Routine surveillance for symptomatic toxicities with real-time clinician reporting in Danish breast cancer patients-Organization and design of the first national, cluster randomized trial using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology C

Electronic-PRO Measures for adverse events Of Treatment In ONcology (E-PROMOTION)

PURPOSE

Cancer patients struggle with the trauma of the disease and its treatment. PRO-CTCAE was developed to improve the recording of underreported symptomatic toxicities. We evaluated the improvement and ease in reporting symptomatic adverse events through add-on PRO-CTCAE (via a mobile application) compared to standard clinician-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice. We also evaluated changes in the health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

110 cancer patients were studied for three weeks between their first and second chemotherapy session. HRQoL was assessed using EORTC QLQ-c30.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients self-reported their symptomatic adverse events on the day 7th & day 14th after the first cycle of chemotherapy. For the other fifty-seven patients, recording of adverse events was done by standard clinician-reported outcomes. All the patients in the study group reported adverse events compared to only 21 % in the standard reporting group. All 15 domains of adverse events were reported in the self-reporting group compared to only 5 in the standard reporting group. The self-reporting group had a significantly better overall quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reporting of adverse events using mobile app-based PRO-CTCAE helps patients and clinicians with better documentation of symptomatic toxicities of chemotherapy, reducing the burden on physicians and improving patient satisfaction. Mobile app-based self-reporting empowers cancer patients undergoing treatment, improves their quality of life, and should be implemented in routine clinical practice. Wider implementation can lead to further optimised solutions.

Machine learning applied in patient-reported outcome research-exploring symptoms in adjuvant treatment of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data may help us better understand the life of breast cancer patients. We have previously collected PRO data in a national Danish breast cancer study in patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of the present post-hoc explorative study is to apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms using permutation importance to explore how specific PRO symptoms influence nonadherence to six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We here investigate ePRO-data from the 347 patients. The ePRO presented 42 PROCTCAE questions on 25 symptoms. Patients completed the ePRO before each cycle of chemotherapy. Number of patients with completion of the scheduled six cycles of chemotherapy were registered. Two ML models were applied. One aimed at discovering the individual relative importance of the different questions in the dataset while the second aimed at discovering the relationships between the questions. Permutation importance was used.

RESULTS

Out of 347 patients 238 patients remained in the final dataset, 15 patients dropped out. Two symptoms: aching joints and numbness/tingling, were the most important for dropout in the final dataset, each with an importance value of about 0.04. Model's average ROC-AUC-score being 0.706. In the second model a low performance score made the results very unreliable.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this explorative data analysis using ML methodologies in an ePRO dataset from a population of women with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy unravels that the symptoms aching joints and numbness/tingling could be important for drop out of planned adjuvant chemotherapy.

A multi-method approach to selecting PRO-CTCAE symptoms for patient-reported outcome in women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Women with endometrial or ovarian cancer experience a variety of symptoms during chemotherapy. Patient-Reported outcomes (PROs) can provide insight into the symptoms they experience. A PRO tool tailored to this patient population can help accurately monitor adverse events and manage symptoms. The objective of this study was to identify items in the National Cancer Institute's measurement system Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) appropriate for use in a PRO tool for a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing treatment with taxanes (paclitaxel or docetaxel) in combination with carboplatin.

METHODS

A two-phase, sequential multi-methods approach was applied. In phase one, a comprehensive literature search was done to map the toxicity of the applied chemotherapeutics and phase III clinical studies. Phase two, which comprised selecting the PRO-CTCAE items, included discussions with and feedback from a patient advisory board, an additional literature search, and focus group interviews with senior oncologists and specialized oncology nurses. A national expert panel facilitated both phases in terms of carefully select items from the PRO-CTCAE library.

RESULTS

Phase one identified 18 symptoms and phase two, three additional ones, leading to the inclusion of 21 PRO-CTCAE symptoms in the final PRO tool. Since PRO-CTCAE also contains one to three sub-questions on the frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities of symptoms, there were 44 potential items.

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes taking a multi-method approach to selecting items from the PRO-CTCAE library for use in a population of women with endometrial or ovarian cancer undergoing chemotherapy. By systematically combining diverse approaches, we carefully selected 21 clinically relevant symptoms covered by 44 items in the PRO-CTCAE library. Future studies should investigate the psychometric properties of this PRO tool for women with endometrial or ovarian cancer.

Recommended scoring approach for the pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Collecting symptom, function, and adverse event (AE) data directly from children and adolescents undergoing cancer care is more comprehensive and accurate than relying solely on their caregivers or clinicians for their interpretations. We developed the pediatric patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) measurement system with input from children, parents, and clinicians. Here, we report how we determined the recommended Ped-PRO-CTCAE item scoring approach.

