A randomized phase 2 trial of pomalidomide in subjects failing prior therapy for chronic graft-versus-host disease.

Steroid-refractory chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is a therapeutic challenge. Sclerotic skin manifestations are especially difficult to treat. We conducted a randomized phase 2 clinical trial (#NCT01688466) to determine the safety, efficacy, and preferred dose of pomalidomide in persons with moderate to severe cGVHD unresponsive to corticosteroids and/or subsequent lines of therapy. Thirty-four subjects were randomized to receive pomalidomide 0.5 mg per day orally (n = 17; low-dose cohort) or 2 mg per day at a starting dose of 0.5 mg per day increasing to 2 mg per day over 6 weeks (n = 17; high-dose cohort). The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) at 6 months according to the 2005 National Institutes of Health cGVHD Response Criteria. Thirty-two patients had severe sclerotic skin and received a median of 5 (range, 2-10) previous systemic therapies. ORR was 47% (95% confidence interval, 30-65) in the intention-to-treat analyses. All were partial responses, with no difference in ORR between the cohorts. ORR was 67% (45%-84%) in the 24 evaluable subjects at 6 months. Nine had improvement in National Institutes of Health joint/fascia scores (P = .018). Median change from the baseline in body surface area involvement of skin cGVHD was -7.5% (-10% to 35%; P = .002). The most frequent adverse events were lymphopenia, infection, and fatigue. Eight subjects in the high-dose cohort had dose decreases because of adverse events. There was 1 death in the low-dose cohort from bacterial pneumonia. Our data indicate antifibrotic effects of pomalidomide and possible association with increases in concentrations of blood regulatory T-cell and interleukin-2. Pomalidomide 0.5 mg per day is a safe and effective therapy for advanced corticosteroid-refractory cGVHD.

Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Symptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment. METHODS: We interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes. RESULTS: Findings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers]. CONCLUSION: Attention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Patient self-reporting of tolerability using PRO-CTCAE in a randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial comparing gemcitabine in combination with adavosertib or placebo in patients with platinum resistant or refractory epithelial ovarian carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial assessed gemcitabine in combination with the wee1 inhibitor adavosertib or placebo in platinum resistant or refractory high grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrating improved progression free and overall survival favouring the adavosertib/gemcitabine arm. An exploratory objective of the study included the PRO-CTCAE assessment, to capture self-reporting of frequency, severity and/or interference of symptomatic adverse events (syAEs). METHODS: PRO-CTCAE items at baseline, days 1 and 15 of each cycle and off treatment, were completed in two centres, with the objective of characterizing syAEs in the first three months of therapy. The maximum post-baseline score proportion for each syAE was tabulated per patient. The 12-week area under the curve (AUC12w) as a measure of syAE over-time and incremental AUC12w (iAUC12w) for adjustment to baseline syAEs. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were approached for PRO-CTCAE surveys and 55 were evaluable. Among patients with HGSOC, 28 received gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A) and 19 gemcitabine/placebo (arm B). Survey completion rates were high. The proportion of participants with positive (≥1) PRO-CTCAE scores was higher for difficulty swallowing with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%, p = 0.02). The high score (≥3) syAEs showed more frequent diarrhea with gemcitabine/adavosertib (arm A 25% vs arm B 0%, p = 0.03). The proportions of worsening syAEs over time were higher in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib for difficulty swallowing (arm A 35.7% vs arm B 5.3%; p = 0.03) and fatigue severity (arm A 71.43% vs arm B 42.1%; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The longitudinal assessment of patient self-reported tolerability showed greater difficulty swallowing and fatigue severity in patients receiving gemcitabine/adavosertib, compared to gemcitabine/placebo. PRO-CTCAE provides complementary and objective assessment of drug tolerability from a patient's perspective.

Screening, evaluation, and management of cancer-related fatigue: Ready for implementation to practice?

