Patient-Reported Adverse Events and Early Treatment Discontinuation Among Patients With Multiple Myeloma.

Importance: There is substantial interest in capturing cancer treatment tolerability from the patient's perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Objective: To examine whether a PRO question, item 5 from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General General Physical Wellbeing Scale (GP5), was associated with early treatment discontinuation (ETD) due to adverse events. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective survey study was conducted from February to April 2023. Among participants in the ECOG-ACRIN E1A11 trial (a phase 3, parallel design trial conducted between 2013 and 2019), patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma were randomized to receive bortezomib (VRd) or carfilzomib (KRd) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone as induction therapy. The GP5 item was administered at baseline (pretreatment) and at 1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months postbaseline. Eligible participants included patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated at community oncology practices or academic medical centers in the US. Exposures: GP5 response options were "very much," "quite a bit," "somewhat," "a little bit," and "not at all." Responses at each assessment while undergoing treatment (1 month, 2.8 months, and 5.5 months) were categorized as high adverse event bother (ie, "very much," and "quite a bit") and low adverse event bother (ie, "somewhat," "a little bit," or "not at all"). In addition, change from baseline to each assessment while undergoing treatment was calculated and categorized as worsening by 1 response category and 2 or more response categories. Main Outcome and Measure: ETD due to adverse events (yes vs no) was analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for treatment group, performance status, gender, race, and disease stage. Results: Of the 1087 participants in the original trial, 1058 (mean [SD] age 64 [9] years; 531 receiving VrD [50.2%]; 527 receiving KRd [49.8%]) responded to item GP5 and were included in the secondary analysis. A small proportion (142 patients [13.4%]) discontinued treatment early due to AEs. For those with high adverse-effect bother, GP5 while undergoing treatment was associated with ETD at 1 month (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.20; 95% CI, 1.25-3.89), 2.8 months (aOR, 3.41; 95% CI, 2.01-5.80), and 5.5 months (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.69-12.83). Worsening by 2 or more response categories on the GP5 was associated with ETD at 2.8 months (aOR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.64-5.54) and 5.5 months (aOR, 5.49; 95% CI, 1.45-20.76). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of the E1A11 trial, worse GP5 response was associated with ETD. These findings suggest that simple assessment of adverse-effect bother while receiving treatment is an efficient way to indicate treatment tolerability and ETD risk.

The challenge of using patient reported outcome measures in clinical practice: how do we get there?

BACKGROUND: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) become available to clinicians for routine clinical decision-making, many wonder how to define a meaningful change in a patient's PROM score. Some PROMs have a specific threshold that indicates meaningful change, but since those numbers are based on population averages, they do not necessarily apply to the varying experiences of each individual patient. Rather than viewing this as a weakness of PROMs, it is worth considering how clinicians use other existing measures in clinical decision-making-and whether PROMs can be used similarly. BODY: An informal survey of 43 clinicians reported using measures such as weight, blood pressure, and blood chemistry to inform clinical decision-making. Although clinicians were very consistent with what constituted a meaningful change for some measures (e.g., ECOG performance status), other measures had considerable variability (e.g., weight), often informed by their specialization (for example, differing thresholds for meaningful weight change for adult primary care, pediatrics, and oncology). For interpreting change in measures, they relied on clinical experience (44%), published literature (38%), and established guidelines (35%). In open-response comments, many clarified that the results of any measure had to be taken in the context of each individual patient before making treatment decisions. In short, clinicians already apply individualized clinical judgment when interpreting score changes in existing clinical measures. As clinicians gain familiarity with PROMs, PROMs will likely be utilized in the same way. CONCLUSION: Like other clinical measures from weight to blood chemistry, change in a PROM score is but one piece of a patient's clinical story. Rather than relying on a hard-and-fast number for defining clinically meaningful change in a PROM score, providers should-and many already do-consider the full scope of a patient's experience as they make treatment decisions.

