What Is a Sarcoma 'Specialist Center'? Multidisciplinary Research Finds an Answer.

The management of sarcomas in specialist centers delivers significant benefits. In much of the world, specialists are not available, and the development of expertise is identified as a major need. However, the terms 'specialist' or 'expert' center are rarely defined. Our objective is to offer a definition for patient advocates and a tool for healthcare providers to underpin improving the care of people with sarcoma. SPAGN developed a discussion paper for a workshop at the SPAGN 2023 Conference, attended by 75 delegates. A presentation to the Connective Tissue Oncology Society (CTOS) and further discussion led to this paper. Core Principles were identified that underlie specialist sarcoma care. The primary Principle is the multi-disciplinary team discussing every patient, at first diagnosis and during treatment. Principles for optimal sarcoma management include accurate diagnosis followed by safe, high-quality treatment, with curative intent. These Principles are supplemented by Features describing areas of healthcare, professional involvement, and service provision and identifying further research and development needs. These allow for variations because of national or local policies and budgets. We propose the term 'Sarcoma Intelligent Specialist Network' to recognize expertise wherever it is found in the world. This provides a base for further discussion and local refinement.

Therapeutic drug monitoring to personalize dosing of imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib: A mixed methods study on barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Personalized dosing based on measurement of individual drug levels and adjusting the dose accordingly can improve efficacy and decrease unnecessary toxicity of oncological treatment. For imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib, this therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided dosing is, however, not routinely used, despite accumulating evidence favoring individualized dosing. Therefore, we aimed to identify and quantify (potential) barriers and facilitators in TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods study among all stakeholders involved: patients, healthcare professionals (HCPs), pharmaceutical companies, and health insurance companies. During the first qualitative part of this study, we performed semi-structured individual interviews and one focus group interview to identify all (potential) barriers and facilitators, and during the second quantitative part of this study, we used a web-based survey to quantify these findings. The interviews addressed the six domains of the implementation of change model of Grol and Wensing: (1) the innovation itself; (2) the HCP; (3) the patient; (4) social context; (5) organizational context; and (6) finances, law, and governance. RESULTS: In the qualitative study, we interviewed 20 patients, 18 HCPs and 10 representatives of pharmaceutical and health insurance companies and identified 72 barriers and 90 facilitators. In the quantitative study, the survey was responded by 66 HCPs and 58 patients. Important barriers were on the domain of the HCP, such as a lack of experience with TDM (36.4%), on the domain of the patient, such as lack of awareness of TDM (39.7%), and the processing time for measurement and interpretation of the TDM result (40.9%) (organizational domain). Important facilitators were education of HCPs (95.5%), education of patients (87.9%) and facilitating an overview of when and where TDM measurements are being performed (86.4%). CONCLUSION: We identified and quantified important barriers and facilitators for the implementation of TDM-guided dosing for imatinib, sunitinib, and pazopanib. Based on our results, the implementation strategy should mainly focus on educating both HCPs and patients and on the organizational aspect of TDM.

How do others cope? Extracting coping strategies for adverse drug events from social media.

Patients advise their peers on how to cope with their illness in daily life on online support groups. To date, no efforts have been made to automatically extract recommended coping strategies from online patient discussion groups. We introduce this new task, which poses a number of challenges including complex, long entities, a large long-tailed label space, and cross-document relations. We present an initial ontology for coping strategies as a starting point for future research on coping strategies, and the first end-to-end pipeline for extracting coping strategies for side effects. We also compared two possible computational solutions for this novel and highly challenging task; multi-label classification and named entity recognition (NER) with entity linking (EL). We evaluated our methods on the discussion forum from the Facebook group of the worldwide patient support organization 'GIST support international' (GSI); GIST support international donated the data to us. We found that coping strategy extraction is difficult and both methods attain limited performance (measured with F1 score) on held out test sets; multi-label classification outperforms NER+EL (F1=0.220 vs F1=0.155). An inspection of the multi-label classification output revealed that for some of the incorrect predictions, the reference label is close to the predicted label in the ontology (e.g. the predicted label 'juice' instead of the more specific reference label 'grapefruit juice'). Performance increased to F1=0.498 when we evaluated at a coarser level of the ontology. We conclude that our pipeline can be used in a semi-automatic setting, in interaction with domain experts to discover coping strategies for side effects from a patient forum. For example, we found that patients recommend ginger tea for nausea and magnesium and potassium supplements for cramps. This information can be used as input for patient surveys or clinical studies.

