Incidence and Risk Factors for Pneumonitis Associated With Checkpoint Inhibitors in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Single Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) pneumonitis causes substantial morbidity and mortality. Estimates of real-world incidence and reported risk factors vary substantially.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 419 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who were treated with anti-PD-(L)1 with or without anti-CTLA-4 therapy. Clinical, imaging, and microbiological data were evaluated by multidisciplinary adjudication teams. The primary outcome of interest was grade ≥2 (CTCAEv5) pneumonitis. Clinicopathologic variables, tobacco use, cancer therapies, and preexisting lung disease were assessed for univariate effects using Cox proportional hazards models. We created multivariate Cox proportional hazards models to assess risk factors for pneumonitis and mortality. Pneumonitis, pneumonia, and progression were modeled as time-dependent variables in mortality models.

RESULTS

We evaluated 419 patients between 2013 and 2021. The cumulative incidence of pneumonitis was 9.5% (40/419). In a multivariate model, pneumonitis increased the risk for mortality (HR 1.6, 95% CI, 1.0-2.5), after adjustment for disease progression (HR 1.6, 95% CI, 1.4-1.8) and baseline shortness of breath (HR 1.5, 95% CI, 1.2-2.0). Incomplete resolution was more common with more severe pneumonitis. Interstitial lung disease was associated with higher risk for pneumonitis (HR 5.4, 95% CI, 1.1-26.6), particularly in never smokers (HR 26.9, 95% CI, 2.8-259.0).

CONCLUSION

Pneumonitis occurred at a high rate and significantly increased mortality. Interstitial lung disease, particularly in never smokers, increased the risk for pneumonitis.

Should We Use COMM (Current Opioid Misuse Measure) to Screen for Opioid Abuse in Patients With Cancer Pain?

BACKGROUND

Growing concerns about opioid use disorder (OUD) and the resulting decrease in opioid availability for patients with cancer pain highlight the need for reliable screening tools to identify the subset of patients at increased risk for aberrant opioid use. Our study examines the utility of Current Opioid Misuse Measure (COMM) recommended by the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology for Adult Cancer Pain.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes of 444 consecutive patients with cancer seen in pain clinics of a cancer center at 2 time points within 100 days. The relationship of COMM to other OUD screening tools, pain, opioid doses, patient demographics, and mortality was examined using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. We also examined individual items of COMM for face validity.

RESULTS

Among 444 patients who completed pain surveys at 2 time points, 157 (35.4%) did not complete COMM surveys. Using a COMM cutoff of ≥13, a total of 84 patients (29.3%; 84/287) scored positive for aberrant drug use. As patients remained on opioids for 49 to 100 days, the likelihood of improving COMM score (turning from positive to negative) was 6.1 times greater than the reverse. The number of patients with COMM ≥13 was 3.8 times higher than the number of patients with CPT diagnostic codes for OUD, 5.3 times higher than those with a positive urine drug screening, and 21 times higher than those with a positive CAGE (Cut Down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-Opener Questionnaire) score. COMM ≥13 was not associated with pain relief response (worst pain intensity score ≥2 points on the Brief Pain Inventory), opioid doses, gender, or age. Contrary to the intended use of COMM to identify aberrant opioid use, COMM ≥13 predicted mortality: patients with COMM ≥13 were 1.9 times more likely to die within 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study found that using COMM in a cancer population may significantly overestimate the risk of opioid misuse. Using COMM without modifications can create an additional barrier to cancer pain management, such as limiting appropriate opioid use.

Pilot study of a Spanish language measure of financial toxicity in underserved Hispanic cancer patients with low English proficiency

Background

Financial toxicity (FT) reflects multi-dimensional personal economic hardships borne by cancer patients. It is unknown whether measures of FT-to date derived largely from English-speakers-adequately capture economic experiences and financial hardships of medically underserved low English proficiency US Hispanic cancer patients. We piloted a Spanish language FT instrument in this population.

Methods

We piloted a Spanish version of the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) FT measure using qualitative cognitive interviews and surveys in un-/under-insured or medically underserved, low English proficiency, Spanish-speaking Hispanics (UN-Spanish, n = 23) receiving ambulatory oncology care at a public healthcare safety net hospital in the Houston metropolitan area. Exploratory analyses compared ENRICh FT scores amongst the UN-Spanish group to: (1) un-/under-insured English-speaking Hispanics (UN-English, n = 23) from the same public facility and (2) insured English-speaking Hispanics (INS-English, n = 31) from an academic comprehensive cancer center. Multivariable logistic models compared the outcome of severe FT (score > 6).

Results

UN-Spanish Hispanic participants reported high acceptability of the instrument (only 0% responded that the instrument was "very difficult to answer" and 4% that it was "very difficult to understand the questions"; 8% responded that it was "very difficult to remember resources used" and 8% that it was "very difficult to remember the burdens experienced"; and 4% responded that it was "very uncomfortable to respond"). Internal consistency of the FT measure was high (Cronbach's α = 0.906). In qualitative responses, UN-Spanish Hispanics frequently identified a total lack of credit, savings, or income and food insecurity as aspects contributing to FT. UN-Spanish and UN-English Hispanic patients were younger, had lower education and income, resided in socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods and had more advanced cancer vs. INS-English Hispanics. There was a higher likelihood of severe FT in UN-Spanish (OR = 2.73, 95% CI 0.77-9.70; p = 0.12) and UN-English (OR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.13-15.12; p = 0.03) vs. INS-English Hispanics. A higher likelihood of severely depleted FT coping resources occurred in UN-Spanish (OR = 4.00, 95% CI 1.07-14.92; p = 0.04) and UN-English (OR = 5.73, 95% CI 1.49-22.1; p = 0.01) vs. INS-English. The likelihood of FT did not differ between UN-Spanish and UN-English in both models (p = 0.59 and p = 0.62 respectively).

Conclusion

In medically underserved, uninsured Hispanic patients with cancer, comprehensive Spanish-language FT assessment in low English proficiency participants was feasible, acceptable, and internally consistent. Future studies employing tailored FT assessment and intervention should encompass the key privations and hardships in this population.

Reliability and validity of PRO-CTCAE® daily reporting with a 24-hour recall period

PURPOSE

The standard recall period for the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) is the past 7 days, but there are contexts where a 24-hour recall may be desirable. The purpose of this analysis was to investigate the reliability and validity of a subset of PRO-CTCAE items captured using a 24-hour recall.

METHODS

27 PRO-CTCAE items representing 14 symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were collected using both a 24-hour recall (24 h) and the standard 7 day recall (7d) in a sample of patients receiving active cancer treatment (n = 113). Using data captured with a PRO-CTCAE-24h on days 6 and 7, and 20 and 21, we computed intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC); an ICC ≥ 0.70 was interpreted as demonstrating high test-retest reliability. Correlations between PRO-CTCAE-24h items on day 7 and conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains were examined. In responsiveness analysis, patients were deemed changed if they had a one-point or greater change in the corresponding PRO-CTCAE-7d item (from week 0 to week 1).

RESULTS

PRO-CTCAE-24h captured on two consecutive days demonstrated that 21 of 27 items (78%) had ICCs ≥ 0.70 (day 6/7 median ICC 0.76), (day 20/21 median ICC 0.84). Median correlation between attributes within a common AE was 0.75, and the median correlation between conceptually relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 domains and PRO-CTCAE-24 h items captured on day 7 was 0.44. In the analysis of responsiveness to change, the median standardized response mean (SRM) for patients with improvement was - 0.52 and that for patients with worsening was 0.71.

CONCLUSION

A 24-hour recall period for PRO-CTCAE items has acceptable measurement properties and can inform day-to-day variations in symptomatic AEs when daily PRO-CTCAE administration is implemented in a clinical trial.

Measuring symptom burden in patients with cancer during a pandemic: the MD Anderson symptom inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID)

BACKGROUND

Symptom expression in SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) may affect patients already symptomatic with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can describe symptom burden during the acute and postacute stages of COVID-19 and support risk stratification for levels of care. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, our purpose was to rapidly develop, launch through an electronic patient portal, and provide initial validation for a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer.

METHODS

We conducted a CDC/WHO web-based scan for COVID-19 symptoms and a relevance review of symptoms by an expert panel of clinicians treating cancer patients with COVID-19 to create a provisional MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for COVID-19 (MDASI-COVID). English-speaking adults with cancer who tested positive for COVID-19 participated in the psychometric testing phase. Patients completed longitudinal assessments of the MDASI-COVID and the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) utility index and visual analog scale, which were presented through an electronic health record patient portal. To test the validity of the MDASI-COVID to distinguish between known groups of patients, we hypothesized that patients hospitalized, including having a hospitalization extended, for COVID-19 versus those not hospitalized would experience higher symptom burden. Correlation of mean symptom severity and interference scores with relevant EQ-5D-5L scores tested concurrent validity. The reliability of the MDASI-COVID was evaluated by calculating Cronbach alpha coefficients and test-retest reliability was evaluated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficients between the initial assessment and a second assessment no more than 14 days later.

RESULTS

The web-based scan found 31 COVID-19-related symptoms; rankings of a 14-clinician expert panel reduced this list to 11 COVID-specific items to be added to the core MDASI. Time from literature scan start in March 2020 to instrument launch in May 2020 was 2 months. Psychometric analysis established the MDASI-COVID's reliability, known-group validity, and concurrent validity.