METHODS

Data from 271 patients were analyzed using three scoring approaches: (a) at the AE attribute (frequency, severity, interference) using ordinal and dichotomous measures; (b) a weighted composite AE item score by AE attribute (0.5 - frequency; 1.0 - severity; 1.5 - interference); and (c) overall number of AEs endorsed. Associations of each AE attribute, AE item score, and overall AE score with the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pediatric measures were examined. The ability of the overall Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE score to identify patients with PROMIS symptom T-scores worse than reference population scores was assessed. Clinician preference for score information display was elicited through interviews with five pediatric oncology clinical trialists.

RESULTS

The diverse scoring approaches yielded similar outcomes, including positive correlations of the Ped-PRO-CTCAE attributes, AE item score, and the overall AEs score with the PROMIS Pediatric measures. Clinicians preferred the most granular display of scoring information (actual score reported by the child and corresponding descriptive term).

CONCLUSIONS

Although three scoring approaches yielded similar results, we recommend the AE attribute level of one score per Ped-PRO-CTCAE AE attribute for its simplicity of use in care and research.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Feasibility of implementing a same-day electronic screening tool for clinical assessment to measure patient-reported outcomes for eliciting actionable information on adherence to HIV medication and related factors in a busy Canadian urban HIV clinic

BACKGROUND

An optimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is fundamental for suppression of HIV viral load and favourable treatment outcomes. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are effective tools for improving patient-provider communication and focusing providers' awareness on current health problems. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to determine the feasibility of implementing an electronic screening tool to measure PROs in a Canadian HIV clinic to obtain information on ART adherence and related factors and (2) to determine the factors related to sub-optimal adherence.

METHODS

This implementation research with a convenience sample of 600 people living with HIV (PLWH) was conducted in a busy, academic, urban HIV clinic in Toronto, Canada. PLWH were approached to participate in PRO assessments just prior to their in-clinic appointments, including health-related domains such as mental health, housing, nutrition, financial stress and medication adherence, and responses were summarized on a single sheet available for providers to review. Feasibility of implementing PROs was assessed by quantifying response rate, completion rate, time taken and participation rate. Medication adherence was elicited by self-report of the percentage of prescribed HIV medications taken in the last month. Unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios were estimated from logistic regression models to identify factors associated with adherence of <95%.

RESULTS

Of the 748 PLWH invited to participate, 692 (participation rate: 92.5%) completed the PRO assessments as standard of care in clinic. Of these, 600 consented to the use of their PRO results for research and were included in this analysis. The average response rate to the ART-related questions was 96.8% and mean completion rate was 95.5%. The median time taken to complete the assessment was 12.0 (IQR = 8.4-17.3) min, adjusted 8.7 (IQR = 7.2-10.8) min. 445 (74.9%) of participants were male, and 153 (26.2%) reported dissatisfaction with ART. 105 (19.7%) of the PLWH reported ART adherence of <95%. Multivariable logistic regression identified the following risk factors for sub-optimal adherence: dissatisfaction with ART (OR = 2.30, 95% CI 1.38-3.83), not having a family doctor or not visiting a family doctor in last year (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.02-2.79).

CONCLUSION

Collecting self-reported health information from PLWH through PROs in a busy urban clinic was feasible and can provide relevant information to healthcare providers on issues related to adherence. This has a potential to help in individualizing ambulatory care.

Clinical effects of assessing electronic patient-reported outcomes monitoring symptomatic toxicities during breast cancer therapy: a nationwide and population-based study

The involvement of cancer patients in symptom reporting talks into our cultural narrative of empowerment and participation in decisions in health of both patients and professionals. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) is a tool applied for use in such interaction. Based on limited evidence and few empirical studies, health systems are rapidly implementing this instrument in managing patients in active treatment and in follow-up. In a cluster randomized trial of all Danish oncology departments treating breast cancer with adjuvant chemotherapy, we applied ePRO in 347 patients consecutively recruited. Our primary outcome, which was at least one treatment adjustment, was not significantly influenced using ePRO, 34% in the ePRO arm and 41% in the usual care arm received at least one treatment adjustment, p = 0.095. Number of hospitalizations and events of febrile neutropenia were not influenced by the intervention. We believe that one of the main reasons for this finding could be the application of PRO in a well-regulated treatment setting within a public health care system where the most impacting symptomatic toxicities are already taken care off.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02996201, registered 19 Dec 2016, retrospectively registered.

