Emotional and functional well-being in long-term breast cancer survivorship.

PURPOSE: Emotional and functional well-being (EWB and FWB) are important components of mental health and quality of life. This study aims to evaluate long-term EWB and FWB in breast cancer (BC) survivors. METHODS: The Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3 oversampled Black and younger (< 50 years in age) women so that they each represent approximately 50% of the study population and assessed participants' EWB and FWB with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) at 5- (baseline), 25-, and 84-months post diagnosis. Multinomial logit models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and well-being change relative to baseline. RESULTS: Among 2,781 participants with BC, average EWB and FWB improved with time since diagnosis. Persistent FWB decrements were associated with Black race [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), at 25-months and 84-months respectively], older age [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8), respectively], no chemotherapy, and recurrence [OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.8-4.8) and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.6), respectively]. EWB decrements were associated with advanced stage and recurrence. Decrements in combined (FWB+EWB) well-being were associated with recurrence at both follow-up survey timepoints [ORs 4.7 (95% CI 2.7-8.0) and 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-6.6), respectively]. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term well-being varies by demographics and clinical features, with Black women and women with aggressive disease at greatest risk of long-term decrements.

Real-world treatment patterns and outcomes for patients with advanced melanoma treated with immunotherapy or targeted therapy.

OBJECTIVE: To identify real-world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. METHODS: The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results-medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan-Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub-category and calendar year. RESULTS: The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA-4 + PD-1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA-4 inhibitor to a second line PD-1 inhibitor. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD-1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015.

An Exploratory Analysis of the "Was It Worth It?" Questionnaire as a Novel Metric to Capture Patient Perceptions of Cancer Treatment.

OBJECTIVES: Asking "Was it worth it?" (WIWI) potentially captures the patient perception of a treatment's benefit weighed against its harms. This exploratory analysis evaluates the WIWI questionnaire as a metric of patients' perspectives on the worthwhileness of cancer treatment. METHODS: A 3-item WIWI questionnaire was assessed at end of treatment in patients with cancer on the COMET-2 trial (NCT01522443). WIWI items were evaluated to determine their association with quality of life (QOL), treatment duration, end-of-treatment reason, patient-reported adverse events (AEs), and disease response. RESULTS: A total of 65 patients completed the questionnaire; 40 (62%), 16 (25%), and 9 (14%) patients replied yes, uncertain, and no to "Was it worthwhile for you to receive the cancer treatment given in this study?" (item 1), respectively; 39 (60%), 12 (18%), and 14 (22%) to "If you had to do it over again, would you choose to have this cancer treatment?"; and 40 (62%), 14 (22%), and 11 (17%) to "Would you recommend this cancer treatment to others?" Patients responding yes to item 1 remained on treatment longer than those responding uncertain or no (mean 23.0 vs 11.3 weeks, P<.001). Patients responding uncertain/no to item 1 discontinued treatment because of AEs more frequently than those responding yes (36% vs 7.5%, P=.004) and demonstrated meaningful decline in QOL from baseline (-2.5 vs -0.2 mean change, P<.001). Associations between WIWI responses and most patient-reported AEs or treatment efficacy did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded affirmatively on WIWI items remained on therapy longer, were less likely to stop treatment because of AEs, and demonstrated superior QOL. The WIWI may inform clinical practice, oncology research, and value frameworks.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Mapping the Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer to the SF-6D.

PURPOSE: To create a crosswalk that predicts Short Form 6D (SF-6D) utilities from Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) scores. METHODS: The data come from prostate cancer patients enrolled in the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS, N = 1016). Cross-sectional data from 12- to 24-month follow-up were used as estimation and validation datasets, respectively. Participants' SF-12 scores were used to generate SF-6D utilities in both datasets. Beta regression mixture models were used to evaluate SF-6D utilities as a function of MAX-PC scores, race, education, marital status, income, employment status, having health insurance, year of cancer diagnosis and clinically significant prostate cancer-related anxiety (PCRA) status in the estimation dataset. Models' predictive accuracies (using mean absolute error [MAE], root mean squared error [RMSE], Akaike information criterion [AIC] and Bayesian information criterion [BIC]) were examined in both datasets. The model with the highest prediction accuracy and the lowest prediction errors was selected as the crosswalk. RESULTS: The crosswalk had modest prediction accuracy (MAE = 0.092, RMSE = 0.114, AIC = - 2708 and BIC = - 2595.6), which are comparable to prediction accuracies of other SF-6D crosswalks in the literature. About 24% and 52% of predictions fell within ± 5% and ± 10% of observed SF-6D, respectively. The observed mean disutility associated with acquiring clinically significant PCRA is 0.168 (standard deviation = 0.179). CONCLUSION: This study provides a crosswalk that converts MAX-PC scores to SF-6D utilities for economic evaluation of clinically significant PCRA treatment options for prostate cancer survivors.

