Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work.

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients' quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization-inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization-outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.

Tools to facilitate communication during physician-patient consultations in cancer care: An overview of systematic reviews.

Tools have been developed to facilitate communication and support information exchange between people diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Patient-reported outcome measures, question prompt lists, patient-held records, tape recordings of consultations, decision aids, and survivorship care plans have all been promoted as potential tools, and there is extensive literature exploring their impact on patient outcomes. Eleven systematic reviews of studies evaluating tools to facilitate patient-physician communication were reviewed and summarized in this overview of systematic reviews. Across the systematic reviews, 87 publications reported on 84 primary studies involving 15,381 participants. Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures and feedback of results to clinicians can improve pain management, physician-patient communication, and symptom detection and control; increase utilization of supportive care; and increase patient involvement in care. Question prompt lists can increase the number of questions asked by patients without increasing consultation length and may encourage them to reflect and plan questions before the consultation. There is limited benefit in audio recording consultations or using patient-held records during consultations. Physicians should be supported by adequately resourced health services to respond effectively to the range of clinical and broader patient needs identified through the routine use of tools to facilitate communication.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Equitable Care for Hypertension: Blood Pressure and Patient-Reported Outcomes of the RICH LIFE Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Disparities in hypertension control are well documented but underaddressed. METHODS: RICH LIFE (Reducing Inequities in Care of Hypertension: Lifestyle Improvement for Everyone) was a 2-arm, cluster randomized trial comparing the effect on blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP ≤140 mm Hg, diastolic BP ≤90 mm Hg), patient activation, and disparities in BP control of 2 multilevel interventions, standard of care plus (SCP) and collaborative care/stepped care (CC/SC). SCP included BP measurement standardization, audit and feedback, and equity-leadership training. CC/SC added roles to address social or medical needs. Primary outcomes were BP control and patient activation at 12 months. Generalized estimating equations and mixed-effects regression models with fixed effects of time, intervention, and their interaction compared change in outcomes at 12 months from baseline. RESULTS: A total of 1820 adults with uncontrolled BP and ≥1 other risk factors enrolled in the study. Their mean age was 60.3 years, and baseline BP was 152.3/85.5 mm Hg; 59.4% were women; 57.4% were Black, 33.2% were White, and 9.4% were Hispanic; 74% had hyperlipidemia; and 45.1% had type 2 diabetes. CC/SC did not improve BP control rates more than SCP. Both groups achieved statistically and clinically significant BP control rates at 12 months (CC/SC: 57.3% [95% CI, 52.7%-62.0%]; SCP: 56.7% [95% CI, 51.9%-61.5%]). Pairwise comparisons between racial and ethnic groups showed overall no significant differences in BP control at 12 months. Patients with coronary heart disease showed greater achievement of BP control in CC/SC than in SCP (64.0% [95% CI, 54.1%-73.9%] versus 50.8% [95% CI, 42.6%-59.0%]; P=0.04), as did patients in rural areas (67.3% [95% CI, 49.8%-84.8%] versus 47.8% [95% CI, 32.4%-63.2%]; P=0.01). Individuals in both arms experienced statistically and clinically significant reductions in mean systolic BP (CC/SC: -13.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.2 to -12.5]; SCP: -14.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -15.9 to -13.2]) and diastolic BP (CC/SC: -6.9 mm Hg [95% CI, -7.8 to -6.1]; SCP: -5.5 mm Hg [95% CI, -6.4 to -4.6]) over time. The difference in diastolic BP reduction between CC/SC and SCP over time was statistically significant (-1.4 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.6 to -0.2). Patient activation did not differ between arms. CC/SC showed greater improvements in patient ratings of chronic illness care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care score) over 12 months (0.12 [95% CI, 0.02-0.22]). CONCLUSIONS: Adding a collaborative care team to enhanced standard of care did not improve BP control but did improve patient ratings of chronic illness care.

