Mendoza, Tito R.

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 BACKGROUND: Most cancer patients with bone metastases report significant pain and substantial impairment in their ability to function. In particular, patients with MM are susceptible to bone pain because of bone damage. Patient-reported outcomes such as a general health outcome measure and a legacy pain instrument may provide valuable information in determining the impact of this condition. The goal of this study was to provide a descriptive profile of health status for cancer patients using the EQ-5D-3L (EQ-5D), a commonly used tool to measure health utility scores. Another goal is to evaluate the predictive information provided by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a self-report pain assessment tool designed to capture pain severity and interference in patients. These information may be useful in estimating the health status of patients where the EQ-5D was not administered. METHODS: Data was pooled across three denosumab registrational trials '20050136', '20050103', and '20050244'. Patients completed the EQ-5D and the BPI at baseline. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed advanced cancers, radiographic evidence of at least one bone metastasis (or lytic bone lesion from multiple myeloma), ECOG of 2 or better and adequate organ function. Using data from patients with MM (N=168), descriptive statistics were used to present summary information on health-related quality of life states and utility scores. Linear regressions were used to examine how BPI severity and interference subscale scores relate with EQ-5D utility scores. Ordinal regressions were used to evaluate how well BPI items predict EQ-5D individual items. Bonferroni adjustments were made when evaluating the relationships of BPI items to individual EQ-5D items. These analyses were repeated using data across several groups of cancer patients to determine if similar results can be obtained (breast cancer, N=2,044, prostate cancer, N=1,819 and others, N=1,509). RESULTS: About 9% of MM patients reported perfect health compared with 11% of all cancer patients. Of the 5 dimensions measured by the EQ-5D, the MM cohort rated pain (80%) the highest with moderate to extreme problems. This was followed by usual activities (68%), mobility (63%), anxiety/depression (49%), and self-care (36%). Similar order was observed across all cancer groups, but with slightly lower percentages for most items: pain (78%), usual activities (58%), mobility (55%), anxiety/depression (57%), and self-care (26%). Although pain interference subscale score explained more of the variability in the EQ-5D utility scores compared with pain severity items in the MM cohort (39% vs 31%) and for all patients (41% vs 34%), model fit was less than ideal (mean squared error=0.23 - 0.25). Hence, BPI items were fitted into individual EQ-5D items. Ordinal regression models fitting BPI items into individual EQ-5D items for the MM cohort showed good predictive power as measured by the concordance index c for mobility (86%), self-care (80%), usual activities (83%), pain (90%) and anxiety/depression (78%). For all patients, similar model fit were obtained for mobility (83%), self-care (78%), usual activities (81%), pain (90%) and anxiety/depression (72%). Further examination of the ordinal regression models across all groups showed that three BPI pain severity items, 'pain at its worst', 'average pain' and 'pain now' in addition to interference with activity and interference with work significantly predicted the EQ-5D pain item. Five interference items, activity, walking ability, work, sleep and enjoyment of life significantly predicted the EQ-5D usual activities item. Finally, 'pain now' and four interference items, relationship with others, enjoyment of life, mood, and activity significantly predicted the EQ-5D anxiety/depression item. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with MM reported several functional limitations on the EQ-5D. Majority of the patients reported moderate to extreme problems in all EQ-5D dimensions except self-care. Model fit of ordinal regression models relating BPI items with EQ-5D items are reasonable underscoring the benefit of using the BPI for planning patient care and health status evaluation. This consistency was also found across cancer groups that primarily include breast and prostate. The resultant model demonstrates the significant contribution of pain severity and interference in determining health status in this patient population. Disclosures Mendoza: Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Shi:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy. Ma:Amgen Inc.: Employment. Zhang:Amgen Inc.: Employment. Qian:Amgen Inc.: Employment. Cleeland:Amgen Inc.: Consultancy.

