Identification of meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening on the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®).

BACKGROUND: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores. METHODS: We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from - 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from - 3 to 3. RESULTS: Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data. CONCLUSION: In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091).

Statistical properties of items and summary scores from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) in a diverse cancer sample.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) was developed to capture symptomatic adverse events from the patient perspective. We aim to describe statistical properties of PRO-CTCAE items and summary scores and to provide evidence for recommendations regarding PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting. METHODS: Using data from the PRO-CTCAE validation study (NCT02158637), prevalence, means, and standard deviations of PRO-CTCAE items, composite scores, and mean and maximum scores across attributes (frequency, severity, and/or interference) of symptomatic adverse events were calculated. For each adverse event, correlations and agreement between attributes, correlations between attributes and composite scores, and correlations between composite, mean, and maximum scores were estimated. RESULTS: PRO-CTCAE items were completed by 899 patients with various cancer types. Most patients reported experiencing one or more adverse events, with the most prevalent being fatigue (87.7%), sad/unhappy feelings (66.0%), anxiety (63.6%), pain (63.2%), insomnia (61.8%), and dry mouth (60.0%). Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated within an adverse event (r = 0.53 to 0.77, all p < 0.001) but not fully concordant (κweighted = 0.26 to 0.60, all p < 0.001), with interference demonstrating lowest mean scores and prevalence among attributes of the same adverse event. Attributes were moderately to strongly correlated with composite scores (r = 0.67 to 0.97, all p < 0.001). Composite scores were moderately to strongly correlated with mean and maximum scores for the same adverse event (r = 0.69 to 0.94, all p < 0.001). Correlations between composite scores of different adverse events varied widely (r = 0.04 to 0.68) but were moderate to strong for conceptually related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence for PRO-CTCAE administration and reporting recommendations that the full complement of attributes be administered for each adverse event, and that attributes as well as summary scores be reported.

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.

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.

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.

Long-Term Toxic Effects, Swallow Function, and Quality of Life on MC1273: A Phase 2 Study of Dose De-escalation for Adjuvant Chemoradiation in Human Papillomavirus-Positive Oropharyngeal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with human papillomavirus oropharyngeal cancer are highly curable but risk significant long-term toxic effects with standard therapy. This study investigated a de-escalation strategy of decreased adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy after transoral robotic surgery, and reports on long-term functional and quality of life (QOL) outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had a p16-positive oropharyngeal cancer and ≤10 pack-year smoking history and underwent surgery followed by treatment with either 30 Gy delivered in 1.5-Gy fractions twice per day over 2 weeks with weekly docetaxel (15 mg/m2) if they had intermediate pathologic risk factors or 36 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions twice per day over 2 weeks with the same chemotherapy if they had extranodal extension. Toxic effects, swallow function, and QOL were measured longitudinally. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (89.9% male) were treated and eligible for toxic effect and functional evaluation. Dry mouth was the most common grade 1 toxic effect at 1 year (55.6%), 2 years (53.3%), and 3 years (49.2%). The cumulative rates of grade 2 toxic effects at 1, 2, and 3 years were 1.4%, 6.7%, and 6.8%, respectively. There were only 2 grade 3 toxic effects at ≥1 year, including a grade 3 fatigue at 2.5 years, and a grade 3 superficial soft tissue fibrosis at 4 years. There were no grade 4 to 5 toxic effects. No patients were percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy-dependent. Swallow function improved by 12 months posttreatment. QOL improved over time by all measurement tools and most patients returned to baseline level of function and QOL. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalated adjuvant therapy for select patients with human papillomavirus oropharyngeal cancer resulted in low rates of long-term toxic effects, excellent swallow outcomes, and preservation of global and xerostomia-related QOL.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Randomized Phase II Study of Two Doses of Pixantrone in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer (NCCTG N1031, Alliance).

BACKGROUND: Anthracycline use in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is hindered by cumulative exposure limits and risk of cardiotoxicity. Pixantrone, a novel aza-anthracenedione with structural similarities to mitoxantrone and anthracyclines, is theorized to exhibit less cardiotoxicity, mainly due to lack of iron binding. We conducted a randomized phase II study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of 2 dosing schedules of pixantrone in patients with refractory HER2-negative MBC. METHODS: Intravenous pixantrone was administered at 180 mg/m2 every 3 weeks (group A) versus 85 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle (group B). Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), median 6-month PFS, overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life, and serial assessment of circulating tumor cells. A 20% ORR was targeted as sufficient for further testing of pixantrone in this patient population. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were evaluable, with 2 confirmed partial responses in group A and 1 in group B. The trial was terminated due to insufficient activity. Overall median PFS and OS were 2.8 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.0-4.1) and 16.8 (95% CI: 8.9-21.6) months, respectively. Notable overall grade 3-4 adverse events were the following: neutrophil count decrease (62%), fatigue (16%), and decrease in ejection fraction (EF) (4%). CONCLUSION: Pixantrone has insufficient activity in the second- and third-line MBC setting. It appears, however, to have limited cardiotoxicity. (ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT01086605).

