Optimization of alert notifications in electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote symptom monitoring systems (AFT-39).

PURPOSE: Clinical benefits result from electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems that enable remote symptom monitoring. Although clinically useful, real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms can overburden nurses. Thus, we aimed to algorithmically identify likely non-urgent alerts that could be suppressed. METHODS: We evaluated alerts from the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) in which oncology practices implemented remote symptom monitoring. Patients completed weekly at-home ePRO symptom surveys, and nurses received real-time alert notifications for severe or worsening symptoms. During parts of the trial, patients and nurses each indicated whether alerts were urgent or could wait until the next visit. We developed an algorithm for suppressing alerts based on patient assessment of urgency and model-based predictions of nurse assessment of urgency. RESULTS: 593 patients participated (median age = 64 years, 61% female, 80% white, 10% reported never using computers/tablets/smartphones). Patients completed 91% of expected weekly surveys. 34% of surveys generated an alert, and 59% of alerts prompted immediate nurse actions. Patients considered 10% of alerts urgent. Of the remaining cases, nurses considered alerts urgent more often when patients reported any worsening symptom compared to the prior week (33% of alerts with versus 26% without any worsening symptom, p = 0.009). The algorithm identified 38% of alerts as likely non-urgent that could be suppressed with acceptable discrimination (sensitivity = 80%, 95% CI [76%, 84%]; specificity = 52%, 95% CI [49%, 55%]). CONCLUSION: An algorithm can identify remote symptom monitoring alerts likely to be considered non-urgent by nurses, and may assist in fostering nurse acceptance and implementation feasibility of ePRO systems.

Clinical Decision Support for Surgery: A Mixed Methods Study on Design and Implementation Perspectives from Urologists.

OBJECTIVES: To assess urologist attitudes toward clinical decision support embedded into the electronic health record and define design needs to facilitate implementation and impact. With recent advances in big data and artificial intelligence, enthusiasm for personalized, data-driven tools to improve surgical decision-making has grown, but the impact of current tools remains limited. METHODS: A sequential explanatory mixed methods study from 2019-2020 was performed. First, survey responses from the 2019 American Urological Association annual census evaluated attitudes toward an automatic clinical decision support tool that would display risk/benefit data. This was followed by the purposeful sampling of 25 urologists and qualitative interviews assessing perspectives on clinical decision support impact and design needs. Bivariable, multivariable, and coding-based thematic analysis were applied and integrated. RESULTS: Among a weighted sample of 12,366 practicing urologists, the majority agreed clinical decision support would help decision-making (70.9%, 95% CI 68.7-73.2%), aid patient counseling (78.5%, 95% CI 76.5-80.5%), save time (58.1%, 95% CI 55.7-60.5%), and improve patient outcomes (42.9%, 95% CI 40.5-45.4%). More years in practice was negatively associated with agreement (p<0.001). Urologists described how clinical decision support could bolster evidence-based care, personalized medicine, resource utilization, and patient experience. They also identified multiple implementation barriers and provided suggestions on form, functionality, and visual design to improve usefulness and ease of use. CONCLUSIONS: Urologists have favorable attitudes toward the potential for clinical decision support in the electronic health record. Smart design will be critical to ensure effective implementation and impact.

Learning to Overcome Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: Lessons From the Field.

#Implementation of #ePROs in real world settings, lessons learned.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Scoping review of values elicitation tools for treatment decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Treatment choices in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involve consideration of tradeoffs between the benefits, toxicities, inconvenience, and costs. Stated preference elicitation methods have been used in the medical field to help evaluate complex treatment decision-making. The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review to assess the evidence base for the use of preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment decision-making from both the patient and provider perspective. METHODS: We performed a scoping review to identify abstracts or manuscripts focused on the role preference elicitation tools or willingness to pay/willingness to accept methods for HCC treatment options among patients, caregivers, and/or providers. Two researchers independently screened full-text references and resolved conflicts through discussion. We summarized key findings, including the type and setting of preference-elicitation tools used for HCC treatment decisions. RESULTS: Ten published abstracts or manuscripts evaluated the role of preference elicitation tools for HCC treatments. The studies revealed several attributes that are considered by patients and providers making HCC treatment decisions. Many of the studies reviewed suggested that while patients place the most value on extending their overall survival, they are willing to forgo overall survival to avoid risks of treatments and maintain quality of life. Studies of physicians and surgeons found that provider preferences are dependent on patient characteristics, provider specialty, and surgeon or hospital-related factors. CONCLUSION: This scoping review explored both patient and physician preferences towards treatment modalities in all stages of HCC. The studies revealed a large scope of potential attributes that may be important to patients and that many patients are willing to forgo survival to maintain quality of life. Further research should explore both preference elicitation of currently available and emerging therapies for HCC as well as the use of this data to develop patient-facing tools to assist in navigating treatment options.

