Development of an integrated electronic platform for patient self-report and management of adverse events during cancer treatment

Development of a Comprehensive Decision Support Tool for Chemotherapy-Cycle Prescribing: Initial Usability Study

Background

Chemotherapy cycle prescription is generally carried out through a multistep manual process that is prone to human error. Clinical decision support tools can provide patient-specific assessments that support clinical decisions, improve prescribing practices, and reduce medication errors.

Objective

We hypothesized that a knowledge-based, patient-derived, evidence-directed decision support tool consisting of multiple modules focusing on the core duties preceding chemotherapy-cycle prescription could result in a more cost-effective and error-free approach and streamline the workflow.

Methods

A 1-arm, multicenter, prospective clinical trial ("Follow-up of Cancer Patients Receiving Chemotherapy or Targeted Therapy by Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes-tool" [ECHO] 7/2019-1/2021; NCT04081558) was initiated to investigate the tool. The most important inclusion criteria were the presence of colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, age ≥18 years, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance score of 0 to 2, and internet access. A decision support tool that included digital symptom monitoring, a laboratory value interface, and treatment schedule integration for semiautomated chemotherapy cycle prescribing was integrated into the care pathway. Performance was assessed by the percentage of chemotherapy cycles with sent and completed symptom questionnaires, while perceptions of health care professionals (HCPs) on the feasibility of the approach were collected through a 1-time semistructured interview.

Results

The ECHO trial included 43 patients with CRC treated with doublet or triplet chemotherapy in an adjuvant or metastatic setting. Altogether, 843 electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom questionnaires were completed. Of the 15 recorded symptoms, fatigue (n=446, 52.9%) and peripheral neuropathy (n=429, 50.9%) were reported most often, while 137 grade 3 to 4 symptoms were recorded, of which diarrhea (n=5, 4%) and peripheral neuropathy (n=4, 3%) were the most common. During the study, 339 chemotherapy cycles were prescribed, and for the 77% (n=262) of new chemotherapy cycles, ePRO questionnaire data were available within preset limits (completed within 3 days prior to chemotherapy scheduling) while 65% of the cycles (n=221) had symptom questionnaire grading at ≤1%, and 67% of the cycles (n=228) had laboratory values in a preset range. The recommendations by the tool for a new chemotherapy cycle were tier 1 (green; meaning "go") in 145 (42.8%) of the cycles, tier 2 (yellow; "evaluate") in 83 (25%), and tier 3 (red; "hold") in 111 (32.7%). HCPs (n=3) were interviewed with a questionnaire (comprising 8 questions), revealing that they most valued the improved workflow, faster patient evaluation, and direct messaging option.

Conclusions

In this study, we investigated the feasibility of a decision support system for chemotherapy-cycle pre-evaluation and prescription that was developed for the prospective ECHO trial. The study showed that the functionalities of the investigated tool were feasible and that an automated approach to chemotherapy-cycle prescription was possible for nearly half of the cycles.

Testing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform in the Context of Traumatic Brain Injury: PRiORiTy Usability Study

Background

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant public health issue and a leading cause of death and disability globally. Advances in clinical care have improved survival rates, leading to a growing population living with long-term effects of TBI, which can impact physical, cognitive, and emotional health. These effects often require continuous management and individualized care. Traditional paper-based assessments can be cumbersome, potentially impeding regular monitoring of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Electronic PROs (ePROs) offer a promising alternative by enabling real-time symptom tracking, which can facilitate early identification of issues, support shared decision-making, and improve outcomes for patients with TBI.

Objective

This study evaluates the usability of an ePRO platform-Atom5-for individuals with TBI. By analyzing how patients use the system to report their symptoms, the study aims to identify usability issues, assess user satisfaction, and determine the potential of Atom5 to support ongoing patient-centered care.

Methods

Atom5 was customized to enable individuals with TBI to report their symptoms. Usability testing was conducted through one-on-one sessions with participants recruited from Headway UK-an organization supporting brain injury survivors. Each participant took part in cognitive interviews using with the "Think Aloud" method, encouraging them to verbalize their thoughts and experiences while using the platform. This approach provided qualitative insights into areas of difficulty, usability strengths, and accessibility barriers. User satisfaction was quantitatively assessed with a brief 4-item questionnaire based on the System Usability Scale. Usability outcomes were analyzed for critical and noncritical errors, focusing on user experience and overall satisfaction.

Results

In total, 9 participants completed a single usability testing session using Atom5, including 4 men, 4 women, and 1 nonbinary individual; 4 participants were under 55 years old, and 6 had their TBI <10 years ago. Finally, 8 participants used an Android device. The platform included measures for anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 item), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2), posttraumatic stress disorder (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder checklist 2), and TBI-specific quality of life (Traumatic Brain Injury - Quality of Life Short form) and a total of 26 questions. Overall, all participants were satisfied with the system, noting that it was easy to navigate and accessible despite difficulties in understanding some questions. Further, 6 participants encountered no errors, while 1 participant reported one critical error and 2 others reported one noncritical error each. The participants rated their overall satisfaction with the platform at an average score of 3.9 (SD 0.49) out of 5.

Conclusions

This usability study suggests that individuals living with TBI can effectively report symptoms using the Atom5 ePRO platform, with generally high satisfaction and few usability issues, thereby enabling continuous monitoring and proactive symptom management. Future ePRO development should focus on inclusivity and adaptability to address the diverse needs of patients with TBI, ensuring these tools can effectively support a wide range of users.

Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify feasible, evidence-based strategies to improve the use of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) implemented in clinical oncology practice.

METHODS

A mixed-method study involving observations of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers for using PROMs; barriers and facilitators were structured following the Theoretical Domains Framework. For each barrier, evidence-based improvement strategies were selected using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy v1. Subsequently, improvement strategies were ranked on priority and feasibility by an expert panel of HCPs, information technology professionals, and PROMs implementation specialists, creating an implementation improvement strategy.

RESULTS

Ten consultations were observed and 14 interviews conducted. Barriers for implementation included that the electronic health record and PROMs did not align to the individual needs of end users, the HCPs' hesitance to advice patients about health-related quality-of-life issues, and a lack of consensus on which HCPs were responsible for discussing PROMs with patients. Forty-one improvement strategies were identified, of which 25 remained after ranking. These included: redesigning the PROMs dashboard by including patient management advice, enhancing patient support to complete PROMs, and clarifying HCPs' responsibilities for discussing PROMs. Strategies currently considered less feasible were: improving user-friendliness of the patient portal due to technical constraints, aligning PROMs assessment frequency with clinical courses, and using baseline PROMs for early identification of vulnerabilities and supportive care needs. These will be studied in future research.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based improvement strategies to ensure lasting adoption of PROMs in clinical practice were identified.

Monitoring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Self-management of Postsurgical Symptoms in Oncology: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Surgery is used widely for cancer treatment, and in most types, after discharge, patients usually report multiple symptoms, which, if not controlled, can put postoperative recovery at risk. Understanding which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be monitored could have a significant impact on reducing the symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment by playing a pivotal role in developing symptom self-management plans and designing tailored approaches to optimize patients' symptom self-management behaviors.

OBJECTIVE

To map the PROs used for patients' postsurgical symptom self-management after hospital discharge following cancer surgery.

