Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID): a randomised controlled trial in systemic cancer treatment

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects.

RESULTS

Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease.

CONCLUSION

Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

Patient-reported symptom monitoring: using (big) data to improve supportive care at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels

PURPOSE

This paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the need for continued development of symptom monitoring (SM) implementation, utilization, and data usage at the macro-, meso-, and micro-levels.

METHODS

Discussions from a patient-reported SM workshop at the MASCC/ISSO 2022 annual meeting were analyzed using a macro-meso-micro analytical framework of cancer care delivery. The workshop categories "initiation and implementation, barriers to adoption and utilization, and data usage" were integrated for each level.

RESULTS

At the macro-level, policy development could encourage data sharing and international collaboration, including the exchange of SM methods, supportive care models, and self-management modules. At the meso-level, institutions should adjust clinical workflow and service delivery and promote a thorough technical and clinical integration of SM. At the micro-level, SM should be individualized, with timely feedback for patients, and should foster trust and understanding of AI decision support tools amongst clinicians to improve supportive care.

CONCLUSIONS

The workshop reached a consensus among international experts on providing guidance on SM implementation, utilization, and (big) data usage pathways in cancer survivors across the cancer continuum and on macro-meso-micro levels.

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.

Machine learning applied in patient-reported outcome research-exploring symptoms in adjuvant treatment of breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data may help us better understand the life of breast cancer patients. We have previously collected PRO data in a national Danish breast cancer study in patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of the present post-hoc explorative study is to apply Machine Learning (ML) algorithms using permutation importance to explore how specific PRO symptoms influence nonadherence to six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

METHODS

We here investigate ePRO-data from the 347 patients. The ePRO presented 42 PROCTCAE questions on 25 symptoms. Patients completed the ePRO before each cycle of chemotherapy. Number of patients with completion of the scheduled six cycles of chemotherapy were registered. Two ML models were applied. One aimed at discovering the individual relative importance of the different questions in the dataset while the second aimed at discovering the relationships between the questions. Permutation importance was used.

RESULTS

Out of 347 patients 238 patients remained in the final dataset, 15 patients dropped out. Two symptoms: aching joints and numbness/tingling, were the most important for dropout in the final dataset, each with an importance value of about 0.04. Model's average ROC-AUC-score being 0.706. In the second model a low performance score made the results very unreliable.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this explorative data analysis using ML methodologies in an ePRO dataset from a population of women with breast cancer treated with adjuvant chemotherapy unravels that the symptoms aching joints and numbness/tingling could be important for drop out of planned adjuvant chemotherapy.

Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities.

RESULTS

The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to  evaluate  PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives.

CONCLUSION

PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.

The iBLAD study: patient-reported outcomes in bladder cancer during oncological treatment: a multicenter national randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are getting widely implemented, but little is known of the impact of applying PROs in specific cancer diagnoses. We report the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the active use of PROs in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer (BC) undergoing medical oncological treatment (MOT) with focus on determining the clinical effects of using PROs during chemo- or immunotherapy compared to standard of care.

METHODS

We recruited patients from four departments of oncology from 2019 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were locally advanced or metastatic BC, initiating chemo- or immunotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 between answering selected PRO-CTCAE questions electronically once weekly with a built-in alert-algorithm instructing patients of how to handle reported symptoms as a supplement to standard of care for handling of side effects (intervention arm (IA)) vs standard procedure for handling of side effects (control arm (CA)). No real-time alerts were sent to the clinic when PROs exceeded threshold values. Clinicians were prompted to view the completed PROs in the IA at each clinical visit. The co-primary clinical endpoints were hospital admissions and treatment completion rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life (EORTC's QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BLM30) and dose reductions.

RESULTS

228 patients with BC were included, 76% were male. 141 (62%) of the patients had metastatic disease. 51% of patients in the IA completed treatment vs. 56% of patients in the CA, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.47-1.44, p = 0.51). 41% of patients in the IA experienced hospitalization vs. 32% in the CA, OR 1.48 (95% CI 0.83-2.65, p = 0.17). OS was comparable between the two arms (IA: median 22.3mo (95% CI 17.0-NR) vs. CA: median 23.1mo (95% CI 17.7-NR). Patient and clinician compliance was high throughout the study period (80% vs 94%).

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT did not show an effect of PRO on completion of treatment, hospitalizations or OS for BC patients during MOT despite a high level of patient and clinician compliance. The lack of real-time response to alerts remains the greatest limitation to this study.

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

SWAT169.

Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic prospective surveillance models (ePSMs) for cancer rehabilitation include routine monitoring of the development of treatment toxicities and impairments via electronic patient-reported outcomes. Implementing ePSMs to address the knowledge-to-practice gap between the high incidence of impairments and low uptake of rehabilitation services is a top priority in cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to understand the state of the evidence concerning the implementation of ePSMs in oncology. Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to February 2021. All articles were screened and extracted by two independent reviewers. Data regarding the implementation strategies, outcomes, and determinants were extracted. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy and the implementation outcomes taxonomy guided the synthesis of the implementation strategies and outcomes, respectively. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided the synthesis of determinants based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process).