Understanding health-related quality of life measures used in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: A review.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in cancer clinical research, which can be substantially influenced by cancer treatment procedures and medications. The treatment landscape for early-stage (stage I-III) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. In this light, it is important to evaluate the most suitable instruments for HRQoL assessment and timing. Given there is often a requirement for patients with early-stage disease to receive long-term treatment to reduce the risk of disease recurrence after surgery, maintenance or improvement in HRQoL is an important goal of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments. Key challenges with assessing HRQoL relate to the suitability of existing instruments to measure relevant treatment-related adverse effects, consistency in HRQoL assessment approach between similar studies, gaps in data collection and reporting, and interpretation of longitudinal data. Frequent assessments during and after treatment are warranted to capture the true impact of treatment and disease progression on HRQoL, and changes in the relative importance of these factors over time. There is scope for improving existing HRQoL approaches, including ease of use and integration of digital tools to facilitate analysis and interpretation, to enhance the experience of both patients and healthcare professionals. In this narrative review, we discuss key considerations for HRQoL assessment and evaluate the tools currently available to measure HRQoL in NSCLC, many of which were designed with advanced disease in mind. We focus on the key challenges of measuring HRQoL for the specific needs of patients with early-stage disease, and consider future perspectives, to determine the most appropriate HRQoL instruments and analysis methods to use in early-stage NSCLC clinical trials.1.

Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes of a Mobile Health Tool for Radical Cystectomy Recovery.

PURPOSE: Postoperative education and symptom tracking are essential following cystectomy to reduce readmission rates and information overload. To address these issues, an internet-based tool was developed to provide education, alerts, and symptom tracking. We aimed to evaluate the tool's feasibility, acceptability, and impact on complication and readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-three eligible patients over 18 years old scheduled for cystectomy were enrolled. Patients were asked to use the mobile health (mHealth) tool daily for the first 2 weeks, then less frequently up to 90 days after discharge. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize study variables. Feasibility was defined as at least 50% of patients using the tool once a week, and acceptability as patient satisfaction of > 75%. RESULTS: Use of the mHealth tool was feasible, with 90% of patients using it 1 week after discharge, but engagement declined over time to 50%, with technological difficulties being the main reason for nonengagement. Patient and provider acceptability was high, with satisfaction > 90%. Within 90 days, 36% experienced complications after discharge and 30% were readmitted. Engagement with the mHealth application varied but was not statistically associated with readmission (P = .21). CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that the electronic mobile health intervention for patients undergoing cystectomy was feasible, acceptable, and provided valuable educational content and symptom management. Future larger studies are needed to determine the tool's effectiveness in improving patient outcomes and its potential implementation into routine clinical care.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy.

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days. RESULTS: From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86). CONCLUSION: EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Impact of Remote Symptom Monitoring With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Hospitalization, Survival, and Cost in Community Oncology Practice: The Texas Two-Step Study.

PURPOSE: There is raising interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) for symptom monitoring to enhance the quality of cancer care. Step 1 of the Texas Two-Step Study demonstrated successful implementation of an ePRO system in >200 sites of service of a large community oncology practice. We now report step 2 of this study which evaluates the impact of ePROs on outcomes among patients enrolled in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Oncology Care Model (OCM) program. METHODS: This observational study focused on patients with metastatic cancer enrolled in OCM at large community oncology practice located in Texas between July 2020 and December 2020. Patients who completed ≥1 survey via the ePRO tool were included in the study group and were propensity score matched with patients in a control group. Adverse events (AEs; hospitalizations, emergency department visits, deaths) and total cost of care were a priori study outcomes. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests compared continuous and categorical variables, respectively, with multivariable logistic regression for adjustment of covariates. RESULTS: Of 831 patients with metastatic cancer, 458 matched patients (229/group) were identified, with 52% male and a mean age of 74 years. Mean total AEs were lower in the study group compared with control (0.98 v 1.41; P = .007), with decreased hospitalizations (20% v 32.5%; P = .002), emergency visits (38.4% v 42.3%; P > .05), and deaths (11.8% v 16.6%; P > .05). Average number of hospitalizations was lower (0.28 v 0.52; P = .003) with reduced mean duration of hospitalizations (1.9 vs 3.2 d; P = .03). The total cost of care was reduced by an average of $1,146 per member per month. CONCLUSION: Symptom monitoring with ePROs improved quality and value of cancer care delivery by reducing hospitalizations, emergency visits, and deaths while lowering cost of care in a large oncology practice.

