Symptomatic Adverse Events Research Articles

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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

MA10.09 Mapping of Patient-Reported Outcome Items to Symptomatic Adverse Events of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

MA10.09 Mapping of Patient-Reported Outcome Items to Symptomatic Adverse Events of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Most Common Symptomatic Adverse Reactions of Cancer Treatments From US Drug Labels (2015-2021) to Inform Selection of Patient-Reported Outcomes

ObjectivesIncorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials (CTs) is important to characterize treatment tolerability. Cancer therapies approved over the past decade have expanded the types of expected toxicities. To inform future symptomatic AE PRO item selection, we identified the most common symptomatic adverse reactions from recently approved products. MethodsWe reviewed approvals from 2015 to 2021 for lung, breast, and hematologic cancer indications. Using United States Prescribing Information safety data, we recorded symptomatic adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of patients in the experimental arm of CTs supporting approvals. We calculated the proportion of arms reporting each symptomatic adverse reaction. ResultsIn total, 130 experimental arms were included (lung = 30, breast = 10, hematologic = 90). For all cancer types, fatigue and diarrhea were reported in >50% of the arms. Nausea was reported in ≥50% of the arms for all except lung. Vomiting, decreased appetite, and alopecia, were reported in ≥50% of breast cancer arms. Rash, musculoskeletal pain, and cough were reported in >50% of leukemia/lymphoma arms. Cough was common (50%) in multiple myeloma arms. ConclusionsHeterogeneity in symptomatic adverse reactions across CTs supports the use of item libraries when building a PRO strategy to assess tolerability. Fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea were the most frequent symptomatic adverse reactions reported in contemporary cancer CTs and could provide a starting point when selecting PRO symptomatic AE items. Additional symptomatic AE PRO items should be selected based on the mechanism of action, early clinical data, published literature, and patient and clinician input.

Patient-reported outcomes in neuro-oncology.

To provide up-to-date evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in neuro-oncology, with a focus on the core constructs of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the use of PROs in clinical trials and clinical practice.[Supplemental Digital Content: Video Abstract PROs in Neuro-Oncology.mov]. PROs are gaining importance in brain tumor research and medical care. For patients with a brain tumor, core PRO constructs are pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, symptomatic adverse events, physical functioning and role and social functioning, which are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Initiatives have been taken to improve the reliability and robustness of PRO data, including standardization of items included in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-PRO extension) and formulation of PRO priority objectives for use in clinical trials (the SISAQOL-Innovative Medicines Initiative). In brain tumor patients with cognitive impairment, caregiver-reported outcomes may complement or replace PROs to increase accuracy. The next key challenge will be to widely implement PROs and apply PRO data in clinical practice to benefit patients with brain tumors. PROs are clinically relevant endpoints providing information only known by the patient. Standardization of the use of PROs in clinical trials and wide implementation in clinical practice is needed to improve HRQoL of brain tumor patients.

Patient-reported outcomes corresponding to most common symptomatic adverse events in lung cancer clinical trials.

11103 Background: FDA recommends assessing the most relevant expected symptomatic adverse events (AEs) with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical trials (CTs) to complement traditional safety data. To inform selection of symptomatic AEs, we previously identified the most common (i.e., all-grade, clinician-reported in ≥20% of patients) symptomatic AEs from FDA-approved lung cancer product approvals from 2015 through 2021 based on CT monotherapy experimental arm safety data from US Prescribing Information (USPI). The present research aims to assess whether these CTs included PROs which adequately captured common symptomatic AEs. Methods: We assessed 30 CTs that supported lung cancer approvals from 2015 through 2021. We reviewed the study protocol, statistical analysis plan, and/or clinical study report to determine the PRO measures included. We matched symptoms included within PRO measures and items to the most common clinician-reported symptomatic AEs per the USPI to determine the extent to which the PROs and symptomatic AEs corresponded. Results: Twenty-three out of 30 (77%) CTs supporting non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) approvals included PRO(s). Nineteen included more than one PRO measure. The most frequently used PRO measures were the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30; n=19), EORTC-Lung Cancer (EORTC QLQ-L13; n=17), EuroQoL 5-Dimension (EQ-5D; n=12), and selected items from the Patient-reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events item library (PRO-CTCAE; n=4). Nearly all (20 of 23) CTs included PRO items corresponding to more than half of the common symptomatic AEs reported. Symptomatic AEs for types of pain corresponded to general pain PRO items (e.g., “musculoskeletal pain” matched to EORTC item for “pain”). However, PRO items for specific types of pain were not often used. While important symptomatic AEs such as fatigue, diarrhea, nausea, and decreased appetite were often assessed by PROs, others including rash and edema were not usually captured. Ultimately, only 4 of 23 (17%) CTs with PROs included items that assessed all symptomatic AEs that occurred in ≥20% of patients. Of the 4 CTs which included an item library, 3 (75%) comprehensively assessed patient-reported symptomatic AEs, compared to 3 of 19 (16%) CTs that did not employ an item library for patient-reported symptom collection. Conclusions: Based on USPI safety data and PRO measures from CT monotherapy experimental arms of recently approved NSCLC cancer drugs, we determined that while the majority of CTs include PRO items for some relevant symptomatic AEs, other important expected symptomatic AEs (e.g., edema, rash, specific types of pain) were not measured. Future NSCLC CTs should include PRO items for common expected symptomatic AEs which is feasible using well-established PRO item libraries.

