Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy.

BACKGROUND: Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics. METHODS: Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months. CONCLUSION: Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Initial validation of the powered mobility device autonomy residential screen (PoMoDARS).

BACKGROUND: The Powered Mobility Device Autonomy Residential Screen (PoMoDARS) is a new tool to enable clinicians to screen resident capacity and performance skills for powered mobility device (PMD) use in residential aged care settings. The PoMoDARS is context specific, time efficient and promotes resident autonomy and safety. AIMS: To (i) undertake initial face and content validation of the PoMoDARS, and (ii) use the research findings to make any modifications. METHODS: A mixed-methods study design, underpinned by Classical Test Theory. Eight clinicians completed 20 PoMoDARS screens and provided both quantitative and qualitative feedback on item importance and ease of use within a formal interview. RESULTS: Initial face and content validity of the PoMoDARS were supported, with small modifications made to item descriptors and instructions. CONCLUSIONS: The PoMoDARS has been developed for use in residential aged care settings to screen resident PMD use. While initial validation has been undertaken, further studies to determine the reliability of the tool and continue the validation process are required. SIGNIFICANCE: Older adults in residential aged care facilities benefit greatly from the autonomy gained through PMD use. The PoMoDARS promotes collaboration between occupational therapists, nurses, and the wider team to support residents and safe PMD use.

Powered mobility device use in residential aged care: a retrospective audit of incidents and injuries.

BACKGROUND: Powered wheelchairs and motorised mobility scooters, collectively called powered mobility devices (PMD), are highly valued by older Australians, including those living in residential care, to facilitate personal and community mobility. The number of PMDs in residential aged care is expected to grow proportionally with that of the wider community, however, there is very little literature on supporting residents to use PMDs safely. Prior to developing such supports, it is important to understand the frequency and nature of any incidents experienced by residents whilst using a PMD. The aim of this study was to determine the number and characteristics of PMD use related incidents occurring in a group of residential aged care facilities in a single year in one state in Australia including incident type, severity, assessment, or training received and outcomes on follow-up for PMD users living in residential aged care. METHODS: Analysis of secondary data, including documentation of PMD incidents and injuries for one aged care provider group over 12 months retrospectively. Follow-up data were gathered 9-12 months post incident to review and record the outcome for each PMD user. RESULTS: No fatalities were recorded as a direct result of PMD use and 55 incidents, including collisions, tips, and falls, were attributed to 30 residents. Examination of demographics and incident characteristics found that 67% of residents who had incurred incidents were male, 67% were over 80 years of age, 97% had multiple diagnoses and 53% had not received training to use a PMD. Results from this study were extrapolated to project that 4,453 PMD use related incidents occur every year within Australian residential aged care facilities, with the potential for outcomes such as extended recovery, fatality, litigation, or loss of income. CONCLUSION: This is the first time that detailed incident data on PMD use in residential aged care has been reviewed in an Australian context. Illuminating both the benefits and the potential risks of PMD use emphasizes the need to develop and improve support structures to promote safe PMD use in residential aged care.

Rate of COVID-19 vaccination among patients with cancer who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2: Analysis of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry.

BACKGROUND: The availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines has enabled protections against serious COVID-19 outcomes, which are particularly important for patients with cancer. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Registry enabled the study of COVID-19 vaccine uptake in patients with cancer who were positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2. METHODS: Medical oncology practices entered data on patients who were in cancer treatment. The cohort included patients who had severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection in 2020 and had visits and vaccine data after December 31, 2020. The primary end point was the time to first vaccination from January 1, 2021. Cumulative incidence estimates and Cox regression with death as a competing risk were used to describe the time to vaccine uptake and factors associated with vaccine receipt. RESULTS: The cohort included 1155 patients from 56 practices. Among 690 patients who received the first vaccine dose, 92% received the second dose. The median time to vaccine was 99 days. After adjustment, older patients were associated with a higher likelihood of vaccination compared with patients younger than 50 years in January through March 2021, and age exhibited a linear effect, with older patients showing higher rates of vaccination. Metastatic solid tumors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-0.98) or non-B-cell hematologic malignancies (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93) compared with nonmetastatic solid tumors, and any comorbidity (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95) compared with no comorbidity, were associated with lower vaccination rates. Area-level social determinants of health (lower education attainment and higher unemployment rates) were associated with lower vaccination rates. CONCLUSIONS: Patient age, cancer type, comorbidity, area-level education attainment, and unemployment rates were associated with differential vaccine uptake rates. These findings should inform strategies to communicate about vaccine safety and efficacy to patients with cancer.

Impact of clinical pathways on treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with non-small-cell lung cancer: real-world evidence from a community oncology practice.