Financial Toxicity Monitoring in a Randomized Controlled Trial of Patient-Reported Outcomes During Cancer Treatment (Alliance AFT-39).

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity (FT) affects 20% of cancer survivors and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. No large-scale programs have been implemented to mitigate FT. We evaluated the effect of monthly FT screening as part of a larger patient-reported outcomes (PROs) digital monitoring intervention. METHODS: PRO-TECT (AFT-39) is a cluster-randomized trial of patients undergoing systemic therapy for metastatic cancer. Practices were randomly assigned 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring (PRO practices) or usual care (control practices). Digital monitoring consisted of between-visit online or automated telephone patient surveys about symptoms, functioning, and FT (single-item screening question from Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity) for up to 1 year, with automated alerts sent to practice nurses for concerning survey scores. Clinical team actions in response to alerts were not mandated. The primary outcome of this planned secondary analysis was development or worsening of financial difficulties, assessed via the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 financial difficulties measure, at any time compared with baseline. A randomly selected subset of patients and nurses were interviewed about their experiences with the intervention. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred ninety-one patients were enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control) at 52 US community oncology practices. Overall, 30.2% of patients treated at practices that received the FT screening intervention developed, or experienced worsening of, financial difficulties, compared with 39.0% treated at control practices (P = .004). Patients and nurses interviewed stated that FT screening identified patients for financial counseling who otherwise would be reluctant to seek, or unaware of the availability of, assistance. CONCLUSION: In this report of a secondary outcome from a randomized clinical trial, FT screening as part of routine digital patient monitoring with PROs reduced the development, or worsening, of financial difficulties among patients undergoing systemic cancer therapy.

Real-World Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Tools Integrated in the Electronic Medical Record During Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Feasibility Study.

Purpose Use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools in routine oncology practice can be challenging despite evidence showing they can improve survival, improve patient and practitioner satisfaction, and reduce medical resource utilization. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) may be a group that would particularly benefit from interventions focused on early symptom management. Methods Patients undergoing definitive RT for HNC were enrolled in a feasibility study and received ePRO surveys integrated within the electronic medical record (EMR) on a weekly basis during RT. After completion of each ePRO survey, a radiation oncology registered nurse documented the findings and subsequent interventions within the EMR. Results Thirty-four patients with HNC who received curative RT at a single center were enrolled. The total number of surveys completed was 194 with a median of 7 surveys per patient (range 1-8). There was a total of 887 individual abnormal findings reported on the ePROs, and the authors found that all 887 had a corresponding documented intervention. Post-treatment practitioner questionnaires highlighted that ePROs were felt to be helpful for the care team in providing care to HNC patients. Conclusion For patients with HNC receiving RT, ePROs can be effectively utilized to address patient symptoms within an integrated health care system. Creating an infrastructure for the use of ePROs integrated within the EMR in routine care requires an approach that accounts for local workflows and buy-in from patients and the entire care team.

Evaluating Nurses' Time to Response by Severity and Cancer Stage in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes enables patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between in-person visits. A better understanding of key RSM implementation outcomes is crucial to optimize efficiency and guide implementation efforts. This analysis evaluated the association between the severity of patient-reported symptom alerts and time to response by the health care team. METHODS: This secondary analysis included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States (October 2020-September 2022). Symptom surveys with at least one severe symptom alert were categorized as severe. Response time was categorized as optimal if the alert was closed by a health care team member within 48 hours. Odds ratios (ORs), predicted probabilities, and 95% CIs were estimated using a patient-nested logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 178 patients with breast cancer included in this analysis, 63% of patients identified as White and 85% of patients had a stage I-III or early-stage cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (IQR, 42-65). Of 1,087 surveys included, 36% reported at least one severe symptom alert and 77% had an optimal response time by the health care team. When compared with surveys that had no severe symptom alerts, surveys with at least one severe symptom alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.38). The results were similar when stratified by cancer stage. CONCLUSION: Response times to symptom alerts were similar for alerts with at least one severe symptom compared with alerts with no severe symptoms. This suggests that alert management is being incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or symptom alert severity.