Clinical activity of single-dose systemic oncolytic VSV virotherapy in patients with relapsed refractory T-cell lymphoma.

Clinical success with intravenous (IV) oncolytic virotherapy (OV) has to-date been anecdotal. We conducted a phase 1 clinical trial of systemic OV and investigated the mechanisms of action in responding patients. A single IV dose of vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) interferon-ß (IFN-ß) with sodium iodide symporter (NIS) was administered to patients with relapsed/refractory hematologic malignancies to determine safety and efficacy across 4 dose levels (DLs). Correlative studies were undertaken to evaluate viremia, virus shedding, virus replication, and immune responses. Fifteen patients received VSV-IFNß-NIS. Three patients were treated at DL1 through DL3 (0.05, 0.17, and 0.5 × 1011 TCID50), and 6 were treated at DL4 (1.7 × 1011 TCID50) with no dose-limiting toxicities. Three of 7 patients with T-cell lymphoma (TCL) had responses: a 3-month partial response (PR) at DL2, a 6-month PR, and a complete response (CR) ongoing at 20 months at DL4. Viremia peaked at the end of infusion, g was detected. Plasma IFN-ß, a biomarker of VSV-IFNß-NIS replication, peaked between 4 hours and 48 hours after infusion. The patient with CR had robust viral replication with increased plasma cell-free DNA, high peak IFN-ß of 18 213 pg/mL, a strong anti-VSV neutralizing antibody response, and increased numbers of tumor reactive T-cells. VSV-IFNß-NIS as a single agent was effective in patients with TCL, resulting in durable disease remissions in heavily pretreated patients. Correlative analyses suggest that responses may be due to a combination of direct oncolytic tumor destruction and immune-mediated tumor control. This trial is registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT03017820.

Missing data strategies for the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Alliance A091105 and COMET-2.

PURPOSE: Missing scores complicate analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) because patients with and without missing scores may systematically differ. We focus on optimal analysis methods for incomplete PRO-CTCAE items, with application to two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III trials. METHODS: In Alliance A091105 and COMET-2, patients completed PRO-CTCAE items before randomization and several times post-randomization (N = 64 and 107, respectively). For each trial, we conducted between-arm comparisons on the PRO-CTCAE via complete-case two-sample t-tests, mixed modeling with contrast, and multiple imputation followed by two-sample t-tests. Because interest lies in whether CTCAE grades can inform missing PRO-CTCAE scores, we performed multiple imputation with and without CTCAE grades as auxiliary variables to assess the added benefit of including them in the imputation model relative to only including PRO-CTCAE scores across all cycles. RESULTS: PRO-CTCAE completion rates ranged from 100.0 to 71.4% and 100.0 to 77.1% across time in A091105 and COMET-2, respectively. In both trials, mixed modeling and multiple imputation provided the most similar estimates of the average treatment effects. Including CTCAE grades in the imputation model did not consistently narrow confidence intervals of the average treatment effects because correlations for the same PRO-CTCAE item between different cycles were generally stronger than correlations between each PRO-CTCAE item and its corresponding CTCAE grade at the same cycle. CONCLUSION: For between-arm comparisons, mixed modeling and multiple imputation are informative techniques for handling missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CTCAE grades do not provide added benefit for informing missing PRO-CTCAE scores. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifiers: NCT02066181 (Alliance A091105); NCT01522443 (COMET-2).

Evaluating Treatment Tolerability Using the Toxicity Index With Patient-Reported Outcomes Data.