RESULTS

Of the 5122 records identified, 46 interventions met inclusion criteria. The common implementation strategies employed were "conduct educational meetings," "distribute educational materials," "change record systems," and "intervene with patients to enhance uptake and adherence." Feasibility and acceptability were the prominent outcomes used to assess implementation. The complexity, relative advantage, design quality, and packaging were major implementation determinants at the intervention level. Knowledge was key at the individual level. At the inner setting level, major determinants were the implementation climate and readiness for implementation. At the outer setting level, meeting the needs of patients was the primary determinant. Engaging various stakeholders was key at the process level.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides a comprehensive summary of what is known concerning the implementation of ePSMs. The results can inform future implementation and evaluation of ePSMs, including planning for key determinants, selecting implementation strategies, and considering outcomes alongside local contextual factors to guide the implementation process.

Online Symptom Monitoring During Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Randomized Pilot Trial of the eRAPID Intervention

PURPOSE

Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D).

RESULTS

From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

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.

Managing Critical Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Oncology Settings: System Development and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring programs based on the collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are being increasingly adopted in oncology practices. Although PROs are a great source of patient data, the management of critical PRO data is not discussed in detail in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This first-of-its-kind study aimed to design, describe, and evaluate a closed-loop alerting and communication system focused on managing PRO-related alerts in cancer care.

METHODS

We designed and developed a novel solution using an agile software development methodology by incrementally building new capabilities. We evaluated these new features using participatory design and the Fit between Individuals, Task, and Technology framework.

RESULTS

A total of 8 questionnaires were implemented using alerting features, resulting in an alert rate of 7.82% (36,838/470,841) with 13.28% (10,965/82,544) of the patients triggering at least one alert. Alerts were reviewed by 501 staff members spanning across 191 care teams. All the alerts were reviewed with a median response time of 1 hour (SD 185 hours) during standard business hours. The most severe (red) alerts were documented 56.83% (2592/4561) of the time, whereas unlabeled alerts were documented 27.68% (1298/4689) of the time, signaling clinician concordance with the alert thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A PRO-based alert and communication system has some initial benefits in reviewing clinically meaningful PRO data in a reasonable amount of time. We have discussed key system design considerations, workflow integration, and the mitigation of potential impact on the burden of care teams. The introduction of a PRO-based alert and communication system provides a reliable mechanism for care teams to review and respond to patient symptoms quickly. The system was standardized across many different oncology settings, demonstrating system flexibility. Future studies should focus on formally evaluating system usability through qualitative methods.

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.

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

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.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Monitoring of Patients on Cancer Treatment: Cross-sectional Questionnaire Study

BACKGROUND

Oncology has been facing increasing outpatient activity associated with higher cancer incidence, better survival rates, and more treatment options. Innovative technological solutions could help deal with this increasing demand. Using digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to identify patients who need a face-to-face (FTF) appointment is a potential approach.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the feasibility of digital PROM questionnaires to enable remote symptom monitoring for patients undergoing cancer treatment and their ability to highlight the requirement for an FTF appointment.

METHODS

This study was performed at a tertiary oncology center between December 2018 and February 2019. The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were adapted into patient-friendly language to form the basis of treatment-specific digital questionnaires covering specific cancer drugs and radiotherapy treatments. These treatment-specific digital PROM questionnaires were scored by both patients and their clinicians during FTF appointments. Patients and clinicians did not see each other's scored PROMs. Agreement between patients and clinicians was assessed using descriptive statistics. Patient and staff feedback was also obtained.

RESULTS

In total, 90 patients participated in the study across 10 different treatment pathways. By comparing paired patient and clinician responses, the sensitivity of the patient-completed questionnaires in correctly highlighting the need for FTF review was 94% (44/47), and all patients with severe or grade 3+ symptoms were identified (6/6, 100%). Patient-completed PROMs appropriately revealed that 29% (26/90) of the participating patients did not need FTF review based on their symptoms alone. Certain oncological treatment pathways, such as immunotherapy, were found to have a larger proportion of patients with minimal symptoms than others, such as conventional chemotherapy. Patient and staff feedback showed high approval of digital PROMs and their potential for use in remote monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Digital PROM questionnaires can feasibly highlight the need for FTF review in oncology clinics for treatment. Their use with specific treatments could safely reduce the requirement for FTF care, and future work should evaluate their application in the remote monitoring of 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.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent.

METHODS

Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246.

RESULTS

Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 ( P = .028) and 12 ( P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) ( P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks ( P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy ( P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS ( P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Digital Monitoring and Management of Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treated With Cancer Immunotherapy and Its Impact on Quality of Clinical Care: Interview and Survey Study Among Health Care Professionals and Patients

Background

Cancer immunotherapy (CIT), as a monotherapy or in combination with chemotherapy, has been shown to extend overall survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, patients experience treatment-related symptoms that they are required to recall between hospital visits. Digital patient monitoring and management (DPMM) tools may improve clinical practice by allowing real-time symptom reporting.

Objective

This proof-of-concept pilot study assessed patient and health care professional (HCP) adoption of our DPMM tool, which was designed specifically for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with CIT, and the tool’s impact on clinical care.

