Adding Patient-Reported Outcomes to Medicare's Oncology Value-Based Payment Model

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.

The Growing Role of Digital Health Tools in the Care of Patients with Cancer: Current Use, Future Opportunities, and Barriers to Effective Implementation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This article aims to describe the ways in which digital health technologies are currently being used to improve the delivery of cancer care, highlight opportunities to expand their use, and discuss barriers to effective and equitable implementation.

RECENT FINDINGS

The utilization of digital health tools and development of novel care delivery models that leverage such tools is expanding. Recent studies have shown feasibility and increased implementation in the setting of oncologic care. With technological advances and key policy changes, utilization of digital health tools has greatly increased over the past two decades and transformed how cancer care is delivered. As digital health tools are expanded and refined, there is potential for improved access to and quality and efficiency of cancer care. However, careful consideration should be given to key barriers of digital health tool adoption, such as infrastructural, patient-level, and health systems-level challenges, to ensure equitable access to care and improvement in health outcomes.

Challenges and solutions to system-wide use of precision oncology as the standard of care paradigm

The personalised oncology paradigm remains challenging to deliver despite technological advances in genomics-based identification of actionable variants combined with the increasing focus of drug development on these specific targets. To ensure we continue to build concerted momentum to improve outcomes across all cancer types, financial, technological and operational barriers need to be addressed. For example, complete integration and certification of the 'molecular tumour board' into 'standard of care' ensures a unified clinical decision pathway that both counteracts fragmentation and is the cornerstone of evidence-based delivery inside and outside of a research setting. Generally, integrated delivery has been restricted to specific (common) cancer types either within major cancer centres or small regional networks. Here, we focus on solutions in real-world integration of genomics, pathology, surgery, oncological treatments, data from clinical source systems and analysis of whole-body imaging as digital data that can facilitate cost-effectiveness analysis, clinical trial recruitment, and outcome assessment. This urgent imperative for cancer also extends across the early diagnosis and adjuvant treatment interventions, individualised cancer vaccines, immune cell therapies, personalised synthetic lethal therapeutics and cancer screening and prevention. Oncology care systems worldwide require proactive step-changes in solutions that include inter-operative digital working that can solve patient centred challenges to ensure inclusive, quality, sustainable, fair and cost-effective adoption and efficient delivery. Here we highlight workforce, technical, clinical, regulatory and economic challenges that prevent the implementation of precision oncology at scale, and offer a systematic roadmap of integrated solutions for standard of care based on minimal essential digital tools. These include unified decision support tools, quality control, data flows within an ethical and legal data framework, training and certification, monitoring and feedback. Bridging the technical, operational, regulatory and economic gaps demands the joint actions from public and industry stakeholders across national and global boundaries.

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.

Immediate Effects of Integrative Health and Medicine Modalities Among Outpatients With Moderate-To-Severe Symptoms

Background

Patients seeking integrative health and medicine (IHM) modalities often present with multiple physical and psychological concerns. Research supports IHM's effectiveness for addressing symptoms over longer time periods. However, few studies have evaluated immediate outpatient effects.

Objective

This study describes pre-encounter patient-reported outcome (PRO) clusters and examines the immediate clinical effectiveness of IHM modalities on pain, stress, and anxiety among outpatients with moderate-to-severe symptoms.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of encounters among adults presenting to outpatient acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, integrative medicine consultation, or osteopathic manipulation treatment between January 2019 and July 2020. Encounters were included if patients reported pre-encounter pain, stress, or anxiety ≥4 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Outcome analyses included random effects for patient and provider using a mixed model.

Results

Across 7335 clinical encounters among 2530 unique patients (mean age: 49.14 years; 81.0% female; 75.9% White; 15.8% Black/African American), the most common pre-encounter PRO clusters were pain, stress, and anxiety ≥4 (32.4%); pain ≥4 only (31.3%); and stress and anxiety ≥4 (15.6%). Clinically meaningful single-encounter mean [95% CI] changes were observed across all modalities in pain (-2.50 [-2.83, -2.17]), stress (-3.22 [-3.62, -2.82]), and anxiety (-3.05 [-3.37, -2.73]).