CONCLUSIONS

We were able to rapidly develop and electronically launch a PRO measure of COVID-19 symptom burden in patients with cancer. Additional research is needed to confirm the content domain and predictive validity of the MDASI-COVID and define the symptom burden trajectory of COVID-19.

Phase I Study and Cell-Free DNA Analysis of T-DM1 and Metronomic Temozolomide for Secondary Prevention of HER2-Positive Breast Cancer Brain Metastases

PURPOSE

Preclinical data showed that prophylactic, low-dose temozolomide (TMZ) significantly prevented breast cancer brain metastasis. We present results of a phase I trial combining T-DM1 with TMZ for the prevention of additional brain metastases after previous occurrence and local treatment in patients with HER2+ breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients had HER2+ breast cancer with brain metastases and were within 12 weeks of whole brain radiation therapy (WBRT), stereotactic radiosurgery, and/or surgery. Standard doses of T-DM1 were administered intravenously every 21 days (3.6 mg/kg) and TMZ was given orally daily in a 3+3 phase I dose escalation design at 30, 40, or 50 mg/m2, continuously. DLT period was one 21-day cycle. Primary endpoint was safety and recommended phase II dose. Symptom questionnaires, brain MRI, and systemic CT scans were performed every 6 weeks. Cell-free DNA sequencing was performed on patients' plasma and CSF.

RESULTS

Twelve women enrolled, nine (75%) with prior SRS therapy and three (25%) with prior WBRT. Grade 3 or 4 AEs included thrombocytopenia (1/12), neutropenia (1/12), lymphopenia (6/12), and decreased CD4 (6/12), requiring pentamidine for Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia prophylaxis. No DLT was observed. Four patients on the highest TMZ dose underwent dose reductions. At trial entry, 6 of 12 patients had tumor mutations in CSF, indicating ongoing metastatic colonization despite a clear MRI. Median follow-up on study was 9.6 m (2.8-33.9); only 2 patients developed new parenchymal brain metastases. Tumor mutations varied with patient outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Metronomic TMZ in combination with standard dose T-DM1 shows low-grade toxicity and potential activity in secondary prevention of HER2+ brain metastases.

Relationship between RANO-PRO Working Group standardised priority constructs and disease progression among malignant glioma patients: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Recognising the importance of clinical outcomes assessments (COAs), the Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology-Patient Reported Outcome (RANO-PRO) Working Group recommended inclusion of core symptoms and functions in clinical care or research for malignant glioma patients. This study evaluated the association of the recommended symptoms (pain, perceived cognition, seizures, aphasia, symptomatic adverse events) and functions (weakness, walking, work, usual activities) with disease progression in these patients.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, patients with malignant glioma were included from the US National Cancer Institute Neuro-Oncology Branch Natural History Study (NOB-NHS) which follows primary central nervous system tumour patients aged 18 years and older throughout their disease trajectory. The M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT), EQ-5D-3L, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), and Neurologic Function scores (NFS) were evaluated in relation to disease progression by chi-square tests, independent- and paired-samples t-tests, adjusted for multiple comparisons at first assessment and over time to a second assessment. Radiographic disease progression was determined on the interpretation of the imaging study by a radiologist and neuro-oncologist using standard criteria as part of clinical trial participation or routine standard of care. The priority constructs were evaluated to provide initial evidence of their relevance, relationship to disease status over time, and sensitivity to change in a diverse group of patients with malignant glioma.

FINDINGS

Seven hundred and sixty-five patients had enrolled into the NOB-NHS between September 1, 2016 and January 31, 2020. Three hundred and thirty-six patients had a diagnosis of a malignant glioma (anaplastic astrocytoma, anaplastic oligodendroglioma, glioblastoma, and gliosarcoma) and were included in the current study. The sample was 64% male (n = 215), 36% female (n = 121), median age of 52 years (IQR = 18.75), 82% White (n = 276), and 65% had tumour recurrence (n = 219). One hundred and fifty-four (46%) had radiographic disease progression. Difficulty remembering, fatigue, and weakness were worse in the group whose imaging was interpreted as radiographic disease progression versus stable disease, as well as the functions of walking, work, activity, and self-care (1.1 < difference < 1.8). Patients with disease progression were four times more likely to have a poor KPS (≤80) and worse NFS. Among patients with disease progression at a second assessment (n = 112), all symptoms, except seizures, worsened between first assessment and disease progression and up to 22% of patients (n = 25) reported worsening mobility, self-care, and usual activity; 46% (n = 51) and 35% (n = 30) had worsened KPS and NFS, respectively. On average, 4 symptoms or functions (SD = 3) were reported as moderate-to-severe and 30% (n = 33) and 23% (n = 26) had a change to moderate-to-severe fatigue and walking, respectively, at time of disease progression. Over 7% of patients with worsening (n = 7 of 100) reported every symptom and function as having changed the most severely including seizures with fatigue and activity reported as the top symptom and function, respectively.

INTERPRETATION

The identified core symptoms and functions worsened at the time of progression, supporting the relevance and sensitivity of the priority constructs identified by the RANO-PRO Working Group for clinical care and clinical trials for malignant glioma patients.

FUNDING

The Natural History Study is supported by Intramural Project 1ZIABC011786-03.

Short-form adaptive measure of financial toxicity from the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) study: Derivation using modern psychometric techniques

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to evaluate advanced psychometric properties of the 15-item Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh) measure of financial toxicity for cancer patients.

METHODS

We surveyed 515 cancer patients in the greater Houston metropolitan area using ENRICh from March 2019 to March 2020. We conducted a series of factor analyses alongside parametric and non-parametric item response theory (IRT) assessments using Mokken analysis and the graded response model (GRM). We utilized parameters derived from the GRM to run a simulated computerized adaptive test (CAT) assessment.

RESULTS

Among participants, mean age was 58.49 years and 278 (54%) were female. The initial round factor analysis results suggested a one-factor scale structure. Negligible levels of differential item functioning (DIF) were evident between eight items. Three items were removed due to local interdependence (Q3>+0.4). The original 11-point numerical rating scale did not function well, and a new 3-point scoring system was implemented. The final 12-item ENRICh had acceptable fit to the GRM (p<0.001; TLI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.09; RMSR = 0.06) as well as good scalability and dimensionality. We observed high correlation between CAT version scores and the 12-item measure (r = 0.98). During CAT, items 2 (money you owe) and 4 (stress level about finances) were most frequently administered, followed by items 1 (money in savings) and 5 (ability to pay bills). Scores from these four items alone were strongly correlated with that of the 12-item ENRICh (r = 0.96).

CONCLUSION

These CAT and 4-item versions provide options for quick screening in clinical practice and low-burden assessment in research.

Patient-reported symptom burden in patients with rare cancers receiving pembrolizumab in a phase II Clinical Trial

Patients with rare solid tumors treated on early phase trials experience toxicities from their tumors and treatments. However, limited data exist to describe the detailed symptom burden suffered by these patients, particularly those with rare solid tumors treated with immunotherapy. We performed a prospective longitudinal study to capture patient-reported symptom burden. Patients completed the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)—Immunotherapy with 20 symptoms including 7 immunotherapy-specific items and 6 interference items at baseline and weekly thereafter for up to 9 weeks. Symptoms and interference were rated on 0–10 scales (0 = none or no interference, 10 = worst imaginable or complete interference). Group-based trajectory modelling determined higher and lower symptom groups. A total of 336 MDASI questionnaires were completed by 53 patients (mean age 55.4y, 53% male) with advanced rare cancers receiving pembrolizumab in a Phase II clinical trial. Symptoms reported as most severe over the course of the treatment over 9 weeks were fatigue [mean (M) = 3.8, SD = 2.3], pain (M = 3.7, SD = 2.9), disturbed sleep (M = 2.7, SD = 2.3), drowsiness (M = 2.6, SD = 2.0) and lack of appetite (M = 2.5, SD = 2.1). Pain in the abdomen (M = 2.2, SD = 2.4), rash (M = 1.1, SD = 1.8) and diarrhea (M = 0.9, SD = 1.5) were less severe. Interference with walking was rated the highest (M = 3.4, SD = 2.8) and relations with others was rated the lowest (M = 2.1, SD = 2.6). Using a composite score based on the five most severe symptoms (fatigue, pain, lack of appetite, feeling drowsy and sleep disturbance), 43% were classified into the high symptom burden group. Using a score based on immunotherapy-specific symptoms (e.g., rash, diarrhea) 33% of patients were included in the high symptom group. Symptom burden stayed relatively stable in the high- and low-symptom burden patient groups from baseline through 9 weeks. Some patients with rare malignancies experienced high symptom burden even at baseline. In patients with rare cancers, symptom trajectories stayed relatively stable over nine weeks of treatment with pembrolizumab.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02721732.

