Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Among Patients with Cancer and Limited English Proficiency.

Importance: Often electronic tools are built with English proficient (EP) patients in mind. Cancer patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) experience gaps in care and are at risk for excess toxic effects if they are unable to effectively communicate with their care team. Objective: To evaluate whether electronic patient-reported outcome tools (ePROs) built to improve health outcomes for EP patients might also be acceptable for LEP patients in the context of oral cancer-directed therapies (OCDT). Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was conducted at a single National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. In 2019, English-speaking and Spanish-speaking LEP patients with cancer receiving oral chemotherapies were recruited to participate in a qualitative focus group examining patient attitudes toward ePROs and electronic tools that are used to manage adherence and symptoms related to oral therapies. Six focus groups were held for EP patients and 1 for Spanish-speaking LEP patients. LEP was defined as patients who self-identified as needing an interpreter to navigate the health care system. Data analysis was performed April through June of 2019. Exposures: Enrolled patients participated in a focus group lasting approximately 90 minutes. Main Outcomes and Measures: The perspectives of patients with cancer treated with oral chemotherapies on integrating ePROs into their care management. Results: Among the 46 participants included in the study, 46 (100%) were White, 10 (22%) were Latinx Spanish-speaking, 43 (93%) were female, and 37 (80%) were aged at least 50 years or older. Among the 6 focus groups with 6 to 8 EP patients (ranging from 6 to 8 participants) and 1 focus group with 10 Spanish-speaking LEP patients, this qualitative study found that EP and LEP patients had different levels of acceptability of using technology and ePRO tools to manage their OCDT. EP patients felt generally positive toward OCDT and were not generally interested in using electronic tools to manage their care. LEP patients generally disliked OCDT and welcomed the use of technology for health management, particularly when addressing gaps in symptom management by their oncology clinicians. Conclusions and Relevance: Although most electronic interventions target EP patients, these findings reveal the willingness of LEP patients to participate in technology-based interventions. Expanding ePROs to LEP patients may help to manage gaps in communication about treatment and potential adverse events because of the willingness of LEP patients to use ePRO tools to manage their health. This qualitative assessment is a strategic step in determining the resources needed to narrow the digital health gap and extend the value of PROs to the LEP oncology population.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Body Composition among Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial.

Skeletal muscle and adipose tissue express the vitamin D receptor and may be a mechanism through which vitamin D supplementation slows cancer progression and reduces cancer death. In this exploratory analysis of a double-blind, multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial, 105 patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer who were receiving chemotherapy were randomized to either high-dose vitamin D3 (4000 IU) or standard-dose (400 IU) vitamin D3. Body composition was measured with abdominal computed tomography at enrollment (baseline) and after cycle 8 of chemotherapy (16 weeks). As compared with standard-dose vitamin D3, high-dose vitamin D3 did not significantly change body weight [-0.7 kg; (95% CI: -3.5, 2.0)], body mass index [-0.2 kg/m2; (95% CI: -1.2, 0.7)], muscle area [-1.7 cm2; (95% CI: -9.6, 6.3)], muscle attenuation [-0.4 HU; (95% CI: -4.2, 3.2)], visceral adipose tissue area [-7.5 cm2; (95% CI: -24.5, 9.6)], or subcutaneous adipose tissue area [-8.3 cm2; (95% CI: -35.5, 18.9)] over the first 8 cycles of chemotherapy. Among patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, the addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy did not result in any changes in body composition.

Effect of High-Dose vs Standard-Dose Vitamin D3 Supplementation on Progression-Free Survival Among Patients With Advanced or Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The SUNSHINE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In observational studies, higher plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels have been associated with improved survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Objective: To determine if high-dose vitamin D3 added to standard chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic CRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: Double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial of 139 patients with advanced or metastatic CRC conducted at 11 US academic and community cancer centers from March 2012 through November 2016 (database lock: September 2018). Interventions: mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab chemotherapy every 2 weeks and either high-dose vitamin D3 (n = 69) or standard-dose vitamin D3 (n = 70) daily until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) assessed by the log-rank test and a supportive Cox proportional hazards model. Testing was 1-sided. Secondary end points included tumor objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and change in plasma 25(OH)D level. Results: Among 139 patients (mean age, 56 years; 60 [43%] women) who completed or discontinued chemotherapy and vitamin D3 (median follow-up, 22.9 months), the median PFS for high-dose vitamin D3 was 13.0 months (95% CI, 10.1 to 14.7; 49 PFS events) vs 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.0; 62 PFS events) for standard-dose vitamin D3 (log-rank P = .07); multivariable hazard ratio for PFS or death was 0.64 (1-sided 95% CI, 0 to 0.90; P = .02). There were no significant differences between high-dose and standard-dose vitamin D3 for tumor ORR (58% vs 63%, respectively; difference, -5% [95% CI, -20% to 100%], P = .27) or OS (median, 24.3 months vs 24.3 months; log-rank P = .43). The median 25(OH)D level at baseline for high-dose vitamin D3 was 16.1 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL for standard-dose vitamin D3 (difference, -2.6 ng/mL [95% CI, -6.6 to 1.4], P = .30); at first restaging, 32.0 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 12.8 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.0 to 16.6], P < .001); at second restaging, 35.2 ng/mL vs 18.5 ng/mL (difference, 16.7 ng/mL [95% CI, 10.9 to 22.5], P < .001); and at treatment discontinuation, 34.8 ng/mL vs 18.7 ng/mL (difference, 16.2 ng/mL [95% CI, 9.9 to 22.4], P < .001). The most common grade 3 and higher adverse events for chemotherapy plus high-dose vs standard-dose vitamin D3 were neutropenia (n = 24 [35%] vs n = 21 [31%], respectively) and hypertension (n = 9 [13%] vs n = 11 [16%]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with metastatic CRC, addition of high-dose vitamin D3, vs standard-dose vitamin D3, to standard chemotherapy resulted in a difference in median PFS that was not statistically significant, but with a significantly improved supportive hazard ratio. These findings warrant further evaluation in a larger multicenter randomized clinical trial. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01516216.

