Emotional and functional well-being in long-term breast cancer survivorship.

PURPOSE: Emotional and functional well-being (EWB and FWB) are important components of mental health and quality of life. This study aims to evaluate long-term EWB and FWB in breast cancer (BC) survivors. METHODS: The Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3 oversampled Black and younger (< 50 years in age) women so that they each represent approximately 50% of the study population and assessed participants' EWB and FWB with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) at 5- (baseline), 25-, and 84-months post diagnosis. Multinomial logit models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and well-being change relative to baseline. RESULTS: Among 2,781 participants with BC, average EWB and FWB improved with time since diagnosis. Persistent FWB decrements were associated with Black race [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), at 25-months and 84-months respectively], older age [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8), respectively], no chemotherapy, and recurrence [OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.8-4.8) and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.6), respectively]. EWB decrements were associated with advanced stage and recurrence. Decrements in combined (FWB+EWB) well-being were associated with recurrence at both follow-up survey timepoints [ORs 4.7 (95% CI 2.7-8.0) and 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-6.6), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term well-being varies by demographics and clinical features, with Black women and women with aggressive disease at greatest risk of long-term decrements.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify real-world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. METHODS: The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub-category and calendar year. RESULTS: The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA-4 + PD-1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA-4 inhibitor to a second line PD-1 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD-1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015.

An Exploratory Analysis of the "Was It Worth It?" Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Asking "Was it worth it?" (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients' perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. METHODS: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to "Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?" (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to "If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?"; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to "Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?" Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (-2.5 vs -0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

The development and initial validation of the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe)-a patient-reported outcome measure for detecting symptoms of recurrence after breast cancer.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outomes (PRO) may facilitate prompt treatment. We describe the development and psychometric properties of the first instrument to monitor for symptoms of breast cancer (BC) recurrence. METHODS: This study is nested in the MyHealth randomized trial of nurse-led follow-up based on electronically-collected PROs. We constructed items assessing symptoms of potential recurrence through expert interviews with six BC specialists in Denmark. Semi-structured cognitive interviews were carried out with a patient panel to assess acceptability and comprehensibility. Items were subsequently tested in a population of 1170 women 1-10 years after completing BC treatment. We carried out multiple-groups confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis to test dimensionality, local dependence (LD) and differential item functioning (DIF) according to sociodemographic and treatment-related factors. Clinical data was obtained from the Danish Breast Cancer Group registry. RESULTS: Twenty-two items were generated for the Breast Cancer Recurrence instrument (BreastCaRe). Cognitive testing resulted in clearer items. Seven subscales based on general, bone, liver, lung, brain, locoregional and contralateral recurrence symptoms were proposed. Both CFA and Rasch models confirmed the factor structure. No DIF was identified. Five item pairs showed LD but all items were retained to avoid loss of clinical information. Rasch models taking LD into account were used to generate a standardized scoring table for each subscale. CONCLUSIONS: The BreastCaRe has good content and structural validity, patient acceptability and measurement invariance. We are preparing to examine the predictive validity of this new instrument.

Mapping the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer to the SF-6D.

PURPOSE: To create a crosswalk that predicts Short Form 6D (SF-6D) utilities from Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) scores. METHODS: The data come from prostate cancer patients enrolled in the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS, N = 1016). Cross-sectional data from 12- to 24-month follow-up were used as estimation and validation datasets, respectively. Participants' SF-12 scores were used to generate SF-6D utilities in both datasets. Beta regression mixture models were used to evaluate SF-6D utilities as a function of MAX-PC scores, race, education, marital status, income, employment status, having health insurance, year of cancer diagnosis and clinically significant prostate cancer-related anxiety (PCRA) status in the estimation dataset. Models' predictive accuracies (using mean absolute error [MAE], root mean squared error [RMSE], Akaike information criterion [AIC] and Bayesian information criterion [BIC]) were examined in both datasets. The model with the highest prediction accuracy and the lowest prediction errors was selected as the crosswalk. RESULTS: The crosswalk had modest prediction accuracy (MAE = 0.092, RMSE = 0.114, AIC = - 2708 and BIC = - 2595.6), which are comparable to prediction accuracies of other SF-6D crosswalks in the literature. About 24% and 52% of predictions fell within ± 5% and ± 10% of observed SF-6D, respectively. The observed mean disutility associated with acquiring clinically significant PCRA is 0.168 (standard deviation = 0.179). CONCLUSION: This study provides a crosswalk that converts MAX-PC scores to SF-6D utilities for economic evaluation of clinically significant PCRA treatment options for prostate cancer survivors.

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients. METHODS: We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value. RESULTS: Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items. CONCLUSION: Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Scant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 119) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized to treatment arms and rated their pain on the average and at its worst during a baseline week and at weeks 3, 6, and 12 of study treatment. For each reporting period, participants rated their pain daily for 7 days. On day 7, participants rated their pain over the prior 7 days. We estimated mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients of the weekly ratings and the mean and the maximum daily ratings. We compared the ability of the weekly ratings and the daily rating descriptors to detect change in pain and evaluated the agreement of the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst to detect treatment response. RESULTS: For both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55-0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's κ = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Use of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting.

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Facility-level characteristics associated with family planning and child immunization services integration in urban areas of Nigeria: a longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unmet need for postpartum contraception is high. Integration of family planning with routine child immunization services may help to satisfy unmet need. However, evidence about the determinants and effects of integration has been inconsistent, and more evidence is required to ascertain whether and how to invest in integration. In this study, facility-level family planning and immunization integration index scores are used to: (1) determine whether integration changes over time and (2) identify whether facility-level characteristics, including exposure to the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative (NURHI), are associated with integration across facilities in six urban areas of Nigeria. METHODS: This study utilizes health facility data collected at baseline (n = 400) and endline (n = 385) for the NURHI impact evaluation. Difference-in-differences models estimate the associations between facility-level characteristics, including exposure to NURHI, and Provider and Facility Integration Index scores. The two outcome measures, Provider and Facility Integration Index scores, reflect attributes that support integrated service delivery. These indexes, which range from 0 (low) to 10 (high), were constructed using principal component analysis. Scores were calculated for each facility. Independent variables are (1) time period, (2) whether the facility received the NURHI intervention, and (3) additional facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: Within intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 6.46 at baseline and 6.79 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 7.16 (baseline) and 7.36 (endline). Within non-intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 5.01 at baseline and 6.25 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 5.83 (baseline) and 6.12 (endline). Provider Integration Index scores increased significantly (p = 0.00) among non-intervention facilities. Facility Integration Index scores did not increase significantly in either group. Results identify facility-level characteristics associated with higher levels of integration, including smaller family planning client load, family planning training among providers, and public facility ownership. Exposure to NURHI was not associated with integration index scores. CONCLUSION: Programs aiming to increase integration of family planning and immunization services should monitor and provide targeted support for the implementation of a well-defined integration strategy that considers the influence of facility characteristics and concurrent initiatives.