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients. METHODS: We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value. RESULTS: Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items. CONCLUSION: Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation.

Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Scant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 119) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized to treatment arms and rated their pain on the average and at its worst during a baseline week and at weeks 3, 6, and 12 of study treatment. For each reporting period, participants rated their pain daily for 7 days. On day 7, participants rated their pain over the prior 7 days. We estimated mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients of the weekly ratings and the mean and the maximum daily ratings. We compared the ability of the weekly ratings and the daily rating descriptors to detect change in pain and evaluated the agreement of the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst to detect treatment response. RESULTS: For both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55-0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's κ = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Use of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting.

Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. METHODS: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). RESULTS: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. CONCLUSION: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

Facility-level characteristics associated with family planning and child immunization services integration in urban areas of Nigeria: a longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Unmet need for postpartum contraception is high. Integration of family planning with routine child immunization services may help to satisfy unmet need. However, evidence about the determinants and effects of integration has been inconsistent, and more evidence is required to ascertain whether and how to invest in integration. In this study, facility-level family planning and immunization integration index scores are used to: (1) determine whether integration changes over time and (2) identify whether facility-level characteristics, including exposure to the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative (NURHI), are associated with integration across facilities in six urban areas of Nigeria. METHODS: This study utilizes health facility data collected at baseline (n = 400) and endline (n = 385) for the NURHI impact evaluation. Difference-in-differences models estimate the associations between facility-level characteristics, including exposure to NURHI, and Provider and Facility Integration Index scores. The two outcome measures, Provider and Facility Integration Index scores, reflect attributes that support integrated service delivery. These indexes, which range from 0 (low) to 10 (high), were constructed using principal component analysis. Scores were calculated for each facility. Independent variables are (1) time period, (2) whether the facility received the NURHI intervention, and (3) additional facility-level characteristics. RESULTS: Within intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 6.46 at baseline and 6.79 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 7.16 (baseline) and 7.36 (endline). Within non-intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 5.01 at baseline and 6.25 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 5.83 (baseline) and 6.12 (endline). Provider Integration Index scores increased significantly (p = 0.00) among non-intervention facilities. Facility Integration Index scores did not increase significantly in either group. Results identify facility-level characteristics associated with higher levels of integration, including smaller family planning client load, family planning training among providers, and public facility ownership. Exposure to NURHI was not associated with integration index scores. CONCLUSION: Programs aiming to increase integration of family planning and immunization services should monitor and provide targeted support for the implementation of a well-defined integration strategy that considers the influence of facility characteristics and concurrent initiatives.

Development of integration indexes to determine the extent of family planning and child immunization services integration in health facilities in urban areas of Nigeria.

BACKGROUND: Integrating family planning into child immunization services may address unmet need for contraception by offering family planning information and services to postpartum women during routine child immunization visits. However, policies and programs promoting integration are often based on insubstantial or conflicting evidence about its effects on service delivery and health outcomes. While integration models vary, many studies measure integration as binary (a facility is integrated or not) rather than a multidimensional and varying continuum. It is thus challenging to ascertain the determinants and effects of integrated service delivery. This study creates Facility and Provider Integration Indexes, which measure capacity to support integrated family planning and child immunization services and applies them to analyze the extent of integration across 400 health facilities. METHODS: This study utilizes cross-sectional health facility (N = 400; 58% hospitals, 42% primary healthcare centers) and healthcare provider (N = 1479) survey data that were collected in six urban areas of Nigeria for the impact evaluation of the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative. Principal Component Analysis was used to develop Provider and Facility Integration Indexes that estimate the extent of integration in these health facilities. The Provider Integration Index measures provider skills and practices that support integrated service delivery while the Facility Integration Index measures facility norms that support integrated service delivery. Index scores range from zero (low) to ten (high). RESULTS: Mean Provider Integration Index score is 5.42 (SD 3.10), and mean Facility Integration Index score is 6.22 (SD 2.72). Twenty-three percent of facilities were classified as having low Provider Integration scores, 32% as medium, and 45% as high. Fourteen percent of facilities were classified as having low Facility Integration scores, 38% as medium, and 48% as high. CONCLUSION: Many facilities in our sample have achieved high levels of integration, while many others have not. Results suggest that using more nuanced measures of integration may (a) more accurately reflect true variation in integration within and across health facilities, (b) enable more precise measurement of the determinants or effects of integration, and (c) provide more tailored, actionable information about how best to improve integration. Overall, results reinforce the importance of utilizing more nuanced measures of facility-level integration.

