Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes on genotype-guided irinotecan dosing: feasibility and clinical relevance.

INTRODUCTION: Standard investigator-based adverse events (AE) assessment is via CTCAE for clinical trials. However, including the patient perspective through PRO (patient-reported outcomes) enhances clinicians' understanding of patient toxicity and fosters early detection of AEs. We assessed longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE within clinical workflow in a phase II trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a sub-study in a phase II trial of genotype-directed irinotecan dosing evaluating efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving FOLFIRI and bevacizumab, patients reported on 13 AEs generating a PRO-CTCAE form. The primary objective was to estimate forms completed by patients and clinicians at least 80% of time. Secondary objectives were estimating concordance and time to first score of specific symptoms between patient and clinician pairs. RESULTS: Feasibility of longitudinal PRO-CTCAE integration was met as 96% of patients and clinician-patient pairs completed at least 80% of PRO-CTCAE forms available to them with 79% achieving 100% completion. Concordance between patient and clinician reporting a severe symptom was 73% with 24 disconcordant pairs, 21 involved patients who reported a severe symptom that the clinician did not. Although protocol-mandated dose reductions were guided by CTCAE not PRO-CTCAE responses, the median time to dose reduction of 2.53 months, and the time-to-event curve closely approximated time to patient-reported toxicity. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE paired CTCAE proved feasible. Compared to clinicians, patients reported severe symptoms more frequently and earlier. Patient-reported toxicity more closely aligned with dose decreases indicating incorporation into routine clinical practice may enhance early detection of toxicity improving patient safety and quality of life.

Truth and dare: patients dare to tell the truth when using PROMs in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: As patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice for screening, monitoring, and management, the potential for response bias has been raised (e.g., over-reporting problems for attention, under-reporting to avoid treatment changes/discontinuation). We investigated whether patients systematically bias their responses when they know clinicians will review their PROM results. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses of three experimental studies evaluating PROMs in adult and pediatric care. Prior to PROM completion, intervention group patients were informed that the results would be shown to their clinicians ("feedback" arm), whereas control group patients were told that their clinicians would not see their responses ("no feedback" arm). Independent sample t-tests compared the "feedback" and "no feedback" arms' PROM scores at baseline. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using Cohen's d statistics with Hedges' g correction, and effect sizes > 0.50 were considered clinically relevant. RESULTS: Across the 29 domains assessed in the three studies, no between-arm differences reached an effect size of ± 0.50. Only 3/29 effect sizes exceeded ± 0.30. The confidence intervals for 14 domains included ± 0.50, with 4 favoring the "no feedback" arm and 10 favoring the "feedback" arm. Two domains reached statistical significance, one favoring the "no feedback" arm and one favoring the "feedback" arm. CONCLUSION: This study does not support the hypothesis that patients systematically bias their PROM responses if they know that clinicians will see their results. These findings support using PROMs in clinical practice as a valid mechanism to promote patient-centered care.

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. METHODS: The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. RESULTS: The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported "not at all" for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. CONCLUSIONS: Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. Investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. METHODS: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.

Electronic symptom monitoring in pediatric patients hospitalized for chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Using patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring in oncology has resulted in significant benefits for adult patients with cancer. The feasibility of this approach has not been established in the routine care of children with cancer. METHODS: The Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) is an item library that enables children and caregivers to self-report symptoms. Ten symptom items from the Ped-PRO-CTCAE were uploaded to an online platform. Patients at least 7 years old and their caregivers were prompted by text/email message to electronically self-report daily during a planned hospitalization for chemotherapy administration. Symptom reports were emailed to the clinical team caring for the patient, but no instructions were given regarding the use of this information. Rates of patient participation and clinician responses to reports were systematically tracked. RESULTS: The median age of the participating patients (n = 52) was 11 years (range, 7-18 years). All patients and caregivers completed an initial login, with 92% of dyads completing at least 1 additional symptom assessment during hospitalization (median, 3 assessments; range, 0-40). Eighty-one percent of participating dyads submitted symptom reports on at least half of hospital days, and 54% submitted reports on all hospital days. Clinical actions were taken in response to symptom reports 21% of the time. Most patients felt that the system was easy (73%) and important (79%). Most clinicians found symptom reports easy to understand and useful (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcome measures for hospitalized pediatric oncology patients is feasible and generates data valued by clinicians and patients.

