A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the implementation of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program in cancer care.

BACKGROUND: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences. METHODS: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%). CONCLUSIONS: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

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.

Modeling the normal:abnormal spectrum of early childhood internalizing behaviors: A clinical-developmental approach for the Multidimensional Assessment Profiles Internalizing Dimensions.

BACKGROUND: We expanded the Multidimensional Assessment Profiles (MAPS) Scales developmental specification model to characterize the normal:abnormal spectrum of internalizing (anxious and depressive) behaviors in early childhood via the MAPS-Internalizing (MAPS-INT) scale. METHODS: The MAPS-INT item pool was generated based on clinical expertise and prior research. Analyses were conducted on a sub-sample of families (n = 183) from the diverse When to Worry early childhood sample. RESULTS: Normal:abnormal descriptive patterns for both anxious and depressive behaviors were consistent with prior work: (1) extremes of normative variation are abnormal when very frequent; and (2) pathognomonic indicators that most children do not engage in and are abnormal, even if infrequent. Factor analysis revealed a two-factor MAPS-INT Anxious Behaviors structure (Fearful-Worried and Separation Distress) and a unidimensional MAPS-INT Depressive Behaviors factor with good fit and good-to-excellent test-retest reliability and validity. CONCLUSIONS: We characterized the normal:abnormal spectrum of internalizing behaviors in early childhood via the MAPS-INT. Future research in larger representative samples can replicate and extend findings, including clinical thresholds and predictive utility. The MAPS-INT helps lay the groundwork for dimensional characterization of the internalizing spectrum to advance neurodevelopmental approaches to emergent psychopathology and its earlier identification.

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.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

A short form of the Crisis in Family Systems (CRISYS) in a racially diverse sample of pregnant women.

Assessing stressful life events in large-scale epidemiologic studies is challenged by the need to measure potential stressful events in a reasonably comprehensible manner balanced with burden on participants and research staff. The aim of this paper was to create a short form of the Crisis in Family Systems-Revised (CRISYS-R) plus 17 acculturation items, a measure that captures contemporary life stressors across 11 domains. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to segment the sample of 884 women from the PRogramming of Intergenerational Stress Mechanisms (PRISM) study experiencing different patterns of exposure to stressful events and identify items from each domain that best discriminate between individuals with different patterns of stressful-event exposures (high vs. low stress exposure). The results from the LCA, in conjunction with the expert opinions provided by the original developers of the CRISYS, yielded a 24-item item short form (CRISYS-SF) with at least one question from each of the original domains. Scores on the 24-item CRISYS-SF had high correlations with scores on the 80-item CRISYS. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02335-w.

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.

Implementation and evaluation of an expanded electronic health record-integrated bilingual electronic symptom management program across a multi-site Comprehensive Cancer Center: The NU IMPACT protocol.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer experience symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Despite existing interventions and clinical guidelines, timely symptom management remains uneven in oncology care. We describe a study to implement and evaluate an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated symptom monitoring and management program in adult outpatient cancer care. METHODS: Our cancer patient-reported outcomes (cPRO) symptom monitoring and management program is a customized EHR-integrated installation. We will implement cPRO across all Northwestern Memorial HealthCare (NMHC) hematology/oncology clinics. We will conduct a cluster randomized modified stepped-wedge trial to evaluate patient and clinician engagement with cPRO. Further, we will embed a patient-level randomized clinical trial to evaluate the impact of an additional enhanced care (EC; cPRO plus web-based symptom self-management intervention) relative to usual care (UC; cPRO alone). The project uses a Type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation approach. The intervention will be implemented across seven regional clusters within the healthcare system comprising 32 clinic sites. A 6-month prospective pre-implementation enrollment period will be followed by a post-implementation enrollment period, during which newly enrolled, consenting patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to EC or UC. We will follow patients for 12 months post-enrollment. Patients randomized to EC will receive evidence-based symptom-management content on cancer-related concerns and approaches to enhance quality of life, using a web-based tool ("MyNM Care Corner"). This design allows for within- and between-site evaluation of implementation plus a group-based comparison to demonstrate effectiveness on patient-level outcomes. DISCUSSION: The project has potential to guide implementation of future healthcare system-level cancer symptom management programs. http://ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT03988543.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

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.

Qualitative development of the PROMIS Profile v1.0-Familial Chylomicronemia Syndrome (FCS) 28.