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Evidence regarding cancer-related fatigue (fatigue) has accumulated sufficiently such that recommendations for screening, evaluation, and/or management have been released recently by 4 leading cancer organizations. These evidence-based fatigue recommendations are available for clinicians, and some have patient versions; but barriers at the patient, clinician, and system levels hinder dissemination and implementation into practice. The underlying biologic mechanisms for this debilitating symptom have not been elucidated completely, hindering the development of mechanistically driven interventions. However, significant progress has been made toward methods for screening and comprehensively evaluating fatigue and other common symptoms using reliable and valid self-report measures. Limited data exist to support the use of any pharmacologic agent; however, several nonpharmacologic interventions have been shown to be effective in reducing fatigue in adults. Never before have evidence-based recommendations for fatigue management been disseminated by 4 premier cancer organizations (the National Comprehensive Cancer, the Oncology Nursing Society, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer/Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology). Clinicians may ask: Are we ready for implementation into practice? The reply: A variety of approaches to screening, evaluation, and management are ready for implementation. To reduce fatigue severity and distress and its impact on functioning, intensified collaborations and close partnerships between clinicians and researchers are needed, with an emphasis on system-wide efforts to disseminate and implement these evidence-based recommendations.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners.

BACKGROUND: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners' experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. METHODS: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. RESULTS: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia-Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as "high frequency users" who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier. CONCLUSIONS: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Exercise counselling and referral in cancer care: an international scoping survey of health care practitioners' knowledge, practices, barriers, and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Evidence supports the role of prescribed exercise for cancer survivors, yet few are advised to exercise by a healthcare practitioner (HCP). We sought to investigate the gap between HCPs' knowledge and practice from an international perspective. METHODS: An online questionnaire was administered to HCPs working in cancer care between February 2020 and February 2021. The questionnaire assessed knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding exercise counselling and referral of cancer survivors to exercise programs. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 375 participants classified as medical practitioners (42%), nurses (28%), exercise specialists (14%), and non-exercise allied health practitioners (16%). Between 35 and 50% of participants self-reported poor knowledge of when, how, and which cancer survivors to refer to exercise programs or professionals, and how to counsel based on exercise guidelines. Commonly reported barriers to exercise counselling were safety concerns, time constraints, cancer survivors being told to rest by friends and family, and not knowing how to screen people for suitability to exercise (40-48%). Multivariable logistic regression models including age, gender, practitioner group, leisure-time physical activity, and recall of guidelines found significant effects for providing specific exercise advice (χ2(7) = 117.31, p < .001), discussing the role of exercise in symptom management (χ2(7) = 65.13, p < .001) and cancer outcomes (χ2(7) = 58.69, p < .001), and referring cancer survivors to an exercise program or specialist (χ2(7) = 72.76, p < .001). CONCLUSION: Additional education and practical support are needed to equip HCPs to provide cancer survivors with exercise guidelines, resources, and referrals to exercise specialists.

Systematic Review of Functional Outcomes in Cancer Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. The time scope was January 2008 to April 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multiarm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full-text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. DATA EXTRACTION: Extraction was performed by coauthor teams and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (class I-IV). DATA SYNTHESIS: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: (1) quality of life (109 studies), (2) activities of daily living (61 studies), (3) fatigue (59 studies), (4) functional mobility (55 studies), (5) exercise behavior (37 studies), (6) cognition (20 studies), (7) communication (10 studies), (8) sexual function (6 studies), and (9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias. Averaging results found within each of the functional domains, 71% of studies reported statistically significant results after cancer rehabilitation intervention(s) for at least 1 functional outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide evidence supporting the efficacy of rehabilitative interventions for individuals with a cancer history. The findings should be balanced with the understanding that many studies had moderate risk of bias and/or limitations in study quality by AAN criteria. These results may provide a foundation for future work to establish clinical practice guidelines for rehabilitative interventions across cancer disease types.

