Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care): Multicenter Pragmatic Nonrandomized Trial

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into the Care of People With Advanced Cancer-A Practical Guide

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are being increasingly integrated into routine clinical practice to enhance individual patient care. This has been driven by recognition of the benefits of PROs in enhancing symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival, and reductions in acute health care utilization. These benefits are reflected in the emergence of value-based health care initiatives incorporating PRO symptom monitoring such as the Enhancing Oncology Model in the United States. However, implementing PROs can be challenging and it can be difficult to know where to begin to select appropriate PROs, and effectively display and appropriately interpret PRO data. This manuscript summarizes an educational session at the 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting, which provided practical guidance to clinicians seeking to incorporate PROs into the care of people with advanced cancer. We focus on why it is important to collect PROs in routine care from a patient's perspective, how to select PROs for symptom monitoring (including using static patient-reported outcome measures and newer item libraries), and highlight key pearls and pitfalls in the display and interpretation of PROs. We highlight the breadth of existing resources available to guide clinicians in PRO implementation.

Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In Denmark, outpatient follow-up for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is changing from in-hospital visits toward more remote health care delivery. The nonuse of remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a well-known challenge, and it can be difficult to explain which mechanisms of interventions influence the outcome. Process evaluation may, therefore, be used to answer important questions on how and why interventions work, aiming to enhance the implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide insight into the intervention process by evaluating (1) the representativity of the study population, (2) patient and physician use patterns, (3) patient adherence to the intervention, and (4) clinical engagement.

METHODS

A process evaluation determining the reach, dose, fidelity, and clinical engagement was carried out, alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). We developed and implemented an intervention using PRO measures to monitor outpatients remotely. Data were collected for the PRO intervention arms in the RCT from 4 sources: (1) PRO data from the participants to determine personal factors, (2) the web-based PRO system to identify key usage intervention patterns, (3) medical records to identify clinical factors relating to the use of the intervention, and (4) semistructured interviews conducted with involved physicians.

RESULTS

Of the 320 patients invited, 152 (47.5%) accepted to participate. The study population reflected the target population. The mean adherence rate to the PRO intervention arms was 82% (95% CI 76-87). The questionnaire response rate was 539/544 (99.1%). A minority of 13 (12.9%) of 101 patients needed assistance to complete study procedures. Physicians assessed 477/539 (88.5%) of the questionnaires. Contact was established in 417/539 (77.4%) of the cases, and 122/539 (22.6%) of the patients did not have contact. Physicians initiated 288/417 (69.1%) and patients requested 129/417 (30.9%) of all the contacts. The primary causes of contact were clinical data (242/417, 58%), PRO data (92/417, 22.1%), and medication concerns and precautionary reasons (83/417, 19.9%). Physicians found the use of PRO measures in remote follow-up beneficial for assessing the patient's health. The inclusion of self-reported clinical data in the questionnaire motivated physicians to assess patient responses. However, some barriers were emphasized, such as loss of a personal relationship with the patient and the risk of missing important symptoms in the absence of a face-to-face assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the importance and practical use of remote monitoring among patients with CKD. Overall, the intervention was implemented as intended. We observed high patient adherence rates, and the physicians managed most questionnaires. Some physicians worried that distance from the patients made it unfeasible to use their "clinical glance," posing a potential risk of overlooking crucial patients' symptoms. These findings underscore key considerations for the implementation of remote follow-up. Introducing a hybrid approach combining remote and face-to-face consultations may address these concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03847766; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03847766.

A study demonstrating users' preference for the adapted-REQUITE patient-reported outcome questionnaire over PRO-CTCAE® in patients with lung cancer

Introduction

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) and the adapted-REQUITE Lung Questionnaire.

Materials and Methods

Patients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Concordance between the 2 questionnaires was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. PRO-CTCAE® and CTCAE concordance was demonstrated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient from the linear predictors of an ordinal logistic regression. P-values were also calculated.

