Consuming Patients' Days: Time Spent on Ambulatory Appointments by People With Cancer

Evaluating the cost-utility of ferric derisomaltose versus ferric carboxymaltose in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and iron deficiency anaemia in Norway

AIMS

Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is among the most common extraintestinal sequelae of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Intravenous iron is often the preferred treatment in patients with active inflammation with or without active bleeding, iron malabsorption, or intolerance to oral iron. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cost-utility of ferric derisomaltose (FDI) versus ferric carboyxymaltose (FCM) in patients with IBD and IDA in Norway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A published patient-level simulation model was used to evaluate the cost-utility of FDI versus FCM in patients with IBD and IDA from a Norwegian national payer perspective. Iron need was modelled based on bivariate distributions of hemoglobin and bodyweight combined with simplified tables of iron need from the FDI and FCM summaries of product characteristics. Patient characteristics and disease-related quality of life data were obtained from the PHOSPHARE-IBD trial. Cost-utility was evaluated in Norwegian Kroner (NOK) over a five-year time horizon.

RESULTS

Patients required 1.64 fewer infusions of FDI than FCM over five years (5.62 versus 7.26), corresponding to 0.41 fewer infusions per treatment course. The reduction in the number of infusions resulted in cost savings of NOK 5,236 (NOK 35,830 with FDI versus NOK 41,066 with FCM). The need for phosphate testing in patients treated with FCM resulted in further cost savings with FDI (no costs with FDI versus NOK 4,470 with FCM). Total cost savings with FDI were therefore NOK 9,707. FDI also increased quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.071 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) driven by reduced incidence of hypophosphatemia and fewer interactions with the healthcare system.

CONCLUSIONS

FDI resulted in cost savings and improved quality-adjusted life expectancy versus FCM in patients with IDA and IBD in Norway. FDI therefore represents the economically preferable iron formulation in Norwegian patients with IBD and IDA in whom it is indicated.

Health Care Contact Days and Outcomes in Clinical Trials vs Routine Care Among Patients With Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

Although patients enrolled in trials have superior survival outcomes compared with those in routine practice, it is unknown whether such differences extend to contact days, a measure of time toxicity.

Objective

To evaluate differences in contact days for patients with advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receiving care in trials or routine practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based, retrospective, matched cohort study assessed adults from Ontario, Canada, who were diagnosed with advanced-stage NSCLC between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017, and who died between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2019. The maximum follow-up time from diagnosis was 2 years. Data analysis was performed from May 5, 2024, to October 22, 2024.

Exposure

Patients receiving specific, systemic, palliative-intent, cancer-directed drug(s) as part of a trial were matched 1:1 with patients who received the same drug(s) after approval in routine practice in the same line of treatment.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Contact days (days with in-person health care contact) were identified through administrative claims data. Models were fitted with cubic splines to describe trajectories of weekly percentage of contact days.

Results

Of the 250 patients (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [9.2] years; 140 [56.0%] male), 125 were trial participants and 125 were receiving care in routine practice. Trial participants were younger (median [IQR] age, 63 [56-69] years vs 64 [58-70] years in routine care patients; standardized difference, 0.21) and had fewer comorbidities (eg, hypertension [45 (36.0%) vs 59 (47.2%); standardized difference, 0.23]). Median (IQR) contact days from diagnosis to death were higher for trial participants compared with those in routine practice (79 [62-104] vs 68 [46-98] days; standardized difference, 0.26). However, trial participants had a longer median (IQR) overall survival (eg, 12.8 [8.7-18.0] vs 10.5 [5.2-14.7] months; standardized difference, 0.46) and a slightly lower median percentage of contact days after adjusting for survival (20.3% [95% CI, 18.1%-21.7%] vs 21.2% [95% CI, 19.3%-25.7%]). During treatment, trial participants experienced a lower median percentage of contact days (18.4% [95% CI, 16.3%-20.8%] vs 25.5% [95% CI, 20.7%-30.3%]); inpatient care accounted for 18.5% (95% CI, 11.1%-29.6%) of on-treatment contact days for trial participants vs 40.0% (95% CI, 30.0%-47.6%) in routine practice. Normalized contact-day trajectories were U-shaped for all groups, with lower peaks and troughs among trial participants.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this population-based cohort study, patients receiving systemic therapy as part of trials experienced a lower percentage of contact days, accounted for by greater hospitalization rates in routine practice. Addressing the predominantly outpatient, protocol-mandated visits may represent opportunities to decrease trial-related time toxicity.