[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.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Importance of Low- and Moderate-Grade Adverse Events in Patients' Treatment Experience and Treatment Discontinuation: An Analysis of the E1912 Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite defined grades of 1 to 5 for adverse events (AEs) on the basis of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events criteria, mild (G1) and moderate (G2) AEs are often not reported in phase III trials. This under-reporting may inhibit our ability to understand patient toxicity burden. We analyze the relationship between the grades of AEs experienced with patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation. METHODS: We analyzed a phase III Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network trial with comprehensive AE data. The Likert response Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-GP5 item, "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" was used to define side-effect bother. Bayesian mixed models were used to assess the impact of G1 and G2 AE counts on patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation. AEs were further analyzed on the basis of symptomatology (symptomatic or asymptomatic). The results are given as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% credible interval (CrI). RESULTS: Each additional G1 and G2 AEs experienced during a treatment cycle increased the odds of increased self-reported patient side-effect bother by 13% (95% CrI, 1.06 to 1.21) and 35% (95% CrI, 1.19 to 1.54), respectively. Furthermore, only AEs defined as symptomatic were associated with increased side-effect bother, with asymptomatic AEs showing no association regardless of grade. Count of G2 AEs increased the odds of treatment discontinuation by 59% (95% CrI, 1.32 to 1.95), with symptomatic G2 AEs showing a stronger association (OR, 1.75; 95% CrI, 1.28 to 2.39) relative to asymptomatic G2 AEs (OR, 1.45; 95% CrI, 1.12 to 1.89). CONCLUSION: Low- and moderate-grade AEs are related to increased odds of increased patient side-effect bother and treatment discontinuation, with symptomatic AEs demonstrating greater magnitude of association than asymptomatic. Our findings suggest that limiting AE capture to grade 3+ misses important contributors to treatment side-effect bother and discontinuation.

An observational, patient-reported outcome study of sleep quality and depression among individuals with overactive bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder (OAB) can adversely affect health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and adherence to treatments; however, the extent of their association is unknown. This study sought to characterize Sleep Disturbance, Depression, Fatigue, and patient-reported medication adherence among adults with OAB in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this descriptive, observational study, patients completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of urinary symptoms, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and medication adherence. PRO scores were compared across age, sex, body mass index, and sleep and antidepressant medication-taking subgroups. Exploratory analyses compared PRO scores between groups and estimated the effect size of differences. RESULTS: Of 1013 patients contacted, 159 completed the assessments (female: 67.3%; ≥65 years of age: 53.5%; most severe OAB symptom: nocturia). Scale scores for Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression were consistent with US population norms. No correlations of moderate or greater magnitude were observed between the severity of lower urinary tract symptoms and Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, or Depression. When comparing individuals receiving antidepressants with those who were not, almost all outcomes including urinary symptoms, anxiety, and depression were significantly worse. Patients taking antidepressants also had poorer adherence to their OAB medications. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of individuals with OAB, Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression scores were in line with general population reference values; however, among the subgroups analyzed, patients on antidepressants had worse HRQoL and more substantial impacts on medication adherence, highlighting the importance of the assessment and management of depression in this population.

Face Name Associative Memory Exam and biomarker status in the ARMADA study: Advancing reliable measurement in Alzheimer's disease and cognitive aging.

The Face Name Associative Memory Exam (FNAME) was introduced into the NIH Toolbox as part of the ARMADA study and establishes normative data for diverse participants, ages 64 to 85+, and proposes cutoff scores between biomarker positive versus negative (+/-) groups. The FNAME was administered to 257 participants across the clinical spectrum with 122 having amyloid biomarkers. Linear regression explored the association between demographics and FNAME and between amyloid (+/-) groups. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) identified performance thresholds that best discriminated between biomarker (+/-) individuals. Lower FNAME scores occurred in males, older ages, Black/African Americans, Hispanics, and biomarker-positive participants. ROC analyses demonstrated acceptable accuracy (0.73 to 0.77) but only when combined with clinical status. The diagnostic discrimination of amyloid positivity was acceptable but not excellent, suggesting the FNAME may be a better screening indicator of clinical status rather than amyloid deposition in cognitively normal individuals. Normative data are provided.

