Using Patient-Reported Outcomes to Describe the Patient Experience on Phase I Clinical Trials

Comparison of patient-reported symptoms with multi-item patient-reported outcome measures of fatigue, anxiety, and depression in the clinical care of women undergoing chemotherapy for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

As patient-reported symptoms are increasingly incorporated into routine clinical practice and captured in electronic medical records these data can be used to conduct health-related quality of life research studies. This study compares symptom reports from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) and its precursor patient reported symptom monitoring (PRSM) (hereafter PRSM/PRO-CTCAE) with multi-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) scales for fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy/FACIT-Fatigue) and depression and anxiety (Mental Health Index/MHI).

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of data collected from women with early breast cancer (Stage I-III) scheduled for chemotherapy who completed PRSM/PRO-CTCAE, FACIT-Fatigue, and MHI scales pre- and post-chemotherapy. Spearman correlation coefficients estimated the magnitude and direction of correlations between measures (convergent validity). For each symptom, patients were then categorized based on who improved, stayed the same, or worsened on the composite PRSM/PRO-CTCAE score, and changes in scores on the PRO scales were compared.

RESULTS

In a sample of 374 women, mean age was 57 years (SD 12.6) with 76% White. PRSM/PRO-CTCAE fatigue measures were strongly correlated with FACIT-Fatigue total scale and had mixed moderate to strong correlation for individual items within the FACIT-Fatigue scale. PRSM/PRO-CTCAE Sad and Anxiety measures were strongly correlated with MHI-Depression and MHI-Anxiety total scales, respectively, and had mixed moderate to strong correlation with individual items within the MHI subscales. PRSM/PRO-CTCAE pre-post changes in symptom scores mirrored pre-post changes in FACIT-Fatigue and MHI subscales.

Caring for caregivers in early-phase clinical oncology trials

This commentary reviews the experiences of caregivers in early‐phase clinical trial settings by illuminating their significant emotional distress, limited role preparation, and substantial logistical and financial burdens. Comprehensive strategies to strengthen supports for these caregivers are proposed, including timely mental health screening and intervention, active engagement in trial discussions, concrete delineation of trial‐specific caregiving responsibilities, and trial decentralization.

PALLIA 10 score in phase I cancer studies

OBJECTIVE

Phase I clinical trials usually include patients with advanced disease who have failed standard therapies and should benefit from early palliative care. We try to assess whether PALLIA 10, a score developed in France to help identify patients who might benefit from a palliative care referral, could be used in a phase I department trial.

METHODS

We assessed PALLIA 10 score and other prognostic factors in patients enrolled in phase I trials at Gustave Roussy Cancer Center prospectively during two periods of time (cohort 1 (C1) and 2 (C2)). A double-blind assessment of the PALLIA 10 score was done in C2 by a palliative care specialist and a nurse.

RESULTS

From 1 July 2018 to 1 November 2018 (C1) and from 1 December 2020 to 16 April 2021 (C2), 86 patients were assessed in C1 and 302 in C2. Median PALLIA 10 was very low in both cohorts (median 1, range 1-5 in C1 and 1-8 in C2). On C1 and C2, 12% and 5% of patients had a dedicated palliative consultation. In C2, assessment of PALLIA 10 score was significantly different between palliative care physician (median 5, range 3-8), phase I physician (median 1, range 1-6) and phase I nurse (median 3, range 1-8) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Median PALLIA 10 score was low when assessed by the phase I physician, which suggests the need for a better tool and appropriate clinician's education to implement early palliative care in clinical practice and trials.

Palliative Care for Patients With Cancer: ASCO Guideline Update

PURPOSE

To provide evidence-based guidance to oncology clinicians, patients, nonprofessional caregivers, and palliative care clinicians to update the 2016 ASCO guideline on the integration of palliative care into standard oncology for all patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

ASCO convened an Expert Panel of medical, radiation, hematology-oncology, oncology nursing, palliative care, social work, ethics, advocacy, and psycho-oncology experts. The Panel conducted a literature search, including systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials published from 2015-2023. Outcomes of interest included quality of life (QOL), patient satisfaction, physical and psychological symptoms, survival, and caregiver burden. Expert Panel members used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.

RESULTS

The literature search identified 52 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Evidence-based recommendations address the integration of palliative care in oncology. Oncology clinicians should refer patients with advanced solid tumors and hematologic malignancies to specialized interdisciplinary palliative care teams that provide outpatient and inpatient care beginning early in the course of the disease, alongside active treatment of their cancer. For patients with cancer with unaddressed physical, psychosocial, or spiritual distress, cancer care programs should provide dedicated specialist palliative care services complementing existing or emerging supportive care interventions. Oncology clinicians from across the interdisciplinary cancer care team may refer the caregivers (eg, family, chosen family, and friends) of patients with cancer to palliative care teams for additional support. The Expert Panel suggests early palliative care involvement, especially for patients with uncontrolled symptoms and QOL concerns. Clinicians caring for patients with solid tumors on phase I cancer trials may also refer them to specialist palliative care.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events

BACKGROUND

Patient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials.

