Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: This study examines providers' and clinic staff's perspectives on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) implementation at an academic medical center. METHODS: An anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to Henry Ford Cancer providers and clinic staff 18 months after PROs program implementation in September 2020, to obtain their feedback on perceived barriers, impact on workflows, and PROs administration frequency in routine cancer care. RESULTS: A total of 180 providers and 40 clinic staff were invited to complete the survey; 31% and 63% completed the survey, respectively. Approximately 68% of providers reported that electronically integrated PROs scores were either beneficial or somewhat beneficial to their patients, while only 28% of the clinic staff reported that PROs were beneficial or somewhat beneficial to patients. According to the clinic staff, the most common barriers to PROs completion included lack of patients' awareness of the utility of the program with respect to their care, patients' health status at check-in, and PROs being offered too frequently. CONCLUSION: There is favorable acceptance of the PROs program by providers, but clinic staff found it less favorable. Interventions to address barriers and improve program engagement are needed to ensure broad adoption of PROs in oncology practice.

Association of Social Determinants with Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Cancer.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores have been utilized more frequently, but the relationship of PRO scores to determinants of health and social inequities has not been widely studied. Our goal was to determine the association of PRO scores with social determinants. All patients with a new cancer diagnosis who completed a PRO survey from 2020 to 2022 were included. The PRO survey recorded scores for depression, fatigue, pain interference and physical function. Higher depression, fatigue and pain scores indicated more distress. Higher physical condition scores indicated improved functionality. A total of 1090 patients were included. Married patients had significantly better individual PRO scores for each domain. Patients who were able to use the online portal to complete their survey also had better individual scores. Male patients and non-White patients had worse pain scores than female and White patients, respectively. Patients with prostate cancer had the best scores while patients with head and neck and lung cancer had the worst scores. PRO scores varied by cancer disease site and stage. Social support may act in combination with specific patient/tumor factors to influence PRO scores. These findings present opportunities to address patient support at institutional levels.

Thresholds in PROMIS Scores Anchored to Subsequent Unscheduled Health Service Use Among People Diagnosed With Cancer.

PURPOSE: To establish thresholds in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference, physical function, fatigue, and depression scores on the basis of their association with subsequent use of the emergency department (ED) or urgent care by people diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective data from 952 people seen at Henry Ford Cancer and insured through the Health Alliance Plan were analyzed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. The log odds of ED or urgent care use during 14 or 30 days after each patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment were related to PRO scores, while adjusting for comorbidity, sociodemographic, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Pain interference and physical function were associated with subsequent ED or urgent care visits, but fatigue and depression were not, and the results for 14- and 30-day visits were similar. Thresholds anchored in the likelihood of these visits differed according to cancer stage. For people with advanced cancer, a pain interference score of 60 or higher (odds ratio [OR] 3.75, [95% CI, 1.53 to 7.87]) and a physical function score lower than 40 (OR 2.94, [95% CI, 1.22 to 7.06]) produced the largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits. For people with nonadvanced cancer, the thresholds of 65 for pain interference (OR 2.64, [95% CI, 1.40 to 5.01]) and 35 for physical function (OR 1.87, [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.45]) produced largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits. CONCLUSION: These anchor-based thresholds in PROMIS scores can inform clinicians' actions with the goal of preventing ED or urgent care visits.

Phase II study of a longitudinal rehabilitation program for allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation patients.

Allogeneic blood and marrow transplantation (alloBMT) is a curative treatment for blood cancers associated with various treatment-related adverse events and morbidities for which rehabilitation programs are currently limited. A Phase II randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and impact of CaRE-4-alloBMT: a longitudinal multidimensional cancer rehabilitation program for patients undergoing alloBMT. Primary outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and methods. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment, retention, and adherence rates. Acceptability was assessed through qualitative interviews. Secondary clinical outcomes were collected through questionnaires and physiological assessments at four time points. A total of 80 participants were recruited and randomized. Recruitment (72%) and retention (70%) rates, along with qualitative findings, support the feasibility of the intervention. Adherence was suboptimal, most notably educational module completion (22.7%). Treatment effect sizes of 0.70, 95% CI [0.20, 1.21] (30-second sit-to-stand test), and 0.46, 95% CI [-0.17, 1.09] (SF-36) were observed in favour of the intervention. Results appear promising; however, findings are limited by missing data from attrition. Modifications will be required to refine the program and inform a Phase III RCT. (NCT04966156).

Neighborhood-Level Disadvantage and Delayed Adjuvant Therapy in Head and Neck Cancer.

Importance: For patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), initiation of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) within 6 weeks of surgery is recommended by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines and the Commission on Cancer. Although individual-level measures of socioeconomic status are associated with receipt of timely, guideline-adherent PORT, the role of neighborhood-level disadvantage has not been examined. Objective: To characterize the association of neighborhood-level disadvantage with delays in receiving PORT. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included 681 adult patients with HNSCC undergoing curative-intent surgery and PORT from 2018 to 2020 at 4 US academic medical centers. The data were analyzed between June 21, 2023, and March 5, 2024. Main Outcome Measures and Measures: The primary outcome was delay in initiating guideline-adherent PORT (ie, >6 weeks after surgery). Time-to-PORT (TTP) was a secondary outcome. Census block-level Area Deprivation Index (ADI) scores were calculated and reported as national percentiles (0-100); higher scores indicate greater deprivation. The association of ADI scores with PORT delay was assessed using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for demographic, clinical, and institutional characteristics. PORT initiation across ADI score population quartiles was evaluated with cumulative incidence plots and Cox models. Results: Among 681 patients with HNSCC undergoing surgery and PORT (mean [SD] age, 61.5 [11.2] years; 487 [71.5%] men, 194 [29.5%] women) the PORT delay rate was 60.8% (414/681) and median (IQR) TTP was 46 (40-56) days. The median (IQR) ADI score was 62.0 (44.0-83.0). Each 25-point increase in ADI score was associated with a corresponding 32% increase in the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of PORT delay (aOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63) on multivariable regression adjusted for institution, age, race and ethnicity, insurance, comorbidity, cancer subsite, stage, postoperative complications, care fragmentation, travel distance, and rurality. Increasing ADI score population quartiles were associated with increasing TTP (hazard ratio of PORT initiation, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.53-0.96; 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.77; and 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.72; for ADI quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs ADI quartile 1, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: Increasing neighborhood-level disadvantage was independently associated with a greater likelihood of PORT delay and longer TTP in a dose-dependent manner. These findings indicate a critical need for the development of multilevel strategies to improve the equitable delivery of timely, guideline-adherent PORT.