Use of a Cancer Registry to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcomes of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

Cancer-related fatigue among patients with advanced cancer receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors: a prospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of cancer related fatigue (CRF) as assessed by Functional Assessment of Cancer Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), prior to, and during 12 weeks of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We also explored the effects of ICIs on fatigue dimensions and interference with daily activities (Multidimensional Functional Symptom Inventory, MFSI-SF, Patient-Related Outcome Symptom Measurement Information System Short form Fatigue 7a, PROMIS F-SF), QOL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, FACT-G), and cancer symptoms (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, ESAS).

METHODS

In this prospective, longitudinal observational study, patients with a diagnosis of advanced cancer receiving ICIs were evaluated. Patient demographics, FACT-G, FACIT-F, MFSI-SF, PROMIS F-SF, and ESAS were collected prior to, and during 12 weeks of ICIs.

RESULTS

A total of 160 of the 212 enrolled patients were analyzed. The median age was 61 years, 60% were female, most common cancer was melanoma (73%), and most common ICI was nivolumab 46%. The frequency of clinically significant fatigue (defined as ≤ 34/52 on FACIT-F score) was 25.6% at baseline, 25.7% at week 8, and 19.5% at week 12. There was significant improvement in FACIT-F (P = 0.016), FACT-G physical well-being (P = 0.041), FACT-G emotional well-being (P = 0.011), ESAS anxiety (P = 0.045), and ESAS psychological distress (P = 0.03) scores from baseline to week 12 of ICIs. Multivariate analysis found significant association between clinically significant CRF and PROMIS F-SF (P < 0.001) and MFSI-SF global scores (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

CRF is frequent prior to the initiation of ICI treatment. Over 12 weeks of ICI treatment, CRF significantly improved. FACT-G physical well-being, FACT-G emotional well-being, ESAS anxiety, and ESAS psychological distress scores improved overtime. Further studies are needed to validate these findings.

Real-world analysis of the relationships between smoking, lung cancer stigma, and emotional functioning

INTRODUCTION

People diagnosed with lung cancer experience high rates of distress, which can be compounded by the stigma of the disease. This study assessed a real-world population to understand patient-reported emotional functioning, types of stigma experienced, and relationship with smoking history.

METHODS

Questionnaires using validated survey tools assessing demographics, smoking history, stigma, and quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30 Emotional Functioning Scale) were analyzed from 539 global participants in the Lung Cancer Registry between November 2019 and July 2022. The associations between smoking history and self-reported internalized and perceived stigma and constrained disclosure of lung cancer diagnosis, as well as the potential impact of stigma on emotional functioning, were examined using multivariable logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among the broad geographic mix of study participants, all types of lung cancer stigma were associated with decreased emotional functioning due to a combination of factors including depression, anxiety, stress, and irritability. Participants who reported a history of current or former smoking experienced higher levels of internalized stigma and perceived stigma. Constrained disclosure about a diagnosis was common, associated with decreased emotional functioning, and not related to a history of smoking. Smoking status itself was not associated with reduced emotional functioning, implicating the role of stigma in distress.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, all types of lung cancer stigma were associated with clinically important decreases in emotional functioning. This impact was not dependent on smoking history. Internalized and perceived stigma were associated with the presence of a smoking history. These findings have implications for proper psychosocial care of people diagnosed with lung cancer.

Survivorship outcomes in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become a central part of cancer care. However, the survivorship outcomes in patients treated with ICIs are understudied. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review to evaluate the current status of the field and to establish research gaps regarding survivorship outcomes with ICIs in real-life cohorts.

METHODS

We used the Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase databases to systematically filter published studies with real-life cohorts from January 1, 2010, until October 19, 2022. Studies evaluating at least one survivorship outcome in ICI-treated patients were included.

RESULTS

A total of 39 papers were included. Quality of life (QoL) (n = 23), toxicity burden (n = 16), and psychosocial issues (n = 9) were the most frequently evaluated survivorship outcomes. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and a response to treatment were associated with better QoL. In addition, the ICIs were associated with grade 3 or higher immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in 10-15% and late/long-term irAEs in 20-30% of the survivors. Regarding psychosocial problems, over 30% of survivors showed evidence of anxiety and depression, and 30-40% of survivors reported neurocognitive impairments.