Patient-reported fatigue and risk of treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in patients receiving systemic therapy in cancer clinical trials.

11015 Background: Fatigue in patients with cancer is common and negatively impacts quality of life. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assess a patient’s direct report of their symptoms and well-being; research has highlighted their potential to predict cancer outcomes. We examined whether fatigue prior to treatment was associated with AEs. Methods: We analyzed 18 phase II and III cancer treatment clinical trials with baseline fatigue data conducted by SWOG between 1988-2018. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was used. Symptomatic AEs were defined as those aligned with the NCI’s PRO-CTCAE; laboratory-based or measurable AEs were designated as objective (hematologic v nonhematologic). Thirteen symptomatic and 14 objective AE categories were examined. Fatigue was derived from multiple scales (e.g., FACT, EORTC QLQ-C30 and PROMIS-Fatigue 7a). Each measure was mapped to a 5-point Likert scale. Binary categories were compared (e.g., &lt; some vs. &gt; = some fatigue). Generalized estimating equations were used with a binomial distribution and logit link, adjusting for age, sex, race, and BMI, with clustering by study. Results: We examined N = 8,040 patients receiving systemic therapy. Among 18 trials (prostate, 5; lung, 3; colorectal, 2; lymphoma, 2; breast, 2; bladder, 1; melanoma, 1; ovarian, 1, pancreas, 1), n = 108,059 AEs were examined. Patient fatigue was present at levels of “a little” or greater in 75.8%, “some” or greater in 42.8%, and “quite a lot” or “very much” in 17.7%. Patients with some or greater fatigue were nearly twice as likely to have severe or worse toxicity (OR = 1.92, 95% CI, 1.53-2.40, p &lt; .001) or life-threatening toxicity (OR = 1.93, 95% CI, 1.44-2.59, p &lt; .001) and nearly threefold more likely to have fatal toxicity (OR = 2.76, 95% CI, 1.37-5.53, p = .004). Similar patterns were seen at a threshold of “quite a lot”. A dose response pattern was evident; patients reporting quite a lot/very much compared to no fatigue were &gt; 5 times more likely to experience fatal toxicity (OR = 5.63, p = .002). These patterns were consistent in symptomatic, objective hematologic, and objective non-hematologic AEs. Conclusions: Baseline fatigue was highly predictive of subsequent risk of AEs. These findings suggest that in an era of precision medicine, patient-reported fatigue may be an important component of determining toxicity risk and could aid in treatment decision making.[Table: see text]

Comparative patient-reported tolerability (PRT): A multiplicity-controlled analysis of LIBRETTO-531, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in medullary thyroid cancer (MTC).