Results

Out of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficient between PRO tools was 0.8-0.83 (p <.001). Correlation between CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® ranged between 0.66-0.82 (p <.001). Adapted-REQUITE and CTCAE correlation was higher for all symptoms ranging between 0.79-0.91 (p <.001). Acceptable discrepancies within one grade were present in 96.8%-100% of symptom domains for REQUITE and in 92.1%-96.8% for all domains in the PRO-CTCAE®. 54% of the total participant cohort favored the adapted-REQUITE questionnaire due to reduced subjectivity in the questions and ease of use.

Conclusion

The adapted-REQUITE questionnaire has shown a superior correlation to clinician-reported outcomes and higher patient preference than the PRO-CTCAE®. The results of this study suggest the use of the REQUITE questionnaire for patients with lung cancer in routine clinical practice.

Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning.

METHODS

Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved.

RESULTS

Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way.

CONCLUSION

We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Patient-reported outcome measurement implementation in cancer survivors: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are increasingly used for cancer patients receiving active treatment, but little is known about the implementation and usefulness of PROMs in cancer survivorship care. This systematic review evaluates how cancer survivors and healthcare providers (HCPs) perceive PROM implementation in survivorship care, and how PROM implementation impacts cancer survivors' health outcomes.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from database inception to February 2022 to identify randomized and nonrandomized studies of PROM implementation in cancer survivors.

RESULTS

Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 29 studies that reported on 26 unique PROMs. The studies were heterogeneous in study design, PROM instrument, patient demographics, and outcomes. Several studies found that cancer survivors and HCPs had favorable impressions of the utility of PROMs, and a few studies demonstrated that PROM implementation led to improvements in patient quality of life (QoL), with small to moderate effect sizes.

CONCLUSIONS

We found implementation of PROMs in cancer survivorship care improved health outcomes for select patient populations. Future research is needed to assess the real-world utility of PROM integration into clinical workflows and the impact of PROMs on measurable health outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivors accepted PROMs. When successfully implemented, PROMs can improve health outcomes after completion of active treatment. We identify multiple avenues to strengthen PROM implementation to support cancer survivors.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

METHODS

Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool.

RESULTS

Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies.

CONCLUSION

The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.

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.

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.

Implementing a nurse-led screening clinic for symptom distress with community-based referral for cancer survivors: A feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

This prospective, single-arm, pragmatic implementation study evaluated the feasibility of a nurse-led symptom-screening program embedded in routine oncology post-treatment outpatient clinics by assessing (1) the acceptance rate for symptom distress screening (SDS), (2) the prevalence of SDS cases, (3) the acceptance rate for community-based psychosocial support services, and (4) the effect of referred psychosocial support services on reducing symptom distress.

METHODS

Using the modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r), we screened patients who recently completed cancer treatment. Patients screening positive for moderate-to-severe symptom distress were referred to a nurse-led community-based symptom-management program involving stepped-care symptom/psychosocial management interventions using a pre-defined triage system. Reassessments were conducted at 3-months and 9-months thereafter. The primary outcomes included SDS acceptance rate, SDS case prevalence, intervention acceptance rate, and ESAS-r score change over time.

RESULTS

Overall, 2988/3742(80%) eligible patients consented to SDS, with 970(32%) reporting ≥1 ESAS-r symptom as moderate-to-severe (caseness). All cases received psychoeducational material, 673/970(69%) accepted psychosocial support service referrals. Among 328 patients completing both reassessments, ESAS-r scores improved significantly over time (p < 0.0001); 101(30.8%) of patients remained ESAS cases throughout the study, 112(34.1%) recovered at 3-month post-baseline, an additional 72(22%) recovered at 9-month post-baseline, while 43(12.2%) had resumed ESAS caseness at 9-month post-baseline.

CONCLUSION

Nurse-led SDS programs with well-structured referral pathways to community-based services and continued monitoring are feasible and acceptable in cancer patients and may help in reducing symptom distress. We intend next to develop optimal strategies for SDS implementation and referral within routine cancer care services.