Using IT to Improve Outcomes for Children Living With Cancer (SyMon-SAYS): Protocol for a Single-Institution Waitlist Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Children and adolescents with cancer may experience multiple disease- and treatment-related symptoms that negatively affect health-related quality of life. Routine symptom surveillance thus constitutes an important component of supportive care in pediatric oncology. The Symptom Monitoring and Systematic Assessment and Reporting System in Young Survivors (SyMon-SAYS) system will administer, score, interpret, and display the results of symptom assessments captured weekly using patient-reported outcomes presented via the electronic health record (EHR) portal between clinic visits in oncology ambulatory settings, when patients are likely to be more symptomatic. This study is testing a digital system for routine symptom surveillance that includes EHR-based reports to clinicians and alerts for severe symptoms. OBJECTIVE: In this randomized trial, we are examining the effects of the SyMon-SAYS system on perceived barriers to symptom management, self-efficacy, and symptom severity. Better self-management and timely clinical intervention to address symptoms promote adherence to treatment plans, strengthen child and parent self-efficacy, improve interactions between children, parents, and their clinical providers, and optimize clinical outcomes. METHODS: The SyMon-SAYS system is integrated into the EHR to streamline the presentation of symptom scores and delivery of alerts for severe symptoms to clinicians using EHR (Epic) messaging functionalities. Children (aged 8 to 17 years) complete the weekly symptom assessment and review the symptom report by logging into the patient portal (Epic MyChart). This single-institution waitlist randomized controlled trial is recruiting 200 children (aged 8-17 years) with cancer and their parents, guardians, or caregivers. Participating dyads are randomly assigned to receive the intervention over 16 weeks (Group A: 16-week SyMon-SAYS intervention; Group B: 8-week usual care and then an 8-week SyMon-SAYS intervention). Analyses will (1) evaluate the efficacy of SyMon-SAYS at week 8 and the maintenance of those effects at week 16; (2) evaluate factors associated with those efficacy outcomes, including contextual factors, adherence to the SyMon-SAYS intervention, demographic characteristics, and clinical factors; and (3) evaluate predictors of adherence to the SyMon-SAYS intervention and preference of SyMon-SAYS versus usual care. RESULTS: Data collection is currently in progress. We hypothesize that at 8 weeks, those receiving the SyMon-SAYS intervention will report decreased parent-perceived barriers to managing their children's symptoms, increased parent and child self-efficacy, decreased child symptom burden, and ultimately better child health-related quality of life, compared to waitlist controls. Feasibility, acceptability, and engagement from the perspectives of the children with cancer, their parents, and their clinicians will be examined using mixed methods. CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate that this system will facilitate prompt identification of problematic symptoms. Additionally, we hypothesize that with the availability of graphical symptom reports over time, and timely provider responses, children or parents will become better informed and take an active role in managing their symptoms, which will further improve clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04789720; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04789720. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50993.

Establishing a common metric for physical function: Linking SARC-F and PROMIS® physical function.

