Online tool for monitoring adverse events in patients with cancer during treatment (eRAPID): field testing in a clinical setting

Meaningful consumer involvement in cancer care: a systematic review on co-design methods and processes

OBJECTIVE

Although the benefits of consumer involvement in research and health care initiatives are known, there is a need to optimize this for all people with cancer. This systematic review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the application of co-design in the oncology literature and develop recommendations to guide the application of optimal co-design processes and reporting in oncology research, practice, and policy.

METHODS

A systematic review of co-design studies in adults with cancer was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO databases and included studies focused on 2 concepts, co-design and oncology.

RESULTS

A total of 5652 titles and abstracts were screened, resulting in 66 eligible publications reporting on 51 unique studies. Four frameworks were applied to describe the co-design initiatives. Most co-design initiatives were designed for use in an outpatient setting (n = 38; 74%) and were predominantly digital resources (n = 14; 27%) or apps (n = 12; 23%). Most studies (n = 25; 49%) used a co-production approach to consumer engagement. Although some studies presented strong co-design methodology, most (n = 36; 70%) did not report the co-design approach, and 14% used no framework. Reporting was poor for the participant level of involvement, the frequency, and time commitment of co-design sessions. Consumer participation level was predominantly collaborate (n = 25; 49%).

CONCLUSIONS

There are opportunities to improve the application of co-design in oncology research. This review has generated recommendations to guide 1) methodology and frameworks, 2) recruitment and engagement of co-design participants, and 3) evaluation of the co-design process. These recommendations can help drive appropriate, meaningful, and equitable co-design, leading to better cancer research and care.

App-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes in the Molecular Tumor Board in the Center for Personalized Medicine-(TRACE)

Background

Biomarker-based therapies are increasingly used in cancer patients outside clinical trials. Systematic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is warranted to take patients' perspectives during biomarker-based therapies into consideration. We assessed the feasibility of an electronic PRO assessment via a smartphone application.

Methods

An interdisciplinary expert panel developed a smartphone application based on symptom burden and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) metrics reported in a retrospective analysis of 292 neuro-oncological patients. The app included validated assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), the burden of symptoms, and psychological stress. Feasibility and usability were tested in a pilot study. Semi-structured interviews with patients and health care professionals (HCP) were conducted, transcribed, and analyzed according to Mayring´s qualitative content analysis. Furthermore, we assessed compliance and descriptive data of ePROs.

Results

A total of 14 patients have been enrolled, (9 female, 5 male). A total of 4 HCPs, 9 patients, and 1 caregiver were interviewed regarding usability/feasibility. The main advantages were the possibility to complete questionnaires at home and comfortable implementation in daily life. Compliance was high, for example, 82% of the weekly distributed NCCN distress thermometer questionnaires were answered on time, however, with interindividual variability. We observed a median distress score of 5 (range 0-10, 197 results, n = 12, weekly assessed) and a median Global health score of 58.3 according to the EORTC QLQ-C30 instrument (range 16.7-100, 77 results, n = 12, monthly assessed).

Conclusions

This pilot study proved the feasibility and acceptance of the app. We will therefore expand its application during biomarker-guided therapies to enable systematic PRO assessments.

Oncology Nurses' Experiences of Using Health Information Systems in the Delivery of Cancer Care in a Range of Care Settings: A Systematic Integrative Review

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify oncology nurses' experiences of using health information systems (HIS) in the delivery of cancer care.

DATA SOURCES

The electronic databases searched included CINAHL, MEDLINE (EBSCO host), SCOPUS, Web of Science Core Collection, Google Scholar, OVID, and ProQuest Central (using advanced search strategy) and hand searching of reference lists of the included articles and relevant systematic reviews. Studies published in English language were examined.

CONCLUSION

Twenty-six studies were included. Three themes emerged: (1) the transparency and application of the nursing process within HIS, (2) HIS enhancing and facilitating communication between nurses and patients, and (3) the impact of HIS on the elements of person-centered care. Nurses' experiences with HIS were overall positive. However, digital systems do not fully capture all elements of the nursing processes; this was confirmed in this review, through the nurses' lens. Most studies used HIS for symptom reporting and monitoring within non-inpatient settings and largely biomedical and lack insight into the person-centeredness and overall holistic care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

There are evidently varied views of HIS adoption across the globe. HIS can improve health-related quality of life and symptom burden, including self-reporting of symptoms among patients. However, there is a need for ongoing high-quality research, and clearer reporting than is evident in the current 26 studies, to fully understand the impact of HIS within the nursing processes and patient outcomes across all specialty cancer fields.