A multicenter study of clinical impact of variant of uncertain significance reclassification in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer susceptibility genes

10512

Background: Up to 10% of all cancers are attributable to germline mutations and identifying mutation carriers is critical for cancer prevention. Clinical interpretation of genetic test results is complicated by variants of uncertain significance (VUS) with unknown impact on health, which can be clarified through reclassification. However, there is little empirical evidence regarding VUS reclassification in oncology care settings, including the prevalence and outcomes of reclassification, racial/ethnic differences, and the proportion of patients who undergo cancer preventive healthcare management as a result of VUS reclassification. Methods: Retrospective analysis of persons carrying VUS (with or without an accompanying pathogenic or likely pathogenic [P/LP] variant) in breast, ovarian, and colorectal cancer genes who underwent genetic counseling at four geographically dispersed cancer care settings (in Texas, Florida, Ohio, and New Jersey) between 2013 and 2019, and followed until 2020. Results: Among 2,715 individuals, 3,261 VUS and 313 P/LP variants were reported and 11% (300/2,715) had a P/LP in addition to VUS. In total, 8.1% of all individuals with VUS experienced reclassifications, 87.1% of which were downgraded to benign or likely benign and 12.9% were upgraded to P/LP. Reclassification rates varied significantly among cancer care settings from 4.81% to 20.19% (overall p < 0.001). The reclassification pattern across genes suggests that VUS in most genes underwent reclassification at a rate proportional to their prevalence in the overall sample and occurred commonly in ATM, BRCA2, BRCA1, and CHEK2. Compared to their prevalence in the sample, reclassification rates were higher for Blacks (13.6% vs 19.0%), lower for Asians (6.3% vs 3.5%), and proportional for Whites and Hispanics. Median time to reclassification decreased steadily between 2014 and 2019 from 3.08 to 0.91 years. Overall, 11.3% of all reclassified VUS resulted in clinically actionable findings and 4.6% subsequently changed individuals’ clinical managements including prophylactic surgeries and intensive screenings for cancer prevention and early detection. Conclusions: In this large multisite study, VUS reclassification changed clinical management for 0.4% of all individuals. VUS reclassification may alter clinical management, has implications for precision cancer prevention, and highlights the need for standardized clinical practice guidelines and policies for returning reclassified results to patients.

Association between telehealth and adherence with patient-reported outcomes (PRO)-based remote symptom monitoring among adolescent/young adults (AYA), middle age, and older adults with cancer

1513

Background: PRO-based remote symptom monitoring favorably impacts quality of life, healthcare utilization, and overall survival in patients (pts) with cancer. However remote PRO completion rates outside of a clinical trial remained widely varied. With the wide adoption of telehealth in cancer care during the pandemic, telehealth’s impact on health behaviors such adherence w remote PROs is not fully characterized. To that end, we investigated PRO completion patterns in routine cancer care, pre- and during the pandemic. Methods: We queried a prospectively maintained institutional database of all PROs remotely delivered to pts at our institution from 1/1/18 to 12/31/21. Pts were divided into 2 time cohorts (“pre-pandemic” 1/1/18 to 3/31/20, “during pandemic” 4/1/20 to 12/31/21) and 3 age cohorts (AYA 15-39y, midage 40-64y, older adults 65y+). We calculated descriptive statistics and compared (t-test, ANOVA) between time and age cohorts and independent variables. Results: Overall 93,875 unique patients over 4 years received 1+ remote PROs as a part of their routine cancer care. PRO response rate increased from 35% prepandemic (12011 of 34742 pts responding) to 67% during pandemic (p <0.00001). To understand patient-level response patterns, we selected one representative global health PRO tool used widely across clinics in our institution and analyzed completion in a representative month over 4 years, 2 before (Oct ’18, ‘19) and 2 mid-pandemic (Oct ’20, ‘21). Overall 2738 pts (median age 60y, range 17-94y; 290 AYA 15-39y, 1444 midage 40-64y, 1004 older adults 65y+) were sent 3249 PROs during these 4m, 1378 PROs to 1075 pts in 2 pre-pandemic months & 1871 to 1663 pts in 2 mid-pandemic months. Overall, PRO response rate increased from 52% pre-pandemic to 81% during, non-responders dropping from 48% to 19%, and response rate without any reminder from the team increasing from 13% pre-pandemic to 79% during. Across all 3 age cohorts, overall PRO response rates increased (AYA up 21%, midage up 27%, seniors up 35%, p 0.012), PRO non-response rate decreased (AYA by 21%, midage by 27%, seniors by 35%, p 0.01), and PRO response rate without reminders from clinic team increased significantly (AYA, by 71%, midage by 78%, senior by 61%, p <0.00001). When further analyzing by visit type during pandemic, the improvements in overall PRO response rates are driven almost exclusively by telehealth where in-person PRO completion decreased by 19% (pre-pandemic 52%, during 33%) while pts who had an upcoming virtual visit had 94% PRO response rate (p < 0.00001). Conclusions: Substantially higher adherence with PRO-based remote symptom monitoring was seen during the pandemic with virtual visits accounting substantially for this broad adherence and the highest increases seen in older adults, highlighting the implications of telehealth on cancer care.

Impact of an interdisciplinary goals of care program on hospital outcomes at a comprehensive cancer center during the COVID-19 pandemic: A propensity score analysis

6502

Background: Many hospitals have established goals-of-care (GOC) programs in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; however, few have reported their outcomes. MD Anderson Cancer Center launched a multicomponent interdisciplinary GOC (myGOC) program in March 2020 that involved risk stratification, team huddles to discuss care planning, oncologist-initiated GOC discussions, communication training, palliative care involvement, rapid-response GOC team deployment, and daily monitoring with immediate feedback. We examined the impact of this myGOC program among medical inpatients. Methods: This single-center study with a quasi-experimental design included consecutive adult patients with cancer admitted to medical units at MD Anderson Cancer Center, Texas during an 8-month pre-implementation (May 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019) and post-implementation period (May 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020). The primary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay, hospital mortality, and proportion/timing of patients with in-hospital do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, medical power of attorney (MPOA), living will (LW) and out-of-hospital DNR (OOHDNR). Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for differences in potential covariates, including age, sex, cancer diagnosis, race/ethnicity, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score. With a sample size of 600 ICU patients over each time period and a baseline ICU mortality of 28%, we had 80% power to detect a 5% reduction in mortality using a two-tailed test at 5% significance level. Results: This study involved 12,941 hospitalized patients with cancer (Pre n = 6,977; Post n = 5,964) including 1365 ICU admissions (Pre n = 727; Post n = 638). After myGOC initiation, we observed a significant reduction in ICU mortality (28.2% vs. 21.9%; change -6.3%, 95% CI -9.6, -3.1; P = 0.0001). We also observed significant decreases in length of ICU stay (mean change -1.4 days, 95% CI -2.0, -0.7 days; P < 0.0001) and in-hospital mortality (7% vs. 6.1%, mean change -0.9%, 95% CI -1.5%, -0.3%; P = 0.004). The proportion of hospitalized patients with an in-hospital DNR order increased significantly from 14.7% to 19.6% after implementation (odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% CI 1.3, 1.5; P < 0.0001) and DNR was established earlier (mean difference -3.0 d, 95% CI -3.9 d, -2.1 d; P < 0.0001). OOHDNR (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1, 1.6, P < 0.0007) also increased post-implementation but not MPOA and LW. MPOA, LW and OOHDNR were documented significantly earlier relative to the index hospitalization in the post-implementation period (P < 0.005 for all). Conclusions: This study showed improvement in hospital outcomes and care plan documentation after implementation of a system-wide, multicomponent GOC intervention. Our findings may have implications for GOC programs during the pandemic and beyond.

Pneumonitis after immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), combined with hypomethylating agents, can be used to treat acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but this strategy results in a high rate of pneumonitis. The authors sought to determine risk factors for pneumonitis development and whether pneumonitis increased mortality.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of 258 AML patients who received ICI-containing regimens from 2016 to 2018. A multidisciplinary adjudication committee diagnosed pneumonia and pneumonitis by reviewing symptoms, imaging, microbiology, and response to therapies. To measure risk factors for pneumonitis and mortality, multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were constructed. Pneumonia, pneumonitis, and disease progression were modeled as a time-dependent variable and incorporated a standard risk set modifying variables into the models.

RESULTS

Thirty patients developed pneumonitis (12%). Of these, 17 had partial or complete resolution, whereas 13 patients died from pneumonitis. Increasing age (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04 per year; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.08), and baseline shortness of breath increased pneumonitis risk (HR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.13-5.55). Female sex (HR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.70) and increasing platelet count (HR, 0.52 per log-unit increase; 95% CI, 0.30-0.92) decreased pneumonitis risk. In adjusted models, ICI-related pneumonitis significantly increased mortality (HR, 2.84; 95% CI, 1.84-4.37).

CONCLUSIONS

ICI-related pneumonitis occurs at a high rate in AML patients and increases mortality.

LAY SUMMARY

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) remove inhibitory signals that reduce T-cell function and allow T-cells to better attack cancer cells. In acute myeloid leukemia (AML), the effectiveness of ICIs is limited in part by inflammation of the lung, called pneumonitis. This study reviewed 258 patients with AML who received ICIs and identified 30 patients who developed pneumonitis, nearly half of whom died. Older age and baseline shortness of breath increased pneumonitis risk, whereas female sex and higher baseline platelet counts decreased pneumonitis risk. Pneumonitis increased mortality by nearly 3-fold. This work highlights the significant harm imposed by pneumonitis after ICI therapies.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order

BACKGROUND

In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered.

METHODS

This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent.

RESULTS

A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106.

CONCLUSION

The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Impact of the shared decision-making process on lung cancer screening decisions

Background

Professional organizations recommend the use of shared decision‐making (SDM) in supporting patients’ decisions about lung cancer screening (LCS). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the SDM process on patient knowledge about LCS, decisional conflict, intentions to adhere to screening recommendations, and its role in how the patient made the final decision.

Methods

This study surveyed patients screened for lung cancer within 12 months of the survey, recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the U.S. (May to July 2018).

