Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics.

METHODS

Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Real-world use and clinical impact of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology (IO) therapy

416

Background: Patients with cancer can experience disease- and treatment-related symptoms that are underreported and underestimated by physicians. This observational, non-interventional study evaluated the use of ePROs and their impact on duration of treatment (DoT) in patients with solid tumors receiving IO therapy in community practice. Methods: Patients initiating index IO therapy immediately prior to (Jan-2017 to Dec-2018) and after (Sep-2019 to Dec-2020) implementation of Noona, the ePRO platform at Tennessee Oncology clinics, were included in a retrospective historical control (HC) and ePRO cohort, respectively, and followed for up to 6 months. The ePRO cohort was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤45 days from index) and non-users. ePRO questionnaires, based on Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), were sent within a week after each IO infusion and could be completed using an internet browser or smartphone app. Patient characteristics and DoT were described and compared between the HC and ePRO cohorts and between the HC cohort and ePRO users subgroup. Use of ePROs was evaluated within the ePRO cohort. Differences in baseline characteristics between cohorts were adjusted using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: Data were collected for 538 HC and 1014 ePRO patients (319 ePRO users and 695 non-users). Patient characteristics were generally similar between cohorts, but more HC patients were diagnosed with Stage IV disease (54% vs 47%; p < 0.01) and initiated IO as monotherapy (82% vs 52%), while more ePRO patients initiated IO as combination therapy (48% vs 18%). ePRO users were more likely than non-users to be female, white, married, living with a spouse, and have higher education (college or graduate degree) (all p < 0.05). Use of ePROs was durable over follow-up, with a consistent number of questionnaires sent over Months 1-3 and Months 4-6 (median: 6 questionnaires in each period) and a slight decrease in the number answered (median: 4 vs 3 questionnaires). ePRO patients had a longer DoT than HC patients (median time to end of first IO regimen: not estimable vs 5.1 months). Significantly more ePRO than HC patients remained on their first IO regimen at 6 months (54% vs 46%; p < 0.05). Multivariate Cox regression showed the risk of ending first IO therapy was lower for ePRO versus HC patients (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The increased DoT observed in the ePRO versus HC cohort in this study suggests that use of ePROs may facilitate improved care coordination and enable patients to remain on IO therapy longer. However, ePRO uptake was only 31% in the ePRO cohort, with several social determinants appearing to influence use. Overcoming barriers in ePRO uptake is an area for future study.

Capture of common adverse events (AEs) by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in clinical trials of immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapies in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC)

263

Background: IO-based combination therapies have improved clinical outcomes in aRCC; several are approved for first-line use. AEs can significantly impact quality of life, and IO therapy is associated with AEs that differ from prior standard treatment toxicities. PROMs capture health status directly from patients and often include the symptoms and severity of AEs. Our aim was to assess the extent to which the PROMs used in pivotal trials covered the most common AEs associated with IO combinations. Methods: This was a review of data from four phase 3, randomized, open-label studies of IO-based combinations in previously untreated advanced/metastatic clear-cell RCC (CheckMate 214, CheckMate 9ER, KEYNOTE-426, CLEAR [KEYNOTE-581]). The 10 most common all-grade, all-cause AEs (%) and the PROMs used in each trial were identified. The inclusion of the most common AEs in the PROMs was explored descriptively. Results: The most common AEs and their frequencies varied among the different combination regimens. There was also variation across trials in the PROMs used. Capture of the most common AEs by the PROMs used in each study is summarized in the Table. Conclusions: Current PROMs used in clinical trials of IO combinations for aRCC tend to capture more of the common AEs for IO-IO vs IO-tyrosine kinase inhibitor regimens. PROMs that reflect the unique AE profiles of IO therapies, especially from the patient perspective, may be needed for future trials.[Table: see text]

Impact of clinical pathways on treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world evidence from a community oncology practice

Introduction: The evolving treatment landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and complexities of regulations and reimbursement present challenges to community oncologists. Clinical pathways are tools to optimize care, but information on their value in the real world is limited. This retrospective study assessed treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with Stage I-III NSCLC pre- and post-pathways implementation at Tennessee Oncology, a large, community-based oncology practice in the USA. Methods & Materials: Chart data were abstracted for adults diagnosed with Stage I-III NSCLC who received systemic treatment. Patients were divided into pre-pathways (treatment initiation 2014-2015) and post-pathways (treatment initiation 2016-2018) cohorts. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess time-dependent outcomes, and log-rank test was used to compare the cohorts. Results: 291 patients were included (Stage I-II: 38 pre-pathways, 55 post-pathways; Stage III: 105 pre-pathways, 93 post-pathways). Duration on first-line (1L) therapy was similar for Stage I-II patients pre- and post-pathways (median 1.9 months vs 2.1 months; p = 0.75), but increased for Stage III patients post-pathways (2.1 months vs 1.4 months pre-pathways; p < 0.01). Achievement of a complete or partial response with 1L therapy was similar post-pathways among Stage I-Stage -IIII patients (60.0% vs 55.2% pre-pathways), but increased for Stage III patients (56.0% vs 35.2% pre-pathways). Conclusion: Given that improvements in rates of treatment response post-pathways occurred only for patients diagnosed with Stage III NSCLC, among whom immunotherapy uptake increased post-pathways, such improvements may be attributable to evolving practices in cancer care, including advances in treatment and care delivery, rather than clinical pathways implementation. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of clinical pathways in the current treatment era, given that immunotherapy has now become the standard of care in NSCLC.

The Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale with preschoolers

15 teachers completed the Behavioral Academic Self-Esteem Scale (alpha = .93) for 71 preschoolers. Teachers rated self-esteem positively. Three factors were identified, confident approach, adaptability to routines, and dealing with failure/frustration.

Early childhood special educators' perceptions of school psychologists' roles in their programs

Perceived and preferred roles of 67 school psychologists in early childhood special-education programs were examined in a partial replication with 268 respondents in Illinois of Mowder, Willis, and Widerstrom's work. The most commonly cited reason for consultation with school psychologists was related to psychological assessment, with information on children's functioning as the most likely benefit. Respondents preferred the mental health model. Although respondents were satisfied with the roles of school psychologists, they presented several concerns about expanded roles for school psychologists.