Citations

Background/Objectives: The PRO-CTCAE Average Composite Score (ACS), calculated as the mean of PRO-CTCAE composite scores, summarizes overall symptom and side effect burden. This study evaluated the test–retest reliability, responsiveness to change, known-groups validity, and sensitivity to group differences in the ACS. Methods: Analyses used the original PRO-CTCAE validation dataset, including lung (n = 174), breast (n = 222), and head and neck (n = 139) cancer cohorts, and data from the COMET-2 randomized phase III trial comparing cabozantinib (n = 53) and mitoxantrone–prednisone (n = 54) in men with previously treated prostate cancer. Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) from two-way mixed-effects models for agreement. Responsiveness was evaluated by relating ACS change scores (Visit 1 minus follow-up Visit 2) to patient-reported global ratings of change (GRC; worsened, unchanged, or improved) using standardized response means (SRMs) and Jonckheere–Terpstra trend tests. Known-groups validity was examined by comparing mean ACS values between ECOG performance status groups (0–1 vs. 2–4). Sensitivity to treatment group differences was assessed using model-based area-under-the-curve (AUC) comparisons of longitudinal ACS trajectories. Results: Test–retest reliability was acceptable, with ICCs among GRC-defined stable patients of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.70–0.87) in lung cancer, 0.84 (95% CI: 0.77–0.89) in breast cancer, and 0.77 (95% CI: 0.63–0.86) in head and neck cancer; ICCs based on assessments completed one day apart ranged from 0.88 to 0.90. The ACS demonstrated responsiveness, with SRMs of 0.30/0.15/−0.37 (lung), 0.29/0.14/−0.40 (breast), and −0.01/−0.20/−0.56 (head/neck) for improved/no-change/worsened groups, respectively, and significant monotonic trends across GRC categories (all p < 0.01). Known-groups validity was supported by conceptually expected differences in ACS values across distinct levels of self-reported patient-reported physical functioning and ECOG performance status categories. Mean ACS values were lower among patients with good versus limited physical functioning (0.71 vs. 1.23 in lung cancer, 0.52 vs. 1.19 in breast cancer, and 0.69 vs. 1.29 in head and neck cancer) and among patients with ECOG PS 0–1 versus 2–4 (0.93 vs. 1.31, 0.74 vs. 1.22, and 0.90 vs. 1.06, respectively). In COMET-2, higher symptom burden was detected in the cabozantinib arm compared with the mitoxantrone–prednisone arm (AUC difference = 1.5, 95% CI: 0.2–2.8, p = 0.02). Conclusions: The ACS demonstrated acceptable test–retest reliability, responsiveness, and known-groups validity across multiple cancer populations. These findings support its use as a complementary summary measure of overall symptomatic adverse event burden alongside individual symptom-level analyses.

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%

12007 Background: YAs with cancer, defined as those diagnosed prior to the age of 40, may experience greater symptom burden compared to those diagnosed at older ages. We evaluated the impact of an ePROM-triggered, CC-based, supportive care intervention on symptom burden in YAs with cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, Electronic Health Record-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial (NCT03892967) that enrolled oncology patients seen at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System (sites in Minnesota and Wisconsin) between March 2019 and January 2023. Patients routinely reported the severity of six SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Symptom severity was classified as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). Those with moderate or severe symptoms were offered symptom management education, while those with severe symptoms were also offered the option to work virtually with a symptom care manager. In this post hoc analysis, we examined the effects of the intervention on change in symptom scores among YAs and time to improvement to a mild/moderate level in those with at least one severe symptom. Results: Among 40,659 patients who responded to at least one survey, 2,598 were YAs and 38,061 were adults ≥ 40 years. Among YAs, 10.7%, 24.3%, and 65.1% were 18-24 years, 25-31 years, and 32-39 years, respectively. A greater proportion of YA patients were female (61.5% vs 57.0%), of a non-white race (12.4% vs 5.3%), living in an urban setting (65.7% vs 55.1%), single (36.4% vs 9.6%), on non-government insurance (78.1% vs 36.6%), employed (72.6% vs 37.4%), and had a Bachelor’s degree or greater (37.8% vs 28.3%, p < 0.001 for all). Fewer YA patients had metastatic disease compared to older patients (24.2% vs 35.2%, p < 0.001). Compared to a pre-intervention baseline, the mean change in symptom score for YA patients following the intervention demonstrated improvements in anxiety (-0.195) and depression (-0.168, p < 0.0001 for both), while physical function impairment worsened over the intervention period (0.101, p = 0.014). Compared to adults ≥ 40 years, YAs experienced greater intervention effects for management of depression ( p < 0.001), fatigue ( p = 0.01), pain ( p < 0.0001), and physical function impairment ( p < 0.0001). Among YAs with a severe symptom during the intervention period, median time to improvement to a mild/moderate level was longer for anxiety compared to those ≥ 40 years (3.5 vs 2.7 months, p = 0.009). Conclusions: Routine ePROM surveillance, coupled with CC-based symptom management, led to improvements in anxiety and depression among YAs with cancer, although, time to improvement was longer for anxiety compared to adults ≥ 40 years.

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.

This cross-sectional study analyzes patient-reported outcome findings from the Enhanced, Electronic Health Record–Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial to investigate level of symptom burden in adolescents and young adults with cancer.