Self-Care Support for Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer: iCancerHealth.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered symptom assessment and management tools allow patients to perform self-assessments and engage in self-symptom management. Efficacious tools exist for reducing symptom distress; however, little is known about feature-specific use. OBJECTIVES: This article evaluates the feasibility of the iCancerHealth app as an adjunct to usual patient education regarding cancer symptoms and medication management. METHODS: We conducted a single-arm, pilot study grounded in the health outcomes model. Our evaluation included (1) enrollment rates, (2) 2-month utilization rates, (3) patient acceptability, and (4) clinician satisfaction with the provider-side application. English-speaking, adult patients receiving care in the gastrointestinal oncology service of a comprehensive cancer center were invited to participate. Research coordinators enrolled consenting participants who had a personal, Internet-connected device; participants registered and used the platform to complete the baseline symptom assessment in clinic. Participants were reminded weekly to use the app and to perform a symptom report 4 to 6 weeks later. RESULTS: A total of 64 patients were approached, of which 57 (89%; 95% exact confidence interval [CI], 79-96%) enrolled. About half were ≥ 60 years old and 40% were women. Fifty-three patients (93%; 95% exact CI, 85-99%) accessed at least one app feature, at least once, from home. The most frequently used (86%) feature was Health Tracker in which participants monitored and reported symptoms; followed by My Inbox (63%) and My Medications features (60%). The mean acceptability score was 24.8 (standard deviation = 4.2), indicating good acceptability. Clinicians reported that the app was most acceptable with regard to facilitating in-person interactions that occurred after app use. CONCLUSION: In a sample of adults with various stages of gastrointestinal malignancies, the iCancerHealth app was utilized at a high rate. Features that focused on symptoms and medication side effects plus communication with clinicians were used most frequently. This extends our understanding of preferences and specific feature use with patient-centered technologies.

Oncology Patient Portal Enrollment at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

PURPOSE: Patient portals (PPs) provide patients access to their electronic health record and may facilitate active engagement in their care. Because PP use has not been well studied among patients with cancer, we sought to: understand the willingness of patients with cancer to use the PP, identify barriers to PP use, and improve PP accessibility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As part of an institutional quality improvement initiative, we used a stakeholder-driven approach to examine PP use at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (Boston, MA). We conducted a survey across all ambulatory oncology practices as well as staff and patient focus groups in one ambulatory practice. We deployed three interventions to address barriers: staff education, staff-assisted enrollment support, and independent enrollment support. RESULTS: In October 2015, 1,019 (87%) of 1,178 eligible patients completed the survey (PP enrolled, 57%; non-PP enrolled, 43%). PP-enrolled patients reported reviewing test results and appointment schedules. Non-PP-enrolled patients cited difficult PP enrollment, lack of computer access, and concern about sharing data electronically as barriers to PP enrollment. Focus groups (staff, n = 20; patient representatives, n = 5) also identified lack of awareness of PP benefits as a barrier. The interventions, deployed from November to December 2015, increased PP enrollment from 47% to 53% by January 2016. CONCLUSION: Patients with cancer want to communicate with their team through the PP, but barriers to enrollment impede use. Straightforward system-level interventions may increase enrollment. Further work is necessary to ascertain the degree to which increased PP enrollment leads to greater engagement and better outcomes.

Predictive and prognostic analysis of PIK3CA mutation in stage III colon cancer intergroup trial.