Single-Incision Mini-Slings for Stress Urinary Incontinence in Women.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, synthetic midurethral slings (made of mesh or tape) were the standard surgical treatment worldwide for female stress urinary incontinence, if conservative management failed. Data comparing the effectiveness and safety of newer single-incision mini-slings with those of standard midurethral slings are limited. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing mini-slings with midurethral slings among women at 21 U.K. hospitals during 36 months of follow-up. The primary outcome was patient-reported success (defined as a response of very much or much improved on the Patient Global Impression of Improvement questionnaire) at 15 months after randomization (approximately 1 year after surgery). The noninferiority margin was 10 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 298 women were assigned to receive mini-slings and 298 were assigned to receive midurethral slings. At 15 months, success was reported by 212 of 268 patients (79.1%) in the mini-sling group and by 189 of 250 patients (75.6%) in the midurethral-sling group (adjusted risk difference, 4.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.7 to 11.8; P<0.001 for noninferiority). At the 36-month follow-up, success was reported by 177 of 246 patients (72.0%) and by 157 of 235 patients (66.8%) in the respective groups (adjusted risk difference, 5.7 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.3 to 12.8). At 36 months, the percentage of patients with groin or thigh pain was 14.1% with mini-slings and 14.9% with midurethral slings. Over the 36-month follow-up period, the percentage of patients with tape or mesh exposure was 3.3% with mini-slings and 1.9% with midurethral slings, and the percentage who underwent further surgery for stress urinary incontinence was 2.5% and 1.1%, respectively. Outcomes with respect to quality of life and sexual function were similar in the two groups, with the exception of dyspareunia; among 290 women responding to a validated questionnaire, dyspareunia was reported by 11.7% in the mini-sling group and 4.8% in the midurethral-sling group. CONCLUSIONS: Single-incision mini-slings were noninferior to standard midurethral slings with respect to patient-reported success at 15 months, and the percentage of patients reporting success remained similar in the two groups at the 36-month follow-up. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research.).

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.

Disorders of gut-brain interaction are characterized by chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in the absence of abnormal endoscopic or radiologic findings or objective biomarkers that can be identified during routine clinical evaluation. The assessment of the symptom pattern and severity, therefore, is the key modality to evaluate the presence, impact, and evolution of these conditions, for both clinical and regulatory purposes. Patient-reported outcomes are structured symptom assessment questionnaires designed to evaluate symptom patterns, quantify severity of symptoms, and evaluate response to treatment at follow-up. This review provides an overview of currently available patient-reported outcomes for evaluating the main disorders of gut-brain interaction, specifically, functional dyspepsia; irritable bowel syndrome; and chronic constipation. It summarizes their content, level of validation for clinical practice and for research, and the regulatory approach to these conditions. Expected future developments and need for further research on patient-reported outcomes for these and other disorders of gut-brain interaction are highlighted.

A Randomized Trial of Two Remote Health Care Delivery Models on the Uptake of Genetic Testing and Impact on Patient-Reported Psychological Outcomes in Families With Pancreatic Cancer: The Genetic Education, Risk Assessment, and Testing (GENERATE) Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Genetic testing uptake for cancer susceptibility in family members of patients with cancer is suboptimal. Among relatives of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), The GENetic Education, Risk Assessment, and TEsting (GENERATE) study evaluated 2 online genetic education/testing delivery models and their impact on patient-reported psychological outcomes. METHODS: Eligible participants had ≥1 first-degree relative with PDAC, or ≥1 first-/second-degree relative with PDAC with a known pathogenic germline variant in 1 of 13 PDAC predisposition genes. Participants were randomized by family, between May 8, 2019, and June 1, 2021. Arm 1 participants underwent a remote interactive telemedicine session and online genetic education. Arm 2 participants were offered online genetic education only. All participants were offered germline testing. The primary outcome was genetic testing uptake, compared by permutation tests and mixed-effects logistic regression models. We hypothesized that Arm 1 participants would have a higher genetic testing uptake than Arm 2. Validated surveys were administered to assess patient-reported anxiety, depression, and cancer worry at baseline and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: A total of 424 families were randomized, including 601 participants (n = 296 Arm 1; n = 305 Arm 2), 90% of whom completed genetic testing (Arm 1 [87%]; Arm 2 [93%], P = .014). Arm 1 participants were significantly less likely to complete genetic testing compared with Arm 2 participants (adjusted ratio [Arm1/Arm2] 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.78-0.98). Among participants who completed patient-reported psychological outcomes questionnaires (Arm 1 [n = 194]; Arm 2 [n = 206]), the intervention did not affect mean anxiety, depression, or cancer worry scores. CONCLUSIONS: Remote genetic education and testing can be a successful and complementary option for delivering genetics care. (Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT03762590).