11111 Background: In cancers with longer natural histories, progression free survival (PFS) alone may not adequately capture the impact of treatment side effects (SE) and may, therefore, be complemented by robust measures of patient-reported tolerability (PRT) to quantify overall SE burden. Here, we pioneer the use of a novel, scalable, quantitative PRT metric as a key secondary endpoint to support the regulatory review and inform clinical decision-making of selpercatinib use in LIBRETTO-531 (NCT04211337), an RCT that demonstrated the PFS benefit (HR=0.28) of selpercatinib over vandetanib/cabozantinib (control) in RET-mutant MTC. Methods: We first assessed PRT using the single Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) item GP5, asking patients to rate “bothered by treatment side effects” from 0 to 4. Patients who reported “3=quite a bit” or “4=very much” on GP5 were classified as “high SE bother,” a validated meaningful cutoff for treatment SE burden. In a second pre-specified step, PRT was defined as the proportion of time on treatment (PTOT) with “high SE bother” and was compared between selpercatinib vs. control arms in the tolerability evaluable population. PRT was tested at a 1-sided significance level of 0.025, conditional on achieving statistical significance for PFS and treatment failure-free survival by BICR. To complement PRT, other patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL, using EORTC QLQ-C30) and symptomatic adverse events (AEs; using PRO-CTCAE) were evaluated. We calculated the PTOT that patients reported clinically meaningful impairment of HRQoL (using pre-specified cutoff scores) and highly symptomatic AEs (scores of 3 or 4). Results: Patients on selpercatinib (n=161) had a significantly better PRT (lower PTOT with high SE bother) than control (n=81) (8% vs. 24%, p&lt;.0001). Sensitivity analyses using different cutoffs for high SE bother showed consistent results (p&lt;.0001). On QLQ-C30, patients on selpercatinib reported significantly less PTOT with HRQoL impairment across physical (36% vs. 52%), role (2% vs. 11%), cognitive (4% vs. 8%), emotional (6% vs. 11%), and social (2% vs. 8%) functions (all p&lt;0.01) vs. control. On PRO-CTCAE, patients on selpercatinib reported significantly less PTOT with diarrhea (5% vs. 38%), fatigue (6% vs. 21%), taste change (3% vs. 15%), decreased appetite (2% vs. 15%), hand/foot syndrome (2% vs. 9%) (all p&lt;.001) vs. control. Conclusions: Through the incorporation of a novel, single question and quantifiable metric that measured time on treatment under high SE bother into the LIBRETTO-531 study, we demonstrated superior PRT and improved PFS for selpercatinib in patients with RET-mutant MTC versus vandetanib/cabozantinib. This simplified PRT metric deserves further adoption as a quantitative endpoint to complement PFS in future RCTs.

Sex influence on cancer immunotherapy efficacy and safety in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): A Canadian institution real-world experience.

e20618 Background: Males and females differ in innate and adaptive immune responses. This difference may also be reflected in their response to cancer immunotherapies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have revolutionized the treatment for advanced NSCLC, however the impact of sex on treatment outcomes in these patients remains unclear. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate sex-related differences in immunotherapy outcome in a real-world population of NSCLC patients treated with ICIs. Methods: Demographics, clinical, pathological and treatment characteristics were assessed. Treatment-related variables were analyzed to understand the differences in efficacy and safety outcomes including response rates, PFS, OS and all-cause treatment discontinuation (TD) in relation to sex. Results: 152 advanced NSCLC patients receiving first-line immunotherapy, either alone or in conjunction with chemotherapy, were included in the study cohort. Females were younger age, were more likely to be non-smokers, have non-squamous tumors and had a higher prevalence of pre-existing autoimmune diseases compared to males. Disease control (CR/PR/SD) was achieved in 65.8% of patients. Median PFS was 12.0 mo in females and 14.1 mo in males. Median OS for all patients was 15.8 mo; 16.1 and 15.7 mo in females and males respectively. No statistical differences based on gender were observed in PFS and OS (P = 0.767 and P = 0.657). In regression analysis older age and presence of liver metastases were independent poor prognostic factors. Gender was not an independent prognostic factor in PFS and OS. Notably, 44 or 28.9% patients developed symptomatic immune-related adverse events (ir-AEs) that led to TD (Table 1). ir-AE-related TD occurred at a significantly higher rate in females compared with males (Table 1; 38.2% vs 19.7%, RR = 1.90; 95% CI: 1.12 to 3.26; p = 0.018). GI toxicity, including hepatitis and colitis was predominantly observed in females, whereas pneumonitis was the most frequent ir-AE leading to TD in males. Conclusions: Despite no significant differences based on gender were observed in PFS and OS, our study showed that female patients with advanced NSCLC receiving ICIs are at a substantially greater risk of severe symptomatic ir-AEs and TD. This finding indicates that broad-based sex differences in this context could potentially exist and emphasizes the need for further investigations into the role played by gender in immunity and cancer immunotherapy treatment.[Table: see text]

Feasibility and utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome measures for lung cancer in routine clinical care.