Methods

Four advisory boards were assembled in order to co-develop a drug- and indication-specific CIT (CIT+) module, based on a generic CIT DPMM tool from Kaiku Health, Helsinki, Finland. A total of 45 patients treated with second-line single-agent CIT (ie, atezolizumab or otherwise) for advanced or metastatic NSCLC, as well as HCPs, whose exact number was decided by the clinics, were recruited from 10 clinics in Germany, Finland, and Switzerland between February and May 2019. All clinics were provided with the Kaiku Health generic CIT DPMM tool, including our CIT+ module. Data on user experience, overall satisfaction, and impact of the tool on clinical practice were collected using anonymized surveys—answers ranged from 1 (low agreement) to 5 (high agreement)—and HCP interviews; surveys and interviews consisted of closed-ended Likert scales and open-ended questions, respectively. The first survey was conducted after 2 months of DPMM use, and a second survey and HCP interviews were conducted at study end (ie, after ≥3 months of DPMM use); only a subgroup of HCPs from each clinic responded to the surveys and interviews. Survey data were analyzed quantitatively; interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and translated into English, where applicable, for coding and qualitative thematic analysis.

Results

Among interim survey respondents (N=51: 13 [25%] nurses, 11 [22%] physicians, and 27 [53%] patients), mean rankings of the tool’s seven usability attributes ranged from 3.2 to 4.4 (nurses), 3.7 to 4.5 (physicians), and 3.7 to 4.2 (patients). At the end-of-study survey (N=48: 19 [40%] nurses, 8 [17%] physicians, and 21 [44%] patients), most respondents agreed that the tool facilitated more efficient and focused discussions between patients and HCPs (nurses and patients: mean rating 4.2, SD 0.8; physicians: mean rating 4.4, SD 0.8) and allowed HCPs to tailor discussions with patients (mean rating 4.35, SD 0.65). The standalone tool was well integrated into HCP daily clinical workflow (mean rating 3.80, SD 0.75), enabled workflow optimization between physicians and nurses (mean rating 3.75, SD 0.80), and saved time by decreasing phone consultations (mean rating 3.75, SD 1.00) and patient visits (mean rating 3.45, SD 1.20). Workload was the most common challenge of tool use among respondents (12/19, 63%).

Conclusions

Our results demonstrate high user satisfaction and acceptance of DPMM tools by HCPs and patients, and highlight the improvements to clinical care in patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC treated with CIT monotherapy. However, further integration of the tool into the clinical information technology data flow is required. Future studies or registries using our DPMM tool may provide insights into significant effects on patient quality of life or health-economic benefits.

Patient reported outcomes: integration into clinical practices

Patient-centered care is a growing focus of research and modern surgical practice. To this end, there has been an ever-increasing utilization of patient reported outcomes (PRO) and health-related quality of life metrics (HR-QOL) in thoracic surgery research. Here we describe reasons and methods for integration of PRO measurement into routine thoracic surgical practice, commonly utilized PRO measurement instruments, and several examples of successful integration.

Results from a 1-day workshop on the assessment of quality of life in cancer patients: a joint initiative of the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

This report summarizes the presentations and discussion in the first Japan Clinical Oncology Group-European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome workshop funded by the National Cancer Center Hospital that was held on Saturday, 1 September 2018 in Tokyo, Japan. The infrastructure and understanding regarding the Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome assessment of cancer patients in Japan is still immature, in spite of the increased demand for oncological Patient-Reported Outcome research felt not only by researchers but also by patients or other stakeholders of cancer drug development. The workshop aimed to share each perspective, common issues to be considered and future perspectives regarding the strong alliance between the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research as well as explore the possibility of conducting collaborative research. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer is a leading international cancer clinical trials organization, and its Quality of Life Group is a global leader in the implementation of Quality of Life research in cancer patients. The three invited speakers from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group presented their perspective, latest methodology and ongoing projects. The three speakers from the Japan Clinical Oncology Group presented their current status, experience and some issues regarding data management or interpretation of the Patient-Reported Outcome data. The two patient advocates also shared their expectations in terms of advances in cancer research based on the Patient-Reported Outcome assessment. As the next steps after this workshop, the Japan Clinical Oncology Group and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer have decided to cooperate more closely to facilitate Patient-Reported Outcome research in both the groups, and the Japan Clinical Oncology Group has approved the establishment of a new committee for Quality of Life/Patient-Reported Outcome research in Japan.

Remote Oncology Care: Review of Current Technology and Future Directions

Cancer patients frequently develop tumor and treatment-related complications, leading to diminished quality of life, shortened survival, and overutilization of emergency department and hospital services. Outpatient oncology treatment has potential to leave cancer patients unmonitored for long periods while at risk of clinical deterioration which has been exaggerated during the COVID19 pandemic. Visits to cancer clinics and hospitals risk exposing immunocompromised patients to infectious complications. Remote patient reported outcomes monitoring systems have been developed for use in cancer treatment, showing benefits in economic and survival outcomes. While advanced devices such as pulmonary artery pressure monitors and implantable loop recorders have proven benefits in cardiovascular care, similar options do not exist for oncology. Here we review the current literature around remote patient monitoring in cancer care and propose the use of reliable devices for capturing and reporting patient symptoms and physiology.

