Effect of a Symptom Monitoring Intervention for Patients Hospitalized With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

A Digital Therapeutic Application (ePAL) to Manage Pain in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with advanced cancer often experience immense cancer pain that negatively impacts their quality of life. Interventions to address cancer-related pain are limited.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized trial of a digital therapeutic app (ePAL) for patients with advanced cancer receiving care in a specialty palliative care clinic at a tertiary care hospital. Patients were randomized to ePAL or usual care. ePAL included 1) active pain monitoring; 2) artificial intelligence algorithm to triage patient symptoms; and 3) patient education to address barriers to pain management. Participants were instructed to use ePAL over eight weeks. Patient-reported pain symptoms were assessed at baseline, Week-4, and Week-8 (primary endpoint) using the Brief Pain Inventory. Secondary outcomes include pain-related hospitalizations by Week-8.

RESULTS

We enrolled 112 patients who were randomly assigned to ePAL (N = 56) or usual care (N = 56). Patients utilized ePAL on average 2.1 times per week to report pain symptoms, and 47.6% reported their pain at least once per week over eight weeks. Patients randomized to ePAL reported lower pain scores at Week-4 (mean: 3.16 vs. 4.28, P = 0.010) and week-8 (mean:2.99 vs. 4.05, P = 0.017), compared to those receiving usual care. Participants randomized to ePAL were less likely to experience a pain-related hospitalization compared to those in the usual care group (7.1% vs. 23.2% P = 0.018) CONCLUSIONS: ePAL was associated with lower patient-reported pain and fewer pain-related hospitalizations compared to usual care in patients with advanced cancer. This study demonstrates the promise of digital therapeutics for improving patients' symptoms while reducing burdensome hospitalizations.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as an Intervention: A Comprehensive Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Feedback

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have emerged as a promising approach to involve patients in their treatment process. Beyond serving as outcome measures, PROMs can be applied to provide feedback to healthcare providers and patients, thereby offering valuable insights that can improve health outcomes and care processes. This overview offers a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of PROM feedback, contributing to the evidence-based discussion on PROMs' potential to enhance patient care.

METHODS

Following Cochrane Collaboration recommendations, this overview included literature reviews across diverse treatment areas, investigating the impact of PROM feedback on patient health outcomes (including quality of life, symptoms, or survival) and care process outcomes (including communication, symptom identification, or clinical practice). The methodological quality of the evidence was assessed with a modified version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2, and the potential overlap of primary studies was quantified. Results were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Forty reviews grouped into 4 categories of treatment areas were included. Overall, their methodological quality was low. The overall overlap of primary studies was 2.2%, reaching up to 15.7% within specific treatment areas. The results indicate that PROM feedback may enhance the quality-of-care processes, whereas its effects on patient health outcomes remained less conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback positively influences the interaction between physicians and patients across the included treatment areas. Further research is needed to comprehend the trickle-down effects of PROM feedback and how to enhance its potential in yielding health benefits for patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes as a Recruitment Strategy for Clinical Trial Enrollment

Importance

Clinical trials are critical for progress in oncology; however, only 5% of the adult cancer population participates. Harnessing data that are routinely collected (ie, electronic patient-reported outcomes [ePROs]) may serve as a method to promote trial enrollment.

Objective

To evaluate if an ePRO-prompted recruitment strategy is associated with increased clinical trial enrollment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A randomized substudy was conducted from September 2022 to March 2023 at a multisite tertiary cancer center as part of an ongoing clinical trial that was testing a symptom-intervention for cancer-related fatigue. Patients with breast cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy who completed at least 1 ePRO questionnaire during the study period were included. Physician-level cluster randomization assigned fatigue-eligible patients to either receive a portal message invitation to a symptom-intervention trial or standard of care (SOC; physician-based referral).

Exposure

ePRO questionnaires distributed in routine practice were queried weekly and screened for moderate or greater fatigue, the principle inclusion criterion for the primary trial. To assess the association of the portal message source with response and enrollment, every other patient received a message from the primary radiation oncology team or the referral service.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Clinical trial response/referral and enrollment.