11107 Background: Prior studies have shown the value of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) in cost burden, quality of life (QoL), and survival in cancer care. To facilitate focus on patient-centricity and value-based care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurements (ICHOM) and European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) developed a Core Outcomes Set (COS) in lung cancer. We explored the feasibility of deploying standardized PRO measures among patients with lung cancer in US clinical practice. Methods: A retrospective database study was conducted, with IRB waiver, using Carevive PROmPT, an electronic PRO (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring platform with weekly surveys comparable in scope to ICHOM/H2O COS, of symptomatic adverse events (PRO-CTCAE), physical function (PROMIS 4A Physical Function), and QoL items (EORTC QLQ-C30 items #29,30). Severe PRO-CTCAE symptom scores triggered care team alerts. From 9/2020 to 5/2023, 207 patients enrolled across 9 US cancer centers. Patients were ≥18 years, with lung cancer, and in current treatment. Patient engagement was measured by survey compliance, follow-up time, and completeness; clinician engagement was measured by platform utilization time, time to alert response, and clinical action taken. Results: Participants were 50% female, 86% White, 12% African American, median age 68, 81% NSCLC, and 26% with metastatic disease. Median survey persistence: 8 weeks, with 85% compliance over that time. Of domains assessed, 37 (58%) from Carevive data overlapped with ICHOM/H2O COS, with 19 measured over time. Overlapping domains included 15 clinical outcomes with 60% median completion rate and 22 PRO domains with 98% median completion. Of 19 domains assessed longitudinally, median compliance was 76%. Of patients triggering ≥1 ePRO symptom alert, 87% were within 4 weeks, with 46% requesting call-backs. Median clinician follow-up to alerts was 20 hours, with 69.3% addressed within 48 hours. Clinicians accessed the platform 2-3 times weekly, for median 2 minutes (range: 1-14 minutes) per login for nurses and Advanced Practitioners (AP). 89% of alerts were addressed by nurses and AP. Of alert responses, 66% indicated continuation of treatment, 12% were escalated to the clinical team, and 1% were escalated to hospitalization or ER visit. Conclusions: Results support the feasibility of integrating a standard set of multi-domain ePRO measures, comparable to the ICHOM/H2O COS, into routine cancer care, across multiple sites, with consistent patient engagement and provider utilization. One limitation is that clinical and financial impact were not directly assessed. Future research should explore direct clinician feedback, systematic implementation of PRO measures, and impacts on patient outcomes, resource utilization, and health systems.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the DREAMM-7 randomized phase 3 study comparing belantamab mafodotin, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (BVd) vs daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone (DVd) in patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM).

7543 Background: Belantamab mafodotin(belamaf), a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate targeting B-cell maturation antigen, acts through a multimodal mechanism including direct cell killing and immune-mediated mechanisms. The global, phase 3, open-label, randomized, DREAMM-7 trial (NCT04246047) met its primary endpoint of demonstrating statistically significant progression-free survival benefit favoring BVd vs DVd in patients with RRMM who had received ≥1 prior line of therapy; here, we report PRO findings for BVd vs DVd. Methods: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive BVd or DVd and completed electronic PRO measures at baseline and every 3 weeks (Q3W) during treatment. PRO measures included EORTC-QLQ-C30, EORTC-QLQ-MY20 disease symptoms (pain), PRO-CTCAE patient-reported tolerability, and OSDI vision-related functioning (Q3W up to the sixth dose of belamaf, then Q6W). Each domain was summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Among 494 patients (BVd, n=243; DVd, n=251), adherence to PRO assessments was &gt;90% for most study visits. There was no difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality-of-life assessments between the study arms over time. Similarly, role functioning, physical functioning, fatigue, and pain were stable (change from baseline in EORTC score was within 10 points) over time and consistent between arms. Most symptomatic adverse events evaluated by PRO-CTCAE were reported at no to low severity, frequency, and interference (PRO-CTCAE ratings ≤2) in both arms throughout the study. The severity and interference of blurred vision and frequency of watery eyes were reported at higher levels (PRO-CTCAE ratings ≥3) in the BVd arm. Among patients in the BVd arm with a clinically meaningful deterioration in vision-related functioning (a change from baseline of ≥12.5 points), EORTC-QLQ-C30 global health status, role functioning, and physical functioning were comparable to the DVd arm over time. Conclusions: Overallquality of life, role functioning, physical functioning, fatigue, and pain were comparable in patients treated with BVd vs DVd. In patients treated with BVd who reported a clinically meaningful deterioration in vision-related functioning, overall quality of life was consistent with the DVd arm.