Using an Interactive App for Symptom Reporting and Management Following Pancreatic Cancer Surgery to Facilitate Person-Centered Care: Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Pancreatic and periampullary cancers are rare but have high mortality rates. The only hope for cure is surgical removal of the tumor. Following pancreatic surgery, the patients have a great deal of responsibility for managing their symptoms. Patients report a lack of sufficient knowledge of self-care and unmet supportive care needs. This necessitates a health care system responsive to these needs and health care professionals who pay close attention to symptoms. Person-centered care is widely encouraged and means a shift from a model in which the patient is the passive object of care to a model involving the patient as an active participant in their own care. To address the challenges in care following pancreatic cancer surgery, an interactive app (Interaktor) was developed in which patients regularly report symptoms and receive support for self-care. The app has been shown to reduce patients' symptom burden and to increase their self-care activity levels following pancreaticoduodenectomy due to cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe how patients used the Interaktor app following pancreaticoduodenectomy due to cancer and their experience with doing so.

METHODS

A total of 115 patients were invited to use Interaktor for 6 months following pancreaticoduodenectomy. Of those, 35 declined, 8 dropped out, and 46 did not meet the inclusion criteria after surgery, leaving 26 patients for inclusion in the analysis. The patients were instructed to report symptoms daily through the app for up to 6 months following surgery. In case of alerting symptoms, they were contacted by their nurse. Data on reported symptoms, alerts, and viewed self-care advice were logged and analyzed with descriptive statistics. Also, the patients were interviewed about their experiences, and the data were analyzed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

The patients' median adherence to symptom reporting was 82%. Fatigue and pain were the most reported symptoms. Alerting symptoms were reported by 24 patients, and the most common alert was fever. There were variations in how many times the patients viewed the self-care advice (range 3-181 times). The most commonly viewed advice concerned pancreatic enzyme supplements. Through the interviews, the overarching theme was "Being seen as a person," with the following 3 sub-themes: "Getting your voice heard," "Having access to an extended arm of health care," and "Learning about own health."

CONCLUSIONS

Interaktor proved to be well accepted. It made patients feel reassured at home and offered support for self-care. The app facilitated person-centered care by its multiple features targeting individual supportive care needs and enabled participation in their own care. This supports our recent studies showing that patients using the app had less symptom burden and higher self-care activity levels than patients receiving only standard care.

AMTRA: a multicentered experience of a web-based monitoring and tailored toxicity management system for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Technology-based interventions are increasingly being introduced in routine clinical cancer care. There is a need for reliable systems to monitor treatment-related toxicity in a standardized manner. Such electronic tools bridge the gap in providing quality home-based monitoring.

METHODS

From July 2017 to December 2017, we performed a multicentered, non-randomized prospective cohort analysis with patients who were receiving routine chemotherapy for various solid tumors, using a web-based patient-reported toxicity registration, management, and intervention system called AMTRA (ambulatory Monitoring of cancer Therapy using an interactive Application) linked to the homecare nursing organization Remedus®. Twelve common toxicities plus pain and two biometrics could be registered daily or more frequently as required. These were processed centrally to generate tailored advice for lesser symptoms or a phone call from a dedicated nurse in case of severe or prolonged toxicity. A compliance tool to monitor oral therapies was incorporated in the system.

RESULTS

One hundred sixty-eight patients (92%) were enrolled, with 31,514 registrations analyzed. One hundred eight patients reported severe toxicity (> 1461 registrations), resulting in 102 clinical interventions ranging from self-management advice, supplemental consultations to hospitalizations. Compliance to oral chemotherapy was high using AMTRA with a median of 98.7% (95 confidence interval (CI) [93.5-100.0%]). Seventy-nine percent of patients stated that the availability of AMTRA self-reports was useful in communication with the care provider, while 75% felt more in control while managing their treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The application of an interactive PRO-system in routine symptom management of cancer patients allowed standardized documentation of toxicities and recorded a high compliance with oral treatment. It allows for rapid interaction for toxicities and cancer-related symptoms experienced at home.

Engaging Patients and Clinicians in Online Reporting of Adverse Effects During Chemotherapy for Cancer: The eRAPID System (Electronic Patient Self-Reporting of Adverse Events: Patient Information and aDvice)

INTRODUCTION

During cancer treatment the timely detection and management of adverse events is essential for patient safety and maintaining the quality of life. Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) was devised to support oncology practice, by allowing patients to self-report symptoms online at home during and beyond cancer treatment. Fundamentally the eRAPID intervention delivers immediate severity-tailored feedback directly to patients to guide self-management strategies or hospital contact. Patient data are available in electronic health records for hospital staff to access and review as part of clinical assessments. METHODS FOR INTERPRETING AND ADDRESSING PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME (PRO) SCORES:: The eRAPID intervention has 5 main interconnecting components (clinical integration into standard care pathways, patient symptom reports, self-management advice, information technology, and staff/patient training). Following guidance for the development of complex interventions and using a mixed methods approach, eRAPID was created through a number of stages and tested in a series of usability settings before undergoing systematic evaluation in a randomized controlled trial. These developmental stages are described here with a focus on how decisions were made to enhance patient and professional engagement with symptom reports and encourage interpretation and clinical utilization of the data.