Results

Two hundred and sixty‐four patients completed the survey (87.9% White, 52% male, and mean age of 64.81). Higher SDM process scores (which indicates a better SDM process reported by patients) were significantly associated with greater knowledge of LCS (b = 0.17 p < 0.01). Higher SDM process scores were associated with less decisional conflict about their screening choice (b = 0.45, p < 0.001), greater intentions to make the same decision again (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [1.06–1.89]), and greater intentions to undergo LCS again (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.08–1.62]). The SDM process score was not associated with patients’ report of whether or not they shared the final decision with the healthcare provider (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = [0.85–1.35]).

Conclusion(s)

This study found that a better SDM process was associated with better affective‐cognitive outcomes among patients screened for lung cancer.

The impact of the shared decision‐making (SDM) process on patient outcomes in the context of lung cancer screening is understudied. This study found that a better SDM process was associated with greater knowledge of LCS, less decisional conflict, and intentions to adhere to LCS screening guidelines.

Implementation of a novel patient-reported outcomes measure for patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection

153

Background: The long-term symptoms from COVID-19 (C19) infection in pts with cancer is not fully known. To monitor the evolution of this symptom burden over time, we designed and implemented a C19-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure that integrated with a known measure of cancer symptom burden. Methods: Within the institutional initiative on C19 and cancer named Data-Driven Determinants for C19 Oncology Discovery Effort (D3CODE), pts with cancer & PCR-pos C19 are invited to participate in this longitudinal study. Pts complete the EQ-5D-5L, the 13 symptom severity & 6 interference items of the core MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)+14 COVID-specific items, all scored on a 0-10 scale, 0 = none, 10 = worst imaginable. Pts complete the survey daily x 14 days from positive test date, then weekly x 3months, then monthly x 2yrs. Demographic and disease information was collected. Psychometric procedures determined validity and reliability of the MDASI-COVID. Results: Between 5/15/20 – 02/14/21, 2154 pts w PCR-confirmed C19 were invited to participate in the longitudinal study. 1282 (60%) pts provided consent and began the longitudinal completion of PRO surveys. Pts were 54.5% Female and 45.5% Male, median age 59 years (range 15 – 92). 1021 (80%) are White/Caucasian, 206 (16%) Hispanic, 113 (9%) African American, and 39 (3%) Asian. The validation analysis of MDASI-COVID instrument included the 1st 600 pts where the mean overall health rating on EQ-5D-5L was 78.3 (SD 19.6), best being 100. Highest mean (M) severity symptoms on the MDASI-COVID were fatigue (M 3.45, SD 2.17), drowsiness (M 2.50, SD 2.89), sleep disturbance (M 2.44, SD 2.99), malaise (M 2.37, SD 3.05), and distress (M 2.27, SD 2.90). Most severe (≥ 7) symptoms) reported were fatigue (21.3% of pts), change in taste (14.8%), change in smell (14.4%), malaise (14.3%), sleep disturbance (14.3%), and drowsiness (14%). showed internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the 27 symptom items was 0.957, of the 6 interference items was 0.937. Mean severity of the 27 symptom items was significantly correlated with overall EQ-5D-5L health rating (correlation = -0.45, P < 0.0005), demonstrating concurrent validity. Mean symptom severity and interference showed known-group validity between pts who required hospitalization (symptom M 2.32, SD 2.09; interference M 3.29, SD 3.02) and those who did not (symptom M 1.69, SD 1.85; interference M 2.20, SD 2.64) (symptom P 0.007; interference P 0.004). Conclusions: We successfully deployed a PRO-based long-term symptom monitoring platform for pts with C19 and cancer. The validation analysis of this novel C19 specific PRO, the MDASI-COVID, aids in the quantification of the global symptom burden in pts with both cancer and COVID-19 infection. Deployment of this measure in the ongoing longitudinal observational cohort allows for in-depth understanding of the long-term symptoms related to C19 and cancer.

Financial Hardship in Survivorship Care Delivery

Cancer-related financial hardship is highly prevalent and affects individuals in the setting of cancer care delivery across the survivorship trajectory. Mitigating financial hardship requires multi-level solutions at the policy, payer, health-care system, provider, and individual patient levels. At the highest level, strategies for intervention include enacting policies to improve price transparency and expand insurance coverage. Also needed are implementing systematic screening and financial navigation in cancer care delivery; improving cost communication by provider care teams; developing patient-reported measures that incorporate the multiple, complex dimensions of financial hardship, as reflected in the Economic Strain and Resilience in Cancer tool; and advancing electronic medical record infrastructure to manage data on patient financial hardship. For individual patients, activating their social networks, community resources, and employers provides patient-level support resources to enhance coping. The proposed multi-level approach is needed to overcome financial hardship in the setting of high-quality, high-value cancer care delivery.

Technology-enhanced palliative care for patients with cancer on phase 1 clinical trials

TPS12136

Background: Patients w advanced cancer participating in Phase I trials carry a high symptom burden from cancer and prior therapies. Our prior work shows patients on phase I trials w multiple active symptoms impacting their immediate quality of life with implications on toxicities and clinical outcomes on subsequent therapy. To identify an effective scalable approach to comprehensive symptom management for patients w adv cancer on phase I trials, we leveraged the increased technology use to design a technology-enhanced symptom management and palliative care intervention (TEC). Methods: Patients w adv cancer seen in the phase I clinic will be given the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a validated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tool of common cancer symptoms to identify those with a high symptom burden defined as ≥4 out of 10 on >1 ESAS symptom and a Global Distress Score (GDS) of ≥20. The GDS, a validated score of overall symptom intensity derived from the ESAS, is comprised of 6 physical (pain, fatigue, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, shortness of breath) & 2 psychosocial symptoms (depression, anxiety), and overall wellbeing. TEC is an innovative patient-centered care program of strategic vigorous symptom management where standard-of-care clinic visits are complemented by proactive symptom monitoring between clinic visits remotely and through provider-initiated calls. In this pilot randomized study, we will determine the effect sizes of High-Intensity TEC (HI-TEC; q3day remote PRO assessments w preset provider-initiated call bw visits), Low-Intensity TEC (LO-TEC; q5day remote PRO assessments w preset provider-initiated call bw visits), and Standard Palliative Care (no preset provider contact bw visits). Our guiding hypothesis is that a comprehensive, proactive, technology-enhanced symptom management program led by a Palliative Care team can mitigate the high symptom burden of patients with advanced cancers enrolling in phase I trials. The primary objective assesses the effect size of each TEC intervention on the GDS measure of symptom burden prior to C1D1 on phase I trial. Our working hypothesis is that HI-TEC and LO-TEC will be associated with a lower overall symptom burden signifying symptom optimization prior to starting on a phase I trial. Secondary objectives aim to estimate the effect size of TEC on the following: Symptom burden over 12 weeks on a phase I trial using ESAS, quality of life using FACIT-Sp, PRO-CTCAE and patient satisfaction using FAMCARE-P13. clinical outcomes at 6 months including OS, treatment outcomes (interruptions, dose reductions, discontinuation, time on trial) and quality metrics for end-of-life (EOL) (chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life, ICU admit in last 30 days of life, death without hospice or < 3d of hospice). Qualitatively assessment of patients’ + caregivers’ perceptions of receiving TEC-based cancer care. Clinical trial information: NCI-2020-07465.

Development and validation of a novel patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure for symptom burden in patients with cancer and COVID-19 infection

12113

Background: The symptom burden experienced by patients with cancer who contract the COVID-19 (C19) infection remains to be fully understood. To accurately assess this symptom burden, we developed a valid, reliable patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of C19 symptoms combined with a known measure of cancer symptom burden. Methods: Within the institutional initiative on COVID-19 and cancer named Data-Driven Determinants for COVID-19 Oncology Discovery Effort (D3CODE), patients with cancer and PCR-positive C19 tests were invited to participate in this longitudinal study after providing consent. Pts completed the EQ-5D-5L and the 13 symptom severity and 6 interference items of the core MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) plus 14 COVID-specific symptom items generated from literature and expert review. Items were measured on a 0-10 scale, 0 = none to 10 = worst imaginable symptom or interference. Demographic and disease information was collected. Psychometric procedures determined validity and reliability of the MDASI-COVID. Results: 600 pts enrolled, mean age 56.5y (range 20 to 91y). 59% female, 80% white. 78% solid tumors, 19% heme cancers. 12.5% required hospitalization for C19. Median number of days between positive C19 test and PRO completion was 17 days. Mean overall health rating on EQ-5D-5L was 78.3 (SD 19.6), best being 100. Highest mean (M) severity symptoms on the MDASI-COVID were fatigue (M 3.45, SD 2.17), drowsiness (M 2.50, SD 2.89), sleep disturbance (M 2.44, SD 2.99), malaise (M 2.37, SD 3.05), and distress (M 2.27, SD 2.90). Most severe (≥ 7) symptoms) reported were fatigue (21.3% of pts), change in taste (14.8%), change in smell (14.4%), malaise (14.3%), sleep disturbance (14.3%), and drowsiness (14%). Internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the 27 symptom items was 0.957, of the 6 interference items was 0.937. Mean severity of the 27 symptom items was significantly correlated with overall EQ-5D-5L health rating (correlation = -0.45, P < 0.0005), demonstrating concurrent validity. Mean symptom severity and interference showed known-group validity between patients who required C19 hospitalization (symptom M 2.32, SD 2.09; interference M 3.29, SD 3.02) and those who did not (symptom M 1.69, SD 1.85; interference M 2.20, SD 2.64) (symptom P 0.007; interference P 0.004). Conclusions: We have validated a novel PRO, the MDASI-COVID, to quantify the combined symptom burden in patients with cancer and COVID-19. This measure allows longitudinal evaluation of COVID-19 on cancer symptom burden and provide clinicians with an accurate tool for ongoing symptom assessment and management. Longitudinal analysis on long-term symptoms related to COVID-19 and cancer are ongoing.

