Defining the Role of the Advanced Practice Provider Within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program.

PURPOSE: Oncology advanced practice providers (APPs), including nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists, physician assistants, and clinical pharmacists, contribute significantly to quality cancer care. Understanding the research-related roles of APPs in the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) could lead to enhanced protocol development, trial conduct, and accrual. METHODS: The 2022 NCORP Landscape Assessment Survey asked two questions about the utilization and roles of APPs in the NCORP. RESULTS: A total of 271 practice groups completed the 2022 survey, with a response rate of 90%. Of the 259 nonpediatric exclusive practice groups analyzed in this study, 92% used APPs for clinical care activities and 73% used APPs for research activities. APPs most often provided clinical care for patients enrolled in trials (97%), followed by assistance with coordination (65%), presenting/explaining clinical trials (59%), screening patients (49%), ordering investigational drugs (37%), and consenting participants (24%). Some groups reported APPs as an enrolling investigator (18%) and/or participating in institutional oversight/selection of trials (15%). Only 5% of NCORP sites reported APPs as a site primary investigator for trials, and very few (3%) reported APPs participating in protocol development. CONCLUSION: Practice groups report involving APPs in clinical research within the NCORP network; however, opportunities for growth exists. As team-based care has enhanced clinical practice in oncology, this same approach can be used to enhance successful research. Suggested strategies include supporting APP research-related time, recognition, and education. The findings of this survey and subsequent recommendations may be applied to all adult oncology practices that participate in clinical research.

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.

COVID-19 severity by vaccination status in the NCI COVID-19 and Cancer Patients Study (NCCAPS).

We investigated the association of SARS CoV-2 vaccination with COVID-19 severity in a longitudinal study of adult cancer patients with COVID-19. A total of 1610 patients who were within 14 days of an initial positive SARS CoV-2 test and had received recent anticancer treatment or had a history of stem cell transplant or CAR-T cell therapy were enrolled between May 21, 2020, and February 1, 2022. Patients were considered fully vaccinated if they were 2 weeks past their second dose of mRNA vaccine (BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273) or a single dose of adenovirus vector vaccine (Ad26.COV2.S) at the time of positive SARS CoV-2 test. We defined severe COVID-19 disease as hospitalization for COVID-19 or death within 30 days. Vaccinated patients were significantly less likely to develop severe disease compared with those who were unvaccinated (odds ratio = 0.44, 95% confidence interval = 0.28 to 0.72, P < .001). These results support COVID-19 vaccination among cancer patients receiving active immunosuppressive treatment.

Through the Lens of Patient Partners: Challenges in Accrual of Older Adults to NCI Clinical Trials.

The workshop "Engaging Older Adults in Cancer Clinical Trials Conducted in the NCI Clinical Trials Network: Challenges and Opportunities" included a Patient Stakeholder Workgroup that explored the needs and concerns of older adults with cancer regarding clinical trials. To accomplish this, the workgroup conducted patient focus groups in which participants were interviewed, recorded conversations were analyzed and coded, and salient themes were identified. The focus groups identified general barriers to accrual such as complex consent forms, general communication, restrictive eligibility, nonreferrals, patient costs, cultural insensitivity, limited accessibility in community settings, and transportation issues. They also identified the influence of knowledgeable information presenters, improved care, family or caregiver support, and the desire to help others as drivers or reasons to participate in clinical trials. The workshop concluded that multi-level interventions could be used to increase the accrual of older adults to National Cancer Institute clinical trials as well as others.

Update on Enrollment of Older Adults Onto National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network Trials.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are a large and growing proportion of cancer cases in the United States, but concerns persist about whether older adults are adequately represented in the cancer clinical trials that test new options for treatment and cancer care. METHODS: This paper describes adult patient enrollments by age group to the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) from 2016 to 2021, compares patient enrollment by age with the estimated incident cancer population across cancer types, and explores possible associations between patient age and patient race, ethnicity, and sex. RESULTS: This analysis found that patients aged 18 to 69 years were overrepresented in NCTN trials, whereas patients aged 70 years and older were underrepresented compared with the estimated incident cancer population. Underrepresentation of older patients was seen across cancer types. Older patients who enrolled to NCTN trials were more likely to be non-Hispanic White than the estimated incident cancer population. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with earlier analyses, NCTN trials are enrolling greater proportions of older adults, primarily driven by higher enrollment among patients aged 65 to 74 years. There is still significant room for improvement, however, especially among patients aged 75 years and older. Additionally, patient demographics should not be viewed in isolation: older Hispanic patients, for instance, were particularly underrepresented among patients enrolled to NCTN trials. The intersection between trial enrollment and age, race, and ethnicity warrants further study so that more targeted enrollment enhancement efforts can be developed that enhance trial diversity across demographic groups.

