Citations

PURPOSE Remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve symptom control and physical function among patients with advanced cancer. However, it is unclear whether these benefits are similar across demographic groups. This exploratory analysis of the PRO-TECT trial examined whether the effects of electronic symptom monitoring varied by race, age, sex, and educational attainment. METHODS PRO-TECT was a cluster randomized trial conducted across 52 US community oncology practices comparing weekly electronic symptom monitoring with usual care (UC). Adult patients with metastatic solid tumors receiving systemic therapy were enrolled (N = 1,191). Participants in the PRO arm completed weekly symptom surveys including the PRO-CTCAE, triggering alerts to the care team for severe or worsening symptoms. Patients chose whether to complete weekly PROs online or via telephone-based interactive voice response not requiring Internet access. Outcomes were measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 symptom control and physical function scales. Subgroup analyses were performed by race (Black v White), age (<65 v ≥65 years), sex (male v female), and educational attainment (≤high school v >high school). RESULTS From baseline to 3 months, PRO participants showed greater improvements in symptom control (+2.37 v −0.20, P = .002) and physical function (+1.54 v −0.93, P = .02) versus UC. Benefits were most pronounced among younger, female, Black, and less educated participants. Black participants in the PRO arm were more likely to report that symptom reporting made them feel more in control of their care compared with White participants. CONCLUSION Electronic symptom monitoring improved quality-of-life outcomes overall, including among groups who have historically experienced higher symptom burden or barriers to communication. Remote PRO systems may represent an equitable strategy to enhance cancer care delivery.

Background: There is growing recognition of the importance of patient-reported tolerability in complementing traditional clinician-reported safety evaluation of cancer therapies. Recent regulatory guidance listed the evaluation of overall side effect impact as a core patient-reported outcome in oncology clinical trials. A single item (‘GP5’) that asks about side effect bother is included in the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy and has been used to capture overall side effect impact. This paper sought to expand the evidence base for GP5 by examining its association with clinician-reported treatment-emergent adverse events and patient-reported global health. Methods: We examined six commercial cancer clinical trials that collected GP5. The patient population was drawn from the safety population and the analysis focused on the first on-treatment assessment. Clinician-reported adverse events were classified as symptomatic if such adverse events were considered amenable to patient self-reporting (e.g. nausea). Chi-square tests and Pearson’s correlation were used to examine associations. We considered adverse event grade and frequency, both for symptomatic adverse events and any type of adverse events. Global health was measured using the visual analogue scale of the EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Levels measure. ‘Moderate-severe’ bother was characterised as scores of 2–4 on a 0–4 point scale for GP5, and ‘severe’ bother was characterised as scores of 3–4. Analyses were conducted separately for each trial. Results: Data from 3,557 patients were included. Across the trials, most (71.7%–94.2%) patients had an adverse event of some kind, but fewer (17.1%–44.4%) had an adverse event of grade 3 or higher. In general, fewer than 50% of patients (20.6%–44.2%) reported moderate-severe bother and 5.8%–17.% reported severe bother. There were consistent, albeit not always statistically significant, associations between GP5 and adverse events, and GP5/global health correlations ranged from −0.17 to −0.41. Discussion: GP5 is associated with both clinician- and patient-reported symptoms, suggesting its validity and usefulness as part of comprehensive tolerability assessment of cancer trials.

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

Abstract The Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) Clinical Trials Network conducted a phase 3 randomized trial comparing gilteritinib with placebo after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for FLT3-ITD+ acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The primary analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in relapse-free survival (RFS); however, patients with FLT3-ITD measurable residual disease (MRD) peri-HCT had significantly longer RFS with gilteritinib. This analysis investigates the effect of post-HCT gilteritinib vs placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQOL). HRQOL was measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), FACT-Leukemia (FACT-Leu), and EuroQOL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D-5L) at post-HCT randomization; day 29; months 3, 6, 12, 18, 24; and/or end of therapy. HRQOL and clinically meaningful differences were summarized using descriptive statistics and compared using mixed model repeated measures to evaluate longitudinal change from baseline and stratified Cox model to evaluate time to improvement. HRQOL completion rate was acceptable (&gt;70%) across all time points and measures. There were no differences in HRQOL scores at any time point between cohorts. Clinically meaningful and time to improvement in HRQOL were similar in both arms. Despite higher treatment-emergent adverse effects with gilteritinib, response to the question of being “bothered by side effects of treatment” did not differ between groups. Subgroup analysis of MRD-positive and negative patients demonstrated no differences in HRQOL between arms. For patients with FLT3-ITD+ AML undergoing HCT, gilteritinib maintenance was not associated with any difference in HRQOL or patient-reported impact of side effects. This trial was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT02997202.