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the ongoing, randomised, double-blind phase 3 TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab, a PD-L1 inhibitor, plus gemcitabine and cisplatin was associated with significant improvements in overall survival compared with placebo, gemcitabine, and cisplatin in people with advanced biliary tract cancer at the pre-planned intermin analysis. In this paper, we present patient-reported outcomes from TOPAZ-1. METHODS: In TOPAZ-1 (NCT03875235), participants aged 18 years or older with previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 and one or more measurable lesions per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST; version 1.1) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the durvalumab group or the placebo group using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. Participants received 1500 mg durvalumab or matched placebo intravenously every 3 weeks (on day 1 of the cycle) for up to eight cycles in combination with 1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 25 mg/m2 cisplatin intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles. Thereafter, participants received either durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy intravenously every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Randomisation was stratified by disease status (initially unresectable vs recurrent) and primary tumour location (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma vs gallbladder cancer). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed as a secondary outcome in all participants who completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's 30-item Quality of Life of Cancer Patients questionnaire (QLQ-C30) and the 21-item Cholangiocarcinoma and Gallbladder Cancer Quality of Life Module (QLQ-BIL21). We calculated time to deterioration-ie, time from randomisation to an absolute decrease of at least 10 points in a patient-reported outcome that was confirmed at a subsequent visit or the date of death (by any cause) in the absence of deterioration-and adjusted mean change from baseline in patient-reported outcomes. FINDINGS: Between April 16, 2019, and Dec 11, 2020, 685 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned, 341 to the durvalumab group and 344 to the placebo group. Overall, 345 (50%) of participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Data for the QLQ-C30 were available for 318 participants in the durvalumab group and 328 in the placebo group (median follow-up 9·9 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·1]). Data for the QLQ-BIL21 were available for 305 participants in the durvalumab group and 322 in the placebo group (median follow-up 10·2 months [IQR 6·7 to 14·3]). The proportions of participants in both groups who completed questionnaires were high and baseline scores were mostly similar across treatment groups. For global health status or quality of life, functioning, and symptoms, we noted no difference in time to deterioration or adjusted mean changes from baseline were observed between groups. Median time to deterioration of global health status or quality of life was 7·4 months (95% CI 5·6 to 8·9) in the durvalumab group and 6·7 months (5·6 to 7·9) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·87 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·12]). The adjusted mean change from baseline was 1·23 (95% CI -0·71 to 3·16) in the durvalumab group and 0·35 (-1·63 to 2·32) in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of durvalumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin did not have a detrimental effect on patient-reported outcomes. These results suggest that durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin is a tolerable treatment regimen in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Trastuzumab deruxtecan versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer (DESTINY-Breast02): patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In DESTINY-Breast02, patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer who received trastuzumab deruxtecan demonstrated superior progression-free and overall survival compared with those receiving treatment of physician's choice. We present the patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and hospitalisation data. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial conducted at 227 clinical sites globally, enrolled patients had to be aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer that had progressed on trastuzumab emtansine and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) using block randomisation (block size of 3) to receive trastuzumab deruxtecan (5·4 mg/kg intravenously once every 21 days) or treatment of physician's choice by an independent biostatistician using an interactive web-based system. Patients and investigators remained unmasked to treatment. Treatment of physician's choice was either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14) plus trastuzumab (8 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 then 6 mg/kg once per day) or capecitabine (1000 mg/m2) plus lapatinib (1250 mg orally once per day on days 1-21), with a 21-day schedule. The primary endpoint, which was progression-free survival based on blinded independent central review, has previously been reported. PROs were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients randomly assigned to the study) using the oncology-specific European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), breast cancer-specific EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Breast 45 (QLQ-BR45), and the generic HRQoL EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Analyses included change from baseline and time to definitive deterioration for PRO variables of interest and hospitalisation-related endpoints. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03523585, and is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: Between Sept 6, 2018, and Dec 31, 2020, 608 patients were randomly assigned to receive either trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=406; two did not receive treatment) or treatment of physician's choice (n=202; seven did not receive treatment). Overall, 603 patients (99%) were female and five (<1%) were male. The median follow-up was 21·5 months (IQR 15·2-28·4) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and 18·6 months (IQR 8·8-26·0) in the treatment of physician's choice group. Median treatment duration was 11·3 months (IQR 6·2-20·5) in the trastuzumab deruxtecan group and approximately 4·5 months in the treatment of physician's choice group (4·4 months [IQR 2·5-8·7] with trastuzumab; 4·6 months [2·1-8·9] with capecitabine; and 4·5 months [2·1-10·6] with lapatinib). Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS) scores were similar with trastuzumab deruxtecan (n=393) and treatment of physician's choice (n=187), and remained stable with no clinically meaningful change (defined as ≥10-point change from baseline) over time. Median time to definitive deterioration was delayed with trastuzumab deruxtecan compared with treatment of physician's choice for the primary PRO variable EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS (14·1 months [95% CI 10·4-18·7] vs 5·9 months [4·3-7·9]; HR 0·5573 [0·4376-0·7099], p<0·0001) and all other prespecified PROs (EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales, EORTC QLQ-BR45 arm and breast symptoms, and EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale). Patient hospitalisation rates were similar in the trastuzumab deruxtecan (92 [23%] of 406) and treatment of physician's choice (41 [20%] of 202) groups; however, median time to hospitalisation was 133 days (IQR 56-237) with trastuzumab deruxtecan versus 83 days (30-152) with treatment of physician's choice. INTERPRETATION: Overall, GHS and quality of life were maintained for both treatment groups, with prespecified PRO variables favouring trastuzumab deruxtecan over treatment of physician's choice, suggesting that despite a longer treatment duration, there was no detrimental impact on patient health-related quality of life with trastuzumab deruxtecan. When considered with efficacy and safety data from DESTINY-Breast02, these results support the overall benefit of trastuzumab deruxtecan for patients with HER2-positive unresectable or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with trastuzumab emtansine. FUNDING: Daiichi Sankyo and AstraZeneca.

