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.

PRO-Angoff method for remote standard setting: establishing clinical thresholds for the upper digestive disease tool.

BACKGROUND: The Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) Tool™ is used to monitor symptom frequency, intensity, and interference across nine symptom domains and includes two Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains assessing physical and mental health. This study aimed to establish cut scores for updated symptom domains through standard setting exercises and evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of virtual standard setting. METHODS: The extended Angoff method was employed to determine cut scores. Subject matter experts refined performance descriptions for symptom control categories and achieved consensus. Domains were categorized into good, moderate, and poor symptom control. Two cut scores were established, differentiating good vs. moderate and moderate vs. poor. Panelists estimated average scores for 100 borderline patients per item. Cut scores were computed based on the sum of the average ratings for individual questions, converted to 0-100 scale. RESULTS: Performance descriptions were refined. Panelists discussed that interpretation of the scores should take into account the timing of symptoms after surgery and patient populations, and the importance of items asking symptom frequency, severity, and interference with daily life. The good/moderate cut scores ranged from 21.3 to 35.0 (mean 28.6, SD 3.6) across domains, and moderate/poor ranged from 47.5 to 71.3 (mean 54.5, SD 7.0). CONCLUSIONS: Panelists were confident in the virtual standard setting process, expecting valid cut scores. Future studies can further validate the cut scores using patient perspectives and collect patient and physician preferences for displaying contextual items on patient- and physician-facing dashboard.

Extending venous thromboembolism secondary prevention with apixaban in cancer patients. The EVE trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) management guideline recommendations include continued therapeutic anticoagulation while active cancer persists. The Federal Drug Administration label for apixaban for secondary VTE prevention includes a dose reduction to 2.5 mg twice daily after 6 months of treatment. OBJECTIVES: The study's purpose was to determine whether this dose reduction is advisable for cancer-associated VTE. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind trial compared apixaban 2.5 mg with 5 mg twice daily for 12 months among cancer patients with VTE who had completed 6 to 12 months of anticoagulation therapy. The primary outcome was combined major bleeding plus clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. RESULTS: Of 370 patients recruited, 360 were included in the intention-to-treat analyses. Major plus clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding occurred in 16 of 179 patients (8.9%) in the apixaban 2.5 mg group compared with 22 of 181 patients (12.2%) in the 5 mg group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.37; P = .39). Major bleeding occurred in 2.8% of the apixaban 2.5 mg group and in 2.2% of the 5 mg group (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.34-4.66; P = .73). Recurrent VTE or arterial thrombosis occurred in 9 of 179 patients (5.0%) in the apixaban 2.5 mg group and 9 of 181 patients (5.0%) in the 5 mg group (HR, 1.0; 95% CI, 0.40-2.53; P = 1.00). All-cause mortality rates were similar between groups, 13% vs 12% (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.63-2.04; P = .67). CONCLUSION: For secondary prevention of cancer-associated VTE, apixaban 2.5 mg compared with 5 mg twice daily did not lower combined bleeding events (EVE trial NCT03080883).

Relationships Among Health Insurance Literacy, Financial Toxicity, and Sociodemographic Factors in Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The objective of the study was to describe the prevalence of health insurance literacy (HIL) and investigate how patient-reported outcome measures assessing HIL are related to financial toxicity in patients with cancer. METHODS: We assessed HIL and financial toxicity in 404 patients enrolled between December 2019 and January 2021 at two medical centers in the United States. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to explore and test the relationships among the factors and items. We fit structural equation models (SEMs) to find the relationships among the factors and sociodemographic/clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The EFA revealed items loaded on four factors: knowledge about health insurance, confidence related to HIL (HIL confidence), information-seeking behavior related to health insurance, and financial toxicity. The four-factor CFA model had good fit statistics (comparative fit index, 0.960; Tucker-Lewis index, 0.958; root mean square error of approximation, 0.046; and standardized root mean square residual, 0.086). In SEM, income, education level, and race positively predicted knowledge about health insurance. Knowledge about health insurance and number of total lines of cancer treatment was positively associated with HIL confidence. Higher income, older age, and HIL confidence were associated with less financial toxicity. Higher levels of financial toxicity, HIL confidence, and knowledge were associated with greater information-seeking behavior. CONCLUSION: Our findings showed how different aspects of HIL are related to financial toxicity even after adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Future studies should investigate the longitudinal relationships among these factors to help develop interventions to mitigate financial toxicity.

Developing & integrating a mobile application tool into a survivorship clinic for esophageal cancer patients.