INTRODUCTION: Aligned with the increasing need for standardized assessment of physical function in older individuals with cancer and other conditions, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed and published. The aim of this study is to link the Strength, Assistance with walking, Rising from a chair, Climbing stairs, and Falls questionnaire (SARC-F), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Physical Function Short Form 8c (PROMIS PF 8c), and make their scores convertible, in order to expand the use of both instruments in research and inform clinicians and researchers about the interchangeability of critical cut-off scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The sample included 300 participants recruited from an online panel. Participants were included if they had received a cancer diagnosis from a clinician and reported receiving anti-cancer treatment. We conducted five linking procedures and selected an optimal one to generate the crosswalk table between the two measures. RESULTS: The linked T scores of all five methods showed acceptably small mean differences from the observed T scores, and the standard deviation (SD), and root-mean-squared deviation (RMSD) of the differences were generally similar across all methods. After comparing across all statistics, the Stocking-Lord approach was considered as the optimal approach to compute the crosswalk table for converting SARC-F raw scores to PROMIS PF 8c scores. The crosswalk table shows that the SARC-F cut-off value of 4 between healthy versus symptomatic with a corresponding score of 37 fell in the range of moderate physical function limitation from 30 to 39 on the PROMI PF 8c T score metric. DISCUSSION: The linkage in this study has potential for improving clinical and research activities for people with cancer and perhaps others with a similar range of physical function. It facilitates the interpretability in scores of both measures on a common metric anchored on general population for further group-level analysis. Researchers can use this crosswalk to harmonize data collected from either instrument without requiring all cohorts to administer the same instrument for a prospective data collection or retrospective data analysis purpose or for a cross-study effectiveness study.

Monitoring Adverse Effects of Radiation Therapy in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: The FACT-HN-RAD Patient-Reported Outcome Measure.

Importance: Patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) experience a range of debilitating adverse effects (AEs). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to quantify these AEs are a necessary and important component of health care; however, currently available PRO options often measure only disease-related symptoms or AEs of non-RT treatments. Objective: To develop a brief PRO measure of the most common AEs associated with RT for HNSCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a qualitative study that followed the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines to develop a brief measure of patient-reported RT-related AEs (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Radiotherapy [FACT-HN-RAD] measure). The study included (1) a literature review of clinical trials; (2) secondary analysis of retrospective concept elicitation interviews (CEIs); (3) electronic surveys of practicing radiation oncologists; (4) mapping of existing items to inform the development of the draft version of the measure; and (5) validation of content and face validity via patient cognitive interviews. Analysis was performed of CEI data and interviews with practicing radiation oncologists. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2022, to April 21, 2023. Exposures: Surveys and qualitative interviews. Main Outcomes and Measures: The most common patient-reported RT-related AEs among patients with HNSCC. Results: Of 19 CEI participants, 14 (mean [range] age, 67 [49-86] years; 12 [86%] men and 2 [14%] women) described RT-related AEs and were included in the secondary analysis. Eleven (79%) patients reported difficulty swallowing; 8 (57%), oral pain; 7 (50%), dry mouth; 7 (50%), weight loss; 6 (43%), skin burning; 5 (36%), loss of taste; 5 (36%), voice changes (36%); and 5 (36%), fatigue. Nine radiation oncologists (mean [range] time in practice, 8 [1-42] years; 5 [56%] men and 4 [44%] women) reported the most common AEs: 9 (100%) reported dysgeusia; 7 (78%), xerostomia; 7 (78%), mucositis or oral pain; 8 (89%), dysphagia or odynophagia; 6 (67%), dermatitis; and 3 (33%), fatigue. Together these data informed the development of an 8-item AE-focused measure of pain, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, voice changes, dermatitis, fatigue, and weight loss. Cognitive interviews with 10 patients (mean [range] age, 61 [29-84] years; 8 [80%] men and 2 [20%] women) demonstrated strong face validity; all (100%) reported that the measure reflected their experience with RT and stated that the length of the questionnaire was "just right." Conclusions and Relevance: The 8-item FACT-HN-RAD measure captures the most common patient- and physician-reported AEs related to RT for HNSCC. This measure offers a means to serially monitor patient-reported treatment-related AEs and recovery over time in both clinical and research settings. Future work will evaluate the psychometric validity of the measure.

Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. METHODS: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Does Scoring Method Impact Estimation of Significant Individual Changes Assessed by Patient-Reported Outcome Measures? Comparing Classical Test Theory Versus Item Response Theory.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the ability of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) scores assessed by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures to identify significant individual changes in the setting of clinical studies, using both simulated and empirical data. METHODS: We used simulated data to compare the estimation of significant individual changes between CTT and IRT scores across different conditions and a clinical trial data set to verify the simulation results. We calculated reliable change indexes to estimate significant individual changes. RESULTS: For small true change, IRT scores showed a slightly higher rate of classifying change groups than CTT scores and were comparable with CTT scores for a shorter test length. Additionally, IRT scores were found to have a prominent advantage in the classification rates of change groups for medium to high true change over CTT scores. Such an advantage became prominent in a longer test length. The empirical data analysis results using an anchor-based approach further supported the above findings that IRT scores can more accurately classify participants into change groups than CTT scores. CONCLUSIONS: Given that IRT scores perform better, or at least comparably, in most conditions, we recommend using IRT scores to estimate significant individual changes and identify responders to treatment. This study provides evidence-based guidance in detecting individual changes based on CTT and IRT scores under various measurement conditions and leads to recommendations for identifying responders to treatment for participants in clinical trials.

General population reference values for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung and PROMIS-29.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic advances in lung cancer have turned attention toward patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as important clinical outcomes. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) is a common endpoint in lung cancer trials. This study calculated FACT-L reference values for the United States (US) general population. METHODS: Adults from the US general population (N = 2001) were surveyed between September 2020 and November 2020. Surveys contained 126 questions, including the FACT-L [36 items; FACT-G and four subscales (Physical Well-Being [PWB], Social Well-Being [SWB], Emotional Well-Being [EWB], and Functional Well-Being [FWB]) and the Lung Cancer Subscale (LCS), and a Trial Outcome Index (TOI)]. Reference values for each FACT-L scale were calculated with means for the total sample and separately for participants with: no comorbidities, COVID-19 as only comorbidity, no COVID-19. RESULTS: In the total sample, the reference scores were as follows: PWB = 23.1; SWB = 16.8; EWB = 18.5; FWB = 17.6; FACT-G = 76.0; LCS = 23.0, TOI = 63.7, and FACT-L Total = 99.0. Scores were lower for those reporting a prior diagnosis of COVID-19, especially for SWB (15.7) and FWB (15.3). SWB scores were lower than previous references values. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide US general adult population reference value set for FACT-L. While some of the subscale results were lower than those found in the reference data for other PROMs, these data were obtained in a more contemporaneous time frame juxtaposed with the COVID-19 pandemic and may represent a new peri-pandemic norm. Thus, these reference values will be useful for future clinical research.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Assessing Fatigue in Patients Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy Using PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is a debilitating symptom for many patients receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Patient-reported outcome measures can help clinicians identify and manage fatigue efficiently. We assessed the measurement characteristics of the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-F CAT) in patients receiving KRT using the previously validated Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 198 adults treated with dialysis or recipients of a kidney transplant in Toronto, Canada. PREDICTORS: Demographic data, FACIT-F scores, KRT type. OUTCOME: Measurement properties of PROMIS-F CAT T scores. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Reliability and test-retest reliability were assessed using standard errors of measurement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Construct validity was assessed using correlation and comparisons across predefined groups expected to have different levels of fatigue. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the discrimination of PROMIS-F CAT, with clinically relevant fatigue defined by a FACIT-F score of≤30. RESULTS: Of the 198 participants, 57% were male, the mean±SD age was 57±14 years; 65% had received a kidney transplant. Based on the FACIT-F score, 47 patients (24%) had clinically relevant fatigue. PROMIS-F CAT and FACIT-F were strongly correlated (ρ =-0.80, P<0.001). PROMIS-F CAT had excellent reliability (>0.90 for 98% of sample), and good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The ROC analysis demonstrated outstanding discrimination (area under ROC=0.93 [95%, CI 0.89-0.97]). A PROMIS-F CAT cutoff score of≥59 accurately identified most patients with clinically relevant fatigue (sensitivity=0.83; specificity=0.91). LIMITATIONS: A convenience sample of clinically stable patients. FACIT-F items are a part of the PROMIS-F item bank, although there was minimal overlap with only 4 FACIT-F items completed in PROMIS-F CAT. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-F CAT has robust measurement properties with low question burden to assess fatigue among patients with KRT.