Trajectories of fatigue in a population-based sample of older adult breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer survivors: an analysis using the SEER-MHOS data resource.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is one of the most common and distressing symptoms experienced by cancer survivors. Understanding fatigue trajectories from pre- to post-diagnosis could inform fatigue prevention and management strategies. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) linked data resource to characterize fatigue trajectories and their predictors 1214 older adult survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer. Fatigue was measured prior to the cancer diagnosis (T0) and at two timepoints after diagnosis (T1: mean = 20 months and T2: mean = 39 months post-diagnosis). Latent growth curve modeling and mixed effects models for repeated measurements were used to investigate fatigue experiences before and after a cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Overall, mean fatigue T-scores declined (T0 = 50, T1 = 46, and T2 = 45) indicating worsening fatigue over time. Four latent trajectory subgroups were identified: severe fatigue worsening over time (8.2% of sample), severe fatigue persisting over time (14.4%), no fatigue pre-diagnosis and mild fatigue post-diagnosis (44.4%), and not fatigued (33%). Age, cancer stage, comorbidities, and depressed mood predicted membership in the two trajectory groups experiencing severe fatigue that persisted or that worsened post-diagnosis. Older age, advanced cancer stage at diagnosis, and depressed mood were significantly associated with worsening fatigue from T1 to T2 (all p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating cancer patients for depressive symptoms and considering prior fatigue levels, age, comorbid conditions, and cancer stage may help providers anticipate fatigue trajectories and implement pre-emptive strategies to lessen fatigue impact.

Rehabilitation Interventions in the Multidisciplinary Management of Patients With Sclerotic Graft-Versus-Host Disease of the Skin and Fascia.

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a multisystemic disorder that affects 30%-80% of patients who undergo allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation 10%-15% of GVHD patients develop sclerotic features affecting the skin or deeper tissues, leading to functional limitations and poor quality of life. There is limited literature regarding the indications and efficacy of specific rehabilitative interventions in sclerotic GVHD (sclGVHD). In this article, we summarize the current evidence supporting rehabilitation intervention in sclGVHD and offer our approach to the multidisciplinary management of this disease. In addition, we review techniques that have been employed in other sclerotic skin diseases (eg, iontophoresis, extracorporeal shock waves, botulinum toxin A, adipose derived stromal vascular fraction), but that require further validation in the sclGVHD setting. Ultimately, optimal care for this complex disease requires a multidisciplinary approach that includes a rehabilitation and adaptive program tailored to each patient's needs.

International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, function, and other health-related quality-of-life aspects, are increasingly evaluated in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to provide information about treatment risks, benefits, and tolerability. However, expert opinion and critical review of the literature showed no consensus on optimal methods of PRO analysis in cancer RCTs, hindering interpretation of results. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium was formed to establish PRO analysis recommendations. Four issues were prioritised: developing a taxonomy of research objectives that can be matched with appropriate statistical methods, identifying appropriate statistical methods for PRO analysis, standardising statistical terminology related to missing data, and determining appropriate ways to manage missing data. This Policy Review presents recommendations for PRO analysis developed through critical literature reviews and a structured collaborative process with diverse international stakeholders, which provides a foundation for endorsement; ongoing developments of these recommendations are also discussed.

Clinical characteristics and cytokine biomarkers in patients with chronic graft-vs-host disease persisting seven or more years after diagnosis.

Chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) is the leading late complication after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Many patients receive multiple lines of systemic therapy until cGVHD resolves, but about 15% remain on systemic treatment for more than 7 years after cGVHD diagnosis. This study describes the clinical and biological factors of patients who present with cGVHD persisting for ≥7 years (persistent cGVHD). Patients with persistent cGVHD (n = 38) and those with cGVHD for <1 year (early cGVHD) (n = 83) were enrolled in a prospective cross-sectional natural history study. Patients in the persistent cGVHD group were a median of 10.2 years from cGVHD diagnosis (range 7-27 years). Fifty-eight percent of persistent cGVHD patients (22/38) were receiving systemic immunosuppression, compared to 88% (73/83) in the early cGVHD group. In multivariable analysis, bone marrow (BM) stem cell source, presence of ENA autoantibodies, higher NIH lung score, higher platelet counts, and higher IgA levels were significantly associated with persistent cGVHD. A high sensitivity panel of serum biomarkers including seven cytokines diagnostic for cGVHD was analyzed and showed significantly lower levels of BAFF and CXCL10 in patients with persistent cGVHD. In conclusion, standardly accepted clinical measures of disease severity may not accurately reflect disease activity in patients with persistent cGVHD. However, many patients with persistent cGVHD are still receiving systemic immunosuppression despite lacking evidence of disease activity. Development of reliable clinical biomarkers of cGVHD activity may help guide future systemic treatments.