Minocycline for symptom reduction in patients with multiple myeloma during maintenance therapy: a phase II placebo-controlled randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience substantial cancer/treatment-related symptom burden during maintenance therapy. This is a phase II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled clinical trial to examine the effect of minocycline for symptom reduction by its potential anti-inflammatory effect.

METHODS

Eligible MM patients for maintenance therapy were randomized to receive minocycline (100 mg twice daily) or placebo. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for MM (MDASI-MM) was used to assess multiple symptoms weekly during the trial. Clinician-rated toxicities and blood samples were prospectively collected. The effect size, area under the curve (AUC), and t tests were used to determine the symptom burden between treatment groups and identify the 5 most-severe MDASI-MM symptoms. The longitudinal analysis compared the changes in symptom severity and associated inflammatory markers between groups over time.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine evaluable MM patients (33 from the intervention group and 36 from the placebo group) were included. No grade 3+ adverse events related to study medication were noted. The AUCs for the 5 worst MDASI-MM symptoms (fatigue, pain, disturbed sleep numbness/tingling, and drowsiness) were not significantly different between two arms. Regardless of group assignment, pain reduction was positively associated with decreased serum levels of soluble tumor necrosis factor-α receptors 1 and 2 during therapy (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This pPhase II randomized study observed no statistically significant positive signal impact from minocycline on symptom reduction or inflammatory markers during maintenance therapy for MM, although using minocycline was feasible and had a low toxicity profile.

Phase I Study of Zotiraciclib in Combination with Temozolomide for Patients with Recurrent High-grade Astrocytomas

PURPOSE

To investigate the toxicity profile and establish an optimal dosing schedule of zotiraciclib with temozolomide in patients with recurrent high-grade astrocytoma.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This two-stage phase I trial determined the MTD of zotiraciclib combined with either dose-dense (Arm1) or metronomic (Arm2) temozolomide using a Bayesian Optimal Interval design; then a randomized cohort expansion compared the progression-free survival rate at 4 months (PFS4) of the two arms for an efficient determination of a temozolomide schedule to combine with zotiraciclib at MTD. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenomic profiling were included. Patient-reported outcome was evaluated by longitudinal symptom burden.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities were neutropenia, diarrhea, elevated liver enzymes, and fatigue. MTD of zotiraciclib was 250 mg in both arms and thus selected for the cohort expansion. Dose-dense temozolomide plus zotiraciclib (PSF4 40%) compared favorably with metronomic temozolomide (PFS4 25%). Symptom burden worsened at cycle 2 but stabilized by cycle 4 in both arms. A significant decrease in absolute neutrophil count and neutrophil reactive oxygen species production occurred 12-24 hours after an oral dose of zotiraciclib but both recovered by 72 hours. Pharmacokinetic/pharmacogenomic analyses revealed that the CYP1A2_5347T>C (rs2470890) polymorphism was associated with higher AUC_inf value.

CONCLUSIONS

Zotiraciclib combined with temozolomide is safe in patients with recurrent high-grade astrocytomas. Zotiraciclib-induced neutropenia can be profound but mostly transient, warranting close monitoring rather than treatment discontinuation. Once validated, polymorphisms predicting drug metabolism may allow personalized dosing of zotiraciclib.

Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: How Well Are We "Sharing"?

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces lung cancer mortality, but it also carries a range of risks. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of engaging patients in their health care decisions and is a vital component of LCS.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the quality of SDM among patients recently assessed for LCS?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Cross-sectional study of screened patients recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the United States. Self-reported surveys assessed patient demographics, values related to outcomes of LCS, knowledge, SDM components including receipt of educational materials, and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Recently screened patients (n = 266) possessed varied LCS knowledge, answering an average of 41.4% of questions correctly. Patients valued finding cancer early over concerns about harms. Patients indicated that LCS benefits were presented to them by a health care provider far more often than harms (68.3% vs 20.8%, respectively), and 30.7% reported they received educational materials about LCS during the screening process. One-third of patients had some decisional conflict (33.6%) related to their screening decisions, whereas most patients (86.6%) noted that they were involved in the screening decision as much as they wanted. In multivariate models, non-White race and having less education were related to lower knowledge scores. Non-White patients and former smokers were more likely to be conflicted about the screening decision. Most patients (n = 227 [85.3%]) indicated that a health care provider had discussed smoking cessation or abstinence with them.

INTERPRETATION

Among recently screened patients, the quality of decision-making about LCS is highly variable. The low use of educational materials including decision aids and imbalance of conveying benefit vs risk information to patients is concerning. A structured approach using decision aids may assist with providing a balanced presentation of information and may improve the quality of SDM.

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.

Validation study of the Japanese version of MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Brain Tumor module

OBJECTIVE

The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for Brain Tumor (MDASI-BT) module is a widely used instrument for measuring symptom burden and interference of daily activities in brain tumor patients. This study aims to develop and validate its Japanese version (MDASI-BT-Japanese).

METHODS

Following forward and backward translation of the original MDASI-BT into Japanese, understandability and feasibility were assessed by cognitive debriefing. Subsequently, patients with brain tumors were asked to fill out MDASI-BT-Japanese and European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D). Feasibility, reliability and validity of MDASI-BT-Japanese were assessed.

RESULTS

Cognitive debriefing confirmed overall ease of completion and good understandability. The study population composed of 140 patients with brain tumors (most commonly gliomas). The mean symptom severity score and mean interference score were 1.9 ± 1.7 and 2.8 ± 2.7, respectively. The top items included distress and drowsiness for symptom severity and general activity and work for interference. The median time required was 4 minutes (range, 0.5-30), and missing values were seen in 1%. Internal consistency was proven by excellent Cronbach's coefficient alpha (0.94 for symptom severity, 0.92 for interference). Test-retest reliability was assessed with acceptable intra-class correlation coefficient (mean, 0.76). Correlation efficient ranged between 0.7 and 0.9 for convergent validity. Known-group validity was confirmed by significantly different mean symptom severity score and mean interference score among patients with different performance status. As evidence of concurrent validity, MDASI-BT-Japanese correlated with EQ-5D in the hypothesized magnitude and direction.

CONCLUSIONS

The newly developed MDASI-BT-Japanese has demonstrated feasibility, reliability and validity in evaluation of clinical benefit in Japanese-speaking brain tumor patients.

New Developments in the Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Patients Undergoing Immunotherapies

In a previous chapter, how best to measure symptoms was discussed, the desirable properties of a psychometrically valid symptom assessment tool were listed, available symptom assessment tools were reviewed, methods to assist in the interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data were provided, and the current use of PROs in immunotherapy was described. Two areas for further research were also identified. These two areas were (1) deciding on the frequency of administration of symptom assessment and (2) determining the adequacy of the chosen symptom list to cover both known and unknown effects of immunotherapy. This brief update provides new developments on these two critical issues that are of significant concerns to researchers and clinicians who are investigating the use of immunotherapies either singly or in combination in cancer patients.

Composite grading algorithm for National Cancer Institute’s PRO-CTCAE

7018

Background: Standard reporting of symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in oncology relies on clinicians to rate patient (pt) experience using CTCAE; each symptom is represented by a single graded item. To capture direct pt experience, NCI developed PRO-CTCAE to supplement CTCAE. In PRO-CTCAE, the pt answers up to 3 questions per AE about a symptom’s frequency, severity and interference with daily activities. To align PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE, we developed an algorithm for mapping sets of questions for an AE to a single composite numerical grade. Methods: We used a 5-step process. (1) All 187 possible PRO-CTCAE score permutations were presented to clinical investigators to subjectively map permutations to single numerical grades (range 0-3). (2) Permutations with < 75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network 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 AEs between study arms was measured in 2 phase III clinical trials (Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology A091105 and Exelixis COMET-2). Results: (1) 12/187 score permutations had < 75% initial agreement. (2) Majority consensus was reached for all permutations. (3) 5 mappings were adjusted to assure directional consistency. (4) Composite grades for 46/59 (78%) AEs were higher in pts with ECOG performance status 2-4 vs 0-1 (median effect size 0.23 [range -0.49-0.73]; 32/59 effect size ≥0.2; 25/59 p< 0.05), similar to when conducting analysis on individual unmapped items. The test-retest reliability for 24 selected composite grades ranged from 0.57-0.96 (median intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] 0.77) with 18/24 (75%) grades having ICC ≥0.7. Median (range) standardized response means in pts reporting worsening, no change, and improvement were 0.20 (0.03-0.34), -0.06 (-0.20-0.03) and -0.12 (-0.32-0.06). (5) Pattern, directionality and statistical significance of between-arm differences in both trials were preserved with composite grades as compared to individual unmapped items. Conclusions: A composite grading algorithm for PRO-CTCAE was rigorously developed and validated. PRO-CTCAE composite grades may be useful in analyses to provide a single metric for each pt-reported AE for trial and real-world reporting. Support: UG1CA189823; U01CA233046; HHSN261200800043C; Bayer (A091105); https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org .

