Patient free text reporting of symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical research using the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Most Common Symptomatic Adverse Reactions of Cancer Treatments From US Drug Labels (2015-2021) to Inform Selection of Patient-Reported Outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials (CTs) is important to characterize treatment tolerability. Cancer therapies approved over the past decade have expanded the types of expected toxicities. To inform future symptomatic AE PRO item selection, we identified the most common symptomatic adverse reactions from recently approved products.

METHODS

We reviewed approvals from 2015 to 2021 for lung, breast, and hematologic cancer indications. Using United States Prescribing Information safety data, we recorded symptomatic adverse reactions reported in ≥20% of patients in the experimental arm of CTs supporting approvals. We calculated the proportion of arms reporting each symptomatic adverse reaction.

RESULTS

In total, 130 experimental arms were included (lung = 30, breast = 10, hematologic = 90). For all cancer types, fatigue and diarrhea were reported in >50% of the arms. Nausea was reported in ≥50% of the arms for all except lung. Vomiting, decreased appetite, and alopecia, were reported in ≥50% of breast cancer arms. Rash, musculoskeletal pain, and cough were reported in >50% of leukemia/lymphoma arms. Cough was common (50%) in multiple myeloma arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity in symptomatic adverse reactions across CTs supports the use of item libraries when building a PRO strategy to assess tolerability. Fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea were the most frequent symptomatic adverse reactions reported in contemporary cancer CTs and could provide a starting point when selecting PRO symptomatic AE items. Additional symptomatic AE PRO items should be selected based on the mechanism of action, early clinical data, published literature, and patient and clinician input.

Advancing patient-centric care: integrating patient reported outcomes for tolerability assessment in early phase clinical trials - insights from an expert virtual roundtable

Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies' risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.

Addition of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Showed Better Efficacy for Infiltrative Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy and Lenvatinib: A Multicenter Retrospective Study

Purpose

The prognosis of infiltrative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is dismal. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) plus Lenvatinib (Len) and immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) have shown promising results for HCC. However, this three combination therapy on infiltrative HCC is unknown. In this study, we compared HAIC plus lenvatinib (Len) and programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor with HAIC plus Len for infiltrative HCC.

Patients and Methods

This multi-center cohort study included patients with infiltrative HCC who received HAIC combined with Len (HAIC+Len group, n = 173) or HAIC combined with Len and PD-1 inhibitor (HAIC+Len+ICI group, n = 128) as the first-line treatment from January 2019 to December 2021. To balance any intergroup differences, one-to-one propensity score matching (PSM) was applied. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between the two groups.

Results

After PSM, the median OS was 14.1 ± 1.0 and 16.1 ± 1.4 months in the HAIC+Len and HAIC+Len+ICI groups, respectively. The median PFS was 4.6 ± 0.4 months in the HAIC+Len group and 7.5 ± 0.8 months in the HAIC+Len+ICI group. The HAIC+Len+ICI group showed significantly better OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49-0.90; P = 0.008) and PFS (HR, 0.53; 95% confident index [CI], 0.40-0.70; P < 0.001) compared with the HAIC+Len group. Subgroup analysis revealed that for OS in HCC without metastasis, the addition of PD-1 inhibitor was not significant (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.43-1.07; P = 0.091). No difference was observed in OS between low (2-3 cycles) and high (4-6 cycles) level of HAIC cycles (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.67-1.44; P = 0.938).

Conclusion

The HAIC+Len+ICI group had a longer PFS and OS compared with the HAIC+Len group, demonstrating an acceptable safety profile. This triple combination strategy may be an alternative treatment for infiltrative HCC management.

Acceptability and usefulness of the EORTC 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems' (WISP): a brief open-ended instrument for symptom assessment in cancer patients

BACKGROUND

The use of open-ended questions supplementing static questionnaires with closed questions may facilitate the recognition of symptoms and toxicities. The open-ended 'Write In three Symptoms/Problems (WISP)' instrument permits patients to report additional symptoms/problems not covered by selected EORTC questionnaires. We evaluated the acceptability and usefulness of WISP with cancer patients receiving active and palliative care/treatment in Austria, Chile, France, Jordan, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on validated instruments for cancer patients including open-ended questions and analyzing their responses. WISP was translated into eight languages and pilot tested. WISP translations were pre-tested together with EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-C15-PAL and relevant modules, followed by patient interviews to evaluate their understanding about WISP. Proportions were used to summarize patient responses obtained from interviews and WISP.

RESULTS

From the seven instruments identified in the literature, only the free text collected from the PRO-CTAE has been analyzed previously. In our study, 161 cancer patients participated in the pre-testing and interviews (50% in active treatment). Qualitative interviews showed high acceptability of WISP. Among the 295 symptoms/problems reported using WISP, skin problems, sore mouth and bleeding were more prevalent in patients in active treatment, whereas numbness/tingling, dry mouth and existential problems were more prevalent in patients in palliative care/treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The EORTC WISP instrument was found to be acceptable and useful for symptom assessment in cancer patients. WISP improves the identification of symptoms/problems not assessed by cancer-generic questionnaires and therefore, we recommend its use alongside the EORTC questionnaires.

