Leveraging patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with pancreatic cancer: The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) online patient registry experience

Pre-Diagnosis Pain in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer Signals the Need for Aggressive Symptom Management

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the impact of pancreatic cancer (PC) pain on associated symptoms, activities, and resource utilization from 2016 to 2020 in an online patient registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Responses from PC patient volunteers (N = 1978) were analyzed from online surveys in a cross-sectional study. Comparisons were performed between PC patient groups reporting, (1) the presence vs. absence of pre-diagnosis PC pain, (2) high (4-8) vs. low (0-3) pain intensity scores on an 11-point numerical rating scale (NRS), and (3) year of PC diagnosis (2010-2020). Descriptive statistics and all bivariate analyses were performed using Chi-square or Fisher's Exact tests.

RESULTS

PC pain was the most frequently reported pre-diagnosis symptom (62%). Pre-diagnostic PC pain was reported more frequently by women, those with a younger age at diagnosis, and those with PC that spread to the liver and peritoneum. Those with pre-diagnostic PC pain vs. those without reported higher pain intensities (2.64 ± 2.54 vs.1.56 ± 2.01 NRS mean ± SD, respectively, P = .0039); increased frequencies of post-diagnosis symptoms of cramping after meals, feelings of indigestion, and weight loss (P = .02-.0001); and increased resource utilization in PC pain management: (ER visits N = 86 vs. N = 6, P = .018 and analgesic prescriptions, P < .03). The frequency of high pain intensity scores was not decreased over a recent 11-year span.

CONCLUSIONS

PC pain continues to be a prominent PC symptom. Patients reporting pre-diagnosis PC pain experience increased GI metastasis, symptoms burden, and are often undertreated. Its mitigation may require novel treatments, more resources dedicated to ongoing pain management and surveillance to improve outcomes.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

Pancreatic Cancer Surgery: What Matters to Patients?

Pancreatic cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related death, with a poor overall survival rate. Although certain risk factors have been identified, the origins of pancreatic cancer are still not fully understood. Surgical resection remains the primary curative treatment, but pancreatic surgery is still associated with high morbidity and mortality rates, and most patients will experience recurrence. The impact of pancreatic cancer on patients' quality of life is significant, with an important loss of healthy life in affected individuals. Traditional outcome parameters, such as length of hospital stay, do not fully capture what matters to patients during recovery. Patient-centered care is therefore central, and the patient's perspective should be considered in pre-operative discussions. Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) could play an important role in assessing patient perspectives, but standardized methodology for evaluating and reporting them is needed. This narrative review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of patient perspectives and different patient-reported measures in pancreatic cancer surgery. Understanding the patient perspective is crucial for delivering patient-centered care and improving outcomes for patients with pancreatic cancer.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with pancreatic cancer: The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) online patient registry experience

Background

The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is an online, pancreatic cancer‐specific, global registry enabling patients to self‐report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We sought to describe the creation, user experience, and research potential of the PanCAN Registry.

Methods

We obtained data to describe (1) the creation of the Registry (questionnaire development, marketing efforts, and regulatory considerations); (2) the user experience (user characteristics and interactions with the registry following inception); and (3) the research potential of the registry (comparing PROs and treatment patterns by age [±65 years] and treatment site [community or academic] for users with de novo metastatic disease).

Results

The Registry was conceived as part of PanCAN’s strategic plan for a personalized therapy initiative. PanCAN staff and disease expert consultants developed questionnaires hosted on an electronic PRO platform. Users had the option to include their data in research efforts, and the Registry platform received institutional review board approval. From 7/2015 to 12/2020, 2187 patients visited the registry and 1697 (77.6%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 years [range: 24–90], 47.9% women, 88.7% White, 34.0% metastatic disease). Among patients with metastatic disease (N = 567), 46.0% were ≥65 years old and 67.5% received treatment at community sites. Patients ≥65 years reported feeling less hopeful about the treatment plan (12.4% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003), and patients treated at community sites reported more frequent treatment breaks of >2 weeks (58.2% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the feasibility, usability, and research potential of an online PRO registry for patients with cancer. This description of the PanCAN Registry should inform future registry‐building efforts to facilitate standardized PRO reporting and provide a valuable research database.

Clinicaltrial registration number: Not applicable.