Minasian, Lori M.

Abstract Background Reference sets are needed to evaluate performance of multi-cancer detection (MCD) assays. The National Cancer Institute funded the Alliance reference set study to assess MCDs for use in future trials. Methods Individuals with cancer and controls were recruited; blood specimens were collected prior to cancer treatment. A performance evaluation study was designed utilizing reference set samples. Companies (n = 6) were selected to participate based on review of performance data and ability to utilize the blood collection tube. Companies received samples from cancer types their assay was designed to detect (“targeted”), plus additional “non-targeted” and control samples. Companies reported positive/negative calls, risk scores, and tissue-of-origin (TOO) predictions. Sensitivity was computed for early (I-II) and late (III-IV) stage cases, based on positive/negative calls (SEPN) and at fixed 98% specificity (SE98). Specificity and TOO accuracy were computed. Results Five hundred and forty nine cases (encompassing 13 cancer types) and 413 controls from the reference set were included in the study. Companies assessed samples from median 6 (range 5-9) targeted cancer types and median 8 (range: 7-11) overall cancer types. Median (range) specificity was 92.3% (76.5%-98.5%). Median (range) SEPN was 32% (25%-42%) for early stage and 73% (48%-89%) for late stage; while median (range) SE98 was 19% (8%-35%) for early stage and 66% (13%-79%) for late stage. Median sensitivity for non-targeted types was 40% (early stage) and 52% (late stage). Median (range) TOO accuracy (primary predicted site) was 75% (64%-78%). Conclusions Sensitivity and specificity varied widely across assays with early-stage sensitivity substantially lower than late-stage sensitivity. Clinical Trial Registration Number ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT05334069.

Importance Obesity is associated with a higher risk of recurrence, mortality, comorbidities, treatment-related adverse effects, and poor quality of life in patients with breast cancer. Scalable interventions are needed to promote weight loss in this population. Objective To evaluate the impact of a remotely delivered weight loss intervention (WLI) on weight change at 1 year in patients with breast cancer and obesity and to explore factors associated with weight change. Design, Setting, and Participants The Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial is a phase 3, randomized clinical trial evaluating the impact of a telephone-based WLI on invasive disease–free survival and other outcomes in women with obesity and early breast cancer at 637 sites across the US and Canada. Participants were enrolled to the study between August 2016 and February 2021. Participants included women with stage II to III, ERBB2 -negative breast cancer and a body mass index (BMI) of 27 or higher. Interventions Participants were randomized to a 2-year, telephone-based WLI plus health education or health education alone control group. Main Outcome and Measures The primary end point for this prespecified secondary analysis was weight change at 1 year. Weight was measured at baseline and 1 year, and changes in weight were compared between groups. Weight change was evaluated with a linear mixed-effects model including treatment group, weight over time, a time-by-group interaction, menopausal status, race and ethnicity, and hormone receptor status. Results A total of 3180 women with breast cancer and BMI of 27 and higher were included in the study; 1591 were randomized to the WLI and 1589 to the control group. At baseline, the mean (SD) age of participants was 53.4 (10.6), and the mean (SD) BMI was 34.4 (5.6). The racial and ethnic breakdown included 406 (12.8%) Black, 231 (7.3%) Hispanic or Latino, 2906 (91.4%) non-Hispanic, and 2555 (80.3%) White participants. WLI participants lost a mean of 4.3 kg (95% CI 3.9-4.6 kg), or 4.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-5.0%) of baseline body weight at 1 year vs control participants, who gained 0.9 kg (95% CI, 0.5-1.3 kg), or 1.0% (95% CI 0.1%-1.4%) of baseline body weight ( P < .001). Participants randomized to WLI experienced significant weight loss (vs control group participants) across demographic and tumor factors. WLI effect differed significantly by menopausal status, with postmenopausal participants having greater weight loss than premenopausal participants, and by race and ethnicity, with Black and Hispanic participants having less weight loss compared to other races and ethnicities. Conclusions and Relevance In this secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial, a telephone-based WLI induced significant weight loss in patients with breast cancer with overweight and obesity across demographic and treatment factors. Further follow-up of the Breast Cancer Weight Loss trial will evaluate whether the WLI improves disease outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02750826

