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.

Abstract Background This secondary analysis of a phase I clinical trial illustrates integrated summary and visualization of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) data and Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) data at baseline and through the first cycle of treatment for tolerability review during dose-cohort evaluation in a phase I trial. Methods This study uses data from a phase I clinical trial of patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Through iterative feedback from clinicians and statisticians, we developed a summary of cycle 1 PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data for the first dose-level cohort. This summary is intended to demonstrate reporting that would be reviewed to inform a decision about proceeding to the next dose level in a dose escalation trial. Results Cycle 1 CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE data for 4 patients enrolled in the first dose cohort are summarized as narrative and tabular summaries and visualized using swimmer and butterfly plots. In this cohort, 3/4 (75%) patients had at least one CTCAE grade 3 or higher adverse event, and all 4 (100%) patients had at least one PRO-CTCAE composite score of 3 during cycle 1. All 4 (100%) patients had at least one symptom for which PRO-CTCAE suggested greater symptom burden than was reflected in CTCAE. Conclusions In this illustrative summary of a dose cohort, PRO-CTCAE complemented CTCAE reporting by capturing patient-reported symptomatic burden that was not always fully reflected by clinician-graded adverse events. Reviewing PRO-CTCAE and CTCAE data together during dose-cohort evaluation may enrich discussions on safety and tolerability in phase I trials.

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%

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.

Abstract Purpose: There are limited prospective data on the efficacy, tolerability, and functional impact of treatments for older and frail adults with HER2+ early breast cancer. We report the first-ever, US-based adjuvant trial dedicated to this population. Methods: We conducted a single arm, phase II, multicenter, investigator-initiated study of adjuvant ado-trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) in patients aged 60 and older with stage I-III HER2+ breast cancer who either declined standard adjuvant therapy or were deemed by their physician not to be candidates for standard treatment for any reason. Protocol therapy included postoperative administration of T-DM1 (3.6 mg/kg) every 21 days for one year (17 cycles). The primary endpoint was 5-year invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) with a 2-sided 90% confidence interval. Secondary endpoints presented here are toxicity and 3-year iDFS, invasive breast cancer-free survival (iBCFS), and overall survival (OS). All survival analyses were evaluated using Kaplan Meier methods and began at the time of C1D1 of T-DM1. Results: ATOP enrolled 111 evaluable patients during 2015-2020; median follow-up is 4.9 years (IQR 4.2-5.5). The median age was 71 (range 60-88); 50.4% were aged &gt;70 and 11.7% were aged &gt;80. Overall, 69.4% had stage I, 26.1% had stage II, and 4.5% had stage III disease; 70.3% had hormone receptor-positive tumors. The 5-year iDFS = 84.2% (90% CI 77.1-92.0%). The 3-year iDFS = 91.2% (90% CI 85.9%, 96.9%) and iBCFS = 94.1% (90% CI 89.7-98.8%) (see Table for event details); 3-year OS = 96.1% (90% CI 92.4-99.9%). In total, there were 3 distant recurrences and 2 breast cancer-related deaths. Overall, 82% reported grade 2+ toxicity during treatment; the most common grade 2+ events were fatigue (30.6%) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (19.8%). The most frequent grade 3 events were liver function abnormality, anemia, decreased neutrophil count, and neuropathy (&lt;5% for each); one patient (0.9%) had grade 4 thrombocytopenia. Sixty-five (58.6%) completed all 17 cycles of protocol therapy; 27 (24.3%) completed 10-16 cycles, and 19 (17.1%) completed 1-9 cycles. Reasons for early treatment discontinuation in the remaining 41.4% included toxicity (28.8%), patient withdrawal (6.3%), other (3.6%), disease progression (0.9%), death on study (0.9%, deemed unrelated to treatment), and other complicating disease (0.9%). Conclusions: The ATOP trial demonstrated a favorable 5-year iDFS and manageable toxicity among older adults with early stage HER2+ breast cancer. Although iDFS was numerically worse than historical controls (i.e., 5-year iDFS in the ‘ATEMPT’ trial by Tolaney et al. J Clin Oncol, 2024 was 97% [95% 95.2-98.7]), ATOP’s participants had higher-risk cancers, advanced age, and more competing non-breast cancer events. Future endpoints will include in-depth analyses of patient-reported outcomes, biomarkers of aging, and longitudinal functional status. Citation Format: R. A. Freedman, H. Heiling, K. J. Ruddy, L. Rogak, M. Sedrak, A. Dueck, H. Liu, A. Fraettarelli, S. Atanasov, M. DeMeo, P. Lange, A. Perilla Glen, S. Sinclair, D. Dillon, J. Mortimer, M. Fenton, J. Walsh, L. Spring, H. Muss, N. Sinclair, E. Hamilton, C. Dang, S. Giordano, M. Faggen, S. Lo, C. Kuzma, S. Lemke, P. Stella, R. Mowat, M. Wilkinson, J. Rauch, N. Tayob, E. Winer. Adjuvant Ado-Trastuzumab Emtansine (T-DM1) for Older Patients with HER2+ Breast Cancer - Results from the ATOP Study [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2025; 2025 Dec 9-12; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2026;32(4 Suppl):Abstract nr PS3-11-04.

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 Emoji are digital images or icons used to express an idea or emotion in electronic communication. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of two patient-reported scales that incorporate emoji. METHODS The Emoji Response Scale developed for this study has two parts: the Emoji-Ordinal and Emoji-Mood scales. A pilot study was designed to validate the ordinal nature of the Emoji-Ordinal Scale. Twenty patients were shown all possible pairs of five emoji and asked to select the most positive from each pair. The psychometric ordering was assessed using Coombs unfolding and Thurstone scaling. A separate pilot study was designed to determine which emoji to include in the Emoji-Mood Scale. Ten common feelings experienced by patients with cancer were chosen by the study team. Patients and providers were asked to select the one emoji that best represented each feeling from the selection. The most commonly selected emotions and representative emoji were chosen for the Emoji-Mood Scale. In a randomized study of 294 patients, Spearman correlations, Wilcoxon tests, and Bland-Altman analyses determined the construct validity of the scales compared with Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASA) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. RESULTS Ninety-five percent of patients selected the same ordering among the ordinal emoji, and Thurstone scaling confirmed the ordinal nature of the response scale. The construct validity of the scales was high with correlations between the Emoji-Ordinal Scale and the LASA scale of 0.70 for emotional well-being, 0.72 for physical well-being, 0.74 for overall quality of life, and –0.81 for fatigue. Emoji-Mood Scale ratings were strongly related to PROMIS global mental, global physical, fatigue, anxiety, sleep disturbance, and social activity scales ( P < .0001). CONCLUSION This study provides evidence that scales incorporating emoji are valid for collecting patient-reported outcomes.