Reducing the pressures of outpatient care: the potential role of patient-reported outcomes.

The global demand for hospital treatment exceeds capacity.The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this issue, leading to increased backlogs and longer wait times for patients. The amount of outpatient attendances undertaken in many settings is still below pre-pandemic levels and this, combined with delayed referrals, means that patients are facing delays in treatment and poorer health outcomes. Use of digital health technologies, notably the use of remote symptom monitoring systems based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), may offer a solution to reduce outpatient waiting lists and tailor care to those in greatest need. Drawing on international examples, the authors explore the use of electronic PRO systems to triage clinical care. We summarise the key benefits of the approach and also highlight the challenges for implementation, which need to be addressed to promote equitable healthcare delivery.

Effectiveness and implementation of an electronic health record-integrated digital health intervention for managing depressive symptoms in ambulatory oncology: The My Well-Being Guide study rationale and protocol.

BACKGROUND: Rates of clinically elevated depressive symptoms among ambulatory oncology patients are higher than in the general population and are associated with poorer health-related quality of life. Furthermore, a reduction in depressive symptoms may be associated with improved cancer survival. Several interventions have demonstrated efficacy in reducing oncologic depressive symptoms, including cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM). However, more work is needed to understand how to best implement CBSM into practice, such as through stepped-care approaches and digital health interventions linked to electronic health records (EHR). This manuscript presents the protocol of the My Well-Being Guide study, a pragmatic type 1 effectiveness-implementation hybrid study. This trial will test the effectiveness of My Well-Being Guide, a seven-week structured, CBSM-based digital health intervention designed to reduce depressive symptoms. This trial will also evaluate My Well-Being Guide's implementation across two health systems. METHODS: The final sample (N = 4561) will be oncology patients at Northwestern Medicine or University of Miami Health System who are ≥18 years of age; have a cancer diagnosis; elevated depressive symptoms on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression; and primary language is English or Spanish. Data collection will occur at baseline, and 2-, 6-, and 12-months post baseline. Outcome domains include depressive symptoms and implementation evaluation. DISCUSSION: This study may provide valuable data on the effectiveness of our depressive symptom management digital health intervention linked to the EHR and the scalability of digital health interventions in general.

Medical Oncologists' Knowledge and Perspectives on the Use of Biosimilars in the United States.

PURPOSE: Despite increasing availability of biosimilar cancer treatments, little is known about oncologists' knowledge and concerns regarding biosimilar use in the United States. We surveyed medical oncologists to examine their knowledge, attitudes, and experience with biosimilars. METHODS: Oncologists recruited via the ASCO Research Survey Pool completed a 29-question survey in 2020 designed with input from clinical and health care system experts and literature review. RESULTS: Of the 269 respondents, most treated patients with biosimilars (n = 236, 88%) and reported that biosimilars were required at their institution (n = 168, 63%). Approximately half (n = 140, 52%) of oncologists correctly responded that biosimilars were not the same as generic medicines. Commonly reported barriers to use of biosimilars included concerns regarding a perceived lack of relevant research (n = 85, 33% reporting quite a bit/very much), the potential for extrapolation (n = 83, 33%), and efficacy limitations (n = 77, 30%). More oncologists from university hospitals (n = 36, 22%) than from community/private hospitals (n = 28, 38%) or private practices (n = 13, 38%) were concerned about biosimilar efficacy. A high proportion of oncologists reported that information on safety (n = 259, 99%) and efficacy (n = 255, 99%) is important when considering whether to use biosimilars. Less than half reported that their institution provided education about biosimilars (n = 108, 40%). CONCLUSION: In this sample of medical oncologists, knowledge about basic features of biosimilars was limited and access to information about biosimilars was insufficient. The present study determined that educational programs on biosimilars for oncologists are needed and identified priorities for such efforts.