Motor ability, function, and health-related quality of life as correlates of symptom burden in patients with sclerotic chronic graft-versus-host disease receiving imatinib mesylate.

PURPOSE: To explore improvement in motor ability, function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and symptom severity in patients with sclerotic chronic graft-versus-host disease (ScGVHD) in response to treatment as well as the relationship among changes on such measures. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of data from 13 individuals with severe ScGVHD enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of imatinib mesylate (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00702689). Self-reported, clinician-reported, and performance-based indicators of motor ability, function, HRQOL, and symptom severity were assessed at baseline and 6 months following the administration of imatinib mesylate. RESULTS: Participants did not show statistically significant improvement on any measures over time. Approximately one-third of patients displayed clinically significant improvement on measures of motor ability (palmar pinch strength, dominant hand, 30.8%), functioning (Manual Ability Measure-36, 41.7%), HRQOL (Short Form 36 [SF-36] Mental Component Summary, 33.3%), and symptom severity (Lee Symptom Scale, 38.5%). Improvement in cGVHD symptom burden was correlated with improvement in function (Assessment of Motor and Process Skills [AMPS] and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand [DASH] scores) and HRQOL (SF-36 Physical Component Summary scores). CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the potential utility of administering patient-reported and performance-based functional measures, such as the DASH and the AMPS, to patients with cGVHD. By understanding the functional consequences of ScGVHD, interdisciplinary teams of health care providers, including rehabilitation professionals, can work to improve long-term outcomes.

Evidence-based sizing of non-inferiority trials using decision models.

BACKGROUND: There are significant challenges to the successful conduct of non-inferiority trials because they require large numbers to demonstrate that an alternative intervention is "not too much worse" than the standard. In this paper, we present a novel strategy for designing non-inferiority trials using an approach for determining the appropriate non-inferiority margin (δ), which explicitly balances the benefits of interventions in the two arms of the study (e.g. lower recurrence rate or better survival) with the burden of interventions (e.g. toxicity, pain), and early and late-term morbidity. METHODS: We use a decision analytic approach to simulate a trial using a fixed value for the trial outcome of interest (e.g. cancer incidence or recurrence) under the standard intervention (pS) and systematically varying the incidence of the outcome in the alternative intervention (pA). The non-inferiority margin, pA - pS = δ, is reached when the lower event rate of the standard therapy counterbalances the higher event rate but improved morbidity burden of the alternative. We consider the appropriate non-inferiority margin as the tipping point at which the quality-adjusted life-years saved in the two arms are equal. RESULTS: Using the European Polyp Surveillance non-inferiority trial as an example, our decision analytic approach suggests an appropriate non-inferiority margin, defined here as the difference between the two study arms in the 10-year risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, of 0.42% rather than the 0.50% used to design the trial. The size of the non-inferiority margin was smaller for higher assumed burden of colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: The example demonstrates that applying our proposed method appears feasible in real-world settings and offers the benefits of more explicit and rigorous quantification of the various considerations relevant for determining a non-inferiority margin and associated trial sample size.

Fatigue predicts impaired social adjustment in survivors of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT).

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to examine social adjustment to illness and to identify factors related to social adjustment in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) survivors. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were drawn from a longitudinal study of patients ≥ 3 years after their first HCT. The five subscales of the Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale (PAIS) that reflect social adjustment, specifically vocational environment (VE); domestic environment (DE); sexual relationships (SEX); extended family relationships (ER); and social environment (SE) were examined in this analysis. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) measured cancer-related fatigue. RESULTS: Subjects (N = 171) were a median of 5.19 years from HCT (range 3-16). The most impaired dimension of social adjustment was ER with 38% of participants reaching clinically relevant (score ≥ 62) levels of social maladjustment. Unmarried and unemployed participants had lower levels of social adjustment in VE (p < .001 and p < .001, respectively) and DE (p = .004 and p = .006, respectively). Survivors with some college had poorer SEX adjustment than those with less or more education (p < .005). Hispanics reported lower adjustment with respect to ER adjustment (p = .002). Participants with higher fatigue had poorer adjustment in all five dimensions (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although the majority of survivors are well adjusted, subgroups may experience significant poor social adjustment. Specifically, survivors with fatigue are at risk to experience lower levels of social adjustment. Development of effective rehabilitation strategies to improve affected areas of social health is warranted, and all HCT survivors should be screened periodically for social maladjustment and provided with resources and referrals.

