Patient- vs Physician-Initiated Response to Symptom Monitoring and Health-Related Quality of Life: The SYMPRO-Lung Cluster Randomized Trial.

Importance: Online symptom monitoring through patient-reported outcomes can enhance health-related quality of life and survival. However, widespread adoption in clinical care remains limited due to various barriers including the need to reduce health care practitioners' workload. Objective: To report the effects of patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom monitoring on HRQOL and survival up to 1 year after initiation of any treatment in patients with lung cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: SYMPRO-Lung is a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial including patients with stage I to IV lung cancer. The inclusion period was from October 24, 2019, until September 16, 2021, and data collection ended October 8, 2022. Data analysis was conducted from November 9, 2023, until March 18, 2024. Intervention: Patients in the intervention group reported PRO symptoms weekly using the Patient Reported Outcomes version of the Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events lung cancer subset. If symptoms exceeded a validated threshold, an alert was sent to the health care practitioner (active intervention subgroup) or to the patient (reactive intervention subgroup). Patients in the control group received standard care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Health-related quality of life was measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at baseline, 15 weeks (T1), 6 months (T2), and 1 year (T3), with the summary score (SS) and physical functioning (PF) as primary end points. Linear mixed-effects modeling was used to assess mean differences over time. Effect size (ES) of 0.40 or greater was considered clinically relevant. Cox proportional hazards regression survival analyses were performed to estimate the effect of the intervention on progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: A total of 515 patients (266 [51.7%] men; mean [SD] age, 65.4 [9.4] years) were included in the study (266 in the control group; 249 in the pooled intervention group). Most baseline characteristics were balanced between groups; however, the most notable exception was the distribution in cancer staging: the intervention group had a higher proportion of patients with stage IV cancer compared with the control group (139 [56%] vs 118 [44%]). The pooled intervention group had a significantly better SS (mean difference T1, 5.22; 95% CI, 2.72-7.73; P < .001; ES = 0.33; mean difference T2, 6.28; 95% CI, 3.65-8.92; P < .001; ES = 0.40; mean difference T3, 3.97; 95% CI, 1.15-6.80; P = .006; ES = 0.25) compared with the control group. Group differences improved more in PF but did not meet the ES greater than or equal to 0.40 threshold (mean difference T1, 7.00; 95% CI, 3.65-10.35; P < .001; ES = 0.27; mean difference T2, 6.79; 95% CI, 3.26-10.31; P < .001; ES = 0.26; mean difference T3, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.23-8.79; P = .009; ES = 0.19). No significant differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive (n = 89) and active (n = 160) intervention groups. The HR for progression-free survival for the active intervention group compared with the control group was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.58-1.04); the finding was not statistically significant. The HR for overall survival for both interventions groups compared with the control group were not statistically significant.(active: HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.55-1.15; reactive: HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.42-1.15). Conclusions and Relevance: In this 1-year follow-up of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial, PRO symptom monitoring yielded improvements in long-term HRQOL in patients with lung cancer. The reactive approach proved equally effective as the active approach. A nonsignificant potential survival benefit was observed for the intervention group. These positive results provide further evidence for the usefulness of routine PRO symptom monitoring in lung cancer care. Trial Registration: The Netherlands trial register Identifier: NL7897.

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring: the SYMPRO-Lung trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients. METHODS: The SYMPRO-Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL-C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding. RESULTS: A total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Weekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation.

Patient experiences and views on pharmaceutical care during adjuvant endocrine therapy for breast cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) after primary treatment of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer reduces the risk of recurrence and mortality. However, non-adherence is still common. Limited consideration has been given to how users deal with AET and the role of pharmaceutical care. Therefore, this study aims to obtain insight into the needs and wishes of women using AET regarding pharmaceutical care and eHealth. METHODS: This is a qualitative explorative study comprising semi-structured interviews (n = 16) and a focus group (n = 5) among women who use or used AET after primary early-stage breast cancer (EBC) treatment using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the interviews and focus group: (1) experiences with AET use, (2) experiences with provided information and (3) needs and wishes regarding pharmaceutical care. Most women were highly motivated to use AET and indicated to have received useful information on AET. However, many expressed a strong need for more elaborate tailored and timely provided information on AET. They acknowledged the accessibility of pharmacists but reported that currently, pharmacists are hardly involved in AET care. Several women considered eHealth useful to obtain counselling and reliable information. CONCLUSION: Women need more comprehensive information and follow-up in primary setting after initial cancer treatments. A more elaborate role for the pharmacy and eHealth/mHealth, especially with regard to counselling on side effects and side effect management, could potentially improve pharmaceutical care.

Barriers and Enablers of Healthcare Providers to Deprescribe Cardiometabolic Medication in Older Patients: A Focus Group Study.

