Symptom science research conducted in community programs funded by the US National Cancer Institute: a 12-year review, 2008 to 2019.

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to describe the portfolio of symptom science research conducted through the community oncology network supported by the US National Cancer Institute during the 12-year period 2008 to 2019. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute conducted a retrospective review of the National Cancer Institute database to identify pediatric and adult symptom management studies that were opened between 2008 and 2019 in the community oncology network and to determine types of studies, accrual patterns, completed studies, and number of publications reporting clinical trial results. RESULTS: The NCI community oncology network conducted 109 symptom studies between 2008 and 2019. The majority of these studies were phase II and III clinical trials. Neurotoxicities were the most frequently occurring symptom studied, with the majority of those focused on neurocognitive impairments. Gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, and fatigue were the next most frequently studied. A variety of interventions were utilized including pharmacologic, behavioral, complementary and alternative medicines, and radiation therapy. Accrual to symptom studies ranged from a low of 896 participants in 2008 to a high of 3468 participants in 2012. The number of open studies ranged from 8 in 2008 to 35 in 2012. CONCLUSIONS: Examining the symptom science portfolio of the NCI community oncology network has identified research gaps and has highlighted the need to focus on a mechanistic understanding of symptoms and phenotyping of patients experiencing cancer and treatment-related symptoms. Subsequently, targeted interventions can be developed to prevent or treat these symptoms.

Fatigue, anxiety, and quality of life in breast cancer patients compared to non-cancer controls: a nationwide longitudinal analysis.

PURPOSE: Fatigue and anxiety are common and significant symptoms reported by cancer patients. Few studies have examined the trajectory of multidimensional fatigue and anxiety, the relationships between them and with quality of life. METHODS: Breast cancer patients (n = 580) from community oncology clinics and age-matched controls (n = 364) completed fatigue and anxiety questionnaires prior to chemotherapy (A1), at chemotherapy completion (A2), and six months post-chemotherapy (A3). Linear mixed models (LMM) compared trajectories of fatigue /anxiety over time in patients and controls and estimated their relationship with quality of life. Models adjusted for age, education, race, BMI, marital status, menopausal status, and sleep symptoms. RESULTS: Patients reported greater fatigue and anxiety compared to controls at all time points (p's < 0.001, 35% clinically meaningful anxiety at baseline). From A1 to A2 patients experienced a significant increase in fatigue (ß = 8.3 95%CI 6.6,10.0) which returned to A1 values at A3 but remained greater than controls' (p < 0.001). General, mental, and physical fatigue subscales increased from A1 to A2 remaining significantly higher than A1 at A3 (p < 0.001). Anxiety improved over time (A1 to A3 ß = - 4.3 95%CI -2.6,-3.3) but remained higher than controls at A3 (p < 0.001). Among patients, fatigue and anxiety significantly predicted one another and quality of life. Menopausal status, higher BMI, mastectomy, and sleep problems also significantly predicted change in fatigue. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients experience significant fatigue and anxiety up to six months post-chemotherapy that is associated with worse quality of life. Future interventions should simultaneously address anxiety and fatigue, focusing on mental and physical fatigue subdomains.

Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: Identifying the research gaps and associated changes to clinical trial design.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, the empiric identification of agents and interventions to mitigate chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) has resulted in only 1 agent that modestly mitigates it and no agents or interventions that prevent its development. This speaks to the need for a mechanistic understanding of CIPN to develop effective interventions. METHODS: To understand the extent to which mechanistic understanding of CIPN is being translated into the development of interventions, the National Cancer Institute conducted a review of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)'s portfolio of investigator-initiated grants, the literature regarding CIPN mechanisms, and the clinical trials listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database from January 1, 2011, to May 22, 2019. RESULTS: A total of 69 NIH-supported grants and 95 published articles were identified that evaluated mechanistic pathways of 7 different chemotherapy agents that cause CIPN. The review also identified 35 clinical trials that investigated agents or devices with which to treat CIPN. Only 3 trials incorporated a mechanistic rationale to support the choice of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: To the authors' knowledge, very little of the mechanistic understanding of the development of CIPN is being translated into intervention rationale in clinical trials that evaluate interventions to mitigate CIPN. Efforts to incentivize this translation are needed.