INTERVENTIONS/METHODS

Our scoping review process was guided by the steps for conducting scoping reviews recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

RESULTS

The search identified 97 potentially relevant studies, with 27 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The most frequently assessed and monitored PROs were problems with surgical wounds, more general physical symptoms, psychological functioning outcomes, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results showed an overall uniformity among the PROs selected to be monitored in surgical cancer patients after hospital discharge. Monitoring through electronic platforms is widely used and seems useful to self-manage symptoms and optimize the recovery of cancer patients after discharge following surgery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study provides knowledge about PROs that can be applied in oncologic patients after surgery to self-report their symptoms following discharge.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes as digital therapeutics for patients with cancer: a narrative review of current practices and future directions

Improved cancer treatment outcomes have increased the demand for medical care that considers the quality of life of patients with cancer. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) help assess the quality of life because they involve direct evaluation of the patients. Recently, electronic PROs (ePROs) have been used in clinical cancer care settings in Europe and the United States. Electronic PROs positively affected communication between patients with cancer and healthcare providers, enhanced education, optimized self-management, contributed to healthcare economics, assisted in monitoring adverse events, and improved prognosis. However, challenges such as adherence, burden on healthcare providers, lack of personalized formats, low digital literacy, and implementation costs remain. Therefore, carefully selecting the items to be recorded by ePROs in alignment with specific objectives is essential. Additionally, developing systems using lifelogs-digital records of daily activities-and creating mechanisms that automatically encourage patient behavioral changes based on the reported data are crucial. This review delineates the advantages and challenges of ePROs according to their history and proposes the prospects of ePRO.

Patient and clinician perspectives of an eHealth intervention for supporting cancer treatment in the UK: mixed methods evaluation of the eRAPID randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

During 2015-2018, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated eRAPID, an eHealth intervention designed to capture patient-reported symptoms online during cancer treatment. eRAPID provides patients with advice on when to self-manage or seek medical support. Clinicians accessed symptom reports within electronic patient records. 508 participants starting systemic cancer treatment were recruited and followed for 18 weeks. The intervention group (n=256) was asked to access eRAPID and complete weekly online symptom reports. Clinicians received training on accessing and interpreting symptom reports. Overall, eRAPID had a positive impact on patients' symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy, particularly early in treatment and for patients with early-stage disease. Using mixed methods, we aimed to gather insight from patients and clinicians on how eRAPID worked to facilitate the interpretation of RCT findings.

METHODS

Following a concurrent triangulation design, patient experiences of eRAPID were gathered via end-of-study interviews (n=45) and questionnaires (n=186). Clinician experiences were obtained by end-of-study interviews (n=18) and completion, throughout the trial, of feedback questionnaires (n=787 from n=55 clinicians). Framework analysis was applied to examine qualitative data and close-ended questions were descriptively summarised. Findings were mapped against results from the RCT.

SETTING

Medical oncology services, UK cancer centre.

RESULTS

Patient feedback indicated eRAPID was easy to use. Adherence to weekly reporting was influenced by health status, reminders, perceived value and clinical use. Patient-reported benefits of eRAPID included an enhanced connection with the hospital, provision of practical advice and personal monitoring, which provided reassurance and empowerment. Clinicians were positive about the potential for online symptom monitoring but had mixed levels of direct experience with using eRAPID during the trial. Patients echoed this and recommended more explicit clinician use of symptom data.

CONCLUSIONS

The mixed-method approach to capturing patient and clinician opinions provided valuable insight into the eRAPID intervention and complementary information on how the intervention was received and functioned.

Advancing patient-centered cancer care: a systematic review of electronic patient-reported outcome measures

Background

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) have emerged as valuable tools in cancer care, facilitating the comprehensive assessment of patients' physical, psychological, and social well-being. This study synthesizes literature on the utilization of ePROMs in oncology, highlighting the diverse array of measurement instruments and questionnaires employed in cancer patient assessments. By comprehensively analyzing existing research, this study provides insights into the landscape of ePROMs, informs future research directions, and aims to optimize patient-centred oncology care through the strategic integration of ePROMs into clinical practice.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted by searching peer-reviewed articles published in academic journals without time limitations up to 2024. The search was performed across multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using predefined search terms related to cancer, measurement instruments, and patient assessment. The selected articles underwent a rigorous quality assessment using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

Results

The review of 85 studies revealed a diverse range of measurement instruments and questionnaires utilized in cancer patient assessments. Prominent instruments such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the Patient Reported Outcome-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were frequently referenced across multiple studies. Additionally, other instruments identified included generic health-related quality of life measures and disease-specific assessments tailored to particular cancer types. The findings indicated the importance of utilizing a variety of measurement tools to comprehensively assess the multifaceted needs and experiences of cancer patients.

Conclusion

Our systematic review provides a comprehensive examination of the varied tools and ePROMs employed in cancer care, accentuating the perpetual requirement for development and validation. Prominent instruments like the EORTC QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE are underscored, emphasizing the necessity for a thorough assessment to meet the multifaceted needs of patients. Looking ahead, scholarly endeavours should prioritize the enhancement of existing tools and the creation of novel measures to adeptly address the evolving demands of cancer patients across heterogeneous settings and populations.

Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects.

RESULTS

Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

The advantages, disadvantages, threats, and opportunities of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in cancer: A systematic review

Objective

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems hold promise for revolutionizing communication between cancer patients and healthcare providers across various care settings. This systematic review explores the multifaceted landscape of ePROs in cancer care, encompassing their advantages, disadvantages, potential risks, and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

In our systematic review, we conducted a rigorous search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, employing comprehensive medical subject heading terms for ePRO and cancer, with no date limitations up to 2024. Studies were critically appraised and thematically analyzed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, including considerations of advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, and threats.

Findings

Analyzing 85 articles revealed 69 themes categorized into four key areas. Advantages (n = 14) were dominated by themes like "improved quality of life and care." Disadvantages (n = 26) included "limited access and technical issues." Security concerns and lack of technical skills were prominent threats (n = 10). Opportunities (n = 19) highlighted advancements in symptom management and potential solutions for technical challenges.

Conclusion

This review emphasizes the crucial role of continuous exploration, integration, and innovation in ePRO systems for optimizing patient outcomes in cancer care. Beyond traditional clinical settings, ePROs hold promise for applications in survivorship, palliative care, and remote monitoring. By addressing existing limitations and capitalizing on opportunities, ePROs can empower patients, enhance communication, and ultimately improve care delivery across the entire cancer care spectrum.

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

The design, implementation, and impact of an automated patient-reported outcome data collection and adverse event surveillance tool: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures into routine clinical care can improve the patient experience, increase engagement, and establish a structured method for gathering adverse event (AE) data. Systematically collecting this information on a large scale can also inform new solutions for removing treatment barriers like medication nonadherence. This study evaluated whether implementing a patient-reported outcome data collection and adverse event surveillance tool would result in greater treatment continuation for patients receiving care on a telehealth platform.

METHODS

We used iterative plan-study-do-act cycles to evaluate how this data collection and surveillance tool-a short prompt for patients to provide information on treatment satisfaction and side effects-impacted treatment continuation, the outcome of interest. We tested two cycles in n = 2,000 patients receiving care for erectile dysfunction on a telehealth platform as a randomized controlled trial, and accounted for incidents where true randomization was not possible during implementation. The first cycle tested the tool alone, while the second cycle tested the tool in conjunction with a messaging template system that provided standardized side effect counseling.

RESULTS

Compared to patients in the control group, patients in the intervention group were more likely to refill their prescription over the duration of the study period (75% vs. 71%, Kaplan Meier log-rank test, p = 0.04). Receiving standardized counseling as part of the AE response system was positively associated with treatment continuation (p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

Prompting patients to report side effects and outcomes outside of routine clinical visits has the potential to improve quality of care in virtual treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial has been retrospectively registered as a clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05895539, registered June 8, 2023).

Usability of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Older Patients With Cancer: Secondary Analysis of Data from an Observational Single Center Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes are considered the gold standard for assessing subjective health status in oncology patients. Electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) has become increasingly popular in recent years in both clinical trials and practice. However, there is limited evidence on how well older patients with cancer can complete ePRO assessments.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate how well adult patients with cancer of different age ranges could complete ePRO assessments at home and in a treatment facility and to identify factors associated with the ability to complete questionnaires electronically.