First-line inavolisib/placebo + palbociclib + fulvestrant (Inavo/Pbo+Palbo+Fulv) in patients (pts) with PIK3CA-mutated, hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer who relapsed during/within 12 months (mo) of adjuvant endocrine therapy completion: INAVO120 Phase III randomized trial additional analyses.

1003 Background: INAVO120 (NCT04191499) showed significantly and meaningfully improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; stratified hazard ratio 0.43) with Inavo+Palbo+Fulv v Pbo+Palbo+Fulv, and manageable safety and tolerability. To further characterize the substantial benefit/risk of the Inavo triplet, we assessed additional clinically relevant efficacy endpoints, detailed safety data of key adverse events (AEs) for Inavo (hyperglycemia [HG], diarrhea, rash, stomatitis), and pt-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Efficacy endpoints includedtime from randomization to end of next-line treatment (tx; proxy for PFS2) and to first chemotherapy (TTFC). Key AEs were reported by grouped terms. PROs were assessed by PRO-CTCAE, an overall bother item, BPI-SF, and EORTC QLQ-C30. Results: Increases in median “PFS2” (24.0 v 15.1 mo; unstratified hazard ratio: 0.59 [95% CI, 0.42–0.83]) and TTFC (NE v 15.0 mo; unstratified hazard ratio: 0.53 [95% CI, 0.37–0.78]) were observed in the Inavo v Pbo arm (median follow-up: 21.3 mo; Table). Key AEs were mostly G1–2 and had resolved (Table). No key AEs were G4–5. In the Inavo arm, among pts who experienced key AEs (HG, diarrhea, rash, stomatitis), median time to first onset was 7, 15, 29, and 13 days, respectively. The key AEs were managed with standard supportive care and Inavo dose interruptions/reductions. One pt discontinued Inavo due to HG; one, due to stomatitis. Pts receiving Inavo experienced a longer duration of time without worsening pain severity and maintained their day-to-day functioning and health-related quality of life on tx. Most pts in both arms reported levels of selected symptomatic AEs from the PRO-CTCAE and overall tx bother as moderate or less, indicating that Inavo does not contribute additional tx burden. Conclusions: Inavo+Palbo+Fulv was associated with sustained benefit beyond disease progression, delaying chemotherapy administration, with manageable safety and tolerability that was reflected in PROs; hence, supporting it as a new standard of care. Clinical trial information: NCT04191499 . [Table: see text]

Final Results of RIGHT Choice: Ribociclib Plus Endocrine Therapy Versus Combination Chemotherapy in Premenopausal Women With Clinically Aggressive Hormone Receptor-Positive/Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer.

A head-to-head comparison of efficacy between a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor plus endocrine therapy (ET) versus combination chemotherapy (CT) has never been reported in patients with clinically aggressive hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR+/HER2-) advanced breast cancer (ABC). In this open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial, pre/perimenopausal women with clinically aggressive HR+/HER2- ABC were randomly assigned 1:1 to first-line ribociclib (600 mg once daily; 3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus letrozole/anastrozole and goserelin or investigator's choice of combination CT (docetaxel plus capecitabine, paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, or capecitabine plus vinorelbine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Among 222 patients randomly assigned to ribociclib plus ET (n = 112) or combination CT (n = 110), 150 (67.6%) had symptomatic visceral metastases, 41 (18.5%) had rapid disease progression per investigator's judgment, and 31 (14.0%) had symptomatic nonvisceral disease. Overall, 106 (47.7%) patients had investigator-assessed visceral crisis. The median follow-up time was 37.0 months. At data cutoff, 31.3% (ribociclib arm) and 15.5% (CT arm) of patients had completed study treatment and transitioned to post-trial access. The median PFS was 21.8 months (ribociclib plus ET; [95% CI, 17.4 to 26.7]) and 12.8 months (combination CT; [95% CI, 10.1 to 18.4); hazard ratio, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.43 to 0.87]; P = .003. The overall response rates and the median time to response in the ribociclib versus CT arms, respectively, were 66.1% and 61.8% and 4.9 months and 3.2 months (hazard ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.55 to 1.06]). Lower rates of symptomatic adverse events were observed in the ribociclib versus CT arm. First-line ribociclib plus ET showed a significant PFS benefit, similar response rates, and better tolerability over combination CT in patients with clinically aggressive HR+/HER2- ABC.

