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.

Abstract INTRODUCTION: Prostate cancer (PC) shows marked heterogeneity in clinical outcomes, from indolent to highly aggressive disease. Alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and DNA damage repair genes are linked to poor patient outcomes, yet how the interaction and co-occurrence of these alterations impact prognosis remains unclear. We leveraged the AACR Project GENIE prostate cancer cohort to assess the prognostic impact of individual and concomitant gene alterations, focusing on key PC drivers (BRCA2, TP53, PTEN, RB1). METHODS: the study was conducted in two stages: (i) identification of candidate alterations at individual gene level through a systematic literature review, followed by analyzing the prevalence and co-occurrence of genes in the AACR Project GENIE Public Release (PR) dataset. (ii) Prognostic analysis of the pre-selected biomarkers in the AACR Project GENIE Biopharma Collaborative (BPC) cohort. Analyses were performed in three clinical settings (entire BPC cohort, n=1114; subgroup of patients with localized disease at diagnosis, n=837; and subgroup of patients with metastatic PC with a biopsy collected before or at the time of mPC, n=455) using two statistical approaches: univariate analysis (UA) and inverse probability weighting using propensity scores (PS). Cox models were applied to estimate overall survival hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS: after integrating the findings from the systematic review with the analysis of the GENIE PR (n=5684), 107 individual genes and 122 co-occurring alterations were selected for study. In the GENIE BPC (n=1114 patients) 75% were M0 at diagnosis, and 67% presented metastatic PC at any time. Alteration prevalence was: TP53, 25%; PTEN, 15%; BRCA2, 4%; RB1, 4%; co-alterations included, PTEN-TP53 (6.4%), RB1-TP53 (2.1%), PTEN-RB1 (1.3%), and BRCA2-TP53 (1.2%). All four key genes showed a statistically significant prognostic impact in the entire cohort with UA (BRCA2, HR:1.9; TP53, HR:2.6; PTEN, HR:2.4; RB1, HR:4.1, all p&lt;0.001). Results were consistent in the subgroup analysis and when using PS. Additional genes such as FANCA, PIK3CA, and MYC were also associated with poor outcomes. Among co-alterations, BRCA2-TP53 (HR:2.0, p=0.05), RB1-TP53 (HR:3.6, p&lt;0.001), PTEN-TP53 (HR:2.4, p&lt;0.001); PTEN-RB1 (HR:5.5, p&lt;0.001), and PTEN-TP53-RB1 (HR:9.0, p&lt;0.001) were the strongest predictors of poor survival, with consistent effects across subgroups and analytical methods. Other combinations including MYC-TP53 (HR 2.2, p&lt;0.001) and PIK3CA-TP53 (HR 3.2, p&lt;0.001), also showed independent prognostic value. CONCLUSIONS: Genomic alterations in TP53, PTEN, RB1, and BRCA2, alone and in combination, independently associate with poor prognosis. Co-alteration patterns such as PTEN-TP53-RB1 define aggressive molecular subsets. This evidence supports integrating genomic interaction patterns for enhancing clinical risk models and guiding precision patient management. Furthermore, this study highlights the potential of AACR Project GENIE to enable data-driven development of biomarker-informed patient care strategies. Citation Format: Pablo Cresta Morgado, Victor Navarro, Guillermo Vilacampa, Haitham Alatoom, Manuel Ramos del Rio, Irbaz Riaz, Shawn Sweeney, Nikolaus Schultz, Ken Kehl, Gregory Riely, Wasim Abida, Katherine Panageas, Deborah Schrag, Philippe Bedard, Christine Micheel, Xindi Guo, Chelsea Nayan, Rodrigo Dientsmann, Joaquin Mateo. Genomic prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer from the AACR GENIE cohort [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Innovations in Prostate Cancer Research and Treatment; 2026 Jan 20-22; Philadelphia PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2026;86(2_Suppl):Abstract nr A013.

Abstract Blood-based multicancer early detection (MCED) tests represent a new approach for cancer detection. To gain insights into the utility of various approaches of evaluating a cancer signal detected (CSD) test result, we evaluated diagnostic journeys of a subset of 6,662 participants in PATHFINDER who had a CSD on both an initial and refined version of an MCED test that also provided a prediction of cancer signal origin (CSO). We sought to determine whether CSO prediction–guided diagnostic evaluations led to diagnostic resolution; whether participants with known risk factors for cancer beyond age alone and a negative initial diagnostic evaluation had a cancer diagnosis during study follow-up; the utility of whole-body imaging in reaching diagnostic resolution; and differences in the diagnostic journeys needed to reach diagnostic resolution for both true- and false-positive results. Of the 39 participants in this analysis, 82% (32/39) achieved diagnostic resolution after the initial evaluation, including 78% (25/32) who reached resolution specifically with a CSO prediction–directed workup. Eighteen percent (7/39) required additional evaluation for persistent clinical suspicion of cancer, all of whom achieved resolution (3 with and 4 without cancer). Whole-body imaging contributed to diagnostic resolution in only 49% of CSD cases. Approximately 90% of true- and false-positive cases had imaging tests; more true positives versus false positives (81.0% vs. 38.9%) had nonsurgical and/or surgical procedures. In conclusion, CSO prediction–directed evaluations enabled diagnostic resolution for most participants, although some with negative initial evaluations but persistent suspicion of cancer required additional testing. Prevention Relevance: MCED testing has the potential to increase detection of cancer at earlier stages. As MCED testing is a new technology, there are few data on the diagnostic journeys patients undergo following testing. We observed that for most patients, CSO prediction–directed workups were efficient, leading to diagnostic resolution after initial evaluation.

Abstract Background The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer now includes “watch-and-wait” (WW) management for patients who exhibit a clinical complete response (cCR) to total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT). We assessed patients’ knowledge and preferences regarding WW with the goal of incorporating patient input into clinical trial design. Methods Rectal cancer patients in advocacy groups (COLONTOWN/Rectalburgh and Fight CRC) were surveyed regarding perceptions about treatment strategies, tolerable risks of treatment failure, and preferences on clinical trial design. Surveys were initially distributed in 2019, with the shift toward WW prompting re-survey of select questions in 2023. Results All respondents preferred enrollment in trials that incorporated patient input. Most respondents (76%) preferred treatment that incorporated chemotherapy escalation over radiation escalation. Furthermore, when presented with a hypothetical patient who developed a cCR after chemoradiation (without the option for WW), 58% of patients chose surgical treatment (with 100% risk of permanent ostomy and 80% chance of cure) over omission of surgery (with &lt;80% chance of cure). In contrast, when the hypothetical patient developed a cCR after TNT (with an option for WW), 82% of patients opted for selective WW over surgery. Conclusions This work successfully integrated patient advocacy groups as a resource for obtaining patient input. Surveys revealed patients had a strong preference for chemotherapy escalation, for selective WW when offered, and for incorporation of input into future clinical trial design. These findings describe how well-informed patients approach complex medical decision-making and serve as a starting point for future studies seeking to incorporate patient voices.

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.

AbstractCancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium’s conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Background Electronic health record–linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. Methods Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). Results Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. Conclusion Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record–based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

PURPOSE Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices ( P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.