Elements of Palliative Care in the Last 6 Months of Life: Frequency, Predictors, and Timing.

IMPORTANCE: Persons living with serious illness often need skilled symptom management, communication, and spiritual support. Palliative care addresses these needs and may be delivered by either specialists or clinicians trained in other fields. It is important to understand core elements of palliative care to best provide patient-centered care. OBJECTIVE: To describe frequency, predictors, and timing of core elements of palliative care during the last 6 months of life. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Inpatient academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Decedents with cancer, dementia, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) admitted during the 6 months preceding death. EXPOSURES: We identified receipt and timing of core elements of palliative care: pain and symptom management, goals of care, spiritual care; and specialty palliative care utilization; hospital encounters; demographics; and comorbid diagnoses. We ran Poisson regression models to assess whether diagnosis or hospital encounters were associated with core elements of palliative care. RESULTS: Among 402 decedents, the mean (SD) number of appropriately screened and treated symptoms was 2.9 (1.7)/10. Among 76.1% with documented goals of care, 58.0% had a primary goal of comfort; 55.0% had documented spiritual care. In multivariable models, compared with decedents with cancer, those with dementia or CKD were less likely to have pain and symptom management (respectively, 31% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and 17% (IRR, 0.83; CI, 0.71-0.97)). There was a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-173) between transition to a goal of comfort and death, and a median of 12 days (IQR, 5-47) between hospice referral and death. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although a high proportion of patients received elements of palliative care, transitions to a goal of comfort or hospice happened very near death. Palliative care delivery can be improved by systematizing existing mechanisms, including prompts for earlier goals-of-care discussion, symptom screening, and spiritual care, and by building collaboration between primary and specialty palliative care services.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring and reporting intervention for hospitalized adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

PURPOSE: Patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) have varied symptoms during their hospitalization. This study examined whether daily symptom reporting (with electronic patient-reported outcomes [PROs]) in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced symptom burden on post-transplant days +7, +10, and +14. METHODS: A prospective, single-institution 1:1 pilot randomized, two-arm study recruited HCT patients. HCT inpatients (N = 76) reported daily on 16 common symptoms using the PRO version of the Common Terminology for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Fisher's exact test was used to examine differences in the proportion of patients reporting individual symptoms. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine group differences in peak symptom burden, while controlling for symptom burden at baseline, age, comorbidity, and transplantation type (autologous or allogeneic). RESULTS: HCT patients receiving the PRO intervention also experienced lower peak symptom burden (average of 16 symptoms) at days +7, +10, and +14 (10.4 vs 14.5, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Daily use of electronic symptom reporting to nurses in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced peak symptom burden and improved individual symptoms during the 2 weeks post-transplant. A multi-site trial is warranted to demonstrate the generalizability, efficacy, and value of this intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02574897.

Psychometric properties of the FACT-G quality of life scale for family caregivers of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to examine psychometric properties of a caregiver version of the well-established Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Scale (FACT-G) after conducting focus groups and obtaining expert input. METHODS: We made minor wording modifications to the Patient FACT-G to enable caregivers to report how the illness affected their overall quality of life (QOL) and well-being on four subscales (physical, social, emotional, functional). We tested the acceptability, precision, factor structure, reliability and validity of the Caregiver FACT-G among partners of prostate cancer patients (N = 263) and caregivers (spouses, siblings, adult children) of patients with advanced cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate) (N = 484) using data from two Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). RESULTS: With a factor structure similar to the Patient FACT-G, Caregiver FACT-G was acceptable and precise in measuring caregiver QOL, with high inter-factor correlations and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas 0.81-0.91). The Caregiver FACT-G had strong convergent validity demonstrated by significant positive correlations with caregiver self-efficacy (0.25-0.63), dyadic communication (0.18-0.51), and social support (0.18-0.54) in both samples. It also had strong discriminant validity evidenced by significant inverse correlations with negative appraisal of caregiving (- 0.37 to - 0.69), uncertainty (- 0.28 to - 0.53), hopelessness (- 0.25 to - 0.60), and avoidant coping (- 0.26 to - 0.58) in both samples. Caregivers' baseline FACT-G scores were significantly associated with their physical (0.23) and mental well-being (0.54; 4-month follow-up) and their depression (- 0.69; 3-month follow-up), indicating strong predictive validity. CONCLUSION: This is the first study evaluating the psychometric properties of the Caregiver FACT-G. More psychometric testing is warranted, especially among caregivers of diverse sociocultural backgrounds.