5-EPIFAT trial protocol: a multi-center, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of the efficacy of pharmacotherapy for fatigue using methylphenidate, bupropion, ginseng, and amantadine in advanced cancer patients on active treatment

BackgroundCancer-related fatigue (CRF) is still undertreated in most patients, as evidence for pharmacological treatments is limited and conflicting. Also, the efficacy of the pharmacological agents relative to each other is still unclear. Therefore, medications that may potentially contribute to improving CRF will be investigated in this head-to-head trial. Our main objective is to compare the efficacy of methylphenidate vs. bupropion vs. ginseng vs. amantadine vs. placebo in patients with advanced cancer.MethodsThe 5-EPIFAT study is a 5-arm, randomized, multi-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial that will use a parallel-group design with an equal allocation ratio comparing the efficacy and safety of four medications (Methylphenidate vs. Bupropion vs. Ginseng vs. Amantadine) versus placebo for management of CRF. We will recruit 255 adult patients with advanced cancer who experience fatigue intensity ≥ 4 based on a 0–10 scale. The study period includes a 4-week intervention and a 4-week follow-up with repeated measurements over time. The primary outcome is the cancer-related fatigue level over time, which will be measured by the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue (FACIT-F) scale. To evaluate safety, the secondary outcome is the symptomatic adverse events, which will be assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events in cancer clinical trials (PRO-CTCAE). Also, a subgroup analysis based on a decision tree-based machine learning algorithm will be employed for the clinical prediction of different agents in homogeneous subgroups.DiscussionThe findings of the 5-EPIFAT trial could be helpful to guide clinical decision-making, personalization treatment approach, design of future trials, as well as the development of CRF management guidelines.Trial registrationIRCT.ir IRCT20150302021307N6. Registered on 13 May 2023.

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

ABSTRACT 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.

A single-institution retrospective exploratory analysis on the effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for advanced endometrial cancer: insights from ProMisE molecular classification system.

The Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer has identified four risk groups for the prognosis of endometrial cancer. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab was recently approved as a second-line treatment for unresectable endometrial cancer, but reports in clinical practice are lacking. The relationship between the efficacy of lenvatinib/pembrolizumab and Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer classification is unclear. This single-centre retrospective study included patients who underwent lenvatinib/pembrolizumab therapy at Iwate Medical University Hospital between January 2022 and March 2023. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens obtained from patients before treatment were collected and classified into the mismatch repair-deficient, p53 abnormal and no specific molecular profile subtypes using immunohistochemistry. The response rate, progression-free survival and adverse events were evaluated using electronic medical records. The study was approved by the hospital's ethics committee (approval number: MH2022-093). This study enrolled 20 patients, who underwent a median follow-up of 17.8months (95% confidence interval: 16.6-18.9). The best overall response rate was 60.0% (36.1-80.9), and the median progression-free survival was 11.6months (2.9-20.3). The median progression-free survival in the p53 abnormal group (n =9) was 3.4months (3.0-3.8); however, progression-free survival did not reach the median (P<0.001) in the mismatch repair-deficient/no specific molecular profile group (n=11). Symptomatic immune-related adverse events (except hypothyroidism) occurred in 4/20 (25.0%) patients, and partial responses were observed in all cases. No treatment-related deaths occurred. The p53abn group in the Proactive Molecular Risk Classifier for Endometrial Cancer classification has a poor prognosis even after treatment with lenvatinib/pembrolizumab.

Pediatric endoscopy in times of pandemic: A nationwide retrospective analysis

BackgroundGastrointestinal endoscopy is a procedure that carries an increased risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection to medical staff. In patients, COVID-19 is a risk factor for adverse events of medical procedures. This study analyzed the real-life risk of, and factors contributing to, infection transmission to endoscopic personnel, and possible adverse events of the endoscopy procedure and anesthesia in children with COVID-19. MethodsNationwide retrospective analysis of medical records of children with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection who underwent gastrointestinal endoscopy in Poland between February 2020 and February 2022. ResultsFifty-eight patients were included in the analysis, 35% of whom had COVID-19 symptoms at the time of endoscopy. The dominant indications for endoscopy were foreign body or corrosive substance ingestion and gastrointestinal bleeding. Nine cases of virus transmission were registered among endoscopic personnel. In all of these cases, the endoscopy team was unaware of the patient's infection (p < 0.01), although symptoms were present in 78% of the children. Lack of use of personal protective equipment was the strongest predictor of SARS-CoV-2 transmission (p < 0.01). The risk of infection was not statistically significantly dependent on the method of anesthesia, intubation or the type of endoscopy. No statistically significant correlation was found between symptomatic infection and adverse events of endoscopy or anesthesia occurrence. There was one reported anesthesia-related adverse event involving extubation difficulties due to worsening respiratory infection symptoms. ConclusionsThe risk of transmitting SARS-CoV-2 to endoscopic personnel during procedures in children is low and depends on compliance with infection prevention and control measures. Performing gastrointestinal endoscopy in children with COVID-19 does not appear to be associated with an increased risk of adverse events.