Conclusion

Patients presenting to outpatient IHM with moderate-to-severe symptoms most often presented with pain, stress, and anxiety ≥4 on the NRS. Multiple IHM modalities yielded clinically meaningful (≥2 unit) immediate reductions in these symptoms. Future research measuring immediate and longitudinal effectiveness is needed to optimize the triage and coordination of IHM modalities to meet patients' needs.

Country-specific reference values for PROMIS® pain, physical function and participation measures compared to US reference values

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS^®) is commonly used across medical conditions. To facilitate interpretation of scores across countries, we calculated Dutch reference values for PROMIS Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), Pain Interference (PROMIS-PI), Pain Behavior (PROMIS-PB), Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-APSRA), and Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities (PROMIS-SSRA), as compared to US reference values.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A panel completed full PROMIS-PF (n=1310), PROMIS-PI and PROMIS-PB (n=1052), and PROMIS-APSRA and PROMIS-SSRA (n=1002) item banks and reported their level of health per domain (no, mild, moderate, severe limitations). T-scores were calculated by sample and subgroups (age, gender, self-reported level of domain). Distribution-based and anchor-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were determined.

RESULTS

Mean T-scores were close to the US mean of 50 for PROMIS-PF (49.8) and PROMIS-APSRA (50.6), lower for PROMIS-SSRA (47.5) and higher for PROMIS-PI (54.9) and PROMIS-PB (52.0). Distribution-based thresholds for mild, moderate, and severe scores were comparable to US recommended cut-off values (except for PROMIS-PI) but participants reported limitations 'earlier' than suggested thresholds.

CONCLUSION

Dutch reference values were close to US reference values for some PROMIS domains but not all. We recommend country-specific reference values to facilitate worldwide PROMIS use.KEY MESSAGESPROMIS offers universally applicable IRT-based efficient and patient-friendly measures to assess commonly relevant patient-reported outcomes across medical conditions.To support the use of PROMIS in daily clinical practice and research across the world, country-specific general population reference values should be obtained.More research is necessary to obtain reliable and valid cut-off values for what constitutes mild, moderate and severe scores from the patients' perspective.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy

PURPOSE

To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days.

RESULTS

From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86).

CONCLUSION

EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Adherence to Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring and Subsequent Clinical Interventions for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in Outpatient Care: Longitudinal Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The use of software to monitor patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving anticancer therapy; however, evidence from applications used in routine clinical practice is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate adherence to and patient perceptions of a weekly, web-based PROM symptom monitoring program in routine clinical practice for patients with Multiple Myeloma. Moreover, we aimed to capture how clinical alerts prompted by the system influenced clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center longitudinal observational study to evaluate patient adherence to and perceptions of the PROM monitoring software in routine practice. Patients with Multiple Myeloma remotely completed weekly treatment-specific PROMs to monitor key symptoms via a dedicated web-based platform. Alarming symptoms triggered clinical alerts in the application for the treatment team, which could initiate clinical interventions. The primary outcomes were the web-based assessment completion rate and patients' perceptions of the monitoring program, as assessed by an evaluation questionnaire. Moreover, clinical alerts prompted by the system and consequential clinical interventions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between July 2021 and June 2022, a total of 55 patients were approached for participation; 39 patients participated (24, 61% male, mean age 63.2, SD 9.2 years). The median assessment completion rate out of all weekly scheduled assessments was 70.3% (IQR 41.2%-89.6%). Most patients (77%) felt that the health care team was better informed about their health status due to the web-based assessments. Clinical alerts were triggered for 1758 of 14,639 (12%) reported symptoms. For 548 of 1758 (31.2%) alerts, the symptom had been registered before and no further action was required; for 348 of 1758 (19.9%) alerts, telephone consultation and self-management advice sufficed. Higher-level interventions were seldom needed in response to alerts: referral to a doctor or specialist (88/1758, 5% alerts), medication changes (22/1758, 1.3%), scheduling additional diagnostics (9/1758, 0.5%), or unplanned emergency visits (7/1758, 0.4%). Most patients (55%) reported the calls in response to alerts gave them "quite a bit" or "very much" of an added feeling of security during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that high adherence to regular and tailored PROM monitoring can be achieved in routine clinical care. The findings provide valuable insight into how the PROM monitoring program and the clinical alerts and resulting interventions shaped clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05036863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05036863.