METHODS

This retrospective longitudinal single-center study involved survivors of cancer who participated in inpatient rehabilitation. Patients completed ePRO assessments before rehabilitation at home (T1) and after rehabilitation at the facility (T2). We analyzed the rate of patients who could complete the ePRO assessment at T1 and T2, the proportion of patients who required assistance, and the time it took patients to complete standardized questionnaires. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance.

RESULTS

Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 5571 patients were included in this study. Patients had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 12.2) years (range 18 to 93 years), and 1135 (20.3%) of them were classified as geriatric patients (>70 years). While more than 90% (5060/5571) of all patients completed the ePRO assessment, fewer patients in the age group of >70 years (924/1135, 81.4% at T1 vs 963/1135, 84.8% at T2) completed the assessment. Approximately 19% (1056/5571) of patients reported a need for assistance with the ePRO assessment at home, compared to 6.8% (304/4483) at the institution. Patients older than 70 years had a significantly higher need for assistance than those in younger age groups. Moreover, a gender difference was observed, with older women reporting a higher need for assistance than men (71-80 years: women requiring assistance 215/482, 44.6% vs men 96/350, 27.4%; P<.001 and >80 years: women 102/141, 72.3% vs men 57/112, 50.9%; P<.001). On average, patients needed 4.9 (SD 3.20) minutes to remotely complete a 30-item questionnaire (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and patients in the older age groups took significantly longer compared to younger age groups. Lower age and higher physical functioning were the clearest predictors for both the ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance in the multivariate regression analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study's results indicate that ePRO assessment is feasible in older individuals with cancer, but older patients may require assistance (eg, from relatives) to complete home-based assessments. It may be more feasible to conduct assessments in-house in this population. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider which resources are necessary and available to support patients in using ePRO devices.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice

PURPOSE

This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice.

METHODS

We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions.

RESULTS

Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population.

CONCLUSION

Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Methodologies for Evaluating the Usability of Rehabilitation Technologies Aimed at Supporting Shared Decision-Making: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The field of rehabilitation has seen a recent rise in technologies to support shared decision-making (SDM). Usability testing during the design process of SDM technologies is needed to optimize adoption and realize potential benefits. There is variability in how usability is defined and measured. Given the complexity of usability, a thorough examination of the methodologies used to measure usability to develop the SDM technologies used in rehabilitation care is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to answer the following research questions: which methods and measures have been used to produce knowledge about the usability of rehabilitation technologies aimed at supporting SDM at the different phases of development and implementation? Which parameters of usability have been measured and reported?

METHODS

This review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework. An electronic search was performed in the Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases from January 2005 up to November 2020. In total, 2 independent reviewers screened all retrieved titles, abstracts, and full texts according to the inclusion criteria and extracted the data. The International Organization for Standardization framework was used to define the scope of usability (effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction). The characteristics of the studies were outlined in a descriptive summary. Findings were categorized based on usability parameters, technology interventions, and measures of usability.

RESULTS

A total of 38 articles were included. The most common SDM technologies were web-based aids (15/33, 46%). The usability of SDM technologies was assessed during development, preimplementation, or implementation, using 14 different methods. The most frequent methods were questionnaires (24/38, 63%) and semistructured interviews (16/38, 42%). Satisfaction (27/38, 71%) was the most common usability parameter mapped to types of SDM technologies and usability evaluation methods. User-centered design (9/15, 60%) was the most frequently used technology design framework.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from this scoping review highlight the importance and the complexity of usability evaluation. Although various methods and measures were shown to be used to evaluate the usability of technologies to support SDM in rehabilitation, very few evaluations used in the included studies were found to adequately span the selected usability domains. This review identified gaps in usability evaluation, as most studies (24/38, 63%) relied solely on questionnaires rather than multiple methods, and most questionnaires simply focused on the usability parameter of satisfaction. The consideration of end users (such as patients and clinicians) is of particular importance for the development of technologies to support SDM, as the process of SDM itself aims to improve patient-centered care and integrate both patient and clinician voices into their rehabilitation care.

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) application for patients with prostate cancer

INTRODUCTION

Cancer patients experience different complications and outcomes during or after medical treatments. Electronic reporting of the outcomes by patients is a solution that facilitates communication with physicians and improve patient health status. The aim of this study was to develop a smartphone-based application for electronic reporting of outcomes by patients with prostate cancer.

METHODS

The present research was conducted in 2021 in two phases. In the first phase, initially, users' requirements were identified based on reviewing the related literature, existing applications, and guidelines. Then, a questionnaire was designed and the specialists' opinions about the users' requirements were investigated. The specialties included urologists, hemato-oncologists, uro-oncologists, and radiotherapists (n = 15). In the second phase, the application was designed, and patients with prostate cancer (n = 21) and specialists (n = 10) evaluated it using the post-study system usability questionnaire (PSSUQ). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

The findings of the first phase of the research showed that out of 108 data elements and functions proposed for the application, 91 items were found essential by the specialists. Data elements were categorized into the patient data, general complications of prostate cancer and side effects of drug therapy, surgery, chemotherapy, cryotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. Necessary functions for the application included presenting a patient care summary, communication between the patient and the specialist, free text explanation for complications and sides effects, generating reports, reminder and alert, completing quality of life questionnaire, and calculating the score for the questionnaire. In the second phase of the research, the application was developed and evaluated. The mean value for user satisfaction was (5.95 ± 0.55) out of 7.

CONCLUSION

The developed application can help to accelerate communication with the specialists. It can improve quality of care, reduce unnecessary treatment visits and side effects, and improve timely data collection for a variety of research purposes. However, further research on the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of the collected data is recommended.

ePRO symptom follow-up of colorectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is feasible and enhances the quality of patient care: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

Electronic (e) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been shown to improve the quality of life and survival in chemotherapy treated advanced cancer patients. We hypothesized that multidimensional ePRO centered approach could improve symptom management, streamline patient flow, and optimize the use of healthcare resources.

METHODS

In this multicenter trial (NCT04081558), colorectal cancer (CRC) patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant or in the first- or second-line setting in advanced disease were included in the prospective ePRO cohort, while a comparative retrospective cohort was collected from the same institutes. The investigated tool consisted of a weekly e-symptom questionnaire integrated to an urgency algorithm and laboratory value interface, which generated semi-automated decision support for chemotherapy cycle prescription and individualized symptom management.

RESULTS

Recruitment to the ePRO cohort occurred 1/2019-1/2021 (n = 43). The comparator group (n = 194) consisted of patients treated in the same institutes 1-7/2017. The analysis was limited to adjuvant treated (n = 36 and n = 35). The feasibility of the ePRO follow-up was good with 98% reporting easy usage and 86% improved care, while health care personnel valued the easy use and logical workflow. In the ePRO cohort, 42% needed a phone call before planned chemotherapy cycles, while this was 100% in the retrospective cohort (p = 1.4e-8). Peripheral sensory neuropathy was detected significantly earlier with ePRO followed (p = 1e-5) but did not translate to earlier dose reduction, delays, or unplanned therapy termination compared to the retrospective cohort.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest that the investigated approach is feasible and streamlines workflow. Earlier symptom detection may improve the quality in cancer care.

Patient and public involvement in cancer research: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research emphasizes the importance of doing research with, rather than for people with lived health/illness experience(s). The purpose of this scoping review is to investigate the breadth and depth of scientific literature on PPI in cancer research and to identify how is PPI applied and reported in cancer research.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycInfo up to March 2022. All titles/abstracts and full-text results were screened by two reviewers. Data were analyzed and are presented in both narrative and tabular format.