CONTEXT: Summarizing longitudinal symptomatic adverse events during clinical trials is necessary for understanding treatment tolerability. The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) provides insight for capturing treatment tolerability within trials. Tolerability summary measures, such as the maximum score, are often used to communicate the potential negative symptoms both in the medical literature and directly to patients. Commonly, the proportions of present and severe symptomatic adverse events are used and reported between treatment arms among adverse event types. The toxicity index is also a summary measure previously applied to clinician-reported CTCAE data. OBJECTIVES: Apply the toxicity index to PRO-CTCAE data from the COMET-2 trial alongside the maximum score, then present and discuss considerations for using the toxicity index as a summary measure for communicating tolerability to patients and clinicians. METHODS: Proportions of maximum PRO-CTCAE severity levels and median toxicity index were computed by arm using all trial data and adjusting for baseline symptoms. RESULTS: Group-wise statistical differences were similar whether using severity level proportions or the toxicity index. The impact of adjusting for baseline symptoms was equivalently seen when comparing arms using severity rates or the toxicity index. CONCLUSION: The toxicity index is a useful method when ranking patients from those with the least to most symptomatic adverse event burden. This study showed the toxicity index can be applied to PRO-CTCAE data. Though as a tolerability summary measure, further study is needed to provide a clear clinical or patient-facing interpretation of the toxicity index.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes monitoring during lung cancer chemotherapy: A nested cohort within the PRO-TECT pragmatic trial (AFT-39).

OBJECTIVES: Patients with lung cancer have high symptom burden and diminished quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) platforms deliver repeated longitudinal surveys via web or telephone to patients and alert clinicians about concerning symptoms. This study aims to determine feasibility of electronic PRO monitoring in lung cancer patients receiving treatment in community settings. METHODS: Adults receiving treatment for advanced or metastatic lung cancer at 26 community sites were invited to participate in a prospective trial of weekly electronic PRO symptom monitoring for 12 months (NCT03249090). Surveys assessing patients' satisfaction with the electronic PRO system were administered at 3 months. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographics, survey completion rates, symptom occurrence, and provider PRO alert management approaches. Pairwise relationships between symptom items were evaluated using intra-individual repeated-measures correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Lung cancer patients (n = 118) participating in electronic PROs were older (mean 64.4 vs 61.9 years, p = 0.03), had worse performance status (p = 0.002), more comorbidities (p = 0.02), and less technology experience than patients with other cancers. Of delivered weekly PRO surveys over 12 months, 91% were completed. Nearly all (97%) patients reported concerning (i.e., severe or worsening) symptoms during participation, with 33% of surveys including concerning symptoms. Pain was the most frequent and longest lasting symptom and was associated with reduced activity level. More than half of alerts to clinicians for concerning symptoms led to intervention. The majority (87%) would recommend using electronic PRO monitoring to other lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Remote longitudinal weekly monitoring of patients with lung cancer using validated electronic PRO surveys was feasible in a multicenter, community-based pragmatic study. A high symptom burden specific to lung cancer was detected and clinician outreach in response to alerts was frequent, suggesting electronic PROs may be a beneficial strategy for identifying actionable symptoms and allow opportunities to optimize well-being in this population.

Induction versus no induction chemotherapy before neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: a multicentre randomised phase II trial (NCCTG N0849 [Alliance]).

AIM: report primary results from the first multicentre randomised trial evaluating induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy in patients with oesophageal or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Notably, recent data from a single-institution randomised trial reported that induction chemotherapy prolonged overall survival (OS) in patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. METHODS: In this phase 2 trial (28 centres in the U.S. NCI-sponsored North Central Cancer Treatment Group [Alliance]), trimodality-eligible patients (T3-4N0, TanyN+) were randomised to receive induction (docetaxel, oxaliplatin, capecitabine; Arm A) or no induction chemotherapy (Arm B) followed by oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/radiation and subsequent surgery. The primary endpoint was the rate of pathologic complete response (pathCR). Secondary/exploratory endpoints were OS and disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Of 55 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, the pathCR rate was 28.6% (8/28) in A versus 40.7% (11/27) in B (P = .34). Given interim results indicating futility, accrual was terminated, but patients were followed. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, a longer median OS in Arm A versus B was unexpectedly observed (3-year rates 57.1% versus 41.7%, respectively) driven by longer DFS after margin-free surgery. In posthoc analysis, induction (versus no induction) chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer OS and DFS among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours, but not among patients with poorly/undifferentiated tumours (Pinteraction = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: Adding induction chemotherapy prior to trimodality therapy did not improve the primary endpoint, pathCR. However, induction chemotherapy was associated with longer median OS, particularly among patients with well/moderately differentiated tumours. These findings may inform further development of curative-intent trials in this disease.