Implementing Modernized Eligibility Criteria in US National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials.

In 2018, the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) at the US National Cancer Institute published new protocol template language that focused on organ function and prior and concurrent cancers in an effort to modernize eligibility criteria for cancer treatment trials. We conducted an analysis of CTEP-supported trials to evaluate the uptake and incorporation of the new language. The analysis included evaluation of 122 protocols approved in the years 2018-2020 for inclusion of the modernized eligibility criteria and consistency with new protocol template language related to 7 major eligibility criteria. These were cardiac function, liver function, kidney function, HIV status, prior and/or concurrent malignancies, treated and/or stable brain metastasis, and new and/or progressive brain metastases. Overall, CTEP trials evaluated in this period demonstrated that eligibility criteria were implemented to a relatively high degree ranging from a low of 54.1% for prior and/or concurrent malignancies to a high of 93.4% for eligibility criteria related to HIV infection. The findings demonstrate that modernized eligibility criteria can be successfully implemented but that consistent implementation requires sustained focused effort. As a result of these findings, CTEP began a new initiative in January 2022 that incorporates a specific review of eligibility criteria for new protocols to promote and improve consistency with the modernization effort.

Continuing to Broaden Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative and Inclusive: ASCO-Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

PURPOSE: Restrictive clinical trial eligibility criteria (EC) limit the number of patients who can enroll and potentially benefit from protocol-driven, investigational treatment plans and reduce the generalizability of trial results to the broader population. Following publication of expert stakeholder recommendations for broadening EC in 2017, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Friends of Cancer Research (Friends) convened working groups to produce additional recommendations and analyze the potential impact on clinical trials using real-world data. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Multistakeholder working groups were appointed by an ASCO-Friends leadership group to propose recommendations for more inclusive EC related to: washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory reference ranges and test intervals, and performance status. RESULTS: The four working groups, ASCO Board of Directors, and Friends leadership support the recommendations included in this statement to modernize EC related to washout periods, concomitant medications, prior therapies, laboratory references ranges and test intervals, and performance status to make trial populations more inclusive and representative of cancer patient populations. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the recommendations is intended to result in greater ease of determining patient eligibility. Increased opportunities for patient participation in research will help address longstanding underrepresentation of certain groups in clinical trials and produce evidence that is more informative for a broader patient population. More patients eligible will also likely speed clinical trial accrual.See related commentary by Giantonio, p. 2369.

Reporting of health-related quality of life endpoints in National Cancer Institute-supported cancer treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: The importance of capturing and reporting health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in clinical trials has been increasingly recognized in the oncology field. As a result, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) began to provide support for correlative HRQOL studies in cancer treatment trials. The current study was conducted to assess the publication rate of HRQOL correlative studies in NCI-supported treatment trials and to identify potential factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates. METHODS: The NCI conducted a retrospective review of existing NCI databases to identify cancer treatment trials that had obtained additional NCI funding for the assessment of HRQOL and to determine the extent to which funded HRQOL studies have been completed and published in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS: Of the 108 included trials, 58 (54%) had a parent trial (PT) publication; of these, 36 trials (62%) had a published HRQOL result: 20 as an independent publication and 16 that were included and/or reported in the PT publication. The length of time between trial activation and closure, as well as the specific cancer, appeared to be associated with the publication rates. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study demonstrated that approximately 45% of the PT publications were followed by a HRQOL publication within 1 year, to allow the knowledge to be used in patient treatment decision making. The authors believe the current analysis is an important first step toward a better understand of the challenges that researchers face when reporting HRQOL endpoints.

National Cancer Institute: Restructuring to Support the Clinical Trials of the Future.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the evolution and structure of the National Cancer Institute clinical trials programs, their notable accomplishments, nurses' roles in these accomplishments, and the essential role of nursing today and in the future. DATA SOURCES: Manuscripts, government publications, websites, and professional communications. CONCLUSION: Change is inevitable and a constant factor in the world of advancing science and clinical research. Nurses' contribution to research and evidence-based practice will continue to grow and is vital as the scientific landscape evolves. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: As the understanding of cancer biology increases and clinical trials evolve, nurses will need to remain key team members and leaders in National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program and National Cancer Trials Network trials and their associated infrastructure.

The National Cancer Institute and Department of Veterans Affairs Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment (NAVIGATE): A federal collaboration to improve cancer care.

