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.).

Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes on genotype-guided irinotecan dosing: feasibility and clinical relevance.

INTRODUCTION: Standard investigator-based adverse events (AE) assessment is via CTCAE for clinical trials. However, including the patient perspective through PRO (patient-reported outcomes) enhances clinicians' understanding of patient toxicity and fosters early detection of AEs. We assessed longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE within clinical workflow in a phase II trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a sub-study in a phase II trial of genotype-directed irinotecan dosing evaluating efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving FOLFIRI and bevacizumab, patients reported on 13 AEs generating a PRO-CTCAE form. The primary objective was to estimate forms completed by patients and clinicians at least 80% of time. Secondary objectives were estimating concordance and time to first score of specific symptoms between patient and clinician pairs. RESULTS: Feasibility of longitudinal PRO-CTCAE integration was met as 96% of patients and clinician-patient pairs completed at least 80% of PRO-CTCAE forms available to them with 79% achieving 100% completion. Concordance between patient and clinician reporting a severe symptom was 73% with 24 disconcordant pairs, 21 involved patients who reported a severe symptom that the clinician did not. Although protocol-mandated dose reductions were guided by CTCAE not PRO-CTCAE responses, the median time to dose reduction of 2.53 months, and the time-to-event curve closely approximated time to patient-reported toxicity. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE paired CTCAE proved feasible. Compared to clinicians, patients reported severe symptoms more frequently and earlier. Patient-reported toxicity more closely aligned with dose decreases indicating incorporation into routine clinical practice may enhance early detection of toxicity improving patient safety and quality of life.

A phase II trial of UGT1A1 genotype-guided FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for advanced, unresectable colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRI is a standard regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We hypothesized that a pharmacogenomic-directed strategy where more efficient irinotecan metabolizers (UGT1A1 *1/*1 homozygotes and *1/*28 heterozygotes) receive higher-than-standard irinotecan doses would improve progression-free survival (PFS) compared to non-genotype selected historical controls with acceptable toxicity. METHODS: In this phase II multicenter study irinotecan dosing in first-line FOLFIRI and bevacizumab for mCRC was based on UGT1A1 genotype with *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28 patients receiving 310 mg/m2, 260 mg/m2, and 180 mg/m2, respectively. Primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were investigator and patient-reported adverse events, and estimation of overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One-hundred patients were enrolled with 91 evaluable for PFS and 83 evaluable for best response. Median PFS was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 15.4), shorter than the anticipated alternative hypothesis of 14 months. PFS by genotype was 12.5 months (90% CI 10.9, 17.4) for *1/*1, 14.6 months (90% CI 11.8, 17.5) for *1/*28, and 6 months (90% CI 2.3, 7.7) for *28/28, respectively. OS was 24.5 months (90% CI 19.1, 30.7) and by genotype was 26.5 (90% CI 19.1, 32.9), 25.9 (90% CI 17.6, 37.7), and 13.4 (90% CI 2.3, 20.5) months for *1/*1, *1/*28, and *28/*28, respectively. G3/4 toxicity was similar between all subgroups, including diarrhea and neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: A pharmacogenomic-directed irinotecan strategy improved PFS in the *1/*1 and *1/*28 genotypes with higher rates of neutropenia and similar rates of diarrhea compared to expected with standard FOLFIRI dosing. However, improvements in response rate and PFS were modest. This strategy should not change standard practice for mCRC patients in the first-line setting.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes of a Mobile Health Tool for Radical Cystectomy Recovery.

PURPOSE: Postoperative education and symptom tracking are essential following cystectomy to reduce readmission rates and information overload. To address these issues, an internet-based tool was developed to provide education, alerts, and symptom tracking. We aimed to evaluate the tool's feasibility, acceptability, and impact on complication and readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three eligible patients over 18 years old scheduled for cystectomy were enrolled. Patients were asked to use the mobile health (mHealth) tool daily for the first 2 weeks, then less frequently up to 90 days after discharge. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study variables. Feasibility was defined as at least 50% of patients using the tool once a week, and acceptability as patient satisfaction of > 75%. RESULTS: Use of the mHealth tool was feasible, with 90% of patients using it 1 week after discharge, but engagement declined over time to 50%, with technological difficulties being the main reason for nonengagement. Patient and provider acceptability was high, with satisfaction > 90%. Within 90 days, 36% experienced complications after discharge and 30% were readmitted. Engagement with the mHealth application varied but was not statistically associated with readmission (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the electronic mobile health intervention for patients undergoing cystectomy was feasible, acceptable, and provided valuable educational content and symptom management. Future larger studies are needed to determine the tool's effectiveness in improving patient outcomes and its potential implementation into routine clinical care.

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors. CONCLUSION: This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice for screening, monitoring, and management, the potential for response bias has been raised (e.g., over-reporting problems for attention, under-reporting to avoid treatment changes/discontinuation). We investigated whether patients systematically bias their responses when they know clinicians will review their PROM results. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of three experimental studies evaluating PROMs in adult and pediatric care. Prior to PROM completion, intervention group patients were informed that the results would be shown to their clinicians ("feedback" arm), whereas control group patients were told that their clinicians would not see their responses ("no feedback" arm). Independent sample t-tests compared the "feedback" and "no feedback" arms' PROM scores at baseline. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cohen's d statistics with Hedges' g correction, and effect sizes > 0.50 were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Across the 29 domains assessed in the three studies, no between-arm differences reached an effect size of ± 0.50. Only 3/29 effect sizes exceeded ± 0.30. The confidence intervals for 14 domains included ± 0.50, with 4 favoring the "no feedback" arm and 10 favoring the "feedback" arm. Two domains reached statistical significance, one favoring the "no feedback" arm and one favoring the "feedback" arm. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis that patients systematically bias their PROM responses if they know that clinicians will see their results. These findings support using PROMs in clinical practice as a valid mechanism to promote patient-centered care.

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.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

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.

An eHealth symptom and complication management program for cancer patients with newly created ostomies and their caregivers (Alliance): a pilot feasibility randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients with newly created ostomies face complications that reduce quality of life (QOL) and increase morbidity and mortality. This proof-of-concept study examined the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and initial efficacy of an eHealth program titled the "Patient Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System" (PRISMS) during post-ostomy creation care transition. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm pilot randomized controlled trial among 23 patients who received surgical treatment with curative intent for bladder and colorectal cancer and their caregivers. After assessing QOL, general symptoms, and caregiver burden at baseline, participants were randomly assigned to PRISMS (n = 16 dyads) or usual care (UC) (n = 7 dyads). After a 60-day intervention period, participants completed a follow-up survey and post-exit interview. We used descriptive statistics and t-tests to analyze the data. RESULTS: We achieved an 86.21% recruitment rate and a 73.91% retention rate. Among the PRISMS participants who used the system and biometric devices (n = 14, 87.50%), 46.43% used the devices for ≥ 50 days during the study period. Participants reported PRISMS as useful and acceptable. Compared to their UC counterparts, PRISMS patient social well-being scores decreased over time and had an increased trend of physical and emotional well-being; PRISMS caregivers experienced a greater decrease in caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: PRISMS recruitment and retention rates were comparable to existing family-based intervention studies. PRISMS is a useful and acceptable multilevel intervention with the potential to improve the health outcomes of cancer patients needing ostomy care and their caregivers during post-surgery care transition. A sufficiently powered RCT is needed to test its effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04492007. Registration date: 30/07/2020.