Supportive Digital Health Service During Cancer Chemotherapy: Single-Arm Before-and-After Feasibility Study

BACKGROUND

Digital supportive cancer care is recommended to improve patient outcomes. A portal was designed and embedded within the electronic medical record and public health portal of Iceland, consisting of symptom and needs monitoring, educational material, and messaging.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess (1) portal feasibility (adoption, engagement, usability, and acceptability), (2) potential predictors of usability and acceptability, and (3) the potential impact of the portal on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

This was a single-arm, before-and-after feasibility study at a university hospital among patients with cancer who were undergoing chemotherapy. Participation included filling out the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-Revised (ESASr) weekly and the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL) 3 times; reading educational material and messaging; and completing study questionnaires. Clinical and portal engagement data were collected from medical records. Data from patients were collected electronically at baseline and 7 to 10 days after the third chemotherapy round. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (score 0-100), and acceptability was assessed using a 35-item survey (score 1-5). Patient-reported outcome measures included ESASr and DT&PL; a single-item scale for quality of life, family support, and quality of care; and multi-item scales for health literacy (Brief Health Literacy Screener), health engagement (Patient Health Engagement Scale), self-care self-efficacy (Self-Care Self-Efficacy scale), symptom interference (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory), knowledge expectations (Hospital Patients' Knowledge Expectations), and received knowledge (Hospital Patients' Received Knowledge). Health care professionals were interviewed regarding portal feasibility.

RESULTS

The portal adoption rate was 72% (103/143), and the portal use rate was 76.7% (79/103) over a mean 8.6 (SD 2.7) weeks. The study completion rate was 67% (69/103). The combined completion rate of the ESASr and DT&PL was 78.4% (685/874). Patients received a mean 41 (SD 13) information leaflets; 33% (26/79) initiated messaging, 73% (58/79) received messages, and 85% (67/79) received follow-up phone calls. The mean System Usability Scale score was 72.3 (SD 14.7), indicating good usability. Usability was predicted by age (β=-.45), ESASr engagement (β=.5), symptom interference (β=.4), and received knowledge (β=.41). The mean acceptability score, 3.97 (SD 0.5), was above average and predicted by age (β=-.31), ESASr engagement (β=.37), symptom interference (β=.60), self-care self-efficacy (β=.37), and received knowledge (β=.41). ESASr scores improved for total symptom distress (P=.003; Cohen d=0.36), physical symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31), and emotional symptoms (P=.01; Cohen d=0.31). Daily symptom interference increased (P=.03; Cohen d=0.28), quality of life improved (P=.03; Cohen d=0.27) and health engagement (P=.006; Cohen d=0.35) improved, while knowledge expectations decreased (P≤.001; Cohen d=2.57). Health care professionals were positive toward the portal but called for clearer role delineation and follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the feasibility of a support portal and the results indicate the possibility of improving patient outcomes, but further developments are warranted.

Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.

METHODS

A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.

CONCLUSIONS

The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Development of an implementation strategy for routine collection of generic patient reported outcome measures: a qualitative study in multidisciplinary community rehabilitation

PURPOSE

To explore staff perceptions of barriers and enablers towards implementing the EQ-5D-5L in community rehabilitation, and develop a theory-informed implementation approach for routine administration of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using implementation science frameworks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted at three sites. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff completed individual semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified and selected potentially effective behaviour change techniques using the Behavior Change Wheel. Hypothetical strategies were operationalised.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were conducted, and four themes emerged: (1) The Impact of PROMs on patient centered-care; (2) Considerations for validity of PROMs; (3) Service-level impact of embedding PROMs; (4) Practical issues of embedding PROMs within the service. Barriers and enablers were mapped to seven of the TDF domains; relating most to clinicians' "belief about consequences", "reinforcement", and "environmental context and resources". Five hypothetical strategies were developed to overcome identified barriers and strengthen enablers. Key behaviour change techniques underpinning the strategies include: restructuring the physical environment, incentivisation, persuasion and education, enablement, and, social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our implementation approach highlights the importance of automating processes, engaging site champions, routinely reporting, and using PROM data to inform service provision.

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SWAT169.

Mask-related anxiety and distress during radiation therapy for head and neck cancer

Some patients experience mask-related anxiety and distress when undergoing radiation therapy for head and neck cancer. Building on the paper by Forbes et al (doi.org/10.1002/jmrs.658) this editorial discusses techniques to implement to improve the patient experience through education and support.