Clinical Utility and User Perceptions of a Digital System for Electronic Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Care: Findings From the PRO-TECT Trial.

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS: PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION: These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

Phase II Evaluation of Aggressive Dose De-Escalation for Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Human Papillomavirus-Associated Oropharynx Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if dose de-escalation from 60 to 66 Gy to 30 to 36 Gy of adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) for selected patients with human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma could maintain historical rates for disease control while reducing toxicity and preserving swallow function and quality of life (QOL). PATIENTS AND METHODS: MC1273 was a single-arm phase II trial testing an aggressive course of RT de-escalation after surgery. Eligibility criteria included patients with p16-positive oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, smoking history of 10 pack-years or less, and negative margins. Cohort A (intermediate risk) received 30 Gy delivered in 1.5-Gy fractions twice per day over 2 weeks along with 15 mg/m2 docetaxel once per week. Cohort B included patients with extranodal extension who received the same treatment plus a simultaneous integrated boost to nodal levels with extranodal extension to 36 Gy in 1.8-Gy fractions twice per day. The primary end point was locoregional tumor control at 2 years. Secondary end points included 2-year progression-free survival, overall survival, toxicity, swallow function, and patient-reported QOL. RESULTS: Accrual was from September 2013 to June 2016 (N = 80; cohort A, n = 37; cohort B, n = 43). Median follow-up was 36 months, with a minimum follow-up of 25 months. The 2-year locoregional tumor control rate was 96.2%, with progression-free survival of 91.1% and overall survival of 98.7%. Rates of grade 3 or worse toxicity at pre-RT and 1 and 2 years post-RT were 2.5%, 0%, and 0%. Swallowing function improved slightly between pre-RT and 12 months post-RT, with one patient requiring temporary feeding tube placement. CONCLUSION: Aggressive RT de-escalation resulted in locoregional tumor control rates comparable to historical controls, low toxicity, and little decrement in swallowing function or QOL.

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.

A Novel Combination of the mTORC1 Inhibitor Everolimus and the Immunomodulatory Drug Lenalidomide Produces Durable Responses in Patients With Heavily Pretreated Relapsed Lymphoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment outcomes have improved in lymphoid malignancies but relapse remains inevitable for most patients. Everolimus and lenalidomide have shown clinical activity as single agents in patients with relapsed and refractory Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The present phase I/II trial for patients with relapsed and refractory lymphoid malignancy opened at Mayo Clinic from January 2011 to May 2013. The trial used a standard cohort 3 + 3 design to determine the maximum tolerated dose for the combination. Stem cell transplantation had failed in 27 of the patients (49%), 63% had stage IV disease, and ≥ 3 previous therapies had failed in 78%. RESULTS: Of the 58 patients, enrolled, 55 were evaluable for analysis. The maximum tolerated dose was 5 mg/d for everolimus plus 10 mg/d for 21 days for lenalidomide. The most common grade ≥ 3 toxicities were hematologic and included neutropenia (56%), leukopenia (38%), and thrombocytopenia (33%). Seven patients discontinued the study because of adverse events. One patient died of disease progression. The overall response rate was 27% (15 of 55), with 38% (21 of 55) having stable disease. CONCLUSION: The present phase I/II trial of everolimus and lenalidomide for R/R lymphoma has shown the combination to be tolerable, with neutropenia as the main dose-limiting toxicity. Encouraging responses were seen in this heavily pretreated group, and the patients with a response had meaningful duration of response.

A phase 2 study of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib and dexamethasone (R-CyBorD) in relapsed low grade and mantle cell lymphoma.

In this phase 2 trial, we sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab, cyclophosphamide, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (R-CyBorD) in patients with low-grade NHL. The regimen included rituximab on day 1 with weekly cyclophosphamide, dexamethasone, and bortezomib 1.3 mg/m2 IV in a 28-day cycle. Twenty one patients were enrolled on the study. Median age was 69 years (range 51-80) and 17 (81%) patients had two or more prior treatments. Histologies included FL (n = 8), MCL (n = 8), and LPL/WM (n = 5). Hematologic toxicity and peripheral sensory neuropathy were the most common adverse events. With a median follow-up of 38.1 months, ORR was 13/21 (62%), with 4 (19%) CR. The ORR was 7/8 (88%) in FL and was 4/5 (80%) in LPL/WM. Median PFS and OS were 11.6 months and 54.8 months, respectively. R-CyBorD is an effective regimen in relapsed FL and LPL/WM patients with an acceptable safety profile.