The Necessity of Interoperability to Uncover the Full Potential of Digital Health Devices

Personalized health care can be optimized by including patient-reported outcomes. Standardized and disease-specific questionnaires have been developed and are routinely used. These patient-reported outcome questionnaires can be simple paper forms given to the patient to fill out with a pen or embedded in digital devices. Regardless of the format used, they provide a snapshot of the patient's feelings and indicate when therapies need to be adjusted. The advantage of digitizing these questionnaires is that they can be automatically analyzed, and patients can be monitored independently of doctor visits. Although the questions of most clinical patient-reported outcome questionnaires follow defined standards and are evaluated by clinical trials, these standards do not exist for data processing. Interoperable data formats and structures would benefit multilingual and cross-study data exchange. Linking questionnaires to standardized terminologies such as the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT) and Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC) would improve this interoperability. However, linking clinically validated patient-reported outcome questionnaires to clinical terms available in SNOMED CT or LOINC is not as straightforward as it sounds. Here, we report our approach to link patient-reported outcomes from health applications to SNOMED CT or LOINC codes. We highlight current difficulties in this process and outline ways to minimize them.

Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Industry-Sponsored Phase I Oncology Studies: Considerations for Translating Theory Into Practice

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues.

A tailored phase I-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey to capture the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events

BACKGROUND

Patient perspectives are fundamental to defining tolerability of investigational anti-neoplastic therapies in clinical trials. Phase I trials present a unique challenge in designing tools for efficiently collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) given the difficulty of anticipating adverse events of relevance. However, phase I trials also offer an opportunity for investigators to optimize drug dosing based on tolerability for future larger-scale trials and in eventual clinical practice. Existing tools for comprehensively capturing PROs are generally cumbersome and are not routinely used in phase I trials.

METHODS

Here, we describe the creation of a tailored survey based on the National Cancer Institute's PRO-CTCAE for collecting patients' perspectives on symptomatic adverse events in phase I trials in oncology.

RESULTS

We describe our stepwise approach to condensing the original 78-symptom library into a modified 30 term core list of symptoms which can be efficiently applied. We further show that our tailored survey aligns with phase I trialists' perspectives on symptoms of relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

This tailored survey represents the first PRO tool developed specifically for assessing tolerability in the phase I oncology population. We provide recommendations for future work aimed at integrating this survey into clinical practice.

Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048)

PURPOSE

The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions.

METHODS

PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N-, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL).

RESULTS

From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

The Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables.

RESULTS

Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use.

CONCLUSION

There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.

Exploring differences in symptomatic adverse events assessment between nurses and physicians in the clinical trial setting

A cross-sectional study was performed at Hebei Medical University Fourth Affiliated Hospital from April to July 2020 to explore the difference and consistency between nurses and physicians in terms of symptomatic adverse event (AE) assessment. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was utilized by nurses and physicians to assess patients' symptomatic AEs. Patients self-reported their AEs utilizing the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Four nurses and three physicians were enrolled to assess patients' symptomatic AEs. Given the same AEs, nurses tended to detect more AEs than physicians, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). The toxicity grade reported by nurses and physicians showed no difference for all AEs, except for fatigue (χ² = 5.083, P = 0.024). The agreement between nurses and patients was highest compared to the agreement between nurses versus physicians and physicians versus patients. The differences in symptomatic AE assessment can lead to different symptom management. Thus, it is important to establish a collaborative approach between nurses and physicians to ensure continuity in care delivery.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

What Patients Say: Large-Scale Analyses of Replies to the Parkinson's Disease Patient Report of Problems (PD-PROP)

BACKGROUND

Free-text, verbatim replies in the words of people with Parkinson's disease (PD) have the potential to provide unvarnished information about their feelings and experiences. Challenges of processing such data on a large scale are a barrier to analyzing verbatim data collection in large cohorts.

OBJECTIVE

To develop a method for curating responses from the Parkinson's Disease Patient Report of Problems (PD-PROP), open-ended questions that asks people with PD to report their most bothersome problems and associated functional consequences.

METHODS

Human curation, natural language processing, and machine learning were used to develop an algorithm to convert verbatim responses to classified symptoms. Nine curators including clinicians, people with PD, and a non-clinician PD expert classified a sample of responses as reporting each symptom or not. Responses to the PD-PROP were collected within the Fox Insight cohort study.

RESULTS

Approximately 3,500 PD-PROP responses were curated by a human team. Subsequently, approximately 1,500 responses were used in the validation phase; median age of respondents was 67 years, 55% were men and median years since PD diagnosis was 3 years. 168,260 verbatim responses were classified by machine. Accuracy of machine classification was 95% on a held-out test set. 65 symptoms were grouped into 14 domains. The most frequently reported symptoms at first report were tremor (by 46% of respondents), gait and balance problems (>39%), and pain/discomfort (33%).

CONCLUSION

A human-in-the-loop method of curation provides both accuracy and efficiency, permitting a clinically useful analysis of large datasets of verbatim reports about the problems that bother PD patients.

Clinician and Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials: Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® to Provide Two Distinct and Complementary Perspectives

Inclusion of the patient perspective in the reporting of symptomatic adverse events provides different and complementary information to clinician reporting using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE^®) is designed for patients to self-report their symptomatic adverse events in a manner that complements CTCAE reporting. Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE together offers the potential to refine our understanding of the prevalence and trajectory of lower grade AEs that can lead to elective discontinuation of therapy and diminished quality of life. This review addresses the development of PRO-CTCAE with an emphasis on the differences between PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE severity grades. This distinction is important when evaluating, grading and reporting toxicity and tolerability in cancer clinical trials.

