Rapid reporting and review of an increased incidence of a known adverse event

A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a Web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery

PURPOSE

The purposes of this study are to evaluate the feasibility of capturing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) electronically and to identify the most common distressing symptoms in women recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery.

METHODS

This was a prospective, single-arm pilot study. Eligible participants included those scheduled for a laparotomy for presumed or known gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based "STAR" (Symptom Tracking and Reporting for Patients) questionnaire once preoperatively and weekly during the 6-week postoperative period. The questionnaire consisted of the patient adaptation of the NCI CTCAE 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-C30 3.0. When a patient submitted a response that was concerning, an automated email alert was sent to the clinician. The patient's assessment of STAR's usefulness was measured via an exit survey.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients completed the study. The procedures included the following: hysterectomy±staging (67%), resection of tumor (22%), salpingo-oophorectomy (6%), and other (4%). Most patients (82%) completed at least 4 sessions in STAR. The CTC generated 43 alerts. These alerts resulted in 25 telephone contacts with patients, 2 ER referrals, one new appointment, and one pharmaceutical prescription. The 3 most common patient-reported symptoms generating an alert were as follows: poor performance status (19%), nausea (18%), and fatigue (17%). Most patients found STAR useful (80%) and would recommend it to others (85%).

CONCLUSION

Application of a Web-based, electronic STAR system is feasible in the postoperative period, highly accepted by patients, and warrants further study. Poor performance status, nausea, and fatigue were the most common distressing patient-reported symptoms.

NCCTG Study N9741: leveraging learning from an NCI Cooperative Group phase III trial

N9741 is a clinical trial in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that was originally written in 1997 and completed patient accrual in 2004. One thousand seven hundred thirty-one patients were enrolled in the study. During the conduct of the trial, N9741 was repeatedly modified to adapt to toxicity findings, to add evaluation of oxaliplatin to what was originally a trial examining various schedules of irinotecan-based therapy, and to ask evolving questions. The trial led to a new U.S. Food and Drug Administration indication for 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin as indicated for the treatment of previously untreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and helped to change the standard of care for the disease in the U.S. and worldwide. The data from the trial have been used to study multiple regimens, pharmacogenetics, and quality of life issues, to correlate plasma protein levels with outcomes, to inform trial methodology, and to perform economic analyses. To date nearly 30 papers and an even larger number of abstracts have been based upon data arising from the study. The history of the trial and the major findings are summarized in this review.

North Central Cancer Treatment Group--achievements and perspectives

The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) was founded in 1977 as a regional cooperative group to allow cancer patients in the upper Midwest of the United States to gain access to clinical trials in oncology by establishing a network of community oncology practices with one academic research base, the Mayo Clinic. Since then, the NCCTG has grown into an international cooperative group with 43 members in 33 US states and Canada. This article details 30 years of achievements of the NCCTG, including important scientific contributions from disease-specific and treatment modality committees, the cancer control program, patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life research, and biostatisticians that support the NCCTG's specific aims: to improve the duration and quality of life of cancer patients, to enhance our understanding of the biological consequences of cancer and its treatment, and to improve methods for clinical trial conduct.

Evaluation of an online platform for cancer patient self-reporting of chemotherapy toxicities

The current mechanism for monitoring toxicity symptoms in cancer trials depends on a complex paper-based process. Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may be more efficient and accurate. An online PRO platform was created including a simple data entry interface, real-time report generation, and an alert system to e-mail clinicians when patients self-report serious toxicities. Feasibility assessment involving 180 chemotherapy patients demonstrated high levels of use at up to 40 follow-up clinic visits per patient over 16 months (85% of patients at any given visit), with high levels of patient and clinician acceptance and satisfaction (>95%). Alerts were used as the basis for delayed chemotherapy treatments, dose modifications, and scheduling changes. These results demonstrate that online patient-reporting is a feasible strategy for chemotherapy toxicity symptom monitoring, and may improve safety and satisfaction with care. Ongoing multi-center research will evaluate the impact of this approach on clinical and administrative outcomes.

Dealing With a Deluge of Data: An Assessment of Adverse Event Data on North Central Cancer Treatment Group Trials

Purpose

Adverse events (AEs) are monitored in clinical trials for patient safety, to satisfy reporting requirements, and develop safety profiles. Recently, much attention has been placed on the reporting of serious AEs (SAEs) that are either life threatening or lethal in clinical trials. However, SAEs comprise a small subset of all AE data collected for trials; the majority of AE data collected are routine AEs (RAEs) regarding non–life-threatening events. We assessed the utility of the RAE data collected, relative to the volume.

Patients and Methods

We surveyed the RAE data from 26 North Central Cancer Treatment Group coordinated trials.