Introduction: The evolving treatment landscape for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and complexities of regulations and reimbursement present challenges to community oncologists. Clinical pathways are tools to optimize care, but information on their value in the real world is limited. This retrospective study assessed treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in patients with stage I-III NSCLC pre- and post-pathways implementation at Tennessee Oncology, a large, community-based oncology practice in the USA. Methods & Materials: Chart data were abstracted for adults diagnosed with stage I-III NSCLC who received systemic treatment. Patients were divided into pre-pathways (treatment initiation 2014-2015) and post-pathways (treatment initiation 2016-2018) cohorts. Patient characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes were summarized descriptively. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to assess time-dependent outcomes, and log-rank test was used to compare the cohorts. Results: 291 patients were included (stage I-II: 38 pre-pathways, 55 post-pathways; stage III: 105 pre-pathways, 93 post-pathways). Duration on first-line (1L) therapy was similar for stage I-II patients pre- and post-pathways (median 1.9 months vs 2.1 months; p = 0.75), but increased for stage III patients post-pathways (2.1 months vs 1.4 months pre-pathways; p < 0.01). Achievement of a complete or partial response with 1L therapy was similar post-pathways among stage I-stage -IIII patients (60.0% vs 55.2% pre-pathways), but increased for stage III patients (56.0% vs 35.2% pre-pathways). Conclusion: Given that improvements in rates of treatment response post-pathways occurred only for patients diagnosed with stage III NSCLC, among whom immunotherapy uptake increased post-pathways, such improvements may be attributable to evolving practices in cancer care, including advances in treatment and care delivery, rather than clinical pathways implementation. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of clinical pathways in the current treatment era, given that immunotherapy has now become the standard of care in NSCLC.

Oncology Medical Home: ASCO and COA Standards.

PURPOSE: To provide Standards on the basis of evidence and expert consensus for a pilot of the Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program. The OMH model is a system of care delivery that features coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care and includes a process for measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement. The OMH pilot is intended to inform further refinement of Standards for OMH model implementation. METHODS: An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on the topics of OMH, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Using this evidence base and an informal consensus process, the Expert Panel developed a set of OMH Standards. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: Three comparative peer-reviewed studies of OMH met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the results from 16 studies of clinical pathways and one systematic review of survivorship care plans informed the evidence review. Limitations of the evidence base included the small number of studies of OMH and lack of longer-term outcomes data. More data were available to inform the specific Standards for pathways and survivorship care; however, outcomes were mixed for the latter intervention. The Expert Panel concluded that in the future, practices should be encouraged to publish the results of OMH interventions in peer-reviewed journals to improve the evidence base. STANDARDS: Standards are provided for OMH in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, equitable and comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and chemotherapy safety. Additional information, including a Standards implementation manual, is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Telehealth in Oncology: ASCO Standards and Practice Recommendations.

PURPOSE: To provide standards and practice recommendations specific to telehealth in oncology. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature on telehealth in oncology was performed, including the use of technologies and telecommunications systems, and other electronic methods of care delivery and sharing of information with patients. The evidence base was combined with the opinion of the ASCO Telehealth Expert Panel to develop telehealth standards and guidance. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript. RESULTS: The Expert Panel determined that general guidance on implementing telehealth across general and specialty settings has been published previously and these resources are endorsed. A systematic search for studies on topics specific to oncology resulted in the inclusion of two clinical practice guidelines, 12 systematic reviews, and six primary studies. STANDARDS AND GUIDANCE: Standards and guidance are provided for which patients in oncology can be seen via telehealth, establishment of the doctor-physician relationship, role of allied health professionals, role of advanced practice providers, multidisciplinary cancer conferences, and teletrials in oncology. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Chemotherapy and Targeted Therapy for Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer That is Either Endocrine-Pretreated or Hormone Receptor-Negative: ASCO Guideline Update.

PURPOSE: This guideline updates recommendations of the ASCO guideline on chemotherapy and targeted therapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that is either endocrine-pretreated or hormone receptor (HR)-negative. METHODS: An Expert Panel conducted a targeted systematic literature review guided by a signals approach to identify new, potentially practice-changing data that might translate into revised guideline recommendations. RESULTS: The Expert Panel reviewed abstracts from the literature review and retained 14 articles. RECOMMENDATIONS: Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1-positive MBC may be offered the addition of immune checkpoint inhibitor to chemotherapy as first-line therapy. Patients with triple-negative, programmed cell death ligand-1-negative MBC should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy as first-line treatment, although combination regimens may be offered for life-threatening disease. Patients with triple-negative MBC who have received at least two prior therapies for MBC should be offered treatment with sacituzumab govitecan. Patients with triple-negative MBC with germline BRCA mutations previously treated with chemotherapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC for whom chemotherapy is being considered should be offered single-agent chemotherapy rather than combination chemotherapy, although combination regimens may be offered for highly symptomatic or life-threatening disease. Patients with HR-positive MBC with disease progression on an endocrine agent may be offered treatment with either endocrine therapy with or without targeted therapy or single-agent chemotherapy. Patients with HR-positive MBC with germline BRCA mutations no longer benefiting from endocrine therapy may be offered a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor rather than chemotherapy. No recommendation regarding when a patient's care should be transitioned to hospice or best supportive care alone is possible.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines.