DISCUSSION

Clinically embedded PRO interventions involve a number of elements and stakeholders with different requirements. Following extensive developmental work eRAPID was pragmatically designed to fit into current oncology practices for reviewing and managing chemotherapy-related toxicities.

Effectiveness of a Smartphone Application as a Support Tool for Patients Undergoing Breast Cancer Chemotherapy: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Outpatients undergoing cancer chemotherapy experience anxiety related to adverse drug reactions that they can experience at home. We developed a breast cancer patient support system (BPSS) application (app). The BPSS app chronologically and quantitatively records patients' subjective and objective symptoms during breast cancer chemotherapy, with the goal of providing supportive management for adverse drug reactions. The present study examined whether the BPSS app is an effective tool for supporting patients undergoing chemotherapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 102 patients undergoing chemotherapy at the Showa University Hospital (Tokyo, Japan) were enrolled in the present order- and age-controlled clinical trial and randomized into BPSS or no-BPSS app groups. The patients underwent 4 courses of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was the change in the hospital anxiety and depression scale score, which was assessed directly before and after the 4 courses of chemotherapy. Other outcomes included health literacy (measured using the 14-item health literacy scale (HLS-14), side effects, and app adherence.

RESULTS

Of the 102 patients, 95 completed the present study. No significant improvement was seen in anxiety, depression, or health literacy at the end of treatment between the BPSS and no-BPSS app groups. Overall, 1868 side effects were reported. When the patients' records were compared with the medical staff records, the analysis revealed that the medical staff had underestimated some grade 3 symptoms.

CONCLUSION

The BPSS app is a feasible tool for patients with breast cancer and might be useful as a support tool for information sharing between patients and medical staff in an effort to optimize chemotherapy and deliver suitable patient care and support.

The emerging role of digital health in monitoring and supporting people living with cancer and the consequences of its treatments

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As rising numbers of people are living with the long-term impact of cancer, digital health is playing an increasingly important role in the monitoring and support of survivors and their caregivers. This article reviews current evidence, practice and developments, and identifies emerging issues and opportunities.

RECENT FINDINGS

Digital health innovations, primarily using internet or smartphone-enabled applications, have been successfully developed, particularly in the areas of symptom management, decision-making, survivorship and follow-up care and palliative care. The research is characterized by much developmental activity, and evidence is accruing for efficacy and effectiveness. Opportunities afforded by digital health include timelier and patient-centred evidence-based care, offering improved clinical outcomes and independence. Barriers to implementation include lack of patient and professional engagement, perceived burden, depersonalization and missed care.

SUMMARY

There is much enthusiasm for the role of digital health in monitoring and providing support to cancer survivors, but further research is needed to establish clinical efficacy and understand the mechanisms for successful implementation in practice. The role of wearables, the internet of things and big data analytics is yet to be fully explored in supportive cancer care and may present new opportunities to enhance care and survivor experience.

Developing a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related surgery

Background

Patients undergoing major cancer surgery frequently require post-acute care for complications and adverse effects. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes mean that patients are increasingly discharged home earlier. Symptom/complication detection post-discharge is sub-optimal. Systematic patient monitoring post-discharge following surgery may be optimally achieved through routine electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data capture. ePRO systems that employ clinical algorithms to guide management of patients and automatically alert clinicians of clinically-concerning symptoms can improve patient outcomes and decrease hospital admissions. ePRO systems that provide individually-tailored self-management advice and integrate live ePRO data into electronic health records (EHR) may also advance personalised health and patient-centred care. This study aims to develop a hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system to improve detection and management of complications post-discharge following cancer-related surgery.

Methods

The ePRO system was developed in two phases: (1) Development of a web-based ePRO symptom-report from validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, clinical opinion and patient interviews, followed by hospital EHR integration; (2) Development of clinical algorithms triggering symptom severity-dependent patient advice and clinician alerts from: (i) prospectively-collected patient-completed ePRO symptom-report data; (ii) stakeholder meetings; (iii) patient interviews. Patient advice was developed from: (i) clinician-patient telephone consultations and patient interviews; (ii) review of hospital patient information leaflets (PIL) and patient support websites.

Results

Phase 1, including interviews with 18 patients, identified 35 symptom-report items. In phase 2, 130/300 (43%) screened patients were eligible. 61 (47%) consented to participate and 59 (97%) provided 444 complete self-reports. Stakeholder meetings (9 clinicians, 1 patient/public representative) and patient interviews (n = 66) refined advice/alert accuracy. 15 telephone consultations, 7 patient interviews and review of 28 PILs and 3 patient support websites identified 4 themes to inform self-management advice. Comparisons between ePRO symptom-report data, telephone consultations and clinical events/outcomes (n = 27 patients) further refined clinical algorithms.

Conclusions

A hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system that alerts clinicians and provides patient self-management advice has been developed to improve the detection and management of problems and complications after discharge following surgery. An ongoing pilot study will inform a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePRO system compared to usual care.

