of the tracheobronchial inflammation after starting immunosuppressive medication, analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method and log-rank tests. Secondary outcomes included severity of pulmonary disease on pulmonary function tests, endoscopic interventions, tracheostomy, or mortality during follow-up. Results: Among 136 identified AAV patients assessed for tracheobronchial involvement, 111 (81.6%) were included after excluding 25 without tracheal or bronchial disease. Predominant findings included subglottic stenosis (91.0%), lower tracheal stenosis (16.2%), and bronchial stenosis (17.1%). LCA identified a three-class model as optimal: tracheal predominant (n = 94), tracheobronchial (n = 12), and bronchial predominant (n = 5). Tracheal predominant patients showed reduced risk of ear, eye, and lower respiratory manifestations, with milder obstruction on pulmonary function testing (PFT). Tracheobronchial-class patients were prone to saddle nose deformity (50%), extensive lower respiratory involvement (91.7%), and renal disease (66.7%). Bronchial predominant patients exhibited severe obstructive disease (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1)% predicted: 58, IQR 34–66; FEV1/forced vital capacity (FVC) ratio: 56.9, interquartile range (IQR) 43–63.3) but lacked systemic AAV manifestations. LCA classes did not predict outcomes such as endoscopic intervention, tracheostomy, recurrent tracheobronchial narrowing, or mortality. Conclusion: LCA shows promise in subtype stratification of AAV patients, yet its utility in predicting outcomes and guiding treatment remains limited based on our analysis. Future studies with enhanced phenotypic data and larger cohorts are warranted to improve predictive accuracy.

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.

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.