Patient-reported outcomes to assess symptoms in patients with metastatic breast cancer: Pilot implementation project

177

Background: Use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to evaluate symptoms improves clinical outcomes. Best practices for implementing PROs into routine care may vary according to clinical scenario, site-specific resources and programmatic goals. Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often experience a variety of symptoms. Methods: As a quality improvement project, we are pilot testing incorporation of a battery of PRO measures into routine care for patients with MBC at Johns Hopkins in order to gain experience that will guide future broader implementation of PROs across our program. Participants complete the PROs on paper at baseline (BL), 3, and 6 months (mo). Measures include NCCN Distress Thermometer (BL only), Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7), PRO-CTCAE Insomnia questions and a modified version of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (r-ESAS) questionnaire with 3 extra symptom domains. Project team members alert clinicians by email of scores that exceed severity thresholds as follows – Distress: ≥4, PHQ-8: ≥8, GAD-7: ≥10, any item on r-ESAS: ≥4 and PRO-CTCAE Insomnia: severe/very severe or quite a bit/very much. Results: From May 29, 2020 and April 5, 2021, 67 patients were approached for participation, and 40 (59.7%) completed the BL PROs. Median age was 64 (range 36-85). Most participants were White (70%), non-Hispanic (90%) and had hormone receptor-positive (93%) MBC. At BL, 22 (55%) had visceral disease and most were receiving endocrine-based regimens [21 (53%)] or chemotherapy [16 (40%)]. 27 (68%) participants had ≥1 BL alert. The most common BL alerts were for symptoms on the r-ESAS [23 participants (58%)]. The most frequent items on the r-ESAS for which participants had BL alerts were pain, tiredness, well-being, tingling/numbness and rash. Other BL alerts were: Distress [9 participants (23%)], PRO-CTCAE Insomnia [5 participants (13%)], PHQ-8 [4 participants (10%)] and GAD-7 [2 participants (5%)]. To date, 24 of 35 (69%) and 15 of 28 (54%) participants who have reached the 3 and 6 mo time points have completed the respective follow-up (FU) PROs. Most common FU alerts to date are on the r-ESAS [3 mo: 14 participants (58%), 6 mo: 9 participants (60%)]. The project team has successfully notified providers of all alerts to date. Clinical actions (phone calls, provider visits and/or referrals) have been taken within 30 days of notification for > 75% of alerts. Conclusions: Implementation of a PRO battery for patients receiving routine care for MBC led to detection of a range of symptoms, the majority of which were clinically actionable. Restrictions on in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic may have contributed to low rates of PRO completion in this pilot project. Prior to broader implementation, we will consider strategies such as an electronic platform and a shorter battery to enhance patient engagement.

Assessing financial toxicity in patients with metastatic breast cancer: A single institution experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

176

Background: Assessment of financial toxicity (FTox) is recommended as a component of comprehensive supportive care for patients with metastatic cancer. FTox is common in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and is associated with poor quality of life. Available data suggest many patients with cancer have faced financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We evaluated FTox using the COmprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure in patients with MBC at Johns Hopkins clinical sites. Respondents were patients with MBC who completed the COST measure as part of the baseline assessment for one of two IRB-approved quality improvement projects initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic: 1) a pilot project evaluating incorporation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures into routine care (RC), and 2) a needs assessment prior to attending a multi-disciplinary clinic (MultiD-C) focusing on supportive care. COST scores range from 0-44 with higher scores indicating better financial well-being. FTox was graded as: Grade 0 (G0): >26, Grade 1 (G1): >14-26, Grade 2 (G2): >0-14 and Grade 3 (G3): 0. Results: 40 patients with MBC completed the COST measure May 2020 through April 2021 as a component of RC and 17 patients with MBC completed the COST measure September 2020 through May 2021 in advance of anticipated attendance at the MultiD-C. Median age (range) for RC and MultiD-C respondents was 64 (36-85) and 55 (37-75) years, respectively. 4 (10%) and 4 (24%) of RC and MultiD-C respondents respectively reported household income < $50,000. The majority of respondents in both groups were White [RC: 28 (70%), MultiD-C: 14 (82%)], non-Hispanic [RC: 36 (90%), MultiD-C: 16 (94%)], had more than high school education [RC: 37 (93%), MultiD-C: 17 (100%)] and all were insured. 27 (68%) of RC respondents and 11 (65%) of MultiD-C respondents were receiving oral cancer therapies. COST scores and grading are shown in the Table. Approximately half of the respondents in each group reported their illness has been at least “a little bit” of a financial hardship [RC: 22 (55%), Multi-D: 8 (47%)]. Conclusions: Patients with MBC receiving care during the COVID-19 pandemic frequently report FTox. Implementation of routine assessment for FTox via PRO measures and identification of strategies to support patients with MBC experiencing FTox are priorities both during the pandemic and beyond.[Table: see text]