Completion rates and trends of the patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) across 14 oncology clinical trials.

Abstract

1579 Background: With growing emphasis on patient-centered regulatory decision making, there is a greater need to incorporate the patient’s voice in oncology clinical trials. Regulatory guidelines outline core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to include which can inform risk/benefit evaluation. Self-reported symptomatic adverse events (AE) form part of these core PROs, with the new 2023 draft FDA guidance acknowledging the benefits of including them to enhance the assessment of tolerability in early phase dose optimization trials. Given the clinical symptoms and disease burden in oncology, patient burden needs to be thoughtfully considered when incorporating PROs into trials. We assessed trends and feasibility of electronic data collection for symptomatic AEs by analyzing completion compliance and time to complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) across 14 oncology trials. Methods: All PRO-CTCAE were collected electronically on Clario Tablets. Operational data for completion status (completed or missed) and duration of time to complete the PRO-CTCAE in seconds was extracted. Completion rates over time were examined overall and for every 3-month interval (quarters Q1 to Q9+). The median was selected for analyses of time to complete to account for skewness. Results: The sample included 14 studies across Phase I-III trials across a range of cancers including multiple myeloma, mesothelioma and cancers of the lung, prostate, head/neck, gastric, breast, and ovary. Study durations were 24 weeks and up. The PRO-CTCAE form was completed 13,122 times and missed in 1,182 instances, giving an overall completion rate of 91.7%. On average, 25 questions (range 5-47) covered an average of 13 symptoms (range: 4-25). Completion rate was not associated with the number of questions asked or time since enrollment. The overall median time to complete the PRO-CTCAE was 82s (study-specific median range: 24s to 276s). Examining time to completion as a function of the number of questions revealed a significant positive association, such that each additional question added 5.2 seconds to the time it took to complete the assessment. Conclusions: Completion compliance was high for PRO-CTCAE and remained high regardless of study length and the number of questions included in the PRO-CTCAE form. This suggests that electronic PRO-CTCAE is a feasible solution for collecting self-reported symptomatic AEs. Although time to complete the form increased with the number of questions, results suggest that including a higher number of PRO-CTCAE questions does not negatively impact compliance rate. Our data showing high completion rates may also reflect the benefits of electronic PROs in reducing patient burden and enhancing data quality, as acknowledged by regulatory agencies.