Personalizing neoadjuvant immune-checkpoint inhibition in patients with melanoma

Neoadjuvant immune-checkpoint inhibition is a promising emerging treatment approach for patients with surgically resectable macroscopic stage III melanoma. The neoadjuvant setting provides an ideal platform for personalized therapy owing to the very homogeneous nature of the patient population and the opportunity for pathological response assessments within several weeks of starting treatment, thereby facilitating the efficient identification of novel biomarkers. A pathological response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors has been shown to be a strong surrogate marker of both recurrence-free survival and overall survival, enabling timely analyses of the efficacy of novel therapies in patients with early stage disease. Patients with a major pathological response (defined as the presence of ≤10% viable tumour cells) have a very low risk of recurrence, which offers an opportunity to adjust the extent of surgery and any subsequent adjuvant therapy and follow-up monitoring. Conversely, patients who have only a partial pathological response or who do not respond to neoadjuvant therapy still might benefit from therapy escalation and/or class switch during adjuvant therapy. In this Review, we outline the concept of a fully personalized neoadjuvant treatment approach exemplified by the current developments in neoadjuvant therapy for patients with resectable melanoma, which could provide a template for the development of similar approaches for patients with other immune-responsive cancers in the near future.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service.

RESULTS

100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Using a chatbot to reduce emergency department visits and unscheduled hospitalizations among patients with gynecologic malignancies during chemotherapy: A retrospective cohort study

Background

A chatbot is an automatic text-messaging tool that creates a dynamic interaction and simulates a human conversation through text or voice via smartphones or computers. A chatbot could be an effective solution for cancer patients' follow-up during treatment, and could save time for healthcare providers.

Objective

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to evaluate whether a chatbot-based collection of patient-reported symptoms during chemotherapy, with automated alerts to clinicians, could decrease emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations. A control group received usual care.

Methods

Self-reporting symptoms were communicated via the chatbot, a Facebook Messenger-based interface for patients with gynecologic malignancies. The chatbot included questions about common symptoms experienced during chemotherapy. Patients could also use the text-messaging feature to speak directly to the chatbot, and all reported outcomes were monitored by a cancer manager. The primary and secondary outcomes of the study were emergency department visits and unscheduled hospitalizations after initiation of chemotherapy after diagnosis of gynecologic malignancies. Multivariate Poisson regression models were applied to assess the adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs) for chatbot use for ED visits and unscheduled hospitalizations after controlling for age, cancer stage, type of malignancy, diabetes, hypertension, chronic renal insufficiency, and coronary heart disease.

Result

Twenty patients were included in the chatbot group, and 43 in the usual-care group. Significantly lower aIRRs for chatbot use for ED visits (0.27; 95% CI 0.11-0.65; p = 0.003) and unscheduled hospitalizations (0.31; 95% CI 0.11-0.88; p = 0.028) were noted. Patients using the chatbot approach had lower aIRRs of ED visits and unscheduled hospitalizations compared to usual-care patients.

Conclusions

The chatbot was helpful for reducing ED visits and unscheduled hospitalizations in patients with gynecologic malignancies who were receiving chemotherapy. These findings are valuable for inspiring the future design of digital health interventions for cancer patients.

The Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables.

RESULTS

Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use.

CONCLUSION

There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.

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.

Experience With the Routine Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patients With Lung Cancer

PURPOSE

The Christie NHS Foundation Trust launched their electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) service in January 2019 in the routine clinical setting. The lung cancer questionnaires consist of 14 symptom items, adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life (QoL) tool. Patients with lung cancer are invited to complete questionnaires assessing their symptoms and QoL using an online platform.

METHODS

The ePROM responses and clinical, pathologic, and treatment data for patients who completed the questionnaires between January 2019 and December 2020 were extracted from electronic medical records. The symptom and QoL scores of patients who completed baseline pretreatment ePROMs and also those who completed ePROMs pre- and postpalliative lung systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) or radical thoracic radiotherapy were evaluated. Pretreatment questionnaires were analyzed according to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) comorbidity score.