The advantages, disadvantages, threats, and opportunities of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in cancer: A systematic review

Objective

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems hold promise for revolutionizing communication between cancer patients and healthcare providers across various care settings. This systematic review explores the multifaceted landscape of ePROs in cancer care, encompassing their advantages, disadvantages, potential risks, and opportunities for improvement.

Methods

In our systematic review, we conducted a rigorous search in Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed, employing comprehensive medical subject heading terms for ePRO and cancer, with no date limitations up to 2024. Studies were critically appraised and thematically analyzed based on inclusion and exclusion criteria, including considerations of advantages, disadvantages, opportunities, and threats.

Findings

Analyzing 85 articles revealed 69 themes categorized into four key areas. Advantages (n = 14) were dominated by themes like "improved quality of life and care." Disadvantages (n = 26) included "limited access and technical issues." Security concerns and lack of technical skills were prominent threats (n = 10). Opportunities (n = 19) highlighted advancements in symptom management and potential solutions for technical challenges.

Conclusion

This review emphasizes the crucial role of continuous exploration, integration, and innovation in ePRO systems for optimizing patient outcomes in cancer care. Beyond traditional clinical settings, ePROs hold promise for applications in survivorship, palliative care, and remote monitoring. By addressing existing limitations and capitalizing on opportunities, ePROs can empower patients, enhance communication, and ultimately improve care delivery across the entire cancer care spectrum.

Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Clinical Care Using Electronic Administration and Telehealth Technologies: Realist Synthesis of Potential Mechanisms for Improving Health Outcomes

BACKGROUND

The routine measurement of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical care using electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is gaining momentum worldwide. However, a deep understanding of the mechanisms underpinning ePROM interventions that could inform their optimal design to improve health outcomes is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify the implicit mechanisms that underpin the effectiveness of ePROM interventions and develop program theories about how and when ePROM interventions improve health outcomes.

METHODS

A realist synthesis of the literature about ePROM interventions in cancer clinical care was performed. A conceptual framework of ePROM interventions was constructed to define the scope of the review and frame the initial program theories. Literature searches of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, and CINAHL, supplemented by citation tracking, were performed to identify relevant literature to develop, refine, and test program theories. Quality appraisal of relevant studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

Overall, 61 studies were included in the realist synthesis: 15 (25%) mixed methods studies, 9 (15%) qualitative studies, 13 (21%) descriptive studies, 21 (34%) randomized controlled trials, and 3 (5%) quasi-experimental studies. In total, 3 initial program theories were developed regarding the salient components of ePROM interventions-remote self-reporting, real-time feedback to clinicians, and clinician-patient telecommunication. The refined theories posit that remote self-reporting enables patients to recognize and report symptoms accurately and empowers them to communicate these to clinicians, real-time feedback prompts clinicians to manage symptoms proactively, and clinician-patient telephone interactions and e-interactions between clinic encounters improve symptom management by reshaping how clinicians and patients communicate. However, the intervention may not achieve the intended benefit if ePROMs become a reminder to patients of their illness and are not meaningful to them and when real-time feedback to clinicians lacks relevance and increases the workload.

CONCLUSIONS

The key to improving health outcomes through ePROM interventions is enabling better symptom reporting and communication through remote symptom self-reporting, promoting proactive management of symptoms through real-time clinician feedback, and facilitating clinician-patient interactions. Patient engagement with self-reporting and clinician engagement in responding to feedback are vital and may reinforce each other in improving outcomes. Effective ePROM interventions might fundamentally alter how clinicians and patients interact between clinic encounters.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service.

RESULTS

100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

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.

Feasibility of Large-Scale Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Remote Monitoring System for Patients on Active Treatment at a Community Cancer Center

PURPOSE

The use of digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The evidence of benefit has been largely derived from research studies. The feasibility of adopting this technology in the real-world setting is unknown.

METHODS

We report on the clinical implementation of a proprietary electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based digital symptom monitoring platform at the Highlands Oncology Group practice, a large community oncology practice. We present here our experience with patient enrollment, engagement, and retention; reasons for discontinued use; proportion of reports generating alerts and containing severe symptoms; and the responses to alerts including nursing telephone consultations and urgent office visits.