PURPOSE: Familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) is a rare genetic disorder characterized by high triglyceride levels, significant disease burden, and negative impacts on health-related quality of life. This project aimed to create a PROMIS-based patient-reported outcome measure that represents valid and important concerns for patients with FCS. METHODS: We reviewed the literature and data from a previous qualitative study of FCS to identify key FCS symptoms and impacts, which were mapped to PROMIS domains to create a pool of eligible items. Candidate items were reduced per expert feedback and patients with FCS completed cognitive interviews to confirm content validity and measure content. RESULTS: Literature and qualitative data review identified ten key symptoms and 12 key impacts of FCS, including abdominal pain, fatigue, difficulty thinking, and worry about pancreatitis attacks. We identified 96 items primarily from PROMIS, supplemented with items from the Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders™ (Neuro-QoL™) and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement systems. This pool was reduced to 32 candidate items, which were assessed via cognitive interviews with eight participants with FCS. Cognitive interview results and additional expert feedback led to the removal of four items and finalization of the PROMIS Profile v1.0-familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) 28. CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Profile v1.0-familial chylomicronemia syndrome (FCS) 28 provides strong content validity for assessing quality of life among patients with FCS. The benefits of PROMIS, including norm-referenced mean values for each measure, will facilitate comparison of patients with FCS to other clinical populations.

Patient-reported outcomes labeling for oncology drugs: Multidisciplinary perspectives on current status and future directions.

Introduction: Regulatory agencies encourage the incorporation of the patient voices throughout clinical drug development. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) offer one way of doing this and their use has markedly increased in many therapeutic areas, particularly oncology, in recent years. However, few oncology drug labels include PRO data and those which do, offer little consistency. Objective: To provide multidisciplinary perspectives (patient, pharmaceutical industry, PRO researcher, regulatory expert) on PRO data in oncology drug labels. Methods: PRO data in the labels of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for oncology indications between 2010 and 2020 were critically reviewed by authors who provided their insights on the advantages and disadvantages/gaps. Results: Forty-six oncology drugs included PRO data in their labels. Differences were observed between FDA and EMA PRO labeling (e.g., PRO concept, use of tables and graphs to display PROs or reference to clinical meaningfulness). In providing their perspectives on the number and nature of PROs in labels, authors noted limitations including: the low proportion of oncology drugs with PRO labeling, limited PRO information in labels, lack of patient-friendly language, and potential bias towards positive outcomes. Lack of consistency within- and between-agencies was noted. Conclusion: Despite regulatory agencies' commitment to incorporate patient voices in regulatory decisions, availability of PRO information is limited in oncology drug labels. While several PRO guidance documents are available from regulatory and Health Technology Assessment agencies, harmonization of PRO guidance for labeling inclusion around the world is needed to better inform prescribers and consequently their patients in the process of shared medical decisions.

Development of a learning health system science competency assessment to guide training and proficiency assessment.

Introduction: Learning health systems (LHS) science is fundamentally a transdisciplinary field. To capture the breadth of the competencies of an LHS scientist, AHRQ and national experts defined a series of 42 competencies across seven domains that support success. Clinicians, researchers, and leaders who are new to the LHS field can identify and prioritize proficiency development among these domains. In addition, existing leaders and researchers will assemble teams of experts who together represent the LHS science domains. To serve LHS workforce development and proficiency assessment, the AHRQ-funded ACCELERAT K12 training program recruited domain experts and trainees to define and operationalize items to include in an LHS Competency Assessment to support emerging and existing LHS scientists in prioritizing and monitoring proficiency development. Methods: Sequential interviews with 18 experts iteratively defined skills and tasks to illustrate stage in proficiency, and its progression, for each of 42 competencies in the seven LHS expertise domains: systems science; research questions and standards of scientific evidence; research methods; informatics; ethics of research and implementation in health systems; improvement and implementation science; and engagement, leadership, and research management. An educational assessment expert and LHS scientist refined the assessment criteria at each stage to use parallel language across domains. Last, current trainees reviewed and pilot tested the assessment and the LHS Competency Assessment was further refined using their feedback. The assessment framework was informed by Bloom's revised taxonomy of educational objectives (Anderson and Krathwohl, A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives, 2001) where learning progresses from recalling, defining, understanding, and awareness at the lower levels of the taxonomy, to applying and adopting and finally to creating, designing, and critiquing at the upper levels of the taxonomy. We also developed assessment criteria that could be used for longer term assessment of direct performance. Van der Vleuten et al. (Best Pract Res Clin Obstetr Gynaecol. 2010;24(6):703-719) define longer term direct assessment methods as assessment that occurs over a period ranging from weeks to even years and involves multiple assessment methods and exposure to the learner's work over an extended period. Results: This experience report describes the content of the LHS Competency Assessment. For each domain and competency, the assessment lists examples of evidence to support expertise at each level of proficiency: no exposure; foundational (awareness/understanding); emerging (early application); and proficient (application with a high level of skill). Trainees begin with baseline standard assessment tables, where they can indicate no exposure or mark the foundational and emerging skills with which they have competence. For domains where foundational and emerging skills have been achieved, users can move on to assessment tables that list evidence of proficiency. Conclusion: The LHS Competency Assessment offers consistent, graded criteria across the seven LHS domains to guide trainees and mentors to evaluate progress from no experience to foundational knowledge, emerging proficiency, and proficiency. The assessment can also be used to design training and mentoring for those newly exposed to LHS science and for those with key expertise who wish to expand LHS expertise.

Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue is a reliable and valid measure in patients with active ankylosing spondylitis.

BACKGROUND: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) scale has demonstrated good internal consistency and responsiveness to changes in clinical status among patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). We aimed to further evaluate the psychometric properties of the FACIT-F scale in adult patients with AS. METHODS: Measurement properties of the FACIT-F scale were evaluated using data from tofacitinib phase 2/3 (NCT01786668/NCT03502616) studies in adult patients with active AS. RESULTS: Second-order confirmatory factor modeling supported the measurement structure of the FACIT-F scale (Bentler's comparative fit index ≥ 0.91), and FACIT-F demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient α ≥ 0.88) and test-retest reliability (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient ≥ 0.75). Correlation coefficients between FACIT-F and other patient-reported outcomes generally exceeded 0.40, supporting convergent validity. Meaningful within-patient change was estimated as 3.1-6.3 for FACIT-F total score, and 1.4-2.8 and 1.7-3.6 for FACIT-F Experience and Impact domain scores, respectively. Large (effect size ≥ 1.17 standard deviation units), statistically significant differences in FACIT-F domain/total scores between 'no disease activity' (Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity [PtGA] = 0) and 'very active disease' (PtGA = 10) patient groups supported known-groups validity. Ability to detect change was evidenced by an approximately linear relationship between changes in FACIT-F and PtGA scores. CONCLUSIONS: FACIT-F is a reliable and valid measure for evaluating fatigue in adult patients with active AS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT01786668 (registered 6 February 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01786668 ) and NCT03502616 (registered 11 April 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03502616 ).

Ankylosing spondylitis (AS) is a disease that causes pain and stiffness in the spine. AS is a chronic disease. Most people with AS experience fatigue (a feeling of being very tired or exhausted). People with more severe AS tend to have more fatigue and a lower level of well-being. Because of this, fatigue is an important symptom to measure in studies of AS. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is a questionnaire that measures fatigue. It has 13 questions that assess level of fatigue over a week's time. The FACIT-F has not been studied in depth in people with AS. Therefore, we analyzed results from two clinical trials. We found that FACIT-F was a reliable and valid way to measure fatigue in adults with AS. This makes it a suitable tool to use in AS clinical trials.