Cancer clinical trials represent an important option for patients with a diagnosis of cancer and the clinician-investigators involved in their care who seek options for their disease. For all who are impacted by cancer, these studies offer opportunities for greater learning. Conducting these important studies involves several challenges, including recruiting eligible participants. To address barriers that arise over the course of these activities, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) have partnered to increase Veteran participation in oncology clinical trials. This initiative, the NCI And VA Interagency Group to Accelerate Trials Enrollment, or NAVIGATE, is focused on addressing recruitment across the VA healthcare system and finding systematic solutions related to activating, recruiting for and conducting oncology clinical trials at VA Medical Centers. Additional goals include (1) establishing a sustainable network that can serve as a model for other VA sites interested in doing cancer clinical trials, (2) recruitment of minority patients, and (3) developing best practices and policies that can be deployed across the VA healthcare system. In this manuscript, we describe the scope, organization, activities, and future directions of NAVIGATE while also highlighting key needs for successfully conducting cancer clinical trials within the VA system. This partnership between 2 large federal agencies with a shared commitment to improving cancer care may provide lessons to others who are also dedicated to helping those affected by the disease.

Feasibility of Implementing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in a Multicenter Trial: NCCTG N1048.

Purpose The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to enable patient reporting of symptomatic adverse events in oncology clinical research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility and resource requirements associated with implementing PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial. Methods Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer enrolled in the National Cancer Institute-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group (Alliance) Preoperative Radiation or Selective Preoperative Radiation and Evaluation before Chemotherapy and Total Mesorectal Excision trial were asked to self-report 30 PRO-CTCAE items weekly from home during preoperative therapy, and every 6 months after surgery, via either the Web or an automated telephone system. If participants did not self-report within 3 days, a central coordinator called them to complete the items. Compliance was defined as the proportion of participants who completed PRO-CTCAE assessments at expected time points. Results The prespecified PRO-CTCAE analysis was conducted after the 500th patient completed the 6-month follow-up (median age, 56 years; 33% female; 12% nonwhite; 43% high school education or less; 5% Spanish speaking), across 165 sites. PRO-CTCAE was reported by participants at 4,491 of 4,882 expected preoperative time points (92.0% compliance), of which 3,771 (77.2%) were self-reported by participants and 720 (14.7%) were collected via central coordinator backup. Compliance at 6-month post-treatment follow-up was 333 of 468 (71.2%), with 122 (26.1%) via backup. Site research associates spent a median of 15 minutes on PRO-CTCAE work for each patient visit. Work by a central coordinator required a 50% time commitment. Conclusion Home-based reporting of PRO-CTCAE in a multicenter trial is feasible, with high patient compliance and low site administrative requirements. PRO-CTCAE data capture is improved through centralized backup calls.

Broadening Eligibility Criteria to Make Clinical Trials More Representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement.

Purpose The primary purposes of eligibility criteria are to protect the safety of trial participants and define the trial population. Excessive or overly restrictive eligibility criteria can slow trial accrual, jeopardize the generalizability of results, and limit understanding of the intervention's benefit-risk profile. Methods ASCO, Friends of Cancer Research, and the US Food and Drug Administration examined specific eligibility criteria (ie, brain metastases, minimum age, HIV infection, and organ dysfunction and prior and concurrent malignancies) to determine whether to modify definitions to extend trials to a broader population. Working groups developed consensus recommendations based on review of evidence, consideration of the patient population, and consultation with the research community. Results Patients with treated or clinically stable brain metastases should be routinely included in trials and only excluded if there is compelling rationale. In initial dose-finding trials, pediatric-specific cohorts should be included based on strong scientific rationale for benefit. Later phase trials in diseases that span adult and pediatric populations should include patients older than age 12 years. HIV-infected patients who are healthy and have low risk of AIDS-related outcomes should be included absent specific rationale for exclusion. Renal function criteria should enable liberal creatinine clearance, unless the investigational agent involves renal excretion. Patients with prior or concurrent malignancies should be included, especially when the risk of the malignancy interfering with either safety or efficacy endpoints is very low. Conclusion To maximize generalizability of results, trial enrollment criteria should strive for inclusiveness. Rationale for excluding patients should be clearly articulated and reflect expected toxicities associated with the therapy under investigation.

Evaluation of different recall periods for the US National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE.

AIMS: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. METHODS: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. RESULTS: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was -0.20 (-0.20) for 1-week recall, -0.36 (-0.31) for 2-week recall, -0.45 (-0.39) for 3-week recall, and -0.47 (-0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54-0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58-0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61-0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64-0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. CONCLUSION: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss.

Feasibility of a Centralized Clinical Trials Coverage Analysis: A Joint Initiative of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the National Cancer Institute.