Esophageal cancer (EC) patients are living longer due to enhanced screening and novel therapeutics, however, the post-esophagectomy long-term management remains challenging for patients, caregivers, and providers. Patients experience significant morbidity and have difficulty managing symptoms. Providers struggle to manage symptoms, affecting patients' quality of life and complicating care coordination between surgical teams and primary care providers. To address these patient unique needs and create a standardized method for evaluating patient reported long-term outcomes after esophagectomy for EC, our team developed the Upper Digestive Disease Assessment tool, which evolved to become a mobile application. This mobile application is designed to monitor symptom burden, direct assessment, and quantify data for patient outcome analysis after foregut (upper digestive) surgery, including esophagectomy. It is available to the public and enables virtual and remote access to survivorship care. Patients using the Upper Digestive Disease Application (UDD App) must consent to enroll, agree to terms of use, and acknowledge use of health-related information prior to gaining access to the UDD App. The results of patients scores can be utilized for triage and assessment. Care pathways can guide management of severe symptoms in a scalable and standardized method. Here we describe the history, process, and methodology for developing a patient-centric remote monitoring program to improve survivorship after EC. Programs like this that facilitate patient-centered survivorship should be an integral part of comprehensive cancer patient care.

Agreement Between Upper Digestive Disease App and Provider Evaluation of Esophagectomy Symptoms in a Mobile App Tool.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the criterion validity of score thresholds for the Upper Digestive Disease (UDD) App. METHODS: From December 15, 2017, to December 15, 2020, patients presenting after esophagectomy were offered the UDD App concurrent with a provider visit. This tool consists of 67 questions including 5 novel domains. Score thresholds were used to assign patients to a good, moderate, or poor category on the basis of domain scores. Providers were given performance descriptions for each domain and asked to assign patients to a category on the basis of their clinical evaluation. The weighted κ statistic was used to determine the magnitude of agreement between classifications based on the patients' UDD App scores and the providers' clinical evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients in the study (76% male; median age, 63 years [interquartile range, 57-72 years]) reported outcomes using the UDD App. Providers reviewed between 1 and 10 patients at a median time of 296.5 days (interquartile range, 50-975 days) after esophagectomy. The magnitude of agreement between patients and providers was moderate for dysphagia (κ = 0.52; P < .001) and reflux (κ = 0.42; P < .001). Dumping-related hypoglycemia (κ = 0.03; P = .148), gastrointestinal complaints (κ = 0.02; P = .256), and pain (κ = 0.05; P < .184) showed minimal agreement, with providers underestimating the symptoms and problems reported by patients in these domains. CONCLUSIONS: Although there was agreement between UDD App assessment and provider evaluation of dysphagia and reflux after esophagectomy, there was discordance of scoring for dumping-related symptoms and pain. Future research is needed to determine whether thresholds for pain and dumping domains need to be revised or whether additional provider education on performance descriptions is needed.

Identifying meaningful change on PROMIS short forms in cancer patients: a comparison of item response theory and classic test theory frameworks.

BACKGROUND: This study compares classical test theory and item response theory frameworks to determine reliable change. Reliable change followed by anchoring to the change in categorically distinct responses on a criterion measure is a useful method to detect meaningful change on a target measure. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers. Baseline and follow-up assessments at 6 weeks were administered. We investigated short forms derived from PROMIS® item banks on anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain intensity, pain interference, and sleep disturbance. We detected reliable change using reliable change index (RCI). We derived the T-scores corresponding to the RCI calculated under IRT and CTT frameworks using PROMIS® short forms. For changes that were reliable, meaningful change was identified using patient-reported change in PRO-CTCAE by at least one level. For both CTT and IRT approaches, we applied one-sided tests to detect reliable improvement or worsening using RCI. We compared the percentages of patients with reliable change and reliable/meaningful change. RESULTS: The amount of change in T score corresponding to RCICTT of 1.65 ranged from 5.1 to 9.2 depending on domains. The amount of change corresponding to RCIIRT of 1.65 varied across the score range, and the minimum change ranged from 3.0 to 8.2 depending on domains. Across domains, the RCICTT and RCIIRT classified 80% to 98% of the patients consistently. When there was disagreement, the RCIIRT tended to identify more patients as having reliably changed compared to RCICTT if scores at both timepoints were in the range of 43 to 78 in anxiety, 45 to 70 in depression, 38 to 80 in fatigue, 35 to 78 in sleep disturbance, and 48 to 74 in pain interference, due to smaller standard errors in these ranges using the IRT method. The CTT method found more changes compared to IRT for the pain intensity domain that was shorter in length. Using RCICTT, 22% to 66% had reliable change in either direction depending on domains, and among these patients, 62% to 83% had meaningful change. Using RCIIRT, 37% to 68% had reliable change in either direction, and among these patients, 62% to 81% had meaningful change. CONCLUSION: Applying the two-step criteria demonstrated in this study, we determined how much change is needed to declare reliable change at different levels of baseline scores. We offer reference values for percentage of patients who meaningfully change for investigators using the PROMIS instruments in oncology.