AbstractThe Enhanced EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial is a pragmatic trial testing a collaborative care approach for managing common cancer symptoms. There were challenges in identifying cancer site and metastatic status.This study compares three different approaches to determine cancer site and six strategies for identifying the presence of metastasis using EHR and cancer registry data.The E2C2 cohort included 50,559 patients seen in the medical oncology clinics of a large health system. SPPADE symptoms were assessed with 0 to 10 numeric rating scales (NRS). A multistep process was used to develop three approaches for representing cancer site: the single most prevalent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code, the two most prevalent codes, and any diagnostic code. Six approaches for identifying metastatic disease were compared: ICD-10 codes, natural language processing (NLP), cancer registry, medications typically prescribed for incurable disease, treatment plan, and evaluation for phase 1 trials.The approach counting the two most prevalent ICD-10 cancer site diagnoses per patient detected a median of 92% of the cases identified by counting all cancer site diagnoses, whereas the approach counting only the single most prevalent cancer site diagnosis identified a median of 65%. However, agreement among the three approaches was very good (kappa > 0.80) for most cancer sites. ICD and NLP methods could be applied to the entire cohort and had the highest agreement (kappa = 0.53) for identifying metastasis. Cancer registry data was available for less than half of the patients.Identification of cancer site and metastatic disease using EHR data was feasible in this large and diverse cohort of patients with common cancer symptoms. The methods were pragmatic and may be acceptable for covariates, but likely require refinement for key dependent and independent variables.

1543 Background: Treatment toxicity may limit the ability of cancer patients to receive all recommended cycles of therapy. Four to six cycles of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) is a common adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for early-stage breast cancer. We assessed the impact of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), coupled with a collaborative care model-based symptom management intervention, on the number of cycles of TC received by patients with breast cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial, conducted between March 2019 and January 2023 at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Patients regularly reported the severity of 6 SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Each symptom score was interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The E2C2 intervention included symptom management education modules, clinician decision support aids, and the option to discuss severe symptoms with a nurse, physical therapist, or social worker. Patients with breast cancer who received at least one cycle of TC were included in this analysis. We compared the number of cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide completed by patients in the control condition versus those in the intervention condition. Results: We identified 198 patients with breast cancer who received TC during the control condition and 128 who received TC during the intervention condition. Median age was 61.3 years in the control group and 60.3 years in the intervention group, and 94% and 95% were white, respectively. Those receiving treatment during the control condition, on average, completed 3.53 cycles of docetaxel, while those receiving TC during the intervention condition completed 3.77 cycles ( p = 0.014). Seventy-eight percent in the control group completed at least 4 cycles of docetaxel, compared to 84% in the intervention group. Those receiving TC during the control condition completed an average of 3.71 cycles of cyclophosphamide, compared to 3.78 cycles in the intervention condition (p = 0.231). Eighty-four percent of patients in the control group and 86% in the intervention group completed at least 4 cycles of cyclophosphamide. Conclusions: Routine PRO surveillance, coupled with guideline-based collaborative care interventions, was associated with completion of a greater number of cycles of docetaxel. These findings suggest that routine symptom surveillance and management may enhance the docetaxel tolerance profile and improve treatment adherence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, allowing for delivery of an optimized treatment course.

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.

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.

12079 Background: Many troublesome symptoms experienced by men with prostate cancer are not specific to a particular disease state or treatment modality. As such, these issues' scope is neither fully appreciated nor characterized in the reporting of clinical trial data. A modern accounting of poorly controlled symptoms is needed to better inform survivorship and supportive care efforts. Methods: Data are drawn from the Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) study, a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial examining the effectiveness of routine symptom assessment and management on patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization (NCT03892967). This is a population-level study supporting patients with cancer, who are cared for in medical oncology clinics across the Midwest United States. The trial utilizes an automated symptom monitoring system with EHR-enabled algorithms for symptom triage and intervention. The current analysis focuses on pre-intervention surveys. The cohort includes E2C2 participants with prostate cancer (as determined by the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry) receiving curative or palliative-intent therapies, along with prostate cancer survivors who previously completed their treatment. The prevalence of SPPADE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, impaired physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue [low energy]) was assessed using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales (NRS), with scores of 4-6 indicating moderate symptoms and 7-10 indicating severe symptoms. Results: A total of 1,388 men with prostate cancer completed a pre-intervention survey between March 2019 and January 2023. The median age at completion of first survey was 74 years. The cohort includes patients living in diverse settings, including urban (n=718, 52%), micropolitan (n=250, 18%), small town (n=218, 16%), and rural (n=200, 14%) environments. The proportion of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms (NRS score ≥4) was 47% for fatigue, 40% for impaired physical function, 32% for sleep disturbance, 27% for pain, 22% for anxiety, and 20% for depression/emotional distress. The three domains with the highest prevalence of severe symptoms (NRS score ≥7) were fatigue (17%), impaired physical function (12%), and sleep disturbance (10%). Conclusions: Proactive symptom monitoring identifies a high overall burden of moderate-to-severe symptoms, particularly fatigue and impaired physical function, among prostate cancer patients and survivors. Collaborative care approaches and symptom control trials are needed to mitigate and manage these burdensome symptoms. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 . [Table: see text]