Priority Rankings of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Comparison of Patient and Physician Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is associated with high symptom burden. However, treatment decisions currently depend heavily on physician interpretation of clinical parameters and may not consider patients' health preferences. The NIH Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) initiative standardized a set of patient-reported outcomes for use in chronic diseases. This study identifies preference rankings among patients with PDAC and physicians for PROMIS domains and compares the priorities of patients and their providers. METHODS: We condensed the 96 NIH PROMIS adult domains into 31 domains and created a Maximum Difference Scaling questionnaire. Domain preference scores were generated from the responses of patients with PDAC and physicians, which were compared using Maximum Difference Scaling software across demographic and clinical variables. RESULTS: Participants included 135 patients with PDAC (53% male; median age, 68 years) and 54 physicians (76% male; median years of experience, 10). Patients selected physical functioning (PF) as their top priority, whereas physicians identified pain as most important. PF, ability to perform activities of daily living, and symptom management were within the top 5 domains for both patients and physicians, and varied only slightly across age, sex, and ethnicity. However, several domains were ranked significantly higher by patients than by physicians, including but not limited to PF; ability to do things for yourself, family, and friends; ability to interact with others to obtain help; and sleep quality. Physicians ranked pain, anxiety, and depression higher than patients did. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that patients with PDAC value PF and engaging in daily and social activities the most, whereas physicians prioritize symptoms such as pain. Patient-reported outcomes need to become more integrated into PDAC care and research to better identify unmet patient needs, inform treatment decisions, and develop therapies that address outcomes valued by patients.

Comparing Physician and Nurse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) Ratings as Predictors of Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scale is commonly used by physicians and nurses in oncology, as it correlates with cancer morbidity, mortality, and complications from chemotherapy and can help direct clinical decisions and prognostication. This retrospective cohort study aimed to identify whether ECOG-PS scores rated by oncologist versus nurses differ in their ability to predict clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over 19 months, 32 oncologists and 41 chemotherapy nurses from a single academic comprehensive cancer center independently scored ECOG-PS (range: 0-5) for a random sample of 311 patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. Logistic regression models were fit to evaluate the ability of nurse and physician ECOG-PS scores, as well as the nurse-physician ECOG-PS score difference (nurse minus physician), to predict the occurrence of chemotherapy toxicity (CTCAE v4, grade ≥3) and hospitalizations within 1 month from ECOG-PS ratings, as well as 6-month mortality or hospice referrals. RESULTS: Physician/nurse ECOG-PS agreement was 71% (Cohen's κ = 0.486, p < .0001). Nurse ECOG-PS scores had stronger odds ratio for 6-month mortality or hospice (odds ratio [OR], 3.29, p < .0001) than physician ECOG-PS scores (OR, 2.71, p = .001). Furthermore, ECOG-PS ratings by nurses, but not physicians, correlated with 1-month chemotherapy toxicity (OR, 1.44, p = .021) and 1-month hospitalizations (OR, 1.57, p = .041). Nurse-physician disagreement, but only when physicians gave "healthier" (lower) ratings, was also associated with worse outcomes (chemotherapy toxicity OR = 1.51, p = .045; 1-month hospitalization OR, 1.86, p = .037; 6-month mortality or hospice OR, 2.99, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Nurse ECOG-PS ratings seem more predictive of important outcomes than those of physicians, and physician-nurse disagreement in ECOG-PS ratings predicts worse outcomes; scoring by nurses may result in additional clinical benefit. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurse-rated Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG-PS) scores, compared with those rated by oncologists, better predicted hospitalizations and severe chemotherapy toxicity within 1 month from ECOG-PS assessment, as well as mortality or hospice referrals within 6 months. Physician-nurse disagreement in ECOG-PS scoring was associated with worse hospitalization, chemotherapy toxicity, and mortality and hospice referral rates. Rating performance statuses of patients with cancer by nurses instead or in addition to oncologists can result in additional clinical benefits, such as improved prognostication, as well as better informed clinical decision making regarding whether or not to administer chemotherapy, the need for additional supportive care, and goals of care discussions.