Results

A total of 1041 patients completed ePRO questionnaires, of whom 394 (38%; 53 Asian [13.6%], 43 Black [11.0%], 29 Hispanic [7.4%], and 262 White individuals [66.5%]; median [IQR] age, 55 [47-65] years) endorsed moderate or greater fatigue while receiving treatment. A total of 210 patients (53.3%) were assigned to receive a portal message and 184 (46.7%) patients, SOC. In the portal message group, 73 patients (35%) responded and 41 (20%) enrolled compared with 1 patient (0.5%) referred and 0 enrolled in the SOC group (P < .001). The response rate to portal messages favored the referral service vs the primary radiation oncology service (44% vs 26%; P = .01), but there was no significant difference in enrollments.

Conclusions and Relevance

The study results suggest that use of routine care ePROs was associated with greater enrollment in a symptom-intervention trial compared with physician-based referral. Messaging directly from the referral service may support enrollment and help reduce oncology physician-level barriers to trial enrollment for studies testing symptom interventions.

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.

Symptom profiles and related factors among patients with advanced cancer: A latent profile analysis

Objective

This study aimed to investigate symptom subgroups and associated influencing factors in patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted, involving 416 patients with advanced cancer. The study examined five symptoms: fatigue, pain, sleep impairment, anxiety, and depression. Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was utilized to classify symptom subgroups. A multiple logistic regression analysis was conducted to explore factors associated with the identified symptom subgroups.

Results

The analysis revealed three distinct subgroups among the participants: "all low" (58.2%), characterized by normal symptoms except for moderate sleep quality; "all moderate" (35.1%), exhibiting normal symptoms except for poor sleep quality and fatigue; and "all high" (6.7%), experiencing normal pain, moderate depression, moderate anxiety, poor sleep quality, and fatigue. Malnutrition risk, cancer diagnosis, and cancer survivorship duration were found to be associated with a more severe symptom burden.

Conclusions

Patients in the "all high" subgroup faced an increased risk of malnutrition and a longer cancer survivorship duration. Additionally, patients in the "all moderate" subgroup were distinguished by having a breast cancer diagnosis. These findings have significant implications for allocating medical resources and implementing person-centered symptom management strategies.

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).

Effects of digital self-management symptom interventions on symptom outcomes in adult cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Digital self-management (SM) interventions targeting symptom relief have demonstrated positive as well as null outcomes, whereas no study has synthesized the effect of the interventions. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of digital SM symptom interventions on symptom outcomes in adult cancer patients.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis based on the previous scoping review was conducted. Six databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Library, RISS [Korean], and KoreaMed [Korean]) were searched. Population was adult cancer patients. Intervention was SM interventions applying digital health tool targeting symptom management. Comparison was usual care, waitlist controls or active controls. The primary outcome was symptom burden, and the secondary outcomes were individual symptoms.

RESULTS

Our meta-analysis of 32 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 7888 patients demonstrated that digital SM symptom interventions had a significant effect on reducing symptom burden (effect size [ES] = -0.230) and relieving pain (ES = -0.292), fatigue (ES = -0.417), anxiety (ES = -0.320), and depression (ES = -0.261).

CONCLUSIONS

Digital SM interventions can improve symptom outcomes in adult cancer patients. Oncology nurses should be aware that digital SM interventions have demonstrated promising outcomes in cancer patient care.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: From an Endpoint to an Intervention in Cancer Care

Underreporting of patient symptoms by clinicians is a common and well-documented phenomenon that has led to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as endpoints into clinical trials. While PROs are often used to measure disease symptoms, cancer therapy toxicities, and quality of life, they can also assess patients' general experiences and preferences. With the increasing use of electronic medical records and the digital health revolution in oncology, conversion from paper to electronic PROs (ePROs) has also facilitated the integration of PROs into routine care. Evidence from clinical trials is rapidly emerging to support ePROs as a care delivery innovation, given the potential for ePROs to improve patient outcomes through timely evaluation and response to patient needs. Meanwhile, work is ongoing to understand and address ePRO use and challenges to equitable integration, including technical and language barriers for patients, clinicians, and health systems. Nonetheless, the health system and regulatory bodies continue to develop stipulations to promote the use of ePROs. Herein, we review the evolution of PROs from an endpoint to an intervention in prospective clinical trials in oncology.

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.

Integration of Remote Symptom and Biometric Monitoring Into the Care of Adult Patients With Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy-A Decentralized Feasibility Pilot Study

PURPOSE

Although electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are efficacious in symptom management, much is unknown about the utility of vital signs surveillance. We examined the feasibility of a remote patient monitoring platform that integrates ePROs and biometrics into the ambulatory management of symptom burden.

