A qualitative evaluation of factors influencing Tumor Treating fields (TTFields) therapy decision making among brain tumor patients and physicians

BACKGROUND

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) Therapy is an FDA-approved therapy in the first line and recurrent setting for glioblastoma. Despite Phase 3 evidence showing improved survival with TTFields, it is not uniformly utilized. We aimed to examine patient and clinician views of TTFields and factors shaping utilization of TTFields through a unique research partnership with medical neuro oncology and medical social sciences.

METHODS

Adult glioblastoma patients who were offered TTFields at a tertiary care academic hospital were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about their decision to use or not use TTFields. Clinicians who prescribe TTFields were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview about TTFields.

RESULTS

Interviews were completed with 40 patients with a mean age of 53 years; 92.5% were white and 60% were male. Participants who decided against TTFields stated that head shaving, appearing sick, and inconvenience of wearing/carrying the device most influenced their decision. The most influential factors for use of TTFields were the efficacy of the device and their clinician's opinion. Clinicians (N = 9) stated that TTFields was a good option for glioblastoma patients, but some noted that their patients should consider the burdens and benefits of TTFields as it may not be the desired choice for all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to examine patient decision making for TTFields. Findings suggest that clinician support and efficacy data are among the key decision-making factors. Properly understanding the path to patients' decision making is crucial in optimizing the use of TTFields and other therapeutic decisions for glioblastoma patients.

What Chicago community organizations needed to implement COVID-19 interventions: lessons learned in 2021

Introduction

As the COVID-19 pandemic placed a spotlight on the health inequities in the United States, this study aimed to determine the local programmatic needs of community organizations (CO) delivering COVID-19 interventions across Chicago.

Methods

In the summer of 2021, the Chicagoland CEAL Program interviewed 34 COs that were providing education, testing, and/or vaccinations in communities experiencing poor COVID-19 outcomes. The interviews were analyzed thematically and organized around logistical challenges and funding/resource needs.

Results

The COs routinely offered testing (50%) or vaccinations (74%), with most (56%) employing some programmatic evaluation. Programs utilizing trusted-messenger systems were deemed most effective, but resource-intensive. CO specific needs clustered around sustaining effective outreach strategies, better CO coordination, wanting comprehensive trainings, improving program evaluation, and promoting services and programs.

Conclusion

The COs reached populations with low-vaccine confidence using trusted messengers to overcome mistrust. However, replenishment of the resources needed to sustain such strategies should be prioritized. Leveraging the Chicagoland CEAL Program to help negotiate community organizations' interorganizational coordination, create training programs, and provide evaluation expertise are deliverable supports that may bolster COVID-19 prevention.

Policy implications

Achieving health justice requires that all institutions of power participate in meaningful community engagement, help build community capacity, and infuse health equity throughout all aspects of the research and program evaluation processes.

The development and initial validation of the PROMIS®+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0-100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman-Brown), test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82-0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman-Brown 0.60-0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test-retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75-0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6-8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40-0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0-5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29-0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

INNV-13. UNDERSTANDING FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE THE DECISION OF ACCEPTING TUMOR TREATING FIELDS (TTF) THERAPY

BACKGROUND

Tumor Treating Fields (TTF) Therapy is an FDA-approved therapy in the first line and recurrent setting for glioblastoma. Despite Phase 3 evidence showing improved survival, it is not uniformly utilized despite its availability. This qualitative prospective study interviewed glioblastoma patients to better understand key driving factors for decision making.

METHODS

Adult glioblastoma patients who were offered TTF and who signed IRB approved consent were included. Patients participated in a one-time recorded interview with the researchers from the Northwestern University Department of Medical Social Sciences and were asked about factors shaping their decision to use or not use TTF.

RESULTS

40 patients were enrolled with a mean age of 53 years, 92.5% were white and 60% were male. Of the 33 (82.5%) participants who accepted TTF, 23 (69.7%) reported their physician recommending TTF, 8 (24.2%) reported physician neutrality toward TTF, and 2 (6.1%) said their physician advised against TTF. Among the 7 (17.5%) participants who did not choose TTF, 4 (57.1%) reported physician neutrality, 2 (28.6%) reported that their physician advised against TTF, and 1 (14.3%) reported that their physician recommended TTF. Participants who decided against TTF stated that head shaving, appearing sick, and inconvenience of wearing/carrying the device most influenced their decision. For those choosing to use TTF, the most influential factors were extending life and following their doctor's opinion; other factors included level of familial support and the clinical evidence supporting TTF.

DISCUSSION

This clinical study was a collaboration with the Medical Social Sciences team to better understand the key factors that drive patient decision making with TTF. Findings suggest that physician support and positive Phase 3 results are among the key decision-making factors. Properly understanding the path to patients’ decision making is crucial in optimizing use of TTF and other therapeutic decisions for glioblastoma patients.

Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index

OBJECTIVE

To develop a symptom-focused index to evaluate representative symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional and functional well-being of patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS).

METHODS

The development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index (FACT-CSI) followed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and involved the following: (a) literature review; (b) interviews with 14 CS patients; (c) interviews with 9 clinicians; and (d) instrument development involving input from a range of PRO measure development and CS experts. The resulting draft instrument underwent cognitive interviews with 7 CS patients.

RESULTS

Forty-six CS sources were reviewed. Analysis of patient interviews produced 23 patient-reported symptoms. The most frequently endorsed physical symptoms were flushing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and food sensitivity/triggers. Seven priority CS emotional and functional themes were also identified by patients. Expert interviews revealed 12 unique priority symptoms - the most common being diarrhea, flushing, wheezing, edema, abdominal pain/cramping, fatigue, and 8 emotional and functional concerns. Through an iterative process of team and clinical collaborator meetings, data review, item reduction and measure revision, 24 items were selected for the draft symptom index representing symptoms, emotional concerns, global assessment of treatment side effects, and functional well-being. Cognitive interview results demonstrated strong content validity, including positive endorsement of item clarity (>86% across items), symptom relevance (>70% for most items), and overall measure content (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

The FACT-CSI is a content-relevant, symptom-focused index reflecting the highest priority and clinically relevant symptoms and concerns of people with CS.

Neuropathy experienced by colorectal cancer patients receiving oxaliplatin: A qualitative study to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity scale

BACKGROUND

Although oxaliplatin is widely established as a standard treatment in colorectal cancer (CRC), oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy has emerged as a prominent dose-limiting side effect associated with quality of life decrements. Ongoing monitoring and management of neuropathy is important for CRC patient quality of life and adherence to treatment. Therefore, a validated self-reported measure of neuropathy would aid in the management and assessment of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in clinical practice and research. We sought to evaluate the content validity of the 13-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology Group- Neurotoxicity subscale (FACT/GOG-Ntx) for CRC patients receiving oxaliplatin.

AIM

To understand the neuropathy experiences of CRC patients and assess content validity of the FACT/GOG-Ntx.

METHODS

Semi-structured concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 31 CRC patients experiencing peripheral neuropathy from current or previous oxaliplatin treatment. Interview data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach, and data were mapped to the FACT/GOG-Ntx to assess content validity.

RESULTS

Mean age of the sample was 54 (range 34-82). The sample was primarily Caucasian (84%) and consisted of nearly equal numbers of men and women. Participants described 28 unique neuropathy symptoms; hand tingling (experienced by 87% of respondents); feet tingling (81%); hand numbness (68%); and feet numbness (84%) were most frequently mentioned. Neuropathy symptoms occurring on the feet were most often identified as most bothersome by participants. Eleven of the 13 FACT/GOG-Ntx items exhibited moderate to strong evidence of content validity. Two items related to trouble hearing and ringing in the ears had weak support; however, these items represent severe neuropathy and could be useful for a patient reported outcome measure.

CONCLUSION

The FACT/GOG-Ntx represents the key neuropathy experiences of CRC patients treated with oxaliplatin.

What does risk of future cancer mean to breast cancer patients?

PURPOSE

Newly diagnosed breast cancer patients greatly overestimate their risk of developing contralateral breast cancer (CBC). Better understanding of patient conceptions of risk would facilitate doctor-patient communication and surgical decision making. In this mixed methods study, we prospectively examined breast cancer patients' perceived risk of future cancer and the reported factors that drove their risk perceptions.

METHODS

Women age 21-60 diagnosed with breast cancer without a BRCA mutation or known distant metastases completed a study interview between surgical consult and surgical treatment. Participants completed a 12-item Perceived Risk Questionnaire, which assessed 10-year and lifetime risks of ipsilateral local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence. Patients provided qualitative explanations for their answers.

RESULTS

Sixty-three patients completed study interviews (mean age 50.3). Participants were primarily White (85.7%) and 90.5% had attended college. Patients estimated their 10-year risk of CBC as 22.0%, nearly 4 times the established 10-year risk. Women attributed their risk perceptions to "gut feelings" about future cancer, even when women knew those feelings contradicted medically established risk. Perceptions of risk also reflected beliefs that cancer is random and that risk for local recurrence, CBC, and distant recurrence are the same.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings point to the need for novel ways of presenting factual information regarding both risk of recurrence and of new primary cancers, as well as the necessity of acknowledging cognitive and affective processes many patients use when conceptualizing risk. By differentiating women's intuitive feelings about risk from their knowledge of medically estimated risk, doctors can enhance informed decision making.