METHODS

Here, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology.

RESULTS

We describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

This tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

Identifying Early-Phase Clinical Trial Participants at Risk for Experiencing Worse Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To identify early-phase clinical trial (EP-CT) participants at risk for experiencing worse clinical outcomes and describe receipt of supportive care services.

METHODS

A retrospective review of the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 examined baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services. The validated Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognosis score was calculated using data at the time of EP-CT enrollment (scores range from 0 to 3; scores ≥ 2 indicate poor prognosis). Differences in patient characteristics, clinical outcomes, and receipt of supportive care services were compared on the basis of RMH scores.

RESULTS

Among 350 patients (median age = 63.2 years [range, 23.0-84.3 years], 57.1% female, 98.0% metastatic cancer), 31.7% had an RMH score indicating a poor prognosis. Those with poor prognosis RMH scores had worse overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00; P < .001), shorter time on trial (HR, 1.53; P < .001), and lower likelihood of completing the dose-limiting toxicity period (odds ratio, 0.42; P = .006) versus those with good prognosis scores. Patients with poor prognosis scores had greater risk of emergency room visits (HR, 1.66; P = .037) and hospitalizations (HR, 1.69; P = .016) while on trial, and earlier hospice enrollment (HR, 2.22; P = .006). Patients with poor prognosis scores were significantly more likely to receive palliative care consultation (46.8% v 27.6%; P < .001), but not other supportive care services.

CONCLUSION

This study found that RMH prognosis score could identify patients at risk for decreased survival, shorter time on trial, and greater use of health care services. The findings underscore the need to develop supportive care interventions targeting EP-CT participants' distinct needs.

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

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

Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell Therapy in Hematologic Malignancies and Patient-reported Outcomes: A Scoping Review

The inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy research is critical for understanding the impact of this novel approach from a unique patient standpoint. We performed a scoping review to map the available literature on the use of PRO measures in CAR T-cell therapy studies of patients with hematologic malignancies published between January 2015 and July 2022. Fourteen studies were identified, of which 7 (50%) were investigational early-phase trials, 6 (42.9%) were observational studies, and 1 (7.1%) was a pilot study. The EQ-5D and the PROMIS-29 were the 2 most frequently used PRO measures, being included in 6 (42.9%) and 5 (35.7%) studies, respectively. Despite differences in study designs, there seems to be evidence of improvements over time since CAR T-cell infusion in important domains such as physical functioning and fatigue, at least in patients who respond to therapy. Overall, the studies identified in our review have shown the added value of PRO assessment in CAR T-cell therapy research by providing novel information that complements the knowledge on safety and efficacy. However, there are several questions which remain to be answered in future research. For example, limited evidence exists regarding patient experience during important phases of the disease trajectory as only 4 (28.6%) and 5 (35.7%) studies provided information on PROs during the first 2 weeks from CAR T-cell infusion and after the first year, respectively. Time is ripe for a more systematic implementation of high-quality PRO assessment in future clinical trials and in real-life settings of patients treated with CAR T-cell therapy.

Evaluation of the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events on Phase I clinical trials using PRO-CTCAE

BACKGROUND

Adverse event (AE) reporting in early-phase clinical trials is essential in determining the tolerability of experimental anticancer therapies. The patient-reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates AE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate the grade of clinician-reported AEs with patients' reported experience of these toxicities using PRO-CTCAE.

METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled on Phase I clinical trials were surveyed using the PRO-CTCAE. Symptomatic AEs were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE. A logistic regression model was used to assess associations between CTCAE grade and PRO responses.

RESULTS

Of 219 evaluable patients, 81 experienced a high-grade (3/4) clinician-reported symptom, and of these, only 32 (40%) and 26 (32%) patients concordantly reported these as either severe or very severe, and interfering with daily life either 'quite a bit' or 'very much', respectively. Of the 137 patients who experienced a low-grade (1/2) clinician-reported AE as their worst symptom, 98 (72%) and 118 (86%) patients concordantly reported these as either mild-moderate severity and minimally interfering with daily life, respectively. There was a statistically significant association between clinician-reported AE grade and interference. Interference scores were also associated with dose reductions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to explore patient-reported severity and interference from symptomatic toxicities and compare clinician grading of the same toxicities. The study provided further evidence to support the added value of the PRO-CTCAE in Phase I oncology trials, which would make AE reporting patient-centred. Further work is needed to determine how this would affect the assessment of tolerability.