BACKGROUND: Somatic mutations in PIK3CA (phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphonate 3-kinase [PI3K], catalytic subunit alpha gene) activate the PI3K-AKT signaling pathway and contribute to pathogenesis of various malignancies, including colorectal cancer. METHODS: We examined associations of PIK3CA oncogene mutation with relapse, survival, and treatment efficacy in 627 stage III colon carcinoma case subjects within a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial (5-fluorouracil and leucovorin [FU/LV] vs irinotecan [CPT11], fluorouracil and leucovorin [IFL]; Cancer and Leukemia Group B 89803 [Alliance]). We detected PIK3CA mutation in exons 9 and 20 by polymerase chain reaction and pyrosequencing. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess prognostic and predictive role of PIK3CA mutation, adjusting for clinical features and status of routine standard molecular pathology features, including KRAS and BRAF mutations and microsatellite instability (mismatch repair deficiency). All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Compared with PIK3CA wild-type cases, overall status of PIK3CA mutation positivity or the presence of PIK3CA mutation in either exon 9 or 20 alone was not statistically significantly associated with recurrence-free, disease-free, or overall survival (log-rank P > .70; P > .40 in multivariable regression models). There was no statistically significant interaction between PIK3CA and KRAS (or BRAF) mutation status in survival analysis (P(interaction) > .18). PIK3CA mutation status did not appear to predict better or worse response to IFL therapy compared with FU/LV therapy (P(interaction) > .16). CONCLUSIONS: Overall tumor PIK3CA mutation status is not associated with stage III colon cancer prognosis. PIK3CA mutation does not appear to serve as a predictive tumor molecular biomarker for response to irinotecan-based adjuvant chemotherapy.

Impact of age on the efficacy of newer adjuvant therapies in patients with stage II/III colon cancer: findings from the ACCENT database.

PURPOSE: Prior studies have suggested that patients with stage II/III colon cancer receive similar benefit from intravenous (IV) fluoropyrimidine adjuvant therapy regardless of age. Combination regimens and oral fluorouracil (FU) therapy are now standard. We examined the impact of age on colon cancer recurrence and mortality after adjuvant therapy with these newer options. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 11,953 patients age < 70 and 2,575 age ≥ 70 years from seven adjuvant therapy trials comparing IV FU with oral fluoropyrimidines (capecitabine, uracil, or tegafur) or combinations of fluoropyrimidines with oxaliplatin or irinotecan in stage II/III colon cancer. End points were disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and time to recurrence (TTR). RESULTS: In three studies comparing oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy with IV FU, statistically significant interactions were not observed between treatment arm and age (P interaction = .09 for DFS, .05 for OS, and .36 for TTR), although the stratified point estimates suggested limited benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin in elderly patients (DFS hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13; OS HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.27). No significant interactions by age were detected with oral fluoropyrimidine therapy compared with IV FU; noninferiority was supported in both age populations. CONCLUSION: Patients age ≥ 70 years seemed to experience reduced benefit from adding oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines in the adjuvant setting, although statistically, there was not a significant effect modification by age, whereas oral fluoropyrimidines retained their efficacy.

Predictive and prognostic roles of BRAF mutation in stage III colon cancer: results from intergroup trial CALGB 89803.

PURPOSE: Alterations in the RAS-RAF-MAP2K (MEK)-MAPK signaling pathway are major drivers in colorectal carcinogenesis. In colorectal cancer, BRAF mutation is associated with microsatellite instability (MSI), and typically predicts inferior prognosis. We examined the effect of BRAF mutation on survival and treatment efficacy in patients with stage III colon cancer. METHODS: We assessed status of BRAF c.1799T>A (p.V600E) mutation and MSI in 506 stage III colon cancer patients enrolled in a randomized adjuvant chemotherapy trial [5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FU/LV) vs. irinotecan (CPT11), FU and LV (IFL); CALGB 89803]. Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the prognostic role of BRAF mutation, adjusting for clinical features, adjuvant chemotherapy arm, and MSI status. RESULTS: Compared with 431 BRAF wild-type patients, 75 BRAF-mutated patients experienced significantly worse overall survival [OS; log-rank P = 0.015; multivariate HR = 1.66; 95% CI: 1.05-2.63]. By assessing combined status of BRAF and MSI, it seemed that BRAF-mutated MSS (microsatellite stable) tumor was an unfavorable subtype, whereas BRAF wild-type MSI-high tumor was a favorable subtype, and BRAF-mutated MSI-high tumor and BRAF wild-type MSS tumor were intermediate subtypes. Among patients with BRAF-mutated tumors, a nonsignificant trend toward improved OS was observed for IFL versus FU/LV arm (multivariate HR = 0.52; 95% CI: 0.25-1.10). Among patients with BRAF wild-type cancer, IFL conferred no suggestion of benefit beyond FU/LV alone (multivariate HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.72-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: BRAF mutation is associated with inferior survival in stage III colon cancer. Additional studies are necessary to assess whether there is any predictive role of BRAF mutation for irinotecan-based therapy.