The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.

Importance Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer trials are currently reported by clinicians using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). To integrate the patient perspective, the NCI developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) to capture symptomatic AEs directly from patients. Objective To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. Design Participants completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at two visits 1-6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit one business day after the first visit. Setting Nine U.S. cancer centers and community oncology practices. Participants 975 adult cancer patients undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation enrolled between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligibility required participants to read English and be without clinically significant cognitive impairment. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s) Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Results 940/975 (96%) and 852/940 (91%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at each visit. 938/940 (99.8%) participants (53% female, median age 59, 32% high school education or less, 17% ECOG PS 2-4) reported having at least one symptom. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least one correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111/124 P<.05). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually-related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94/124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2-4 versus 0-1 group (58/124 P<.05). Overall, 119/124 items met at least one construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for 36/49 pre-specified items (median intra-class correlation coefficient .76; range .53-.96). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes reached statistical significance for 27 pre-specified items (median r=.43, range .10-.56; all P≤.006). Conclusions and Relevance Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous U.S. sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are underway to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Informal/family caregivers are a fundamental source of care for cancer patients in the United States, yet the population of caregivers, their tasks, psychosocial needs and health outcomes are not well understood. Changes in the nature of cancer care and its delivery, along with the growing population of survivors and by consequence, their caregivers, warrant increased attention to the roles and demands of caregiving. This paper reviews current evidence presented in a two-day meeting to examine the state of the science of informal cancer caregiving convened by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute for Nursing Research. The meeting sought to define who is an informal cancer caregiver, summarize the state of the science in informal cancer caregiving, and describe both the kinds of interventions developed to address caregiving challenges and the various outcomes used to evaluate their impact. This paper offers recommendations for moving science forward in four areas: (1) improve estimation of the prevalence and burden of informal cancer caregiving; (2) advance development of interventions designed to improve outcomes in cancer patients, caregivers, and patient-caregiver dyads; (3) generate and test strategies to integrate caregivers into formal healthcare settings; and (4) promote use of technology to support informal cancer caregivers.

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

PURPOSE Effective management of fatigue in cancer patients requires a clear delineation of what constitutes nontrivial fatigue. We defined numeric cutpoints for fatigue severity based on functional interference and described fatigue’s prevalence and characteristics in cancer patients and survivors. METHODS In a multicenter study, outpatients with breast, prostate, colorectal, or lung cancer rated fatigue severity and symptom interference with functioning on the M. D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) 0–10 scale. MDASI ratings of symptom interference guided selection of numeric rating cutpoints between mild, moderate, and severe fatigue levels. Regression analysis identified significant factors related to reporting moderate/severe fatigue. RESULTS The statistically optimal cutpoints were ≥4 for moderate fatigue and ≥7 for severe fatigue. Moderate/severe fatigue was reported by 45% (983/2177) of patients undergoing active treatment and was more likely to occur in patients taking strong opioids (odds ratio [OR], 3.00), had poor performance status (OR, 2.00), had >5% weight loss within 6 months (OR, 1.60), were taking >10 medications (OR, 1.58), had lung cancer (OR, 1.55), or had a history of depression (OR, 1.42). Among survivors (patients with complete remission or no evidence of disease, and no current cancer treatment), 29% (150/515) had moderate/severe fatigue that was associated with poor performance status (OR, 3.48) and a history of depression (OR, 2.21). CONCLUSION This study statistically defined fatigue-severity categories related to significantly increased symptom interference. The high prevalence of moderate/severe fatigue in both actively treated cancer patients and survivors warrants the promoting of routine assessment and management of patient-reported fatigue.

This core set will promote consistent assessment of common and clinically relevant disease- and treatment-related symptoms across cancer trials. As such, it provides a foundation to support data harmonization and continued efforts to enhance measurement of patient-centered outcomes in cancer clinical trials and observational studies.

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

Purpose Cancer-related cognitive impairment (CRCI) is an important clinical problem in patients with breast cancer receiving chemotherapy. Nationwide longitudinal studies are needed to understand the trajectory and severity of CRCI in specific cognitive domains. Patients and Methods The overall objective of this nationwide, prospective, observational study conducted within the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Research Program was to assess trajectories in specific cognitive domains in patients with breast cancer (stage I-IIIC) receiving chemotherapy, from pre- (A1) to postchemotherapy (A2) and from prechemotherapy to 6 months postchemotherapy (A3); controls were assessed at the same time-equivalent points. The primary aim assessed visual memory using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery Delayed Match to Sample test by longitudinal mixed models including A1, A2, and A3 and adjusting for age, education, race, cognitive reserve score, and baseline anxiety and depressive symptoms. We also assessed trajectories of CRCI in other aspects of memory as well as in attention and executive function with computerized, paper-based, and telephone-based cognitive tests. Results In total, 580 patients with breast cancer (mean age, 53.4 years) and 363 controls (mean age, 52.6 years) were assessed. On the Delayed Match to Sample test, the longitudinal mixed model results revealed a significant group-by-time effect ( P < .005); patients declined over time from prechemotherapy (A1) to 6 months postchemotherapy (A3; P = .005), but controls did not change ( P = .426). The group difference between patients and controls was also significant, revealing declines in patients but not controls ( P = .017). Several other models of computerized, standard, and telephone tests indicated significantly worse performance by patients compared with controls from pre- to postchemotherapy and from prechemotherapy to 6 months postchemotherapy. Conclusion This nationwide study showed CRCI in patients with breast cancer affects multiple cognitive domains for at least 6 months postchemotherapy.