Stick With Intravenous or Give Subcutaneous a Shot? Time and Other Considerations When Evaluating Cancer Drug Formulations

Time and other considerations when evaluating a switch to newer drug formulations (eg, subQ vs IV).

Time Burdens for Participants With Advanced Cancer in Phase I Trials: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

Participating in phase I cancer clinical trials often entails extra visits and procedures. We describe the planned time and procedures associated with phase I trial participation.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase I cancer trials of new drugs with assessment schedules and results posted between 2020 and 2022. Trials were included if participants had advanced or metastatic disease. Our primary analysis measured the number of planned research days (PRDs; each day a clinic visit is required) per participant up to the first month of trial participation and for the entire trial duration. Secondarily, we estimated the number of research procedures.

RESULTS

Our sample included 71 phase I trials comprising 302 cohorts. These trials enrolled 3,904 participants; the median participation duration was 2.5 months. During screening and up to the first month of participation, the median PRDs per participant was 7 (IQR, 7-10). Across the entire trial, the median PRDs per participant was 4.5 days per month (IQR, 3.30-6.20). Participants spent 15% of trial days attending planned appointments. Per trial cohort, participants were given a median of 8 (IQR, 7-11) physical examinations, 6 (IQR, 3-10) infusions, 6 (IQR, 3-12) electrocardiograms, and 1 (IQR, 1-3) biopsy.

CONCLUSION

Participants commit a substantial amount of time to planned visits in phase I cancer trials, especially in the first month. Overall, they invest 15% of trial days attending planned research activities. These estimates provide a lower bound to the time participants in phase I trials donate to drug development, as our analysis excluded unplanned visits.

Defining benefit: Clinically and biologically meaningful outcomes in the next-generation Alzheimer's disease clinical care pathway

To understand the potential benefits of emerging Alzheimer's disease (AD) therapies within and beyond clinical trial settings, there is a need to advance current outcome measurements into meaningful information relevant to all stakeholders. The relationship between the impact on disease biology and clinically measurable outcomes in cognition, function, and behavior must be considered when defining the meaningful benefit of early AD therapies. In this review, we discuss: (1) the lack of consideration for biomarkers in the current concept of meaningfulness in AD; (2) the lack of gold standards for determining minimal biologically and clinically important differences (MBCIDs) in AD trials; (3) how the treatment benefits of disease-modifying treatments are cumulative and increase over time; and (4) the different concepts of meaningfulness among key stakeholders. This review utilizes the future clinical biological framework of AD and aims to further integrate and expand the parameters of meaningful benefits toward a precision medicine framework. HIGHLIGHTS: Definition of meaningful benefit from Alzheimer's disease (AD) treatment varies across disease stage and stakeholder perspectives. Observable and meaningful outcomes must consider the clinical-biological nature of AD. Statistically significant effects or outcomes do not always equate to clinically meaningfulness. Assessment tools must reflect stage-specific subtle changes following treatment. Real-world evidence will support consensus, definition, and interpretation of clinical meaningfulness.

"The biggest challenge is there's never a routine": a qualitative study of the time burdens of cancer care at home

PURPOSE

As cancer care is increasingly delivered in the home, more tasks and responsibilities fall on patients and their informal care partners. These time costs can present significant mental, physical, and financial burdens, and are undercounted in current measures of time toxicity that only consider care received in formal healthcare settings.

METHODS

Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with patients with gastrointestinal cancer and informal care partners at a single tertiary cancer center between March and October 2023. Interviews explored cancer care tasks conducted when home, associated time burdens, how these time burdens compared to facility-based care, and whether home-based care should be included in objective measures of time toxicity. Two coders transcribed interviews and analyzed data using a grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

A single interviewer conducted semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 18 care partners, and identified five major themes: (1) unexpected home-based care activities are time burdensome; (2) other burdens interact with and impact time burdens; (3) time burdens evolve over the disease course and differentially impact patients and care partners; (4) several factors influence the choice of home-based versus in-facility care; and (5) home-based care is generally perceived as less time-burdensome than in-facility care. Overall, 12 of 33 (36%) participants recommended including days with home-based care in the current contact days measure of time toxicity.

