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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

The experience of financial toxicity among advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy.

Purpose To measure financial toxicity and explore its association with quality of life (QOL) in an emerging population of survivors: advanced melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy. Design Cross-sectional survey and medical record review. Sample 106 survivors (39% response). Median time since start of immunotherapy was 36.4 months (range: 14.2-133.9). Methods The Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity measured financial toxicity, and the EORTC-QLQ30 assessed QOL and functioning across five domains. Data were collected online, by phone, or in clinic. Findings: Younger patients (<65 years) reported higher financial toxicity (p < .001) than older patients. Controlling for age, financial toxicity was correlated with QOL (p < .001), financial difficulties (p < .001), and EORTC-QLQ30 functioning subscales. Conclusions Given the demonstrated association between financial toxicity and QOL, our study highlights the importance of addressing financial toxicity, particularly among patients receiving high-cost treatments. Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Providers should educate patients and their caregivers about cost-management techniques, link them with available resources, and provide psychosocial counseling to alleviate related distress.

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.

Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. METHODS: Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. RESULTS: 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = -0.04 [-0.16-0.22]; tablet vs paper = -0.02 [-0.11-0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [-0.07-0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. CONCLUSIONS: Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637.

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21). CONCLUSIONS: The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.

Linguistic validation of the Spanish version of the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

PURPOSE: The U.S. NCI's PRO-CTCAE is a library of self-report items for assessing symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials from the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to translate and linguistically validate a Spanish version. METHODS: PRO-CTCAE's 124 items were translated from English into Spanish using multiple forward and back translations. Native Spanish speakers undergoing cancer treatment were enrolled at six cancer treatment sites. Participants each completed approximately 50 items and were then interviewed using cognitive probes. The interviews were analyzed at the item level by linguistic themes, and responses were examined for evidence of equivalence to English. Items for which ≥20 % of participants experienced difficulties were reviewed, and phrasing was revised and then retested in subsequent interviews. Items where <20 % of respondents experienced difficulties were also reviewed and were considered for rephrasing and retesting. RESULTS: One hundred nine participants from diverse Spanish-speaking countries were enrolled (77 in Round 1 and 32 in Round 2). A majority of items were well comprehended in Round 1. Two items presented difficulties in ≥20 % of participants and were revised/retested without further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, and when retested exhibited no further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, but were not revised due to lack of alternatives. Sixteen items presented difficulties in ≤12 % and were not revised because difficulties were minor. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish PRO-CTCAE has been developed and refined for use in Spanish-speaking populations, with high levels of comprehension and equivalence to the English PRO-CTCAE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01436240.

Feasibility and clinical impact of sharing patient-reported symptom toxicities and performance status with clinical investigators during a phase 2 cancer treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians can miss up to half of patients' symptomatic toxicities in cancer clinical trials and routine practice. Although patient-reported outcome questionnaires have been developed to capture this information, it is unclear whether clinicians will make use of patient-reported outcomes to inform their own toxicity documentation, or to prompt symptom management activities. METHODS: 44 lung cancer patients that participated in a phase 2 treatment trial self-reported 13 symptomatic toxicities derived from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Karnofsky Performance Status via tablet computers in waiting areas immediately preceding scheduled visits. During visits, clinicians viewed patients' self-reported toxicity and performance status ratings on a computer interface and could agree or disagree/reassign grades ("shared" reporting). Agreement of clinicians with patient-reported grades was tabulated, and compared using weighted kappa statistics. Clinical actions in response to patient-reported severe (grade 3/4) toxicities were measured (e.g. treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, supportive medications). For comparison, 45 non-trial patients with lung cancer being treated in the same clinic by the same physicians were simultaneously enrolled in a parallel cohort study in which patients also self-reported toxicity grades but reports were not shared with clinicians ("non-shared" reporting). RESULTS: Toxicities and performance status were reported by patients and reviewed by clinicians at (780/782) 99.7% of study visits in the phase 2 trial which used "shared" reporting. Clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time with kappas 0.82-0.92. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of severe patient-reported toxicities. In the "non-shared" reporting comparison group, clinicians agreed with patients 56% of the time with kappas 0.04-0.48 (significantly worse than shared reporting for all symptoms), and clinical actions were taken in response to 44% of severe patient-reported toxicities. CONCLUSION: Clinicians will frequently agree with patient-reported symptoms and performance status, and will use this information to guide documentation and symptom management. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00807573).

Cognitive interviewing of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) is a library of question items that enables patient reporting of adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials. This study contributes content validity evidence of the PRO-CTCAE by incorporating cancer patient input of the relevance and comprehensiveness of the item library. METHODS: Cognitive interviews were conducted among patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at multiple sites to evaluate comprehension, memory retrieval, judgment, and response mapping related to AE terms (e.g., nausea), attribute terms (regarding frequency, severity, or interference), response options, and recall period. Three interview rounds were conducted with ≥20 patients completing each item per round. Items were modified and retested if ≥3 patients exhibited cognitive difficulties or if experienced by ≤25% patients. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-seven patients participated (35% ≤high school, 28% non-white, and 59% female). Most AE terms (63/80) generated no cognitive difficulties. The remaining 17 were modified without further difficulties by Round 3. Terms were comprehended regardless of education level. Attribute terms and response options required no modifications. Patient adherence to recall period (7 days) was improved when the reference period was incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence confirming comprehension of the US English language versions of items in the PRO-CTCAE library for measuring symptomatic AEs from the patient perspective within the context of cancer treatment. Several minor changes were made to the items to improve item clarity, comprehension, and ease of response judgment. This study helps to establish the content validity of PRO-CTCAE items for patient reporting of AEs during cancer treatment.

