Feasibility and acceptability of using an IVRS to assess decision making about sun protection.

OBJECTIVE: We developed an interactive voice response system (IVRS), an automated telephone survey technology, to assess real-time decision making about sun protection. We examined the feasibility and acceptability of IVRS in this electronic health (eHealth) context. METHODS: Melanoma patients who underwent surgery referred their first-degree relatives (FDRs) for participation. Eligible FDRs were contacted twice daily (12:30 pm; 5:00 pm) over 14 consecutive days via IVRS to complete a survey about their sun protection behaviors and decisions about those behaviors. RESULTS: Of the 81 eligible FDRs, 69 (85%) consented to the study, and 53 (77%) completed the study. We assessed adherence with the IVRS via the number and pattern of missing survey items across all answered IVRS calls. About 80% of scheduled IVRS calls were answered (1316/1652). Most surveys (93%) of the IVRS-answered calls were completed. To examine acceptability, we analyzed the program satisfaction survey data collected at the end of the study. Most participants viewed the IVRS to be highly acceptable and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: These findings illustrate that use of real-time IVRS data collection regarding sun protection decision making is feasible and acceptable to higher-risk research participants and could thus be used with time and location-sensitive eHealth support to enhance sun protection decision making.

Software for Administering the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events: Usability Study.

BACKGROUND: The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed software to gather symptomatic adverse events directly from patients participating in clinical trials. The software administers surveys to patients using items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) through Web-based or automated telephone interfaces and facilitates the management of survey administration and the resultant data by professionals (clinicians and research associates). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to iteratively evaluate and improve the usability of the PRO-CTCAE software. METHODS: Heuristic evaluation of the software functionality was followed by semiscripted, think-aloud protocols in two consecutive rounds of usability testing among patients with cancer, clinicians, and research associates at 3 cancer centers. We conducted testing with patients both in clinics and at home (remotely) for both Web-based and telephone interfaces. Furthermore, we refined the software between rounds and retested. RESULTS: Heuristic evaluation identified deviations from the best practices across 10 standardized categories, which informed initial software improvement. Subsequently, we conducted user-based testing among 169 patients and 47 professionals. Software modifications between rounds addressed identified issues, including difficulty using radio buttons, absence of survey progress indicators, and login problems (for patients) as well as scheduling of patient surveys (for professionals). The initial System Usability Scale (SUS) score for the patient Web-based interface was 86 and 82 (P=.22) before and after modifications, respectively, whereas the task completion score was 4.47, which improved to 4.58 (P=.39) after modifications. Following modifications for professional users, the SUS scores improved from 71 to 75 (P=.47), and the mean task performance improved significantly (4.40 vs 4.02; P=.001). CONCLUSIONS: Software modifications, informed by rigorous assessment, rendered a usable system, which is currently used in multiple NCI-sponsored multicenter cancer clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01031641 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/708hTjlTl).