CONCLUSION

The survivors treated with ICIs have impairments in most survivorship domains. Further research is needed to gather data on the understudied survivorship outcomes like late and long-term effects, fertility, financial toxicity, and return to work in survivors treated with ICIs.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Available evidence demonstrates that a significant portion of survivors treated with ICIs have a significant toxicity burden, lower QoL than the general population, and a high rate of psychosocial problems.

Patient-reported impact of symptoms in lung cancer (PRISM-LC)

Background

Individuals with lung cancer (LC) face a variety of symptoms that significantly impact their lives. We use extensive patient input to determine the relative importance and prevalence of these symptoms and identify which demographic features are associated with a higher level of disease burden.

Methods

We performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants with LC to identify potentially important symptoms. We then conducted a cross-sectional study, in which participants rated the relative importance of 162 individual symptoms covering 14 symptomatic themes. Participant responses were analyzed by age, sex, disability status, disease duration, LC stage, type of treatment received, and smoking history, among other categories.

Results

Our cross-sectional study had 139 participants with LC. The most prevalent symptomatic themes reported by this population were fatigue (85.5%), impaired sleep and daytime sleepiness (73.5%), and emotional issues (73.0%). The symptomatic themes that had the greatest average impact (on a scale of 0 to 4, with 4 being the most impactful) were social role dissatisfaction (1.67), inability to do activities (1.64), and fatigue (1.60). Disability status had the strongest association with symptomatic theme prevalence. LC stage (stage IV), receipt of therapy, and smoking experience were also associated with higher frequency of symptomatic themes.

Conclusions

Individuals with LC face diverse and disease-specific symptoms that affect their daily lives. Patient insight on the prevalence and relative importance of these symptoms is invaluable to advance meaningful therapeutic interventions.

Assessment of Symptoms and Adverse Events Related to Immunotherapy in Patients With Cancer: An Integrative Review

CONTEXT

Clinical practice guidelines advocate for routine assessment of symptoms and adverse events during immunotherapy treatment of cancer. Outside the clinical trial setting, there are few examples of such assessment in practice.

OBJECTIVES

To identify, appraise, and synthesize the available literature regarding the assessment of immune-related symptoms and adverse events in patients with cancer beyond the clinical trial setting. Specifically, we aimed to identify the measurement instruments used, who completes these and when.

METHODS

We completed an integrative review following established methods including a systematic literature search of electronic databases, a dual process for screening, quality appraisal, and data extraction. We included primary studies (retrospective or prospective) reporting the use of instruments or strategies to assess symptoms or adverse events in patients with cancer treated with immunotherapy. Outcomes of interest included: 1) how immune-related symptoms and adverse events were assessed; 2) types of assessment instruments; 3) frequency of instrument use and mode of administration; 4) the reported duration and intensity of symptoms and 5) adverse events and associated management strategies. Data were synthesized narratively.

RESULTS

We screened 2138 articles and included 16 articles representing 2553 patients with cancer undergoing immunotherapy. All articles were published between 2018 and 2022 and were of sound methodological quality. Seven studies were retrospective chart reviews, and the remaining studies prospectively collected data, with seven collecting patient reported outcomes. In studies where data were collected at more than one time point (n = 6), weekly assessment during immunotherapy was the most common frequency. The potential for implementation of assessment into routine clinical practice was described in just four studies.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations from clinical practice guidelines for routine assessment of symptoms and adverse events during immunotherapy treatment for cancer, there are few examples of how this is undertaken in clinical practice. The use of patient reported outcome measures to assess toxicity from immunotherapy is uncommon but offers the potential to identify symptoms early and facilitate timely intervention. Our review highlights the available instruments, how they have been used and the need for more applied research in this field to optimize patient outcomes.

Development and Validation of the Missed Nursing Care Tool for Pre-Operative Patients with Lung Cancer in China

Introduction

Current research suggests that missed nursing care is widespread in preoperative lung cancer patients in China, and preoperative airway management nursing care for lung cancer patients is not standardized. Missed nursing care for preoperative lung cancer patients, on the other hand, is rarely investigated, particularly from the patient's perspective. This study aimed to develop and validate the MISSCARE Survey for pre-operative patients with lung cancer in China.