Upper Digestive Disease App for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Mixed Methods Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can enable communication of symptoms, function, and quality of life. Mobile devices capture PROs electronically (ePRO). The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of collecting ePROs in esophagectomy patients using the upper digestive disease application (UDD App). METHODS: A single-group, mixed methods design was used to address the study purposes. A convenience sample of esophagectomy patients was recruited after resumption of an oral diet from January 2020 to December 2020. Demographic characteristics (age, sex) and clinical data (surgical procedure) were obtained after informed consent. Participants used the UDD App for 1 year, followed by scripted telephone interviews. Descriptive statistics and thematic analyses of the interviews were the primary data analyses. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients were enrolled (80% male; 62.9 ± 12 years old). Of these, 50 patients initiated 108 evaluations through the UDD app, with 98% completing the questionnaire on the first attempt, indicating feasibility. A subset of 32 patients participated in the scripted telephone interview. Participants (74%) reported high computer literacy; all reported that using the UDD App was easier than or equivalent to a paper form. Interview themes revealed value of the app for identifying problems and enhanced communication with providers and caregivers, with an overall appreciation for the convenience of remote monitoring but concerns about data privacy. CONCLUSIONS: The UDD App is feasible and acceptable for collecting ePROs in esophagectomy patients. Future work will determine whether the UDD App improves symptoms, function, and quality of life.

Effects of patient-reported outcome assessment order.

BACKGROUND: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. METHODS: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. RESULTS: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. CONCLUSION: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Receptivity to a Nurse-Led Symptom Management Intervention Among Highly Symptomatic Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients' quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to "opt-in" to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to "opt-out" if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P < .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. CONCLUSIONS: Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.

Initial validation of a self-report questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework: determinants of clinician adoption of a novel colorectal cancer screening strategy.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for average risk adults age 45 and older continues to be underutilized in the USA. One factor consistently associated with CRC screening completion is clinician recommendation. Understanding the barriers and facilitators of clinical adoption of emerging CRC screening strategies is important in developing effective intervention strategies to improve CRC screening rates. We aimed to develop a questionnaire based on the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to assess determinants of clinical adoption of novel CRC screening strategies, using the multi-target stool DNA test (mt-sDNA; Cologuard®) as an example, and test the psychometric properties of this questionnaire on a sample of US clinicians. METHODS: A web survey was administered between November and December 2019 to a national panel of clinicians including primary care clinicians (PCCs) and gastroenterologists (GIs) to assess 10 TDF constructs with 55 items. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to examine whether the a priori domain structure was supported by the data. Discriminant validity of domains was tested with Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT). Internal consistency for each scale was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Criterion validity was assessed with self-reported mt-sDNA use and mt-sDNA recommendation as the outcomes. RESULTS: Complete surveys were received from 814 PCCs and 159 GIs (completion rate, 24.7% of 3299 PCCs and 29.6% of 538 GIs). Providers were excluded from analysis if they indicated not recommending CRC screening to average-risk patients (final N = 973). The final questionnaire consisted of 38 items covering 5 domains: (1) knowledge; (2) skills; (3) identity and social influence; (4) optimism, beliefs about consequences, and intentions; and (5) environmental context and resources. CFA results confirmed a reasonable fit (CFI = 0.948, SRMR = 0.057, RMSEA = 0.080). The domains showed sufficient discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85), good internal consistency (McDonald's omega > 0.76), and successfully differentiated providers who reported they had ordered mt-sDNA from those who never ordered mt-sDNA and differentiated providers who reported routinely recommending mt-sDNA from those who reported not recommending mt-sDNA. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide initial evidence for the validity and internal consistency of this TDF-based questionnaire in measuring potential determinants of mt-sDNA adoption for average-risk CRC screening. Further investigation of validity and reliability is needed when adapting this questionnaire to other novel CRC screening strategy contexts.