Impact of gender representativeness in online symptom survey and clinical trial participation among patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms.

Patients with myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) face chronic symptom burden. Online symptom assessment studies allow for recruitment of large numbers of motivated patients, but patient self-selection can lead to sampling bias. This study evaluated how gender representativeness in MPN symptom surveys and trials impacted symptom score mean estimates, using data from 4825 survey respondents and 291 trial participants with MPNs. The survey data showed that men participated at a rate roughly 50% less than what would be expected based on prevalence, and women reported higher scores than men on average for six of 10 symptoms. Together, this led to potential over estimation in six of 10 symptom score means (ranging from 5.8% to 15.3% overestimated). The trial data showed less gender-based sampling bias compared to the survey data. Studies utilizing online symptom surveys should implement study design features to recruit more men, assess for gender participation imbalances, and provide weighted estimates where appropriate.

Rapid access to mental health professionals with experience in treating cancer-related distress: the American Psychosocial Oncology Referral Helpline.

The new quality standard for cancer care established in 2008 by the Institute of Medicine requires that the psychosocial domain be integrated into routine cancer care. The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has incorporated this standard in its accreditation requirements for 1500 cancer centers in the country, to be fully implemented by 2015. Oncology offices and clinics are developing procedures for quickly identifying distressed patients and referring them to appropriate mental health professionals. The American Psychosocial Oncology Society (APOS), the Association of Oncology Social Work, and the Oncology Nursing Society are currently drafting recommendations to assist clinics in complying with accreditation requirements. A critical component of this new quality standard is assuring that those who need mental health services are referred to the appropriate resource. A large disconnect exists in most communities between oncology and mental health professionals because they treat very different patient populations. Therefore, oncology staff may have difficulty identifying mental health professionals for patients in need of psychological help. This step can be simplified by use of the APOS Helpline. This article discusses the unique role of the APOS Referral Helpline in the context of this new era of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.

Frequency, characteristics, and correlates of pain in a pilot study of colorectal cancer survivors 1-10 years post-treatment.

OBJECTIVE: The long-term effects of disease and treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are poorly understood. This study examined the prevalence and characteristics of pain in a sample of CRC survivors up to 10 years post-treatment. DESIGN: One hundred cancer-free CRC survivors were randomly chosen from an institutional database and completed a telephone survey using the Brief Pain Inventory, Neuropathic Pain Questionnaire-Short Form, Quality of Life Cancer Survivor Summary, Brief Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale, Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale, and Fear of Recurrence Questionnaire. RESULTS: Participants were primarily Caucasian (90%) married (69%) males (53.5%) with a mean age of 64.7 years. Chronic pain was reported in 23% of CRC survivors, with a mean moderate intensity rating (mean = 6.05, standard deviation = 2.66) on a 0-10 rating scale. Over one-third (39%) of those with pain attributed it to their cancer or treatment. Chi-square and t-test analyses showed that survivors with pain were more likely to be female, have lower income, be more depressed and more anxious, and show a higher endorsement of suicidal ideation than CRC survivors without chronic pain. On average, pain moderately interfered with daily activity. CONCLUSIONS: Chronic pain is likely a burdensome problem for a small but not inconsequential minority of CRC survivors requiring a biopsychosocial treatment approach to improve recognition and treatment. Open dialogue between clinicians and survivors about physical and emotional symptoms in long-term follow-up is highly recommended.

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.

Reliability of adverse symptom event reporting by clinicians.

PURPOSE: Adverse symptom event reporting is vital as part of clinical trials and drug labeling to ensure patient safety and inform risk-benefit decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of adverse event reporting of different clinicians for the same patient for the same visit. METHODS: A retrospective reliability analysis was completed for a sample of 393 cancer patients (42.8% men; age 26-91, M = 62.39) from lung (n = 134), prostate (n = 113), and Ob/Gyn (n = 146) clinics. These patients were each seen by two clinicians who independently rated seven Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) symptoms. Twenty-three percent of patients were enrolled in therapeutic clinical trials. RESULTS: The average time between rater evaluations was 68 min. Intraclass correlation coefficients were moderate for constipation (0.50), diarrhea (0.58), dyspnea (0.69), fatigue (0.50), nausea (0.52), neuropathy (0.71), and vomiting (0.46). These values demonstrated stability over follow-up visits. Two-point differences, which would likely affect treatment decisions, were most frequently seen among symptomatic patients for constipation (18%), vomiting (15%), and nausea (8%). CONCLUSION: Agreement between different clinicians when reporting adverse symptom events is moderate at best. Modification of approaches to adverse symptom reporting, such as patient self-reporting, should be considered.