Evaluation of the patient experience of symptomatic adverse events on Phase I clinical trials using PRO-CTCAE

BACKGROUND

Adverse event (AE) reporting in early-phase clinical trials is essential in determining the tolerability of experimental anticancer therapies. The patient-reported outcome version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) evaluates AE components such as severity and interference in daily life. The aim of this study was to correlate the grade of clinician-reported AEs with patients' reported experience of these toxicities using PRO-CTCAE.

METHODS

Patients with advanced solid tumours enrolled on Phase I clinical trials were surveyed using the PRO-CTCAE. Symptomatic AEs were recorded by physicians using the CTCAE. A logistic regression model was used to assess associations between CTCAE grade and PRO responses.

RESULTS

Of 219 evaluable patients, 81 experienced a high-grade (3/4) clinician-reported symptom, and of these, only 32 (40%) and 26 (32%) patients concordantly reported these as either severe or very severe, and interfering with daily life either 'quite a bit' or 'very much', respectively. Of the 137 patients who experienced a low-grade (1/2) clinician-reported AE as their worst symptom, 98 (72%) and 118 (86%) patients concordantly reported these as either mild-moderate severity and minimally interfering with daily life, respectively. There was a statistically significant association between clinician-reported AE grade and interference. Interference scores were also associated with dose reductions.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to explore patient-reported severity and interference from symptomatic toxicities and compare clinician grading of the same toxicities. The study provided further evidence to support the added value of the PRO-CTCAE in Phase I oncology trials, which would make AE reporting patient-centred. Further work is needed to determine how this would affect the assessment of tolerability.

Efficacy and Risk Factors of Pyrrotinib in Second- and Third-Line Treatments for HER2-Positive Advanced Breast Cancer

A study to examine the efficacy and risk factors associated with pyrrotinib in the second- and third-line treatment of advanced breast cancer with Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2- (HER2-) positive cells was conducted. Progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed as the primary endpoint, and the objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety were secondary endpoints. Across all the patients, the ORR was 48.57%, and the disease control rate (DCR) was 94.29%. In the follow-up period, the median PFS was 15 months, and second-line treatment had significantly longer PFS than third-line treatment (P = 0.027). The OS among all the patients was up to 28 months, but the median OS has not yet been reached. Diarrhea (69.57%) was the most important AE, mainly in grades 1 and 2. According to the COX regression analysis, brain metastasis was a risk factor for PFS, while second-line treatment and capecitabine chemotherapy were relevant to a longer PFS correlation among patients. In the second- and third-line treatment, pyrrotinib is still highly effective and safe. Pyrrotinib is a potential ideal salvage treatment plan for patients who failed in first-line treatments.

Serious Adverse Events Reporting in Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials of Colorectal Cancer Treatments: A Systematic Analysis

Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.

Digital Health for Patients With Multiple Myeloma: An Unmet Need

Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with the highest symptom burden and lowest health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with hematologic malignancies. HRQoL in MM is heterogeneous, varying over the course of disease, with the highest burden at diagnosis and relapse. Patients with MM are increasingly being treated with oral maintenance medications at home. As a result, longitudinal monitoring of medication adherence and patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, could inform on disease status, therapeutic tolerability, and satisfaction with care. Digital health technologies, including telemedicine, mobile health, and wearable devices, are poised to become an integral part of modern health care, in part due to the surge in telemedicine necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the literature has many reports on the use of digital health technologies in other types of cancers, fewer studies report on their application to MM. In the current narrative review, we survey the applications of digital health for MM. Although there is evidence that some are associated with improved health outcomes, challenges exist that must be met to ensure more widespread adoption. These include the need for increased awareness by patients and health care providers, lack of access by the typical older patient with MM, absence of randomized clinical trials, and low integration with current workflows such as electronic health records. Following our summary of technologies that could benefit patients with MM, we end by describing our vision for how they can be integrated into each phase of the patient journey.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.

METHODS

DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.

RESULTS

5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes monitoring during lung cancer chemotherapy: A nested cohort within the PRO-TECT pragmatic trial (AFT-39)

OBJECTIVES

Patients with lung cancer have high symptom burden and diminished quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) platforms deliver repeated longitudinal surveys via web or telephone to patients and alert clinicians about concerning symptoms. This study aims to determine feasibility of electronic PRO monitoring in lung cancer patients receiving treatment in community settings.

METHODS

Adults receiving treatment for advanced or metastatic lung cancer at 26 community sites were invited to participate in a prospective trial of weekly electronic PRO symptom monitoring for 12 months (NCT03249090). Surveys assessing patients' satisfaction with the electronic PRO system were administered at 3 months. Descriptive statistics were generated for demographics, survey completion rates, symptom occurrence, and provider PRO alert management approaches. Pairwise relationships between symptom items were evaluated using intra-individual repeated-measures correlation coefficients.

RESULTS

Lung cancer patients (n = 118) participating in electronic PROs were older (mean 64.4 vs 61.9 years, p = 0.03), had worse performance status (p = 0.002), more comorbidities (p = 0.02), and less technology experience than patients with other cancers. Of delivered weekly PRO surveys over 12 months, 91% were completed. Nearly all (97%) patients reported concerning (i.e., severe or worsening) symptoms during participation, with 33% of surveys including concerning symptoms. Pain was the most frequent and longest lasting symptom and was associated with reduced activity level. More than half of alerts to clinicians for concerning symptoms led to intervention. The majority (87%) would recommend using electronic PRO monitoring to other lung cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Remote longitudinal weekly monitoring of patients with lung cancer using validated electronic PRO surveys was feasible in a multicenter, community-based pragmatic study. A high symptom burden specific to lung cancer was detected and clinician outreach in response to alerts was frequent, suggesting electronic PROs may be a beneficial strategy for identifying actionable symptoms and allow opportunities to optimize well-being in this population.

