In cancer clinical trials, adverse events (AEs) are collected and reported using the US National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE).¹ The CTCAE is a library of items representing 790 discrete AEs, each graded using an ordinal severity scale.² Approximately 10% of AEs in the CTCAE are symptoms (eg, nausea, sensory neuropathy), which in trials have historically been reported by clinical investigators.³ However, there is empirical evidence that collection of this information directly from patients improves the precision and reliability of symptomatic AE detection in trials^4-9and is feasible.^10,11 Moreover, there is substantial evidence that clinical investigators may miss up to half of patients’ symptomatic AEs.^5,6,12,13

PURPOSE: The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS: PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N–, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

Cancer-related fatigue has a significant impact on patients' physical and psychosocial functioning, symptom distress, and quality of life, yet it remains under-recognized and undertreated. The Oncology Nursing Society's Putting Evidence Into Practice initiative sought to improve patient outcomes relative to this important problem by critically examining and summarizing the evidence base for interventions to prevent and manage fatigue during and following treatment. This article critically reviews and summarizes the available empirical evidence regarding interventions for cancer-related fatigue. In addition to offering patients and clinicians a tool to facilitate effective management of the distressing symptom, this evidence-based review identifies gaps in knowledge and research opportunities.

Today, there are more than 16.9 million cancer survivors in the United States; this number is projected to grow to 22.2 million by 2030. Although much progress has been made in describing cancer survivors’ needs and in improving survivorship care since the seminal 2006 Institute of Medicine report “From Cancer Patient to Cancer Survivor: Lost in Transition,” there is a need to identify evidence gaps and research priorities pertaining to cancer survivorship. Thus, in April 2019, the National Cancer Institute convened grant-funded extramural cancer survivorship researchers, representatives of professional organizations, cancer survivors, and advocates for a 1-day in-person meeting. At this meeting, and in a subsequent webinar aimed at soliciting input from the wider survivorship community, evidence gaps and ideas for next steps in the following 6 areas, identified from the 2006 Institute of Medicine report, were discussed: surveillance for recurrence and new cancers, management of long-term and late physical effects, management of long-term and late psychosocial effects, health promotion, care coordination, and financial hardship. Identified evidence gaps and next steps across the areas included the need to understand and address disparities among cancer survivors, to conduct longitudinal studies as well as longer-term (>5 years postdiagnosis) follow-up studies, to leverage existing data, and to incorporate implementation science strategies to translate findings into practice. Designing studies to address these broad evidence gaps, as well as those identified in each area, will expand our understanding of cancer survivors’ diverse needs, ultimately leading to the development and delivery of more comprehensive evidence-based quality care.

PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637