RESULTS

We screened 22,009 titles/abstract, reviewed 375 full-text articles, of which 101 studies were included in this review. 66 papers applied PPI; 35 used co-design methodologies. PPI in cancer research in published research has increased steadily since 2015 and often includes those with a past diagnosis of cancer or relatives/informal caregivers. The most common applied methods were workshops or interviews. PPI was generally used at the level of consultation/advisor and occurred mainly in early stages of research. Costs related to PPI were mentioned in 25 papers and four papers described training provided for PPI.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of our review demonstrate the nature and extent of PPI expansion in cancer research. Researchers and research organizations entering the fray of PPI should consider planning and reporting elements such as the stage, level, and role type of PPI, as well as methods and strategies put in place to assure diversity. Furthermore, a thorough evaluation of whether all these elements meet the stated PPI purpose will help to grasp its impact on research outcomes.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Two patients participated in the stakeholder consultation as part of the scoping review methodology, contributed to the discussion on refining the results, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Both are co-authors of this manuscript.

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Online Symptom Monitoring During Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Randomized Pilot Trial of the eRAPID Intervention

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D).

RESULTS

From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

Expanding Family Health History to Include Family Medication History

The collection of family health history (FHH) is an essential component of clinical practice and an important piece of data for patient risk assessment. However, family history data have generally been limited to diseases and have not included medication history. Family history was a key component of early pharmacogenetic research, confirming the role of genes in drug response. With the substantial number of known pharmacogenes, many affecting response to commonly prescribed medications, and the availability of clinical pharmacogenetic (PGx) tests and guidelines for interpretation, the collection of family medication history can inform testing decisions. This paper explores the roots of family-based pharmacogenetic studies to confirm the role of genes in these complex phenotypes and the benefits and challenges of collecting family medication history as part of family health history intake.

Artificial intelligence empowered digital health technologies in cancer survivorship care: A scoping review

Objective

The objectives of this systematic review are to describe features and specific application scenarios for current cancer survivorship care services of Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital health technologies (DHTs) and to explore the acceptance and briefly evaluate its feasibility in the application process.

Methods

Search for literatures published from 2010 to 2022 on sites MEDLINE, IEEE-Xplor, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus systematically. The types of literatures include original research, descriptive study, randomized controlled trial, pilot study, and feasible or acceptable study. The literatures above described current status and effectiveness of digital medical technologies based on AI and used in cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, we use QuADS quality assessment tool to evaluate the quality of literatures included in this review.

Results

43 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed and qualitatively synthesized. The current status and results related to the application of AI-driven DHTs in cancer survivorship care were reviewed. Most of these studies were designed specifically for breast cancer survivors' care and focused on the areas of recurrence or secondary cancer prediction, clinical decision support, cancer survivability prediction, population or treatment stratified, anti-cancer treatment-induced adverse reaction prediction, and so on. Applying AI-based DHTs to cancer survivors actually has shown some positive outcomes, including increased motivation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), reduce fatigue and pain levels, improved quality of life, and physical function. However, current research mostly explored the technology development and formation (testing) phases, with limited-scale population, and single-center trial. Therefore, it is not suitable to draw conclusions that the effectiveness of AI-based DHTs in supportive cancer care, as most of applications are still in the early stage of development and feasibility testing.

Conclusions

While digital therapies are promising in the care of cancer patients, more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to demonstrate the effectiveness of digital therapies in cancer care. Studies should explore how to develop uniform standards for measuring patient-related outcomes, ensure the scientific validity of research methods, and emphasize patient and health practitioner involvement in the development and use of technology.

Managing Critical Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Oncology Settings: System Development and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring programs based on the collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are being increasingly adopted in oncology practices. Although PROs are a great source of patient data, the management of critical PRO data is not discussed in detail in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This first-of-its-kind study aimed to design, describe, and evaluate a closed-loop alerting and communication system focused on managing PRO-related alerts in cancer care.

METHODS

We designed and developed a novel solution using an agile software development methodology by incrementally building new capabilities. We evaluated these new features using participatory design and the Fit between Individuals, Task, and Technology framework.

RESULTS

A total of 8 questionnaires were implemented using alerting features, resulting in an alert rate of 7.82% (36,838/470,841) with 13.28% (10,965/82,544) of the patients triggering at least one alert. Alerts were reviewed by 501 staff members spanning across 191 care teams. All the alerts were reviewed with a median response time of 1 hour (SD 185 hours) during standard business hours. The most severe (red) alerts were documented 56.83% (2592/4561) of the time, whereas unlabeled alerts were documented 27.68% (1298/4689) of the time, signaling clinician concordance with the alert thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A PRO-based alert and communication system has some initial benefits in reviewing clinically meaningful PRO data in a reasonable amount of time. We have discussed key system design considerations, workflow integration, and the mitigation of potential impact on the burden of care teams. The introduction of a PRO-based alert and communication system provides a reliable mechanism for care teams to review and respond to patient symptoms quickly. The system was standardized across many different oncology settings, demonstrating system flexibility. Future studies should focus on formally evaluating system usability through qualitative methods.

Electronic patient-reported monitoring of symptoms during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients: a feasibility study

Background

Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse. Innovative follow-up methods are increasingly being explored. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway was developed for women treated for ovarian cancer. This feasibility study explored patient acceptability and compliance.

Methods

A single-arm non-blinded prospective feasibility study was undertaken at two hospitals. Participants were women who had completed treatment for ovarian cancer whose clinician was happy for them to be monitored remotely. Automated 3-monthly reminders were sent to participants to complete an ePRO questionnaire and obtain blood tests. Participants were reviewed over the phone by their clinical nurse specialist instead of attending clinic-based follow-up. The primary outcome was compliance (expected ePRO completions/blood tests) across the 12-month study period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, resource use, symptom severity/alerts and patient acceptability.

Results

Twenty-four women consented (50% consent rate), and 13 remained on study at 12 months. Seven women relapsed, 3 chose to withdraw, and 1 withdrew for other clinical reasons. ePRO compliance was high and consistent at 75-82%, although the two hospitals differed. Adherence to the clinical protocol was evident for blood tests and contacts with staff (fewer visits, more phonecalls compared to an earlier audit). End-of-study feedback indicated high patient satisfaction.

Conclusions

Remote ePRO follow-up for ovarian cancer is feasible and acceptable to patients who are able and willing to participate. However, the low recruitment rate (ineligible + declined) indicate it is not suitable/acceptable to all patients immediately post-treatment. Further large-scale research and implementation work is required, especially in a post-COVID era.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19/05/2016).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09817-5.

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Measuring functional outcomes in major trauma: can we do better?

PURPOSE

There is relatively limited large scale, long-term unified evidence to describe how quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes are affected after polytrauma. The aim of this study is to review validated measures available to assess QoL and functional outcomes and make recommendations on how best to assess patents after major trauma.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE databases were interrogated to identify suitable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in major trauma, and current practice in their use globally.

RESULTS

Overall, 81 papers met the criteria for inclusion and evaluation. Data from these were synthesised. A full set of validated PROMs tools were identified for patients with polytrauma, as well as critique of current tools available, allowing us to evaluate practice and recommend specific outcome measures for patients following polytrauma, and system changes needed to embed this in routine practice moving forward.

CONCLUSION

To achieve optimal outcomes for patients with polytrauma, we will need to focus on what matters most to them, including their needs (and unmet needs). The use of appropriate PROMs allows evaluation and improvement in the care we can offer. Transformative effects have been noted in cases where they have been used to guide treatment, and if embedded as part of the wider system, it should lead to better overall outcomes. Accordingly, we have made recommendations to this effect. It is time to seize the day, bring these measures even further into our routine practice, and be part of shaping the future.

Results of a pilot feasibility randomised controlled trial exploring the use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure in the management of UK patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVES

The use of routine remote follow-up of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasing exponentially. It has been suggested that online electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could be used in parallel, to facilitate real-time symptom monitoring aimed at improving outcomes. We tested the feasibility of this approach in a pilot trial of ePROM symptom monitoring versus usual care in patients with advanced CKD not on dialysis.

DESIGN

A 12-month, parallel, pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) and qualitative substudy.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, UK. Adult patients with advanced CKD (estimated glomerular filtration rate ≥6 and ≤15 mL/min/1.73 m², or a projected risk of progression to kidney failure within 2 years ≥20%).