Comparison of pyrotinib or lapatinib with chemotherapy for patients with HER2 positive breast cancer after first-line treatment failure: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the difference in efficacy and safety of pyrotinib or lapatinib combined with chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) positive breast cancer patients who failed the first-line trastuzumab-containing treatment.

METHODS

The present retrospective study included 164 HER-2 positive breast cancer patients admitted to our hospital. Among them, 68 cases received pyrotinib combined with chemotherapy after the failure of trastuzumab first-line treatment (pyrotinib group), and the other 96 cases received lapatinib combined chemotherapy (lapatinib group). The end of the follow-up time was set as June 1, 2020. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoints included best objective response rate (ORR) and safety.

RESULTS

Till the end of the follow-up, the best ORR (60.3% vs. 34.4%) in the pyrotinib group was significantly higher than that in the lapatinib group, and the median PFS (9.0 months vs. 6.2 months) was also largely prolonged (P<0.01). In addition, the median PFS of the patients with brain metastases in the pyrotinib group was 6.5 months, and was much longer that in the lapatinib group which wereth 3.5 months in length (P<0.05). Multivariate COX regression analysis showed that pyrotinib combined with chemotherapy (HR=0.653, P<0.05) was associated with longer PFS of patients, while the lapatinib group had a higher proportion of vomiting and hand foot syndrome than the pyrotinib group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

After the failure of first-line trastuzumab-containing treatment, combination of pyrotinib with chemotherapy has more significant short-term efficacy in HER-2 positive breast cancer patients than lapatinib combined with chemotherapy, especially in patients with brain metastasis.

Experiences of Patients After Withdrawal From Cancer Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Cancer clinical trials (CCTs) provide patients an opportunity to receive experimental drugs, tests, and/or procedures that can lead to remission. For some, a CCT may seem like their only option. Little is known about experiences of patient-participants who withdraw or are withdrawn from CCTs.

OBJECTIVE

To examine patient-participants' experiences during withdrawal from CCTs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative, descriptive study used a semistructured interview designed specifically for it, with open-ended and probing questions. The study took place at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. The need for a sample of 20 interviewees was determined by code and meaning saturation (ie, no new themes revealed and identified themes fully elaborated). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed with a qualitative software program. Data coded with the software were refined into categories reflecting broad themes. A criterion-based sampling approach was used to select a subset of adult patients with cancer who were former CCT participants and who agreed on exit from those CCTs to a later interview about withdrawal experiences. They were contacted one by one by telephone from September 2015 through June 2019 until 20 agreed. Data analysis was completed in October 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Themes characterizing patient-participants' perceptions of their withdrawal experiences.

RESULTS

Respondents' mean (SD) age was 64.42 (8.49) years; 12 (63.2%) were men. Most respondents were White (18 respondents [94.7%]) and college educated (11 respondents [55.0%]). Cancer stage data were available for 17 participants, 11 of whom (64.7%) had stage IV cancer at CCT enrollment. Thirteen respondents reported withdrawal as a result of disease progression, and 5 withdrew because of adverse effects. Other reasons for withdrawal included acute illness and participant uncertainty about the reason. Analysis of interview data yielded 5 themes: posttrial prognostic awareness, goals of care discussions, emotional coping, burden of adverse effects, and professional trust and support. Subthemes included regrets or hindsight, urgency to start next treatment, and weighing benefits and burdens of treatment. Limited discussions about patient-participants' immediate posttrial care needs left many feeling that there was no clear path forward.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patient-participants transitioning from a CCT described feeling intense symptoms and emotions and awareness that their life span was short and options seemed to be limited. Communication that includes attention to posttrial needs is needed throughout the CCT to help patient-participants navigate posttrial steps. Research should focus on components of responsible and ethical CCT transitions, including types and timing of discussions and who should begin these discussions with patient-participants and their families.

The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors

Survivors of head and neck cancer (HNC) can have multiple health concerns. To facilitate their care, we developed and pilot-tested a clinical informatics intervention, HN-STAR. HN-STAR elicits concerns online from HNC survivors prior to a routine oncology clinic visit. HN-STAR then presents tailored evidence-based clinical recommendations as a clinical decision support tool to be used during the visit where the oncology clinician and survivor select symptom management strategies and other actions. This generates a survivorship care plan (SCP). Online elicitation of health concerns occurs 3, 6, and 9 months after the clinic visit, generating an updated SCP each time. HN-STAR encompasses important methods of improving survivorship care (e.g., needs assessment, tailored interventions, dissemination of guidelines) and will be evaluated in a pragmatic trial to maximize external validity. This hybrid type 1 implementation-effectiveness trial tests HN-STAR effectiveness while studying barriers and facilitators to implementation in community oncology practices within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program. Effectiveness will be measured as differences in key survivorship outcomes between HNC participants who do and do not use HN-STAR over one year after the clinic visit. The primary endpoint is HNC-specific quality of life; other outcomes include patient-centered measures and receipt of guideline-concordant care. Implementation outcomes will be assessed of survivors, providers, and clinic stakeholders. The hybrid design will provide insight into a dose-response relationship between the extent of implementation fidelity and effectiveness outcomes, as well as how to incorporate HN-STAR into standard practice outside the research setting.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of ixazomib and lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone in the treatment of multiple myeloma

OBJECTIVE

To explore the efficacy and safety of ixazomib and lenalidomide combined with dexamethasone (DXMS) in the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM).