RESULTS

One thousand four hundred eighty patients with lung cancer were included. There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms and QoL scores between age groups. Cough (P = .006) and EQ-5D-5L mobility scores (P = .006) were significantly worse for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Dyspnea (P = .035), hemoptysis (P = .023), nausea (P = .041), mobility (P = .004), and self-care (P = .0420) were significantly worse for those with higher ACE-27 scores (2-3 v 0-1). Palliative SACT was associated with a significant improvement in cough (P < .001) and hemoptysis (P = .025), but significantly negatively affected mobility (P = .013). Patients receiving radical thoracic radiotherapy reported a significant improvement in hemoptysis (P = .042) but worse pain (P = .002) and fatigue (P = .01). Other changes in symptom and QoL scores were not significant.

CONCLUSION

The symptoms and QoL reported at baseline and before and after both palliative SACT and radical thoracic radiotherapy are clinically relevant and meaningful. We have demonstrated that routine implementation of ePROMs into clinical practice is feasible and can inform clinical practice and future research.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges.

METHODS

TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little.

DISCUSSION

TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.

Amplifying the Patient Voice: A Survey of Practitioners' Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Across Radiotherapy Providers in England

AIMS

The NHS England Radiotherapy Service Specification calls for routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, barriers exist at patient, healthcare professional and service levels. The aim of the present study was to determine the current use of PROMs within radiotherapy services in England. The current attitudes, barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in radiotherapy practice were evaluated and practical recommendations to inform future implementation were developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was adopted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. An online questionnaire was developed and disseminated to all radiotherapy operational delivery network managers across England. The questionnaire consisted of 12 open and closed questions relating to PROMs use, with the option to provide free-text responses. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on free-text comments, whereas descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 182 responses were received from 40 of the 50 radiotherapy providers, resulting in a response rate of 84%. The current use of PROMs was analysed, including rationale for use, tools used, format of PROMs collection and timing within the radiotherapy pathway. Most respondents indicated that PROMs were used in the context of clinical trials only. Through thematic analysis, four identical key themes were identified relating to both barriers and enablers to PROMs use; these included IT infrastructure, time, human/financial resources and training/education. A fifth theme, standardisation, was identified as a key enabler to PROMs use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that outside of clinical trials, PROMs are not routinely used in radiotherapy services due to barriers identified at professional and service levels. Here we provide recommendations to mitigate the barriers identified and implement PROMs in radiotherapy, including training for healthcare professionals and standardisation of PROMs tools and storage. This study provides a key first step in driving PROMs implementation within radiotherapy services across England.

Remote follow-up based on patient-reported outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease: A qualitative study of patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in outpatient follow-up. PRO-based remote follow-up offers a new healthcare delivery model, where PROs are used as the basis for outpatient follow-up in patients with chronic kidney disease. However, the patient's perspective of this novel remote care delivery remains unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the patients' experiences using PROs in remote care and how this mode of follow-up may enhance patient engagement.

DESIGN

A qualitative approach was employed, guided by Focused Ethnography and Interpretive Description.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposively, 15 patients with chronic kidney disease experienced with PRO-based remote follow-up in 3 renal outpatient clinics in the Central Denmark Region, were recruited.

MEASURES

Field studies comprising participant observation in remote PRO consultations and individual, semi-structured interviews with the patients constituted the empirical data. Thematic analysis was performed according to Braun and Clarke's six-phase process.

RESULTS

PRO-based remote follow-up may enhance patient engagement by a) improving communication, b) increasing disease knowledge, c) inducing flexibility, d) ensuring clinician feedback on PRO data, and e) prompting clinical action. Barriers to enhanced patient engagement were identified as a) lack of feedback on PRO data, b) lower disease knowledge, c) PRO in competition with biomedical data, and d) loss of personal relation.

CONCLUSION

PRO-based follow-up in remote care holds several advantages for the patients. However, some barriers need clinical awareness before PROs may enhance the patients' engagement in remote follow-up. Future studies should explore the impact of involving relatives in PRO-based follow-up.

Cancer Care Team's Management of Clinical Alerts Generated by Electronically Collected Patient Reported Outcomes: We Could Do Better

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients' symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients' perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care

Background

To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Method

A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.

Plain English summary

Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs.

RESULTS

In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement.

CONCLUSION

Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 on genitourinary and prostate cancer care and clinical trials: A qualitative exploration of the Australian and New Zealand experience

PURPOSE

This qualitative study aimed to understand the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic from March to November 2020 on healthcare delivery and clinical trials for genitourinary (GU) cancers in Australia.