INTERVENTION

Monthly online ePROM symptom reporting, including automated feedback of tailored self-management advice and triggered clinical notifications in the advent of severe symptoms. Real-time ePROM data were made available to the clinical team via the electronic medical record.

OUTCOMES

Feasibility (recruitment and retention rates, and acceptability/adherence to the ePROM intervention). Health-related quality of life, clinical data (eg, measures of kidney function, kidney failure, hospitalisation, death) and healthcare utilisation.

RESULTS

52 patients were randomised (31% of approached). Case report form returns were high (99.5%), as was retention (96%). Overall, 73% of expected ePROM questionnaires were received. Intervention adherence was high beyond 90 days (74%) and 180 days (65%); but dropped beyond 270 days (46%). Qualitative interviews supported proof of concept and intervention acceptability, but highlighted necessary changes aimed at enhancing overall functionality/scalability of the ePROM system.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot trial demonstrates that patients are willing to be randomised to a trial assessing ePROM symptom monitoring. The intervention was considered acceptable; though measures to improve longer-term engagement are needed. A full-scale RCT is considered feasible.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN12669006 and the UK NIHR Portfolio (CPMS ID: 36497).

Barriers and Opportunities for Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: A National Pediatrician Survey in the United States

Purpose: To characterize pediatricians’ perceived barriers and areas of confidence in assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the U.S., and to test associations of these factors with implementing PRO assessment. Methods: Using a random sample from the members of American Medical Association, we recruited general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists to complete a survey (July 2011 to December 2013). Perceived barriers and confidence in PRO assessment were compared by age, pediatric specialty (general pediatrics, seven subspecialties), practice settings (academic, private), and region of practice. Multivariable logistic regressions tested associations of demographic factors, barriers, and confidence factors with the implementation of PRO assessment. Findings: The survey was completed by 458 participants (response rate 48.5%); of these, 40.4%, 15.9%, 15.5%, and 8.1% were general pediatricians, cardiology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary specialists, respectively. PRO assessment was implemented by 29.0% of the pediatricians. The top five barriers for PRO assessment included limited time/manpower (79.0%), limited training (77.4%), lengthy PRO instruments (76%), lack of meaningful cut-offs on PRO scores (75.5%), and unavailable PRO instruments (75.0%). Limited knowledge of PROs (OR 4.10; 95% CI 2.21, 7.60) and unavailability of PRO instruments (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.01, 3.49) increased the odds of not implementing the assessment, whereas confidence in PRO assessments compatible with norms (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23, 0.72) and perceived benefit over clinical judgment alone (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31, 0.93) decreased the odds of not implementing the assessment. Interpretation: significant barriers to PRO assessment in pediatric settings suggest the need for providing training, resources, and practical guidance toward implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: healthcare service users contributed to this study by completing a survey and providing feedback about the barriers and areas of confidence in assessing PROs for pediatric populations.

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Background

Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events.

Objectives

The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective?

Design

Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment.

Setting

The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol).

Participants

The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients.

Intervention

eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms.

Main outcome measures

In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance.

Results

eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive.

Limitations

The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions).

Conclusions

This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs.

Future work

Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended.

Trial registration

The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Predicting Objective Response Rate (ORR) in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor (ICI) Therapies with Machine Learning (ML) by Combining Clinical and Patient-Reported Data

ICIs are a standard of care in several malignancies; however, according to overall response rate (ORR), only a subset of eligible patients benefits from ICIs. Thus, an ability to predict ORR could enable more rational use. In this study a ML-based ORR prediction model was built, with patient-reported symptom data and other clinical data as inputs, using the extreme gradient boosting technique (XGBoost). Prediction performance for unseen samples was evaluated using leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV), and the performance was evaluated with accuracy, AUC (area under curve), F1 score, and MCC (Matthew’s correlation coefficient). The ORR prediction model had a promising LOOCV performance with all four metrics: accuracy (75%), AUC (0.71), F1 score (0.58), and MCC (0.4). A rather good sensitivity (0.58) and high specificity (0.82) of the model were seen in the confusion matrix for all 63 LOOCV ORR predictions. The two most important symptoms for predicting the ORR were itching and fatigue. The results show that it is possible to predict ORR for patients with multiple advanced cancers undergoing ICI therapies with a ML model combining clinical, routine laboratory, and patient-reported data even with a limited size cohort.

Assessments of a novel digital follow-up tool Rehabkompassen® to identify rehabilitation needs among stroke patients in an outpatient setting

Introduction

It remains a huge challenge to identify individual rehabilitation needs in a time-efficient manner for providing patient-tailored rehabilitation during the continuum of stroke care. We have recently demonstrated the usefulness of a paper-version Rehab-Compass as a follow-up tool. The aim of the current study was to develop a digital version of the Rehab-Compass and evaluate its usability and feasibility.

Methods

The novel digital tool Rehabkompassen® was developed by an iterative and participatory design process. Patients' rehabilitation needs were visualized by the tool and used before, during, and after the consultation. The usability and feasibility of the tool was assessed by task completion rate, the System Usability Scale, and satisfaction questionnaires among 2 physicians and 24 adult stroke patients in an outpatient clinical setting.

Results

Rehabkompassen® identified and graphically visualized a panoramic view of the stroke patients' multidimensional needs in individual- and group levels. The instrument appeared to be feasible and time efficient in clinical use with a 100% overall task completion rate for both patients and physicians. A majority of the patients reported that it was very easy or fairly easy to answer the digital questionnaires and to understand their own digital Rehab-Compass graph. Two physicians reported a high mean score on the System Usability Scale (95/100) and were positive about using the tool in the future.

Conclusions

The current results indicated that Rehabkompassen® was a feasible, useful, and time-saving follow-up tool for the identification of rehabilitation needs among stroke survivors in the post-acute continuum of care after stroke. Further research is needed to evaluate the efficacy of the digital instrument among stroke patients.

Validating an Instrument for Direct Patient Reporting of Distress and Chemotherapy-Related Toxicity among South African Cancer Patients

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) for monitoring treatment toxicity improve quality of life (QoL) and clinical outcomes. However, no such PROMs exist for sub-Saharan African cancer patients. We aimed to validate the Patient Reported Symptoms-South Africa (PRS-SA) survey, a novel PROM for measuring distress and chemotherapy-related symptoms in South African cancer patients. We enrolled patients at the oncology clinic at Charlotte Maxeke Hospital, Johannesburg. At three separate visits, participants simultaneously completed the PRS-SA survey and several previously validated questionnaires. We constructed a receiver operator characteristics curve for distress levels predicting a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) score ≥15. We evaluated construct validity for symptom items by comparing severity to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) summary score (Pearson correlation tests) and ECOG performance status (Mann-Whitney U tests). We assessed symptom item responsiveness by comparing change in severity to change in QLQ-C30 summary score and comparing standardized mean scores with negative, no, or positive change on the Global Impression of Change (GIC) questionnaire (Jockheere-Terpstra trend test). Overall, 196 participants with solid tumors completed instruments. A distress score of 4 had 82% sensitivity and 55% specificity for clinical depression/anxiety. All symptom items showed construct validity by association with either QLQ-C30 score or performance status (highest p = 0.03). All but cough showed responsiveness to change in QLQ-C30 score (highest p = 0.045). In South African cancer patients, the PRS-SA's stress scale behaves similarly to the distress thermometer in other populations, and the symptom items demonstrated construct validity and responsiveness. Of note, 46% and 74% of participants who completed the PRS-SA in English or isiZulu, respectively, required assistance reading half or more of the instrument.