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

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

Systematic review of barriers and facilitators to clinical trial enrollment among adolescents and young adults with cancer: Identifying opportunities for intervention.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) are underrepresented in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). Limited trial enrollment slows progress in improving survival rates and prevents the collection of valuable biospecimens. A systematic literature review was conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to AYA enrollment in CCTs and to identify opportunities to improve enrollment. The PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify studies relevant to AYA CCT enrollment. Eligibility criteria included the qualitative and/or quantitative evaluation of barriers and facilitators to AYA enrollment. One hundred fifty-five unique publications were identified; 13 were included in the final analysis. Barriers to AYA enrollment in CCTs included a lack of existing trials applicable to the patient population, limited access to available CCTs, and a lack of physician awareness of relevant trials. Facilitators of enrollment included optimizing the research infrastructure, improving the awareness of available CCTs among providers, and enhancing communication about CCTs between providers and patients. In conclusion, the limited available research reports institution- and patient-level barriers and facilitators to AYA CCT enrollment. Because of persistent disparities in AYA enrollment, there is an urgent need to further identify the barriers and facilitators to AYA CCT enrollment to determine actionable areas for intervention.

Effect of Longer-Interval vs Standard Dosing of Zoledronic Acid on Skeletal Events in Patients With Bone Metastases: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Zoledronic acid, a third-generation aminobisphosphonate, reduces the incidence of skeletal-related events and pain in patients with bone metastases. The optimal dosing interval for zoledronic acid is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether zoledronic acid administered every 12 weeks is noninferior to zoledronic acid administered every 4 weeks. Design, Setting, Participants: Randomized, open-label clinical trial conducted at 269 academic and community sites in the United States. Patients (n = 1822) with metastatic breast cancer, metastatic prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma who had at least 1 site of bone involvement were enrolled between May 2009 and April 2012; follow-up concluded in April 2014. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive zoledronic acid administered intravenously every 4 weeks (n = 911) vs every 12 weeks (n = 911) for 2 years. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the proportion of patients having at least 1 skeletal-related event (defined as clinical fracture, spinal cord compression, radiation to bone, or surgery involving bone) within 2 years after randomization and a between-group absolute difference of 7% as the noninferiority margin. Secondary end points included the proportion of patients with at least 1 skeletal-related event by disease type, pain as assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (range, 0-10; higher scores indicate worse pain), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (range, 0-4; higher scores indicate worse disability), incidence of osteonecrosis of the jaw, kidney dysfunction, skeletal morbidity rate (mean number of skeletal-related events per year), and, in a subset of 553 patients, suppression of bone turnover (assessed by C-terminal telopeptide levels). Results: Among 1822 patients who were randomized (median age, 65 years; 980 [53.8%] women; 855 with breast cancer, 689 with prostate cancer, and 278 with multiple myeloma), 795 completed the study at 2 years. A total of 260 patients (29.5%) in the zoledronic acid every 4-week dosing group and 253 patients (28.6%) in the every 12-week dosing group experienced at least 1 skeletal-related event within 2 years of randomization (risk difference of -0.3% [1-sided 95% CI, -4% to ∞]; P < .001 for noninferiority). The proportions of skeletal-related events did not differ significantly between the every 4-week dosing group vs the every 12-week dosing group for patients with breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma. Pain scores, performance status scores, incidence of jaw osteonecrosis, and kidney dysfunction did not differ significantly between the treatment groups. Skeletal morbidity rates were numerically identical in both groups, but bone turnover was greater (C-terminal telopeptide levels were higher) among patients who received zoledronic acid every 12 weeks. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with bone metastases due to breast cancer, prostate cancer, or multiple myeloma, the use of zoledronic acid every 12 weeks compared with the standard dosing interval of every 4 weeks did not result in an increased risk of skeletal events over 2 years. This longer interval may be an acceptable treatment option. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00869206.

Caring for caregivers and patients: Research and clinical priorities for informal cancer caregiving.