American Society of Clinical Oncology Road to Recovery Report: Learning From the COVID-19 Experience to Improve Clinical Research and Cancer Care.

This report presents the American Society of Clinical Oncology's (ASCO's) evaluation of the adaptations in care delivery, research operations, and regulatory oversight made in response to the coronavirus pandemic and presents recommendations for moving forward as the pandemic recedes. ASCO organized its recommendations for clinical research around five goals to ensure lessons learned from the COVID-19 experience are used to craft a more equitable, accessible, and efficient clinical research system that protects patient safety, ensures scientific integrity, and maintains data quality. The specific goals are: (1) ensure that clinical research is accessible, affordable, and equitable; (2) design more pragmatic and efficient clinical trials; (3) minimize administrative and regulatory burdens on research sites; (4) recruit, retain, and support a well-trained clinical research workforce; and (5) promote appropriate oversight and review of clinical trial conduct and results. Similarly, ASCO also organized its recommendations regarding cancer care delivery around five goals: (1) promote and protect equitable access to high-quality cancer care; (2) support safe delivery of high-quality cancer care; (3) advance policies to ensure oncology providers have sufficient resources to provide high-quality patient care; (4) recognize and address threats to clinician, provider, and patient well-being; and (5) improve patient access to high-quality cancer care via telemedicine. ASCO will work at all levels to advance the recommendations made in this report.

Delivering Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Recommendations and Lessons Learned From ASCO Global Webinars.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASCO launched a Global Webinar Series to address various aspects of cancer care during the pandemic. Here we present the lessons learned and recommendations that have emerged from these webinars. METHODS: Fifteen international health care experts from different global regions and oncology disciplines participated in one of the six 1-hour webinars to discuss the latest data, share their experiences, and provide recommendations to manage cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. These sessions include didactic presentations followed by a moderated discussion and questions from the audience. All recommendations have been transcribed, categorized, and reviewed by the experts, who have also approved the consensus recommendations. RESULTS: The summary recommendations are divided into different categories, including risk minimization; care prioritization of patients; health care team management; virtual care; management of patients with cancer undergoing surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy; clinical research; and recovery plans. The recommendations emphasize the protection of patients and health care teams from infections, delivery of timely and appropriate care, reduction of harm from the interruption of care, and preparation to handle a surge of new COVID-19 cases, complications, or comorbidities thereof. CONCLUSION: The recommendations from the ASCO Global Webinar Series may guide practicing oncologists to manage their patients during the ongoing pandemic and help organizations recover from the crisis. Implementation of these recommendations may improve understanding of how COVID-19 has affected cancer care and increase readiness to manage the current and any future outbreaks effectively.

Safety of antiemetic prophylaxis with HTX-019 as a 30-min infusion in patients with cancer: a retrospective study.

Aim: The NK-1 receptor antagonist HTX-019 (CINVANTI® [aprepitant injectable emulsion]) was approved for preventing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting based on bioequivalence studies in healthy volunteers. The objective of this study was to evaluate HTX-019 safety in cancer patients. Patients & methods: This retrospective analysis evaluated the safety of HTX-019 130 mg 30-min intravenous infusion, as part of a three-drug antiemetic regimen. Results: No treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were deemed related to HTX-019. During treatment cycles, three of 100 patients developed five reversible TEAEs: dyspnea, hot flash, pain, nausea and visual disturbance. Between cycles, six patients had TEAEs of dizziness (three patients), infusion-site events (two patients) and headache (two patients). Conclusion: HTX-019 is safe in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy.

Patterns of Biomarker Testing Rates and Appropriate Use of Targeted Therapy in the First-Line, Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Treatment Setting.

Despite clear clinical benefit and guideline recommendations for predictive biomarker testing and subsequent first-line targeted therapy treatment in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), there is evidence that testing has not been widely embraced in the clinical setting. This study uses clinical pathways to understand biomarker testing patterns and ensuing first-line treatment decisions. Data of patients with metastatic NSCLC were analyzed for testing rates and treatment selection at 7 cancer programs using data input by providers into the pathways software. Findings were analyzed by type of provider (community or academic). Among providers using clinical pathways, biomarker testing rates were high and appropriate selection of targeted therapy was observed. Clinical pathways can act as a tool to assist oncology practices to promote testing of key biomarkers and subsequent selection of appropriate therapy.