A review of Kenya's cancer policies to improve access to cancer testing and treatment in the country.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the third-leading cause of mortality in Kenya, resulting in unique challenges to the country's health system. An increase in the number of cancer cases in Kenya over the past decade resulted in legislative actions and policies to guide delivery of cancer services. Kenya's new national cancer control strategy and past policy efforts provide an opportunity to synergise information and enhance understanding to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment in the country. The objectives of this study are to (1) document policy-modifiable factors based on a review of policy documents and results of a key informant survey and (2) develop recommendations to improve policies affecting cancer testing and treatment services in Kenya. This study builds upon our previous study Improving Access to Cancer Testing and Treatment in Kenya (Makau Barasa et al. J Global Oncol 2(216), 2017). METHODS: The study applied an in-depth systematic review of Kenya's cancer policies and guidelines, a qualitative analysis of results from a section of a semi-structured key informant survey focused on the opinions of clinicians delivering cancer services as well as cancer support groups and advocacy leaders, and a stakeholder analysis identifying key policy-makers and implementers. Details of the complete key informant survey were published in our previous study. RESULTS: Kenya's cancer policies have guided progress made in providing the legal and implementation frameworks for the development and delivery of cancer services at the national and county levels. Some policy implementation gaps are noted. These include inadequate financing for cancer services, limited research and data to support policy formulation, and the concentration of cancer services in urban areas. The key informant survey identified policy-modifiable actions that can address some of the gaps and improve the delivery of and access to cancer testing and treatment services in the country. Some of these include addressing the financial barriers affecting cancer testing and treatment services; increasing stakeholder engagement in training health personnel to deliver cancer testing and treatment services; decentralising cancer services and improving cancer surveillance and research; and increasing education and awareness about cancer symptoms, screening procedures and treatment options. A set of priority policy actions were selected from the study findings and used to develop recommendations for Kenya's policy-makers and stakeholders. CONCLUSIONS: Revisions to Kenya's cancer policies are seeking to address gaps noted in past policies and to improve access to cancer testing and treatment in Kenya. However, based on study findings, additional actions can be taken to strengthen policy implementation. Considering the policy formulation and implementation process and costs, this study recommends focusing on three priority policy actions that can have significant impact on improving access to cancer testing and treatment services. These include addressing financing, insurance and human resources gaps; increasing stakeholder engagement; and decentralising health services for better surveillance and data to inform policies.

Using Stakeholder Engagement to Overcome Barriers to Implementing Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) in Cancer Care Delivery: Approaches From 3 Prospective Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used during cancer care delivery improve communication about symptoms between patients and clinicians and reduce service utilization for uncontrolled symptoms. However, uptake of PROs in routine cancer care has been slow. In this paper, we describe stakeholder engagement activities used to overcome barriers to implementing PROs. Implementation occurred in 2 study settings: PROs completed in the waiting room and reviewed during clinical visits to guide symptom management for multiple myeloma (visit-based PROs); and weekly PROs completed by cancer patients between chemotherapy visits to monitor symptoms at home (remote PROs). METHODS: PRO implementation steps across studies included: (1) clinician and patient input on key symptoms, PRO measures, and identifying which PRO responses are clinically concerning to better target nursing actions; (2) developing PRO-based clinical decision support (CDS) for responding to concerning PROs; (3) training clinicians and clinical research assistants to interpret PROs and use software; and (4) describing implementation impact (frequency of concerning PRO responses and nursing actions). DISCUSSION: Clinician and patient input was critical for identifying key symptoms, PRO measures, and clinically concerning response options. For the visit-based PRO observational study, all symptom scores appeared on a clinician dashboard, and those rated ≥1 by patients (on a 0-4 or 0-10 scale) had PRO-based CDS available for access. For the 2 remote PROs trials, stakeholders recommended that the 2 "worst" response options (eg, PRO responses of "often"/"always" or "severe"/"very severe") would trigger an automated email alert to a nurse along with PRO-based CDS. In each study, PRO-based CDS was tailored based on clinician input. Across studies, the most common nursing response to concerning PROs was counseling patients on (or providing care plans for) self-management of symptoms. In the trials, the percentage of weekly remote PROs generating an alert to a nurse ranged from 13% at an academic center to 36% in community oncology practices. KEY POINTS: Across 3 prospective studies, PROs implemented into cancer care enabled tailored care based on issues identified on PROs. Stakeholder engagement was critical for successful implementation. This paper assists in addressing important PRO implementation challenges by describing a stakeholder-driven approach.