Follow-up Care for Patients Receiving Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

The rapid advances in cancer immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have led to significantly improved survival of patients. But at the same time, it also associates with multiple immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The irAEs can affect a wide range of organs, and induce nonspecific symptoms with delayed onset and prolonged duration that is easily neglected, which may lead to life-threatening disorders. Therefore, follow-up care for patients receiving ICIs for irAEs management has become an essential competency in cancer nursing. There are several guidelines about the management of irAEs, which focused on diagnosis, grading, and treatment. However, studies on relevant follow-up care are rare. Nurses play an important role in follow-up care, whose relevant knowledge and skills are indispensable. Combined with domestic and foreign guidelines and related studies, this paper reviewed the occurrence and characteristics of irAEs and highlighted the contents, timing, models, and effects of follow-up care for patients receiving ICIs, to provide a reference for clinical nursing practice and improve the safety of immunotherapy for patients.

Oncology patients' experiences in experimental medicine cancer trials: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to explore patients' experiences of experimental cancer medicine (ECM) clinical trials.

DESIGN

The study's design was qualitative. Two focus groups with patients were undertaken followed by semistructured interviews, to explore patients' experiences of ECM clinical trials. Interviews and focus groups were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

A regional cancer centre (tertiary care) in North-West England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve patients (aged 52-79) participated in one of the two focus groups and 22 patients (aged 42-83) participated in interviews.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Patients' experiences of an ECM trial.

RESULTS

Four main themes were identified from the analysis: decision making, information needs, the experience of trial participation and impact of trial participation. Subthemes are presented in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

To make fully informed decisions about trial participation, patients required the simplification of trial information and wanted more information about side effects, their response to trial treatment and the overall trial progress throughout the trial. Patients highlighted the need for improvement for the support provided to their family and friends.

Factors influencing patient satisfaction after treatments for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures, including satisfaction with treatment decisions, provide important information in addition to clinical outcomes, survival and decision-making in lung cancer surgery. We investigated associations between preoperative clinical and socio-demographic factors and patient-reported satisfaction 6 weeks after radical treatment for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

Methods

We conducted a sub-group analysis of the prospective observational longitudinal study of 225 participants in two treatment groups—surgical (VATS) and radiotherapy (SABR). The Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18 (PSQ-18) was used to measure patient satisfaction 6 weeks after treatment. Clinical variables, Index of Multiple Deprivation decile and Decision self-efficacy scores were used in regression analysis. Variables with a p level < 0.1 were used as independent predictors in generalised linear logistic regression analyses.

Results

As expected, the two groups differed in pre-treatment clinical features. The SABR group experienced more grade 1–2 complications than the VATS group. No differences were found between the groups in any subscale of the PSQ-18 questionnaire. Patients experiencing complications or living in more deprived areas were more satisfied with care. Properative factors independently associated with patient satisfaction were the efficacy in decision-making and age.

Conclusion

We showed that efficacy in treatment decision-making and age was the sole predictor of patient satisfaction with their care after radical treatment for early-stage NSCLC. Patients from more deprived areas and patients who suffered complications reported greater subsequent satisfaction. Involving patients in their care may improve satisfaction after treatment for early-stage NSCLC.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes and machine learning in predicting immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies

BACKGROUND

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have introduced novel immune-related adverse events (irAEs), arising from various organ systems without strong timely dependency on therapy dosing. Early detection of irAEs could result in improved toxicity profile and quality of life. Symptom data collected by electronic (e) patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could be used as an input for machine learning (ML) based prediction models for the early detection of irAEs.

METHODS

The utilized dataset consisted of two data sources. The first dataset consisted of 820 completed symptom questionnaires from 34 ICI treated advanced cancer patients, including 18 monitored symptoms collected using the Kaiku Health digital platform. The second dataset included prospectively collected irAE data, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) class, and the severity of 26 irAEs. The ML models were built using extreme gradient boosting algorithms. The first model was trained to detect the presence and the second the onset of irAEs.

RESULTS

The model trained to predict the presence of irAEs had an excellent performance based on four metrics: accuracy score 0.97, Area Under the Curve (AUC) value 0.99, F1-score 0.94 and Matthew's correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.92. The prediction of the irAE onset was more difficult with accuracy score 0.96, AUC value 0.93, F1-score 0.66 and MCC 0.64 but the model performance was still at a good level.

CONCLUSION

The current study suggests that ML based prediction models, using ePRO data as an input, can predict the presence and onset of irAEs with a high accuracy, indicating that ePRO follow-up with ML algorithms could facilitate the detection of irAEs in ICI-treated cancer patients. The results should be validated with a larger dataset. Trial registration Clinical Trials Register (NCT3928938), registration date the 26th of April, 2019.

The GIMEMA-ALLIANCE Digital Health Platform for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Postpandemic Era: Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges in the management of patients with cancer and has increased the demands for digital health tools that, for example, could facilitate remote monitoring of patients. Based on this, the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto (GIMEMA) has recently developed a digital health tool dedicated to patients with hematologic malignancies: the GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform.

Objective

The main objectives of this web-based platform are to generate relevant data to better understand quality of life, symptoms, and medication adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic era; to develop a prospective real-life registry on outcomes of patients with hematologic cancer, with or without a diagnosis of COVID-19; and to facilitate patient-centered care in routine practice.

Methods

The platform consists of physician- and patient-secure portals and enables electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) assessments with real-time graphical presentation to physicians of individual patient symptoms and quality-of-life outcomes. Automated alerts are sent to treating hematologists based on the following predetermined criteria: presence of clinically important problems and symptoms, problems with adherence to therapy, and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis. The platform also allows physicians to set up video consultations. Clinical information regarding disease and treatment as well as clinical and survival outcomes are also prospectively collected.

Results

Recruitment of participants started in December 2020. As of April 2021, a total of 116 patients have been enrolled in this study. Use of this platform may help to improve patient-physician communication and help hematologists in the early recognition of clinically important problems and symptoms of their patients. More than 20 community and university-based hospitals have currently agreed to participate. In addition to patient-reported outcome data, the prospective collection of disease- and treatment-related information, as well as data on possible COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19 vaccination, will allow the development of a large database to also identify subgroups of patients at risk of poor outcomes.

Conclusions

Data generated via this platform will help to answer clinically relevant questions for patients with hematologic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic era. The use of the GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform in routine practice may also contribute to enhancing patient-centered care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04581187; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04581187

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/25271

A review of AI and Data Science support for cancer management

INTRODUCTION

Thanks to improvement of care, cancer has become a chronic condition. But due to the toxicity of treatment, the importance of supporting the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients increases. Monitoring and managing QoL relies on data collected by the patient in his/her home environment, its integration, and its analysis, which supports personalization of cancer management recommendations. We review the state-of-the-art of computerized systems that employ AI and Data Science methods to monitor the health status and provide support to cancer patients managed at home.

OBJECTIVE

Our main objective is to analyze the literature to identify open research challenges that a novel decision support system for cancer patients and clinicians will need to address, point to potential solutions, and provide a list of established best-practices to adopt.

METHODS

We designed a review study, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, analyzing studies retrieved from PubMed related to monitoring cancer patients in their home environments via sensors and self-reporting: what data is collected, what are the techniques used to collect data, semantically integrate it, infer the patient's state from it and deliver coaching/behavior change interventions.

RESULTS

Starting from an initial corpus of 819 unique articles, a total of 180 papers were considered in the full-text analysis and 109 were finally included in the review. Our findings are organized and presented in four main sub-topics consisting of data collection, data integration, predictive modeling and patient coaching.

CONCLUSION

Development of modern decision support systems for cancer needs to utilize best practices like the use of validated electronic questionnaires for quality-of-life assessment, adoption of appropriate information modeling standards supplemented by terminologies/ontologies, adherence to FAIR data principles, external validation, stratification of patients in subgroups for better predictive modeling, and adoption of formal behavior change theories. Open research challenges include supporting emotional and social dimensions of well-being, including PROs in predictive modeling, and providing better customization of behavioral interventions for the specific population of cancer patients.