CONCLUSION

In addition to characterizing time burdens associated with home-based cancer care, this study builds on existing literature to explore if and how to incorporate days with home-based care into the contact days measure.

How Racialized Approaches to Opioid Use Disorder and Opioid Misuse Management Hamper Pharmacoequity for Cancer Pain

@JCO_ASCO paper focuses on racialized approaches to OUD and opioid misuse as underappreciated drivers of disparities in cancer and recs a path forward.

Time's up: the urgency to investigate time toxicity in patients with genitourinary malignancies

Patients with genitourinary (GU) malignancies have seen the development of multiple life-prolonging treatments in the past decade. As patients and clinicians consider their treatment options along the cancer journey, time spent with healthcare contact, or "time toxicity," has emerged as a new outcome measure that comprehensively considers time receiving cancer care, including planned visits for evaluation and treatment as well as unplanned urgent care addressing complications. Despite its rising study across cancer populations, there has been a surprising lack of work evaluating time toxicity in patients with GU cancers. This narrative review aims to summarize the available studies on time toxicity in cancer, with a deeper dive into the methodology, strengths and limitations, and future directions of the field. A dedicated section focused on scenarios and best practices to measure and collect data on time toxicity can serve to spark interest in evaluating this novel health outcome on GU cancer survivors. Ultimately, time toxicity is a relevant patient-centered metric that can be incorporated into clinical trial design and routine clinical care to influence clinical decision-making.

Time toxicity in cancer care: A concept analysis using Walker and Avant's method

Objective

The purpose of this concept analysis was to explore and clarify the concept of time toxicity in the context of cancer care using Walker and Avant's method, identify its defining attributes, antecedents, and consequences, and explore its implications for cancer care.

Methods

Walker and Avant's eight-step method was employed to analyze time toxicity. The literature was reviewed, focusing on peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, and cancer care policy documents to identify the defining attributes, antecedents, consequences, and empirical referents of time toxicity. Contextual factors, such as health care infrastructure and socioeconomic status, shape the manifestation of time toxicity in different patient populations. Model, borderline, and contrary cases were developed to clarify the concept further.

Results

Time toxicity is characterized by its defining attributes of temporal burden, disruption of daily life, cumulative effect, opportunity cost, and emotional strain. Antecedents include cancer diagnosis, complex treatment regimens, and health care inefficiencies, while consequences involve reduced quality of life, non-adherence to treatment, and economic strain. Empirical referents include time logs, patient-reported outcomes, and health care utilization data.

Conclusions

Our findings underscore the multidimensional nature of time toxicity and its significant implications for cancer patients' well-being. Importantly, we highlight the vital role of oncology nurses in mitigating its effects through care coordination and patient support, thereby making our research directly applicable to clinical practice.

Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on the Time Burdens of Cancer Care

Importance

Cancer and its care impose significant time commitments on patients and care partners. The oncology community has only recently conceptualized these commitments and the associated burden as the "time toxicity" of cancer care. As the concept gains traction, there is a critical need to fundamentally understand the perspectives of multiple stakeholders on the time burdens of cancer care.

Objectives

To explore time-consuming aspects of cancer care that were perceived as burdensome, identify the individuals most affected by time burdens of cancer care, and evaluate the consequences of these time burdens.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Participants in this qualitative analysis were recruited from a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Minnesota, where semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to October 31, 2023. Purposive and criterion sampling methods were used to recruit patients (adults with advanced stage gastrointestinal cancer receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment), care partners (patient-identified informal [unpaid] partners), and clinicians (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, and schedulers). Data were analyzed from February 2023 to February 2024.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Thematic analysis was conducted with a hybrid (inductive and deductive methods) approach. Themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotations are presented.

Results

Interviews included 47 participants (16 patients [8 aged ≤60 years; 12 women (75.0%)], 15 care partners [12 aged ≤60 years; 9 women (60.0%)], and 16 clinicians [11 women (68.7%)]). A total of 31 subthemes were identified that were grouped into 5 themes. Theme 1 captured time burdens due to health care outside the home (eg, travel, parking, and waiting time), while theme 2 identified the often invisible tasks performed at home (eg, handling insurance and medical bills, receiving formal home-based care). Theme 3 explored how care partners are affected alongside patients (eg, burdens extending to the wider network of family, friends, and community) and theme 4 represented the consequences of time burdens (eg, demoralization, seemingly short visits turned into all-day affairs). Finally, theme 5 referenced positive time spent in clinical interactions and hope for change (eg, patients value meaningful care, the "time toxicity" label is a spark for change).