METHODS

Annually a pre-conference workshop is hosted by the Australian New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group for supportive care health professionals. In November 2020, those that selected to attend were invited to participate in a focus group. Workshop and focus group discussions were recorded and transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Seventy-two individuals involved in GU cancer care and clinical trials took part. Participants described negative changes to GU cancer care and clinical trials from the pandemic due to reduced clinical services and increased wait times. Trial recruitment was paused temporarily during lockdowns, and standard treatment protocols were used to limit hospital visits. Trial process changes included electronic capture of informed consent, home delivery of oral medications, and delegations of assessments. These changes increased administrative activity for clinical trial teams and Human Research Ethics Committees. A transition to telehealth enabled continuity of service delivery and trials but reduced the opportunity for face-to-face patient consultations with increasing concern about the failure to detect supportive care needs.

CONCLUSION

The pandemic has prompted a critical review of service delivery and clinical trials for people with GU cancers.

Supporting cancer patients to self-manage: Extent of use and perceptions of "trusted" online self-management resources

OBJECTIVES

Online resources can support patient self-management practices, but are not systematically used in routine clinical practice. We evaluated cancer patients' satisfaction with, and use of, tailored online resources.

METHODS

Patients completed monthly validated electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) of distress, unmet needs and symptoms. Patients with ePROM scores above pre-determined thresholds received an email directing them to relevant online self-management resources. Perceptions and experiences with these resources were evaluated via an online survey 3, 6 and 9 months after their initial monthly ePRO; and a subset of patients was also interviewed. Webpage use was monitored through Google Analytics and ClickMeter.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 patients completed evaluation surveys and 31 completed interviews. Patients spent 0-10 min on average accessing resources, with 93% indicating they would reuse them. The most viewed page was physical wellbeing (n = 680); exercise and nutrition resources were most popular; and 69% of patients were satisfied with information content, reporting resources were easy to understand and navigate.

CONCLUSIONS

Online resources are perceived as acceptable and useful. Design and delivery recommendations can improve their support of self-management.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating automated online self-management resources into routine clinical workflows is a viable model to support routine follow up care.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences

ObjectiveIt has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs.MethodsPatients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records.ResultsAcross both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake.ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.

Impact of the app-based and nurse-led supportive care program AKO@dom on dose intensity of oral-targeted therapies in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer: a multicentric observational retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) remain a cornerstone of metastatic kidney cancer (mRCC). Adverse events (AEs) may lead to dose downregulation, and optimal management of AEs is needed to maintain an efficient dose intensity (DI). The aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of an app-based and nurse-led supportive-care program on DI in mRCC patients.

METHOD

This multicenter (n = 3), retrospective study evaluated all consecutive mRCC patients who participated in the AKO@dom program, which consisted of an app-based and nurse-led weekly patient evaluation at home during the first 3 months of TKI intake. Treatment patterns and modifications were described, and the mean DI (mDI) was calculated at the end of AKO@dom.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine patients were included: 12 had sunitinib, 18 pazopanib, 12 axitinib, and 47 cabozantinib. Median age was 69 years (60-76). TKIs were mainly initiated at standard doses except for cabozantinib (53% started at 40 mg/day); 71% had prior systemic treatment. Nine patients discontinued permanent treatment during the program. Thirty-two patients required ≥ 1 dose interruption, and 29% experienced ≥ 1 grade 3 AE of any type. The mDI (in mg/day) at 3 months was 34.4 ± 17.7 for sunitinib, 672.8 ± 144 for pazopanib, 8.6 ± 2.6 for axitinib, and 40 (36-48) for cabozantinib. Fifty-five patients [68.75% (95% CI: 57-78%)] had a mDI ≥ than reported in the literature. Overall survival at 12 months was 64.2% (CI 95%: 55-75%).

CONCLUSION

The AKO@dom program allowed 68.75% of patients to maintain a high dose intensity after 3 months of TKI treatment. The impact on survival outcomes needs to be evaluated in randomized clinical trials.