Informal/family caregivers are a fundamental source of care for cancer patients in the United States, yet the population of caregivers and their tasks, psychosocial needs, and health outcomes are not well understood. Changes in the nature of cancer care and its delivery, along with the growing population of survivors and their caregivers, warrant increased attention to the roles and demands of caregiving. This article reviews current evidence presented at a 2-day meeting examining the state of the science of informal cancer caregiving that was convened by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Nursing Research. The meeting sought to define who is an informal cancer caregiver, summarize the state of the science in informal cancer caregiving, and describe both the kinds of interventions developed to address caregiving challenges and the various outcomes used to evaluate their impact. This article offers recommendations for moving science forward in 4 areas: 1) improving the estimation of the prevalence and burden of informal cancer caregiving; 2) advancing the development of interventions designed to improve outcomes for cancer patients, caregivers, and patient-caregiver dyads; 3) generating and testing strategies for integrating caregivers into formal health care settings; and 4) promoting the use of technology to support informal cancer caregivers. Cancer 2016;122:1987-95. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Predictors of significant worsening of patient-reported fatigue over a 1-month timeframe in ambulatory patients with common solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the determinants of fatigue worsening may help distinguish between different fatigue phenotypes and inform clinical trial designs. METHODS: Patients with invasive cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung were enrolled from multiple sites. At enrollment during an outpatient visit and 4 or 5 weeks later, patients rated their symptoms on a numerical rating scale from zero to 10. A 2-point change on that scale was considered clinically significant for a change in fatigue. Effects of demographic and clinical factors on patient-reported fatigue were examined using logistic regression models. RESULTS: In total, 3123 patients were enrolled at baseline, and 3032 patients could be analyzed for fatigue change. At baseline, 23% of patients had no fatigue, 35% had mild fatigue, 25% had moderate fatigue, and 17% had severe fatigue. Key parameters in a model of fatigue worsening included fatigue at baseline (odds ratio [OR], 0.75), disease status (OR, 1.99), performance status (OR, 1.38), history of depression (OR, 1.28), patient perception of bother because of comorbidity (OR, 1.26), and treatment exposures, including recent cancer treatment (OR, 1.77) and receipt of corticosteroids (OR, 1.37). The impact of sex was examined only in patients with colorectal and lung cancer, and it was a significant factor, with men most likely to experience worsening of fatigue (OR, 1.46). CONCLUSIONS: Predictors of fatigue worsening included multiple factors that were difficult to modify, including the baseline fatigue level, sex, disease status, performance status, recent cancer treatment, bother because of comorbidity, and history of depression. Future fatigue prevention and treatment trial designs should account for key predictors of worsening fatigue.

Prevalence and characteristics of moderate to severe fatigue: a multicenter study in cancer patients and survivors.

BACKGROUND: The effective management of fatigue in patients with cancer requires a clear delineation of what constitutes nontrivial fatigue. The authors defined numeric cutpoints for fatigue severity based on functional interference and described the prevalence and characteristics of fatigue in patients with cancer and survivors. METHODS: In a multicenter study, outpatients with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer rated their fatigue severity and symptom interference with functioning on the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory numeric scale of 0 to 10. Ratings of symptom interference guided the selection of numeric rating cutpoints between mild, moderate, and severe fatigue levels. Regression analysis identified significant factors related to reporting moderate=severe fatigue . RESULTS: The statistically optimal cutpoints were 4 for moderate fatigue and 7 for severe fatigue. Moderate=severe fatigue was reported by 983 of 2177 patients (45%) undergoing active treatment and was more likely to occur in patients receiving treatment with strong opioids (odds ratio [OR], 3.00), those with a poor Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (OR, 2.00), those who had >5% weight loss within 6 months (OR, 1.60), those who were receiving >10 medications (OR, 1.58), those with lung cancer (OR, 1.55), and those with a history of depression (OR, 1.42). Among survivors (patients with complete remission or no evidence of disease, and not currently receiving cancer treatment), 29% of patients (150 of 515 patients) had moderate=severe fatigue that was associated with poor performance status (OR, 3.48) and a history of depression (OR, 2.21). CONCLUSIONS: The current study statistically defined fatigue severity categories related to significantly increased symptom interference. The high prevalence of moderate=severe fatigue in both actively treated patients with cancer and survivors warrants the promoting of the routine assessment and management of patient-reported fatigue.

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.

The symptom burden of cancer: Evidence for a core set of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms from the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study.