Characteristics of Future Models of Integrated Outpatient Care

Replacement of fee-for-service with capitation arrangements, forces physicians and institutions to minimize health care costs, while maintaining high-quality care. In this report we described how patients and their families (or caregivers) can work with members of the medical care team to achieve these twin goals of maintaining-and perhaps improving-high-quality care and minimizing costs. We described how increased self-management enables patients and their families/caregivers to provide electronic patient-reported outcomes (i.e., symptoms, events) (ePROs), as frequently as the patient or the medical care team consider appropriate. These capabilities also allow ongoing assessments of physiological measurements/phenomena (mHealth). Remote surveillance of these communications allows longer intervals between (fewer) patient visits to the medical-care team, when this is appropriate, or earlier interventions, when it is appropriate. Systems are now available that alert medical care providers to situations when interventions might be needed.

Adaptation and Implementation of a Mobile Phone-Based Remote Symptom Monitoring System for People With Cancer in Europe

BACKGROUND

There has been an international shift in health care, which has seen an increasing focus and development of technological and personalized at-home interventions that aim to improve health outcomes and patient-clinician communication. However, there is a notable lack of empirical evidence describing the preparatory steps of adapting and implementing technology of this kind across multiple countries and clinical settings.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to describe the steps undertaken in the preparation of a multinational, multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test a mobile phone-based remote symptom monitoring system, that is, Advanced Symptom Management System (ASyMS), designed to enhance management of chemotherapy toxicities among people with cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy versus standard cancer center care.

METHODS

There were 13 cancer centers across 5 European countries (Austria, Greece, Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Multiple steps were undertaken, including a scoping review of empirical literature and clinical guidelines, translation and linguistic validation of study materials, development of standardized international care procedures, and the integration and evaluation of the technology within each cancer center.

RESULTS

The ASyMS was successfully implemented and deployed in clinical practices across 5 European countries. The rigorous and simultaneous steps undertaken by the research team highlighted the strengths of the system in clinical practice, as well as the clinical and technical changes required to meet the diverse needs of its intended users within each country, before the commencement of the RCT.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting and implementing this multinational, multicenter system required close attention to diverse considerations and unique challenges primarily related to communication and clinical and technical issues. Success was dependent on collaborative and transparent communication among academics, the technology industry, translation partners, patients, and clinicians as well as a simultaneous and rigorous methodological approach within the 5 relevant countries.

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

OBJECTIVES

Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online system developed to support patient care during cancer treatment by improving the detection and management of treatment-related symptoms. Patients can complete symptom reports from home and receive severity-based self-management advice, including notifications to contact the hospital for severe symptoms. Patient data are available in electronic records for staff to review. Prior to the commencement of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), field testing of the intervention was undertaken to troubleshoot practical issues with intervention integration in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Observational clinical field testing.

SETTING

Medical oncology breast service in a UK cancer centre.

PARTICIPANTS

12 patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer and 10 health professionals (oncologists and specialist nurses).

INTERVENTION

Patients were asked to use the eRAPID intervention and complete weekly online symptom reports during four cycles of chemotherapy. Clinical staff were invited to access and use patient data in clinical assessments.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive data on the frequency of online symptom report completion and severe symptom notifications were collated. Verbal and written feedback was collected from patients and staff and semistructured interviews were conducted to explore patient experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically.

RESULTS

The testing ran from January 2014 to March 2014. Feedback from patients and staff was largely positive. Patients described eRAPID as 'reassuring' and 'comforting' and valued the tailored management advice. Several changes were made to refine eRAPID. In particular, improvement of the clinical notification, patient reminder systems and changes to patient and staff training.

CONCLUSIONS

The field testing generated valuable results used to guide refinement of eRAPID prior to formal intervention evaluation. Feedback indicated that eRAPID has the potential to improve patients' self-efficacy, knowledge and confidence with managing symptoms during treatment. A large-scale RCT is underway with data collection due to finish in October 2018.

Electronic Systems for Patients to Report and Manage Side Effects of Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

There has been a dramatic increase in the development of electronic systems to support cancer patients to report and manage side effects of treatment from home. Systems vary in the features they offer to patients, which may affect how patients engage with them and how they improve patient-centered outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to (1) describe the features and functions of existing electronic symptom reporting systems (eg, symptom monitoring, tailored self-management advice), and (2) explore which features may be associated with patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes.

METHODS

The review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and followed guidelines from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (University of York, United Kingdom). Primary searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Health Technology Assessment databases. Secondary searches were undertaken by screening reference lists and citations. Two researchers applied broad inclusion criteria to identify and select relevant records. Data were extracted and summarized using Microsoft Excel. In order to meet the aims, the study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis comprised two stages: (1) identifying and characterizing available systems and (2) summarizing data on patient engagement and patient-centered outcomes.