Satisfaction with care and adherence to treatment when using patient reported outcomes to individualize follow-up care for women with early breast cancer - a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background: The population of breast cancer survivors is increasing as a positive consequence of early detection and enhanced treatment. The disease and treatment associated side-effects or late-effects often impact on quality of life and daily life functions during survivorship. This calls for optimization of follow-up care. We aimed to evaluate the patients' satisfaction with the care provided, when using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) to individualize follow-up care in women with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant endocrine therapy.Material and methods: Postmenopausal women treated for hormone receptor positive early breast cancer were included in a pilot randomized controlled trial and randomized to receive standard follow-up care with prescheduled consultations every six months or individualized follow-up care with the active use of ePROs to screen for the need of consultations. ePROs were distributed every third month over a two-year period. Primary outcomes were satisfaction with the assigned follow-up care and unmet needs. Secondary outcomes were use of consultations, adherence to treatment and quality of life.Results: Of the 207 consecutive patients who were potentially eligible for the study, 134 women were enrolled (65%). In total 64 women in standard care and 60 women in individualized care were analyzed. No statistically significant differences were reported in relation to satisfaction, unmet needs, adherence to treatment or quality of life. Women in standard care attended twice as many consultations during the two year follow-up period as women in individualized care; 4.3 (95% CI 3.9-4.7) versus 2.1 (95% CI: 1.6-2.6), p < .001.Conclusion: A significant reduction in consultations was observed for the group attending individualized care without compromising the patients' satisfaction, quality of life or adherence to treatment. For the majority of postmenopausal women treated for early breast cancer, implementation of ePROs to individualize follow-up care was feasible.

Chinese multicentre prospective registry of breast cancer patient-reported outcome-reconstruction and oncoplastic cohort (PRO-ROC): a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Available patient-reported outcome (PRO) studies are mainly from single institution or of small sample size, and the variations across hospitals and regions were not fully analysed. A multicentre, prospective, patient-reported outcome-reconstruction and oncoplastic cohort (PRO-ROC) will be planned to assess the PROs of Chinese patients with breast cancer who will undergo breast reconstruction (BR) or oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The inclusion criteria are female patients with breast cancer aged >18 years old who will undergo BR or OBCS. This cohort will include at least 10 000 consecutive patients (about 5000 patients who will undergo BR and 5000 patients who will undergo OBCS). The exposures were surgery types: BR and OBCS regardless of the techniques and materials used. The primary endpoint will be PROs, which include BREAST-Q and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and EORTC QoL Breast Cancer-specific version (QLQ-BR23)). All patients will be followed up to 24 months after operations. All data will be prospectively collected using an app software. Data will be analysed using SPSS and Stata software.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study follows the Helsinki Declaration. All patients will be asked to sign an informed consent before enrolment. The results of this study will be presented at national and international meetings and published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04030845; Pre-results.

Patients' experience of communication and handling of symptomatic adverse events in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

The study is based on a national cluster randomized trial investigating the effect of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) on treatment outcomes in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. All 13 oncology departments (11 clusters) treating breast cancer patients in Denmark were randomized to use electronic patient-reported outcomes with real-time clinician feedback (ePRO arm) to track symptoms or usual care for eliciting symptoms using a short paper tracking list (usual care arm). The impact of ePRO on clinical outcomes were examined, which is reported elsewhere. The purpose of the present study was to examine patient-reported experience measure (PREM) regarding communication and handling of side effects/symptoms.

METHODS

For this sub-study, patient representatives were involved in the development of a PREM questionnaire. Patients enrolled in the cluster randomized trial completed the PREM questionnaire at their last treatment visit. Semi-structured telephone-interviews were performed with a subgroup of patients. The interviews were based on an interview guide comprised of the questions from the PREM questionnaire and aimed to elaborate on the PREM questionnaire data.

RESULTS

A 12 item PREM questionnaire was developed in partnership with patient representatives. In total, 439 out of 682 patients (64.4%) included patients completed the PREM questionnaire. Telephone semi-structured interviews were performed with 22 patients. In total, 52% (ePRO arm) and 65% (usual care arm) reported having talked with the oncologist/nurse about their responses in the tracking systems before each chemotherapy cycle. Fewer patients in the ePRO arm compared to the usual care arm experienced side effects/symptoms not included in the side effect questionnaire. Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of side effects/symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients experienced high satisfaction with oncologists' and nurses' handling of chemotherapy adverse events. The study indicates a need for a more comprehensive side effect questionnaire as tracking system covering more symptoms than the one used in usual care today.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT02996201. Registered 19 December 2016, retrospectively registered.