Methods

This study generated the preliminary draft of the MISSCARE Survey - Lung Cancer Patient (MS-LCP) and tested its reliability and stability through three rounds of lung cancer resection (494, 50, and 309 cases, respectively). 20 patients and 6 experts determined the face and content validity. EFA and CFA assessed construct and convergent validity. Internal consistency, including Cronbach's alpha, Spearman-Brown reliability, and re-test reliability, was also examined.

Results

The scale contained 15 items, including specific care, communicative care, timely care, and basic care. KMO was 0.932 (> 0.6), and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity showed P = 0.000 (<0.05). The attribution factor's item loads ranged from 0.765 to 0.853, accounting for 82.20% of the variation. The scale's Cronbach's alpha, Spearman-Brown, and retest reliability were 0.945, 0.879, and 0.824. CFA showed goodness of fit (RMSEA = 0.021, χ²/df = 1.138, GFI = 0.900, AGFI = 0.945, CFI = 0.996, NFI = 0.967, IFI = 0.996). For each dimension, AVE ranged from 0.555 to 0.717 (>0.50) and CR from 0.861 to 0.904 (>0.70).

Conclusion

The MS-LCP was reliable and valid in this study, making it appropriate for the Chinese lung cancer patient population. This tool is more objective in its presentation of missed nursing care, assisting nursing staff in optimizing nursing procedures before surgery, increasing the implementation of higher-quality tumor care, and promoting the recovery of lung cancer surgery patients.

Increasing Inclusiveness of Patient-Centric Clinical Evidence Generation in Oncology: Real-World Data and Clinical Trials

Rapid advancements in cancer discovery, diagnosis, and treatment options available to patients with cancer have highlighted the need for enhancements in clinical trial design. The drug development process is costly, with more than 80% of trials failing to reach recruitment targets. Historical approaches to trial design are increasingly burdensome and lack real-world application in the intent-to-treat patient population. Equitable access to clinical trials combined with increased availability of real-world data are creating new opportunities for inclusiveness, improved outcomes, and evidence-based advances in therapies that will generate more generalizable data to better inform clinical decision-making. Clinical trials need to be inclusive if lifesaving data are not to be missed and investigational therapies are to be more accessible to a broader patient base. Real-world data can facilitate the conduct of studies that are identifying and understanding where disparities exist and developing new interventions to improve patient care. The clinical trial design process should be a multistakeholder and consensus- and evidence-driven process in which stakeholders are working together across the health care industry to close the care gap and ensure elimination of barriers that prevent equal access to specialized cancer care and advanced therapies available in clinical trials. The patient voice is essential throughout the trial process; however, it is often excluded from the design process. Integrating real-world data as well as ensuring patient involvement in early trial design during drug development can enhance enrollment and retention, leading to greater diversity.

Leveraging patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with pancreatic cancer: The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) online patient registry experience

Background

The Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN) Patient Registry is an online, pancreatic cancer‐specific, global registry enabling patients to self‐report sociodemographics, disease/management characteristics, and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We sought to describe the creation, user experience, and research potential of the PanCAN Registry.

Methods

We obtained data to describe (1) the creation of the Registry (questionnaire development, marketing efforts, and regulatory considerations); (2) the user experience (user characteristics and interactions with the registry following inception); and (3) the research potential of the registry (comparing PROs and treatment patterns by age [±65 years] and treatment site [community or academic] for users with de novo metastatic disease).

Results

The Registry was conceived as part of PanCAN’s strategic plan for a personalized therapy initiative. PanCAN staff and disease expert consultants developed questionnaires hosted on an electronic PRO platform. Users had the option to include their data in research efforts, and the Registry platform received institutional review board approval. From 7/2015 to 12/2020, 2187 patients visited the registry and 1697 (77.6%) completed at least one survey (median age = 64 years [range: 24–90], 47.9% women, 88.7% White, 34.0% metastatic disease). Among patients with metastatic disease (N = 567), 46.0% were ≥65 years old and 67.5% received treatment at community sites. Patients ≥65 years reported feeling less hopeful about the treatment plan (12.4% vs. 24.3%, p = 0.003), and patients treated at community sites reported more frequent treatment breaks of >2 weeks (58.2% vs. 28.1%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our findings demonstrate the feasibility, usability, and research potential of an online PRO registry for patients with cancer. This description of the PanCAN Registry should inform future registry‐building efforts to facilitate standardized PRO reporting and provide a valuable research database.

Clinicaltrial registration number: Not applicable.