BACKGROUND: A set of common cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms has been proposed for quality of care assessment and clinical research. Using data from a large, multicenter, prospective study, the authors assessed the effects of disease site and stage on the percentages of patients rating these proposed symptoms as moderate to severe. METHODS: The severity of 13 symptoms proposed to represent "core" oncology symptoms was rated by 3106 ambulatory patients with cancer of the breast, prostate, colon/rectum, or lung, regardless of disease stage or phase of care; 2801 patients (90%) repeated the assessment 4 to 5 weeks later. RESULTS: At the time of the initial assessment, approximately 33% of the patients reported ≥ 3 symptoms in the moderate-to-severe range; 11 of the 13 symptoms were rated as moderate to severe by at least 10% of all patients and 6 were rated as moderate to severe by at least 20% of those receiving active treatment. Fatigue/tiredness was the most severe symptom, followed by disturbed sleep, pain, dry mouth, and numbness/tingling. More patients with lung cancer and patients receiving active treatment reported moderate to severe symptoms. Percentages of symptomatic patients increased by disease stage, less adequate response to therapy, and declining Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. The percentages of patients reporting moderate to severe symptoms were stable across both assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the current study support a core set of moderate to severe symptoms that are common across outpatients with solid tumors, that can guide consideration of progression-free survival as a trial outcome, and that should be considered in clinical care and in assessments of quality of care and treatment benefit.

Recommendations for including multiple symptoms as endpoints in cancer clinical trials: a report from the ASCPRO (Assessing the Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes) Multisymptom Task Force.

The multiple symptoms arising from cancer and its treatment impose significant distress for patients. However, in clinical research, there is no agreed-upon way of assessing and presenting the effects of treatment on multiple symptoms, as either individual scores or a composite score. The ASCPRO (Assessing the Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes) Multisymptom Task Force was established to make recommendations about measuring multiple symptoms as outcomes in cancer clinical trials. The Multisymptom Task Force addressed how to choose the symptoms to be assessed and how multiple individual symptom scores or composite scores of several symptoms might be used as clinical trial outcomes. Consensus was reached on a definition of a multisymptom outcome, the problem of source attribution, and the need for a hypothesis-driven conceptual framework to measure multisymptom outcomes. Validated single-item and multi-item measures currently available or that can be easily generated for oncology use were deemed sufficient for measuring multiple symptoms. The relative value of a composite score versus a set of individual symptom scores was discussed, along with issues in developing and deploying such a composite measure. The results indicated that more research on combining scores of different symptoms is needed. Symptom data should be a required component of cancer clinical trials. Patient-reported symptoms provide a unique patient perspective on treatment benefit and risk that goes beyond clinician-reported adverse events. A representation of changes in multiple symptoms would clarify the impact of treatment and enhance the interpretation of cancer clinical trials for clinicians, patients, and those who make health care policy.

Clinician and Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials: Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® to Provide Two Distinct and Complementary Perspectives.

Inclusion of the patient perspective in the reporting of symptomatic adverse events provides different and complementary information to clinician reporting using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) is designed for patients to self-report their symptomatic adverse events in a manner that complements CTCAE reporting. Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE together offers the potential to refine our understanding of the prevalence and trajectory of lower grade AEs that can lead to elective discontinuation of therapy and diminished quality of life. This review addresses the development of PRO-CTCAE with an emphasis on the differences between PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE severity grades. This distinction is important when evaluating, grading and reporting toxicity and tolerability in cancer clinical trials.

Evolution of Cancer Care Delivery Research in the NCI Community Oncology Research Program.

Research seeking to improve patient engagement with decision-making, use of evidence-based guidelines, and coordination of multi-specialty care has made important contributions to the decades-long effort to improve cancer care. The National Cancer Institute expanded support for these efforts by including cancer care delivery research in the 2014 formation of the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). Cancer care delivery research is a multi-disciplinary effort to generate evidence-based practice change that improves clinical outcomes and patient well-being. NCORP scientists and community-based clinicians and organizations rapidly embraced the addition of this type of research into the network, resulting in a robust portfolio of observational studies and intervention studies within the first 5 years of funding. This commentary describes the initial considerations in conducting this type of research in a network previously focused on cancer prevention, control, and treatment studies; characterizes the protocols developed to date; and outlines future directions for cancer care delivery research in the second round of NCORP funding.

Enrollment of adolescents and young adults onto SWOG cancer research network clinical trials: A comparative analysis by treatment site and era.

