Optimization of alert notifications in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring systems (AFT-39).

PURPOSE: Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed. METHODS: We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency. RESULTS: 593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61% female, 80% white, 10% reported never using computers/tablets/smartphones). Patients completed 91% of expected weekly surveys. 34% of surveys generated an alert, and 59% of alerts prompted immediate nurse actions. Patients considered 10% of alerts urgent. Of the remaining cases, nurses considered alerts urgent more often when patients reported any worsening symptom compared to the prior week (33% of alerts with versus 26% without any worsening symptom, p = 0.009). The algorithm identified 38% of alerts as likely non-urgent that could be suppressed with acceptable discrimination (sensitivity = 80%, 95% CI [76%, 84%]; specificity = 52%, 95% CI [49%, 55%]). CONCLUSION: An algorithm can identify remote symptom monitoring alerts likely to be considered non-urgent by nurses, and may assist in fostering nurse acceptance and implementation feasibility of ePRO systems.

Integrating 4 methods to evaluate physical function in patients with cancer (In4M): protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate, patient-centred evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterise the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported outcome, patient-reported ported outcome (PRO), performance outcome tests and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English-speaking and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multimodal physical function data collection in real-world patients with breast cancer or lymphoma will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform and PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University and the US Food and Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05214144; Pre-results.

Financial Toxicity Monitoring in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-Reported Outcomes During Cancer Treatment (Alliance AFT-39).

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.

Impact of BMI in Patients With Early Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer Receiving Endocrine Therapy With or Without Palbociclib in the PALLAS Trial.

PURPOSE: BMI affects breast cancer risk and prognosis. In contrast to cytotoxic chemotherapy, CDK4/6 inhibitors are given at a fixed dose, irrespective of BMI or weight. This preplanned analysis of the global randomized PALLAS trial investigates the impact of BMI on the side-effect profile, treatment adherence, and efficacy of palbociclib. METHODS: Patients were categorized at baseline according to WHO BMI categories. Neutropenia rates were assessed with univariable and multivariable logistic regression. Time to early discontinuation of palbociclib was analyzed with Fine and Gray competing risk models. Unstratified Cox models were used to investigate the association between BMI category and time to invasive disease-free survival (iDFS). 95% CIs were derived. RESULTS: Of 5,698 patients included in this analysis, 68 (1.2%) were underweight, 2,082 (36.5%) normal weight, 1,818 (31.9%) overweight, and 1,730 (30.4%) obese at baseline. In the palbociclib arm, higher BMI was associated with a significant decrease in neutropenia (unadjusted odds ratio for 1-unit change, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91 to 0.94; adjusted for age, race ethnicity, region, chemotherapy use, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group at baseline, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.92 to 0.95). This translated into a significant decrease in treatment discontinuation rate with higher BMI (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] for 10-unit change, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.83). There was no significant improvement in iDFS with the addition of palbociclib to ET in any weight category (normal weight HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.12; overweight HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.49; and obese HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.30) in this analysis early in follow-up (31 months). CONCLUSION: This preplanned analysis of the PALLAS trial demonstrates a significant impact of BMI on side effects, dose reductions, early treatment discontinuation, and relative dose intensity. Additional long-term follow-up will further evaluate whether BMI ultimately affects outcome.

GATA1-defective immune-megakaryocytes as possible drivers of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive fibrotic lung disorder with limited therapeutic options. Insufficient understanding of driver mutations and poor fidelity of currently available animal models has limited the development of effective therapies. Since GATA1 deficient megakaryocytes sustain myelofibrosis, we hypothesized that they may also induce fibrosis in lungs. We discovered that lungs from IPF patients and Gata1low mice contain numerous GATA1negative immune-poised megakaryocytes that, in mice, have defective RNA-seq profiling and increased TGF-ß1, CXCL1 and P-selectin content. With age, Gata1low mice develop fibrosis in lungs. Development of lung fibrosis in this model is prevented by P-selectin deletion and rescued by P-selectin, TGF-ß1 or CXCL1 inhibition. Mechanistically, P-selectin inhibition decreases TGF-ß1 and CXCL1 content and increases GATA1positive megakaryocytes while TGF-ß1 or CXCL1 inhibition decreased CXCL1 only. In conclusion, Gata1low mice are a novel genetic-driven model for IPF and provide a link between abnormal immune-megakaryocytes and lung fibrosis.

Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation plus sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (chemoradiotherapy) before surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America. Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) can be used in lieu of chemoradiotherapy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX (with chemoradiotherapy given only if the primary tumor decreased in size by <20% or if FOLFOX was discontinued because of side effects) as compared with chemoradiotherapy. Adults with rectal cancer that had been clinically staged as T2 node-positive, T3 node-negative, or T3 node-positive who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery were eligible to participate. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Noninferiority would be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed 1.29. Secondary end points included overall survival, local recurrence (in a time-to-event analysis), complete pathological resection, complete response, and toxic effects. RESULTS: From June 2012 through December 2018, a total of 1194 patients underwent randomization and 1128 started treatment; among those who started treatment, 585 were in the FOLFOX group and 543 in the chemoradiotherapy group. At a median follow-up of 58 months, FOLFOX was noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.92; 90.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). Five-year disease-free survival was 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9 to 83.7) in the FOLFOX group and 78.6% (95% CI, 75.4 to 81.8) in the chemoradiotherapy group. The groups were similar with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.44) and local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.44 to 3.16). In the FOLFOX group, 53 patients (9.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 8 (1.4%) received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery, preoperative FOLFOX was noninferior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy with respect to disease-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PROSPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01515787.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).

PURPOSE: The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS: PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N-, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

Patient-reported Adverse Events During Neoadjuvant Therapy in a Phase 2 Borderline Resectable Pancreatic Cancer Clinical Trial (Alliance A021501).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate symptomatic adverse event (AE) rates among patients with pancreatic cancer receiving neoadjuvant therapy on clinical trial (A021501) using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). BACKGROUND: To date, pancreatic cancer clinical trials have measured AEs using standard physician reporting [Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE)]. Patient-reported symptomatic AEs have been incompletely characterized. METHODS: A021501 (December 31, 2016-January 1, 2019) randomized patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to 8 doses of mFOLFIRINOX (Arm 1) or 7 doses of mFOLFIRINOX+hypofractionated radiotherapy (Arm 2), followed by pancreatectomy and adjuvant FOLFOX6. Patients completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at baseline, on day 1 of each chemotherapy cycle, and daily during radiotherapy. RESULTS: Of 126 patients, 96 (76%) initiated treatment and completed a baseline plus at least 1 postbaseline PRO-CTCAE assessment. Diarrhea and fatigue were the only symptomatic grade 3 or higher AEs identified in at least 10% of patients using CTCAE. At least 10% of all patients reported an adjusted PRO-CTCAE composite grade 3 AE during neoadjuvant treatment for 10 of 15 items: anxiety (10%), bloating of abdomen (16%), decreased appetite (18%), diarrhea (13%), dry mouth (21%), fatigue (36%), nausea (18%), generalized pain (16%), abdominal pain (21%), and problems tasting (32%). Decreased appetite was higher in Arm 2 than in Arm 1 ( P =0.0497); no other differences between study arms were observed. CONCLUSION: Symptomatic AEs during neoadjuvant therapy were common and were reported more frequently by patients using PRO-CTCAE than were recorded by clinicians using standard CTCAE.

Ruxolitinib Versus Best Available Therapy for Polycythemia Vera Intolerant or Resistant to Hydroxycarbamide in a Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Polycythemia vera (PV) is characterized by JAK/STAT activation, thrombotic/hemorrhagic events, systemic symptoms, and disease transformation. In high-risk PV, ruxolitinib controls blood counts and improves symptoms. PATIENTS AND METHODS: MAJIC-PV is a randomized phase II trial of ruxolitinib versus best available therapy (BAT) in patients resistant/intolerant to hydroxycarbamide (HC-INT/RES). Primary outcome was complete response (CR) within 1 year. Secondary outcomes included duration of response, event-free survival (EFS), symptom, and molecular response. RESULTS: One hundred eighty patients were randomly assigned. CR was achieved in 40 (43%) patients on ruxolitinib versus 23 (26%) on BAT (odds ratio, 2.12; 90% CI, 1.25 to 3.60; P = .02). Duration of CR was superior for ruxolitinib (hazard ratio [HR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.61; P < .001). Symptom responses were better with ruxolitinib and durable. EFS (major thrombosis, hemorrhage, transformation, and death) was superior for patients attaining CR within 1 year (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.78; P = .01); and those on ruxolitinib (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.94; P = .03). Serial analysis of JAK2V617F variant allele fraction revealed molecular response was more frequent with ruxolitinib and was associated with improved outcomes (progression-free survival [PFS] P = .001, EFS P = .001, overall survival P = .01) and clearance of JAK2V617F stem/progenitor cells. ASXL1 mutations predicted for adverse EFS (HR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.47 to 6.17; P = .003). The safety profile of ruxolitinib was as previously reported. CONCLUSION: The MAJIC-PV study demonstrates ruxolitinib treatment benefits HC-INT/RES PV patients with superior CR, and EFS as well as molecular response; importantly also demonstrating for the first time, to our knowledge, that molecular response is linked to EFS, PFS, and OS.