Conclusions and Relevance

This qualitative analysis identifies key sources and effects of time toxicity, as well as the populations affected. The results of this study will guide the oncology community to map, measure, and address future time burdens.

Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit

BACKGROUND

Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

Shared-Care in Complex Malignant Hematology: An Integrative Review Using the RE-AIM Evaluation Framework

Complex malignant hematology (CMH) shared-care programs have been established to support patients with access to care closer to home. This integrative review examined what is known about CMH shared-care using the RE-AIM evaluation framework. We searched five electronic databases for articles published until 16 January 2024. Articles were included if they were qualitative or quantitative studies, reviews or discussion papers, and reported on an experience with shared-care (defined as a reciprocal, ongoing patient-sharing relationship between a specialist centre and community hospital) for patients with hematological malignancies, and examined one or more aspects of the RE-AIM framework. The search yielded 6523 articles; 10 articles describing eight shared-care experiences. Indicators of reach were reported for 65% of the programs, and emphasized some patient eligibility criteria. Effectiveness indicators were reported for 28% of programs, and suggested favourable survival outcomes within a shared-care model; however, health system impact and quality of life studies were lacking. Indicators of adoption and implementation were reported for 56% and 42% of programs, respectively, and emphasized multidisciplinary teams, infrastructure support, and communication strategies. Maintenance was not reported. Common elements contribute to the implementation of existing CMH shared-care programs; however, a formal evaluation remains an area of need.

Time Toxicity Experienced by Early-Phase Cancer Clinical Trial Participants

PURPOSE

Early-phase clinical trials (EP-CTs) are designed to determine optimal dosing, tolerability, and preliminary activity of novel cancer therapeutics. Little is known about the time that patients spend interacting with the health care system (eg, time toxicity) while participating in these studies.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the electronic health records of consecutive patients enrolled in EP-CTs from 2017 to 2019 to obtain baseline characteristics and number of health care-associated days, defined as all inpatient and outpatient visits while on trial. We used univariable and multivariable analyses to identify predictors of increased time toxicity, defined as the proportion of health care-associated days among total days on trial. For ease of interpretation, we created a dichotomous variable, with high time toxicity defined as ≥20% health care-associated days during time on trial and used regression models to evaluate relationships between time toxicity and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Among 408 EP-CT participants (mean age, 60.5 years [standard deviation, SD, 12.6]; 56.5% female; 88.2% White; 96.0% non-Hispanic), patients had an average of 22.5% health care-associated days while on trial (SD, 13.8%). Those with GI (B = 0.07; P = .002), head/neck (B = 0.09; P = .004), and breast (B = 0.06; P = .015) cancers and those with worse performance status (B = 0.04; P = .017) and those receiving targeted therapies (B = 0.04; P = .014) experienced higher time toxicity. High time toxicity was associated with decreased disease response rates (odds ratio, 0.07; P < .001), progression-free survival (hazard ratio [HR], 2.10; P < .001), and overall survival (HR, 2.16; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of EP-CT participants, patients spent more than one-fifth of days on trial with health care contact. We identified characteristics associated with higher time toxicity and found that high toxicity correlated with worse clinical outcomes. These data could help inform patient-clinician discussions about EP-CTs, guide future trial design, and identify at-risk patients.

Time toxicity among older patients with cancer treated with palliative systemic therapy

PURPOSE

The time toxicity of anticancer therapy, defined as days spent with healthcare contact during treatment, represents a critical but understudied outcome. This study aims to quantify time toxicity among older patients with cancer receiving palliative systemic treatment.

METHODS

All patients aged ≥ 65 years with metastatic cancer receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or targeted therapy at a single center in Mexico were selected from a prospective patient navigation cohort. Patients completed a baseline assessment, including the G8 screening and quality of life measures. Physical healthcare contact days within the first 6 months were extracted from medical records and divided by days alive during the same period. Beta regression models were used to identify predictors of time toxicity.