The Effects of Sociodemographic Factors on Baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients with Foot and Ankle Conditions

BACKGROUND

Racial and ethnic care disparities persist within orthopaedics in the United States. This study aimed to deepen our understanding of which sociodemographic factors most impact patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) score variation and may explain racial and ethnic disparities in PROM scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed baseline PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) Global-Physical (PGP) and PROMIS Global-Mental (PGM) scores of 23,171 foot and ankle patients who completed the instrument from 2016 to 2021. A series of regression models was used to evaluate scores by race and ethnicity after adjusting in a stepwise fashion for household income, education level, primary language, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), sex, and age. Full models were utilized to compare independent effects of predictors.

RESULTS

For the PGP and PGM, adjusting for income, education level, and CCI reduced racial disparity by 61% and 54%, respectively, and adjusting for education level, language, and income reduced ethnic disparity by 67% and 65%, respectively. Full models revealed that an education level of high school or less and a severe CCI had the largest negative effects on scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Education level, primary language, income, and CCI explained the majority (but not all) of the racial and ethnic disparities in our cohort. Among the explored factors, education level and CCI were predominant drivers of PROM score variation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29

BACKGROUND

Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population.

METHODS

Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19.

RESULTS

In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values.

CONCLUSIONS

These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

Charting a path to high-quality end-of-life care for children with cancer

There are currently no quality measures for end-of-life (EOL) care for children with cancer. In this commentary, we address why it is essential that we develop quality measures for EOL care for children with cancer, review the progress made to date, and chart the course for future work in this area.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system.

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes.

METHODS

Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized.

RESULTS

The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective.

CONCLUSIONS

This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/38461.

The critical need to implement and utilize patient-reported measures of function in cancer care delivery

The study by Smith et al. on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile shows that it can be used to measure how an individual functions and how his or her function changes during cancer treatments. This is important because most patients will experience a decline in function during cancer treatment and will struggle to fully participate in their life roles. Strong evidence demonstrates that rehabilitation improves function for individuals with cancer; rehabilitation is relatively underutilized. We suggest that using the PROMIS tool as a repeated measure throughout cancer treatment will help to identify those with functional decline who will benefit most from rehabilitation.

Analysis of a Remote Monitoring Program for Symptoms Among Adults With Cancer Receiving Antineoplastic Therapy

IMPORTANCE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) may have the potential to improve cancer care delivery by enhancing patient quality of life, reducing acute care visits, and extending overall survival. However, the optimal cadence of ePRO assessments is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine patient response preferences and the clinical value associated with a daily cadence for ePROs for patients receiving antineoplastic treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study of adult patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment assessed a remote monitoring program using ePROs that was developed to manage cancer therapy-related symptoms. ePRO data submitted between October 16, 2018 to February 29, 2020, from a single regional site within the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center network were included. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to January 2022.

EXPOSURE

While undergoing active treatment, patients received a daily ePRO assessment that, based on patient responses, generated yellow (moderate) or red (severe) symptom alerts that were sent to clinicians.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcomes assessed included patient response rate, symptom alert frequency, and an analysis of the clinical value of daily ePROs.

RESULTS

A total of 217 patients (median [range] age, 66 [31-92] years; 103 [47.5%] women and 114 [52.5%] men) initiating antineoplastic therapy at high risk for symptoms were monitored for a median (range) of 91 (2-369) days. Most patients had thoracic (59 patients [27.2%]), head and neck (48 patients [22.1%]), or gastrointestinal (43 patients [19.8%]) malignant neoplasms. Of 14 603 unique symptom assessments completed, 7349 (50.3%) generated red or yellow symptom alerts. Symptoms commonly generating alerts included pain (665 assessments [23.0%]) and functional status (465 assessments [16.1%]). Most assessments (8438 assessments [57.8%]) were completed at home during regular clinic hours (ie, 9 am-5 pm), with higher response rates on weekdays (58.4%; 95% CI, 57.5%-59.5%) than on weekend days (51.3%; 95% CI, 49.5%-53.1%). Importantly, 284 of 630 unique red alerts (45.1%) surfaced without a prior yellow alert for the same symptom within the prior 7 days; symptom severity fluctuated over the course of a week, and symptom assessments generating a red alert were followed by an acute care visit within 7 days 8.7% of the time compared with 2.9% for assessments without a red alert.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that daily ePRO assessments were associated with increased insight into symptom management in patients undergoing antineoplastic treatment and symptom alerts were associated with risk of acute care.