RESULTS

Over an approximately 17-month period, 923 patients were successfully enrolled. Patients enrolled from June 20, 2020, through November 30, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2022. Retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 94%, 88%, 73%, and 67%, respectively, with greater retention at 12 months in patients age 65 years or older. Few patients discontinued use for reasons related to the platform (n = 47; 5%). Of the 25,311 ePRO reports submitted, 49% (n = 12,334) exceeded the predefined alert thresholds and 8% (n = 1,920) included severe symptoms. The nursing team responded within 24 hours by telephone to 31.2% (n = 3,910) of all reports with alerts. Of reports with severe symptoms, 72.7% (n = 1,395) received a call. Only 6.4% (n = 249) of phone calls required an office evaluation within 72 hours of the report.

CONCLUSION

This single-center experience indicates that an ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring platform can be effectively implemented at a large scale with a high level of long-term patient engagement. Most reports could be effectively resolved by nurses, and physician intervention was infrequently required.

The Women's Health Initiative cancer survivorship clinic incorporating electronic patient-reported outcomes: a study protocol for the Linking You to Support and Advice (LYSA) randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The improved survival rate for many cancers in high-income countries demands a coordinated multidisciplinary approach to survivorship care and service provision to ensure optimal patient outcomes and quality of life. This study assesses the feasibility of introducing a Women's Health Initiative cancer survivorship clinic in Ireland.

METHODS

The trial https://spcare.bmj.com/content/9/2/209.short comprises an intervention and control arm. Two hundred participants will be recruited. Key eligibility (1) women with early-stage hormone receptor-positive breast or gynecologic cancer (cervix or endometrial), within 12 months of completion of primary curative therapy, and (2) access to the Internet. The complex intervention comprises a nurse-led clinic targeting symptom management through a trigger alert system, utilizing electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) assessments at baseline, and 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 months. It also includes input from a dietitian monitoring diet and nutritional status. The control group will receive their usual care pathway standard of care and attend the cancer survivorship clinic and complete ePRO assessments at the start and end of the study. The primary endpoint (feasibility) includes the proportion of enrolled participants who complete baseline and follow-up ePRO surveys and partake in health professional consultations after ePRO data triggers. Secondary endpoints include changes in cancer-related symptom scores assessed by ePROs, health-related Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ) scores, Appraisal Self-Care Agency-R scores, and adjuvant endocrine therapy medication adherence. A process evaluation will capture the experiences of participation in the study, and the healthcare costs will be examined as part of the economic analysis. Ethical approval was granted in December 2020, with accrual commencing in March 2021.

DISCUSSION

This protocol describes the implementation of a parallel arm randomized controlled trial (RCT) which examines the feasibility of delivering a Cancer Survivorship Clinic. The ePRO is an innovative symptom monitoring system which detects the treatment-related effects and provides individualized support for cancer survivors. The findings will provide direction for the implementation of future survivorship care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT05035173 . Retrospectively registered on September 5, 2021.

Artificial intelligence empowered Digital Health Technologies in Cancer Survivorship Care: a scoping review

Objective

The objectives of this systematic review are to describe features and specific application scenarios for current cancer survivorship care services of Artificial intelligence (AI)-driven digital health technologies (DHTs) and to explore the acceptance and briefly evaluate its feasibility in the application process.

Methods

Search for literatures published from 2010 to 2022 on sites MEDLINE, IEEE-Xplor, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Scopus systematically. The types of literatures include original research, descriptive study, randomized controlled trial, pilot study, and feasible or acceptable study. The literatures above described current status and effectiveness of digital medical technologies based on AI and used in cancer survivorship care services. Additionally, we use QuADS quality assessment tool to evaluate the quality of literatures included in this review.

Results

43 studies that met the inclusion criteria were analyzed and qualitatively synthesized. The current status and results related to the application of AI-driven DHTs in cancer survivorship care were reviewed. Most of these studies were designed specifically for breast cancer survivors’ care and focused on the areas of recurrence or secondary cancer prediction, clinical decision support, cancer survivability prediction, population or treatment stratified, anti-cancer treatment-induced adverse reaction prediction, and so on. Applying AI-based DHTs to cancer survivors actually has shown some positive outcomes, including increased motivation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), reduce fatigue and pain levels, improved quality of life, and physical function. However, current research mostly explored the technology development and formation (testing) phases, with limited-scale population, and single-center trial. Therefore, it is not suitable to draw conclusions that the effectiveness of AI-based DHTs in supportive cancer care, as most of applications are still in the early stage of development and feasibility testing.