Results

A total of 8,318 (11%) of 75,598 of RAEs required queries. Of these, 86% were protocol-required RAEs, 83% of RAEs required per protocol were within normal limits (eg, platelets) or not present, and 61% of extra AEs were mild. One fifth of RAEs were considered unlikely to be related or unrelated to treatment. Overall, 3% of events were severe, life threatening, or caused death. Only 1% of RAE data reported required expedited reporting (eg, via Adverse Event Expedited Reporting System). Results indicate that 72% of RAEs would be eliminated if only the maximum severity per patient and type were required. These results were validated in a large phase III trial.

Conclusion

The majority of RAEs identified, transcribed, and entered are not clinically important. Our data suggest that reducing the number of AEs monitored will affect substantially neither overall patient safety nor compromise evaluation of regimens undergoing testing. We present several considerations for such a reduction in data collection, as well as a policy that we have used to address the deluge of RAE data.

Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Tracking symptoms related to treatment toxicity is standard practice in routine care and during clinical trials. Currently, clinicians collect symptom information via complex and often inefficient mechanisms, but there is growing interest in collecting outcome information directly from patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events schema for seven common symptoms was adapted into a Web-based patient-reporting system, accessible from desktop computers in outpatient clinics and from home computers. Eighty patients with gynecologic malignancies beginning standard chemotherapy regimens were enrolled between April and September 2004. During an 8-week observation period, participants were encouraged to log in and report symptoms at each follow-up visit, or alternatively, to access the system from home.

RESULTS

All patients completed an initial log in. At each subsequent appointment, most enrollees (80% to 85%) reported symptoms using the online system, with a mean of three follow-up visits per patient during the observation period (range, one to six). Sixty of 80 patients (75%) logged in at least once from home. Use was significantly associated with prior Internet experience. Forty-two severe toxicities (grade 3 to 4) entered from home prompted seven clinician interventions. Most patients (96%) found the system useful and would recommend it to others.

CONCLUSION

Patients are capable of reporting symptoms experienced during chemotherapy using a Web-based interface. Assessment in the clinical trial setting and comparison of direct patient- versus clinician-based approaches for reporting symptoms and their severity are warranted.

Early detection of toxicity and adjustment of ongoing clinical trials: the history and performance of the North Central Cancer Treatment Group's real-time toxicity monitoring program

Prospective clinical trials are the gold standard for evidence-based methodology used to support changes in the practice of medicine. Clinical researchers, regulatory agencies, payers, and the public embrace the conduct of phase I, II, and III clinical trials as integral to improving patient care. The National Cancer Institute (NCI) funds a number of cooperative oncology groups to conduct such clinical trials in the United States. In order to protect enrolling patients, the NCI requires expedited reporting to allow rapid identification of severe side effects on NCI-sponsored clinical trials. However, chemotherapy drugs frequently cause predictable side effects, the rapid reporting of which would potentially overwhelm the system. This article describes the development and documents the performance of a real-time toxicity reporting system implemented by the North Central Cancer Treatment Group. The goal of this system is to supplement the currently required NCI adverse event monitoring procedures and to permit study teams to identify the need to modify ongoing clinical trials. The system has proven its value in the monitoring of phase II and III trials, including trial N9741, a three-arm, phase III, advanced colorectal cancer chemotherapy study exploring combinations of irinotecan, oxaliplatin, and fluorouracil. We believe the methods described present opportunities for improving patient safety in clinical research.

Mortality associated with irinotecan plus bolus fluorouracil/leucovorin: summary findings of an independent panel

PURPOSE

To review and assign attribution for the causes of early deaths on two National Cancer Institute-sponsored cooperative group studies involving irinotecan and bolus fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (IFL).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The inpatient, outpatient, and research records of patients treated on Cancer and Leukemia Group B protocol C89803 and on North Center Cancer Treatment Group protocol N9741 were reviewed by a panel of five medical oncologists not directly involved with either study. Each death was categorized as treatment-induced, treatment-exacerbated, or treatment-unrelated.

RESULTS

The records of 44 patients who experienced early deaths on C89803 (21 patients) or N9741 (23 patients) were reviewed. Patients treated with irinotecan plus bolus 5-FU/leucovorin had a three-fold higher rate of treatment-induced or treatment-exacerbated death than patients treated on the other arm(s) of the respective studies. For C89803, these rates were 2.5% (16 of 635) for IFL versus 0.8% (five of 628) for bolus weekly 5-FU and leucovorin. For N9741, these rates were 3.5% (10 of 289) for IFL, 1.1% (three of 277) for oxaliplatin plus bolus and infusional 5-FU and leucovorin, and 1.1% (three of 275) for oxaliplatin plus irinotecan. Multiple gastrointestinal toxicities that often occurred together were characterized into a gastrointestinal syndrome. Sudden, unexpected thromboembolic events were characterized as a vascular syndrome. The majority of deaths in both studies were attributable to one or both of these syndromes.

CONCLUSION

Close clinical monitoring, early recognition of toxicities and toxicity syndromes, aggressive therapeutic intervention, and withholding therapy in the presence of unresolved drug-related toxicities is recommended for patients receiving IFL or other intensive chemotherapy regimens.