INTRODUCTION: Benefits and risks of preventive medication change over time for ageing patients and deprescribing of medication may be needed. Deprescribing of cardiovascular and antidiabetic drugs can be challenging and is not widely implemented in daily practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as seen by healthcare providers (HCPs) of different disciplines, and to explore their views on their specific roles in the process of deprescribing. METHODS: Three focus groups with five general practitioners, eight pharmacists, three nurse practitioners, two geriatricians, and two elder care physicians were conducted in three cities in The Netherlands. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Directed content analysis was performed on the basis of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Two researchers independently coded the data. RESULTS: Most HCPs agreed that deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication is relevant but that barriers include lack of evidence and expertise, negative beliefs and fears, poor communication and collaboration between HCPs, and lack of resources. Having a guideline was considered an enabler for the process of deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. Some HCPs feared the consequences of discontinuing cardiovascular or antidiabetic medication, while others were not motivated to deprescribe when the patients experienced no problems with their medication. HCPs of all disciplines stated that adequate patient communication and involving the patients and relatives in the decision making enables deprescribing. Barriers to deprescribing included the use of medication initiated by specialists, the poor exchange of information, and the amount of time it takes to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication. The HCPs were uncertain about each other's roles and responsibilities. A multidisciplinary approach including the pharmacist and nurse practitioner was seen as the best way to support the process of deprescribing and address barriers related to resources. CONCLUSION: HCPs recognized the importance of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as a medical decision that can only be made in close cooperation with the patient. To successfully accomplish the process of deprescribing they strongly recommended a multidisciplinary approach.

SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung): study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer and its treatment cause a wide range of symptoms impacting the patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor symptoms during and after cancer treatment has been shown not only to improve symptom management but also to improve HRQoL and overall survival (OS). Collectively, these results favour implementation of PRO-symptom monitoring in daily clinical care. However, these promising outcomes have been obtained under trial conditions in which patients were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria, and in countries with a dissimilar healthcare system than in the Netherlands.The primary aim of the SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung) study is to evaluate the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring during and after lung cancer treatment on HRQoL in daily clinical practice. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on progression-free survival, OS, the incidence and grade of PRO symptoms, medication adherence, implementation fidelity and cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SYMPRO-Lung study is a prospective, multicentre trial with a stepped wedge cluster randomised design. Study participants (n=292 intervention, n=292 controls) include patients with lung cancer (stages I-IV) starting treatment with surgery, systemic treatment, targeted treatment and/or radiotherapy.Every participating centre will consecutively switch from the control period to the intervention period, in which patients report their symptoms weekly via an online tool. In the intervention group, we evaluate two alert approaches: the active and reactive approach. If the symptoms exceed a predefined threshold, an alert is sent to the healthcare provider (active approach) or to the patient (reactive approach). Both the control and intervention group complete HRQoL questionnaires at 4 time points: at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 1-year post treatment). Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using linear mixed modelling analyses, accounting for within-centre clustering, potential time effects and confounding. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC (under number NL 68440.029.18) and the institutional review boards of the participating study sites. The dissemination of the results will be conducted through publication in peer-reviewed journals and through scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial register identifier: Netherlands Trial register Trial NL7897. Date of registration: 24 July 2019. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7897.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Survival in Metastasized Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with and without a Targetable Driver Mutation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival in metastatic NSCLC patients with (M+) and without (M-) a targetable driver mutation. METHODS: An observational study was performed within the prospective SYMPRO-lung study (NL7897). HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, 15 weeks, and 6 months. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to assess clinically significant declines in HRQOL (>10 points) over time. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were plotted for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 81 metastatic NSCLC patients were included (M+ patients; 16 (20%)). M+ patients had a significantly better global HRQOL (mean difference 12.8, ES 0.61), physical functioning (mean difference 13.4, ES 0.63), and less appetite loss (mean difference 23.1, ES 0.73) at 15 weeks of follow-up compared to M- patients. Patients with a clinically relevant decline in HRQOL at 6 months of follow-up had a significantly shorter PFS (5 months vs. 12 months, p-value < 0.001) and OS (11 months vs. 16 months, p-value 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: M- NSCLC patients have less favorable HRQOL over time compared to M+ patients. Furthermore, clinically relevant HRQOL declines over time were significantly associated with worse survival. HRQOL can therefore play an important role in in shaping patients' expectations of their prognosis.

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment discontinuation in chronic myeloid leukemia: patient views.

Patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in deep molecular remission may discontinue tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment without relapse. The present study aims to gain insight into the views of CML patients on TKI treatment discontinuation and identify factors that are associated with their willingness to discontinue treatment. A cross-sectional study, among adult Dutch CML patients was conducted to assess willingness and their views on benefits of and concerns about discontinuation. A total of 185 patients participated of whom 76% were willing to discontinue TKI-treatment. Patients considered the absence of side effects the most important benefit whereas fear of disease recurrence was their most prominent concern. Adequate monitoring was the most important prerequisite for TKI-treatment discontinuation. However, ambiguity with respect to perquisites indicate that patients on long-term TKI treatment should be adequately informed both on the possibility to discontinue treatment and on its benefits, risks, and measures that address risks.