Do reminder emails and past due notifications improve patient completion and institutional data submission for patient-reported outcome measures?

PURPOSE: NRG Oncology, part of the National Cancer Institute's National Clinical Trials Network, took efforts to increase patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completion and institutional data submission rates within clinical trials. Lack of completion diminishes power to draw conclusions and can be a waste of resources. It is hypothesized that trials with automatic email reminders and past due notifications will have PROM forms submitted more timely with higher patient completion. METHODS: Automatic emails sent to the research associate were added to selected NRG Oncology trials. Comparisons between trials with and without automatic emails were analyzed using Chi-square tests with respect to patient completion and timeliness of form submission rates. Multivariable analyses were conducted using repeated measures generalized estimating equations. If PROMs were not completed, a form providing the reason why was submitted and counted towards form submission. RESULTS: For both disease sites, form submission was significantly higher within 1 month of the form's due date for the studies with automatic emails vs. those without (prostate: 79.7% vs. 75.7%, p < 0.001; breast: 59.2% vs. 31.3%, p < 0.001). No significant differences in patient completion were observed between the breast trials. The prostate trial with automatic emails had significantly higher patient completion but this result was not confirmed in the multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient completion rates were higher on trials with automatic emails, there may be confounding factors requiring future study. The automatic emails appeared to have increased the timeliness of form submission, thus supporting their continued use on NRG Oncology trials.

NRG Oncology Survey on Practice and Technology Use in SRT and SBRT Delivery.

PURPOSE: To assess stereotactic radiotherapy (SRT)/stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) practices by polling clinics participating in multi-institutional clinical trials. METHODS: The NRG Oncology Medical Physics Subcommittee distributed a survey consisting of 23 questions, which covered general technologies, policies, and procedures used in the Radiation Oncology field for the delivery of SRT/SBRT (9 questions), and site-specific questions for brain SRT, lung SBRT, and prostate SBRT (14 questions). Surveys were distributed to 1,996 radiotherapy institutions included on the membership rosters of the five National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) groups. Patient setup, motion management, target localization, prescriptions, and treatment delivery technique data were reported back by 568 institutions (28%). RESULTS: 97.5% of respondents treat lung SBRT patients, 77.0% perform brain SRT, and 29.1% deliver prostate SBRT. 48.8% of clinics require a physicist present for every fraction of SBRT, 18.5% require a physicist present for the initial SBRT fraction only, and 14.9% require a physicist present for the entire first fraction, including set-up approval for all subsequent fractions. 55.3% require physician approval for all fractions, and 86.7% do not reposition without x-ray imaging. For brain SRT, most institutions (83.9%) use a planning target volume (PTV) margin of 2 mm or less. Lung SBRT PTV margins of 3 mm or more are used in 80.6% of clinics. Volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) is the dominant delivery method in 62.8% of SRT treatments, 70.9% of lung SBRT, and 68.3% of prostate SBRT. CONCLUSION: This report characterizes SRT/SBRT practices in radiotherapy clinics participating in clinical trials. Data made available here allows the radiotherapy community to compare their practice with that of other clinics, determine what is achievable, and assess areas for improvement.

Recruitment practices for U.S. minority and underserved populations in NRG oncology: Results of an online survey.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer clinical trials (CCT) provide much of the evidence for clinical guidelines and standards of care. But low levels of CCT participation are well documented, especially for minorities. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted an online survey of 556 recruitment practices across the NRG Oncology network. Survey aims were 1) to learn how sites recruit minority/underserved populations; 2) to better understand the catchment areas of the NRG institutions; and 3) to aid in planning education programs for accrual of minority/underserved populations. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 34.9%. The most effective methods reported for recruiting minority/underserved participants were patient navigators (44.4%) and translators (38.9%). All institutions reported using a mechanism for eligibility screening and 71% of institutions reported using a screening/enrollment tracking system. CCT training was required at 78.1% and cultural competency training was required at 47.5% of responding institutions. Only 19.9% of sites used community partners to assist with minority recruitment and just 37.1% of respondents reported a defined catchment area. Sites reported very little race and ethnicity data. CONCLUSION: This NRG Oncology online survey provides useful data for improvements in trial enrollment and training to recruit minority/underserved populations to CCT. Areas for further investigation include web-based methods for recruitment and tracking, cultural competency training, definition of catchment areas, use of patient navigators, and community partnerships. The survey results will guide recruitment training programs.