Score equivalence of paper-, tablet-, and interactive voice response system-based versions of PROMIS, PRO-CTCAE, and numerical rating scales among cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The study tests the effects of data collection modes on patient responses associated with the multi-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement System (PROMIS®), and single-item measures such as Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) measures. METHODS: Adult cancer patients were recruited from five cancer centers and administered measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, pain interference, ability to participate in social roles and activities, global mental and physical health, and physical function. Patients were randomized to complete the measures on paper (595), interactive voice response (IVR, 596) system, or tablet computer (589). We evaluated differential item functioning (DIF) by method of data collection using the R software package, lordif. For constructs that showed no DIF, we concluded equivalence across modes if the equivalence margin, defined as ± 0.20 × pooled SD, completely surrounds 95% confidence intervals (CI's) for difference in mean score. If the 95% CI fell totally outside the equivalence margin, we concluded systematic score difference by modes. If the 95% CI partly overlaps the equivalence margin, we concluded neither equivalence nor difference. RESULTS: For all constructs, no DIF of any kind was found for the three modes. The scores on paper and tablet were more comparable than between IVR and other modes but none of the 95% CI's were completely outside the equivalence margins, in which we established neither equivalence nor difference. Percentages of missing values were comparable for paper and tablet modes. Percentages of missing values were higher for IVR (2.3% to 6.5% depending on measures) compared to paper and tablet modes (0.7% to 3.3% depending on measures and modes), which was attributed to random technical difficulties experienced in some centers. CONCLUSION: Across all mode comparisons, there were some measures with CI's not completely contained within the margin of small effect. Two visual modes agreed more than visual-auditory pairs. IVR may induce differences in scores unrelated to constructs being measured in comparison with paper and tablet. The users of the surveys should consider using IVR only when paper and computer administration is not feasible.

Functional Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life Before and After Primary Total Knee Replacement for Patients From Diverse Geographic Regions.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether patient-reported knee function and health status before and after primary total knee replacement (TKR) at an academic medical center differs among patients from diverse geographic regions. METHODS: We assessed patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as measured by the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) in 2855 TKR patients at preprimary and one year postprimary TKR procedure between January 1, 2012 and June 30, 2014. We compared the demographic characteristics, response rates, and changes in OKS, EQ-5D, and EQ visual analog scale among local, regional, and national patient groups. Patient- or hospital-related predictors of the postoperative scores were identified after controlling for preoperative scores on the PRO measures. RESULTS: Local patients had more comorbid conditions. Groups were similar in clinical outcomes such as length of stay at hospital, complication, and reoperation rates. Local, regional, and national patients had similar response rates and reported a similar level of knee function and health-related quality of life before and after TKR. Eighty nine percent had clinically important improvement on OKS, 69% on EQ-5D index, and 28% EQ visual analog scale, and there were no differences among groups in the proportions of clinically meaningful change. Better postoperative PRO scores were associated with older age, shorter hospital stay, fewer comorbidities, nonsmoking status, fewer complications, and private health insurance. CONCLUSION: Some patient characteristics such as comorbidities were greater in the local patient cohort versus the national cohort. Nevertheless, clinical outcomes and PROs were comparable across all geographic tiers.

Non-Squamous, Non-Basal Cell Cancers of the Skin: Exploring Associations Between Site of Disease and Depression.

BACKGROUND: Earlier studies report a direct association between diseases of the skin-particularly those on the face-and depression. However, to our knowledge, such associations have not been examined in patients with non-squamous, non-basal call skin cancers. METHODS: The primary goal was to assess whether malignant skin disease-specifically on the face as opposed to other sites-was associated with depression. The medical records of patients with cutaneous cancer (either primary or metastatic but non-squamous, non-basal cell) were reviewed for the relevant data. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five patients were studied. Only 23 patients (14%) had metastases to the face, and 115 (70%) had a readily viewable skin cancer. Twenty-one patients (13%) developed depression after a diagnosis of cutaneous cancer (of note, the rate of missing data for depression was 37%). Only one patient with facial cutaneous cancer manifested depression, yielding an odds ratio for not developing depression (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 4.4 (0.5,35); p = 0.13. Depression appeared to occur more often in women (62% versus 43%), patients with a history of depression (52% versus 6%), and younger patients (median age with and without depression 55 years and 67 years, respectively). CONCLUSION: In contrast to other cutaneous diseases, no association was found between cutaneous cancer to the face and depression. Nonetheless, high rates of missing data underscore the need to focus on depression in patients with cutaneous cancers in the future.

