Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning. METHODS: Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved. RESULTS: Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way. CONCLUSION: We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service. RESULTS: 100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Experience With the Routine Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patients With Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Christie NHS Foundation Trust launched their electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) service in January 2019 in the routine clinical setting. The lung cancer questionnaires consist of 14 symptom items, adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life (QoL) tool. Patients with lung cancer are invited to complete questionnaires assessing their symptoms and QoL using an online platform. METHODS: The ePROM responses and clinical, pathologic, and treatment data for patients who completed the questionnaires between January 2019 and December 2020 were extracted from electronic medical records. The symptom and QoL scores of patients who completed baseline pretreatment ePROMs and also those who completed ePROMs pre- and postpalliative lung systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) or radical thoracic radiotherapy were evaluated. Pretreatment questionnaires were analyzed according to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) comorbidity score. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred eighty patients with lung cancer were included. There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms and QoL scores between age groups. Cough (P = .006) and EQ-5D-5L mobility scores (P = .006) were significantly worse for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Dyspnea (P = .035), hemoptysis (P = .023), nausea (P = .041), mobility (P = .004), and self-care (P = .0420) were significantly worse for those with higher ACE-27 scores (2-3 v 0-1). Palliative SACT was associated with a significant improvement in cough (P < .001) and hemoptysis (P = .025), but significantly negatively affected mobility (P = .013). Patients receiving radical thoracic radiotherapy reported a significant improvement in hemoptysis (P = .042) but worse pain (P = .002) and fatigue (P = .01). Other changes in symptom and QoL scores were not significant. CONCLUSION: The symptoms and QoL reported at baseline and before and after both palliative SACT and radical thoracic radiotherapy are clinically relevant and meaningful. We have demonstrated that routine implementation of ePROMs into clinical practice is feasible and can inform clinical practice and future research.

Plasma Tie2 is a tumor vascular response biomarker for VEGF inhibitors in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Oncological use of anti-angiogenic VEGF inhibitors has been limited by the lack of informative biomarkers. Previously we reported circulating Tie2 as a vascular response biomarker for bevacizumab-treated ovarian cancer patients. Using advanced MRI and circulating biomarkers we have extended these findings in metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 70). Bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) was administered to elicit a biomarker response, followed by FOLFOX6-bevacizumab until disease progression. Bevacizumab induced a correlation between Tie2 and the tumor vascular imaging biomarker, Ktrans (R:-0.21 to 0.47) implying that Tie2 originated from the tumor vasculature. Tie2 trajectories were independently associated with pre-treatment tumor vascular characteristics, tumor response, progression free survival (HR for progression = 3.01, p = 0.00014; median PFS 248 vs. 348 days p = 0.0008) and the modeling of progressive disease (p < 0.0001), suggesting that Tie2 should be monitored clinically to optimize VEGF inhibitor use. A vascular response is defined as a 30% reduction in Tie2; vascular progression as a 40% increase in Tie2 above the nadir. Tie2 is the first, validated, tumor vascular response biomarker for VEGFi.

A phase 1b study of Selumetinib in combination with Cisplatin and Gemcitabine in advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: the ABC-04 study.

BACKGROUND: Combined treatment with cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) is the standard of care for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886) potently and selectively inhibits MEK1/2, an intracellular kinase and has shown activity in ABC. The objective of the ABC-04 trial was to establish the recommended dose of selumetinib in combination with CisGem in patients with ABC. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 18 years, had histologically or cytologically-confirmed unresectable recurrent or metastatic biliary tract, gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma, WHO performance status 0-2, and adequate major organ function. Patients may have had prior surgery, radiotherapy or adjuvant chemotherapy, but no prior CisGem and no prior chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic disease. Patients received cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) plus gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of a 21-day cycle. Selumetinib capsules were taken daily. Patients received up to 8 cycles of CisGem and could receive selumetinib until disease progression. A dose de-escalation scheme was used to determine the recommended dose of selumetinib. The first dose level was 75 mg bd. Patients were recruited in cohorts of 3 and assessed for dose limiting toxicity (DLT) during the first cycle of treatment. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were recruited, of whom 12 were evaluable for DLT (1 did not start treatment). All evaluable patients received the starting dose of selumetinib 75 mg bd and one patient experienced a DLT (cardiac chest pain). The median number of days selumetinib was taken (adjusted for the number of days of dose interruptions) was 171.5 (IQR: 75.5 to 344). Two patients remained on treatment at 14 and 19 months post registration. There were 3 temporary and 1 permanent interruptions of selumetinib in cycle 1. Eight patients were evaluable for objective response (RECIST v1.1): 3 had a partial response and 5 stable disease. The median PFS was 6.4 months (IQR 5.2 to 13.7). Toxicities related to selumetinib were mostly related to oedema and rash, grade 1-2 and manageable. Pharmacokinetic analysis showed that the AUC(0-t), AUC(0-∞) and Cmax of selumetinib increased by 12, 11 and 30 % respectively when it was administered with CisGem, while Cmax for the N-desmethyl metabolite of selumetinib decreased by 40 %. There was no evidence that the time of Cmax for selumetinib or N-desmethyl metabolite of selumetinib were different when selumetinib was administered alone or with CisGem. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose of selumetinib when combined with CisGem was 75 mg bd. Translational studies are underway to identify biomarkers that may predict outcome (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01242605 July 6(th) 2010).