Electronic Health Record Phenotypes for Identifying Patients with Late-Stage Disease: a Method for Research and Clinical Application.

BACKGROUND: Systematic identification of patients allows researchers and clinicians to test new models of care delivery. EHR phenotypes-structured algorithms based on clinical indicators from EHRs-can aid in such identification. OBJECTIVE: To develop EHR phenotypes to identify decedents with stage 4 solid-tumor cancer or stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD). DESIGN: We developed two EHR phenotypes. Each phenotype included International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes. We used natural language processing (NLP) to further specify stage 4 cancer, and lab values for CKD. SUBJECTS: Decedents with cancer or CKD who had been admitted to an academic medical center in the last 6 months of life and died August 26, 2017-December 31, 2017. MAIN MEASURE: We calculated positive predictive values (PPV), false discovery rates (FDR), false negative rates (FNR), and sensitivity. Phenotypes were validated by a comparison with manual chart review. We also compared the EHR phenotype results to those admitted to the oncology and nephrology inpatient services. KEY RESULTS: The EHR phenotypes identified 271 decedents with cancer, of whom 186 had stage 4 disease; of 192 decedents with CKD, 89 had stage 4-5 disease. The EHR phenotype for stage 4 cancer had a PPV of 68.6%, FDR of 31.4%, FNR of 0.5%, and 99.5% sensitivity. The EHR phenotype for stage 4-5 CKD had a PPV of 46.4%, FDR of 53.7%, FNR of 0.0%, and 100% sensitivity. CONCLUSIONS: EHR phenotypes efficiently identified patients who died with late-stage cancer or CKD. Future EHR phenotypes can prioritize specificity over sensitivity, and incorporate stratification of high- and low-palliative care need. EHR phenotypes are a promising method for identifying patients for research and clinical purposes, including equitable distribution of specialty palliative care.

Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assess topics a patient can report about his or her own health. This includes symptoms (eg, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, pain, or frequent urination), physical functioning (eg, difficulty climbing stairs or difficulty fastening buttons), and mental health (eg, anxiety, fear, or worry). Electronic PRO (ePRO) systems are used in oncology clinical care because of 1) their ability to enhance clinical care by flagging important symptoms and saving clinicians time; 2) the availability of standardized methods for creating and implementing PROs in clinics; and 3) the existence of user-friendly platforms for patient self-reporting like tablet computers and automated telephone surveys. Many ePRO systems can provide actionable links to clinical care such as summary reports in a patient's electronic medical record and real-time e-mail alerts to providers when patients report acute needs. This review presents 5 examples of ePRO systems currently in use in oncology practice. These systems support multiple clinical activities, including assessment of symptoms and toxicities related to chemotherapy and radiation, postoperative surveillance, and symptom management during palliative care and hospice. Patient self-reporting is possible both at clinical visits and between visits over the Internet or by telephone. The implementation of an ePRO system requires significant resources and expertise, as well as user training. ePRO systems enable regular monitoring of patient symptoms, function, and needs, and can enhance the efficiency and quality of care as well as communication with patients.

