Patient Experience in Clinical Trials: Quality of Life, Financial Burden, and Perception of Care in Patients With Multiple Myeloma or Lymphoma Enrolled on Clinical Trials Compared With Standard Care.

PURPOSE: Patients' concerns regarding clinical trial (CT) participation include apprehension about side effects, quality of life (QoL), financial burden, and quality of care. METHODS: We prospectively evaluated the experience of patients with multiple myeloma or lymphoma who were treated on CTs (CT group, n = 35) versus patients treated with standard approaches (non-CT group, n = 88) focusing on QoL, financial burden of care, and patients' perception of quality of care over a 1-year period. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in any of the patient-reported outcomes in CT versus non-CT groups. We observed an initial decline in overall QoL in the first 3 months across both groups, driven primarily by physical and functional well-being. QoL gradually improved and was above baseline by month 12. Patients reported highest improvement in the functional well-being subdomain. Patients in both groups reported high satisfaction with the quality of care received, and there were no differences in overall satisfaction, communication with team, or access to care. At baseline, 16%-19% of patients reported financial burden, which increased to a peak of 33% in the CT group and to 49% in the non-CT group over the course of 1 year. There was no significant difference in financial burden in the two groups overall. Most of the patients reported getting all the care that was deemed medically necessary in both groups. However, a significant proportion of patients reported having to make other kinds of financial sacrifices because of their cancer (CT group: 33% of patients at baseline and 21%-40% over 1 year; non-CT group: 19% at baseline and 25%-36% over 1 year). CONCLUSION: Patients treated on CTs reported comparable QoL and quality of care with the non-CT group. A high proportion of patients reported financial burden over time in both groups. Our findings can serve as a guide to educate patients regarding CT participation and highlight the need to address the significant financial burden experienced by patients with cancer.

Assessment of fixed-duration therapies for treatment-naïve Waldenström macroglobulinemia.

Comparative data guiding initial therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), an infrequently encountered non-Hodgkin lymphoma, are sparse. We evaluated three commonly used rituximab-based frontline regimens: rituximab-bendamustine (R-Benda); dexamethasone, rituximab, cyclophosphamide (DRC); and bortezomib, dexamethasone, rituximab (BDR) in 220 treatment-naïve patients with WM, seen at Mayo Clinic between November 1, 2000 and October 31, 2019. The median follow-up was 4.5 (95%CI: 4-5) years. The R-Benda cohort (n = 83) demonstrated superior overall response rate (ORR: 98%), in comparison to DRC (n = 92, ORR: 78%) or BDR (n = 45, ORR: 84%) cohorts, p = 0.003. Similarly, longer progression-free survival (PFS) was evident with R-Benda use [median 5.2 vs. 4.3 (DRC) and 1.8 years (BDR), p < 0.001]. The time-to-next therapy (TTNT) favored R-Benda [median, not-reached, 4.4 (DRC) and 2.6 years (BDR), p < 0.001). These endpoints were comparable between the DRC and BDR cohorts. Overall survival (OS) was similar across the three cohorts, p = 0.77. In a subset analysis of 142 patients genotyped for MYD88L265P mutation, the ORR, PFS and TTNT were unaffected by the patients' MYD88 signature within each cohort. In conclusion, ORR, PFS and TTNT with R-Benda are superior compared to DRC or BDR in treatment-naïve patients with active WM. The patient outcomes with any one of these three regimens are unaffected by the MYD88L265P mutation status.

Assessment of the Need for a Hematology-Specific Fellowship Curriculum for Advanced Practice Providers Using a Needs-Based Survey.

PURPOSE: Subspecialty training programs rarely are available for advanced practice providers (APPs). New curricula are needed to prepare APPs with the skills and knowledge required to deliver high-quality care in hematology and blood and marrow transplantation (BMT). METHODS: A Web-based needs assessment survey was distributed to APPs currently working in hematology and BMT at three Mayo Clinic sites (Rochester, MN; Scottsdale, AZ; and Jacksonville, FL). The survey assessed participants' perceptions of readiness to practice in hematology after completion of their APP education and identified APP learning needs. RESULTS: Of 68 APPs, 49 (72%; 34 nurse practitioners, 15 physician assistants) completed the survey. Twenty-eight APPs (57%) were new graduates, and 17 (35%) had no prior experience in hematology/BMT. All APPs held a master's degree or higher (doctorate, 31%). Thirty-nine (80%) reported that less than 5% of their APP school curriculum was hematology focused. More than 90% felt unprepared to practice in hematology or BMT after their APP education and believed that hematology-specific training could improve their competency as providers and positively affect job satisfaction. APPs reported that they would like more formal training in the following areas of clinical focus: malignant and benign hematologic disorders, hematopathology, palliative care, transfusion medicine, infectious disease, and hematology-related pharmacology. They also preferred the following learning strategies: active learning from patient care, case-based teaching, and experience during hospital rounds. CONCLUSION: This needs-based assessment project confirmed the necessity to develop a hematology-specific fellowship for APPs and helped to optimize the curriculum.