Exploring Noona Using Passively-Collected Data and Satisfaction/Loyalty Ratings

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcomes’ real time communication of treatment-related symptoms is increasingly associated with better outcomes including longer survival and less health care resource use, but the primary method of collecting this information, static questionnaires, has not evolved.

Objective

The aim of this paper is to describe the use of Noona’s three methods of communicating treatment-related symptoms, which are as follows: (1) Noona symptom questionnaires (NSQ), which incorporate branching logic; (2) a diary; and (3) secure messaging, the last two of which have NSQ reporting functionality. It also aims to explore, using multivariable analyses, whether patients find value using these features.

Methods

Noona users (N=1081) who have an active account for more than 30 days, who responded to the satisfaction/loyalty item, and who were undergoing active cancer treatment (systemic or radiotherapy) in the United States were included in this study. All study data were collected via software embedded within Noona code. This includes metadata, patient activities (measured in clicks), and responses to a satisfaction/loyalty question (“How likely are you to recommend Noona to another patient”) displayed on the Noona home page.

Results

Noona users expressed a high degree of satisfaction/loyalty when asked to rate how likely they would recommend Noona to another patient. Multivariable analyses indicate small but significant effects for some of the analyses. Use of NSQs were significantly related to satisfaction/loyalty, users of NSQs had significantly higher satisfaction/loyalty than those who did not use any, and secure communication use was significantly higher for those who rated the app highly compared to those who did not. These relationships will likely be further explicated with the use of satisfaction/loyalty questions that focus specifically on feature use.

Conclusions

Noona is well liked by respondents, and exploratory multivariable analyses demonstrate the potential for using passively and minimally invasive data to demonstrate value.

Implementation of an Online Glaucoma-Specific Quality of Life Computerized Adaptive Test System in a US Glaucoma Hospital

Purpose

The feasibility of implementing a computerized adaptive test (CAT) system in routine clinical care in ophthalmology has not been assessed. We evaluated the implementation of a glaucoma-specific CAT (GlauCAT) in outpatients at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Institute.

Methods

In this implementation study (July 2020–April 2021), 216 adults (mean ± SD age 64.8 ± 15.3 years; 56.0% women) completed six adaptive GlauCAT quality of life (QOL) tests on an internet-enabled tablet at the clinic. A real-time printable report summarizing domain scores was shared with physicians prior to consultation. The implementation was evaluated using Proctor's outcomes: acceptability (patient satisfaction); appropriateness (independent complete rate [%]); feasibility (acceptance rate [%]; completion time); and fidelity (percentage of patients discussing GlauCAT results with their physician). Physician barriers/facilitators were explored using open-ended questions.

Results

Patients’ mean ± SD satisfaction score was 3.5 ± 0.5 of 4, with >95% of patients willing to recommend it to others. Of the 216 (89.2%) patients accepting to participate, 173 (80%) completed GlauCAT independently. Patients took 8 minutes and 5 seconds (median) to complete all 6 GlauCAT tests. Almost two-thirds (n = 136/216) of the patients reported discussing their GlauCAT results with their doctor. Physicians described the GlauCAT summary report as helpful and user-friendly, although lack of time and uncertainty about how to action information were reported.

Conclusions

Pilot implementation of six GlauCAT QOL tests in glaucoma outpatient clinics was feasible and acceptable. Integration of GlauCAT with electronic medical records (EMRs) and evaluation of long-term implementation outcomes are needed.

Translational Relevance

GlauCAT's multiple outcomes and low test-taking burden makes it attractive for measuring glaucoma-specific QOL in routine clinical care.

Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

Tolerability of bevacizumab and chemotherapy in a phase 3 clinical trial with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer: A trajectory analysis of adverse events

BACKGROUND

E5103 was a study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab. It was a negative trial for the end points of invasive disease-free survival and overall survival. The current work examines the tolerability of bevacizumab and other medication exposures with respect to clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

Adverse events (AEs) collected from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were summarized to form an AE profile at each treatment cycle. All-grade and high-grade events were separately analyzed. The change in the AE profile over the treatment cycle was delineated as distinct AE trajectory clusters. AE-related and any-reason early treatment discontinuations were treated as clinical outcome measures. PROs were measured with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast + Lymphedema. The relationships between the AE trajectory and early treatment discontinuation as well as PROs were analyzed.

RESULTS

More than half of all AEs (57.5%) were low-grade. A cluster of patients with broad and mixed AE (all-grade) trajectory grades was significantly associated with any-reason early treatment discontinuation (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; P = .01) as well as AE-related discontinuation (OR, 4.14; P = .001). This cluster had the highest count of all-grade AEs per cycle in comparison with other clusters. Another cluster of patients with primary neuropathic AEs in their trajectories had poorer physical well-being in comparison with a trajectory of no or few AEs (P < .01). A high-grade AE trajectory did not predict discontinuations.

CONCLUSIONS

A sustained and cumulative burden of across-the-board toxicities, which were not necessarily all recognized as high-grade AEs, contributed to early treatment discontinuation. Patients with neuropathic all-grade AEs may require additional attention for preventing deterioration in their physical well-being.

What matters to patients and clinicians when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on health-related quality of life? Consensus-based mixed methods approach in prostate cancer

OBJECTIVE

To identify what matters to clinicians and patients when discussing cancer medicines' impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

A framework of HRQoL domain/domain elements was developed, informed by analysis of published patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), applicable to prostate cancer. Using mixed methods (eDelphi, Nominal Group Technique and questionnaire), prostate cancer clinicians and patients attending prostate cancer clinics and support groups were asked which domains/domain elements would be important to them when discussing the impact prostate cancer medicines have on their HRQoL.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinicians and 71 patients participated from the West of Scotland. Clinicians and patients identified 53/62 domain elements across seven domains as important, of which 32 (60%) were common to both groups. Clinicians placed more importance than patients on Mood & Emotion; in contrast, patients placed importance on a broader range of Symptoms & Side Effects, being informed about their care, and having effective healthcare professional collaboration.

CONCLUSION

This study provides insight into the similarities and differences between what clinicians and patients think is important when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on HRQoL. Future research should involve exploring the potential for consistency of medicines PROMs across different cancer types to support patient-clinician communication and drive improvements in care.

Identification of Patient-Reported Outcome Phenotypes Among Oncology Patients With Palliative Care Needs

PURPOSE

Despite evidence-based guidelines recommending early palliative care, it remains unclear how to identify and refer oncology patients, particularly in settings with constrained access to palliative care. We hypothesize that patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can be used to characterize patients with palliative care needs. To determine if PRO data can identify latent phenotypes that characterize indications for specialty palliative care referral.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of self-reported symptoms on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System collected from solid tumor oncology patients (n = 745) referred to outpatient palliative care. Data were collected as part of routine clinical care from October 2012 to March 2018 at eight community and academic sites. We applied latent profile analysis to identify PRO phenotypes and examined the association of phenotypes with clinical and demographic characteristics using multinomial logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified four PRO phenotypes: (1) Low Symptoms (n = 295, 39.6%), (2) Moderate Pain/Fatigue + Mood (n = 180, 24.2%), (3) Moderate Pain/Fatigue + Appetite + Dyspnea (n = 201, 27.0%), and (4) High Symptoms (n = 69, 9.3%). In a secondary analysis of 421 patients, we found that two brief items assessing social and existential needs aligned with higher severity symptom and psychological distress phenotypes.

CONCLUSION

Oncology patients referred to outpatient palliative care in a real-world setting can be differentiated into clinically meaningful phenotypes using brief, routinely collected PRO measures. Latent modeling provides a mechanism to use patient-reported data on a population level to identify distinct subgroups of patients with unmet palliative needs.