A Short Report Examining the Introduction of Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Mixed Oncology Population

AIMS

People living with treatable but not curable cancer often experience a range of symptoms related to their cancer and its treatment. During the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face consultations were reduced and so remote monitoring of these needs was necessary. University Hospitals Sussex implemented the routine use of electronic remote patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a mixed oncology population, focusing on those with treatable but not curable cancers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a 9-month period, patients were invited to register with My Clinical Outcomes (MCO) - a secure online platform for the collection of electronic PROMs. They were prompted by e-mail to complete assessments (EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D VAS) routinely every 2 weeks. The team monitored patient scores and changes in these prompted clinical interventions.

RESULTS

In total, 324 patients completed at least one assessment. The median number of assessments completed by each patient was eight. The most represented tumour groups were secondary breast (28%), prostate (25%) and other (32%). Median scores for the assessments did not deteriorate in a clinically or numerically significant way for patients living with non-curable conditions for the majority of patients monitored.

CONCLUSION

Routine collection of electronic remote PROMs is an effective and useful strategy to provide real-time clinical feedback to teams. With integration into existing systems, online platforms (such as MCO) could provide efficient and patient-centred information for those providing care for people with cancer.

Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Versus Usual Care After Lung Cancer Surgery: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE

We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom management in the early period after lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

Before surgery, patients with clinically diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive postoperative PRO-based symptom management or usual care. All patients reported symptoms on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer presurgery, daily postsurgery, and twice a week after discharge for up to 4 weeks via an electronic PRO system. In the intervention group, treating surgeons responded to overthreshold electronic alerts driven by any of the five target symptom scores (score ≥ 4 on a 0-10 scale for pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, shortness of breath, and coughing). The control group patients received usual care and no alerts were generated. The primary outcome was the number of symptom threshold events (any target symptom with a score of ≥ 4) at discharge. Per-protocol analyses were conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 166 participants, 83 were randomly allocated to each group. At discharge, the intervention group reported fewer symptom threshold events than the control group (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-2] v 2 [0-3]; P = .007). At 4 weeks postdischarge, this difference was maintained between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-0] v 0 [0-1]; P = .018). The intervention group had a lower complication rate than the control group (21.5% v 40.6%; P = .019). Surgeons spent a median of 3 minutes managing an alert.

CONCLUSION

PRO-based symptom management after lung cancer surgery showed lower symptom burden and fewer complications than usual care for up to 4 weeks postdischarge.

Miguel A, David A, Patrick B, Pierre B, Erik B, Renée B, Patricia CC, Jenny CC, Ananya C, Gilles D, Sylvian D, Dunning Alison M, Elliott Rebecca M, Dawn E, Corinne FF, Marzia F, Sara GE, Carsten H, Higginson Daniel S, Kerns Sarah L, Kerstie J, Meritxell M, Maarten L, Mónica R, Tiziana R, Andreas R, Rosenstein Barry S, Ruysscher Dirk D, Ahmed S, Claudia S, Petra S, Paloma SF, Elena S, Hilary S, Holly S, Veerle S, Paul S, Begoña TL, Talbot Christopher J, Riccardo V, Ana V, Liv V, Veldwijk Marlon R, Tim W, Adam W, West Catharine M, Yolande L. Overview of health-related quality of life and toxicity of non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving curative-intent radiotherapy in a real-life setting (the REQUITE study)

OBJECTIVES

Radiotherapy-induced toxicity may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This report investigates the impact of curative-intent radiotherapy on HRQoL and toxicity in early stage and locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy enrolled in the observational prospective REQUITE study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire up to 2 years post radiotherapy. Eleven toxicities were scored by clinicians using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4. Toxicity scores were calculated by subtracting baseline values. Mixed model analyses were applied to determine statistical significance (p ≤ 0.01). Meaningful clinical important differences (MCID) were determined for changes in HRQoL. Analysis was performed on the overall data, different radiotherapy techniques, multimodality treatments and disease stages.

