Nomograms are widely used for cancer prognosis, primarily because of their ability to reduce statistical predictive models into a single numerical estimate of the probability of an event, such as death or recurrence, that is tailored to the profile of an individual patient. User-friendly graphical interfaces for generating these estimates facilitate the use of nomograms during clinical encounters to inform clinical decision making. However, the statistical underpinnings of these models require careful scrutiny, and the degree of uncertainty surrounding the point estimates requires attention. This guide provides a nonstatistical audience with a methodological approach for building, interpreting, and using nomograms to estimate cancer prognosis or other health outcomes.

Symptoms are common among patients receiving treatment for advanced cancers, 1 yet are undetected by clinicians up to half the time. 2 There is growing interest in integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncology practice for symptom monitoring, but evidence demonstrating clinical benefit has been limited. 3 We assessed overall survival associated with electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring vs usual care based on follow-up from a randomized clinical trial. 4 Methods | The study was approved by the Memorial Sloan Kettering institutional review board and written informed consent was obtained from participants. Consecutive patients initiating routine chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York between September 2007 and January 2011 were invited to participate in a randomized clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned either to the usual care group or to the PRO group, in which patients provided self-report of 12 common symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events at and between visits via a web-based PRO questionnaire platform. Participation was continuous until cessation of cancer treatment, voluntary withdrawal from the trial, transition to hospice care, or death. When the PRO group participants reported a severe or worsening symptom, an email alert was triggered to a clini

Direct evidence from randomized controlled trials does not support the routine use of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage II colon cancer. Patients and oncologists who accept the relative benefit in stage III disease as adequate indirect evidence of benefit for stage II disease are justified in considering the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, particularly for those patients with high-risk stage II disease. The ultimate clinical decision should be based on discussions with the patient about the nature of the evidence supporting treatment, the anticipated morbidity of treatment, the presence of high-risk prognostic features on individual prognosis, and patient preferences. Patients with stage II disease should be encouraged to participate in randomized trials.

Purpose. Cancer patients carry rising burdens of health carerelated out-of-pocket expenses, and a growing number of patients are considered "underinsured." Our objective was to describe experiences of insured cancer patients requesting copayment assistance and to describe the impact of health care expenses on well-being and treatment. Methods. We conducted baseline and follow-up surveys regarding the impact of health care costs on well-being and treatment among cancer patients who contacted a national copayment assistance foundation along with a comparison sample of patients treated at an academic medical center. Results. Among 254 participants, 75% applied for drug copayment assistance. Forty-two percent of participants reported a significant or catastrophic subjective financial burden; 68% cut back on leisure activities, 46% reduced spending on food and clothing, and 46% used savings to defray out-of-pocket expenses. To save money, 20% took less than the prescribed amount of medication, 19% partially filled prescriptions, and 24% avoided filling prescriptions altogether. Copayment assistance applicants were more likely than nonapplicants to employ at least one of these strategies to defray costs (98% vs. 78%). In an adjusted analysis, younger age, larger household size, applying for copayment assistance, and communicating with physicians about costs were associated with greater subjective financial burden. Conclusion. Insured patients undergoing cancer treatment and seeking copayment assistance experience considerable subjective financial burden, and they may alter their care to defray out-of-pocket expenses. Health insurance does not eliminate financial distress or health disparities among cancer patients. Future research should investigate coverage thresholds that minimize adverse financial outcomes and identify cancer patients at greatest risk for financial toxicity. TheOncologist 2013;18:381-390Implications for Practice: The number of insured patients is increasing, but insured patients are paying more out of pocket for cancer care due to increased cost sharing. As a result, the number of underinsured cancer patients is increasing. Patients are faced with greater out-of-pocket health care costs, but treatment decision making is often made without consideration of these expenses. In our study, insured patients undergoing cancer treatment and seeking copayment assistance experienced considerable subjective financial burden, and they altered care to defray out-of-pocket expenses. Health insurance does not eliminate financial distress or health disparities among cancer patients. Financial distress or "financial toxicity" as a result of disease or treatment decisions might be considered analogous to physical toxicity and might be considered a relevant variable in guiding cancer management. Understanding how and among whom to best measure financial distress is critical to the design of future interventional studies.