Wearable activity monitors in oncology trials: Current use of an emerging technology.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is an important outcome in oncology trials. Physical activity is commonly assessed using self-reported questionnaires, which are limited by recall and response biases. Recent advancements in wearable technology have provided oncologists with new opportunities to obtain real-time, objective physical activity data. The purpose of this review was to describe current uses of wearable activity monitors in oncology trials. METHODS: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for oncology trials involving wearable activity monitors published between 2005 and 2016. We extracted details on study design, types of activity monitors used, and purpose for their use. We summarized activity monitor metrics including step counts, sleep and sedentary time, and time spent in moderate-to-vigorous activity. RESULTS: We identified 41 trials of which 26 (63%) involved cancer survivors (post-treatment) and 15 trials (37%) involved patients with active cancer. Most trials (65%) involved breast cancer patients. Wearable activity monitors were commonly used in exercise (54%) or behavioral (29%) trials. Cancer survivors take between 4660 and 11,000 steps/day and those undergoing treatment take 2885 to 8300steps/day. CONCLUSION: Wearable activity monitors are increasingly being used to obtain objective measures of physical activity in oncology trials. There is potential for their use to expand to evaluate and predict clinical outcomes such as survival, quality of life, and treatment tolerance in future studies. Currently, there remains a lack of standardization in the types of monitors being used and how their data are being collected, analyzed, and interpreted. PRECIS: Recent advancements in wearable activity monitor technology have provided oncologists with new opportunities to monitor their patients' daily activity in real-world settings. The integration of wearable activity monitors into cancer care will help increase our understanding of the associations between physical activity and the prevention and management of the disease, in addition to other important cancer outcomes.

Wearable activity monitors to assess performance status and predict clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients.

An objective evaluation of patient performance status (PS) is difficult because patients spend the majority of their time outside of the clinic, self-report to providers, and undergo dynamic changes throughout their treatment experience. Real-time, objective activity data may allow for a more accurate assessment of PS and physical function, while reducing the subjectivity and bias associated with current assessments. Consenting patients with advanced cancer wore a wearble activity monitor for three consecutive visits in a prospective, single-cohort clinical trial. Provider-assessed PS (ECOG/Karnofsky) and NIH PROMIS® patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed at each visit. Associations between wearable activity monitor metrics (steps, distance, stairs) and PS, clinical outcomes (adverse events, hospitalizations, survival), and PROs were assessed using correlation statistics and in multivariable logistic regression models. Thirty-seven patients were evaluated (54% male, median 62 years). Patients averaged 3700 steps, 1.7 miles, and 3 flights of stairs per day. Highest correlations were observed between average daily steps and ECOG-PS and KPS (r = 0.63 and r = 0.69, respectively p < 0.01). Each 1000 steps/day increase was associated with reduced odds for adverse events (OR: 0.34, 95% CI 0.13, 0.94), hospitalizations (OR: 0.21 95% CI 0.56, 0.79), and hazard for death (HR: 0.48 95% CI 0.28-0.83). Significant correlations were also observed between activity metrics and PROs. Our trial demonstrates the feasibility of using wearable activity monitors to assess PS in advanced cancer patients and suggests their potential use to predict clinical and patient-reported outcomes. These findings should be validated in larger, randomized trials.

Palliative Care in Lung Cancer.

Lung cancer is the most common cancer worldwide and is the leading cause of cancer death for both men and women in the USA. Symptom burden in patients with advanced lung cancer is very high and has a negative impact on their quality of life (QOL). Palliative care with its focus on the management of symptoms and addressing physical, psychosocial, spiritual, and existential suffering, as well as medically appropriate goal setting and open communication with patients and families, significantly adds to the quality of care received by advanced lung cancer patients. The Provisional Clinical Opinion (PCO) of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) as well as the National Cancer Care Network's (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines recommends early integration of palliative care into routine cancer care. In this chapter, we will provide an overview of palliative care in lung cancer and will examine the evidence and recommendations with regard to a comprehensive and interdisciplinary approach to symptom management, as well as discussions of goals of care, advance care planning, and care preferences.

Meta-analyses of treatment standards for pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the most lethal common cancer with an estimated 5-year survival rate of 6-7% (across all stages). The only potential curative therapy is surgical resection in those with localized disease. Adjuvant (postoperative) therapy confers a survival advantage over postoperative observation alone. Neoadjuvant (preoperative) therapy offers the potential to downstage initially unresectable tumors for resection, sterilize resection margins and decrease locoregional recurrence, and identify a subset of patients with aggressive disease for whom surgery will not be beneficial. Induction chemotherapy followed by consolidation chemoradiation is another recommended approach in those with locally advanced disease. For those who cannot be downstaged, cannot tolerate surgery, or were diagnosed with metastatic disease, treatment remains palliative with chemotherapy being a critical component of this approach. Recently, intensive combination chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival rates in comparison to gemcitabine alone in advanced disease. The past few decades have afforded an accumulation of high-level evidence regarding neoadjuvant, adjuvant and palliative therapies in pancreatic cancer. There are numerous reviews discussing recent retrospective studies, prospective studies and randomized controlled trials in each of these areas. However, reviews of optimal and recommended treatment strategies across all stages of pancreatic cancer that focus on the highest levels of hierarchical evidence, such as meta-analyses, are limited. The discussion of novel therapeutics is beyond the scope of this review. However, an extensive and the most current collection of meta-analyses of first-line systemic and locoregional treatment options for all stages of pancreatic cancer to date has been accumulated.