11113 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable for understanding treatment tolerability and toxicity. I-SPY2 is a phase-II neoadjuvant clinical trial for breast cancer with electronic PROs and quality of life (QOL) assessments. We sought to understand how well the GP5 self-reported tolerability item reflected toxicity burden and QOL during treatment and follow-up in I-SPY 2 participants. Methods: Our study included 306 patients who completed the FACIT Item GP5 and answered PROMIS surveys at two or more timepoints. Analysis timepoints included screening (SC), inter-regimen (IR), pre-surgery (PS), 1-month post-surgery (FU1), and 6-months post-surgery (FU2). Symptoms were assessed weekly using PRO-CTCAE and CTCAEv4.0. QOL was evaluated using PROMIS. The GP5: “I am bothered by side effects of treatment,” was used to estimate tolerability, where worse tolerability is a higher score. Odds ratios, Spearman correlation, and regularized multi-variate regression were used to evaluate the associations between individual symptoms and adverse events with GP5 scores. Results: Demographic information was available for 243 of the 306 (70.2%) participants (median age=47,73.7% white). In the 306, tolerability scores worsened over study treatment, with a maximum mean score of 1.71 at Cycle 11. Tolerability improved after treatment cessation at FU1(1.09). Mean tolerability at week 6 was 1.53. The only clinical factor that was associated with early change in tolerability (week 6 to PS) was age >50 (mean score ranged from 1.55-1.70 vs 1.29-1.45 (age<50), p<0.05). PRO-CTCAE and GP5 correlative analysis suggested that higher grade abdominal pain, decreased appetite, dizziness and blurry vision significantly associated with higher GP5 scores at multiple timepoints (p<0.05). Symptoms not associated with tolerability were nail loss, acne, hair loss, and rash (p>0.05). Additionally, the total number of low-grade (mild to moderate) symptoms a patient experienced during study treatment was significantly correlated to poor tolerability (p<0.00001). Among patients with CTCAE data, 9% had adrenal insufficiency, and higher GP5 was found across all study timepoints in those with (compared to without) adrenal insufficiency (mean GP5 = [1.7-1.9] vs [1.3-1.5] respectively). Similarly, among patients with neuropathy (14%), higher GP5 scores were reported across all study timepoints (mean GP5 = [1.8-2.3] vs [1.3-1.5] respectively). Higher GP5 scores during treatment were correlated with higher fatigue scores at PS and FU1 (p<0.02 and p<0.001) and lower physical functioning at PS (p<0.01). Conclusions: TheGP5 measure is associated with self-reported symptoms, higher grade adverse events and quality of life scores. Furthermore, greater accumulation of lower grade symptoms can lead to poor tolerability. The single measure GP5 composite score reflects multiple components of treatment toxicity.

Abstract Background In 2008, bevacizumab received accelerated Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Based on the preclinical and preliminary clinical activity of the trastuzumab and bevacizumab combination, ECOG-ACRIN E1105 trial was developed to determine if the addition of bevacizumab to a chemotherapy and trastuzumab combination for first-line therapy would improve progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with HER2-positive MBC. Findings: 96 patients were randomized to receive standard first-line chemotherapy and trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab between November 2007 and October 2009, and 93 began protocol therapy. Induction therapy was given for 24 weeks, followed by maintenance trastuzumab with or without bevacizumab. 60% (56/93) began carboplatin and 74% (69/93) completed 6 cycles of induction therapy. Primary endpoint was PFS. Median PFS was 11.1 and 13.8 months for placebo and bevacizumab arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 95%, Confidence Interval [Cl] for bevacizumab vs. placebo: 0.73 [0.43–1.23], p = 0.24), and at a median follow-up of 70.7 months, median survival was 49.1 and 63 months (HR [95% Cl] for OS: 1.09 [0.61–1.97], p = 0.75). The most common toxicities across both arms were neutropenia and hypertension, with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, fatigue, and sensory neuropathy reported more frequently with bevacizumab. Conclusions In this trial, the addition of bevacizumab did not improve outcomes in patients with metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer. Although the trial was underpowered due to smaller than anticipated sample size, these findings corroborated other clinical trials during this time.

PURPOSE Patients with no evidence of disease (NED) after metastasectomy for renal cell carcinoma are at high risk of recurrence. Pazopanib is an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other kinases that improves progression-free survival in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC). We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter study to test whether pazopanib would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with mRCC rendered NED after metastasectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with NED after metastasectomy were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive pazopanib 800 mg once daily versus placebo for 52 weeks. The study was designed to observe an improvement in DFS from 25% to 45% with pazopanib at 3 years, corresponding to 42% reduction in the DFS event rate. RESULTS From August 2012 to July 2017, 129 patients were enrolled. The study was unblinded after 83 DFS events (92% information). The study did not meet its primary end point. An updated analysis at 60.5-month median follow-up from random assignment (95% CI, 59.3 to 71.0) showed that the 3-year DFS was 27.4% (95% CI, 17.9 to 41.7) for pazopanib and 21.9% (95% CI, 13.3 to 36.2) for placebo. Hazard ratio (HR) for DFS was 0.90 ([95% CI, 0.60 to 1.34]; Pone-sided = .29) in favor of pazopanib. Three-year overall survival (OS) was 81.9% (95% CI, 72.7 to 92.2) for pazopanib and 91.4% (95% CI, 84.4 to 98.9) for placebo. The HR for OS was 2.55 (95% CI, 1.23 to 5.27) in favor of placebo ( Ptwo-sided = .012). Health-related quality-of-life measures deteriorated in the pazopanib group during the treatment period. CONCLUSION Pazopanib did not improve DFS as the primary end point compared with blinded placebo in patients with mRCC with NED after metastasectomy. In addition, there was a concerning trend favoring placebo in OS.

ImportanceThere is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient’s perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs).ObjectiveTo examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US.ExposuresGP5 response options were “very much,” “quite a bit,” “somewhat,” “a little bit,” and “not at all.” Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, “very much,” and “quite a bit”) and low adverse event bother (ie, “somewhat,” “a little bit,” or “not at all”). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories.Main Outcome and MeasureETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage.ResultsOf the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.