Citations

TPS1679 Background: Cancer care in the United States remains highly centralized, imposing substantial time, caregiver, and financial burdens on patients, particularly those residing in rural and medically underserved regions. While international experience supports the feasibility of home-based cancer therapy delivery, prospective U.S. clinical trial data are limited. The Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) program was developed to address these gaps through a decentralized cancer care model integrating virtual oversight, remote monitoring, mobile clinical services, and community-based nursing partners. The study evaluates the feasibility, safety, and patient-centered impact of delivering cancer-directed therapy in patients’ homes or near-home mobile units in the Florida Panhandle, a region characterized by long travel distances to tertiary centers and limited oncology infrastructure. Methods: This is a phase 2, single-arm clinical trial evaluating the delivery of standard-of-care cancer-directed therapy outside of traditional infusion centers. Eligible adult patients (ECOG 0–3) with histologically confirmed malignancies receiving guideline-supported or FDA-approved systemic cancer therapy must demonstrate tolerability of at least one prior in-clinic treatment cycle. Following registration, patients transition to home-based or near-home mobile unit administration for a minimum of 12 weeks, with an option to continue up to 24 weeks. Care delivery is coordinated through a virtual command center providing real-time virtual oversight, remote monitoring, and escalation pathways. Treatment administration is performed by trained local home health nurses, medication shipping, and digital interaction with the electronic health record. A fully equipped mobile unit extends access to rural areas not covered by home health agencies. The primary endpoint is patient preference for treatment location at week 12. Secondary endpoints include safety, avoidable acute care utilization, patient-reported function and global health/quality of life, patient-reported symptoms, and satisfaction with care. Exploratory endpoints assess travel burden, patient perceptions of caregiver experience, and patient perceptions of home versus mobile unit care. Enrollment of 27 patients will provide 80% power to reject a 50% null rate (2-sided exact test, α=0.10), assuming 75% prefer decentralized care or express no preference. This investigator-initiated trial is open to accrual and is supported by a grant from the Florida Cancer Innovation Fund. Clinical trial information: NCT07285044 .

635 Background: Prospective data on efficacy, quality of life, and treatment-related toxicities in older adults with breast cancer are limited. The ATOP trial (NCT03587740) evaluated T-DM1 in older adults and demonstrated favorable 5-year invasive disease-free survival. Here, we report patient-reported adverse events (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) findings from ATOP. Methods: ATOP was a single-arm, phase II, multicenter study of adjuvant T-DM1 for those aged 60 with stage I-III HER2+ breast cancer. Protocol therapy included postoperative administration of T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg) every 21 days for one year (17 cycles). PRO-CTCAE (assessing specific symptoms) and EQ-5D (a measure of HRQOL) surveys were administered electronically or on paper at baseline (pre-treatment), on Day 1 of each treatment cycle, and at a single 6–12-month post-treatment time point. Participants who responded to the baseline and at least one follow-up survey were included in the PRO analysis. EQ-5D changes from baseline were assessed using general linear mixed models. Summary statistics were used to assess PRO-CTCAE scores to evaluate which symptoms developed between baseline and 1 subsequent survey(s) and their severity. Results: Among the 111 patients enrolled on ATOP (median age=71, range 60-88 years), 98 responded to the baseline survey and 1 subsequent survey(s). 1435 surveys were returned that included at least one PRO-CTCAE response, and 1661 surveys were returned that included EQ-5D. The Table displays the % of participants who reported PRO-CTCAE symptoms that worsened from baseline to any severity level (scores >0) or to a severe level (scores ≥3). More than 60% of survey respondents reported new or increased dry mouth, fatigue, muscle aches, decreased appetite, nausea, pain, and/or numbness/tingling at some point during or after treatment, but these were usually not severe. EQ-5D scores did not change significantly from baseline at any time point. Conclusions: In this adjuvant trial for patients aged >60, participation rates for PRO data collection were high. Reassuringly, global HRQOL was not impacted by T-DM1, and though frequently reported, the vast majority of patient-reported symptoms were mild. Future analyses of this trial will focus on duration and predictors (clinical and biomarker-based) of severe AEs, agreement between patient-reported and clinician-reported AEs, and whether sharing PRO reports with clinicians impacted clinician-reported AE grades. Clinical trial information: NCT03587740 . Most common new or worsening symptoms reported via PRO-CTCAE in ATOP (n=95). Symptom % with score >0 n (%) with score 3+ Dry mouth 79% 26% Fatigue 71% 29% Muscle aches 69% 20% Decreased appetite 69% 12% Nausea 67% 6% Pain 66% 21% Numbness/tingling 65% 9% Blurry vision 60% 4% Mouth or throat sores 60% 5%