Correlation Between Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health Insurance Provider Types in Patients with Hip Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently utilized to assess patient perceptions of health and function. Numerous factors influence self-reported physical and mental health outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to examine if an association exists between insurance payer type and baseline PROM scores in patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the baseline PROM scores of 5,974 patients diagnosed with hip osteoarthritis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) code within our institutional database from 2015 to 2020. We examined Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, and PROMIS Global-Physical scores. Descriptive analyses, analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and post hoc analyses were utilized to assess variations in PROM scores across insurance type.

RESULTS

The mean age (and standard deviation) of the study population was 63.5 ± 12.2 years, and 55.7% of patients were female. The Medicaid cohort had a comparatively higher percentage of Black, Hispanic, and non-English-speaking patients and a lower median household income. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was highest in the Medicare and Medicaid insurance cohorts. Patients utilizing commercial insurance consistently demonstrated the highest baseline PROMs, and patients utilizing Medicaid consistently demonstrated the lowest baseline PROMs. Subsequent analyses found significantly poorer mean scores for the Medicaid cohort for all 4 PROMs when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohorts. These score differences exceeded the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). For the PROMIS Global-Mental subscore, a significantly lower mean score was observed for the Workers' Compensation and motor vehicle insurance cohort when compared with the commercial insurance and Medicare cohort. This difference also exceeded the MCID.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM scores in patients with hip osteoarthritis varied among those with different insurance types. Variations in certain demographic and health indices are potential drivers of these observed baseline PROM differences. For patients with hip osteoarthritis, the use of PROMs for research, clinical, or quality-linked payment metrics should acknowledge baseline variation between patients with different insurance types.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Perceptions of Japanese and Dutch women with early breast cancer about monitoring their quality of life

OBJECTIVE

Monitoring quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer can provide insight into functional, psychological and social consequences associated with illness and its treatment. The primary objective of this study is to examine the influence of cultural factors on the communication between the patient and the health care provider and the perceived QoL in women with breast cancer in Japan and the Netherlands.

METHODS

In Japanese and Dutch women with early breast cancer, the number, content and frequency of QoL-related issues discussed at the medical encounter were studied. Patients completed questionnaires regarding QoL and evaluation of communication with the CareNoteBook.

RESULTS

The total number, frequency and content of QoL-related issues discussed differed between the two countries. Japanese women (n = 134) were significantly more reticent in discussing QoL-issues than the Dutch women (n = 70) (p < .001). Furthermore, Dutch patients perceived the CareNoteBook methodology significantly more positively than the Japanese patients (p < .001). Both groups supported the regular assessment via a CareNoteBook methodology.

CONCLUSIONS

Japanese women are more reluctant in expressing their problems with the illness, its treatment and patient-physician communication than Dutch women.

Diverse patient trajectories during cytotoxic chemotherapy: Capturing longitudinal patient-reported outcomes

Background

High‐value cancer care balances effective treatment with preservation of quality of life. Chemotherapy is known to affect patients’ physical and psychological well‐being negatively. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) provide a means to monitor declines in a patients’ well‐being during treatment.

Methods

We identified 741 oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy in our electronic health record (EHR) system who completed Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys during treatment at a comprehensive cancer center, 2013–2018. PROMIS surveys were collected before, during, and after chemotherapy treatment. Linear mixed‐effects models were performed to identify predictors of physical and mental health scores over time. A k‐mean cluster analysis was used to group patient PROMIS score trajectories.

Results

Mean global physical health (GPH) scores were 48.7 (SD 9.3), 47.7 (8.8), and 48.6 (8.9) and global mental health (GMH) scores were 50.4 (8.6), 49.5 (8.8), and 50.6 (9.1) before, during, and after chemotherapy, respectively. Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity, public insurance, anxiety/depression, stage III cancer, and palliative care were predictors of GPH and GMH decline. The treatment time period was also a predictor of both GPH and GMH decline relative to pre‐treatment. Trajectory clustering identified four distinct PRO clusters associated with chemotherapy treatment.

Conclusions

Patient‐reported outcomes are increasingly used to help monitor cancer treatment and are now a part of care reimbursement. This study leveraged routinely collected PROMIS surveys linked to EHRs to identify novel patient trajectories of physical and mental well‐being in oncology patients undergoing chemotherapy and potential predictors. Supportive care interventions in high‐risk populations identified by our study may optimize resource deployment.