Symptomatic adverse events of chemotherapy in breast cancer patients:Using CTCAE, PRO-CTCAE, and EORTC QLQ-C30.

The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is used as a tool to evaluate the adverse events (AE) of chemotherapy in cancer patients. Since CTCAE by medical providers underestimates AE more than patient-reported outcomes (PRO), the National Cancer Institute developed PRO-CTCAE. The present study investigated differences between symptoms detected using CTCAE by medical providers and PRO-CTCAE by breast cancer patients. Patients received chemotherapy comprising epirubicin and cyclophosphamide pre- or postoperatively. AE were evaluated using 4 questionnaires:PRO-CTCAE, CTCAE, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-30), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) after 1, 2, and 3 courses of chemotherapy. Forty-two patients were registered. Regarding the recognition of psychological symptoms, such as fatigue, anxiety, and discouragement, and subjective symptoms, including heart palpitations and shortness of breath, PRO using PRO-CTCAE was significantly higher than medical provider-recognized outcomes using CTCAE. Concerning the recognition of regimen-specific symptoms, such as vomiting, nausea, and decreased appetite, medical provider- recognized outcomes were the same or higher than PRO. In QLQ-C30, the physical and role functions, fatigue and dyspnea significantly worsened after 2 and 3 courses of chemotherapy. J. Med. Invest. 71 : 82-91, February, 2024.

Use of the National Cancer Institute Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events to assess treatment tolerability in pulmonary arterial hypertension: qualitative patient research findings in current and former users of oral selexipag

BackgroundUnderstanding patients’ perspectives regarding drug tolerability, in addition to effectiveness, provides a complete picture of the patient experience and supports more informed therapeutic decision-making. The item library of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) was developed to measure patient-reported frequency, severity, and interference of adverse events (AEs) associated with cancer therapies. This qualitative interview study assessed the suitability of items selected from the PRO-CTCAE library for assessing tolerability of selexipag, a medication targeting the prostacyclin pathway for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH).MethodsTwo rounds of 10 qualitative, web-assisted telephone interviews following a semi-structured guide were conducted in individuals with recent experience taking oral selexipag for PAH. Each interview included concept elicitation to gather participants’ perspectives on symptomatic AEs (type, frequency, severity, and interference) and cognitive debriefing of PRO-CTCAE items addressing the most frequently reported AEs of oral selexipag.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 20 participants with PAH (mean [range] age 50 [24–68] years; 75% female; 85% in World Health Organization Functional Class II–III), comprising different races/ethnicities, levels of education, and employment status. Fifteen participants were currently treated with selexipag; five had taken selexipag for ≥ 6 months before discontinuing. The most frequently reported AEs included headache, jaw pain, and nausea (n = 15, 12, and 10 participants, respectively). Diarrhea and headache were identified as the most bothersome AEs by 5 and 4 participants, respectively. Some AEs were transitory (e.g., jaw pain); others were long-lasting (e.g., muscle pain). Based on findings from Round 1 interviews, a flushing item was added and the PRO-CTCAE general pain item was modified to be specific to jaw pain for testing in Round 2. Interview findings identified the following AEs as relevant to assess in a PAH clinical trial: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, jaw pain, headache, aching muscles, and aching joints.ConclusionsThe PRO-CTCAE items selected in this study and the additional symptomatic AEs identified as patient-relevant have the potential to be included in assessments capturing the patient perspective on tolerability in future studies of selexipag and possibly other PAH therapies.