561 Background: Obesity and other lifestyle factors are associated with breast cancer (BC) risk and outcomes. These relationships appear to vary in pre- vs postmenopausal women. Here we explore associations between pathological features, diet quality and physical activity (PA) in patients (pts) with BC enrolled in the BWEL (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A011401) trial, stratifying for menopausal status. Methods: BWEL is a phase III trial evaluating the impact of a weight loss intervention on disease outcomes in 3180 pts with stage II-III HER2– BC and body mass index ≥27 kg/m 2 . The first 542 BWEL pts underwent assessment of PA (7-Day PA Recall) and diet (24-hour Diet Recall) at enrollment. Healthy Eating Index 2020 (HEI) score (0-100, higher value = healthier diet) and minutes/week (min/wk) of moderate/vigorous PA (MVPA) were calculated. Estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) expression level (%) were abstracted from pathology reports. Analyses of links between HEI score, MVPA min/wk, % ER/PR, stratified by menopausal status, were conducted using t-tests; differential associations by menopausal status used linear regression models with interaction term. Results: In 523 pts with available pathology data, 76.5% had ER/PR+ BC, 56.2% were postmenopausal. Median HEI score was 50.1 (range 18.1-96.4), median MVPA min/wk was 0 (range 0-630), median time from diagnosis to enrollment was 10.0 months (range 2.4-13.1). In postmenopausal pts, higher diet quality was linked to increased % ER and PR (HEI above vs below median, mean % ER 78.0 vs 66.1, p=0.012; mean % PR 57.7 vs 43.1, p=0.004). The relationship between HEI score and % ER/PR differed significantly by menopausal status (interaction term of menopausal status and % ER: p=0.006; and % PR: p=0.012); there were no significant associations between HEI scores and % ER/PR in premenopausal pts. There were no significant associations between PA and % ER/PR. Conclusions: Healthier diet was associated with higher % ER and PR in postmenopausal pts with BC, but no relationship was seen in premenopausal pts. These data suggest that lifestyle factors may influence BC pathologic features related to outcomes in older women. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823, U24CA196171, https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . Clinical trial information: NCT02750826 . % ER mean (SD) p value % PR mean (SD) p value Post-Menopausal HEI* score≤50.1 [n=134]>50.1 [n=156] 66.1 (43.3)78.0 (36.8) 0.012 43.1 (41.8)57.7 (41.0) 0.004 MVPA † min/wk0 [n=147]≥1 [n=147] 74.5 (39.3)70.3 (41.2) 0.37 50.0 (41.8)53.0 (42.0) 0.41 Pre-Menopausal HEI* score≤50.1 [n=124]>50.1 [n=103] 70.5 (38.5)65.5 (43.0) 0.15 53.5 (41.1)49.1 (43.0) 0.43 MVPA † min/wk0 [n=112]≥1 [n=113] 66.3 (41.0)66.3 (41.2) 0.99 49.5 (41.4)52.6 (42.7) 0.59 *Healthy Eating Index. † Moderate/Vigorous Physical Activity.

Abstract Background Patients’ self-report of their symptoms can provide important data for the evaluation of treatment benefit and tolerability of oncology drugs. Contemporary treatment approaches, including immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies, have unique toxicities based on their novel mechanisms of action. This scoping review aimed to summarize evidence from existing reviews and clinical practice guidelines to examine the type and prevalence of toxicities including symptomatic adverse events (sympAEs) for adult cancer patients to inform clinical care and therapeutic trials. Methods A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase was performed using predefined eligibility criteria. Thirty-one literature reviews and 3 clinical practice guidelines met inclusion criteria and were selected for review and data abstraction. Results Findings from this scoping review demonstrated several leading sympAEs that were reported across immunotherapy and targeted therapy drugs, including fatigue, diarrhea, and rash. In addition to these more prevalent sympAEs, there were some less frequently reported class-specific sympAEs, which had potential for significant harm or disability to the patient if not properly identified and treated. Many studies reported toxicities as AEs or syndromes solely using data reported by clinicians without additional self-report from patients. Conclusion We identified several core sympAEs experienced by patients participating in oncology trials using immunotherapy and targeted therapy agents, which has implications for future trial design and drug labeling. Future cancer trials should assess patient-reported sympAEs based on the identified drug mechanism to inform the tolerability of these newer agents and enhance patient safety during trial participation and clinical care.

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.

PURPOSE The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

PURPOSE Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is common during adjuvant chemotherapy and may persist. TAILORx provided a novel opportunity to prospectively assess patient-reported cognitive impairment among women with early breast cancer who were randomly assigned to chemoendocrine therapy (CT+E) versus endocrine therapy alone (E), allowing us to quantify the unique contribution of chemotherapy to CRCI. METHODS Women with a 21-gene recurrence score of 11 to 25 enrolled in TAILORX were randomly assigned to CT+E or E. Cognitive impairment was assessed among a subgroup of 552 evaluable women using the 37-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog) questionnaire, administered at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. The FACT-Cog included the 20-item Perceived Cognitive Impairment (PCI) scale, our primary end point. Clinically meaningful changes were defined a priori and linear regression was used to model PCI scores on baseline PCI, treatment, and other factors. RESULTS FACT-Cog PCI scores were significantly lower, indicating more impairment, at 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 months compared with baseline for both groups. The magnitude of PCI change scores was greater for CT+E than E at 3 months, the prespecified primary trial end point, and at 6 months, but not at 12, 24, and 36 months. Tests of an interaction between menopausal status and treatment were nonsignificant. CONCLUSION Adjuvant CT+E is associated with significantly greater CRCI compared with E at 3 and 6 months. These differences abated over time, with no significant differences observed at 12 months and beyond. These findings indicate that chemotherapy produces early, but not sustained, cognitive impairment relative to E, providing reassurance to patients and clinicians in whom adjuvant chemotherapy is indicated to reduce recurrence risk.

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.

Abstract Objective The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. Materials and Methods Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. Results Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. Discussion Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. Conclusions Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

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.