METHODS

A total of 80 patients with newly diagnosed MM were randomly divided into the ID group (ixazomib + DXMS, n=40) and the RD group (lenalidomide + DXMS, n=40). All patients were given DXMS orally on the 1st, 8th, 15th, and 22nd day of the treatment cycle (20 mg each time). The patients in the ID group also received 4 mg of ixazomib citrate capsules orally on the 1st, 8th, and 15th day of the treatment cycle, whereas those in the RD group received 25 mg of lenalidomide capsules orally from the 1st to the 21st day of the treatment cycle continuously. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS) within 5 years, and the secondary outcome measures were overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety.

RESULTS

The median PFS and median OS in the ID group were similar to those in the RD group (30.03 and 50.21 months vs. 25.04 and 46.33 months, both P>0.05). The ID group had higher complete remission rate (13 cases vs. 5 cases, P<0.05), but similar ORR compared with the RD group (90.00% vs. 82.50%, P>0.05). After treatment, the pain intensity assessed by Numeric Rating Scale and the functional impairment measured by Karnofsky Performance Status Scale of the two groups were both relieved (both P<0.001), and no intergroup differences in these two markers were observed (both P>0.05). The incidence of grade 1-2 peripheral neuropathy in the ID group was higher than that in the RD group (30.00% vs. 20.00%, P=0.032). There were no differences in other adverse reactions between the two groups (all P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the combination of lenalidomide and DXMS, ixazomib combined with DXMS can achieve higher complete remission rate and more improved PFS and OS in patients with newly diagnosed MM, which is a safe and effective method.

Evolution of Hematology Clinical Trial Adverse Event Reporting to Improve Care Delivery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Reporting of adverse events on hematology clinical trials is crucial to understanding the safety of standard treatments and novel agents. However, despite the importance of understanding toxicities, challenges in capturing and reporting accurate adverse event data exist.

RECENT FINDINGS

Currently, adverse events are reported manually on most hematology clinical trials. Especially on phase III trials, the highest grade of each adverse event during a reporting period is typically reported. Despite the effort committed to AE reporting, studies have identified underreporting of adverse events on hematologic malignancy clinical trials, which raises concern about the true understanding of safety of treatment that clinicians have in order to guide patients about what to expect during therapy. In order to address these concerns, recent studies have piloted alternative methods for identification of adverse events. These methods include automated extraction of adverse event data from the electronic health record, implementation of trigger or alert tools into the medical record, and analytic tools to evaluate duration of adverse events rather than only the highest adverse event grade. Adverse event reporting is a crucial component of clinical trials. Novel tools for identifying and reporting adverse events provide opportunities for honing and refining methods of toxicity capture and improving understanding of toxicities patients experience while enrolled on clinical trials.

Natural language processing for abstraction of cancer treatment toxicities: accuracy versus human experts

Objectives

Expert abstraction of acute toxicities is critical in oncology research but is labor-intensive and variable. We assessed the accuracy of a natural language processing (NLP) pipeline to extract symptoms from clinical notes compared to physicians.

Materials and Methods

Two independent reviewers identified present and negated National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v5.0 symptoms from 100 randomly selected notes for on-treatment visits during radiation therapy with adjudication by a third reviewer. A NLP pipeline based on Apache clinical Text Analysis Knowledge Extraction System was developed and used to extract CTCAE terms. Accuracy was assessed by precision, recall, and F1.

Results

The NLP pipeline demonstrated high accuracy for common physician-abstracted symptoms, such as radiation dermatitis (F1 0.88), fatigue (0.85), and nausea (0.88). NLP had poor sensitivity for negated symptoms.

Conclusion

NLP accurately detects a subset of documented present CTCAE symptoms, though is limited for negated symptoms. It may facilitate strategies to more consistently identify toxicities during cancer therapy.

Generating Relevant Information from Patients in the Technology-Enhanced Era of Patient-Focused Drug Development: Opportunities and Challenges

The era of patient-focused drug development (PFDD) brings with it a greater use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials. This is facilitated through electronic technology designed to capture PROM data. However, PFDD goes beyond just PROMs, and technology has a key role in capturing timely and patient-relevant information through active and passive means to inform study endpoints. This brief paper aims to highlight four trends the authors have observed across the pharmaceutical industry in using technology to enhance PFDD: (1) capturing qualitative data from patients; (2) using digital health technology tools (DHTTs); (3) employing reactive technology-enabled clinical outcome assessments TeCOA; and (4) generating passive patient experience data. Opportunities and challenges associated with these trends are discussed, and a 'call to action' is made to consolidate learning and understanding across science, medical and technology disciplines, and to conduct collaborative research to improve the opportunities and minimize the challenges.

Dutch translation and linguistic validation of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™)

BACKGROUND

The U.S. National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) is a library of items for assessing symptomatic adverse events by patient self-report in oncology trials. The aim of this multi-site study was to generate and linguistically validate a Dutch language version of the U.S. PRO-CTCAE for use in the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking Belgium.

