Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs. METHODS: We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland. RESULTS: A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

Real-world effectiveness of systemic anticancer therapy for advanced melanoma in the west of Scotland from 2010 to 2018.

Aim: Assess the real-world effectiveness of systemic anticancer therapy in advanced (unresectable or metastatic) melanoma. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study linking routine healthcare data with systemic anticancer therapy prescriptions for patients starting immunotherapy or targeted treatments between 1 November 2010 and 31 December 2017 in the west of Scotland. Results: Among 362 patients identified, median overall survival varied between 18.5 months (95% CI: 14.4-not estimable) for ipilimumab/nivolumab combination and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.5-7.3) for dabrafenib, but there were differences in the characteristics of each regimen cohort. Raised lactate dehydrogenase levels and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 negatively impacted overall survival. Conclusion: The patients had a shorter median overall survival than those in pivotal trials. This was expected, given that this real-world cohort included patients with poorer prognostic indicators, typically excluded from trials.

Opportunities and challenges when using record linkage of routinely collected electronic health care data to evaluate outcomes of systemic anti-cancer treatment in clinical practice.

The efficacy and safety of cancer medicines as reported from randomised clinical trials do not always translate into similar benefits in routine clinical practice; hence, post-marketing studies are a useful addition to the evidence base. With recent advances in digital infrastructure and the advent of electronically available health records, linkage of routinely collected data has emerged as a promising evaluation method for these studies. This paper discusses the opportunities and challenges when applying an electronic record linkage methodology with respect to systemic anti-cancer therapy by showcasing exemplar studies conducted over a three-year period in Scotland, and highlights some of the potential pitfalls spanning the entire breadth and depth of the research process. Our experiences as an interdisciplinary team indicate that there is scope to conduct large cohort studies to generate results from routine clinical practice within a reasonable time frame; however, close collaboration between researchers, data controllers and clinicians is required in order to obtain valid and meaningful results.

Healthcare Costs for Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Patients Treated with Abiraterone or Enzalutamide.

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the real-world healthcare resource use and direct medical costs for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) patients treated with abiraterone or enzalutamide, in whom chemotherapy is not yet indicated (pre-chemotherapy) or who had previously received docetaxel-based chemotherapy (post-chemotherapy), before commencing these medicines. METHODS: A retrospective cost analysis of mCRPC patients who commenced abiraterone or enzalutamide between 2012 and 2015 was conducted. Routinely collected datasets from the largest health board in Scotland and the UK, Greater Glasgow and Clyde, were linked. They contained information on patient demographics, diagnosis, outpatient consultations, hospital admissions, treatments (abiraterone and enzalutamide), and supportive medicines. Unit costs were obtained from the Scottish Health Service Costs, Personal Social Services Research Unit, and British National Formulary. Generalised linear model-based regression was used to estimate total mean direct costs, and two-part models were used to estimate separate cost components. All models were adjusted for propensity score and key variables. Sensitivity analysis was conducted to explore the impact of hypothetical patient access scheme discounts. RESULTS: Estimated total mean direct medical costs of treating mCRPC patients were similar, albeit with wide and overlapping confidence intervals. Across both treatments, patients who received abiraterone or enzalutamide in a pre-chemotherapy setting incurred the highest total mean direct medical costs. However, post-chemotherapy patients were associated with higher outpatient clinic visits, inpatient hospital admissions, and supportive medicines. Regarding relative contribution to the total mean direct medical cost, the treatment costs were the main contributor, followed by inpatient admissions, outpatient clinic visits, and supportive medicines. CONCLUSION: The total mean direct medical costs were similar for abiraterone and enzalutamide patients. The costs were not driven by the choice of treatment regimen, but treatment setting (pre-chemotherapy or post-chemotherapy indications) and related healthcare resource utilisation. Future studies should focus on economic evaluations, such as cost-effectiveness analyses, using real-world data.

What matters to patients and clinicians when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on health-related quality of life? Consensus-based mixed methods approach in prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To identify what matters to clinicians and patients when discussing cancer medicines' impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). METHODS: A framework of HRQoL domain/domain elements was developed, informed by analysis of published patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), applicable to prostate cancer. Using mixed methods (eDelphi, Nominal Group Technique and questionnaire), prostate cancer clinicians and patients attending prostate cancer clinics and support groups were asked which domains/domain elements would be important to them when discussing the impact prostate cancer medicines have on their HRQoL. RESULTS: Twenty-one clinicians and 71 patients participated from the West of Scotland. Clinicians and patients identified 53/62 domain elements across seven domains as important, of which 32 (60%) were common to both groups. Clinicians placed more importance than patients on Mood & Emotion; in contrast, patients placed importance on a broader range of Symptoms & Side Effects, being informed about their care, and having effective healthcare professional collaboration. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into the similarities and differences between what clinicians and patients think is important when discussing the impact of cancer medicines on HRQoL. Future research should involve exploring the potential for consistency of medicines PROMs across different cancer types to support patient-clinician communication and drive improvements in care.

Use of record linkage to evaluate treatment outcomes and trial eligibility in a real-world metastatic prostate cancer population in Scotland.

PURPOSE: New treatments are introduced into standard care based on clinical trial results. However, it is not clear if these benefits are reflected in the broader population. This study analysed the clinical outcomes of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, treated with abiraterone and enzalutamide, within the Scottish National Health Service. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study using record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data (study period: February 2012 to February 2017). Overall survival (OS) was analysed using Kaplan-Meier methods and Cox Proportional Hazard models; a subgroup analysis comprised potentially trial-eligible patients. RESULTS: Overall, 271 patients were included and 73.8% died during the study period. Median OS was poorer than in the pivotal trials, regardless of medication and indication: 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.6-15.1) and 20.9 months (95% CI 14.9-29.0) for abiraterone, and 12.6 months (95% CI 10.5-18.2) and 16.0 months (95% CI 9.8-not reached) for enzalutamide, post and pre chemotherapy, respectively. Only 46% of patients were potentially "trial eligible" and in this subgroup OS improved. Factors influencing survival included baseline performance status, and baseline prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, and albumin levels. CONCLUSIONS: Poorer prognostic features of non-trial eligible patients impact real-world outcomes of cancer medicines. Electronic record linkage of routinely collected healthcare data offers an opportunity to report outcomes on cancer medicines at scale and describe population demographics. The availability of such observational data to supplement clinical trial results enables patients and clinicians to make more informed treatment decisions, and policymakers to contextualise trial findings.