AbstractBackgroundWe aimed to provide a simple, descriptive health‐status profile for cancer patients with bone metastases, based on the EuroQol EQ‐5D, a tool commonly used to measure health utility scores, and to evaluate its association with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), a legacy pain‐assessment tool. Although pain is one of five health‐status dimensions measured by the EQ‐5D, our understanding of how pain relates to the other EQ‐5D dimensions is limited.MethodsWe derived data from 5500 patients with bone metastases who completed the EQ‐5D and BPI. Regression analyses examined how BPI severity and interference scores correlated with EQ‐5D utility scores and how BPI items associated with EQ‐5D items, for the entire sample and by disease‐type subgroup.ResultsRegardless of cancer site, the percentage of patients reporting moderate/severe problems in each of the five EQ‐5D dimensions were pain/discomfort, 78%; usual activities, 58%; mobility, 55%; anxiety/depression, 57%; and self‐care, 26%. BPI pain interference explained more of the variability in the EQ‐5D utility scores than did pain severity (R2 = 41% vs. 34%). BPI worst pain, average pain, pain now, interference with general activity, and interference with work significantly predicted EQ‐5D pain/discomfort, with odds ratio estimates <1.ConclusionsPain/discomfort was the worst‐rated dimension of the EQ‐5D in this population, but the relationship of this item to BPI pain severity was modest, suggesting that the single pain item of the EQ‐5D may be of limited utility in studies for which pain is an endpoint.SignificanceHealth‐status dimensions include more than pain. We examine the contribution of pain severity and pain‐related functional interference in determining the health status of cancer patients with bone metastases. The pain dimension from a health‐status measure may be an inadequate metric in clinical trials/clinical practice when pain is an important outcome.

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was −0.20 (−0.20) for 1-week recall, −0.36 (−0.31) for 2-week recall, −0.45 (−0.39) for 3-week recall, and −0.47 (−0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54–0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58–0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61–0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64–0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Abstract Effective assessment and management of pain in patients with cancer is strengthened by the patient's report of how much pain interferes with daily functioning. This requires a clear delineation of different levels of pain interference. We derived optimal cutpoints for differentiating between mild, moderate, and severe pain interference assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and describe the prevalence and characteristics of pain-induced functional impairment in patients with cancer. Data were pooled across 3 Phase III pivotal trials. Patient-completed questionnaires included the EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire (EQ5D), Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General Measure (FACT-G), and BPI. Optimal cutpoints for categorizing pain interference into 3 levels were derived using analysis of variance, with different cutpoint sets for BPI total interference (BPI-PITS, the average score of all 7 items), activity-related interference (BPI-WAW, the average score of work, general activity, and walking), and mood-related interference (BPI-REM, the average score of relations with others, enjoyment of life, and mood) as independent variables and EQ5D–visual analog scale and total FACT-G score as dependent variables. To validate the cutpoints, we assessed whether interference categories were in concordance with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) levels. The optimal cutpoints were (2,5) for BPI-PITS, (2,6) for BPI-WAW, and (2,5) for BPI-REM. The mild (<2), moderate (2-5 or 2-6), and severe (>5 or >6) pain interference groups were significantly concordant with ECOG-PS levels (P < 0.0001). We empirically derived patient-reported pain interference categories in relation to clinician-rated performance status. These cutpoints may facilitate the conduct and interpretation of clinical evaluation, symptom epidemiology, and clinical trials.

BACKGROUND A set of common cancer‐related and treatment‐related symptoms has been proposed for quality of care assessment and clinical research. Using data from a large, multicenter, prospective study, the authors assessed the effects of disease site and stage on the percentages of patients rating these proposed symptoms as moderate to severe. METHODS The severity of 13 symptoms proposed to represent “core” oncology symptoms was rated by 3106 ambulatory patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung, regardless of disease stage or phase of care; 2801 patients (90%) repeated the assessment 4 to 5 weeks later. RESULTS At the time of the initial assessment, approximately 33% of the patients reported ≥ 3 symptoms in the moderate‐to‐severe range; 11 of the 13 symptoms were rated as moderate to severe by at least 10% of all patients and 6 were rated as moderate to severe by at least 20% of those receiving active treatment. Fatigue/tiredness was the most severe symptom, followed by disturbed sleep, pain, dry mouth, and numbness/tingling. More patients with lung cancer and patients receiving active treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms. Percentages of symptomatic patients increased by disease stage, less adequate response to therapy, and declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms were stable across both assessments. CONCLUSIONS The results of the current study support a core set of moderate to severe symptoms that are common across outpatients with solid tumors, that can guide consideration of progression‐free survival as a trial outcome, and that should be considered in clinical care and in assessments of quality of care and treatment benefit. Cancer 2013;119:4333–4340 . © 2013 American Cancer Society .