European Society of Thoracic Surgeons electronic quality of life application after lung resection: field testing in a clinical setting

OBJECTIVES

Technology has the potential to assist healthcare professionals in improving patient-doctor communication during the surgical journey. Our aims were to assess the acceptability of a quality of life (QoL) application (App) in a cohort of cancer patients undergoing lung resections and to depict the early perioperative trajectory of QoL.

METHODS

This multicentre (Italy, UK, Spain, Canada and Switzerland) prospective longitudinal study with repeated measures used 12 lung surgery-related validated questions from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Item Bank. Patients filled out the questionnaire preoperatively and 1, 7, 14, 21 and 28 days after surgery using an App preinstalled in a tablet. A one-way repeated measures analysis of variance was run to determine if there were differences in QoL over time.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients consented to participate in the study (83 who had lobectomies, 17 who had segmentectomies and 3 who had pneumonectomies). Eighty-three operations were performed by video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS). Compliance rates were 88%, 90%, 88%, 82%, 71% and 56% at each time point, respectively. The results showed that the operation elicited statistically significant worsening in the following symptoms: shortness of breath (SOB) rest (P = 0.018), SOB walk (P < 0.001), SOB stairs (P = 0.015), worry (P = 0.003), wound sensitivity (P < 0.001), use of arm and shoulder (P < 0.001), pain in the chest (P < 0.001), decrease in physical capability (P < 0.001) and scar interference on daily activity (P < 0.001) during the first postoperative month. SOB worsened immediately after the operation and remained low at the different time points. Worry improved following surgery. Surgical access and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) are the factors that most strongly affected the evolution of the symptoms in the perioperative period.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed good early compliance of patients operated on for lung cancer with the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons QoL App. We determined the evolution of surgery-related QoL in the immediate postoperative period. Monitoring these symptoms remotely may reduce hospital appointments and help to establish early patient-support programmes.

How to implement routine electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring in oncology rehabilitation

BACKGROUND

Implemenation of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) like quality of life can add the patient's perspective to traditional clinical outcomes of cancer rehabilitation in a structured and standardized way.

AIM

To present useful steps for a successful implementation of routine electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) monitoring. The presented steps are exemplified by describing the procedure applied in an Austrian inpatient cancer rehabilitation centre.

METHODS

The suggested implementation steps are presented based on the structure of the replicating effective programmes framework, which was used for developing a pragmatic implementation strategy.

RESULTS

We scheduled alternating trainings and process evaluations for audit and enhancement of procedures. In this way, the ePRO participation rates could be improved. Stakeholder involvement led to initiatives that included the integration of ePRO data into the medical discharge letter and the implementation of follow-up assessments.

DISCUSSION

Tailored changes in assessment procedures enabled the successful implementation of ePRO, which has been shown to be feasible before and after cancer rehabilitation. The continuous involvement of stakeholders paved the way for further projects initiated by medical staff as users themselves (inclusion of PRO data in the discharge letter and a comprehensive ePRO follow-up using a versatile online patient portal).

Acceptance and Use of Home-Based Electronic Symptom Self-Reporting Systems in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic symptom self-reporting systems (e-SRS) have been shown to improve symptoms and survival in patients with cancer. However, patient engagement in using e-SRS for voluntary symptom self-reporting is less optimal. Multiple factors can potentially affect patients' acceptance and engagement in using home-based e-SRS. However, such factors have not been fully explored in cancer populations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to understand the acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and identify associated facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO (January 2010 to March 2020) were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords such as symptom self-reporting, electronic/technology, cancer, and their synonyms. Included studies focused on the use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and their families. Studies on patients' use of e-SRS in clinical settings only were excluded. Of the 3740 papers retrieved, 33 were included in the final review. Factors associated with patient acceptance and use of e-SRS were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

Most e-SRS were web based (22/33, 66%) or mobile app based (9/33, 27%). The e-SRS initial acceptance, represented by patient enrollment rates, ranged from 40% (22/55) to 100% (100/100). High e-SRS acceptance was rated by 69% (59/85) to 77.6% (337/434) of the patients after they used the system. The e-SRS use, measured by patients' response rates to questionnaires (ranging from 1596/3521, 45.33% to 92%) or system log-on rates (ranging from 4/12, 33% to 99/100, 99%), declined over time in general patterns. Few studies (n=7) reported e-SRS use beyond 6 months, with the response rates ranging from 62% (40/64) to 85.1% (541/636) and the log-on rates ranging from 63.6% (103/162) to 77% (49/64). The availability of compatible devices and technical support, interactive system features, information accessibility, privacy, questionnaire quality, patient physical/psychosocial status, and age were associated with patient acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer varied significantly across studies, as assessed by a variety of approaches. The lack of access to technology has remained a barrier to e-SRS adoption. Interactive system features and personalized questionnaires may increase patient engagement. More studies are needed to further understand patients' long-term use of home-based e-SRS behavior patterns to develop personalized interventions to support symptom self-management and self-reporting of patients with cancer for optimal health outcomes.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246.

RESULTS

Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 ( P = .028) and 12 ( P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) ( P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks ( P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy ( P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS ( P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Electronic Patient Reporting of Adverse Events and Quality of Life: A Prospective Feasibility Study in General Oncology

PURPOSE

Adverse event (AE) reporting is essential in clinical trials. Clinician interpretation can result in under-reporting; therefore, the value of patient self-reporting has been recognized. The National Cancer Institute has developed a Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) for direct patient AE reporting. A nonrandomized prospective cohort feasibility study aimed to explore the compliance and acceptability of an electronic (Internet or telephone) system for collecting patient self-reported AEs and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Oncology patients undergoing treatment (chemotherapy, targeted agents, hormone therapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery) at 2 hospitals were sent automated weekly reminders to complete PRO-CTCAE once a week and QOL (for a maximum of 12 weeks). Patients had to speak/understand English and have access to the Internet or a touch-tone telephone. Primary outcome was compliance (proportion of expected questionnaires), and recruitment rate, attrition, and patient/staff feedback were also explored.

RESULTS

Of 520 patients, 249 consented (47.9%)-mean age was 62 years, 51% were male, and 70% were married-and 230 remained on the study at week 12. PRO-CTCAE was completed at 2,301 (74.9%) of 3,074 timepoints and QOL at 749 (79.1%) of 947 timepoints. Individual weekly/once every 4 weeks compliance reduced over time but was more than 60% throughout. Of 230 patients, 106 (46.1%) completed 13 or more PRO-CTCAE, and 136 (59.1%) of 230 patients completed 4 QOL questionnaires. Most were completed on the Internet (82.3%; mean age, 60.8 years), which was quicker, but older patients preferred the telephone option (mean age, 70.0 years). Positive feedback was received from patients and staff.

CONCLUSION

Self-reporting of AEs and QOL using an electronic home-based system is feasible and acceptable. Implementation of this approach in cancer clinical trials may improve the precision and accuracy of AE reporting.

Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Symptom monitoring interventions enhance patient outcomes, including quality of life (QoL), health care utilization, and survival, but it remains unclear whether older and younger patients with cancer derive similar benefits. We explored whether age moderates the improved outcomes seen with an outpatient electronic symptom monitoring intervention.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We carried out a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of 766 patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic solid tumors. Patients received an electronic symptom monitoring intervention integrated with oncology care or usual oncology care alone. The intervention consisted of patients reporting their symptoms, which were provided to their physicians at clinic visits, and nurses receiving alerts for severe/worsening symptoms. We used regression models to determine whether age (older or younger than 70 years) moderated the effects of the intervention on QoL (EuroQol EQ-5D), emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival outcomes.