Capivasertib and fulvestrant for patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer (CAPItello-291): patient-reported outcomes from a phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: CAPItello-291 is an ongoing phase 3 trial in which capivasertib-fulvestrant significantly improved progression-free survival versus placebo-fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after aromatase inhibitor treatment, in both the overall population and in patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. This study further explored patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL), functioning, symptoms, and symptom tolerability in CAPItello-291. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, which was conducted across 193 hospitals and cancer centres in 19 countries, enrolled women with any menopausal status or men, aged ≥18 years (≥20 years in Japan), with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had relapse or disease progression during or after treatment with an aromatase inhibitor, with or without previous cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or 6 inhibitor therapy. Patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group/WHO performance score of 0 or 1 and could have received up to two previous lines of endocrine therapy and up to one previous line of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using block randomisation (stratified according to the presence or absence of liver metastases, previous use of a CDK4/6 inhibitor [yes vs no], and geographical region) to receive oral capivasertib 400 mg (twice daily for 4 days, followed by 3 days off) plus intramuscular fulvestrant 500 mg (every 14 days for the first three injections, then every 28 days) or placebo with matching fulvestrant dosing. The dual primary endpoint of the trial was investigator-assessed progression-free survival assessed both in the overall population and among patients with PIK3CA, AKT1, or PTEN-altered tumours. The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module (QLQ-C30) and breast module (QLQ-BR23), Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), and Patient Global Impression of Treatment Tolerability (PGI-TT) questionnaires were used to assess patient-reported outcomes. Evaluation of EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23 were secondary endpoints and evaluation of PRO-CTCAE and PGI-TT were pre-defined exploratory endpoints, and these endpoints are the subject of analysis in this Article. Data were collected at baseline and prespecified timepoints. Patient-reported outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients with an evaluable baseline assessment and at least one evaluable post-baseline assessment. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed model with repeated measures for EORTC QLQ-C30 and summarised for QLQ-BR23. Time to deterioration was described using the Kaplan-Meier method. PGI-TT and PRO-CTCAE responses were summarised at each treatment cycle. Patient-reported outcomes were not prospectively powered for statistical comparison. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04305496. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2020, and Oct 13, 2021, 901 patients were enrolled, of whom 708 patients were randomly assigned to receive capivasertib-fulvestrant (n=355) or placebo-fulvestrant (n=353). The median age of the patients was 59 years (IQR 51-67) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 58 years (IQR 49-66) in the placebo-fulvestrant group. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2022), the median duration of follow-up for progression-free survival in censored patients was 13·0 months (IQR 9·1-16·7) for capivasertib-fulvestrant and 12·7 months (IQR 2·0-16·4) for placebo-fulvestrant in the overall population. EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL) scores were maintained from baseline and were similar between treatment groups throughout the study period (difference in mean change from baseline of -2·5 [95% CI -4·5 to -0·6] with capivasertib-fulvestrant vs -5·6 [-7·9 to -3·4] with placebo-fulvestrant; treatment difference 3·1 [95% CI 0·2 to 6·0]). Median time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL was 24·9 months (95% CI 13·8 to not reached) in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group and 12·0 months (10·2 to 15·7) in the placebo-fulvestrant group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·70, 95% CI 0·53 to 0·92). Time to deterioration HRs for all EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 subscale scores showed little difference between the treatment groups, except for diarrhoea, which was worse in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group (HR 2·75, 95% CI 2·01-3·81). In PRO-CTCAE symptom assessment, the proportion of patients reporting loose and watery stools "frequently" or "almost constantly" was 29% higher at cycle 1, day 15 in the capivasertib-fulvestrant group than in the placebo-fulvestrant group, decreasing at subsequent cycles. Other PRO-CTCAE-reported symptoms (rash, mouth or throat sores, itchy skin, and numbness or tingling in hands or feet) were absent or mild in most patients in both groups throughout treatment. According to the PGI-TT, most patients in both groups reported "not at all" or "a little bit" of bother from treatment side-effects. INTERPRETATION: Patient-reported outcomes from CAPItello-291 demonstrated that capivasertib-fulvestrant delayed time to deterioration of GHS/QOL and maintained other dimensions of HRQOL (except symptoms of diarrhoea) similarly to fulvestrant. With the clinical efficacy and manageable safety profile, these exploratory results further support the positive benefit-risk profile of capivasertib-fulvestrant in this population. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Development of a new health-related quality of life measure for people with diabetes who experience hypoglycaemia: the Hypo-RESOLVE QoL.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Valid and reliable patient-reported outcome measures are vital for assessing disease impact, responsiveness to healthcare and the cost-effectiveness of interventions. A recent review has questioned the ability of existing measures to assess hypoglycaemia-related impacts on health-related quality of life for people with diabetes. This mixed-methods project was designed to produce a novel health-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measure in hypoglycaemia: the Hypo-RESOLVE QoL. METHODS: Three studies were conducted with people with diabetes who experience hypoglycaemia. In Stage 1, a comprehensive health-related quality of life framework for hypoglycaemia was elicited from semi-structured interviews (N=31). In Stage 2, the content validity and acceptability of draft measure content were tested via three waves of cognitive debriefing interviews (N=70 people with diabetes; N=14 clinicians). In Stage 3, revised measure content was administered alongside existing generic and diabetes-related measures in a large cross-sectional observational survey to assess psychometric performance (N=1246). The final measure was developed using multiple evidence sources, incorporating stakeholder engagement. RESULTS: A novel conceptual model of hypoglycaemia-related health-related quality of life was generated, featuring 19 themes, organised by physical, social and psychological aspects. From a draft version of 76 items, a final 14-item measure was produced with satisfactory structural (χ2=472.27, df=74, p<0.001; comparative fit index =0.943; root mean square error of approximation =0.069) and convergent validity with related constructs (r=0.46-0.59), internal consistency (α=0.91) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.87). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: The Hypo-RESOLVE QoL is a rigorously developed patient-reported outcome measure assessing the health-related quality of life impacts of hypoglycaemia. The Hypo-RESOLVE QoL has demonstrable validity and reliability and has value for use in clinical decision-making and as a clinical trial endpoint. DATA AVAILABILITY: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the published article and its online supplementary files ( https://doi.org/10.15131/shef. DATA: 23295284.v2 ).