Patient-reported symptom severity, interference with daily activities, and adverse events in older and younger women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, it is unknown whether patient-reported symptom severity and symptom interference with daily activities differ between younger (aged <65 years) and older (aged ≥65 years) women receiving similar chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: Study participants rated 17 side effects of chemotherapy regimens currently in use in clinical practice (2014-2019). RESULTS: Of 284 women with EBC (stage I-III), approximately 57% were aged <65 years and 43% were aged ≥65 years. For anthracycline-based regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported moderate, severe, or very severe (MSVS) hot flashes (49% vs 18%) (P < .001). For nonanthracycline regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS hot flashes (38% vs 19%) (P = .009) and a lower percentage reported MSVS arthralgia (28% vs 49%) (P = .005). With regard to symptom interference with daily activities, a higher percentage of younger women being treated with anthracycline-based regimens reported MSVS hot flashes (32% vs 7%) (P = .001) and myalgia (38% vs 18%) (P = .02). For nonanthracycline chemotherapy, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS interference for hot flashes (26% vs 9%) (P = .006) and lower percentages reported abdominal pain (13% vs 28%) (P = .02). Overall, there were no significant differences noted among younger versus older patients with regard to hospitalizations (19% vs 12%; P = .19), dose reductions (34% vs 31%; P = .50), dose delays (22% vs 25%; P = .59), or early treatment discontinuation (16% vs 16%; P = .9546). CONCLUSIONS: Older and younger women with EBC who were treated with identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events. LAY SUMMARY: In this study, women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer rated the severity of 17 symptoms and symptom interference with their activities of daily living. Older (aged ≥65 years) and younger (aged <65 years) women who received identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events.

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.

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.

A qualitative study of patient and provider perspectives on using web-based pain coping skills training to treat persistent cancer pain.

OBJECTIVE: Persistent pain is common and inadequately treated in cancer patients. Behavioral pain interventions are a recommended part of multimodal pain treatments, but they are underused in clinical care due to barriers such as a lack of the resources needed to deliver them in person and difficulties coordinating their use with clinical care. Pain coping skills training (PCST) is an evidence-based behavioral pain intervention traditionally delivered in person. Delivering this training via the web would increase access to it by addressing barriers that currently limit its use. We conducted a patient pilot study of an 8-week web-based PCST program to determine the acceptability of this approach to patients and the program features needed to meet their needs. Focus groups with healthcare providers identified strategies for coordinating the use of web-based PCST in clinical care. METHOD: Participants included 7 adults with bone pain due to multiple myeloma or metastasized breast or prostate cancer and 12 healthcare providers (4 physicians and 8 advanced practice providers) who treat cancer-related bone pain. Patients completed web-based PCST at home and then took part in an in-depth qualitative interview. Providers attended focus groups led by a trained moderator. Qualitative analyses identified themes in the patient and provider data. RESULTS: Patients reported strongly favorable responses to web-based PCST and described emotional and physical benefits. They offered suggestions for adapting the approach to better fit their needs and to overcome barriers to completion. Focus groups indicated a need to familiarize healthcare providers with PCST and to address concerns about overburdening patients. Providers would recommend the program to patients they felt could benefit. They suggested applying a broad definition of cancer pain and having various types of providers help coordinate program its use with clinical care. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Web-based PCST was acceptable to patients and providers. Our findings suggest that patients could benefit from this approach, especially if patient and provider barriers are addressed.

The Potential Role of Symptom Questionnaires in Palliative and Supportive Cancer Care Delivery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) palliative care recommendations have been updated into a full guideline. Symptom questionnaires-completed and reviewed with patients during care delivery-are poised to play a large role in this guideline because they provide a more comprehensive understanding of symptoms. This article provides an overview of the guideline and describes how symptom questionnaires can be used to satisfy the guideline. RECENT FINDINGS: Standardized symptom questionnaires can be used for three purposes in care delivery: symptom management, referral to specialty palliative and supportive care, and to assess high-quality care. Challenges include necessary changes to clinic workflow to collect patient responses and respond to electronic alerts for worsening symptoms. Symptom questionnaires administered as part of routine care delivery are highly informative and worth the time to enhance symptom management in routine care, to increase referrals, and to standardize performance metrics.

Statewide geographic variation in outcomes for adults with acute myeloid leukemia in North Carolina.

BACKGROUND: Population-based studies have demonstrated survival disparities related to socioeconomic factors for patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML). The objective of the current study was to determine whether the local health care infrastructure, represented by Area Health Education Centers (AHEC) region, or treating center experience, represented by National Cancer Institute Comprehensive Cancer Center (NCICCC) designation, were associated with outcomes among patients with AML in North Carolina. METHODS: Patients who were diagnosed with AML from 2003 to 2009 were identified using the University of North Carolina Lineberger Integrated Cancer Information and Surveillance System, a database linking insurance claims to the North Carolina Cancer Registry. A Cox proportional-hazards model was used to explore survival based on AHEC region. A subset of patients who received inpatient chemotherapy was examined to evaluate the impact of treatment at an NCICCC. RESULTS: Nine hundred patients were identified in the study period, 553 of whom received inpatient chemotherapy therapy within 30 days of diagnosis. Almost one-half of these patients (n = 294) received chemotherapy at a non-NCICCC. Among the patients who received intensive inpatient therapy, residence in 3 of 9 AHEC regions was associated with a higher risk of mortality (hazard ratio: range, 1.97-4.03; P < .01) at 1 year in multivariate analysis. Treatment at a non-NCICCC was not associated with an increased risk of mortality at 1 year (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-1.65). CONCLUSIONS: Survival among patients with AML in North Carolina varies according to geographic region. Further examination of local practice and referral patterns may inform strategies to improve AML outcomes across the state. Cancer 2016;122:3041-3050. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Investigating racial disparities in use of NK1 receptor antagonists to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting among women with breast cancer.

Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a major concern for cancer patients and, if uncontrolled, can seriously compromise quality of life (QOL) and other treatment outcomes. Because of the expense of antiemetic medications used to prevent CINV (particularly oral medications filled through Medicare Part D), disparities in their use may exist. We used 2006-2012 SEER-Medicare data to evaluate the use of neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1s), a potent class of antiemetics, among black and white women initiating highly emetogenic chemotherapy for the treatment of early-stage breast cancer. We used modified Poisson regression to assess the relationship between race and (1) any NK1 use, (2) oral NK1 (aprepitant) use, and (3) intravenous NK1 (fosaprepitant) use. We report adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). The study included 1130 women. We observed racial disparities in use of any NK1 (aRR: 0.68, 95 % CI 0.51-0.91) and in use of oral aprepitant specifically (aRR: 0.54, 95 % CI 0.35-0.83). We did not observe disparities in intravenous fosaprepitant use. After controlling for variables related to socioeconomic status, disparities in NK1 and aprepitant use were reduced but not eliminated. We found racial disparities in women's use of oral NK1s for the prevention of CINV. These disparities may be partly explained by racial differences in socioeconomic status, which may translate into differential ability to afford the medication.

Examining racial variation in antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy health care utilization for nausea and vomiting among breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Racial minority cancer patients may experience underuse of antiemetic medications to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). In addition to its adverse implications for quality of life, antiemetic underuse may contribute to observed disparities in acute illness during chemotherapy. To understand the potential contribution of CINV prophylaxis to breast cancer disparities, we assessed racial variation in potent antiemetic use and post-chemotherapy utilization related to CINV and the relationship between the two. METHODS: We used SEER-Medicare data to evaluate the health care utilization in the 14 days following chemotherapy initiation among black and white women receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy for breast cancer. We used modified Poisson regression to assess the relationship between (1) race and CINV-related utilization and (2) NK1 use and CINV-related utilization, overall and stratified by race. We report adjusted risk ratios (aRR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: The study included 1130 women. Black women were 11 % less likely than white women to use neurokinin-1 receptor antagonists (NK1s) for CINV prophylaxis (p = 0.02); however, they experienced fewer CINV-related encounters following chemotherapy (unadjusted RR = 0.63, 95 %CI = 0.40-0.99; p = 0.05). After adjustment for clinical covariates, estimates were similar but no longer statistically significant (p = 0.07). Among white women, NK1 use was associated with increased CINV-related utilization (aRR NK1 users vs. non-users: 1.35, 95 % CI = 1.07-1.69, p = 0.01), likely resulting from unmeasured confounders. CONCLUSION: Black women were less likely to use NK1s- and CINV-related services. Racial variation in CINV-related services use may be partly explained by differential symptom reporting or access to care.

Linguistic validation of the Spanish version of the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

PURPOSE: The U.S. NCI's PRO-CTCAE is a library of self-report items for assessing symptomatic adverse events in cancer clinical trials from the patient perspective. The aim of this study was to translate and linguistically validate a Spanish version. METHODS: PRO-CTCAE's 124 items were translated from English into Spanish using multiple forward and back translations. Native Spanish speakers undergoing cancer treatment were enrolled at six cancer treatment sites. Participants each completed approximately 50 items and were then interviewed using cognitive probes. The interviews were analyzed at the item level by linguistic themes, and responses were examined for evidence of equivalence to English. Items for which ≥20 % of participants experienced difficulties were reviewed, and phrasing was revised and then retested in subsequent interviews. Items where <20 % of respondents experienced difficulties were also reviewed and were considered for rephrasing and retesting. RESULTS: One hundred nine participants from diverse Spanish-speaking countries were enrolled (77 in Round 1 and 32 in Round 2). A majority of items were well comprehended in Round 1. Two items presented difficulties in ≥20 % of participants and were revised/retested without further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, and when retested exhibited no further difficulties. Two items presented difficulties in <20 %, but were not revised due to lack of alternatives. Sixteen items presented difficulties in ≤12 % and were not revised because difficulties were minor. CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish PRO-CTCAE has been developed and refined for use in Spanish-speaking populations, with high levels of comprehension and equivalence to the English PRO-CTCAE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01436240.