Conclusions

While digital therapies are promising in the care of cancer patients, more high-quality studies are still needed in the future to demonstrate the effectiveness of digital therapies in cancer care. Studies should explore how to develop uniform standards for measuring patient-related outcomes, ensure the scientific validity of research methods, and emphasize patient and health practitioner involvement in the development and use of technology.

Examining the Feasibility of an Application-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring for Breast Cancer Patients: A Pretest for the PRO B Study

In preparation for the PRO B study which aims to examine the effects of an app-based intensified patient-reported outcome (PRO) monitoring for metastatic breast cancer patients, prior assessment of its feasibility was carried out. Sixteen breast cancer patients visiting the breast cancer unit at Charité were recruited and downloaded an app connected to an ePRO system. They received electronic questionnaires on two occasions (baseline and the following week) and were subsequently contacted for a semi-structured phone interview for evaluation. Eleven participants answered at least one questionnaire. Some participants did not receive any or only a part of the questionnaires due to technical problems with the app. Participants who completed the evaluation questionnaire (n = 6) were overall satisfied with the weekly PRO questionnaire. All interviewed (n = 11) participants thought it was feasible to answer the PRO questionnaires on a weekly basis for one year, as planned in the PRO B study. The pretest revealed a need for major technical adjustments to the app because push notifications about the receipt of new questionnaires were not displayed on some smartphone models. Due to the low number of participants, generalization of the findings is limited to our specific context and study. Nevertheless, we could conclude that if technical aspects of the app were improved, the PRO B study could be implemented as planned. The ePRO questionnaire was considered feasible and adequate from the patients’ perspectives.

ATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN THE DAILY PRACTICE IN CLINICAL ONCOLOGY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

The use of patient-reported outcomes brings direct benefits to the daily practice in Clinical Oncology, providing information that allows the monitoring of patients between consultations, with an increase in the bond with the medical team and the patient's satisfaction with their treatment. This review seeks to identify electronic systems for collecting patient data, highlighting the possible benefits that motivated the use of these systems and identifying the population, instruments, way of handling alerts and possible limitations and barriers to implementation in clinical practice. Thus, 25 articles were selected and reviewed, following a previously established systematic literature review protocol. This review is useful for gathering information for the development of new patient-focused applications in Oncology.

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Background

Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events.

Objectives

The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective?

Design

Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment.

Setting

The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol).

Participants

The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients.

Intervention

eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms.

Main outcome measures

In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance.

Results

eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive.

Limitations

The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions).

Conclusions

This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs.

Future work

Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended.

Trial registration

The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Remote System for Daily Symptom Monitoring During Systemic Anticancer Treatment: Patient Acceptance, Usability, and Compliance

BACKGROUND

Electronic systems for remotely monitoring symptoms during cancer treatment are increasingly being used. Most of them are intended for weekly or periodic symptom monitoring.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility and usability of a remote system for daily symptom monitoring during systemic anticancer treatment.

METHODS

We offered a remote system for daily symptom monitoring to patients starting their first ever systemic therapy. Patient acceptance was observed as the proportion of patients showing interest in using the system. System users were invited to complete the "Health information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale," and the number of patients' self-reports was used to evaluate patient compliance.

RESULTS

Of 465 patients, 239 (51.4%) showed interest in using the system; 111 system users reported a fairly good overall usability score (4 of 5), and perceived ease of use scored the highest (4.7 of 5) and perceived usefulness lowest (3.7 of 5). Their daily compliance was 68.8% (±31.1) at 3 weeks and 59.1% (±31.2) at 12 weeks after the start of treatment. Less than half of respondents (49.5%) and only one third (31.2%) perceived that their symptom reports were used by the nurses and doctors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Half of patients starting their first ever systemic treatment showed interest in using a remote system for daily symptom monitoring. For these patients, daily symptom monitoring seems acceptable, and the system is well complied within the first 12 weeks of treatment.

IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE

A remote system for daily symptom monitoring is feasible and enables quick response to deteriorating symptoms. Use by healthcare professionals is a point of improvement.

A review of AI and Data Science support for cancer management

INTRODUCTION

Thanks to improvement of care, cancer has become a chronic condition. But due to the toxicity of treatment, the importance of supporting the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients increases. Monitoring and managing QoL relies on data collected by the patient in his/her home environment, its integration, and its analysis, which supports personalization of cancer management recommendations. We review the state-of-the-art of computerized systems that employ AI and Data Science methods to monitor the health status and provide support to cancer patients managed at home.

OBJECTIVE

Our main objective is to analyze the literature to identify open research challenges that a novel decision support system for cancer patients and clinicians will need to address, point to potential solutions, and provide a list of established best-practices to adopt.

METHODS

We designed a review study, in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, analyzing studies retrieved from PubMed related to monitoring cancer patients in their home environments via sensors and self-reporting: what data is collected, what are the techniques used to collect data, semantically integrate it, infer the patient's state from it and deliver coaching/behavior change interventions.

RESULTS

Starting from an initial corpus of 819 unique articles, a total of 180 papers were considered in the full-text analysis and 109 were finally included in the review. Our findings are organized and presented in four main sub-topics consisting of data collection, data integration, predictive modeling and patient coaching.

CONCLUSION

Development of modern decision support systems for cancer needs to utilize best practices like the use of validated electronic questionnaires for quality-of-life assessment, adoption of appropriate information modeling standards supplemented by terminologies/ontologies, adherence to FAIR data principles, external validation, stratification of patients in subgroups for better predictive modeling, and adoption of formal behavior change theories. Open research challenges include supporting emotional and social dimensions of well-being, including PROs in predictive modeling, and providing better customization of behavioral interventions for the specific population of cancer patients.

Digital Medicine in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer - A Feasibility Study of Electronic Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients on Systemic Treatment

AIMS

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures have the potential to improve patient care, both at an individual level by detecting symptoms and at an organisational level to rationalise follow-up. The introduction of ePROs has many challenges, including funding, institutional rigidity and acceptability for both patients and clinicians. There are multiple examples of successful ePRO programmes but no specific feasibility studies in those who are less digitally engaged. Prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of older men and digital exclusion is associated with increased age. We assessed the feasibility of ePRO completion in older men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer both within the clinic and from home.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Men receiving palliative systemic treatment were asked to complete ePROs on a tablet computer in the outpatient department at 0 and 3 months. Participants were also offered optional completion from home. Feasibility was assessed via a mixed methods approach.

RESULTS

On-site ePRO completion was acceptable to most patients, with 90% finding it easy or straightforward and 80% preferring electronic over paper. Remote completion was more challenging, even for those who accessed e-mail daily and owned a tablet, with only 20% of participants successfully completing ePROs. Barriers to electronic completion can be categorised as technical, attitudinal and medical. Quality of life and symptom ePRO results were comparable with published data.

CONCLUSIONS

On-site completion is achievable in this population with limited staff support. However, remote completion requires further work to improve systems and acceptability for patients. Remote completion is critical to add significantly to current clinical care by detecting symptoms or stratifying follow-up.

Acceptance and Use of Home-Based Electronic Symptom Self-Reporting Systems in Patients With Cancer: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Electronic symptom self-reporting systems (e-SRS) have been shown to improve symptoms and survival in patients with cancer. However, patient engagement in using e-SRS for voluntary symptom self-reporting is less optimal. Multiple factors can potentially affect patients' acceptance and engagement in using home-based e-SRS. However, such factors have not been fully explored in cancer populations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to understand the acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and identify associated facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and PsycINFO (January 2010 to March 2020) were searched using a combination of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms and keywords such as symptom self-reporting, electronic/technology, cancer, and their synonyms. Included studies focused on the use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer and their families. Studies on patients' use of e-SRS in clinical settings only were excluded. Of the 3740 papers retrieved, 33 were included in the final review. Factors associated with patient acceptance and use of e-SRS were extracted and synthesized.