METHODS

All 124 items in the PRO-CTCAE item library were translated into Dutch using established translation procedures, including dual forward translations, reconciliation, back-translation, reconciliation of the source with the back-translation, and expert reviews. Harmonization of the translation for use in both the Netherlands and Belgium was achieved via an iterative review process in which the translations were discussed and reconciled by consensus of PRO experts, clinicians and bilingual Dutch translators. The translated PRO-CTCAE™ items were completed by a geographically-diverse sample of Dutch speaking patients from the Netherlands (n = 40) and Belgium (n = 60), and who were currently receiving or who had recently completed cancer-directed therapy. Patients were diverse with respect to age, sex, educational attainment, and cancer diagnosis. Cognitive debriefing, using a semi-structured interview guide, probed for comprehension and clarity of PRO-CTCAE symptom terms, attributes (e.g. frequency, severity, interference), response choices, and understanding of 'at its worst' and 'in the last 7 days'. Items for which the patient data indicated possible difficulties were considered for revision.

RESULTS

Three items underwent minor phrasing revision and retesting was not deemed necessary. The symptom term for stretch marks was poorly understood by 12.5% of participants, and this item was revised to include parenthetical phrasing. It was retested with 10 participants from Belgium (n = 5) and the Netherlands (n = 5) and demonstrated acceptable comprehension.

CONCLUSIONS

The Dutch language version of PRO-CTCAE has been successfully developed and linguistically validated for use in oncology studies in the Netherlands and Dutch-speaking Belgium. Extending the availability of NCI PRO-CTCAE in languages beyond English increases international consistency in the capture of Patient-Reported outcomes in patients participating in cancer clinical trials.

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.

From Patient Engagement to Precision Oncology: Leveraging Informatics to Advance Cancer Care

OBJECTIVES

Conduct a survey of the literature for advancements in cancer informatics over the last three years in three specific areas where there has been unprecedented growth: 1) digital health; 2) machine learning; and 3) precision oncology. We also highlight the ethical implications and future opportunities within each area.

METHODS

A search was conducted over a three-year period in two electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar) to identify peer-reviewed articles and conference proceedings. Search terms included variations of the following: neoplasms[MeSH], informatics[MeSH], cancer, oncology, clinical cancer informatics, medical cancer informatics. The search returned too many articles for practical review (23,994 from PubMed and 23,100 from Google Scholar). Thus, we conducted searches of key PubMed-indexed informatics journals and proceedings. We further limited our search to manuscripts that demonstrated a clear focus on clinical or translational cancer informatics. Manuscripts were then selected based on their methodological rigor, scientific impact, innovation, and contribution towards cancer informatics as a field or on their impact on cancer care and research.

RESULTS

Key developments and opportunities in cancer informatics research in the areas of digital health, machine learning, and precision oncology were summarized.

CONCLUSION

While there are numerous innovations in the field of cancer informatics to advance prevention and clinical care, considerable challenges remain related to data sharing and privacy, digital accessibility, and algorithm biases and interpretation. The implementation and application of these findings in cancer care necessitates further consideration and research.

Glioma patient-reported outcome assessment in clinical care and research: a Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology collaborative report

Clinical trials of treatments for high-grade gliomas have traditionally relied on measures of response or time-dependent metrics; however, these endpoints have limitations because they do not characterise the functional or symptomatic effect of the condition on the person. Including clinical outcome assessments, such as patient- reported outcomes (PROs), to determine net clinical benefit of a treatment strategy is needed because of the substantial burden of symptoms and impaired functioning in this patient population. The US National Cancer Institute convened a meeting to review previous recommendations and existing PRO measures of symptoms and function that can be applied to current trials and clinical practice for high-grade gliomas. Measures were assessed for relevance, relationship to disease and therapy, sensitivity to change, psychometric properties, response format, patient acceptability, and use of self-report. The group also relied on patient input including the results of an online survey, a literature review on available clinical outcomes, expert opinion, and alignment with work done by other organisations. A core set of priority constructs was proposed that allows more comprehensive evaluation of therapies and comparison of outcomes among studies, and enhances efforts to improve the measurement of these core clinical outcomes. The proposed set of constructs was then presented to the Society for Neuro-Oncology Response Assessment in Neuro-Oncology Working Group and feedback was solicited.

Clinicians versus patients subjective adverse events assessment: based on patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE)

PURPOSE

Adverse events (AEs) assessment by clinicians is a standard practice in a clinical setting. However, studies have found clinicians tend to report fewer AEs, especially subjective AEs. We aimed to explore the difference of subjective AEs assessment between clinicians and patients based on PRO-CTCAE, and to discuss the necessity of incorporating patient into the evaluation of AEs.

METHODS

Between April and July 2019, two different questionnaires with the same subjective AEs were given to patients and clinicians in the Day Chemotherapy ward of Breast Center in the Fourth Hospital of HeBei Medical University. Patients completed a Simplified Chinese version of PRO-CTCAE, including six common subjective AEs of chemotherapy: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue, pain, and constipation. Clinicians completed the common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) with the same AEs. General information of enrolled patients and results from the questionnaires were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

384 paired questionnaires were collected. Clinicians reported less subjective AEs than patients, and the general agreement between patients and clinicians was poor. When considering the grade difference, we utilize weighted kappa coefficient to analysis, and agreement between patients and clinicians was poor (k < 0.4) regardless of the frequency, the severity and interfering with daily life of AEs, and the most discrepancies were within one point. Patients tended to grade severer than the clinician.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that there were differences between clinicians and patients in subjective adverse events evaluation. Patient reporting of symptoms can be used as a supplementary method to incorporate the current approach to monitor subjective AEs, to improve the timeliness and accuracy of clinical evaluation of subjective AEs.