An eHealth symptom and complication management program for cancer patients with newly created ostomies and their caregivers (Alliance): a pilot feasibility randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients with newly created ostomies face complications that reduce quality of life (QOL) and increase morbidity and mortality. This proof-of-concept study examined the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and initial efficacy of an eHealth program titled the "Patient Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System" (PRISMS) during post-ostomy creation care transition. METHODS: We conducted a 2-arm pilot randomized controlled trial among 23 patients who received surgical treatment with curative intent for bladder and colorectal cancer and their caregivers. After assessing QOL, general symptoms, and caregiver burden at baseline, participants were randomly assigned to PRISMS (n = 16 dyads) or usual care (UC) (n = 7 dyads). After a 60-day intervention period, participants completed a follow-up survey and post-exit interview. We used descriptive statistics and t-tests to analyze the data. RESULTS: We achieved an 86.21% recruitment rate and a 73.91% retention rate. Among the PRISMS participants who used the system and biometric devices (n = 14, 87.50%), 46.43% used the devices for ≥ 50 days during the study period. Participants reported PRISMS as useful and acceptable. Compared to their UC counterparts, PRISMS patient social well-being scores decreased over time and had an increased trend of physical and emotional well-being; PRISMS caregivers experienced a greater decrease in caregiver burden. CONCLUSIONS: PRISMS recruitment and retention rates were comparable to existing family-based intervention studies. PRISMS is a useful and acceptable multilevel intervention with the potential to improve the health outcomes of cancer patients needing ostomy care and their caregivers during post-surgery care transition. A sufficiently powered RCT is needed to test its effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04492007. Registration date: 30/07/2020.

Direct Oral Anticoagulants vs Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin and Recurrent VTE in Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In patients with cancer who have venous thromboembolism (VTE) events, long-term anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is recommended to prevent recurrent VTE. The effectiveness of a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) compared with LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE in patients with cancer is uncertain. Objective: To evaluate DOACs, compared with LMWH, for preventing recurrent VTE and for rates of bleeding in patients with cancer following an initial VTE event. Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded, comparative effectiveness, noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted at 67 oncology practices in the US that enrolled 671 patients with cancer (any invasive solid tumor, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, or chronic lymphocytic leukemia) who had a new clinical or radiological diagnosis of VTE. Enrollment occurred from December 2016 to April 2020. Final follow-up was in November 2020. Intervention: Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to either a DOAC (n = 335) or LMWH (n = 336) and were followed up for 6 months or until death. Physicians and patients selected any DOAC or any LMWH (or fondaparinux) and physicians selected drug doses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the recurrent VTE rate at 6 months. Noninferiority of anticoagulation with a DOAC vs LMWH was defined by the upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI for the difference of a DOAC relative to LMWH of less than 3% in the randomized cohort that received at least 1 dose of assigned treatment. The 6 prespecified secondary outcomes included major bleeding, which was assessed using a 2.5% noninferiority margin. Results: Between December 2016 and April 2020, 671 participants were randomized and 638 (95%) completed the trial (median age, 64 years; 353 women [55%]). Among those randomized to a DOAC, 330 received at least 1 dose. Among those randomized to LMWH, 308 received at least 1 dose. Rates of recurrent VTE were 6.1% in the DOAC group and 8.8% in the LMWH group (difference, -2.7%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 0.7%) consistent with the prespecified noninferiority criterion. Of 6 prespecified secondary outcomes, none were statistically significant. Major bleeding occurred in 5.2% of participants in the DOAC group and 5.6% in the LMWH group (difference, -0.4%; 1-sided 95% CI, -100% to 2.5%) and did not meet the noninferiority criterion. Severe adverse events occurred in 33.8% of participants in the DOAC group and 35.1% in the LMWH group. The most common serious adverse events were anemia and death. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults with cancer and VTE, DOACs were noninferior to LMWH for preventing recurrent VTE over 6-month follow-up. These findings support use of a DOAC to prevent recurrent VTE in patients with cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02744092.