Pathologic complete response rates in triple-negative, HER2-positive, and hormone receptor-positive breast cancers after anthracycline-free neoadjuvant chemotherapy with carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without trastuzumab.

BACKGROUND: Pathologic complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) is considered a surrogate for improved survival. Platinum-containing NCT, particularly in patients with HER2+ and triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) may increase pCR rates. METHODS: Tumor characteristics, pCR rates (no invasive disease in breast and lymph nodes), toxicities, and survival in patients who received carboplatin, a taxane, and trastuzumab (HER2+ disease) between April 2009 and December 2011, were reviewed. RESULTS: Thirty eight patients (39 tumors) completed a median of 4 cycles of NCT. Eighteen of 39 (46%) tumors were HER2+, 8/18 (44%) responded with pCR; 13/18 HER2+ tumors were HR+ (72%) and 4/13 (31%) had a pCR. Ten of 39 (26%) tumors were TNBC; 6/10 (60%) had a pCR. At a median of 25-months no recurrences were observed in patients with pCR. CONCLUSIONS: Prospective studies of anthracycline-free platinum-containing NCT are warranted in LABC patients with HER2+ and TNBC.

Managing breast cancer in the older patient.

Breast cancer is a disease that is associated with aging, with almost one-half of all new breast cancer cases diagnosed annually in the United States occurring in women ages 65 and older. Recent data suggest that although breast cancer outcomes in younger women have shown substantial improvement as a result of advances in treatment and screening, the benefits in older women have been less pronounced. Although older patients have been underrepresented in cancer clinical trials, there is an emerging body of literature to help guide treatment decisions. For early-stage breast cancer, the discussion regarding treatment options involves balancing the reduction in risk of recurrence gained by specific therapies with the potential for increased treatment-related toxicity, potentially exacerbated by physiological decline or comorbidities that often co-exist in the older population. A key component of care is the recognition that chronologic age alone cannot guide the management of an older patient with breast cancer. Rather, treatment decisions must also take into account a patient's functional status, estimated life expectancy, the risks and benefits of the therapy, potential barriers to treatment, and patient preference. This article reviews the available evidence for therapeutic management of early-stage breast cancer in older patients, and highlights data from the geriatric oncology literature that provide a basis on which to facilitate evidence-based treatment.

Pilot study of palliative care consultation in patients with advanced heart failure referred for cardiac transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Heart failure (HF) in its chronic form is an irreversible and progressive disease. Palliative care (PC) interventions have traditionally been focused on patients with advanced cancer. We performed a pilot study to assess the feasibility of implementing the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines for early PC intervention in patients with advanced HF who were seeking or received potentially curative therapies. METHODS: Twenty consecutive patients with advanced HF referred to PC from the heart transplant service with stage D, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III-IV symptoms were analyzed retrospectively in a tertiary care setting. Data were reviewed to assess the clinical impact of PC intervention. Feedback was obtained to assess satisfaction of the patients, their families, and the health care professionals. An independent assessment of the impact of the PC service in the care of each patient was performed by a cardiologist and PC physician by use of a scoring system. RESULTS: Twenty consecutive patients with HF were analyzed. PC consult was obtained for a variety of reasons. All patients complained of a high symptom burden. PC consultation resulted in a decrease in the use of opioids and increased patient satisfaction. Patients and their family members generally reported improved holistic care, continuity of care, more focused goals of care, and improved planning of treatment courses. The nonstandardized scoring system used to determine the impact of the PC service showed an average of moderate to significant impact when assessed by both a cardiologist and a PC physician. CONCLUSION: PC consultation appears to be beneficial in the treatment and quality of life of advanced HF patients, independent of their prognosis. This pilot study demonstrated feasibility and sufficient evidence of clinical benefit to warrant a larger randomized clinical trial assessing the benefit of standard involvement by PC in patients with advanced HF, independent of the patient's prognosis or treatment goals.