Citations

6523 Background: Treatment for most types of cancer results in work disruptions. The aim of this study is to identify risk factors for not working during cancer therapy using a patient-reported outcome tool. Methods: Patients of all cancer types, who were undergoing treatment with curative or palliative intent, were enrolled in a survey-based study at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the North Carolina Cancer Hospital from 1/2014 to 7/2015. All patients working full- or part- time at the time of cancer diagnosis were included in this analysis. Patient reported outcomes were collected using a survey tool at any time during active cancer treatment. The primary outcome of this analysis was self-reported work status at the time of survey completion. Results: Of 119 patients who were working before their cancer diagnosis, 68% were working at the time of survey completion. The mean age was 52.9 (range 20-80). Younger age was associated with working: 82% of patients age < 40 were working during treatment vs. 31% of patients age > 65 (p=0.01). The number of days patients reported being completely unable to work in the past month was significantly associated with work status; only 26% of patients who missed > 10 days continued to work compared to 69% who missed ≤ 10 days (p<0.01). Patients who report having a flexible work schedule were 23% more likely to continue to work during treatment (69% vs. 46%, p=0.01). In a multivariable model controlling for having an employer contingent health plan, and household income > 200% of the federal poverty level (fpl), only age, having a flexible work schedule, and inability to work > 10 days were independently associated with work status during treatment (Table). Conclusions: Having a flexible work schedule allowed for more work interruptions without job loss. Patients who are likely to miss more than 10 days of work and who have inflexible work schedules are at high risk of unemployment and should be targeted for employment retention initiatives. [Table: see text]

LBA2 The full, final text of this abstract will be available at abstracts.asco.org at 7:30 AM (EDT) on Sunday, June 4, 2017, and in the Annual Meeting Proceedings online supplement to the June 20, 2017, issue of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Onsite at the Meeting, this abstract will be printed in the Sunday edition of ASCO Daily News.

Background There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. Methods and Results Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. Conclusion The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

LBA2 Background: We previously reported significant benefits in quality of life, patient satisfaction, and emergency room utilization outcomes from a large single-center randomized controlled trial comparing web-based symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) vs. usual care in patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors (Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00578006). We now present overall survival results from this trial. Methods: Patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center were randomly assigned to self-report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers (“PRO intervention”), or to usual care. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits and nurses received email alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. Overall survival was tabulated based on medical records and Social Security Death Index data, estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between arms using a log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for age, sex, race, education level, and cancer type. Results: Between September 2007 and January 2011, 766 patients were randomized, with median age 61 (range 26-91), 86% white, 58% female, and 22% with less than high school education. Cancer types included genitourinary (32% of patients), gynecologic (23%), breast (19%), and lung cancer (26%). Survival results were assessed in June 2016 after a median follow up of 7 years and 517/766 (67%) of participants had died. Median overall survival in the PRO intervention arm was 5 months longer than the control arm (31.2 vs. 26.0 months, p = 0.03). In the multivariable model, results remained statistically significant with a hazard ratio of 0.832 (p = 0.04; 95% CI; 0.696, 0.995). Conclusions: Systematic symptom monitoring during outpatient chemotherapy using web-based patient-reported outcomes confers overall survival benefits. These single-center results are being further evaluated in a national multicenter implementation trial. Clinical trial information: NCT00578006.

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.

Purpose There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.