In a longitudinal clinical study to compare two groups, the primary end point is often the time to a specific event (eg, disease progression, death). The hazard ratio estimate is routinely used to empirically quantify the between-group difference under the assumption that the ratio of the two hazard functions is approximately constant over time. When this assumption is plausible, such a ratio estimate may capture the relative difference between two survival curves. However, the clinical meaning of such a ratio estimate is difficult, if not impossible, to interpret when the underlying proportional hazards assumption is violated (ie, the hazard ratio is not constant over time). Although this issue has been studied extensively and various alternatives to the hazard ratio estimator have been discussed in the statistical literature, such crucial information does not seem to have reached the broader community of health science researchers. In this article, we summarize several critical concerns regarding this conventional practice and discuss various well-known alternatives for quantifying the underlying differences between groups with respect to a time-to-event end point. The data from three recent cancer clinical trials, which reflect a variety of scenarios, are used throughout to illustrate our discussions. When there is not sufficient information about the profile of the between-group difference at the design stage of the study, we encourage practitioners to consider a prespecified, clinically meaningful, model-free measure for quantifying the difference and to use robust estimation procedures to draw primary inferences.

ImportanceColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cause of cancer mortality worldwide with more than 1.85 million cases and 850 000 deaths annually. Of new colorectal cancer diagnoses, 20% of patients have metastatic disease at presentation and another 25% who present with localized disease will later develop metastases.ObservationsColorectal cancer is the third most common cause of cancer mortality for men and women in the United States, with 53 200 deaths projected in 2020. Among people diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer, approximately 70% to 75% of patients survive beyond 1 year, 30% to 35% beyond 3 years, and fewer than 20% beyond 5 years from diagnosis. The primary treatment for unresectable metastatic CRC is systemic therapy (cytotoxic chemotherapy, biologic therapy such as antibodies to cellular growth factors, immunotherapy, and their combinations.) Clinical trials completed in the past 5 years have demonstrated that tailoring treatment to the molecular and pathologic features of the tumor improves overall survival. Genomic profiling to detect somatic variants is important because it identifies the treatments that may be effective. For the 50% of patients with metastatic CRC with KRAS/NRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, cetuximab and panitumumab (monoclonal antibodies to the epithelial growth factor receptor [EGFR]), in combination with chemotherapy, can extend median survival by 2 to 4 months compared with chemotherapy alone. However, for the 35% to 40% of patients with KRAS or NRAS sequence variations (formerly termed mutations), effective targeted therapies are not yet available. For the 5% to 10% with BRAF V600E sequence variations, targeted combination therapy with BRAF and EGFR inhibitors extended overall survival to 9.3 months, compared to 5.9 months for those receiving standard chemotherapy. For the 5% with microsatellite instability (the presence of numerous insertions or deletions at repetitive DNA units) or mismatch repair deficiency, immunotherapy may be used in the first or subsequent line and has improved treatment outcomes with a median overall survival of 31.4 months in previously treated patients.Conclusions and RelevanceAdvances in molecular profiling of metastatic CRC facilitate the ability to direct treatments to the biologic features of the tumor for specific patient subsets. Although cures remain uncommon, more patients can anticipate extended survival. Genomic profiling allows treatment selection so that more patients derive benefit and fewer are exposed to toxicity from ineffective therapies.

Table A2. ASCO Value Framework: Adjuvant Setting NOTE. Future versions of the framework will allow for patients weighting their preferences such that the fractional contribution of each element (clinical benefit, toxicity) can be modified, thereby individualizing the net health benefit.

Patients and MethodsWe recruited 1,058 participants who received CRC care in a clinic-based setting without preselection for age at diagnosis, personal/family history, or MSI/MMR results. All participants underwent germline testing for mutations in 25 genes associated with inherited cancer risk. Each gene was categorized as high penetrance or moderate penetrance on the basis of published estimates of the lifetime cancer risks conferred by pathogenic germline mutations in that gene. ResultsOne hundred five (9.9%; 95% CI, 8.2% to 11.9%) of 1,058 participants carried one or more pathogenic mutations, including 33 (3.1%) with Lynch syndrome (LS). Twenty-eight (96.6%) of 29 available LS CRCs demonstrated abnormal MSI/MMR results. Seventy-four (7.0%) of 1,058 participants carried non-LS gene mutations, including 23 (2.2%) with mutations in high-penetrance genes (five APC, three biallelic MUTYH, 11 BRCA1/2, two PALB2, one CDKN2A, and one TP53), 15 of whom lacked clinical histories suggestive of their underlying mutation. Thirty-eight (3.6%) participants had moderate-penetrance CRC risk gene mutations (19 monoallelic MUTYH, 17 APC*I1307K, two CHEK2). Neither proband age at CRC diagnosis, family history of CRC, nor personal history of other cancers significantly predicted the presence of pathogenic mutations in non-LS genes. ConclusionGermline cancer susceptibility gene mutations are carried by 9.9% of patients with CRC. MSI/MMR testing reliably identifies LS probands, although 7.0% of patients with CRC carry non-LS mutations, including 1.0% with BRCA1/2 mutations.