Patient and clinician opinions of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of patients with rare diseases: a qualitative study

Background

Rare diseases may be life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions. Patient care needs are often complex and challenging to coordinate and deliver effectively. Rare diseases and their clinical management may therefore substantially impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL). The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may complement clinical assessments by elucidating patients’ perspectives on their health status and care priorities. This study explored the opinions of patients and clinicians on the use of PROMs in the management of patients with rare diseases in routine clinical practice.

Methods

A total of 15 semi-structured one-to-one interviews were conducted with four patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC); five renal transplant recipients; and six PSC doctors from University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) NHS Foundation Trust. A focus group session was also conducted with 10 clinical staff members (doctors, nurses and other allied health professionals from UHB). The suitability and acceptability of the Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire (CLDQ) and the Short Form 12 (SF12) were assessed by patients with PSC and their doctors while the Paediatric quality of life inventory Transplant Module (PedsQL-TM) and the EuroQoL-5 dimensions (EQ. 5D) were evaluated by the renal transplant recipients and their doctors. The discussions were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Coding of the transcripts was done using the Nvivo 11 Plus software. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify the main themes and subthemes.

Results

Four themes were identified, namely: (i) potential benefits of PROMs in the management of rare diseases; (ii) views on selected questionnaires; (iii) practical considerations for implementation; and (iv) potential facilitators and barriers of implementation. Patients and clinicians suggested that the use of ePROMs may facilitate patient-centred care by promoting patient-clinician communication, highlighting aspects of HRQOL that are important to patients and encouraging patient involvement in their care. They also felt that the disease-specific CLDQ and PedsQL-TM were more relevant than the generic SF12 and EQ-5D.

Conclusions

Patients with rare diseases often experience impaired HRQOL. The use of an ePROM system may enhance the routine management of patients with rare diseases.

Comparing Paclitaxel-Carboplatin with Paclitaxel-Cisplatin as the Front-Line Chemotherapy for Patients with FIGO IIIC Serous-Type Tubo-Ovarian Cancer

The use of weekly chemotherapy for the treatment of patients with advanced-stage serous-type epithelial Tubo-ovarian cancer (ETOC), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC) is acceptable as the front-line postoperative chemotherapy after primary cytoreductive surgery (PCS). The main component of dose-dense chemotherapy is weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²), but it would be interesting to know what is the difference between combination of triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²) or triweekly carboplatin (carboplatin area under the curve 5-7 mg/mL per min [AUC 5-7]) in the dose-dense paclitaxel regimen. Therefore, we compared the outcomes of women with Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC ETOC and PPSC treated with PCS and a subsequent combination of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and triweekly cisplatin (paclitaxel–cisplatin) or triweekly carboplatin using AUC 5 (paclitaxel–carboplatin). Between January 2010 and December 2016, 40 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC EOC, FTC, or PPSC were enrolled, including 18 treated with paclitaxel–cisplatin and the remaining 22 treated with paclitaxel–carboplatin. There were no statistically significant differences in disease characteristics of patients between two groups. Outcomes in paclitaxel–cisplatin group seemed to be little better than those in paclitaxel–carboplatin (median progression-free survival [PFS] 30 versus 25 months as well as median overall survival [OS] 58.5 versus 55.0 months); however, neither reached a statistically significant difference. In terms of adverse events (AEs), patients in paclitaxel–carboplatin group had more AEs, with a higher risk of neutropenia and grade 3/4 neutropenia, and the need for a longer period to complete the front-line chemotherapy, and the latter was associated with worse outcome for patients. We found that a period between the first-time chemotherapy to the last dose (6 cycles) of chemotherapy >21 weeks was associated with a worse prognosis in patients compared to that ≤21 weeks, with hazard ratio (HR) of 81.24 for PFS and 9.57 for OS. As predicted, suboptimal debulking surgery (>1 cm) also contributed to a worse outcome than optimal debulking surgery (≤1 cm) with HR of 14.38 for PFS and 11.83 for OS. Based on the aforementioned findings, both regimens were feasible and effective, but maximal efforts should be made to achieve optimal debulking surgery and following the on-schedule administration of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel plus triweekly platinum compounds. Randomized trials validating the findings are warranted.

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients.

METHODS

We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value.

RESULTS

Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items.

CONCLUSION

Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgical Oncology: An Overview of Instruments and Scores

Traditional measures of quality and effectiveness in surgical oncology have focused on morbidity, mortality, and when available, recurrence rates. Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has become more widely accepted during the last decade. This article reviews instruments commonly used in the surgical treatment of cancer patients to evaluate PROs. In addition, it discusses the linkage of PROs and health-related quality of life measures with traditional surgical complications and highlights future directions related to the expanding use of PROs in the surgical care of cancer patients.

Stakeholder perspectives on addressing adverse events from adjuvant cancer therapy: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

With increasing survival rates, a growing population of patients with cancer have received or will receive adjuvant therapy to prevent cancer recurrences. Patients and caregivers will confront the complexities of balancing the preventative benefits of adjuvant therapy with possible near-term or long-term adverse events (AEs). Adjuvant treatment-related AEs (from minimal to severe) can impact therapeutic adherence, quality of life, emotional and physical health, and survival. However, to the authors' knowledge, limited information is available regarding how stakeholders use or desire to use adjuvant-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer.