METHODS

Using a decentralized workflow, patients with gastrointestinal or thoracic cancer were approached for a 1-month study. Patients reported symptom burden via ePROs and biometrics (blood pressure, oxygen saturation, pulse, weight, and temperature) using bluetooth-enabled devices daily. Alerts on the basis of prespecified thresholds were managed via nurse-led triage. Adherence was defined as the completion of > 70% of daily symptom and biometric reporting requirements. Pilot acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility were measured using validated instruments. Net promoter score, system usability scale, and emergency department (ED) admission rates were collected.

RESULTS

Over 8 months, 36 patients were enrolled and 25 (60% gastrointestinal) completed the study. Participants had a mean age of 58.0 years, mean Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of 0.88, were 52% female, and predominantly had stage IV or recurrent disease (72%). Program adherence was 73% and associated with high acceptability (4.63), feasibility (4.56), and appropriateness (4.46). System usability scale and net promoter score scores were 88 and 55, respectively. Seventy percent of alerts were generated by biometrics, 28% for symptoms, and 2% were patient-initiated communication. Finally, the ED visitation rate over the pilot period was 8%.

CONCLUSION

Our remote patient monitoring pilot program was highly acceptable, feasible, and appropriate. It had high rates of patient adherence and satisfaction and was associated with low ED visitation rates.

Immunodeficiencies Push Readmissions in Malignant Tumor Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study Based on the Nationwide Readmission Database

BACKGROUND

Immunodeficiency diseases (IDDs) are associated with an increased proportion of cancer-related morbidity. However, the relationship between IDDs and malignancy readmissions has not been well described. Understanding this relationship could help us to develop a more reasonable discharge plan in the special tumor population.

METHODS

Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database, we established a retrospective cohort study that included patients with the 16 most common malignancies, and we defined two groups: non-immunodeficiency diseases (NOIDDs) and IDDs.

RESULTS

To identify whether the presence or absence of IDDs was associated with readmission, we identified 603,831 patients with malignancies at their time of readmission in which 0.8% had IDDs and in which readmission occurred in 47.3%. Compared with NOIDDs, patients with IDDs had a higher risk of 30-day (hazard ratio (HR) of 1.32; 95% CI of 1.25-1.40), 90-day (HR of 1.27; 95% CI of 1.21-1.34) and 180-day readmission (HR of 1.28; 95% CI of 1.22-1.35). More than one third (37.9%) of patients with IDDs had readmissions that occurred within 30 days and most (82.4%) of them were UPRs. An IDD was an independent risk factor for readmission in patients with colorectal cancer (HR of 1.32; 95% CI of 1.01-1.72), lung cancer (HR of 1.23; 95% CI of 1.02-1.48), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (HR of 1.16; 95% CI of 1.04-1.28), prostate cancer (HR of 1.45; 95% CI of 1.07-1.96) or stomach cancer (HR of 2.34; 95% CI of 1.33-4.14). Anemia (44.2%), bacterial infections (28.6%) and pneumonia (13.9%) were the 30-day UPR causes in these populations. (4) Conclusions: IDDs were independently associated with higher readmission risks for some malignant tumors. Strategies should be considered to prevent the causes of readmission as a post discharge plan.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROMs) in palliative cancer care: a scoping review

Background

In palliative oncology settings, electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment can play an important role in supporting clinical activities for clinicians and patients. This scoping review aims to map the technological innovation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) in cancer palliative care and how PRO data collected through e-PROMs can influence the monitoring and management of symptoms and enable better communication between health professionals and patients.

Methods

A scoping review study was designed according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Medline, Embase, Web of Science, SCOPUS, PsycINFO and CINAHL and gray literature sources were consulted. The inclusion criteria were people over 18 years old receiving palliative and/or end-of-life care using e-PROMs.

Results

Thirteen primary studies were included: nine quantitative studies, two qualitative studies, and two mixed-method studies. The recently developed software that supports e-PROMs allows patients to receive feedback on their symptoms, helps clinicians prioritize care needs and monitors patients’ conditions as their symptoms change. Electronic PRO data prompt difficult, end-of-life communication between clinicians and patients to better organize care in the last phase of life.

Conclusion

This work shows that electronic PRO data assessment provides valuable tools for patients’ well-being and the management of symptoms; only one study reported conflicting results. However, with studies lacking on how clinicians can use these tools to improve communication with patients, more research is needed.