Lessons learned from conducting the first cancer care delivery trial in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance A191402CD).

INTRODUCTION: Testing healthcare delivery interventions in rigorous clinical trials is a critical step in improving patient care, but conducting multisite randomized clinical trials to test the effect of care delivery interventions has unique challenges and requires foresight and planning. METHODS: We conducted the first care delivery trial (A191402CD) in the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, a National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program research base, which tested the effectiveness of two different decision aids for supporting shared decision-making about prostate cancer treatment. Our experience illustrates the kind of challenges that confront care delivery researchers as they seek to test interventions to improve the experiences of patients. RESULTS: Lessons learned include the following: cluster-randomized designs introduce complexity; workflow disruption can discourage site participation; evidence-based methods may not always be sufficient. CONCLUSION: We conclude with the following recommendations: assessing feasibility requires special rigor; relationships and interpersonal dynamics must be leveraged. Our experiences may inform future care delivery research.

Phase 1/1b study of azacitidine and hedgehog pathway inhibitor sonidegib in patients with myeloid neoplasms.

BACKGROUND: Myeloid neoplasms (myelodysplastic syndrome [MDS], myelofibrosis, and chronic myelomonocytic [CMML]) are aggressive hematological malignancies for which, despite recent approvals, novel therapies are needed to improve clinical outcomes. The hedgehog (HH) pathway is one of the main pathways for cancer stem cells survival and several HH inhibitors (HHi) are approved in clinical practice. METHODS: Sonidegib (SON), an oral HHi, was tested in this phase 1/1b trial in combination with azacitidine (AZA, 75 mg/m2 days ×7) in patients with newly diagnosed and relapsed/refractory (r/r) chronic MN or acute myeloid leukemia (AML). RESULTS: Sixty-two patients (28 [45%] newly diagnosed) were treated in this study, including 10 patients in the dose-finding component and 52 patients in phase 1b. SON 200 mg oral daily on days 1-28 each cycle was deemed the recommended dose for phase 1b. Out of 21 rrAML patients, two achieved response (one complete response/one morphologic leukemia-free state) with no responses seen in seven r/r MDS/CMML patients. In newly diagnosed AML/MDS, response was seen in six (three had complete remission, two had morphological leukemia-free status) of 27 patients. Median overall survival was 26.4 and 4.7 months for newly diagnosed MDS and AML, respectively. Safety was satisfactory with common (>20%) side effects including fatigue, constipation, nausea, cough, insomnia, and diarrhea. Only 7% of patients died in the study, and none of the deaths were deemed related to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that AZA + SON are a safe combination in a patient with MN. Similar to other hedgehog inhibitors, this combination yielded limited response rate in patients with myeloid neoplasms.

The Impact of Within-Consultation and Preconsultation Decision Aids for Localized Prostate Cancer on Patient Knowledge: Results of a Patient-Level Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the role of timing (either before or during initial consultation) on the effectiveness of decision aids (DAs) to support shared-decision-making in a minority-enriched sample of patients with localized prostate cancer using a patient-level randomized controlled trial design. METHODS: We conducted a 3-arm, patient-level-randomized trial in urology and radiation oncology practices in Ohio, South Dakota, and Alaska, testing the effect of preconsultation and within-consultation DAs on patient knowledge elements deemed essential to make treatment decisions about localized prostate cancer, all measured immediately following the initial urology consultation using a 12-item Prostate Cancer Treatment Questionnaire (score range 0 [no questions correct] to 1 [all questions correct]), compared to usual care (no DAs). RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2018, 103 patients-including 16 Black/African American and 17 American Indian or Alaska Native men-were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 33) or usual care and a DA before (n = 37) or during (n = 33) the consultation. After adjusting for baseline characteristics, there were no statistically significant proportional score differences in patient knowledge between the preconsultation DA arm (0.06 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.12, P = .1) or the within-consultation DA arm (0.04 knowledge change, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.11, P = .3) and usual care. CONCLUSION: In this trial oversampling minority men with localized prostate cancer, DAs presented at different times relative to the specialist consultation showed no improvement in patient knowledge above usual care.

Integrating 4 Measures to Evaluate Physical Function in Patients with Cancer (In4M): Protocol for a prospective study.