METHODS

A qualitative, purposeful sampling approach was used to elicit stakeholder feedback via semistructured interviews (24 interviews). Drug development, drug regulatory, clinical, payer, and patient/patient advocacy stakeholders were questioned about the generation, dissemination, and use of adjuvant treatment-related AE information to inform the care of patients with cancer. Transcripts were coded independently by 2 senior health care researchers and reconciled to identify key themes.

RESULTS

All stakeholder groups in the current study identified needed improvements in each of the following 4 areas: 1) improving the accessibility and relevance of AE-related information; 2) better integrating and implementing available information regarding AEs for decisions; 3) connecting contemporary cultural and economic value systems to the generation and use of information regarding adjuvant treatment-related AEs; and 4) addressing a lack of alignment and ownership of stakeholder efforts to improve the use of AE information in the adjuvant setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite commonalities in the overall needs identified by the diverse stakeholders in the current study, broad systemic change has been stymied. The current study identified the lack of alignment and the absence of a central "owner" of these diffuse efforts as a previously unrecognized hurdle to realizing the desired systemic improvements. Future initiatives aimed at improving quality of life and outcomes for patients receiving adjuvant therapy through the improved use of AE information must address this challenge through innovative collectives and novel leadership strategies.

Weekly Dose-Dense Paclitaxel and Triweekly Low-Dose Cisplatin: A Well-Tolerated and Effective Chemotherapeutic Regimen for First-Line Treatment of Advanced Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, and Primary Peritoneal Cancer

A combination of cytoreductive surgery, either primary (PCS) or interval (ICS), and chemotherapy with a platinum-paclitaxel regimen is the well-accepted treatment for advanced-stage epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), fallopian tube cancer (FTC), and primary peritoneal serous carcinoma (PPSC), but it is still uncertain whether a combination of dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and low-dose triweekly cisplatin is useful in the management of these patients. Therefore, we retrospectively evaluated the outcomes of women with advanced-stage EOC, FTC, and PPSC treated with PCS and subsequent dose-dense weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) and low-dose triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²). Between January 2011 and December 2017, 32 women with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIC–IV EOC, FTC, or PPSC were enrolled. Optimal PCS was achieved in 63.5% of patients. The mean and median progression-free survival was 36.5 and 27.0 months, respectively (95% confidence interval (CI): 26.8–46.2 and 11.3–42.7 months, respectively). The mean overall survival was 56.0 months (95% CI: 43.9–68.1 months), and the median overall survival could not be obtained. The most common all-grade adverse events (AEs) were anemia (96.9%), neutropenia (50%), peripheral neuropathy (28.1%), nausea and vomiting (34.4%), and thrombocytopenia (15.6%). These AEs were predominantly grade 1/2, and only a few patients were complicated by grade 3/4 neutropenia (21.9%) and anemia (6.3%). A multivariate analysis indicated that only suboptimal PCS was significantly correlated with a worse prognosis, resulting in an 11.6-fold increase in the odds of disease progression. In conclusion, our data suggest that dose-dense weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m²) combined with low-dose triweekly cisplatin (20 mg/m²) is a potentially effective and highly tolerable front-line treatment in advanced EOC, FTC, and PPSC. Randomized trials comparing the outcome of this regimen to other standard therapies for FIGO stage IIIC–IV EOC, FTC, and PPSC are warranted.

Gain and loss from transcatheter intra-arterial limb infusion of cisplatin for extremity osteosarcoma: a retrospective study of 99 cases in the past six years

Purpose

We intend to analyze the gain and loss from transcatheter intra-arterial (IA) limb infusion of cisplatin for extremity osteosarcoma in the past six years.

Patients and methods

Between December 2009 and August 2014, a total of 99 patients were analyzed for efficiency and followed up for long-term survival. Based on the different administration methods of cisplatin, we divided them into the following two cohorts: IA infusion of cisplatin (n=48) and intravenous (IV) infusion of cisplatin (n=51). Except for cisplatin, all the other drugs were given intravenously. Cisplatin was given intra-arterially with an infusion time of 3 hrs or 6 hrs using a pump, whereas historical controls received IV infusion of cisplatin within 60 mins. Tumor neovascularity (TNV) was analyzed before infusion, and subsequent arteriograms were compared with the baseline to determine percent changes. Definitive surgery with intended wide resection and postoperative pathological evaluation were performed in all these patients.

Results

No local or overall survival benefit was found in the patients preoperatively treated with IA infusion of cisplatin compared with IV infusion (P=0.336 and 0.173, respectively). Furthermore, serial arteriography was used to predict a good histologic response with an accuracy of 73.1% and a sensitivity of 100%. There were sporadic cases with the telangiectatic subtype, which did not respond very well to IV chemotherapy, but later, the tumor obviously shrank after IA infusion of cisplatin. Our study also showed that the rates of the complication of skin and muscle necrosis were not so low as reported.

Conclusion

We did not observe any survival advantage of chemotherapy using IA infusion in osteosarcoma of the extremities. Arteriography for TNV can be used to predict the tumor histologic response. Malposition of the catheter might severely increase the complication of skin or muscle necrosis.