12010 Background: BWEL (Alliance A011401; NCT02750826) is a Phase III trial that randomizes patients (pts) with stage II-III breast cancer and body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m 2 1:1 to a 24-month (mo) lifestyle-based WLI + health education (HE) or HE alone. Here we report prespecified secondary outcomes of the impact of the WLI on patient-reported QOL and symptoms. Methods: The first 540 BWEL pts (randomized between 9/2016 and 7/2017) were included in this substudy that collected PROMIS 29 Profile 2.0 and Global Health scores at enrollment, 6 and 24 mos. Adjusting for baseline scores, mean physical function (predefined substudy primary outcome), global physical and mental health, fatigue and other scores were compared at 6 and 24 mos using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). P-values <0.05 were considered significant. Positive differences in positive attributes (e.g., physical function) and negative differences in negative attributes (e.g., anxiety) represented better outcomes in the WLI arm. Results: At baseline, median BMI was 32.9 kg/m 2 (26.5 – 69.1), median age was 53 (25 - 78) years; 83.9% of pts were non-Hispanic White, 10.7% were Black and 5.9% were Hispanic. At 6 mos, the WLI (vs HE) arm had significantly better physical function (ANCOVA-based mean difference between arms 1.9 [95% CI 0.8, 3.0]; p<0.001), global physical health (2.0 [95% CI 0.9, 3.0]; p<0.001), global mental health (1.30 [95% CI 0.2, 2.4], p=0.03), social roles and activities (2.3 [95% CI 1.1, 3.6]; p<0.001), and fatigue (-1.7 [95% CI -3.1, -0.4], p=0.01) (Table). Improvements were generally maintained at 24 mos. Similar findings were seen in analyses using longitudinal mixed modeling. Conclusions: The BWEL WLI demonstrated QOL benefits for patients with breast cancer, resulting in significantly better physical function, global physical and mental health, and symptoms. Future analyses will evaluate which populations experienced the most benefit, as well as the relationships among QOL, symptoms, and weight loss. Support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, UG1CA189823; U10CA180820; U10CA180868; U10CA180863, CCS 707213; U10CA180888; UG1CA189858; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org. Clinical trial information: NCT02750826 . Analysis of covariance-adjusted least squares means values at 6-mos adjusted for baseline scores. QOL/Symptom Attributes HE WLI Between arm difference (95% CI)* P value Physical Function 47.1 49.0 1.9 (0.8, 3.0) <0.001 Global Physical Health 46.2 48.1 2.0 (0.9, 3.0) <0.001 Global Mental Health 48.6 49.9 1.3 (0.2, 2.4) 0.03 Social Roles and Activities 52.7 55.0 2.3 (1.1, 3.6) <0.001 Anxiety 50.2 50.0 -0.2 (-1.6, 1.2) 0.77 Depression 47.5 47.5 -0.0 (11.2, 1.2) 0.96 Fatigue 50.6 48.9 -1.7 (-3.1, -0.4) 0.01 Sleep Disturbance 51.0 51.1 0.1 (-0.6, 0.8) 0.80 Pain Interference 51.3 50.3 -1.0 (-2.4, 0.4) 0.15 *Positive differences in positive attributes and negative differences in negative attributes favor WLI arm.

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: The PRO-CTCAE provides patient-reported data on symptomatic AEs. A summary metric—the ACS—reflecting total AE burden can be calculated by averaging AE-level composite scores at a given timepoint for each participant. This study investigated the psychometric properties and interpretability of this PRO-CTCAE ACS in patients with breast, lung, or head/neck cancers. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a PRO-CTCAE validation dataset comprising 940 adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02158637). We focused on empirically recommended symptom terms for three cancer sites. Analyses included Spearman’s correlations, coefficient alpha, and eigenvalues from the correlation matrices, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and principal component analysis (PCA). Latent profile analysis (LPA) was used to assess ACS interpretability in the lung cohort. Results: Mean composite score inter-correlations were moderate (0.30–0.35), and coefficient alphas were high (0.81–0.91). Eigenvalue ratios and CFA supported retention of a single factor/component, with suitable model fit indices. ACS correlated highly with factor scores and the first principal component from the PCA. Reduced sets of terms produced reliable scores that closely approximated the full set scores and aligned with external criteria. LPA in the lung subgroup identified four latent classes; ACS differentiated high vs. low symptom burden groups but did not distinguish the two groups expressing distinct symptom profiles. Conclusion: The ACS demonstrated structural validity through adequately fitting linear factor models and effectively summarized symptomatic AE burden. However, similar ACS values may mask clinically distinct symptomatic AE profiles, underscoring the value of both summary metrics and profile-based approaches.

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.