RESULTS

Most e-SRS were web based (22/33, 66%) or mobile app based (9/33, 27%). The e-SRS initial acceptance, represented by patient enrollment rates, ranged from 40% (22/55) to 100% (100/100). High e-SRS acceptance was rated by 69% (59/85) to 77.6% (337/434) of the patients after they used the system. The e-SRS use, measured by patients' response rates to questionnaires (ranging from 1596/3521, 45.33% to 92%) or system log-on rates (ranging from 4/12, 33% to 99/100, 99%), declined over time in general patterns. Few studies (n=7) reported e-SRS use beyond 6 months, with the response rates ranging from 62% (40/64) to 85.1% (541/636) and the log-on rates ranging from 63.6% (103/162) to 77% (49/64). The availability of compatible devices and technical support, interactive system features, information accessibility, privacy, questionnaire quality, patient physical/psychosocial status, and age were associated with patient acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptance and use of home-based e-SRS by patients with cancer varied significantly across studies, as assessed by a variety of approaches. The lack of access to technology has remained a barrier to e-SRS adoption. Interactive system features and personalized questionnaires may increase patient engagement. More studies are needed to further understand patients' long-term use of home-based e-SRS behavior patterns to develop personalized interventions to support symptom self-management and self-reporting of patients with cancer for optimal health outcomes.

Developing Symptom Lists for People with Cancer Treated with Targeted Therapies

BACKGROUND

Targeted therapies (TTs) have revolutionised cancer treatment with their enhanced specificity of action. Compared with conventional therapies, TTs are delivered over a longer period and often have unusual symptom profiles. Patient-reported outcome measures such as symptom side-effect lists need to be developed in a time-efficient manner to enable a rapid and full evaluation of new treatments and effective clinical management OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop a set of TT-related symptoms and identify the optimal method for developing symptom lists.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Symptoms from TT treatment in the context of Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML), HER2-positive breast cancer, or Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumours (GIST) were identified through literature reviews, interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients, and patient focus groups. The symptom set was then pilot tested in patients across the three cancer diagnoses: The number of items derived from each source (literature, patients, or HCPs) were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 316 patients and 86 HCPs from 16 countries participated. An initial set of 209 symptoms was reduced to 61 covering 12 symptom categories. Patient interviews made the greatest contribution to the item set.

CONCLUSIONS

Symptom lists should be created based on input from patients. The item set described will be applicable to the assessment of new TTs, and in monitoring treatment.

Remote symptom monitoring integrated into electronic health records: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

People with long-term conditions require serial clinical assessments. Digital patient-reported symptoms collected between visits can inform these, especially if integrated into electronic health records (EHRs) and clinical workflows. This systematic review identified and summarized EHR-integrated systems to remotely collect patient-reported symptoms and examined their anticipated and realized benefits in long-term conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Web of Science, and Embase. Inclusion criteria were symptom reporting systems in adults with long-term conditions; data integrated into the EHR; data collection outside of clinic; data used in clinical care. We synthesized data thematically. Benefits were assessed against a list of outcome indicators. We critically appraised studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.

RESULTS

We included 12 studies representing 10 systems. Seven were in oncology. Systems were technically and functionally heterogeneous, with the majority being fully integrated (data viewable in the EHR). Half of the systems enabled regular symptom tracking between visits. We identified 3 symptom report-guided clinical workflows: Consultation-only (data used during consultation, n = 5), alert-based (real-time alerts for providers, n = 4) and patient-initiated visits (n = 1). Few author-described anticipated benefits, primarily to improve communication and resultant health outcomes, were realized based on the study results, and were only supported by evidence from early-stage qualitative studies. Studies were primarily feasibility and pilot studies of acceptable quality.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

EHR-integrated remote symptom monitoring is possible, but there are few published efforts to inform development of these systems. Currently there is limited evidence that this improves care and outcomes, warranting future robust, quantitative studies of efficacy and effectiveness.

Quality of life and added value of a tailored palliative care intervention in patients with soft tissue sarcoma undergoing treatment with trabectedin: a multicentre, cluster-randomised trial within the German Interdisciplinary Sarcoma Group (GISG)

OBJECTIVES

The choice of drug treatment in advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) continues to be a challenge regarding efficacy, quality of life (QoL) and toxicity. Unlike other cancer types, where integrating patient-reported outcomes (PRO) has proven to be beneficial for QoL, there is no such evidence in patients with STS as of now. The YonLife trial aimed to explore the effect of a tailored multistep intervention on QoL, symptoms and survival in patients with advanced STS undergoing treatment with trabectedin as well as identifying predictors of QoL.