Sample Bias in Web-Based Patient-Generated Health Data of Dutch Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor: Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, social media is being recognized as a potential resource for patient-generated health data, for example, for pharmacovigilance. Although the representativeness of the web-based patient population is often noted as a concern, studies in this field are limited. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the sample bias of patient-centered social media in Dutch patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). METHODS: A population-based survey was conducted in the Netherlands among 328 patients with GIST diagnosed 2-13 years ago to investigate their digital communication use with fellow patients. A logistic regression analysis was used to analyze clinical and demographic differences between forum users and nonusers. RESULTS: Overall, 17.9% (59/328) of survey respondents reported having contact with fellow patients via social media. Moreover, 78% (46/59) of forum users made use of GIST patient forums. We found no statistically significant differences for age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis between forum users (n=46) and nonusers (n=273). Patient forum users did differ significantly in (self-reported) treatment phase from nonusers (P=.001). Of the 46 forum users, only 2 (4%) were cured and not being monitored; 3 (7%) were on adjuvant, curative treatment; 19 (41%) were being monitored after adjuvant treatment; and 22 (48%) were on palliative treatment. In contrast, of the 273 patients who did not use disease-specific forums to communicate with fellow patients, 56 (20.5%) were cured and not being monitored, 31 (11.3%) were on curative treatment, 139 (50.9%) were being monitored after treatment, and 42 (15.3%) were on palliative treatment. The odds of being on a patient forum were 2.8 times as high for a patient who is being monitored compared with a patient that is considered cured. The odds of being on a patient forum were 1.9 times as high for patients who were on curative (adjuvant) treatment and 10 times as high for patients who were in the palliative phase compared with patients who were considered cured. Forum users also reported a lower level of social functioning (84.8 out of 100) than nonusers (93.8 out of 100; P=.008). CONCLUSIONS: Forum users showed no particular bias on the most important demographic variables of age, sex, socioeconomic status, and time since diagnosis. This may reflect the narrowing digital divide. Overrepresentation and underrepresentation of patients with GIST in different treatment phases on social media should be taken into account when sourcing patient forums for patient-generated health data. A further investigation of the sample bias in other web-based patient populations is warranted.

Automated gathering of real-world data from online patient forums can complement pharmacovigilance for rare cancers.

Current methods of pharmacovigilance result in severe under-reporting of adverse drug events (ADEs). Patient forums have the potential to complement current pharmacovigilance practices by providing real-time uncensored and unsolicited information. We are the first to explore the value of patient forums for rare cancers. To this end, we conduct a case study on a patient forum for Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumor patients. We have developed machine learning algorithms to automatically extract and aggregate side effects from messages on open online discussion forums. We show that patient forum data can provide suggestions for which ADEs impact quality of life the most: For many side effects the relative reporting rate differs decidedly from that of the registration trials, including for example cognitive impairment and alopecia as side effects of avapritinib. We also show that our methods can provide real-world data for long-term ADEs, such as osteoporosis and tremors for imatinib, and novel ADEs not found in registration trials, such as dry eyes and muscle cramping for imatinib. We thus posit that automated pharmacovigilance from patient forums can provide real-world data for ADEs and should be employed as input for medical hypotheses for rare cancers.

Symptoms reported by gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) patients on imatinib treatment: combining questionnaire and forum data.

PURPOSE: Treatment with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) imatinib in patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) causes symptoms that could negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Treatment-related symptoms are usually clinician-reported and little is known about patient reports. We used survey and online patient forum data to investigate (1) prevalence of patient-reported symptoms; (2) coverage of symptoms mentioned on the forum by existing HRQoL questionnaires; and (3) priorities of prevalent symptoms in HRQoL assessment. METHODS: In the cross-sectional population-based survey study, Dutch GIST patients completed items from the EORTC QLQ-C30 and Symptom-Based Questionnaire (SBQ). In the forum study, machine learning algorithms were used to extract TKI side-effects from English messages on an international online forum for GIST patients. Prevalence of symptoms related to imatinib treatment in both sources was calculated and exploratively compared. RESULTS: Fatigue and muscle pain or cramps were reported most frequently. Seven out of 10 most reported symptoms (i.e. fatigue, muscle pain or cramps, facial swelling, joint pain, skin problems, diarrhoea, and oedema) overlapped between the two sources. Alopecia was frequently mentioned on the forum, but not in the survey. Four out of 10 most reported symptoms on the online forum are covered by the EORTC QLQ-C30. The EORTC-SBQ and EORTC Item Library cover 9 and 10 symptoms, respectively. CONCLUSION: This first overview of patient-reported imatinib-related symptoms from two data sources helps to determine coverage of items in existing questionnaires, and prioritize HRQoL issues. Combining cancer-generic instruments with treatment-specific item lists will improve future HRQoL assessment in care and research in GIST patients using TKI.

Unmet Medical Needs and Future Perspectives for Leiomyosarcoma Patients-A Position Paper from the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) and Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN).

As leiomyosarcoma patients are challenged by the development of metastatic disease, effective systemic therapies are the cornerstone of outcome. However, the overall activity of the currently available conventional systemic treatments and the prognosis of patients with advanced or metastatic disease are still poor, making the treatment of this patient group challenging. Therefore, in a joint effort together with patient networks and organizations, namely Sarcoma Patients EuroNet (SPAEN), the international network of sarcoma patients organizations, and the National LeioMyoSarcoma Foundation (NLMSF) in the United States, we aim to summarize state-of-the-art treatments for leiomyosarcoma patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and current unmet needs, thereby guiding the community to design innovative clinical trials and basic research and close these research gaps. This position paper arose from a leiomyosarcoma research meeting in October 2020 hosted by the NLMSF and SPAEN.