Introduction: Accurate, patient-centered evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterize the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported physical function (ClinRo), patient-reported physical function (PRO), performance outcome tests (PerfO) and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. Methods and analysis: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English- and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive standard of care intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centered health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity, and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multi-modal physical function data collection in real-world patients with cancer will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform, and PROs. Ethics and dissemination: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community, and the public. Registration Details: The trial registration number for this study is NCT05214144. Strengths & Limitations: This study addresses an important unmet need by characterizing the performance characteristics of multiple patient-centered physical function measures in patients with cancerPhysical function is an important and undermeasured clinical outcome. Scientifically rigorous capture and measurement of physical function constitutes a key component of cancer treatment tolerability assessment both from a regulatory and clinical perspective.This study will include patients with lymphoma or breast cancer receiving a broad range of cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. While recruitment will occur at two academic sites, patients who ultimately receive treatment at local community sites will be included.A patient-centered health data aggregating platform facilitates the delivery of patient-reported outcome measures and collection of wearable data to researchers, while reducing patient burden compared to traditional patient-generated data collection and aggregation methodsHeterogeneity in patient willingness or comfort engaging with mobile products including smartphones and wearables, enrollment primarily at large academic centers, and the modest sample size are potential limitations to the external validity of the study.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

The Timing, Trajectory, and Incidence of Immune-Related Adverse Events in NSCLC Treated With Atezolizumab.

Introduction: Immune-related adverse events (irAEs) due to immune checkpoint inhibitors can have complicated clinical courses. We comprehensively evaluated the timing, trajectory, and incidence of both single and multiple irAEs for NSCLC treated with atezolizumab. Methods: Data were pooled from 2457 patients who participated in the IMpower130, IMpower132, and IMpower150 clinical trials investigating the use of atezolizumab in metastatic NSCLC as part of a chemoimmunotherapy regimen. Longitudinal irAE data with landmark analysis, time-to-onset, changes in grading severity, and occurrence of multiple events were summarized. Results: In general, 1557 patients were treated with atezolizumab and 900 patients were in the control groups. Median follow-up was 32.3 and 23.5 months, respectively. In the atezolizumab group, 753 patients (48.4%) experienced at least one irAE. In the control group, 289 patients (32.1%) experienced at least one nonimmune adverse event that was attributed to an irAE. In the atezolizumab group, the most common irAEs were rash, hepatitis, and hypothyroidism. Furthermore, 13% of the patients experienced two irAEs and 4% experienced three irAEs. Within 5 months of treatment, the cumulative incidence for any irAE was 39.2%. Median time-to-onset varied from 1 to 10 months based on the specific irAE. Grade 1 to 2 irAEs increased in severity for 33% of the patients. Conclusions: We identified dynamic clinical patterns for irAEs in patients treated with atezolizumab, including variations in time-to-onset, incidence of multiple irAEs, and frequency of irAEs increasing in severity. These results can guide clinical management and future reporting of adverse events to enable comprehensive longitudinal analyses.

Successes and lessons learned in database development for national multi-site cancer care delivery research trials: the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology experience.

INTRODUCTION: Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology (Alliance) coordinated trials utilize Medidata Rave® (Rave) as the primary clinical data capture system. A growing number of innovative and complex cancer care delivery research (CCDR) trials are being conducted within the Alliance with the aims of studying and improving cancer-related care. Because these trials encompass patients, providers, practices, and their interactions, a defining characteristic of CCDR trials is multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings. Consequently, CCDR trials necessitated innovative strategies for database development, centralized data management, and data monitoring in the presence of these real-world multilevel relationships. Having real trial experience in working with community and academic centers, and having recently implemented five CCDR trials in Rave, we are committed to sharing our strategies and lessons learned in implementing such pragmatic trials in oncology. METHODS: Five Alliance CCDR trials are used to describe our approach to analyzing the database development needs and the novel strategies applied to overcome the unanticipated challenges we encountered. The strategies applied are organized into 3 categories: multilevel (clinic, clinic stakeholder, patient) enrollment, multilevel quantitative and qualitative data capture, including nontraditional data capture mechanisms being applied, and multilevel data monitoring. RESULTS: A notable lesson learned in each category was (1) to seek long-term solutions when developing the functionality to push patient and non-patient enrollments to their respective Rave study database that affords flexibility if new participant types are later added; (2) to be open to different data collection modalities, particularly if such modalities remove barriers to participation, recognizing that additional resources are needed to develop the infrastructure to exchange data between that modality and Rave; and (3) to facilitate multilevel data monitoring, orient site coordinators to the their trial's multiple study databases, each corresponding to a level in the hierarchy, and remind them to establish the link between patient and non-patient participants in the site-facing NCI web-based enrollment system. CONCLUSION: Although the challenges due to multilevel data collection in pragmatic settings were surmountable, our shared experience can inform and foster collaborations to collectively build on our past successes and improve on our past failures to address the gaps.

A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology.

Background: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). Patients and methods: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. Results: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. Conclusions: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.

An Exploratory Analysis of the "Was It Worth It?" Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Asking "Was it worth it?" (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients' perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. METHODS: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to "Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?" (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to "If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?"; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to "Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?" Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (-2.5 vs -0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.