DESIGN

YonLife is a cluster-randomised, open-label, proof-of-concept study. The intervention incorporates electronic PRO assessment, a case vignette and expert-consented treatment recommendations.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hospitals were randomised to the control arm (CA) or interventional arm (IA). Seventy-nine patients were included of whom 40 were analysed as per-protocol analysis set.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the change of Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy (FACT-G) total score after 9 weeks. Secondary outcomes included QoL (FACT-G subscales), anorexia and cachexia (Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy (FAACT)), symptoms (MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)), anxiety and depression (HADS), pain intensity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)) and survival assessment.

RESULTS

After 9 weeks of treatment, QoL declined less in the IA (ΔFACT-G total score: -2.4, 95% CI: -9.2 to 4.5) as compared with CA (ΔFACT-G total score: -3.9; 95% CI:-11.3 to 3.5; p=0.765). In almost all FACT-G subscales, average declines were lower in IA, but without reaching statistical significance. Smaller adverse trends between arms were observed for MDASI, FAACT, HADS and BPI scales. These trends failed to reach statistical significance. Overall mean survival was longer in IA (648 days) than in CA (389 days, p=0.110). QoL was predicted by symptom severity, symptom interference, depression and anxiety.

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest a potentially favourable effect of an electronic patient-reported outcomes based intervention on QoL that needs to be reappraised in confirmatory studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT02204111).

Patient experiences of an electronic PRO tailored feedback system for symptom management following upper gastrointestinal cancer surgery

Purpose

Complications following upper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgery are common. Symptom-monitoring following discharge is not standardized. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system providing feedback to patients and clinicians could support patients and improve outcomes. Little is known about patients’ experiences of using such systems. This qualitative sub-study explored patients’ perspectives of the benefits of using a novel ePRO system, developed as part of the mixed methods eRAPID pilot study, to support recovery following discharge after UGI surgery.

Methods

Patients completed the online ePRO symptom-report system post-discharge. Weekly interviews explored patients’ experiences of using ePRO, the acceptability of feedback generated and its value for supporting their recovery. Interviews were audio-recorded and targeted transcriptions were thematically analysed.

Results

Thirty-five interviews with 16 participants (11 men, mean age 63 years) were analysed. Two main themes were identified: (1) reassurance and (2) empowerment. Feelings of isolation were common; many patients felt uninformed regarding their expectations of recovery and whether their symptoms warranted clinical investigation. Participants were reassured by tailored feedback advising them to contact their care team, alleviating their anxiety. Patients reported feeling empowered by the ePRO system and in control of their symptoms and recovery.

Conclusion

Patients recovering at home following major cancer surgery regarded electronic symptom-monitoring and feedback as acceptable and beneficial. Patients perceived that the system enhanced information provision and provided a direct link to their care team. Patients felt that the system provided reassurance at a time of uncertainty and isolation, enabling them to feel in control of their symptoms and recovery.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02539-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery

Background

Advances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery.

Results

Ninety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64 years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63–100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients’ experiences during recovery.

Conclusion

Use of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients’ wellbeing after hospital discharge.

Do mHealth applications improve clinical outcomes of patients with cancer? A critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed literature

Purpose

Patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment experience distressing side effects, and these symptoms are often experienced outside the hospital setting. The impact of usage of cancer-related mobile health (mHealth) applications on patient-related outcomes requires investigation.

Methods

A critical appraisal of the literature was performed for the following question: ‘In patients with cancer have mHealth applications been compared with usual care to examine impact on commonly used clinical outcomes’. Literature searches were undertaken with the help of a research librarian and included Medline, Cochrane Collaboration, clinical trial databases and grey searches.

Results

Seventeen studies including between 12 and 2352 patients were identified and reviewed. Smartphone applications or internet portals collected data on symptoms or patient activity. Several studies showed statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes when symptom monitoring using mobile health application was compared to usual care. Change in mobility was the only outcome that was related directly to toxicity. Only limited data on mortality, cancer-related morbidity including complications of care, health-economic outcomes or long-term outcomes were reported.

Conclusions

Studies on mHealth applications might improve aspects of symptom control in patients with cancer, but there is currently little evidence for impact on other outcomes. This requires future research in interventional studies.