PURPOSE: Clinical trial billing compliance is a challenge that is faced by overburdened clinical trials sites. The requirements place institutions and research sites at increased potential for financial risk. To reduce their risk, sites develop a coverage analysis (CA) before opening each trial. For multisite trials, this translates into system-wide redundancies, inconsistencies, trial delays, and potential costs to sites and patients. These factors exacerbate low accrual rates to cancer clinical trials. ASCO and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) collaborated to address this problem. METHODS: An ASCO Research Community Forum working group proposed the concept of providing centrally developed CAs to research sites at protocol startup. The group collaborated with NCI and billing compliance experts to hold a symposium for key stakeholders to share knowledge, build skills, provide tools to conduct centralized CAs, and strategize about the next steps. RESULTS: Forty-eight attendees, who represented a range of stakeholders, participated in the symposium. As a result of this initiative, NCI directed the Cancer Trials Support Unit to convene a working group with NCI's National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) to develop tools and processes for generating CAs for their trials. A CA template with core elements was developed and is being adapted in a pilot project across NCTN Group and NCORP Research Bases. CONCLUSION: Centralized CAs for multisite trials-using standardized tools and templates-are feasible. They have the potential to reduce risk for patients and sites, forecast budget needs, and help decrease trial startup times that impede patient access and accrual to clinical trials.

Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of measuring symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in a multicenter clinical trial using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients enrolled in NRG Oncology's RTOG 1012 (Prophylactic Manuka Honey for Reduction of Chemoradiation Induced Esophagitis-Related Pain during Treatment of Lung Cancer) were asked to self-report 53 PRO-CTCAE items representing 30 symptomatic AEs at 6 time points (baseline; weekly ×4 during treatment; 12 weeks after treatment). Reporting was conducted via wireless tablet computers in clinic waiting areas. Compliance was defined as the proportion of visits when an expected PRO-CTCAE assessment was completed. RESULTS: Among 226 study sites participating in RTOG 1012, 100% completed 35-minute PRO-CTCAE training for clinical research associates (CRAs); 80 sites enrolled patients, of which 34 (43%) required tablet computers to be provided. All 152 patients in RTOG 1012 agreed to self-report using the PRO-CTCAE (median age 66 years; 47% female; 84% white). Median time for CRAs to learn the system was 60 minutes (range, 30-240 minutes), and median time for CRAs to teach a patient to self-report was 10 minutes (range, 2-60 minutes). Compliance was high, particularly during active treatment, when patients self-reported at 86% of expected time points, although compliance was lower after treatment (72%). Common reasons for noncompliance were institutional errors, such as forgetting to provide computers to participants; patients missing clinic visits; Internet connectivity; and patients feeling "too sick." CONCLUSIONS: Most patients enrolled in a multicenter chemoradiotherapy trial were willing and able to self-report symptomatic AEs at visits using tablet computers. Minimal effort was required by local site staff to support this system. The observed causes of missing data may be obviated by allowing patients to self-report electronically between visits, and by using central compliance monitoring. These approaches are being incorporated into ongoing studies.

Raising Public Awareness of Clinical Trials: Development of Messages for a National Health Communication Campaign.

Clinical trials are essential for developing new and effective treatments and improving patient quality of life; however, many trials cannot answer their primary research questions because they fall short of their recruitment goals. This article reports the results of formative research conducted in two populations, the public and primary care physicians, to identify messages that may raise awareness and increase interest in clinical trials and be used in a national communication campaign. Results suggested that participants were primarily motivated to participate in clinical trials out of a self-interest to help themselves first. Messages illustrated that current treatments were tested via clinical trials, helped normalize trials as routine practices, and reduced concerns over trying something new first. Participants wanted messages that portray trials as state-of-the-art choices that offer some hope, show people like themselves, and are described in a clear, concise manner with actionable steps for them to take. The study revealed some differences in message salience, with healthy audiences exhibiting lower levels of interest. Our results suggest that targeted messages are needed, and that communication with primary health-care providers is an important and necessary component in raising patient awareness of the importance of clinical trials.

Feasibility Assessment of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Multicenter Cancer Clinical Trials.

IMPORTANCE: In cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014. RESULTS: Of the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Participants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.

A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates.

Since 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has mandated that researchers use its consent form template in developing consent forms for their NCI-funded clinical trials. The template was substantially revised in 2013 to aid in the development of simpler, more concise consent forms. The NCI conducted a randomized controlled trial with cancer survivors (N = 153) to assess the revised template's effect on individuals' knowledge, satisfaction, clarity, and likelihood of joining a trial in the future. We found that the revised template resulted in equally high knowledge and satisfaction scores as the original template, but with fewer words and pages. The likelihood that an individual would participate in a trial diminished after he or she reviewed either the original or revised consent form, yet having knowledge about trials before reviewing the consent forms resulted in increased satisfaction. To ensure an informed decision-making process, we recommend using the revised NCI consent form template along with using educational interventions aimed at increasing the understanding potential participants have of a trial before they receive a consent form.