CADA-PRO: A Patient Questionnaire Measuring Key Cognitive, Motor, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes in CADASIL.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) of ischemic type, either sporadic or genetic, as cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), can impact the quality of daily life on various cognitive, motor, emotional, or behavioral aspects. No instrument has been developed to measure these outcomes from the patient's perspective. We thus aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported questionnaire. METHODS: In a development study, 79 items were generated by consensus between patients, family representatives, and cSVD experts. A first sample of patients allowed assessing the feasibility (missing data, floor and ceiling effect, and acceptability), internal consistency, and dimensionality of a first set of items. Thereafter, in a validation study, we tested a reduced version of the item set in a larger sample to assess the feasibility, internal consistency, dimensionality, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: The scale was developed in 44 patients with cSVD and validated in a second sample of 89 individuals (including 43 patients with CADASIL and 46 with another cSVD). The final CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome scale comprised 18 items covering 4 categories of consequences (depression/anxiety, attention/executive functions, motor, and daily activities) of the disease. The proportion of missing data was low, and no item displayed a major floor or ceiling effect. Both the internal consistency and test-retest reliability were good (Cronbach alpha=0.95, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.88). In patients with CADASIL, CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome scores correlated with the modified Rankin Scale, Starkstein Apathy Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Working Memory Index, and trail making test times. In patients with other cSVDs, CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome correlated only with Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and Starkstein Apathy Scale. CONCLUSIONS: The CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome may be an innovative instrument for measuring patient-reported outcomes in future cSVD trials. Full validation was obtained for its use in patients with CADASIL, but further improvement is needed for its application in other cSVDs.

Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures 3 Months After Stroke: A Nationwide Swedish Register-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a well-known association between low socioeconomic status (SES), poor survival, and clinician-reported outcomes after stroke. We aimed to assess socioeconomic differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures 3 months after stroke. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included patients registered with acute stroke in the Swedish Stroke Register 2015-2017. Patient Reported Outcome Measures included activities of daily living (mobility, toileting, and dressing), and poststroke symptoms (low mood, fatigue, pain, and poor general health). Information on SES prestroke was retrieved from Statistics Sweden and defined by a composite measure based on education and income tertiles. Associations between SES and Patient Reported Outcome Measures were analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for confounders (sex and age) and additionally for potential mediators (stroke type, severity, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and living alone). Subgroup analyses were performed for stroke type, men and women, and younger and older patients. RESULTS: The study included 44 511 patients. Of these, 31.1% required assistance with mobility, 18% with toileting, and 22.2% with dressing 3 months after stroke. For poststroke symptoms, 12.3% reported low mood, 39.1% fatigue, and 22.7% pain often/constantly, while 21.4% rated their general health as poor/very poor. Adjusted for confounders, the odds of needing assistance with activities of daily living were highest for patients with low income and primary school education, for example, for mobility, odds ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.89-2.24) compared with patients with high income and university education. For poststroke symptoms, odds of poor outcome were highest for patients with low income and university education (eg, odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.49-2.15] for low mood). Adjustments for potential mediators attenuated but did not remove associations. The associations were similar in ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes and more pronounced in men and patients <65 years old. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial SES-related differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures poststroke. The more severe outcome associated with low SES is more pronounced in men and in patients of working age.

Patient-reported cognitive impairments and objective neuropsychological deficits in young sarcoma patients undergoing chemotherapy and its comparison to healthy controls: A tertiary health care study from India.