Preoperative Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic radiation plus sensitizing chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (chemoradiotherapy) before surgery is standard care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America. Whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) can be used in lieu of chemoradiotherapy is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX (with chemoradiotherapy given only if the primary tumor decreased in size by <20% or if FOLFOX was discontinued because of side effects) as compared with chemoradiotherapy. Adults with rectal cancer that had been clinically staged as T2 node-positive, T3 node-negative, or T3 node-positive who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery were eligible to participate. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Noninferiority would be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 90.2% confidence interval of the hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death did not exceed 1.29. Secondary end points included overall survival, local recurrence (in a time-to-event analysis), complete pathological resection, complete response, and toxic effects. RESULTS: From June 2012 through December 2018, a total of 1194 patients underwent randomization and 1128 started treatment; among those who started treatment, 585 were in the FOLFOX group and 543 in the chemoradiotherapy group. At a median follow-up of 58 months, FOLFOX was noninferior to chemoradiotherapy for disease-free survival (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.92; 90.2% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.14; P = 0.005 for noninferiority). Five-year disease-free survival was 80.8% (95% CI, 77.9 to 83.7) in the FOLFOX group and 78.6% (95% CI, 75.4 to 81.8) in the chemoradiotherapy group. The groups were similar with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.44) and local recurrence (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.44 to 3.16). In the FOLFOX group, 53 patients (9.1%) received preoperative chemoradiotherapy and 8 (1.4%) received postoperative chemoradiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were eligible for sphincter-sparing surgery, preoperative FOLFOX was noninferior to preoperative chemoradiotherapy with respect to disease-free survival. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PROSPECT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01515787.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes During and After Treatment for Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer in the PROSPECT Trial (Alliance N1048).

PURPOSE: The standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer in North America is neoadjuvant pelvic chemoradiation with fluorouracil (5FUCRT). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is an alternative that may spare patients the morbidity of radiation. Understanding the relative patient experiences with these options is necessary to inform treatment decisions. METHODS: PROSPECT was a multicenter, unblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial of neoadjuvant FOLFOX versus 5FUCRT, which enrolled adults with rectal cancer clinically staged as T2N+, cT3N-, or cT3N+ who were candidates for sphincter-sparing surgery. Neoadjuvant FOLFOX was given in six cycles over 12 weeks, followed by surgery. Neoadjuvant 5FUCRT was delivered in 28 fractions over 5.5 weeks, followed by surgery. Adjuvant chemotherapy was suggested but not mandated in both groups. Enrolled patients were asked to provide patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at baseline, during neoadjuvant treatment, and at 12 months after surgery. PROs included 14 symptoms from the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Additional PRO instruments measured bowel, bladder, sexual function, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). RESULTS: From June 2012 to December 2018, 1,194 patients were randomly assigned, 1,128 initiated treatment, and 940 contributed PRO-CTCAE data (493 FOLFOX; 447 5FUCRT). During neoadjuvant treatment, patients reported significantly lower rates of diarrhea and better overall bowel function with FOLFOX while anxiety, appetite loss, constipation, depression, dysphagia, dyspnea, edema, fatigue, mucositis, nausea, neuropathy, and vomiting were lower with 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). At 12 months after surgery, patients randomly assigned to FOLFOX reported significantly lower rates of fatigue and neuropathy and better sexual function versus 5FUCRT (all multiplicity adjusted P < .05). Neither bladder function nor HRQL differed between groups at any time point. CONCLUSION: For patients with locally advanced rectal cancer choosing between neoadjuvant FOLFOX and 5FUCRT, the distinctive PRO profiles inform treatment selection and shared decision making.

The Feasibility, Acceptability, and Effectiveness of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring for Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Toxicities: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Increasing use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in routine cancer care will increase the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Systems are needed to support remote monitoring for irAEs. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) symptom monitoring systems can help monitor and manage symptoms and side effects. We assessed the content and features of ePRO symptom monitoring systems for irAEs, and their feasibility, acceptability, and impact on patient outcomes and health care utilization. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2022 on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Quantitative and qualitative data relevant to the review questions were extracted and synthesized in tables. RESULTS: Seven papers describing five ePRO systems were included. All systems collected PROs between clinic visits. Two of five used validated symptom questionnaires, 3/5 provided prompts to complete questionnaires, 4/5 provided reminders to self-report, and 3/5 provided clinician alerts for severe/worsening side effects. Four of five provided coverage of ≥26/30 irAEs in the ASCO irAE guideline. Feasibility and acceptability were demonstrated with consent rates of 54%-100%, 17%-27% of questionnaires generating alerts, and adherence rates of 74%-75%. One paper showed a reduction in grade 3-4 irAEs, treatment discontinuation, clinic visit duration, and emergency department presentations, while another showed no difference in these outcomes or the rate of steroid use. CONCLUSION: There is preliminary evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO symptom monitoring for irAEs. However, further studies are needed to confirm the impact on ICI-specific outcomes, such as the frequency of grade 3-4 irAEs and duration of immunosuppression. Suggestions for the content and features of future ePRO systems for irAEs are provided.