Establishing a common metric for patient-reported outcomes in cancer patients: linking patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), numerical rating scale, and patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: Researchers and clinicians studying symptoms experienced by people with cancer must choose from various scales. It would be useful to know how the scores on one measure translate to another. METHODS: Using item response theory (IRT) with the single-group design, in which the same sample answers all measures, we produced crosswalk tables linking five 0-10 numeric rating scale (NRS) and 15 items from Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE, scored on a 1-5 scale) to the T-Score metric of six different scales from the NIH Patient reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®). The constructs, for which we conducted linking, include emotional distress-anxiety, emotional distress-depression, fatigue, sleep disturbance, pain intensity, and pain interference. We tested the IRT linking assumption of construct similarity between measures by comparing item content and testing unidimensionality of item sets comprising each construct. We also investigated the correlation of the measures to be linked and, by inspecting standardized mean differences, whether the linkage is invariant across age and gender subgroups. For measures that satisfied the assumptions, we conducted linking. RESULTS: In general, an NRS score of 0 corresponded to about 38.2 on the PROMIS T-Score scale (mean = 50; SD = 10); whereas an NRS score of 10 corresponded to a PROMIS T-Score of approximately 72.7. Similarly, the lowest/best score of 1 on PRO-CTCAE corresponded to 39.8 on T-score scale and the highest/worst score of 5 corresponded to 72.0. CONCLUSION: We produced robust linking between single item symptom measures and PROMIS short forms.

Predictors of Patient-Reported Reflux After Esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported reflux is among the most common symptoms after esophagectomy. This study aimed to determine predictors of patient-reported reflux and to ascertain whether a preserved pylorus would protect patients from symptomatic reflux. METHODS: A prospective clinical study recorded patient-reported reflux after esophagectomy from August 2015 to July 2018. Eligible patients were at least 6 months from creation of a traditional posterior mediastinal gastric conduit, had completed at least 1 reflux questionnaire, and had the pylorus treated either temporarily (≥100 IU Botox [onabotulinumtoxinA]) or permanently (pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty). RESULTS: Of the 110 patients meeting inclusion criteria, the median age was 65 years, and 88 of the 110 (80%) were male. Botox was used in 15 (14%) patients, pyloromyotomy in 88 (80%), and pyloroplasty in 7 (6%). A thoracic anastomosis was performed in 78 (71%) patients, and a cervical anastomosis was performed in 32 (29%). Esophagectomy was performed for malignant disease in 105 of 110 (95%), and 78 of 110 (71%) patients were treated with perioperative chemoradiation. Multivariable linear regression analysis revealed that patient-reported reflux was significantly worse in patients with shorter gastric conduit lengths (P = .02) and in patients who did not undergo perioperative chemoradiation (P = .01). No significant difference was found between patients treated with pyloric drainage and those treated with Botox. CONCLUSIONS: The absence of perioperative chemoradiation therapy and a shorter gastric conduit were predictors of patient-reported reflux after esophagectomy. Although few patients had Botox, preservation of the pylorus did not appear to affect patient-reported reflux. Further objective studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Preliminary Normative Standards of the Mayo Clinic Esophagectomy CONDUIT Tool.

OBJECTIVE: To collect patient-reported outcomes after esophagectomy to establish a set of preliminary normative standards to aid in symptom-score interpretation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing esophagectomy often have little understanding about postoperative symptom management. The Mayo Clinic esophageal CONDUIT tool is a validated questionnaire comprising 5 multi-item symptom-assessment domains and 2 health-assessment domains. A prospective nonrandomized cohort study was conducted on adult patients who have had esophagectomies using the CONDUIT tool from August 17, 2015, to July 30, 2018 (NCT02530983). The Statistical Analysis System v9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC) was used to calculate and analyze the scores. RESULTS: Over the study period, 569 patients were assessed for eligibility, and 241 patients consented and were offered the tool. Of these, 188 patients (median age: 65 years; range: 24 to 87 years; 80% male patients) had calculable scores. Of the 188 patients, 50 (26.6%) patients were identified as potential beneficiaries for educational intervention to improve symptoms (received moderate scores for a domain), and 131 (69.7%) patients were identified as needing further testing or provider intervention (received poor scores for a domain) based on the tool. CONCLUSION: The CONDUIT tool scores, when compared with standardized scales with established preliminary normative scores, could be used to identify and triage patients who need targeted education, further testing, or provider interventions. These score ranges will serve as the first set of normative standards to aid in the interpretation of conduit performance among providers and patients.