Incidence and risk factors for pneumonitis associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer: A single center experience

e15089

Background: Conventional treatments for advanced-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) confer a progression-free survival of only about 6 months. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become standard therapies in the management of advanced NSCLC, but are associated with a variety of immune-related adverse events that may be dose-limiting (irAEs). Risk factors for ICI-related pneumonitis, a potentially fatal irAE, have not been well established. We sought to determine the incidence and risk factors for ICI-related pneumonitis in NSCLC in a cohort of patients treated with ICIs as standard of care or as part of a clinical trial. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of 525 patients with advanced NSCLC who received ICI therapy with PD-1 inhibitors, with or without CTLA-4 inhibitors, at MD Anderson Cancer Center between 2015 and 2018. Patients with incomplete data were excluded from the study. Clinical data was collected at the time of ICI therapy and at the time of irAE. The diagnosis of pneumonitis was based on clinical presentation, imaging findings, and microbiological results. We constructed a Fine-Gray competing risks regression model with pneumonitis as the outcome of interest and all-cause mortality as the competing risk. Results: In our initial data analysis based on available data shows a 9.7% raw incidence of pneumonitis (17/177). We found no association between age, race, gender, type of anti-PD-1 therapy, concurrent use of CTLA-4 inhibitors, tumor histology, cumulative radiation dose, or smoking pack-years with the risk for pneumonitis. Patients who were therapy-naïve at the initiation of ICI therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.0-10.6, p = 0.04), and patients with prior lung disease (HR 2.7, 95% CI 0.8-8.5, p = 0.1) had around a three-fold increase in the risk for pneumonitis after accounting for the competing risk of mortality. Conclusions: NSCLC patients who are therapy-naïve or have prior lung disease on initiation of ICI therapy have a higher risk for pneumonitis. Other studies have shown an increase in pneumonitis in therapy-naïve patients, but the association with prior lung disease is novel. Further analysis on this cohort is ongoing.

Validation of the Spanish version of the MD Anderson symptom inventory - heart failure (MDASI-HF-Spanish) module

Background

The lack of a validated symptom assessment instrument in Spanish for patients with cancer and heart failure (HF) can affect the care and impede the recruitment and participation of Spanish-speaking patients in clinical trials. Spanish is the second most common language spoken by the largest and most rapidly growing racial/ethnic minority group in the United States. To bridge the language barrier and improve symptom management in Spanish-speaking patients with cancer and HF, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Heart Failure (MDASI-HF) was translated to Spanish (MDASI-HF- Spanish).

Aim

To validate the MDASI-HF-Spanish symptom assessment instrument.

Methods

Following standard forward and backward translation of the original and previously validated English version of the MDASI-HF, a cognitive debriefing with nine native Spanish speaking participants was conducted to evaluate the participants’ understanding and comprehension of the MDASI-HF-Spanish. To examine the comprehensibility, acceptability and psychometric properties of the translated instrument, the MDASI-HF-Spanish was tested in a convenience sample of 50 Spanish speaking patients with a diagnosis of cancer and HF. Evidence for the psychometric validity of the MDASI-HF-Spanish was demonstrated via its internal consistency reliability and known-group validity.

Results

Overall, the participants had no problems with the understandability, readability, or number of questions asked. The MDASI-HF-Spanish subscales showed good internal consistency reliability, with a Cronbach’s coefficient alpha of 0.94 (13 core cancer symptoms), 0.92 (8 heart failure symptoms), and 0.90 (6 interference items) respectively. The MDASI-HF-Spanish was able to differentiate the functional status between patients based on the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification.

Conclusions

The MDASI-HF-Spanish is linguistically and psychometrically valid with ease of completion, relevance, and comprehensibility among the participants, and it can be a useful tool for clinical management and research purposes.

The Treatment-induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale (TNAS): a psychometric update following qualitative enrichment

BACKGROUND

The validation of the Treatment-induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale (TNAS v2.0), a patient-reported outcome measure of symptoms associated with cancer treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN), was previously reported. Further patient input (qualitative interviewing, cognitive debriefing) suggested that the measure should be modified to better reflect the TIPN experience. We report the performance of a revised version (TNAS v3.0) for assessing TIPN across cancer treatments. This TNAS version incorporates extensive patient input, in accordance with FDA guidance on the development of patient-reported outcomes measures. Patients with multiple myeloma, colorectal cancer, or gynecological cancer treated with bortezomib, oxaliplatin, or taxane-platinum combination therapy, respectively, completed the TNAS v3.0, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (EORTC-CIPN20), and a cognitive debriefing survey during a scheduled clinic visit. Patients also participated in in-depth qualitative interviews about their TIPN symptoms. The psychometric properties of the TNAS v3.0 were evaluated.

RESULTS

Cognitive debriefing survey results were summarized and showed that most patients found the items easy to complete, comprehensible, acceptable, and not redundant. A notable change from TNAS v2.0 was the separation of "numbness" from "tingling," although these 2 items remained the most severe, followed by a new "pain" item. The Cronbach coefficient alphas for the 9-item TNAS were 0.88 and 0.90 at the first and second administrations, respectively, indicating good reliability. The test-retest reliability of the TNAS was 0.97. The correlation coefficients for the 9-item TNAS and the EORTC-CIPN20 were 0.69 for the sensory subscale, 0.70 for the motor subscale, and 0.32 for the autonomic subscale, indicating good validity.

CONCLUSION

This psychometric evaluation showed that the TNAS v3.0 is valid and reliable. Further research is needed to determine clinically meaningful differences in TNAS v3.0 scores and demonstrate its responsiveness over time.

Reliability of self-reported smoking history and its implications for lung cancer screening

Clinical guidelines endorse either a 30 or 20 pack-year smoking history threshold when determining eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). However, self-reported smoking history is subject to recall bias that can affect patient eligibility. We examined the reliability of smokers’ self-reported tobacco use and its impact on eligibility for LCS. Current or former smokers aged 55–77 years completed questionnaires requesting demographic information and smoking history. Data were collected between December 2014 and September 2015. Total pack-year smoking history was calculated for each participant based on their responses at baseline and one month later. One hundred and two participants completed the study (mean age = 63.6 years). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the pack-year estimate was 0.93. For the 30 pack-year threshold, eight (7.8%) participants were eligible at one but not both assessment periods. For the 20 pack-year threshold, twelve participants (11.8%) were eligible at one but not both assessment periods. Inconsistent reporting was higher among current compared to former smokers. Smokers’ self-reported tobacco use appears highly reliable over short time periods. Nevertheless, there is some inconsistent reporting. We recommend that clinicians carefully assess smoking history, probe patients’ recall of duration and quantity of smoking, and collect tobacco use information at every encounter.

Minocycline for symptom reduction during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE

Local/systemic symptoms during cancer therapy may be exacerbated by dysregulated inflammation and its downstream toxic effects. Minocycline can suppress proinflammatory cytokine release; therefore, we investigated its potential to reduce patient-reported symptom severity during radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC).

METHODS

Eligible patients for this blinded, placebo-controlled trial were adults with T0-3, N-any, and M0 HNC receiving single-modality RT. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either minocycline (200 mg/day) or placebo during RT. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve (AUC) of 5 prespecified symptoms (pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, poor appetite, difficulty swallowing/chewing) during RT, assessed with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for HNC (MDASI-HN).

RESULTS

We analyzed data from 20 evaluable patients per arm. Overall, 75% had oropharyngeal cancer and 78% were male. No grade 3+ adverse events potentially related to study medication were observed. Two minocycline patients required a feeding tube during RT vs 5 placebo patients (P = 0.21). The average daily AUC during RT for the 5 MDASI-HN symptoms was 3.1 (SD = 1.0) for minocycline and 3.7 (SD = 1.7) for placebo (P = 0.16); the 0.37 effect size was less than our 0.70 target. AUC comparisons for several individual symptoms and symptom interference favored minocycline but were not statistically significant. The greatest numerical differences occurred for systemic symptoms, larger toward treatment end, and in early post-RT recovery.

CONCLUSIONS

Minocycline was feasible, well tolerated, and achieved a positive signal toward reducing patient-reported symptom severity during RT for HNC, particularly for systemic symptoms. This justifies additional study and informs future trial design.

Quality of life impact of EUS in patients at risk for developing pancreatic cancer

Background and Objectives

The current knowledge about the psychological impact of pancreatic cancer (PC) screening is limited. We aimed to assess the changes in quality of life (QOL) and level of distress after undergoing EUS in individuals with pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) and in patients at high risk for PC based on genetic and familial factors.

Methods

Eighty patients with PCL and/or increased genetic or familial risk for PC who had undergone EUS were contacted. Fifty percent of those patients successfully completed the brief profile of mood states (POMS) and the linear analog scale assessment (LASA) QOL questionnaires to evaluate their pre/post-EUS overall QOL. The effect size (ES) method was used to assess clinically meaningful changes in the scores.

Results

There was a significant difference in patients' overall QOL scores before and after the EUS procedure (LASA, mean difference 0.73, standard deviation (SD) 1.76, ES 0.58, P < 0.01; brief POMS, mean difference -5.46, SD -6.72, ES 0.81, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

QOL of patients with PCL or increased risk factors for PC is significantly improved after a EUS/EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) negative for malignancy.