Sorafenib Plus Ixabepilone as First-Line Treatment of Metastatic HER2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Sarah Cannon Research Institute Phase I/II Trial.

BACKGROUND: The purposes of the present phase I/II trial were (1) to define tolerable doses of ixabepilone and sorafenib when used in combination and (2) to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of this combination in the treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The eligible patients had human epidermal growth factor receptor-negative MBC and had not received previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. All patients received ixabepilone intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day treatment cycle; sorafenib was administered orally twice daily. Patients in phase II received the maximum doses identified in phase I. The patients were reevaluated after the completion of 3 treatment cycles; treatment continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. A total of 67 patients were required in phase II to demonstrate increased median progression-free survival from 4.2 to 6.2 months (90% power, α = 0.05). RESULTS: Ten patients entered the phase I portion; the maximum tolerated doses were ixabepilone 32 mg/m(2) and sorafenib 400 mg orally twice daily. A total of 76 patients were treated at the phase II dose. The median progression-free survival was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval, 3.5-6.3 months). The overall response rate was 37%. The regimen was difficult to tolerate for many patients; 20 patients discontinued because of toxicity, and dose reductions were frequent. The common toxicities included neutropenia, fatigue, rash, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: The combination of ixabepilone and sorafenib was poorly tolerated as first-line treatment of patients with MBC. The activity of the combination was similar to the activity previously reported with single-agent ixabepilone or taxanes. Further development of this combination is not recommended.

A phase II trial of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and docetaxel as primary treatment of patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Three-drug regimens containing gemcitabine, an anthracycline, and a taxane produce response rates of 70%-90% in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) although accompanied by considerable hematologic toxicity. We explored the combination of gemcitabine/epirubicin/docetaxel as neoadjuvant therapy. Docetaxel was administered weekly to decrease myelosuppression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 110 patients with locally advanced or inflammatory breast cancer received neoadjuvant gemcitabine 800 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) days 1 and 8, epirubicin 75 mg/m2 I.V. day 1, and docetaxel 30 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8, repeated every 21 days for 4 cycles. Then patients had either mastectomy or breast conservation surgery, and pathologic treatment responses were assessed. After surgery, 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8 and docetaxel 35 mg/m2 I.V. days 1 and 8 were administered at 21-day intervals. After patients completed chemotherapy, locoregional radiation therapy and/or anti-estrogen therapy was administered per standard guidelines. RESULTS: Treatment with 4 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine, epirubicin, and weekly docetaxel resulted in an objective response in 79 of 110 patients enrolled (72%; 95% CI, 63-80%). Twenty of 103 patients (19%) who had surgery had pathologic complete response (pCR). Moderate hematologic toxicity was evident during neoadjuvant therapy, with grade 3/4 neutropenia in 41% and febrile neutropenia in 11% of the patients. Protocol-specified dose modifications were required in 35% of the patients, and 58% of the patients used myeloid growth factors. CONCLUSION: The pCR rate of 19% achieved with gemcitabine, epirubicin, and weekly docetaxel confirms previous reports with similar 3-drug regimens. The use of a weekly schedule of docetaxel did not appear to reduce the incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity.

Single-agent gefitinib in patients with untreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer and poor performance status: a Minnie Pearl Cancer Research Network Phase II Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and poor performance status (PS) are often excluded from trials. Gefitinib is a safe oral agent that may benefit these patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-two patients with poor PS and advanced NSCLC were enrolled onto this study of gefitinib 250 mg per day given orally until disease progression, with evaluation at 8 weeks. Eligible patients had no previous chemotherapy, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group PS of 2/3, and stage IIIB/IV NSCLC. Quality of life (QOL) and symptom response (SR) scores were calculated using the Functional Assessment of Cancer-Lung questionnaire. Patient characteristics included a median age of 75 years; PS of 2/3; and bronchoalveolar (n=3), adenocarcinoma (n=29), squamous cell (n=21), large-cell (n=11), and unspecified histology (n=6). Mean treatment duration was 4 months (range, 3 days to 18 months), and median duration of follow-up was 12 months. Grade 3/4 toxicities included rash and diarrhea. RESULTS: Among 70 patients assessed for response, there were 3 partial responses (4%), 32 patients with stable disease (46%), and 18 with progressive disease (26%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 months and 6.3 months, respectively. Six-month and 1-year PFS and OS rates were 35% and 21% and 50% and 24%, respectively. Eighty-two percent and 48% of patients reported improvements or no change in QOL and SR, respectively. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib demonstrates modest efficacy and is well tolerated as initial therapy in advanced NSCLC for patients with poor PS.