BACKGROUND: Few adolescents and young adults (AYAs, 15-39 years old) enroll onto cancer clinical trials, which hinders research otherwise having the potential to improve outcomes in this unique population. Prior studies have reported that AYAs are more likely to receive cancer care in community settings. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) has led efforts to increase trial enrollment through its network of NCI-designated cancer centers (NCICC) combined with community outreach through its Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP; replaced by the NCI Community Oncology Research Program in 2014). METHODS: Using AYA proportional enrollment (the proportion of total enrollments who were AYAs) as the primary outcome, we examined enrollment of AYAs onto SWOG therapeutic trials at NCICC, CCOP, and non-NCICC/non-CCOP sites from 2004 to 2013 by type of site, study period (2004-08 vs 2009-13), and patient demographics. RESULTS: Overall, AYA proportional enrollment was 10.1%. AYA proportional enrollment decreased between 2004-2008 and 2009-2013 (13.1% vs 8.5%, P < .001), and was higher at NCICCs than at CCOPs and non-NCICC/non-CCOPs (14.1% vs 8.3% and 9.2%, respectively; P < .001). AYA proportional enrollment declined significantly at all three site types. Proportional enrollment of AYAs who were Black or Hispanic was significantly higher at NCICCs compared with CCOPs or non-NCICC/non-CCOPs (11.5% vs 8.8, P = .048 and 11.5% vs 8.6%, P = .03, respectively). CONCLUSION: Not only did community sites enroll a lower proportion of AYAs onto cancer clinical trials, but AYA enrollment decreased in all study settings. Initiatives aimed at increasing AYA enrollment, particularly in the community setting with attention to minority status, are needed.

Building internal capacity in pragmatic trials: a workshop for program scientists at the US National Cancer Institute.

BACKGROUND: Building capacity in research funding organizations to support the conduct of pragmatic clinical trials is an essential component of advancing biomedical and public health research. To date, efforts to increase the ability to design and carry out pragmatic trials have largely focused on training researchers. To complement these efforts, we developed an interactive workshop tailored to meet the roles and responsibilities of program scientists at the National Cancer Institute-the leading cancer research funding agency in the USA. The objectives of the workshop were to improve the understanding of pragmatic trials and enhance the capacity to distinguish between elements that make a trial more pragmatic or more explanatory among key programmatic staff. To our knowledge, this is the first reported description of such a workshop. MAIN BODY: The workshop was developed to meet the needs of program scientists as researchers and stewards of research funds, which often includes promoting scientific initiatives, advising prospective applicants, collaborating with grantees, and creating training programs. The workshop consisted of presentations from researchers with expertise in the design and interpretation of trials across the explanatory-pragmatic continuum. Presentations were followed by interactive, small-group exercises to solidify participants' understanding of the purpose and conduct of these trials, which were tailored to attendees' areas of expertise across the cancer control continuum and designed to reflect their scope of work as program scientists at NCI. A total of 29 program scientists from the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Division of Cancer Prevention participated; 19 completed a post-workshop evaluation. Attendees were very enthusiastic about the workshop: they reported improved knowledge, significant relevance of the material to their work, and increased interest in pragmatic trials across the cancer control continuum. CONCLUSION: Training program scientists at major biomedical research agencies who are responsible for developing funding opportunities and advising grantees is essential for increasing the quality and quantity of pragmatic trials. Together with workshops for other target audiences (e.g., academic researchers), this approach has the potential to shape the future of pragmatic trials and continue to generate more and better actionable evidence to guide decisions that are of critical importance to health care practitioners, policymakers, and patients.

Patient free text reporting of symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical research using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to describe patient-entered supplemental information on symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical research reported via a National Cancer Institute software system and examine the feasibility of mapping these entries to established terminologies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients in 3 multicenter trials electronically completed surveys during cancer treatment. Each survey included a prespecified subset of items from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Upon completion of the survey items, patients could add supplemental symptomatic AE information in a free text box. As patients typed into the box, structured dropdown terms could be selected from the PRO-CTCAE item library or Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), or patients could type unstructured free text for submission. RESULTS: Data were pooled from 1760 participants (48% women; 78% White) who completed 8892 surveys, of which 2387 (26.8%) included supplemental symptomatic AE information. Overall, 1024 (58%) patients entered supplemental information at least once, with an average of 2.3 per patient per study. This encompassed 1474 of 8892 (16.6%) dropdowns and 913 of 8892 (10.3%) unstructured free text entries. One-third of the unstructured free text entries (32%) could be mapped post hoc to a PRO-CTCAE term and 68% to a MedDRA term. DISCUSSION: Participants frequently added supplemental information beyond study-specific survey items. Almost half selected a structured dropdown term, although many opted to submit unstructured free text entries. Most free text entries could be mapped post hoc to PRO-CTCAE or MedDRA terms, suggesting opportunities to enhance the system to perform real-time mapping for AE reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Patient reporting of symptomatic AEs using a text box functionality with mapping to existing terminologies is both feasible and informative.

Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors.

Observational data have shown that some cancer survivors develop chronic conditions like frailty, sarcopenia, cardiac dysfunction, and mild cognitive impairment earlier and/or at a greater burden than similarly aged individuals never diagnosed with cancer or exposed to systemic or targeted cancer therapies. In aggregate, cancer- and treatment-related physical, cognitive, and psychosocial late- and long-term morbidities experienced by cancer survivors are hypothesized to represent accelerated or accentuated aging trajectories. However, conceptual, measurement, and methodological challenges have constrained efforts to identify, predict, and mitigate aging-related consequences of cancer and cancer treatment. In July 2018, the National Cancer Institute convened basic, clinical, and translational science experts for a think tank titled "Measuring Aging and Identifying Aging Phenotypes in Cancer Survivors." Through the resulting deliberations, several research and resource needs were identified, including longitudinal studies to examine aging trajectories that include detailed data from before, during, and after cancer treatment; mechanistic studies to elucidate the pathways that lead to the emergence of aging phenotypes in cancer survivors; long-term clinical surveillance to monitor survivors for late-emerging effects; and tools to integrate multiple data sources to inform understanding of how cancer and its therapies contribute to the aging process. Addressing these needs will help expand the evidence base and inform strategies to optimize healthy aging of cancer survivors.

The National Cancer Institute Clinical Trials Planning Meeting for Prevention and Treatment of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy.

Although recent scientific advances have improved our understanding of basic biological mechanisms underlying chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN), few interventions are available to prevent or treat CIPN. Although some biological targets from preclinical studies show promise in nonhuman animal models, few targets have been translated to successful clinical trials. To address this problem, the National Cancer Institute's Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee convened a meeting of experts in the CIPN and oncology symptom management fields to participate in a Clinical Trials Planning Meeting (CTPM). Investigators presented data from preclinical and translational studies for possible CIPN interventions; these were evaluated for readiness of randomized clinical trial testing by experts, and recommendations were provided. Breakout sessions were convened to discuss and develop future studies. The CTPM experts concluded that there is compelling evidence to move forward with selected pharmacological and nonpharmacological clinical trials for the prevention and treatment of CIPN. Several key feasibility issues need to be addressed, however. These include identification of optimal outcome measures to define the CIPN phenotype, establishment of parameters that guide the evaluation of clinically meaningful effects, and adoption of approaches for inclusion of translational and biomarker and/or genetic measures. The results of the CTPM provide support for conducting clinical trials that include both pharmacological and nonpharmacological approaches, alone or in combination, with biomarkers, genetics, or other measures designed to inform underlying CIPN mechanisms. Several working groups were formed to design rigorous CIPN clinical trials, the results of which are ongoing.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced hearing loss in children: Informing the design of future clinical trials.

Cisplatin is an essential chemotherapeutic agent in the treatment of many pediatric cancers. Unfortunately, cisplatin-induced hearing loss (CIHL) is a common, clinically significant side effect with life-long ramifications, particularly for young children. ACCL05C1 and ACCL0431 are two recently completed Children's Oncology Group studies focused on the measurement and prevention of CIHL. The purpose of this paper was to gain insights from ACCL05C1 and ACCL0431, the first published cooperative group studies dedicated solely to CIHL, to inform the design of future pediatric otoprotection trials. Use of otoprotective agents is an attractive strategy for preventing CIHL, but their successful development must overcome a unique constellation of methodological challenges related to translating preclinical research into clinical trials that are feasible, evaluate practical interventions, and limit risk. Issues particularly important for children include use of appropriate methods for hearing assessment and CIHL severity grading, and use of trial designs that are well-informed by preclinical models and suitable for relatively small sample sizes. Increasing interest has made available new funding opportunities for expanding this urgently needed research.