ENRICH: Validating a multidimensional patient-reported financial toxicity measure

153

Background: Financial toxicity is a patient-reported outcome reflecting burdens of cancer treatment costs. There is a need to assess financial toxicity in cancer care, as its unique domains—upstream factors like direct medical costs or downstream economic impact like bankruptcy—predict worse QOL, adherence, and mortality. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients bear disparate financial toxicity burdens. We thus developed and report performance of a new measure, the Economic StraiN and Resilience in Cancer (ENRICh), to assess all financial toxicity domains in economically diverse patients. Methods: We studied 238 patients with Stage I-IV cancer from a tertiary academic comprehensive cancer center (MDA) and county safety-net hospital serving socioeconomically disadvantaged patients (LBJ). Financial toxicity domains and corresponding subscales were developed from qualitative/cognitive (n = 104) interviews. ENRICh and Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) questions were administered (n = 127; MDA = 71, LBJ = 56). To demonstrate known-group validity, we compared ENRICh scores between centers; for concurrent validity, we correlated ENRICh and COST; for reliability, we calculated Cronbach's coefficient α for ENRICh subscales (range 0, none, to 10, high burden). Results: There were 4 distinct, valid financial toxicity domains/subscales: 1) Burden of cost; 2) Disruption of financial stability; 3) Depletion of financial coping; 4) Depletion of instrumental coping. Patients from the 2 centers significantly differed in subscale and overall ENRICh scores. Socioeconomically disadvantaged patients had worse mean scores (4.9 vs 2.1, 95%CI -3.6,-2.1, effect size 1.4, P < .001). ENRICh significantly correlated with COST (r = -0.82, 95%CI -0.87,-0.77, P < .001). Subscales were reliable with excellent internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.78 to 0.94). The 4 ENRICh domains collectively had synergistic impact on overall financial toxicity burden. Conclusions: ENRICh is valid, reliable, and identifies and 4 novel domains of financial toxicity. Future utility of this tool is to guide assessment/interventions targeting financial toxicity domains affecting diverse cancer patients, to mitigate disparities.

Evaluation of the psychometric properties and minimally important difference of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MDASI-MPM)

BACKGROUND

Symptom assessment requires psychometrically validated questionnaires that are easy to use, relevant to the disease, and quick to administer. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MDASI-MPM) was adapted from the general (core) MDASI to assess the severity of cancer-related and treatment-related symptoms specific to patients with this condition. The MDASI-MPM includes the 13 core MDASI symptoms, which are experienced by most cancer patients, and 6 MPM-specific items developed via qualitative interviewing, a method favored by the US Food and Drug Administration for instrument item generation and development. Qualitative interviewing that summarizes the item generation and development for the MDASI-MPM is detailed in a separate report. The psychometric study reported here was the next step in developing the validation dossier for the MDASI-MPM.

RESULTS

In this secondary analysis of data from a Phase II trial, 248 patients provided MDASI-MPM data at multiple timepoints during therapy. Over time, fatigue, pain, shortness of breath, feeling of malaise, and muscle weakness were consistently the worst symptoms reported; symptoms interfered most with work and general activity and least with relations with others. Cronbach coefficient alpha values for all MDASI-MPM subscales were at least 0.88 at baseline and 0.91 during treatment, indicating good internal consistency reliability. Intraclass correlations of at least 0.86 for all MDASI-MPM subscales administered a cycle apart (n = 82) were indicative of good test-retest reliability. Correlations between MDASI-MPM subscales and LCSS-Meso scores were at least 0.70 (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). Patients with good performance status had significantly lower scores than did patients with poor performance status (all P < 0.05), supporting evidence for known-group validity and sensitivity. Effect-size differences were 0.69 and higher, indicating medium-to-large effects. The minimally important difference in the MDASI-MPM subscales ranged from 1.0 to 1.5 points on a 0-10 scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptoms specific to a particular cancer, treatment method, or treatment site can be added to the core MDASI to create a tailored, "fit for purpose" instrument. We found the MDASI-MPM to be a valid, reliable, and responsive (sensitive) instrument for assessing the severity of symptoms of patients with MPM and their interference in patients' daily functioning.

A quality improvement approach to reducing hospital readmissions in patients with cancer and heart failure

BACKGROUND

The management of patients with cancer and concurrent heart failure (HF) is challenging. The increased complexity of treatment and the occurrence of multiple overlapping symptoms may lead to frequent hospital admissions, which may result in cancer treatment delays, a diminished quality of life, and an increased financial burden for the patient's family. To provide holistic care to oncology patients with HF, we implemented the Heart Success Program (HSP), a patient-centered, interprofessional collaborative practice, which decreased the 30-day hospital readmission rate for HF diagnosis from 40 to 27%. However, this rate remains higher than that reported for Medicare beneficiaries.

AIM

To identify the factors contributing to frequent readmissions, the HSP committee participated in the institution's Clinical Safety and Effectiveness and utilize quality improvement methodologies and tools to decrease hospital readmission for HF.

METHODS

The DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) method was used to guide this quality improvement. Areas considered as having high impact and requiring low effort to address were patient education barriers, lack of documentation clarity, and care provider knowledge gaps about the HSP. We implemented workflow changes, improved clarity with documentation of HF diagnosis, and increase provider knowledge about the HSP.

FINDINGS

After 6 months of implementing quality improvement techniques, the 30-day hospital readmission rate for HF patients fell by 23.43% (from 31.7% for the baseline period to 8.27%), exceeding the target project goal of 10%. Our quality improvement method may also be effective in improving the management of patients with cancer and other comorbid conditions.

Assessment of baseline symptom burden in treatment-naïve patients with lung cancer: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer who have not yet begun treatment may already be experiencing major symptoms produced by their disease. Understanding the symptomatic effects of cancer treatment requires knowledge of pretreatment symptoms (both severity and interference with daily activities). We assessed pretreatment symptom severity, interference, and quality of life (QOL) in treatment-naïve patients with lung cancer and report factors that correlated with symptom severity.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of data collected at initial intake. Symptoms/interference were rated on the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) between 30 days prediagnosis and 45 days postdiagnosis. We examined symptom severity by disease stage and differences in severity by histology. Linear regression analyses identified significant predictors of severe pain and dyspnea.

RESULTS

Of 460 eligible patients, 256 (62%) had adenocarcinoma, 30 (7%) had small cell carcinoma, and 100 (24%) had squamous cell carcinoma; > 30% reported moderate-to-severe (rated ≥ 5, 0-10 scale) pretreatment symptoms. The most-severe were fatigue, disturbed sleep, distress, pain, dyspnea, sadness, and drowsiness. Symptoms affected work, enjoyment of life, and general activity (interference) and physical well-being (QOL) the most. Patients with advanced disease (n = 289, 63%) had more-severe symptoms. Cancer stage was associated with pain severity; both histology and cancer stage were associated with severe dyspnea.

CONCLUSION

One third of lung cancer patients were symptomatic at initial presentation. Quantification of pretreatment symptom burden can inform patient-specific palliative therapy and differentiate disease-related symptoms from treatment-related toxicities. Poorly controlled symptoms could negatively affect treatment adherence and therapeutic outcomes.

Application of a Bayesian graded response model to characterize areas of disagreement between clinician and patient grading of symptomatic adverse events

Background

Traditional concordance metrics have shortcomings based on dataset characteristics (e.g., multiple attributes rated, missing data); therefore it is necessary to explore supplemental approaches to quantifying agreement between independent assessments. The purpose of this methodological paper is to apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) -based framework to an existing dataset that included unidimensional clinician and multiple attribute patient ratings of symptomatic adverse events (AEs), and explore the utility of this method in patient-reported outcome (PRO) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research.

Methods

Data were derived from a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study examining the validity of a measurement system (PRO-CTCAE) for patient self-reporting of AEs in cancer patients receiving treatment (N = 940). AEs included 13 multiple attribute patient-reported symptoms that had corresponding unidimensional clinician AE grades. A Bayesian IRT Model was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between raters. The posterior mean values of the model-fitted item responses were calculated to represent model-based AE grades obtained from patients and clinicians.

Results

Model-based AE grades showed a general pattern of clinician underestimation relative to patient-graded AEs. However, the magnitude of clinician underestimation was associated with AE severity, such that clinicians’ underestimation was more pronounced for moderate/very severe model-estimated AEs, and less so with mild AEs.

Conclusions

The Bayesian IRT approach reconciles multiple symptom attributes and elaborates on the patterns of clinician-patient non-concordance beyond that provided by traditional metrics. This IRT-based technique may be used as a supplemental tool to detect and characterize nuanced differences in patient-, clinician-, and proxy-based ratings of HRQOL and patient-centered outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641. Registered 1 December 2009.

Modification of existing patient-reported outcome measures: qualitative development of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory for malignant pleural mesothelioma (MDASI-MPM)

PURPOSE

Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an aggressive cancer of the lung pleura. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of symptom burden, the combined impact of disease-related and treatment-related symptoms on functioning. Validated PRO measures may require modification for use in specific study populations. We sought to modify the MDASI for patients with MPM and create a fit-for-purpose symptom-burden measure for use in a clinical trial, according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance on PRO utilization to support labeling claims.

METHODS

A literature review for MPM symptoms was conducted. Patients with MPM were qualitatively interviewed about experiences of disease and treatment. Descriptive analysis identified symptoms and interference with functioning to define MPM-related symptom burden. An expert panel rated the relevance of identified symptoms to patients with MPM. Patients who received the investigational drug in a previous Phase I study were interviewed for drug-specific symptoms.

RESULTS

Literature review and interviews of 20 patients identified 31 MPM-related symptoms. A conceptual model of MPM-related symptom burden was developed. After expert-panel relevance review, five MPM-specific items and the 13 core MDASI symptoms met criteria for inclusion in a provisional MDASI-MPM for psychometric testing. Interviews with six patients identified six drug-specific symptoms; three were mentioned by multiple patients. Of these three, one was not in the core MDASI.