Sleep quality in individuals diagnosed with colorectal cancer: Factors associated with sleep disturbance as patients transition off treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To identify patient characteristics associated with sleep disturbance and worsening of sleep in individuals diagnosed with localized colorectal cancer and assess heterogeneity in these relationships. METHODS: Data were from the MY-Health study, a community-based observational study of adults diagnosed with cancer. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sleep Disturbance, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, and Pain Interference measures were administered. Participants self-reported demographics, comorbidities, and treatment information. Regression mixture and multiple regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between sleep disturbance and patient characteristics cross-sectionally at an average of 10 months after diagnosis (n = 613) as well as change in sleep disturbance over a 6-month period (n = 361). RESULTS: Pain, anxiety, fatigue, and the existence of multiple comorbid conditions had statistically significant relationships with sleep disturbance (B = 0.09, 0.22, 0.29, and 1.53, respectively; P < 0.05). Retirement (B = -2.49) was associated with sleep quality in the cross-sectional model. Worsening anxiety (B = 0.14) and fatigue (B = 0.20) were associated with worsening sleep disturbance, and more severe sleep disturbance 10 months after diagnosis (B = -0.21) was associated with improvement in sleep quality after diagnosis (P < 0.05). No evidence of latent subgroups of patients (heterogeneity) was present. CONCLUSIONS: Pain, anxiety, fatigue, employment, and comorbid conditions were associated with sleep disturbance, but regression coefficients were small (< |2.5|). Results suggest that screening for anxiety, depression, fatigue, or pain is not sufficient for identifying sleep disturbance. Given the negative consequences of sleep disturbance, sleep disturbance screening may be warranted.

Relationship between sleep and exercise as colorectal cancer survivors transition off treatment.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between exercise and sleep disturbance in a sample of individuals diagnosed with stage I, II, and III colorectal cancer (CRC) as patients transitioned off first-line treatment. We also sought to identify heterogeneity in the relationship between sleep disturbance and exercise. METHODS: Data were obtained from the MY-Health study, a community-based observational study of adults diagnosed with cancer. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) measures (e.g., PROMIS Sleep) were administered, and participants self-reported demographics, comorbidities, cancer treatment, and exercise. Regression mixture and multiple regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between sleep disturbance and exercise cross-sectionally at an average of 10 months after diagnosis, and the change in sleep disturbance over a 7-month period, from approximately 10 to 17 months post-diagnosis. RESULTS: Patients whose exercise was categorized as likely at or above American College of Sports Medicine's guidelines did not report statistically better sleep quality compared to patients who were classified as not active. However, retirement (B = - 2.4), anxiety (B = 0.21), and fatigue (B = 0.24) had statistically significant relationships with sleep disturbance (p < 0.05). Increase in exercise was not significantly associated with a decrease in sleep disturbance. No statistical heterogeneity was revealed in the relationship between sleep and exercise. CONCLUSIONS: Further prospective research using an objective measure of exercise is warranted to confirm or refute the nature of the relationship between exercise and sleep disturbance in individuals diagnosed with CRC transitioning off first-line treatment.

Prevalence of patient-reported gastrointestinal symptoms and agreement with clinician toxicity assessments in radiation therapy for anal cancer.

PURPOSE: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms pose a significant burden to patients receiving chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for anal cancer; however, the impact of symptoms from the patient perspective has not been quantified. This retrospective study examined and compared patient and clinician reports of acute GI toxicity during CRT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients treated with definitive RT using intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer between 9/09 and 11/12 were reviewed. Median RT dose was 56 Gy (range 45-56), and 76 patients (97%) received concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. During RT, patients completed the 7-item Bowel Problem Scale (BPS) weekly. Clinicians assessed toxicity separately using CTCAE v. 3.0. Scores of BPS ≥ 3 and CTCAE ≥ 1 were considered to be clinically meaningful. Agreement of the two assessments was evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients completed at least one BPS and had a corresponding clinician assessment. Patients reporting scores of ≥3 was highest at week 5 (n = 68) for diarrhea (44.1%), proctitis (57.4%), and mucus (48.4%), while urgency (47.6%), tenesmus (31.7%), and cramping (27%) were highest at week 4 (n = 63). Baseline bleeding scores (26.7%; score ≥3) improved during treatment (13.4% at week 5). "Poor" agreement was observed between patient- and clinician-reported proctitis (Cohen's k = 0.11; n = 58); however, there was "good" agreement for diarrhea (Cohen's k = 0.68; n = 58). CONCLUSIONS: Acute GI toxicity during definitive CRT for anal cancer was most significant during weeks 4-5, while rectal bleeding improved during treatment. Discrepancies in patient- and clinician-reported symptoms demonstrate the potential for patient-reported outcomes to be useful tools for anal cancer clinical assessments.