Protocol for a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study expanding, implementing and evaluating electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom monitoring in a multisite cancer centre.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer symptom monitoring and management interventions can address concerns that may otherwise go undertreated. However, such programmes and their evaluations remain largely limited to trials versus healthcare systemwide applications. We previously developed and piloted an electronic patient-reported symptom and need assessment ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes) within the electronic health record (EHR). This study will expand cPRO implementation to medical oncology clinics across a large healthcare system. We will conduct a formal evaluation via a stepped wedge trial with a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Aim 1 comprises a mixed method evaluation of cPRO implementation. Adult outpatients will complete cPRO assessments (pain, fatigue, physical function, depression, anxiety and supportive care needs) before medical oncology visits. Results are available in the EHR; severe symptoms and endorsed needs trigger clinician notifications. We will track implementation strategies using the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System. Aim 2 will evaluate cPRO's impact on patient and system outcomes over 12 months via (a) a quality improvement study (n=4000 cases) and (b) a human subjects substudy (n=1000 patients). Aim 2a will evaluate EHR-documented healthcare usage and patient satisfaction. In aim 2b, participating patients will complete patient-reported healthcare utilisation and quality, symptoms and health-related quality of life measures at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We will analyse data using generalised linear mixed models and estimate individual trajectories of patient-reported symptom scores at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Using growth mixture modelling, we will characterise the overall trajectories of each symptom. Aim 3 will identify cPRO implementation facilitators and barriers via mixed methods research gathering feedback from stakeholders. Patients (n=50) will participate in focus groups or interviews. Clinicians and administrators (n=40) will complete surveys to evaluate implementation. We will graphically depict longitudinal implementation survey results and code qualitative data using directed content analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Northwestern University Institutional Review Board (STU00207807). Findings will be disseminated via local and conference presentations and peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04014751; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Assessment of Racial Disparity in Survival Outcomes for Early Hormone Receptor-Positive Breast Cancer After Adjusting for Insurance Status and Neighborhood Deprivation: A Post Hoc Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Racial disparities in survival outcomes among Black women with hormone receptor-positive breast cancer have been reported. However, the association between individual-level and neighborhood-level social determinants of health on such disparities has not been well studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between race and clinical outcomes (ie, relapse-free interval and overall survival) adjusting for individual insurance coverage and neighborhood deprivation index (NDI), measured using zip code of residence, in women with breast cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a post hoc analysis of 9719 women with breast cancer in the Trial Assigning Individualized Options for Treatment, a randomized clinical trial conducted from April 7, 2006, to October 6, 2010. All participants received a diagnosis of hormone receptor-positive, ERBB2-negative, axillary node-negative breast cancer. The present data analysis was conducted from April 1 to October 22, 2021. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: A multivariate model was developed to evaluate the association between race and relapse-free interval and overall survival adjusting for insurance and NDI level at study entry, early discontinuation of endocrine therapy 4 years after initiation, and clinicopathologic characteristics of cancer. Median follow-up for clinical outcomes was 96 months. RESULTS: A total of 9719 women (4.2% [n = 405] Asian; 7.1% [n = 693] Black; 84.3% [n = 8189] White; 4.4% [n = 403] others/not specified) were included; 9.1% of included women [n = 889] were Hispanic or Latino. Median (SD) age was 56 (9.2) years. In multivariate models, Black race compared with White race was associated with statistically significant shorter relapse-free interval (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% CI, 1.05-1.84; P = .02) and overall survival (HR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.10-2.99; P = .009), adjusting for insurance and NDI level at study entry and other factors. Although uninsured status was not associated with clinical outcomes, patients with Medicare (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.01-1.68; P = .04) and Medicaid (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.01-2.05; P = .05) had shorter overall survival compared with those with private insurance. Participants living in neighborhoods in the highest NDI quartile experienced shorter overall survival compared with those in the lowest quartile (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .04), regardless of self-identified race. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings of this post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial suggest that Black women with breast cancer have significantly shorter relapse-free interval and overall survival compared with White women. Early discontinuation of endocrine therapy, clinicopathologic characteristics, insurance coverage, and NDI do not fully explain the observed disparity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00310180.

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.

Correlates of financial toxicity in adult cancer patients and their informal caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Financial toxicity is commonly reported by cancer patients, but few studies have assessed caregiver perceptions. We aimed to validate the modified Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) in cancer caregivers, identify factors associated with financial toxicity in both patients and caregivers, and assess the association of caregiver financial toxicity with patient and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: Using a convenience sampling method, 100 dyads of adult cancer patients and a primary caregiver visiting outpatient oncology clinics (Jan-Sep 2019) were recruited. We assessed the internal consistency and convergent and divergent validity of the modified COST. Multivariable analyses identified correlates of financial toxicity. Association of financial toxicity with care non-adherence, lifestyle-altering behaviors (e.g., home refinance/sale, retirement/saving account withdrawal), and quality of life (QOL) was investigated. RESULTS: Recruited patient vs. caregiver characteristics were as follows: mean age: 60.6 vs. 56.5; 34% vs. 46.4% female; 79% vs. 81.4% white. The caregiver COST measure demonstrated high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.91). In patients, older age (B, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-0.4]) and higher annual household income (B, 14.3 [95% CI, 9.3-19.4]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). In caregivers, lower patient financial toxicity (B, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.2-0.6]) and cancer stages 1-3 (compared to stage 4) (B, 4.6 [95% CI, 0.4-8.8]) correlated with lower financial toxicity (P < 0.05). Increased caregiver financial toxicity correlated with higher care non-adherence in patients, increased lifestyle-altering behaviors, and lower QOL in patients and caregivers (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The COST measure can also be used to assess caregiver financial toxicity. Caregivers' financial toxicity was associated with negative outcomes for both dyad members.