CONCLUSIONS

The MDASI-MPM has established content validity and, with the addition of one symptom item, is ready for psychometric testing as fit-for-purpose for a clinical trial of an investigational agent.

Concept domain validation and item generation for the Treatment-Induced Neuropathy Assessment Scale (TNAS)

PURPOSE

Treatment-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) is a difficult problem experienced by patients with cancer that can interfere with their ability to receive optimal therapy. The Treatment-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy Scale (TNAS) is a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure developed to assess TIPN symptom burden. However, PRO validation is an ongoing process. The aim of this qualitative study was to define the conceptual model, establish content domain validity, and refine items for the TNAS based on patient input.

METHODS

Patients who received bortezomib, oxaliplatin, or platinum-taxane combination therapy reported their experience of TIPN in single qualitative audiotaped interviews. Themes of the TIPN experience were identified by descriptive analysis of the transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Three groups of 10 patients each who had received bortezomib, oxaliplatin, or platinum-taxane combination therapy, for a total of 30 patients, reported their experiences. Two themes reported by patients were TIPN sensations and functional interference. Five sensations (numbness, tingling, pain, heat or burning, and coldness) and five functional impacts (using hands, walking, maintaining balance or falling, wearing shoes, and sleeping) were reported by at least 20% of patients and were selected for inclusion in the TNAS v3.0 for additional psychometric testing.

CONCLUSIONS

The assessment of TIPN must be convenient, reliable, and practical for patients, who are the most reliable source of information about symptoms. The TNAS, developed with direct patient input, provides an easily administered and conceptually valid method of patient report of TIPN burden for use in research and practice.

Opportunities and challenges of incorporating clinical outcome assessments in brain tumor clinical trials

Regulatory agencies have progressively emphasized the importance of assessing broader aspects of patient well-being to better define therapeutic gain. As a result, clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are increasingly used to evaluate the impact, both positive and negative, of cancer treatments and in some instances have played a major factor in the regulatory approval of drugs. Challenges remain, however, in the routine incorporation of these measures in cancer clinical trials, particularly in brain tumor studies. Factors unique to brain tumor patients such as cognitive decline and language dysfunction may hamper their successful implementation. Study designs often relegated these outcome measures to exploratory endpoints, further compromising data completion. New strategies are needed to maximize the complementary information that COAs could add to clinical trials alongside more traditional measures such as progression-free and overall survival. The routine incorporation of COAs as either primary or secondary objectives with attention to minimizing missing data should define a novel clinical trial design. We provide a review of the approaches, challenges, and opportunities for incorporating COAs into brain tumor clinical research, providing a perspective for integrating these measures into clinical trials.

Software for Administering the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Usability Study

Background

The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates).

Objective

The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software.

Methods

Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested.

Results

Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001).

Conclusions

Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01031641 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/708hTjlTl)

Addressing the Symptom Management Gap in Patients With Cancer and Heart Failure Using the Interactive Voice Response System: A Pilot Study

Patients with cancer and concurrent heart failure (HF) have severe symptoms that may adversely affect patients' quality of life in addition to limiting effective anticancer therapy. A system of frequent monitoring could alert clinicians, providing the opportunity for timely intervention before patients become severely ill and require hospitalization. The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate if the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Heart Failure (MDASI-HF) instrument preprogrammed via the interactive voice response system (IVRS) can be used to collect symptom data that will generate symptom alerts to providers based on preset severity levels. Twenty-six patients were enrolled in the study. Symptoms were monitored using the MDASI-HF delivered via IVRS on a weekly basis for 3 months. When a participant's reported symptom(s) reached critical predetermined threshold levels, an alert prompted the nurse to triage the patient's response and initiate interventions per protocol. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the ratings of symptom severity and symptom interference with daily function. Demographic and disease characteristics were summarized using means, standard deviations, ranges, count, and proportions. Paired t-tests were used to examine symptom reduction from baseline to the end of 3 months. Fourteen (54%) participants completed the study with average IVRS usage rates of 84% at 1 month and 82% at 3 months. Over the course of the IVRS monitoring, 152 IVRS calls were completed and 107 critical threshold alerts were generated, prompting physician notification, medication titration, and non-routine clinic visits. Most of these alerts were managed by telephone, particularly those related to diuretic titration, and prevented hospital readmission. Symptom monitoring via the IVRS can potentially bridge the gap in symptom management to improve clinical outcomes in patients with cancer and HF. The IVRS can be of benefit in the symptom management of patients, especially those constrained by geographic location. This can potentially improve the quality of care, patient satisfaction, and quality of life of these patients.

Hepatotoxicity in advanced cancer patients receiving immune-based cancer treatment

67

Background: Immune-based cancer treatment (IBCT) is increasingly used to treat a variety of cancers. Despite the promising results, adverse events such as dermatitis, colitis, and hepatitis remain a concern. Hepatitis is usually mild but may be severe, requiring modification or cessation of treatment. Here, we describe several cases of immune-mediated hepatitis. Methods: We identified patients enrolled in clinical trials using IBCT through the Department of Investigational Cancer Therapeutics at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, between January 2010 and July 2015. Charts were reviewed for mention of “autoimmune hepatitis”, “hepatitis” or abnormal transaminases, all of which were attributed to IBCT by the treating physician. Hepatotoxicity was graded based on CTCAE v4.0. Results: We identified 12 cases of immune-related hepatotoxicity out of 290 patients. Three patients (1.03%) had grade 3 elevation of transaminases, designated as “autoimmune hepatitis.” Each required systemic steroids and transaminases returned to baseline within a month. IBCT was temporarily held in 2 cases and was permanently discontinued in the third due to grade 4 myositis rather than hepatitis. One patient (0.3%) had grade 2, and eight patients (2.8%) had grade 1 transaminases elevations that were possibly attributable to immunotherapy, but which resolved spontaneously without alteration in treatment. Other significant reported immune-related toxicities ≥ grade 3 were: dermatitis (n = 4), enterocolitis (n = 3), myasthenia gravis (n = 2), myositis (n = 2), pneumonitis, pleuritis, and pancreatitis (n = 1 each). Conclusions: 1.03% of patients experienced grade 3 elevation of transaminases that were attributable to immune therapy. Hepatic adverse events related to immunotherapy in our study were manageable. Further studies are needed to develop biomarkers to identify patients at risk to develop such toxicities. [Table: see text]

The Utility and Validity of the Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale in Measuring Disease-Related Symptoms and their Effect on Functioning

Alopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune disease that causes hair loss. Although persons with the disease can be physically described as having varying degrees of hair loss, the condition has significant ramifications on an individual's well-being. We previously reported the preliminary psychometric properties of the Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale (AASIS), a disease-specific measure that asks participants about their AA symptoms and how these symptoms interfere with their daily functioning. The goals of this article are to provide a detailed description of the development of the AASIS items and to offer a psychometric update for the measure. Preliminary items for the AASIS were developed on the basis of responses from 1,649 participants to 125 health-related quality-of-life questions/items from the National Alopecia Areata Registry. Clinicians affiliated with the registry were asked to rate the relevance of these items for content validity. Cluster analysis and clinician ratings were used to reduce the number of items. The resulting 13-item AASIS was administered to 452 participants, who were also cognitively debriefed. Results showed that the AASIS is a valid and reliable measure of AA symptoms and their impact on functioning.

Long-term patient reported outcomes following radiation therapy for oropharyngeal cancer: cross-sectional assessment of a prospective symptom survey in patients ≥65 years old

Background

Given the potential for older patients to experience exaggerated toxicity and symptoms, this study was performed to characterize patient reported outcomes in older patients following definitive radiation therapy (RT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC).

Methods

Cancer-free head and neck cancer survivors (>6 months since treatment completion) were eligible for participation in a questionnaire-based study. Participants completed the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck module (MDASI-HN). Those patients ≥65 years old at treatment for OPC with definitive RT were included. Individual and overall symptom severity and clinical variables were analyzed.

Results

Of the 79 participants analyzed, 82% were male, 95% white, 41% T3/4 disease, 39% RT alone, 27% induction chemotherapy, 52% concurrent, and 18% both, and 96% IMRT. Median age at RT was 71 yrs. (range: 65–85); median time from RT to MDASI-HN was 46 mos. (2/3 > 24 mos.). The top 5 MDASI-HN items rated most severe in terms of mean (±SD) ratings (0–10 scale) were dry mouth (3.48 ± 2.95), taste (2.81 ± 3.29), swallowing (2.59 ± 2.96), mucus in mouth/throat (2.04 ± 2.68), and choking (1.30 ± 2.38) reported at moderate-severe levels (≥5) by 35, 29, 29, 18, and 13%, respectively. Thirty-nine % reported none (0) or no more than mild (1–4) symptoms across all 22 MDASI-HN symptoms items, and 38% had at least one item rated as severe (≥7). Hierarchical cluster analysis resulted in 3 patient groups: 1) ~65% with ranging from none to moderate symptom burden, 2) ~35% with moderate-severe ratings for a subset of classically RT-related symptoms (e.g. dry mouth, mucus, swallowing) and 3) 2 pts. with severe ratings of most items.

Conclusions

The overall long-term symptom burden seen in this older OPC cohort treated with modern standard therapy was largely favorable, yet a higher symptom group (~35%) with a distinct pattern of mostly local and classically RT-related symptoms was identified.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article doi: (10.1186/s13014-017-0878-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.