PURPOSE Patients with cancer take different types of medications with varying schedules and settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medications due to toxicity. To measure self-reported nonadherence in this heterogeneous population, we modified and evaluated a measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral antihypertensives, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence). METHODS The measure was refined in an iterative process incorporating feedback from patient investigators and participant interviews in English and Spanish. Branching logic was added for participant selection of medication administration setting: (1) only home, (2) only clinic, or (3) partly home/partly clinic. Participants reported their adherence to medications taken over a setting-specific reference period (1 week for home, 1 month for clinic medications). Participants who missed medications then reported on reasons for nonadherence. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence v any nonadherence). For participants who received clinic-administered medications, concordance between chart-abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. RESULTS Seventy-three participants completed the measure (68% English; 32% Spanish; 86% female; 44% age ≥60 years). The majority had breast cancer; 64% had metastatic disease. Twenty-six percent (15/58) of participants who received medication in clinic and 24% (11/46) of those who took medication at home reported nonadherence. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both reference periods and perceived all reasons for nonadherence to be relevant. Among participants who completed the final version of the measure for clinic-administered medication, 96% (26/27) accurately reported their adherence compared with chart-abstracted data. CONCLUSION Our results support the validity of the DOSE-Nonadherence-Cancer for assessing cancer treatment nonadherence. This measure can be used to assess nonadherence in patients with cancer receiving a broad array of systemic therapies.

11106 Background: Patients with cancer take different types of medication (e.g., enteral, parenteral), with varying treatment schedules, in various settings. They are also sometimes instructed to stop medication in response to toxicity. To measure medication nonadherence in this heterogenous population, we modified and pilot-tested a self-report measure originally developed to assess nonadherence to daily oral medication, the Domains of Subjective Extent of Nonadherence (DOSE-Nonadherence), in adults with cancer. Methods: Participants were ≥21 years, on active cancer treatment at Memorial Sloan Kettering, and spoke English and/or Spanish. A branching logic was added to allow participants to select the setting where they take cancer medication: 1) only at home, 2) only in clinic, or 3) partly at home/partly in clinic. Based on administration setting, participants reported nonadherence to medications their clinician expected them to take over a given reference period (1 week for home and 1 month for clinic medications). Participants then reported on setting-relevant reasons for nonadherence. Survey instructions/items were refined in an iterative process using feedback from a patient investigator committee and participant cognitive interviews. During interviews, we asked participants about the interpretation of instructions/items, recall period, and comprehensiveness of reasons for nonadherence, regardless of their own adherence. After initial testing in English, a Spanish version was developed through transcreation. Adherence was dichotomized for analysis (complete adherence vs. any nonadherence). For all participants who received clinic medications, concordance between chart abstracted and self-reported adherence was evaluated. Results: Of 55 participants who completed the surveys and interviews (67% in English; 33% in Spanish), 87% were female and 44% identified as Latino. The majority (73%) had breast cancer; 60% had metastatic disease. 12 of 45 who received medication in clinic reported nonadherence as did 8 of 35 who took medication at home. Participants felt able to respond accurately to both recall periods. All reasons for nonadherence were perceived as relevant to themselves or other patients. There was 89% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted adherence for clinic-administered medication. To improve concordance, changes were made to the formatting and instructions. Of 12 participants who completed the final version of the survey for clinic-administered medication, there was 100% concordance between self-reported and chart abstracted nonadherence. Conclusions: Our results support the reliability and validity of modified DOSE-Nonadherence for cancer patients. This instrument can be used to better identify nonadherence to cancer medications in a population of adult patients with cancer receiving various treatment regimens.

PURPOSE Many trials ask patients to complete patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via the web, excluding patients unable to use/access the Internet. The PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ) also offered a telephone interface option (interactive voice response [IVR]). We compared patients choosing IVR versus web on alert rates to nurses and clinical outcomes to determine if a telephone option can close disparities in symptom management. METHODS PRO-TECT randomized 26 community oncology practices to the PROM intervention arm where concerning symptoms generated automated alerts to nurses. IVR and web patients were compared for social determinants of health (SDOH) using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. After accounting for clustering and confounders, we used generalized estimating equations to compare alert rates, mixed models for quality of life (QOL) at 3 months, and Cox regression for emergency visits and survival at 12 months. RESULTS Among 593 patients, 215 (36%) chose IVR and 378 (64%) chose web. IVR patients were older (65.2 v 60.8 years) and were more often rural residents (32% v 23%), Black (27% v 11%), and with less education (54% v 27% ≤high school; all P < .01). Patients choosing IVR had more surveys with concerning symptoms (49% v 37%) and nurses felt clinical attention was warranted more often (4.8 surveys v 3.4 surveys; all P < .001) but ultimately experienced similar benefits as web in QOL, emergency visits, and survival. CONCLUSION One third of community patients choose a telephone option over the web for reporting PROMs during cancer care. These patients are disproportionately from SDOH backgrounds at risk of poor clinical outcomes and have higher symptom management needs but ultimately experience similar clinical benefits as patients choosing the web. PROM programs should offer web alternatives to close disparities in symptom management.

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.