Evaluation of pedometry as a patient-centered outcome in patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT): a comparison of pedometry and patient reports of symptoms, health, and quality of life.

AIMS: We evaluated pedometry as a novel patient-centered outcome because it enables passive continuous assessment of activity and may provide information about the consequences of symptomatic toxicity complementary to self-report. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) wore pedometers and completed PRO assessments during transplant hospitalization (4 weeks) and 4 weeks post-discharge. Patient reports of symptomatic treatment toxicities (single items from PRO-CTCAE, http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae ) and symptoms, physical health, mental health, and quality of life (PROMIS(®) Global-10, http://nih.promis.org ), assessed weekly with 7-day recall on Likert scales, were compared individually with pedometry data, summarized as average daily steps per week, using linear mixed models. RESULTS: Thirty-two patients [mean age 55 (SD = 14), 63 % male, 84 % white, 56 % autologous, 43 % allogeneic] completed a mean 4.6 (SD = 1.5, range 1-8) evaluable assessments. Regression model coefficients (ß) indicated within-person decrements in average daily steps were associated with increases in pain (ß = -852; 852 fewer steps per unit increase in pain score, p < 0.001), fatigue (ß = -886, p < 0.001), vomiting (ß = -518, p < 0.01), shaking/chills (ß = -587, p < 0.01), diarrhea (ß = -719, p < 0.001), shortness of breath (ß = -1018, p < 0.05), reduction in carrying out social activities (ß = 705, p < 0.01) or physical activities (ß = 618, p < 0.01), and global physical health (ß = 101, p < 0.001), but not global mental health or quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: In this small sample of HCT recipients, more severe symptoms, impaired physical health, and restrictions in the performance of usual daily activities were associated with statistically significant decrements in objectively measured daily steps. Pedometry may be a valuable outcome measure and validation anchor in clinical research.

Gynecologic cancer outcomes in the elderly poor: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Adults aged ≥65 years who are dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid are an at-risk group in health care. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the outcomes of women with gynecologic cancers in this population are unknown. METHODS: The current study was a population-based cohort study of North Carolina state cancer registry cases of uterine, ovarian, cervical, and vulvar/vaginal cancers (2003-2009), with linked enrollment in Medicare and state Medicaid. Outcomes of all-cause mortality and stage of disease at the time of diagnosis were analyzed as a function of enrollment status using multivariate analysis and survival curves. RESULTS: Of 4522 women aged ≥65 years (3702 of whom were enrolled in Medicare [82%] and 820 of whom were dually enrolled [18%]), there were 2286 cases of uterine (51%), 1587 cases of ovarian (35%), 302 cases of cervical (7%), and 347 cases of vulvar/vaginal (8%) cancers. Dual enrollees had increased all-cause mortality overall (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.34; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.19-1.49), and within each cancer site (uterine: aHR, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.02-1.47]; ovarian: aHR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.05-1.49]; cervical: aHR, 1.34 [95% CI, 0.96-1.87]; and vulvar/vaginal: aHR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.36-2.72]). Increased odds of advanced-stage disease at the time of diagnosis among dual enrollees was only present in patients with uterine cancer (adjusted odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.79). Stratified survival curves demonstrated the strongest disparities among women with early-stage uterine and early-stage vulvar/vaginal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: Women aged ≥65 years who were dually enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid were found to have an overall 34% increase in all-cause mortality after diagnosis with a gynecologic cancer compared with the non-dually enrolled Medicare population. Women with early-stage uterine and vulvar/vaginal cancers appeared to have the most disparate outcomes. Because these malignancies are generally curable, they have the most potential for benefit from targeted interventions.

Learning to Overcome Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: Lessons From the Field.

#Implementation of #ePROs in real world settings, lessons learned.

Evaluating Nurses' Time to Response by Severity and Cancer Stage in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes enables patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between in-person visits. A better understanding of key RSM implementation outcomes is crucial to optimize efficiency and guide implementation efforts. This analysis evaluated the association between the severity of patient-reported symptom alerts and time to response by the health care team. METHODS: This secondary analysis included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States (October 2020-September 2022). Symptom surveys with at least one severe symptom alert were categorized as severe. Response time was categorized as optimal if the alert was closed by a health care team member within 48 hours. Odds ratios (ORs), predicted probabilities, and 95% CIs were estimated using a patient-nested logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 178 patients with breast cancer included in this analysis, 63% of patients identified as White and 85% of patients had a stage I-III or early-stage cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (IQR, 42-65). Of 1,087 surveys included, 36% reported at least one severe symptom alert and 77% had an optimal response time by the health care team. When compared with surveys that had no severe symptom alerts, surveys with at least one severe symptom alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.38). The results were similar when stratified by cancer stage. CONCLUSION: Response times to symptom alerts were similar for alerts with at least one severe symptom compared with alerts with no severe symptoms. This suggests that alert management is being incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or symptom alert severity.