RESULTS

Data of 510 patients were analysed. There was no significant change in HRQoL or its domains, except for deterioration in cognitive functioning (p = 0.01). Radiotherapy technique had no significant impact on HRQoL. The addition of chemotherapy was significantly associated with HRQoL over time (p <.001). Overall toxicity did not significantly change over time. Acute toxicities of radiation-dermatitis (p =.003), dysphagia (p =.002) and esophagitis (p <.001) peaked at 3 months and decreased thereafter. Pneumonitis initially deteriorated but improved significantly after 12 months (p =.011). A proportion of patients experienced meaningful clinically important improvements and deteriorations in overall HRQoL and its domains. In some patients, pre-treatment symptoms improved gradually.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall HRQoL and toxicity did not change over time, some patients improved, whereas others experienced acute radiotherapy-induced toxicities and deteriorated HRQoL, especially physical and cognitive functioning. Patient characteristics, more so than radiotherapy technique and treatment modality, impact post-radiotherapy toxicity and HRQoL outcomes. This stresses the importance of considering the potential impact of radiotherapy on individuals' HRQoL, symptoms and toxicity in treatment decision-making.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.

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.

Does a communication skills program enable symptom and distress screening?: The impact of training on radiation therapists' confidence, knowledge, and use of distress screening

INTRODUCTION

Due to the prevalence of distress following a cancer diagnosis, routine symptom and distress screening is recommended as best practice. RTs perceive psychosocial support and screening to be part of their role, however feel they lack the education and skills to perform this confidently. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of providing communication skills training (RT Prepare CST) on the perceived barriers, knowledge, attitude, role, and confidence of radiation therapists (RTs) in using routine symptom and distress screening.

METHODS

A single-arm, pre-post intervention design was implemented. All RTs at one regional and one rural centre participated in RT Prepare CST. RTs completed a questionnaire: pre-intervention (T1); immediately post-intervention (T2); and, three months post-intervention (T3). Cochran's Q and McNemar's tests for non-parametric data were conducted to compare outcomes over time.

RESULTS

Of 39 RTs approached, 37 (95%) consented to participate with 36 (92%) completing questionnaires at all three time points. Significant and sustained improvements post-intervention were noted from T1-T3 including: confidence in describing the PROMPT-Care tool to patients (p=0.002), discussing psychosocial issues (p=0.014); recognising signs of anxiety/depression (p<0.001); dealing with signs of anxiety (p=0.002), depression (p=0.015) and distress (p=0.008) as well as agreeing 'the tool is useful in identifying psychosocial problems' (p=0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

RT Prepare CST was effective in increasing confidence, knowledge and attitudes of RTs in the psychosocial care of patients with a change in RT behaviour noted by a significant increase in the number of patients screened following the intervention. Providing routine CST and emotional cues training to RTs enhances their ability to care for patients holistically, equipping them with skills to be included within a psychosocial model of care. Engaged leadership and role models are essential to sustain the learnings from education programs and provide an environment to discuss and define roles within radiation therapy departments.

Evidence for the routine collection and clinical utilisation of patient-reported outcomes is compelling: It is time to jump on the bandwagon

This editorial makes a compelling case for health services to consider implementing patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including determining the respective roles of different health professionals in supporting routine PRO implementation and identifying local barriers to implementation.

Digital Medicine in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer - A Feasibility Study of Electronic Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients on Systemic Treatment

AIMS

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures have the potential to improve patient care, both at an individual level by detecting symptoms and at an organisational level to rationalise follow-up. The introduction of ePROs has many challenges, including funding, institutional rigidity and acceptability for both patients and clinicians. There are multiple examples of successful ePRO programmes but no specific feasibility studies in those who are less digitally engaged. Prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of older men and digital exclusion is associated with increased age. We assessed the feasibility of ePRO completion in older men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer both within the clinic and from home.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men receiving palliative systemic treatment were asked to complete ePROs on a tablet computer in the outpatient department at 0 and 3 months. Participants were also offered optional completion from home. Feasibility was assessed via a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

On-site ePRO completion was acceptable to most patients, with 90% finding it easy or straightforward and 80% preferring electronic over paper. Remote completion was more challenging, even for those who accessed e-mail daily and owned a tablet, with only 20% of participants successfully completing ePROs. Barriers to electronic completion can be categorised as technical, attitudinal and medical. Quality of life and symptom ePRO results were comparable with published data.

CONCLUSIONS

On-site completion is achievable in this population with limited staff support. However, remote completion requires further work to improve systems and acceptability for patients. Remote completion is critical to add significantly to current clinical care by detecting symptoms or stratifying follow-up.