Abstract C067: Patient-reported baseline symptomatic adverse events in early-phase trials of combination treatments with immune checkpoint blockade, and their association with concurrent global health status, health utilities and clinical factors

Abstract Background: We examined patient-reported symptomatic adverse events (AEs) prior to trial start, and their association with concurrent global health status, health utilities and clinical factors in patients enrolled in early-phase trials combining immune checkpoint blockade with other anticancer therapy. Methods: Within 2 weeks prior to trial start, patients consented to begin an early phase trial of a combination treatment including at least 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor completed validated items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measuring severity and/or frequency of selected symptomatic adverse events (score range: 0-4, higher scores=worse severity/increased frequency) in the last 7 days. Patients also completed the validated EuroQoL-5 dimensions questionnaire measuring global health status (score range: 0-100, higher scores=better health status) and health utilities (e.g., problems with self-care, mobility). Clinical data were extracted from the EMR. Statistical tests included χ2 and Spearman’s correlations. Results: 206 patients (median age=59y; 54% male; 84% White) from 54 early-phase trials participated. Prevalent moderate-to-severe symptomatic AEs at baseline prior to trial start included fatigue (43% of patients), decreased sexual interest (24%), appetite loss (21%), dry mouth (17%) and shortness of breath (16%). Frequent-to-almost constant general pain, abdominal pain and nausea were reported by 27%, 13% and 5% of patients, respectively. Worse fatigue, and more frequent general pain and abdominal pain were associated with diminished global health status (P&amp;lt;0.001 for each). Worse fatigue was also linked to problems with mobility, self-care, anxiety, and usual activities (P&amp;lt;0.001 for each), and to lower concurrent lymphocyte counts (P=0.002), hemoglobin (P=0.002) and serum albumin (P=0.029). Loss of appetite was related to lower lymphocytes (P=0.005), platelets (P=0.011), and serum albumin (P=0.021) and higher neutrophils (P=023). Dyspnea was linked to lower albumin (P=0.014). Loss of sexual interest was associated with worse pain (P&amp;lt;0.001), anxiety (P=0.011), and problems with usual activities (P&amp;lt;0.001), lower serum albumin (0.005), lymphocytes (P=0.010), hemoglobin (0.019), and creatinine (P=0.03) and higher neutrophils (P=0.009) and white blood cells (0.023). Conclusions: Patients in early-phase trials of combination treatments with an immune checkpoint inhibitor may report considerable moderate-to-severe symptomatic AEs, even at baseline. Patient-reported symptomatic AEs impact global health status, health utilities, and a constellation of clinical factors. Thus, it is critical in early-phase trials to baseline symptomatic AEs including from the patient’s perspective in order to more completely assess the impact of combination treatments that include a checkpoint inhibitor. Citation Format: Goldy C. George, Sarina A Piha-Paul, Siqing Fu, Ecaterina Dumbrava, Vivek Subbiah, Apostolia Tsimberidou, George Blumenschein, Shubham Pant, Grace Appleton, Laila Noor, Jordi Rodon Ahnert, Timothy Yap, Funda Meric-Bernstam, Charles Cleeland, Tito Mendoza, David S Hong. Patient-reported baseline symptomatic adverse events in early-phase trials of combination treatments with immune checkpoint blockade, and their association with concurrent global health status, health utilities and clinical factors [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR-NCI-EORTC Virtual International Conference on Molecular Targets and Cancer Therapeutics; 2023 Oct 11-15; Boston, MA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Mol Cancer Ther 2023;22(12 Suppl):Abstract nr C067.

Electronic-PRO Measures for adverse events Of Treatment In ONcology (E-PROMOTION)

PurposeCancer patients struggle with the trauma of the disease and its treatment. PRO-CTCAE was developed to improve the recording of underreported symptomatic toxicities. We evaluated the improvement and ease in reporting symptomatic adverse events through add-on PRO-CTCAE (via a mobile application) compared to standard clinician-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice. We also evaluated changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods110 cancer patients were studied for three weeks between their first and second chemotherapy session. HRQoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-c30. ResultsFifty-three patients self-reported their symptomatic adverse events on the day 7th & day 14th after the first cycle of chemotherapy. For the other fifty-seven patients, recording of adverse events was done by standard clinician-reported outcomes. All the patients in the study group reported adverse events compared to only 21 % in the standard reporting group. All 15 domains of adverse events were reported in the self-reporting group compared to only 5 in the standard reporting group. The self-reporting group had a significantly better overall quality of life. ConclusionsSelf-reporting of adverse events using mobile app-based PRO-CTCAE helps patients and clinicians with better documentation of symptomatic toxicities of chemotherapy, reducing the burden on physicians and improving patient satisfaction. Mobile app-based self-reporting empowers cancer patients undergoing treatment, improves their quality of life, and should be implemented in routine clinical practice. Wider implementation can lead to further optimised solutions.