RESULTS

Enrollment rates for younger (589/777 = 75.8%) and older (177/230 = 77.0%) patients did not differ. Older patients (median age = 75 years, range 70-91 years) were more likely to have an education level of high school or less (26.6% versus 20.9%, P = 0.029) and to be computer inexperienced (50.3% versus 23.4%, P < 0.001) compared with younger patients (median age = 58 years, range 26-69 years). Younger patients receiving the symptom monitoring intervention experienced lower risk of ER visits [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.74, P = 0.011] and improved survival (HR = 0.76, P = 0.011) compared with younger patients receiving usual care. However, older patients did not experience significantly lower risk of ER visits (HR = 0.90, P = 0.613) or improved survival (HR = 1.06, P = 0.753) with the intervention. We found no moderation effects based on age for QoL and risk of hospitalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with advanced cancer, age moderated the effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention on the risk of ER visits and survival, but not QoL. Symptom monitoring interventions may need to be tailored to the unique needs of older adults with cancer.

Technological developments enable measuring and using patient-reported outcomes data in orthopaedic clinical practice

Patient-reported outcomes measures form the backbone of outcomes evaluation in orthopaedics, with most of the literature now relying on these scoring tools to measure change in patient health status. This patient-reported information is increasingly collected routinely by orthopaedic providers but use of the data is typically restricted to academic research. Developments in electronic data capture and the outcome tools themselves now allow use of this data as part of the clinical consultation. This review evaluates the role of patient reported outcomes data as a tool to enhance daily orthopaedic clinical practice, and documents how develop-ments in electronic outcome measures, computer-adaptive questionnaire design and instant graphical display of questionnaire can facilitate enhanced patient-clinician shared decision making.

Follow-Up of Cancer Patients Receiving Anti-PD-(L)1 Therapy Using an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes Tool (KISS): Prospective Feasibility Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a standard of care for various tumor types. Their unique spectrum of side effects demands continuous and long-lasting assessment of symptoms. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up has been shown to improve survival and quality of life of cancer patients treated with chemotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate whether ePRO follow-up of cancer patients treated with ICIs is feasible. The study analyzed (1) the variety of patient reported symptoms, (2) etiology of alerts, (3) symptom correlations, and (4) patient compliance.

METHODS

In this prospective, one-arm, multi-institutional study, we recruited adult cancer patients whose advanced cancer was treated with anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD)- ligand (L)1 agents in outpatient settings. The ePRO tool consisted of a weekly questionnaire evaluating the presence of typical side effects, with an algorithm assessing the severity of the symptom according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and an urgency algorithm sending alerts to the care team. A patient experience survey was conducted monthly. The patients were followed up to 6 months or until disease progression.

RESULTS

A total of 889 symptom questionnaires was completed by 37 patients (lung cancer, n=15; melanoma, n=9; genitourinary cancer, n=9; head and neck cancer, n=4). Patients showed good adherence to ePRO follow-up. The most common grade 1 symptoms were fatigue (28%) and itching (13%), grade 2 symptoms were loss of appetite (12%) and nausea (12%), and grade 3-4 symptoms were cough (6%) and loss of appetite (4%). The most common reasons for alerts were loss of appetite and shortness of breath. In the treatment benefit analysis, positive correlations were seen between clinical benefit and itching as well as progressive disease and chest pain.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, ePRO follow-up of cancer patients receiving ICIs is feasible. ePROs capture a wide range of symptoms. Some symptoms correlate to treatment benefit, suggesting that individual prediction models could be generated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Register, NCT3928938; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03928938.

Results from a 1-day workshop on the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients: a joint initiative of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

This report summarizes the presentations and discussion in the first Japan Clinical Oncology Group-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome workshop funded by the National Cancer Center Hospital that was held on Saturday, 1 September 2018 in Tokyo, Japan. The infrastructure and understanding regarding the Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome assessment of cancer patients in Japan is still immature, in spite of the increased demand for oncological Patient-Reported Outcome research felt not only by researchers but also by patients or other stakeholders of cancer drug development. The workshop aimed to share each perspective, common issues to be considered and future perspectives regarding the strong alliance between the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research as well as explore the possibility of conducting collaborative research. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a leading international cancer clinical trials organization, and its Quality of Life Group is a global leader in the implementation of Quality of Life research in cancer patients. The three invited speakers from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group presented their perspective, latest methodology and ongoing projects. The three speakers from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group presented their current status, experience and some issues regarding data management or interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome data. The two patient advocates also shared their expectations in terms of advances in cancer research based on the Patient-Reported Outcome assessment. As the next steps after this workshop, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer have decided to cooperate more closely to facilitate Patient-Reported Outcome research in both the groups, and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group has approved the establishment of a new committee for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research in Japan.

Prevalence and predictors of patients reporting adverse drug reactions to health care providers during oral targeted cancer treatment

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance is a critical component to facilitate clinicians' decision-making to alter or discontinue therapy. However, self-administration of oral targeted therapy (OTT) requires fewer clinical visits than parenteral infusions, potentially leading to an increase in the under-reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

OBJECTIVE(S)

To identify factors associated with patients reporting ADRs to their health care provider (HCP) and to identify the prevalence of unreported ADRs while on OTT.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥18 years who received care from a community oncology clinic and newly prescribed an OTT between August 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, were included. Six-monthly follow-up calls were conducted by the pharmacy staff to assess for gradable ADRs-validated by the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-and ungradable ADRs. Descriptive analysis was used to analyze the prevalence of unreporting ADRs, and a multivariate logistic regression model was utilized to evaluate predictors of reporting ADRs to an HCP. Predictors included sociodemographic factors, severity of ADRs, insurance type, pharmacy setting, type of OTT, and the number of prescribed medications RESULTS: Of the 76 patients analyzed, the mean age was 63.32 ±11.55 years, 84.2% were women, 68.8% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.3% had breast cancer. During the follow-up calls, 306 ADRs were identified and 22.2% were not previously reported to an HCP. Of the unreported gradable ADRs, 63.2% were grade 1, 19.3% were grade 2, and 17.5% were grade 3. We found that for every 1-year increase in age, there was a 5% decrease in the likelihood of reporting ADRs (95% CI, 0.91-0.99), and men were 11.4 times more likely to report ADRs (95% CI, 1.29-100.8).

CONCLUSION

Follow-up calls served as an outlet to collect pharmacovigilance data by identifying over 20% of unreported ADRs to HCPs, in which over one-third were moderate to severe. However, future studies are needed to further understand the statistically significant differences found in under-reporting for women and the older population.

Development of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

BACKGROUND

Effective management of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) relies on timely detection of clinical deterioration towards end stage kidney failure. We aimed to design an electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (ePROM) system, which would allow patients with advanced CKD (pre-dialysis) to: (i) remotely self-report their symptoms using a simple and secure online platform; (ii) share the data with the clinical team in real-time via the electronic patient record to help optimise care. We adopted a staged development process which included: a systematic review of PROMs used in CKD; formation of a co-design team; prototype system design/development, user acceptance testing and refinement; finalisation of the system for testing in a pilot/feasibility trial.

RESULTS

A co-design team was convened, including patients with lived experience of CKD; clinical team members; IT/Informatics experts; academics; and Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit representatives. A prototype system was developed and iterative changes made before finalisation during a series of operational meetings. The system allows patients to remotely self-report their symptoms; provides tailored self-management advice; allows monitoring of real-time patient ePROM data; sends automated notifications to the patient/clinical team in the advent of a severe symptom report; and incorporates longitudinal ePROM symptom data into the electronic patient record. Feasibility of the system will be evaluated as part of the National Institute for Health Research funded RePROM (Renal electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) pilot trial (ISRCTN12669006).

CONCLUSIONS

Routine ePROM collection with real-time feedback has the potential to improve outcomes and reduce health service costs. We have successfully developed a trial-ready ePROM system for advanced CKD, the feasibility of which is currently being explored in a pilot trial. Assuming feasibility is demonstrated, formal evaluation of efficacy will take place in a future multi-centre randomised controlled trial.