A randomized trial of the electronic Lung Cancer Symptom Scale for quality-of-life assessment in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer

Systematic Review for the Follow-up of Curatively Treated Patients With Lung Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The follow-up of patients with lung cancer after curative-intent treatment should include strategies to improve their quality of life and survival. These could include the monitoring and management of symptoms of recurrence and late toxicities from cancer treatments, the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools, and smoking cessation interventions. The objective of this systematic review was to examine these follow-up strategies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic review was developed by Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario)'s Program in Evidence-Based Care. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different types of clinicians, PRO tools, smoking cessation interventions, and management strategies for signs, symptoms, risk factors, comorbidities, or late toxicities in adult patients with NSCLC or SCLC after curative-intent treatment.

RESULTS

Thirty-five RCTs and nineteen systematic reviews were included. For nurse-led interventions, either significant effects were found in favor of the intervention, or no significant effects were found. The results for the use of PRO tools were mixed, possibly due to differences in comparators and settings. Evidence suggested that smoking cessation interventions might benefit these patients (RR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.68-1.03). There was limited evidence in the target population for the management of signs, symptoms, risk factors, comorbidities, or late toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Smoking cessation interventions, exercise training, and the use of PRO tools may benefit these patients. The results of this systematic review were used to inform recommendations in a clinical practice guideline. Further RCTs in this patient population are needed.

Interventions for Concerning Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine cancer care improves patient-clinician communication, decision making, and overall patient satisfaction. Recommendations exist regarding standardized ways to collect, store, and interpret PRO data. However, evidence on incorporating PROs into cancer process of care, especially the type of HIs that are warranted after observing a concerning PRO and the effectiveness of these HIs are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

This study summarizes HIs triggered after PRO completion and their effectiveness in improving patient outcomes for adults being treated for cancer types that are resource intensive and associated with high symptom burden [i.e., gastrointestinal (GI), lung, and head and neck cancer (HNC)]. Secondary outcomes included factors associated with poor implementation of PROs.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A literature search of peer-reviewed publications on MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, APA PsycInfo, Scopus, and Cochrane was conducted following PRISMA guidelines from 1 January 2012, to 31 July 2022. Trial and real-world studies describing HIs after PRO completion for adult patients being treated for GI, lung, and HNC were included. Sixteen studies involving 144,496 patients were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist was used to assess risk of bias.

FINDINGS

Of the 16 included studies, 5 included patients with HNC. Commonly used PRO measurement tools were the PRO-CTCAE and ESAS. Only three studies reported specific HIs delivered in response to concerning PROs and measured their effectiveness on patient outcomes. In all three studies, these HIs significantly improved cancer-related care. The most common HIs undertaken in response to concerning PROs were referrals to other specialists/allied healthcare professionals, medication changes, or self-management advice. Provider-related barriers to PRO measurement and delivery included the overwhelming number of alerts, the time required to address each PRO and the unclear role of healthcare providers in response to these alerts. Patient-related barriers included lower digital literacy and socioeconomic status, older age, rural living, and patients suffering from GI and HNC.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This review highlights that PRO-triggered HIs are heterogenous and can improve patient quality of life. Further studies are necessary to determine the types of interventions with the greatest impact on patient care and outcomes.

Effects of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes on patient health outcomes in oncology settings: A systematic review

Objective

This study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key inclusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration's criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen's d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

Results

Out of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health.

Systematic review registration

The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).

Effectiveness of routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements for cancer care improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Research shows that feeding back patient-reported outcome information to clinicians and/or patients could be associated with improved care processes and patient outcomes. Quantitative syntheses of intervention effects on oncology patient outcomes are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) feedback intervention on oncology patient outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We identified relevant studies from 116 references included in our previous Cochrane review assessing the intervention for the general population. In May 2022, we conducted a systematic search in five bibliography databases using predefined keywords for additional studies published after the Cochrane review.

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials evaluating the effects of PROM feedback intervention on processes and outcomes of care for oncology patients.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We used the meta-analytic approach to synthesize across studies measuring the same outcomes. We estimated pooled effects of the intervention on outcomes using Cohen's d for continuous data and risk ratio (RR) with a 95% confidence interval for dichotomous data. We used a descriptive approach to summarize studies which reported insufficient data for a meta-analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME(S) AND MEASURES(S)

Health-related quality of life (HRQL), symptoms, patient-healthcare provider communication, number of visits and hospitalizations, number of adverse events, and overall survival.

RESULTS

We included 29 studies involving 7071 cancer participants. A small number of studies was available for each metanalysis (median = 3 studies, ranging from 2 to 9 studies) due to heterogeneity in the evaluation of the trials. We found that the intervention improved HRQL (Cohen's d = 0.23, 95% CI 0.11-0.34), mental functioning (Cohen's d = 0.14, 95% CI 0.02-0.26), patient-healthcare provider communication (Cohen's d = 0.41, 95% CI 0.20-0.62), and 1-year overall survival (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.48-0.86). The risk of bias across studies was considerable in the domains of allocation concealment, blinding, and intervention contamination.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although we found evidence to support the intervention for highly relevant outcomes, our conclusions are tempered by the high risk of bias relating mainly to intervention design. PROM feedback for oncology patients may improve processes and outcomes for cancer patients but more high-quality evidence is required.

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.

Remote Oncology Care: Review of Current Technology and Future Directions

Cancer patients frequently develop tumor and treatment-related complications, leading to diminished quality of life, shortened survival, and overutilization of emergency department and hospital services. Outpatient oncology treatment has potential to leave cancer patients unmonitored for long periods while at risk of clinical deterioration which has been exaggerated during the COVID19 pandemic. Visits to cancer clinics and hospitals risk exposing immunocompromised patients to infectious complications. Remote patient reported outcomes monitoring systems have been developed for use in cancer treatment, showing benefits in economic and survival outcomes. While advanced devices such as pulmonary artery pressure monitors and implantable loop recorders have proven benefits in cardiovascular care, similar options do not exist for oncology. Here we review the current literature around remote patient monitoring in cancer care and propose the use of reliable devices for capturing and reporting patient symptoms and physiology.