Novelty and impact

This study leveraged routinely collected patient‐reported outcome (PROMIS) surveys linked to electronic health records to characterize oncology patients’ quality of life during chemotherapy. Important clinical and demographic predictors of declines in quality of life were identified and four novel trajectories to guide personalized interventions and support. This work highlights the utility of monitoring patient‐reported outcomes not only before and after, but during chemotherapy to help advert adverse patient outcomes and improve treatment adherence.

Potential Winners and Losers: Understanding How the Oncology Care Model May Differentially Affect Hospitals

PURPOSE

With the introduction of the Oncology Care Model and plans for the transition to Oncology Care First, alternative payment models (APMs) are an increasingly important piece of the oncology care landscape. Evidence is mixed on the Oncology Care Model's impact on utilization and costs, but as policymakers consider expansion of similar models, it is critical to understand the characteristics of hospitals that may be differentially affected.

METHODS

We used 2007-2016 SEER-Medicare data to identify patients with breast and prostate cancer receiving chemotherapy, endocrine therapy (breast), or androgen deprivation therapy (prostate). For each hospital, we calculated 6-month expected mortality, emergency department (ED) visits, inpatient admissions, and costs, all commonly collected APM outcomes. After calculating observed-to-expected rates for each outcome by hospital, we estimated the association between observed-to-expected rates and characteristics of each hospital to understand hospital characteristics that might be associated with higher- or lower-than-expected rates of each outcome.

RESULTS

Hospitals with > 15% rural patients had significantly higher-than-expected mortality (0.31 points higher, P < .001) and ED visit rates (0.10 points higher, P = .029) as well as significantly lower costs (0.06 points lower, P = .004). Hospitals unaffiliated with a medical school also experienced significantly higher-than-expected mortality and ED visits. Hospitals eligible for disproportionate share hospital payment experienced significantly higher ED visits but lower costs. For-profit hospitals experienced higher-than-expected mortality.

CONCLUSION

Rural hospitals and those unaffiliated with a medical school may require special consideration as APMs expand in oncology care. Designated cancer centers and larger hospitals may be advantaged.

A systematic review of rehabilitation and exercise recommendations in oncology guidelines

Guidelines promote high quality cancer care. Rehabilitation recommendations in oncology guidelines have not been characterized and may provide insight to improve integration of rehabilitation into oncology care. This report was developed as a part of the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation 2030 initiative to identify rehabilitation-specific recommendations in guidelines for oncology care. A systematic review of guidelines was conducted. Only guidelines published in English, for adults with cancer, providing recommendations for rehabilitation referral and assessment or interventions between 2009 and 2019 were included. 13840 articles were identified. After duplicates and applied filters, 4897 articles were screened. 69 guidelines were identified with rehabilitation-specific recommendations. Thirty-seven of the 69 guidelines endorsed referral to rehabilitation services but provided no specific recommendations regarding assessment or interventions. Thirty-two of the 69 guidelines met the full inclusion criteria and were assessed using the AGREE II tool. Twenty-one of these guidelines achieved an AGREE II quality score of ≥ 45 and were fully extracted. Guidelines exclusive to pharmacologic interventions and complementary and alternative interventions were excluded. Findings identify guidelines that recommend rehabilitation services across many cancer types and for various consequences of cancer treatment signifying that rehabilitation is a recognized component of oncology care. However, these findings are at odds with clinical reports of low rehabilitation utilization rates suggesting that guideline recommendations may be overlooked. Considering that functional morbidity negatively affects a majority of cancer survivors, improving guideline concordant rehabilitative care could have substantial impact on function and quality of life among cancer survivors.

Making the Case for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Big-Data Rehabilitation Research: Implications for Optimizing Patient-Centered Care

Advances in data science and timely access to health informatics provide a pathway to integrate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical workflows and optimize rehabilitation service delivery. With the shift toward value-based care in the United States health care system, as highlighted by the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services incentive and penalty programs, it is critical for rehabilitation providers to systematically collect and effectively use PROMs to facilitate evaluation of quality and outcomes within and across health systems. This editorial discusses the potential of PROMs to transform clinical practice, provides examples of health systems using PROMs to guide care, and identifies barriers to aggregating data from PROMs to conduct health services research. The article proposes 2 priority areas to help advance rehabilitation health services research: (1) standardization of collecting PROMs data in electronic health records to facilitate comparing health system performance and quality and (2) increased partnerships between rehabilitation providers, researchers, and payors to accelerate health system learning. As health care reform continues to emphasize value-based payment strategies, it is essential for the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation to be at the forefront of demonstrating its value in the care continuum.