The study aims to investigate the patient-reported cognitive deficits and objective neuropsychological functions in younger adult (YA) sarcoma patients (16-40 years of age). Ninety patients and 30 age-matched healthy controls from a single tertiary healthcare hospital, were recruited into four groups: Pre-chemotherapy (Pre Cx), During chemotherapy (During Cx), Post-chemotherapy (Post Cx) and Controls. Neurocognitive functions were assessed subjectively using FACT-Cog v3 questionnaire; objectively using ACE-III and neuropsychological tests (NPT). FACT-Cog scores of During Cx (P = .041) and Post Cx (P = .008) groups were significantly lower than Pre Cx group. ACE-III scores of During Cx (P = .048) and Post Cx (P = .043) groups were lower as compared to Pre Cx group. In addition, reaction times and accuracies of the NPT (Flanker's, Sternberg's and Emotional Stroop tests) were worse (P < .05) in During Cx and Post Cx groups as compared to either Pre Cx or control groups. In the Post Cx group, the dose of chemotherapy showed significant negative correlation with the Sternberg reaction time (P = .040) as well as the scores of language (P = .047), and attention (P = .044) domains of ACE-III. Observations demonstrate that cancer/chemotherapy-related neurocognitive deficits fail to improve even after cessation of treatment, and high dosage of chemotherapy used, could be an underlying factor. This emphasizes the need for developing 'model of care' in these patients for monitoring the side effects, and possible titration in the therapeutic regimen for sarcoma in YA.

Restorabite™: Phase II trial of jaw stretching exercises using a novel device for patients with trismus following head and neck cancer.

Patients treated for oral cancer, may experience restricted mouth opening (trismus). Barriers such as cost have limited the utilization of traditional jaw stretching devices, and consequently, patients experience problems with swallowing, oral care, communication, and cancer surveillance. The safety and efficacy of Restorabite™, a new device designed to overcome these barriers, is evaluated prospectively over 12 months. This phase II investigator-led trial included patients with chronic trismus underwent 10-weeks of trismus therapy using Restorabite™. Safety, adherence, changes in mouth opening, and patient-reported outcomes are presented. 114/120 participants with trismus completed the intervention, and 104 had their progress monitored for 12 months. Thirteen participants withdrew due to tumour recurrence. At the completion of the intervention, mouth opening improved by 10.4 mm (p < .001). This increased to 13.7 mm at 12 months (p < .001). Patient reported outcome all significantly improved and 47 participants were no longer classified as having trismus. There were no serious treatment related adverse events. In patients with trismus following head and neck cancer treatment, a 10-week programme of jaw stretching exercises using Restorbite™ safely improves mouth opening and associated quality of life outcomes with high adherence and the benefits are maintained for 12-months.

Patient-reported outcomes in advanced NSCLC before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: Real-world data from the German prospective CRISP Registry (AIO-TRK-0315).

Patients with lung cancer under treatment have been associated with a high risk of COVID-19 infection and potentially worse outcome, but real-world data on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rare. We assess patients' characteristics and PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in an advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort in Germany. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC from the prospective, multicentre, observational CRISP Registry (NCT02622581) were categorised as pre-pandemic (March 2019 to Feb 2020, n = 1621) and pandemic (March 2020 to Feb 2021, n = 1317). From baseline to month 15, patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was assessed by FACT-L, anxiety and depression by PHQ-4. Association of pandemic status with time to deterioration (TTD) in QoL scales adjusted for potential covariates was estimated using Cox modelling. PROs were documented for 1166 patients (72%) in the pre-pandemic, 979 (74%) in the pandemic group. Almost 60% of patients were male, median age was 66 years, comorbidities occurred in 85%. Regarding HRQoL, mean-change-from-baseline plots hardly differed between both samples. Approximately 15%-21% of patients reported anxiety, about 19%-27% signs of depression. For the pandemic group, TTD was slightly, but statistically significantly, worse for the physical well-being-FACT-G subscale (HR 1.15 [95%CI 1.02-1.30]) and the anxiety-GAD-2 subscale (HR 1.14 [95%CI 1.01-1.29]). These prospectively collected real-world data provide valuable insights into PROs before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in advanced NSCLC. For the patients, the pandemic seemed to be less of a burden than the disease itself, as there was a considerable proportion of patients with anxiety and depression in both groups.