RESULTS

We identified 158 older patients (median age 71 years); 86% received cytotoxic chemotherapy. Seventy-three percent had an impaired G8 score and were considered vulnerable/frail. Six-month overall survival was 74%. Within the first 6 months, patients spent a mean of 21% (95% confidence interval (CI) 19-23%) of days with healthcare contact. Concurrent radiotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 1.55; 95%CI 1.21-1.97), cytotoxic chemotherapy versus targeted therapy (OR 1.64; 95%CI 1.13-2.37), and an impaired G8 (OR 1.27; 95%CI 1.01-1.60) were associated with increased time toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Older adults with metastatic cancer spend 1 in 5 days with healthcare contact during treatment, with a higher burden of time toxicity for patients receiving radiotherapy or cytotoxic chemotherapy and those with potential frailty. These findings underscore the importance of informing patients about their expected healthcare contact days within the context of a limited life expectancy.

EBCC-14 manifesto: Addressing disparities in access to innovation for patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide.

Reporting time toxicity in prospective cancer clinical trials: A scoping review

PURPOSE

This review aimed to assess the measurement and reporting of time toxicity (i.e., time spent receiving care) within prospective oncologic studies.

METHODS

On July 23, 2023, PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were queried for prospective or randomized controlled trials (RCT) from 1984 to 2023 that reported time toxicity as a primary or secondary outcome for oncologic treatments or interventions. Secondary analyses of RCTs were included if they reported time toxicity. The included studies were then evaluated for how they reported and defined time toxicity.

RESULTS

The initial query identified 883 records, with 10 studies (3 RCTs, 2 prospective cohort studies, and 5 secondary analyses of RCTs) meeting the final inclusion criteria. Treatment interventions included surgery (n = 5), systemic therapies (n = 4), and specialized palliative care (n = 1). The metric "days alive and out of the hospital" was used by 80% (n = 4) of the surgical studies. Three of the surgical studies did not include time spent receiving ambulatory care within the calculation of time toxicity. "Time spent at home" was assessed by three studies (30%), each using different definitions. The five secondary analyses from RCTs used more comprehensive metrics that included time spent receiving both inpatient and ambulatory care.

CONCLUSIONS

Time toxicity is infrequently reported within oncologic clinical trials, with no standardized definition, metric, or methodology. Further research is needed to identify best practices in the measurement and reporting of time toxicity to develop strategies that can be implemented to reduce its burden on patients seeking cancer care.

Trajectories of Health Care Contact Days for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

Importance

Patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) experience substantial morbidity and mortality. Contact days (ie, the number of days with health care contact outside the home) measure how much of a person's life is consumed by health care, yet little is known about patterns of contact days for patients with NSCLC.

Objective

To describe the trajectories of contact days in patients with stage IV NSCLC and how trajectories vary by receipt of cancer-directed treatment in routine practice.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A retrospective, population-based decedent cohort study was conducted in Ontario, Canada. Participants included adults aged 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2017) and died (January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2019); there was a maximum 2-year follow-up. Data analysis was conducted from February 22 to August 16, 2023.

Exposure

Systemic cancer-directed therapy (yes or no) and type of therapy (chemotherapy vs immunotherapy vs targeted therapy).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Contact days (days with health care contact, outpatient or institution-based, outside the home) were identified through administrative data. The weekly percentage of contact days and fitted models with cubic splines were quantified to describe trajectories from diagnosis until death.

Results

A total of 5785 decedents with stage IV NSCLC were included (median age, 70 [IQR 62-77] years; 3108 [53.7%] were male, and 1985 [34.3%] received systemic therapy). The median overall survival was 108 (IQR, 49-426) days, median contact days were 36 (IQR, 21-62), and the median percentage that were contact days was 33.3%. A median of 5 (IQR, 2-10) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy had a median overall survival of 66 (IQR, 34-130) days and median contact days of 28 (IQR, 17-44), of which a median of 5 (IQR, 2-9) days were spent with specialty palliative care. Overall and for subgroups, normalized trajectories followed a U-shaped distribution: contact days were most frequent immediately after diagnosis and before death. Patients who received targeted therapy had the lowest contact day rate during the trough (10.6%; vs immunotherapy, 15.4%; vs chemotherapy, 17.7%).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, decedents with stage IV NSCLC had a median survival in the order of 3.5 months and spent 1 in every 3 days alive interacting with the health care system outside the home. These results highlight the need to better support patients and care partners, benchmark appropriateness, and improve care delivery.