Can routine register data be used to identify vulnerable lung cancer patients of suboptimal care in a German comprehensive cancer centre?

OBJECTIVES

Several patient factors have been described to influence access to optimal cancer care like socioeconomic factors or place of residence. In this study, we investigate whether data routinely collected in a clinical cancer registry can be used to identify populations of lung cancer patients with increased risk of not receiving optimal cancer care.

METHODS

We analysed data of 837 lung cancer patients extracted from the clinical cancer registry of a German university hospital. We compared patient populations by two indicators of optimal care, namely implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations as well as the timeliness of care.

RESULTS

There was a high rate of implementation of tumour board meeting recommendations of 94.4%. Reasons for non-implementation were mainly a patient's own wish or a worsening of the health situation. Of all patient parameters, only tumour stage was associated with the two optimal care indicators.

CONCLUSION

Using routine data from a clinical cancer registry, we were not able to identify patient populations at risk of not getting optimal care and the implementation of guideline-conform care appeared to be very high in this setting. However, limitations were the ambiguity of optimal care indicators and availability of parameters predictive for patients' vulnerability.

Association between patient-initiated emails and overall 2-year survival in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: Evidence from the real-world setting

PURPOSE

Prior studies suggest email communication between patients and providers may improve patient engagement and health outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether patient-initiated emails are associated with overall survival benefits among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We identified patient-initiated emails through the patient portal in electronic health records (EHR) among 9900 cancer patients receiving chemotherapy between 2013 and 2018. Email users were defined as patients who sent at least one email 12 months before to 2 months after chemotherapy started. A propensity score-matched cohort analysis was carried out to reduce bias due to confounding (age, primary cancer type, gender, insurance payor, ethnicity, race, stage, income, Charlson score, county of residence). The cohort included 3223 email users and 3223 non-email users. The primary outcome was overall 2-year survival stratified by email use. Secondary outcomes included number of face-to-face visits, prescriptions, and telephone calls. The healthcare teams' response to emails and other forms of communication was also investigated. Finally, a quality measure related to chemotherapy-related inpatient and emergency department visits was evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall 2-year survival was higher in patients who were email users, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.80 (95 CI 0.72-0.90; p < 0.001). Email users had higher rates of healthcare utilization, including face-to-face visits (63 vs. 50; p < 0.001), drug prescriptions (28 vs. 21; p < 0.001), and phone calls (18 vs. 16; p < 0.001). Clinical quality outcome measure of inpatient use was better among email users (p = 0.015).

CONCLUSION

Patient-initiated emails are associated with a survival benefit among cancer patients receiving chemotherapy and may be a proxy for patient engagement. As value-based payment models emphasize incorporating the patients' voice into their care, email communications could serve as a novel source of patient-generated data.

Perceived importance of affective forecasting in cancer treatment decision making

PURPOSE

To examine whether adults with cancer view affective forecasting as important for treatment decisions, and to examine these perceptions among key subgroups.

DESIGN

Adults with cancer (N = 376) completed a cross-sectional survey that included demographic and clinical characteristics, the IPIP five-factor personality measure, and a rating of the perceived importance of affective forecasting for cancer treatment decisions. Descriptive statistics characterized the importance of affective forecasting. Multivariate analyses examined whether health and personality variables were associated with affective forecasting importance.

FINDINGS

Most participants (89.6%) identified affective forecasting as important for treatment decisions. Affective forecasting was more likely to be rated as important among patients with prostate cancer (p < .001), patients lower in neuroticism (p = .02), and patients higher in agreeableness (p = .004). Conclusions/Implications: Patients believe it is important to understand how treatments will impact their emotional well-being. Oncology clinicians should discuss with patients these consequences during healthcare decision-making.