A pooled patient-reported outcomes analysis of moderately hypofractionated proton beam therapy and photon-based intensity modulated radiation therapy for low- or intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize and compare late patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after moderately hypofractionated intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and proton beam therapy (PBT) for localized prostate cancer (PC). METHODS: This multi-institutional analysis included low- or intermediate-risk group PC patients treated with moderately hypofractionated radiation to an intact prostate stratified by treatment modality: IMRT or PBT. The primary outcomes were prospectively collected patient-reported late gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary (GU) toxicity assessed by International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Expanded PC Index Composite (EPIC). Multivariable regression analysis (MVA) controlling for age, race, and risk group tested the effect of time, treatment, and their interaction. RESULTS: 287 IMRT and 485 PBT patients were included. Intermediate risk group (81.2 vs. 68.2%; p < 0.001) and median age at diagnosis (70 vs. 67 years; p < 0.001) were higher in the IMRT group. On MVA, there was no significant difference between modalities. PBT IPSS did not differ from IMRT IPSS at 12 months (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; p = 0.08) or 24 months (OR, 0.99; p = 0.94). PBT EPIC overall GI function at 12 months (OR, 3.68; p = 0.085) and 24 months (OR 2.78; p = 0.26) did not differ from IMRT EPIC overall GI function. At 24 months, urinary frequency was no different between PBT and IMRT groups (OR 0.35; p = 0.096). CONCLUSIONS: This multi-institutional analysis of low- or intermediate-risk PC treated with moderately hypofractionated PBT and IMRT demonstrated low rates of late patient-reported GI and GU toxicities. After covariate adjustment, late GI and GU PROs were not significantly different between PBT or IMRT cohorts.

Incorporating patient-reported outcome data into a predictive calculator for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients.

BACKGROUND: The Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) provides a 1-year overall survival calculator to estimate outcomes for individual patients before they undergo allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) to inform risk. The calculator considers pre-HCT clinical and demographic characteristics, but not patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Because pre-HCT PRO scores have been associated with post-HCT outcomes, the authors hypothesized that adding PRO scores to the calculator would enhance its predictive power. METHODS: Clinical data were obtained from the CIBMTR and the Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network. The PRO measures used were the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplantation. One thousand thirty-three adult patients were included. RESULTS: When adjusted for clinical characteristics, the SF-36 physical component score was significantly predictive of 1-year survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-0.95; p = .0015), whereas the mental component score was not (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.95-1.10; p = 0.6396). The baseline single general health question on the SF-36 was also significantly associated with mortality (HR, 1.91 for those reporting fair/poor health vs. good, very good, or excellent health; 95% CI, 1.33-2.76; p = .0005). The addition of PRO scores to the calculator did not result in a significant change in the model's predictive ability. Self-reported pre-HCT scores were strongly predictive of self-reported health status (odds ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 1.66-6.75; p = .0007) and quality of life (odds ratio, 3.24; 95% CI, 1.93-5.41; p < .0001) after HCT. CONCLUSIONS: The authors confirmed the significant, independent association of pre-HCT PRO scores with overall survival, although adding PRO scores to the survival calculator did not improve its performance. They also demonstrated that a single general health question was as accurate as the full measure for predicting survival, an important finding that may reduce respondent burden and promote its inclusion in routine clinical practice. Validation of these findings should be performed.

Making progress against rare cancers: A case study on neuroendocrine tumors.

In April 2023, the National Cancer Institute offered a roadmap for cancer research to achieve Cancer Moonshot goals. To reach these goals requires making progress for all cancers, not just those that are most common. Achieving progress against rare cancers, as well as common cancers, requires involvement of large clinical research networks. In 2020, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched an initiative on Conducting Rare Disease Research using PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. The purpose of this commentary is to introduce the broader community of cancer researchers to the PCORnet NET-PRO study (comparing the effects of different treatment approaches for neuroendocrine tumors on patient-reported outcomes) thereby demonstrating how researchers can use the PCORnet infrastructure to conduct large-scale patient-centered studies of rare cancers.

Adjuvant platinum versus capecitabine for residual, invasive, triple-negative breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in ECOG-ACRIN EA1131.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment-associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician-rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment-related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391). METHODS: Participants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI-16 treatment side-effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t-tests or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI-16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, -0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the similar frequency of clinician-rated AEs, PROs identified greater on-treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician-rated AEs by characterizing patients' experiences during chemotherapy.