RESULTS

We identified 77 publications relating to 41 distinct systems. In Stage 1, all publications were included (N=77). The features identified that supported clinicians and care were facility for health professionals to remotely access and monitor patient-reported data (24/41, 58%) and function to send alerts to health professionals for severe symptoms (17/41, 41%). Features that supported patients were facility for patients to monitor/review their symptom reports over time (eg, graphs) (19/41, 46%), general patient information about cancer treatment and side effects (17/41, 41%), tailored automated patient advice on symptom management (12/41, 29%), feature for patients to communicate with the health care team (6/41, 15%), and a forum for patients to communicate with one another (4/41, 10%). In Stage 2, only publications that included some data on patient engagement or patient-centered outcomes were included (N=29). A lack of consistency between studies in how engagement was defined, measured, or reported, and a wide range of methods chosen to evaluate systems meant that it was not possible to compare across studies or make conclusions on relationships with system features.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic systems have the potential to help patients manage side effects of cancer treatment, with some evidence to suggest a positive effect on patient-centered outcomes. However, comparison across studies is difficult due to the wide range of assessment tools used. There is a need to develop guidelines for assessing and reporting engagement with systems, and a set of core outcomes for evaluation. We hope that this review will contribute to the field by introducing a taxonomy for characterizing system features.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016035915; www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016035915.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Medical Care

There is increasing interest to integrate collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine practice to enhance clinical care. Multiple studies show that systematic monitoring of patients using PROs improves patient-clinician communication, clinician awareness of symptoms, symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival. The general approach includes a brief electronic survey, administered via the Web or an app or an automated telephone system, with alerts to clinicians for concerning or worsening issues. Patients have generally been asked to self-report on a regular basis (remotely between visits and/or at visits), with reminders prompting patients to self-report that are sent via email, text, or automated phone message. More recently, care management pathways for patients and clinicians have been triggered by PRO system alerts. PRO systems may be free-standing, integrated into electronic health record systems or patient portals, or native functionality of an electronic health record. Despite potential benefits, there are challenges with integrating PROs into practice for monitoring patient status, as there are with any modifications to existing clinical processes. These challenges range from administrative to technical to workflow. A session at the 2018 ASCO Annual Meeting was dedicated to the implementation of PROs in clinical practice. The session focused on practical examples of PRO implementations, with honest reflections on barriers and strategies that may be generalizable to other systems looking to implement PROs. Panelists for that session are the authors of this paper, which describes their respective experiences implementing PROs in practice settings.

Beyond maximum grade: modernising the assessment and reporting of adverse events in haematological malignancies

Tremendous progress in treatment and outcomes has been achieved across the whole range of haematological malignancies in the past two decades. Although cure rates for aggressive malignancies have increased, nowhere has progress been more impactful than in the management of typically incurable forms of haematological cancer. Population-based data have shown that 5-year survival for patients with chronic myelogenous and chronic lymphocytic leukaemia, indolent B-cell lymphomas, and multiple myeloma has improved markedly. This improvement is a result of substantial changes in disease management strategies in these malignancies. Several haematological malignancies are now chronic diseases that are treated with continuously administered therapies that have unique side-effects over time. In this Commission, an international panel of clinicians, clinical investigators, methodologists, regulators, and patient advocates representing a broad range of academic and clinical cancer expertise examine adverse events in haematological malignancies. The issues pertaining to assessment of adverse events examined here are relevant to a range of malignancies and have been, to date, underexplored in the context of haematology. The aim of this Commission is to improve toxicity assessment in clinical trials in haematological malignancies by critically examining the current process of adverse event assessment, highlighting the need to incorporate patient-reported outcomes, addressing issues unique to stem-cell transplantation and survivorship, appraising challenges in regulatory approval, and evaluating toxicity in real-world patients. We have identified a range of priority issues in these areas and defined potential solutions to challenges associated with adverse event assessment in the current treatment landscape of haematological malignancies.

Pharmacovigilance in oncology

Background Side effects of cancer therapy are one of the most important issues faced by cancer patients during their illness. Pharmacovigilance, namely the science and activities aimed at monitoring the safety of drugs, is particularly important in oncology, due to the intrinsic biologic toxicity of antineoplastic agents, their narrow therapeutic windows, and the high doses and rigid timing of treatment regimens. Aim of the review To identify the main issues in carrying out an effective pharmacovigilance activity in oncology. Method We searched PubMed for articles about pharmacovigilance in relation to chemotherapy, radiotherapy and targeted therapy for cancer, using MeSH terms and text words. We also searched Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Micromedex, the Cochrane Library, two pharmacovigilance databases and the gray literature for articles published in 2012-2018. Overall, 137 articles were considered potentially relevant and were critically appraised independently by two authors, leading to the inclusion of 44 relevant studies, guidelines and reviews. Another 10 important research reports were included in the review. Results Eight critical issues of pharmacovigilance in oncology were identified. These issues pertain to: terminology; range of side effects; targeted therapy and immunotherapy; chemoradiotherapy; generic drugs and biosimilars; drug interactions, pharmacogenetics and polypharmacy; special patient categories; and under-reporting of ADRs. Conclusion The importance of pharmacovigilance in oncology must be highlighted with every effort, to improve safety and offer cancer patients every possible help to improve their quality of life during such a critical period of their lives.

eRAPID electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice: a pilot study protocol in pelvic radiotherapy

Background

An estimated 17,000 patients are treated annually in the UK with radical radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic cancer. New treatment approaches in RT have increased survivorship and changed the subjective toxicity profile for patients who experience acute and long-term pelvic-related adverse events (AE). Multi-disciplinary follow-up creates difficulty for monitoring and responding to these events during treatment and beyond. Originally developed for use in systemic oncology therapy eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an online system for patients to report AEs from home. eRAPID enables patient data to be integrated into the electronic patient records for use in clinical practice, provides patient management advice for mild and moderate AE and advice to contact the hospital for severe AE. The system has now been developed for pelvic RT patients, and we aim to test the intervention in a pilot study with staff and patients to inform a future randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Methods

