Comparing the Ability of Physician-Reported Versus Patient-Reported Performance Status to Predict Survival in a Population-Based Cohort of Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients

How do patients interpret and respond to a novel patient-reported eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG)?

PURPOSE

Performance status is an important concept in oncology, but is typically clinician-reported. Efforts are underway to include patient-reported measures in cancer care, which may improve patient symptoms, quality of life and overall survival. The purpose of this study was to gain a preliminary understanding of how patients determined their physical performance status based on a novel patient-reported version of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG) scale.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative interviews, including concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing as part of the Patient Reports of Physical Functioning Study (PROPS) to investigate how participants selected their answers to a novel patient-reported ECOG. Participants were administered the patient-reported ECOG and asked to describe devices and modifications used to keep up with daily activities.

RESULTS

Participants generally understood the ECOG as intended. Participants with recent changes in status had some difficulty selecting an answer. Most participants used modifications and assistive devices in their daily lives but did not incorporate these into their rational for the ECOG.

CONCLUSION

The potential benefits of a patient-reported ECOG are numerous and this study demonstrates that participants were able to understand and answer the patient-reported ECOG as intended. We recommend future evaluation for the most-appropriate recall period, whether to include modifications in the ECOG instructions, and if increasing the number of response options to the patient-reported ECOG may improve confidence when providing an answer.

Optimization of alert notifications in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring systems (AFT-39)

PURPOSE

Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed.

METHODS

We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency.

RESULTS

593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61% female, 80% white, 10% reported never using computers/tablets/smartphones). Patients completed 91% of expected weekly surveys. 34% of surveys generated an alert, and 59% of alerts prompted immediate nurse actions. Patients considered 10% of alerts urgent. Of the remaining cases, nurses considered alerts urgent more often when patients reported any worsening symptom compared to the prior week (33% of alerts with versus 26% without any worsening symptom, p = 0.009). The algorithm identified 38% of alerts as likely non-urgent that could be suppressed with acceptable discrimination (sensitivity = 80%, 95% CI [76%, 84%]; specificity = 52%, 95% CI [49%, 55%]).

CONCLUSION

An algorithm can identify remote symptom monitoring alerts likely to be considered non-urgent by nurses, and may assist in fostering nurse acceptance and implementation feasibility of ePRO systems.

Circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D and survival outcomes of colorectal cancer: evidence from population-based prospective cohorts and Mendelian randomisation

BACKGROUND

To investigate the association between circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OHD) and colorectal cancer (CRC) survival outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted analyses among the Study of Colorectal Cancer in Scotland (SOCCS) and the UK Biobank (UKBB). Both cancer-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were examined. The 25-OHD levels were categorised into three groups, and multi-variable Cox-proportional hazard models were applied to estimate hazard ratios (HRs). We performed individual-level Mendelian randomisation (MR) through the generated polygenic risk scores (PRS) of 25-OHD and summary-level MR using the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method.

RESULTS

We observed significantly poorer CSS (HR = 0.65,95%CI = 0.55-0.76,P = 1.03 × 10-7) and OS (HR = 0.66,95%CI = 0.58-0.75,P = 8.15 × 10-11) in patients with the lowest compared to those with the highest 25-OHD after adjusting for covariates. These associations remained across patients with varied tumour sites and stages. However, we found no significant association between 25-OHD PRS and either CSS (HR = 0.98,95%CI = 0.80-1.19,P = 0.83) or OS (HR = 1.07,95%CI = 0.91-1.25,P = 0.42). Furthermore, we found no evidence for causal effects by conducting summary-level MR analysis for either CSS (IVW:HR = 1.04,95%CI = 0.85-1.28,P = 0.70) or OS (IVW:HR = 1.10,95%CI = 0.93-1.31,P = 0.25).

CONCLUSION

This study supports the observed association between lower circulating 25-OHD and poorer survival outcomes for CRC patients. Whilst the genotype-specific association between better outcomes and higher 25-OHD is intriguing, we found no support for causality using MR approaches.

Financial Toxicity Monitoring in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-Reported Outcomes During Cancer Treatment (Alliance AFT-39)

PURPOSE

Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention.

METHODS

PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention.

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices (P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance.

CONCLUSION

In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

Tenets for Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Remote Symptom Monitoring During Cancer Treatment

PURPOSE

Symptoms are common in patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer. Monitoring patients with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) detects severe and worsening symptoms early, enabling care teams to intervene and prevent downstream complications and thereby improving outcomes. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will require patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring in the upcoming Enhancing Oncology Model, and many practices will likely attempt to implement PROs in patient care for the first time.

METHODS

To assist practices with the design and implementation of ePRO remote symptom monitoring programs, tenets were drawn from prior ePRO program experiences and research.

RESULTS

Successful implementation requires a quality improvement approach to change management with attention to software functionality, measured outcomes, personnel deployment, leadership and culture, workflow, equity, and patient engagement. Specific approaches in each of these areas can optimize program participation and effectiveness. Continuous program monitoring to identify and address barriers is essential to success. Initial challenges with personnel acceptance and patient participation are common and can be overcome by using these tenets.