Optimizing brief, focused assessment of priority symptoms and concerns in recurrent and/or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: Content validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Head and Neck Symptom Index-10 (FHNSI-10).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with recurrent and/or metastatic (R/M) squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN) experience vast disease and treatment burdens. Brief, focused instruments are needed to assess patient-reported priority symptoms and concerns as targeted outcome assessments for use in clinical research. Although the instrument was developed based on expert and patient input and is psychometrically valid, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT)/National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Head and Neck Symptom Index-10 (FHNSI-10) has yet to undergo content validation from the perspective of R/M SCCHN patients to evaluate its use as a brief symptom-focused targeted endpoint assessment for use in clinical research. METHODS: Interviews conducted with R/M SCCHN patients explored priority symptoms and concerns, followed by cognitive debriefing of the FHNSI-10 to evaluate face validity. Transcripts were analyzed, and results were mapped to the FHNSI-10. In accordance with published recommendations, expert input from the original development and published literature was considered for content validity assessment. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients participated in a concept elicitation interview; saturation was obtained at interview 17. Most (83%) were undergoing active treatment, male (94%), white (72%), and did not have a college degree (67%). The most commonly mentioned symptoms were lumps/swelling, pain, sore throat, difficulty swallowing, and voice changes. For all items, ≥75% reported each question was relevant to their R/M SCCHN experience and 94% reported the instrument captured their experiences with R/M SCCHN. CONCLUSION: Results provide support for the content validity of the FHNSI-10, inasmuch as all 10 items were spontaneously reported and considered relevant to R/M SCCHN. Content validity might be enhanced by adding cough and hearing impairment items; however, the existing FHNSI-10 covers the majority of symptoms uncovered in interviews with a small sample of R/M SCCHN patients.

Can the Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) Function Subscale Be Linked to the PROMIS Physical Function to Crosswalk Equivalent Scores?

BACKGROUND: An increased focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has led to a proliferation of these measures in orthopaedic surgery. Mandating a single PROM in clinical and research orthopaedics is not feasible given the breadth of data already collected with older measures and the emergence of psychometrically superior measures. Creating crosswalk tables for scores between measures allows providers to maintain control of measure choice. Furthermore, crosswalk tables permit providers to compare scores collected with older outcome measures with newly collected ones. Given the widespread use of the newer Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and the established Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), it would be clinically useful to link these two measures. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Can the KOOS Function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale be robustly linked to the PROMIS PF to create a crosswalk table of equivalent scores that accurately reflects a patient's reported physical function level on both scales? METHODS: We sought to establish a common standardized metric for collected responses to the PROMIS PF and the KOOS ADL to develop equations for converting a PROMIS PF score to a score for the KOOS-ADL subscale and vice versa. To do this, we performed a retrospective, observational study at two academic medical centers and two community hospitals in an urban and suburban healthcare system. Patients 18 years and older who underwent TKA were identified. Between January 2017 and July 2020, we treated 8165 patients with a TKA, 93% of whom had a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Of those, we considered patients who had completed a full KOOS and PROMIS PF 10a on the same date as potentially eligible. Twenty-one percent (1708 of 8165) of patients were excluded because no PROMs were collected at any point, and another 67% (5454 of 8165) were excluded because they completed only one of the required PROMs, leaving 12% (1003 of 8165) for analysis here. PROMs were collected each time they visited the health system before and after their TKAs. Physical function was measured by the PROMIS PF version 1.0 SF 10a and KOOS ADL scale. Analyses to accurately create a crosswalk of equivalent scores between the measures were performed using the equipercentile linking method with both unsmoothed and log linear smoothed score distributions. RESULTS: Crosswalks were created, and adequate validation results supported their validity; we also created tables to allow clinicians and clinician scientists to convert individual patients' scores easily. The mean difference between the observed PROMIS PF scores and the scores converted by the crosswalk from the KOOS-ADL scores was -0.08 ± 4.82. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, confirming the effectiveness of these crosswalks to link the scores of two measures from patients both before and after surgery. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF 10a can be robustly linked to the KOOS ADL measure. The developed crosswalk table can be used to convert PROMIS PF scores from KOOS ADL and vice versa. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The creation of a crosswalk table between the KOOS Function in ADL subscale and PROMIS PF allows clinicians and researchers to easily convert scores between the measures, thus permitting greater choice in PROM selection while preserving comparability between patient cohorts and PROM data collected from older outcome measures. Creating a crosswalk, or concordance table, between the two scales will facilitate this comparison, especially when pooling data for meta-analyses.