Purpose: There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited. Methods: We randomly assigned patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival. Results: Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts. Conclusion: Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.

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.

In cancer treatment trials, the standard source of adverse symptom data is clinician reporting by use of items from the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Patient self-reporting has been proposed as an additional data source, but the implications of such a shift are not understood. Patients with lung cancer receiving chemotherapy and their clinicians independently reported six CTCAE symptoms and Karnofsky Performance Status longitudinally at sequential office visits. To compare how patient's vs clinician's reports relate to sentinel clinical events, a time-dependent Cox regression model was used to measure associations between reaching particular CTCAE grade severity thresholds with the risk of death and emergency room visits. To measure concordance of CTCAE reports with indices of daily health status, Kendall tau rank correlation coefficients were calculated for each symptom with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores. Statistical tests were two-sided. A total of 163 patients were enrolled for an average of 12 months (range = 1–28 months), with a mean of 11 visits and 67 (41%) deaths. CTCAE reports were submitted by clinicians at 95% of visits and by patients at 80% of visits. Patients generally reported symptoms earlier and more frequently than clinicians. Statistically significant associations with death and emergency room admissions were seen for clinician reports of fatigue ( P < .001), nausea ( P = .01), constipation ( P = .038), and Karnofsky Performance Status ( P < .001) but not for patient reports of these items. Higher concordance with EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire and global question scores was observed for patient-reported symptoms than for clinician-reported symptoms. Longitudinally collected clinician CTCAE assessments better predict unfavorable clinical events, whereas patient reports better reflect daily health status. These perspectives are complementary, each providing clinically meaningful information. Inclusion of both types of data in treatment trial results and drug labels appears to be warranted.

PURPOSE: CD19-targeted chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)–modified T cells demonstrate unprecedented responses in B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (B-ALL); however, relapse remains a substantial challenge. Short CAR T-cell persistence contributes to this risk; therefore, strategies to improve persistence are needed. METHODS: We conducted a pilot clinical trial of a humanized CD19 CAR T-cell product (huCART19) in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL (n = 72) or B-lymphoblastic lymphoma (n = 2), treated in two cohorts: with (retreatment, n = 33) or without (CAR-naive, n = 41) prior CAR exposure. Patients were monitored for toxicity, response, and persistence of huCART19. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients 1-29 years of age received huCART19. Cytokine release syndrome developed in 62 (84%) patients and was grade 4 in five (6.8%). Neurologic toxicities were reported in 29 (39%), three (4%) grade 3 or 4, and fully resolved in all cases. The overall response rate at 1 month after infusion was 98% (100% in B-ALL) in the CAR-naive cohort and 64% in the retreatment cohort. At 6 months, the probability of losing huCART19 persistence was 27% (95% CI, 14 to 41) for CAR-naive and 48% (95% CI, 30 to 64) for retreatment patients, whereas the incidence of B-cell recovery was 15% (95% CI, 6 to 28) and 58% (95% CI, 33 to 77), respectively. Relapse-free survival at 12 and 24 months, respectively, was 84% (95% CI, 72 to 97) and 74% (95% CI, 60 to 90) in CAR-naive and 74% (95% CI, 56 to 97) and 58% (95% CI, 37 to 90) in retreatment cohorts. CONCLUSION: HuCART19 achieved durable remissions with long-term persistence in children and young adults with relapsed or refractory B-ALL, including after failure of prior CAR T-cell therapy.

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of risk-adapted preemptive tocilizumab (PT) administration in preventing severe cytokine release syndrome (CRS) after CTL019, a CD19 chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy.METHODS: Children and young adults with CD19-positive relapsed or refractory B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia were assigned to high- (≥ 40%) or low- (< 40%) tumor burden cohorts (HTBC or LTBC) based on a bone marrow aspirate or biopsy before infusion. HTBC patients received a single dose of tocilizumab (8-12 mg/kg) after development of high, persistent fevers. LTBC patients received standard CRS management. The primary end point was the frequency of grade 4 CRS (Penn scale), with an observed rate of ≤ 5 of 15 patients in the HTBC pre-defined as clinically meaningful. In post hoc analyses, the HTBC was compared with a historical cohort of high-tumor burden patients from the initial phase I CTL019 trial.RESULTS: The primary end point was met. Seventy patients were infused with CTL019, 15 in the HTBC and 55 in the LTBC. All HTBC patients received the PT intervention. The incidence of grade 4 CRS was 27% (95% CI, 8 to 55) in the HTBC and 3.6% (95% CI, 0.4 to 13) in the LTBC. The best overall response rate was 87% in the HTBC and 100% in the LTBC. Initial CTL019 expansion was greater in the HTBC than the LTBC ( P < .001), but persistence was not different ( P = .73). Event-free and overall survival were worse in the HTBC ( P = .004, P < .001, respectively). In the post hoc analysis, grade 4 CRS was observed in 27% versus 50% of patients in the PT and prior phase I cohorts, respectively ( P = .18).CONCLUSION: Risk-adapted PT administration resulted in a decrease in the expected incidence of grade 4 CRS, meeting the study end point, without adversely impacting the antitumor efficacy or safety of CTL019.