CONCLUSION

Remote symptom monitoring with ePROs is a key component of quality cancer care and population health management that requires organizational commitment and a deliberate approach by practices using established tenets to assure successful implementation.

What percentage of patients with cancer develop hiccups with oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-based chemotherapy? a compilation of patient-reported outcomes

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy-induced hiccups are understudied but can cause sleep deprivation, fatigue, pain in the chest and abdomen, poor oral intake, aspiration, and even death. As a critical next step toward investigating better palliative methods, this study reported patient-reported incidence of hiccups after oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

The current study relied on 2 previous studies that sought to acquire consecutive direct patient report of hiccups among patients who had recently received chemotherapy with cisplatin or oxaliplatin. These patient-reported data in conjunction with information from the medical record are the focus of this report.

RESULTS

Of 541 patients, 337 were successful contacted by phone; and 95 (28%; 95% CI: 23%, 33%) of these contacted patients reported hiccups. In univariable analyses, male gender (odds ratio (OR): 2.17 (95% confidence ratio (95% CI): 1.30, 3.62); p = 0.002), increased height (OR: 1.03 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.06); p = 0.02), and concomitant aprepitant/fosaprepitant (OR: 2.23 (95% CI: 1.31, 3.78); p = 0.002) were associated with hiccups. In multivariable analyses, these statistically significant associations persisted except for height.

CONCLUSIONS

These patient-reported data demonstrate that oxaliplatin- or cisplatin-induced hiccups occur in a notable proportion of patients with cancer. Male gender and concomitant aprepitant/fosaprepitant appear to increase risk.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.

RESULTS

Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.

RESULTS

Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

The association of Health-Related Quality of Life and 1-year-survival in sarcoma patients—results of a Nationwide Observational Study (PROSa)

Background

Sarcomas are rare cancers of high heterogeneity. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) has been shown to be a prognostic factor for survival in other cancer entities but it is unclear whether this applies to sarcoma patients.

Patients and methods

HRQoL was prospectively assessed in adult sarcoma patients from 2017 to 2020 in 39 German recruiting sites using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Vital status was ascertained over the course of 1 year. HRQoL domains were analysed by multivariable cox-regressions including clinical and socio-economic risk factors.

Results

Of 1102 patients, 126 (11.4%) died during follow-up. The hazard ratio (HR) for global health was 0.73 per 10-point increase (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64–0.85). HR for the HRQoL-summary score was 0.74 (CI 0.64–0.85) and for physical functioning 0.82 (CI 0.74–0.89). There was also evidence that fatigue (HR 1.17, CI 1.10–1.25), appetite loss (HR 1.15, CI 1.09–1.21) and pain (HR 1.14, CI 1.08–1.20) are prognostic factors for survival.

Conclusion

Our study adds sarcoma-specific evidence to the existing data about cancer survival in general. Clinicians and care-givers should be aware of the relations between HRQoL and survival probability and include HRQoL in routine assessment.

Development and validation of a prediction model of poor performance status and severe symptoms over time in cancer patients (PROVIEW+)

BACKGROUND

Predictive cancer tools focus on survival; none predict severe symptoms.

AIM

To develop and validate a model that predicts the risk for having low performance status and severe symptoms in cancer patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective, population-based, predictive study.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We linked administrative data from cancer patients from 2008 to 2015 in Ontario, Canada. Patients were randomly selected for model derivation (60%) and validation (40%). Using the derivation cohort, we developed a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the risk of an outcome at 6 months following diagnosis and recalculated after each of four annual survivor marks. Model performance was assessed using discrimination and calibration plots. Outcomes included low performance status (i.e. 10-30 on Palliative Performance Scale), severe pain, dyspnea, well-being, and depression (i.e. 7-10 on Edmonton Symptom Assessment System).

RESULTS

We identified 255,494 cancer patients (57% female; median age of 64; common cancers were breast (24%); and lung (13%)). At diagnosis, the predicted risk of having low performance status, severe pain, well-being, dyspnea, and depression in 6-months is 1%, 3%, 6%, 13%, and 4%, respectively for the reference case (i.e. male, lung cancer, stage I, no symptoms); the corresponding discrimination for each outcome model had high AUCs of 0.807, 0.713, 0.709, 0.790, and 0.723, respectively. Generally these covariates increased the outcome risk by >10% across all models: lung disease, dementia, diabetes; radiation treatment; hospital admission; pain; depression; transitional performance status; issues with appetite; or homecare.

CONCLUSIONS

The model accurately predicted changing cancer risk for low performance status and severe symptoms over time.

Why performance status? A case for alternative functional assessments in pediatric oncology clinical trials

Clinician‐determined performance status is widely used to determine pediatric clinical trial eligibility; however, the study by Maurer et al suggests that clinicians' (and parents') assessments are discordant with children's own reports. This editorial outlines the conundrum of if and how to proceed with performance assessments in pediatric clinical research.