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

The more the merrier? Evidence and efficacy of immune checkpoint- and tyrosine kinase inhibitor combinations in advanced solid cancers

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) have gained therapeutical significance in cancer therapy over the last years. Due to the high efficacy of each substance group, additive or complementary effects are considered, and combinations are the subject of multiple prospective trials in different tumor entities. The majority of available data results from clinical phase I and II trials. Although regarded as well-tolerated therapies ICI-TKI combinations have higher toxicities compared to monotherapies of one of the substance classes and some combinations were shown to be excessively toxic leading to discontinuation of trials. So far, ICI-TKI combinations with nivolumab + cabozantinib, pembrolizumab + axitinib, avelumab + axitinib, pembrolizumab + lenvatinib have been approved in advanced renal cell (RCC), with pembrolizumab + lenvatinib in endometrial carcinoma and with camrelizumab + rivoceranib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several ICI-TKI combinations are currently investigated in phase I to III trials in various other cancer entities. Further, the optimal sequence of ICI-TKI combinations is an important subject of investigation, as cross-resistances between the substance classes were observed. This review reports on clinical trials with ICI-TKI combinations in different cancer entities, their efficacy and toxicity.

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

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

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

Digital Health Applications in Oncology: An Opportunity to Seize

Digital health advances have transformed many clinical areas including psychiatric and cardiovascular care. However, digital health innovation is relatively nascent in cancer care, which represents the fastest growing area of health-care spending. Opportunities for digital health innovation in oncology include patient-facing technologies that improve patient experience, safety, and patient-clinician interactions; clinician-facing technologies that improve their ability to diagnose pathology and predict adverse events; and quality of care and research infrastructure to improve clinical workflows, documentation, decision support, and clinical trial monitoring. The COVID-19 pandemic and associated shifts of care to the home and community dramatically accelerated the integration of digital health technologies into virtually every aspect of oncology care. However, the pandemic has also exposed potential flaws in the digital health ecosystem, namely in clinical integration strategies; data access, quality, and security; and regulatory oversight and reimbursement for digital health technologies. Stemming from the proceedings of a 2020 workshop convened by the National Cancer Policy Forum of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, this article summarizes the current state of digital health technologies in medical practice and strategies to improve clinical utility and integration. These recommendations, with calls to action for clinicians, health systems, technology innovators, and policy makers, will facilitate efficient yet safe integration of digital health technologies into cancer care.