Routine surveillance for symptomatic toxicities with real-time clinician reporting in Danish breast cancer patients-Organization and design of the first national, cluster randomized trial using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed by the National Cancer Institute to capture patient self-reports of symptomatic toxicities during cancer treatment. The aim of this short communication is to describe the design of a national study, which examine the effect of using patients' electronic PRO-CTCAE reporting with real-time feedback to clinicians on treatment events for breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. The study's end-points are defined as dose reduction, hospitalization, and febrile neutropenia. This is the first report on the impact of PRO-CTCAE in a national breast cancer population during chemotherapy treatment.

Statistical analysis of patient-reported outcome data in randomised controlled trials of locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review.

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life, are important endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), there is little consensus about the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of these data. We did a systematic review to assess the variability, quality, and standards of PRO data analyses in advanced breast cancer RCTs. We searched PubMed for English language articles published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 1, 2001, and Oct 30, 2017. Eligible articles were those that reported PRO results from RCTs of adult patients with advanced breast cancer receiving anti-cancer treatments with reported sample sizes of at least 50 patients-66 RCTs met the selection criteria. Only eight (12%) RCTs reported a specific PRO research hypothesis. Heterogeneity in the statistical methods used to assess PRO data was observed, with a mixture of longitudinal and cross-sectional techniques. Not all articles addressed the problem of multiple testing. Fewer than half of RCTs (28 [42%]) reported the clinical significance of their findings. 48 (73%) did not report how missing data were handled. Our systematic review shows a need to improve standards in the analysis, interpretation, and reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs. Lack of standardisation makes it difficult to draw robust conclusions and compare findings across trials. The Setting International Standards in the Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data Consortium was set up to address this need and develop recommendations on the analysis of PRO data in RCTs.

Outcomes of multidisciplinary treatment planning in US cancer care settings.

Multidisciplinary treatment planning (MTP) is a process of engaging multiple disciplines to develop or refine the disease management plan. It is widely implemented in US cancer treatment settings and is considered to have favorable effects on both care quality and other outcomes. However, evidence reviews to date regarding MTP effectiveness have based their conclusions on studies conducted predominantly outside the United States. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based studies to synthesize and critically appraise evidence of the effects of MTP on cancer care quality, health services outcomes, and survival. Database searches identified studies of MTP outcomes conducted in US cancer care settings from 2000 to 2017. Forty-five studies met criteria for inclusion. MTP was associated with favorable effects on several indicators of cancer care quality, including delivery of guideline-concordant treatment and improvements in diagnostic accuracy, staging completeness, surgical technique, and timeliness. Effects on survival and clinical trials enrollment were mixed. Delivery formats for MTP were generally not well described, and study designs were nonrandomized, limiting the ability to identify mediators of intervention effects. Continued study is warranted to clarify effective components of MTP interventions, and to understand the mechanism(s) through which MTP produces favorable effects on outcomes.

Informing the Tolerability of Cancer Treatments Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Summary of an FDA and Critical Path Institute Workshop.

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Critical Path Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium convened a cosponsored workshop on the use of PRO measures to inform the assessment of safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. A broad array of international stakeholders involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement science provided perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anticancer agents. Speakers and panelists explored the utility of information derived from existing and emerging PRO measures, focusing on the PRO version of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Panelists and speakers discussed potential ways to improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of PRO data describing symptomatic adverse events to support drug development and better inform regulatory and treatment decisions. Workshop participants concluded the day with a discussion of possible approaches to the patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side effect burden as a potential clinical trial end point. The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its commitment to collaborate with international drug development stakeholders to identify rigorous methods to incorporate the patient perspective into the development of cancer therapeutics.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs. METHODS AND RESULTS: Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including "missing data,""health-related quality of life," and "patient-reported outcome." Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data. CONCLUSION: The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.