Eligible patients are those attending St James’s University hospital cancer centre and The Christie Hospital Manchester undergoing pelvic radiotherapy+/−chemotherapy/hormonotherapy for prostate, lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological cancers. A prospective 1:1 randomised (intervention or usual care) parallel group design with repeated measures and mixed methods will be employed. We aim to recruit 168 patients following recommendations for sample size estimates for pilot studies. Participants using eRAPID will report AE (at least weekly) from home weekly for 6 weeks and 6 weeks post-treatment (12-week total) then at 18 and 24 weeks. Hospital staff will review eRAPID reports and use information during consultations. Notifications will be sent to the relevant clinical team when severe symptoms are reported. We will measure patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires (Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), process of care impact (hospital records of patient contacts and admissions) and economic variables (EQ5D-5L, patient use of resources)). Staff and patient experiences will be explored via semi-structured interviews.

Discussion

The objectives are to establish feasibility, recruitment, integrity of the system and attrition rates, determine effect sizes and aid selection of the primary outcome measure for a future RCT. We will also refine the intervention by exploring staff and patient views. The overall goal of this complex intervention is to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise documentation of AE within the clinical datasets.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0304-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Development of an integrated electronic platform for patient self-report and management of adverse events during cancer treatment

Background

Significant adverse events (AE) during cancer therapy disrupt treatment and escalate to emergency admissions. Approaches to improve the timeliness and accuracy of AE reporting may improve safety and reduce health service costs. Reporting AE via patient reported outcomes (PROs), can improve clinician-patient communication and making data available to clinicians in 'real-time' using electronic PROs (ePROs) could potentially transform clinical practice by providing easily accessible records to guide treatment decisions. This manuscript describes the development of eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is a National Institute for Health Research-funded programme, a system for patients to self-report and manage AE online during and after cancer treatment.

Materials and methods

A multidisciplinary team of IT experts, staff and patients developed using agile principles a secure web application interface (QStore) between an existing online questionnaire builder (QTool) displaying real-time ePRO data to clinicians in the electronic patient record at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. Hierarchical algorithms were developed corresponding to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grading using the QTool question dependency function. Patient advocates (N = 9), patients (N = 13), and staff (N = 19) usability tested the system reporting combinations of AE.

Results

The eRAPID system allows patients to report AE from home on PC, tablet or any web enabled device securely during treatment. The system generates immediate self-management advice for low or moderate AE and for severe AE advice to contact the hospital immediately. Clinicians can view patient AE data in the electronic patient record and receive email notifications when patients report severe AE.

Conclusions

Evaluation of the system in a randomised controlled trial in breast, gynaecological and colorectal cancer patients undergoing systemic therapy is currently underway. To adapt eRAPID for different treatment groups, pilot studies are being undertaken with patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy and upper gastrointestinal surgery. ISRCTN88520246.

The importance of quality-of-life management in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) carries a poor prognosis, and as such, a focus on quality of life is vital. This review will discuss various aspects of quality of life in patients with PDAC and their treatment. Pancreatic exocrine and endocrine insufficiency may result in issues related to nutrition, and pain and fatigue are other common symptoms, and may be managed with pharmaceutical or nonpharmaceutical methods. It has also been reported that low mood is a particular problem for patients with PDAC compared to patients with other cancers; however, the data supporting this is inconsistent. Data regarding improvements in quality of life in patients with PDAC receiving chemotherapy is also reviewed, which in some cases suggests a benefit to chemotherapy, particularly in the presence of a radiological response. Furthermore, the importance of early palliative care is discussed and the benefits reported including improved quality of life and mood, reduced aggressive interventions at the end of life and improved survival. Areas for future development may include increased use of quality of life as a trial outcome and the use of patient-reported outcomes to improve symptomatic care of patients, and particularly in those receiving active systemic treatment.

Psychiatric sequelae of corticosteroid use in hematology in Australia: A qualitative study

Despite widespread steroid usage for treating hematological conditions, minimal attention focuses on associated psychiatric side-effects. In the present study, we examined hematology patients' experiences of high-dose steroid treatment. This was undertaken by the use of a qualitative, descriptive design, which included convenience sampling and the inductive, cyclic, and constant comparative thematic analysis of interview transcripts. Eighteen patients participated, who were diagnosed with lymphoma, myeloma, leukemia, or idiopathic thrombocytopenia purpura. Four themes emerged: side-effects, misattribution of cause, self-management, and fragmented information. The study results revealed that hematology patients administered steroids can experience negligible to extensive erratic side-effects, with severe adverse repercussions. Psychological reactions to steroids are often misattributed. Patients mostly self-manage adverse effects experienced and receive only fragmented preparatory information, often not understanding steroid side-effects. Nurses could provide helpful "in the moment" education for inpatients who misunderstood steroid-related adverse effects, such as aggressive urges. Adverse repercussions for family were occasionally evident. Education, support, and ongoing care for patients experiencing adverse steroid side-effects are inadequate. Health professionals need to develop patient- and family-centered educational resources for potential, unpredictable, and usually adverse steroid side-effects.