Phase II Study of a Non-Platinum-Containing Doublet of Paclitaxel and Pemetrexed with Bevacizumab as Initial Therapy for Patients with Advanced Lung Adenocarcinomas.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with lung cancers cannot receive platinum-containing regimens owing to comorbid medical conditions. We designed the PPB (paclitaxel, pemetrexed, and bevacizumab) regimen to maintain or improve outcomes while averting the unique toxicities of platinum-based chemotherapies. METHODS: We enrolled patients with untreated, advanced lung adenocarcinomas with measurable disease and no contraindications to bevacizumab. Participants received paclitaxel, 90 mg/m(2), pemetrexed, 500 mg/m(2), and bevacizumab, 10 mg/kg, every 14 days for 6 months and continued to receive pemetrexed and bevacizumab every 14 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: Of the 44 patients treated, 50% were women; the median age was 61 years and 89% had a Karnofsky performance status of at least 80%. We genotyped 38 patients with the following results: Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog gene (KRAS), 16; anaplastic lymphoma receptor tyrosine kinase gene (ALK), three; B-Raf proto-oncogene, serine/threonine kinase gene (BRAF) V600E, two; erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 gene (HER2)/phosphatidylinositol-4,5-bisphosphate 3-kinase catalytic subunit alpha gene (PIK3CA), one; epidermal growth factor receptor gene (EGFR) exon 20 insertion, one; and driver 15, none. A total of 23 patients achieved a PR (52%, 95% confidence interval: 37-68), including seven of 16 with KRAS-mutant tumors. The overall survival rate at 2 years was 43% with a median of 17 months (95% confidence interval: 10-29). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicities included elevated alanine transaminase level (16%), fatigue (16%), leukopenia (9%), anemia (7%), elevated aspartate transaminase level (7%), edema (5%), and pleural effusions (5%). Two patients died of respiratory failure without disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: The PPB regimen produced a high response rate in patients with lung adenocarcinomas regardless of mutational status. Survival and toxicities were comparable to those in the phase II reports testing platinum-containing doublets with bevacizumab. These results justify use of the PPB regimen in fit patients in whom three-drug regimens including bevacizumab are appropriate.

Evaluation of mode equivalence of the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument, LASA Quality of Life, and Subjective Significance Questionnaire items administered by Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper.

PURPOSE: To assess the equivalence of patient-reported outcome (PRO) survey responses across Web, interactive voice response system (IVRS), and paper modes of administration. METHODS: Postoperative colorectal cancer patients with home Web/e-mail and phone were randomly assigned to one of the eight study groups: Groups 1-6 completed the survey via Web, IVRS, and paper, in one of the six possible orders; Groups 7-8 completed the survey twice, either by Web or by IVRS. The 20-item survey, including the MSKCC Bowel Function Instrument (BFI), the LASA Quality of Life (QOL) scale, and the Subjective Significance Questionnaire (SSQ) adapted to bowel function, was completed from home on consecutive days. Mode equivalence was assessed by comparison of mean scores across modes and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and was compared to the test-retest reliability of Web and IVRS. RESULTS: Of 170 patients, 157 completed at least one survey and were included in analysis. Patients had mean age 56 (SD = 11), 53% were male, 81% white, 53% colon, and 47% rectal cancer; 78% completed all assigned surveys. Mean scores for BFI total score, BFI subscale scores, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ varied by mode by less than one-third of a score point. ICCs across mode were: BFI total score (Web-paper = 0.96, Web-IVRS = 0.97, paper-IVRS = 0.97); BFI subscales (range = 0.88-0.98); LASA QOL (Web-paper = 0.98, Web-IVRS = 0.78, paper-IVRS = 0.80); and SSQ (Web-paper = 0.92, Web-IVRS = 0.86, paper-IVRS = 0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Mode equivalence was demonstrated for the BFI total score, BFI subscales, LASA QOL, and adapted SSQ, supporting the use of multiple modes of PRO data capture in clinical trials.

Feasibility and clinical impact of sharing patient-reported symptom toxicities and performance status with clinical investigators during a phase 2 cancer treatment trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians can miss up to half of patients' symptomatic toxicities in cancer clinical trials and routine practice. Although patient-reported outcome questionnaires have been developed to capture this information, it is unclear whether clinicians will make use of patient-reported outcomes to inform their own toxicity documentation, or to prompt symptom management activities. METHODS: 44 lung cancer patients that participated in a phase 2 treatment trial self-reported 13 symptomatic toxicities derived from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Karnofsky Performance Status via tablet computers in waiting areas immediately preceding scheduled visits. During visits, clinicians viewed patients' self-reported toxicity and performance status ratings on a computer interface and could agree or disagree/reassign grades ("shared" reporting). Agreement of clinicians with patient-reported grades was tabulated, and compared using weighted kappa statistics. Clinical actions in response to patient-reported severe (grade 3/4) toxicities were measured (e.g. treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, supportive medications). For comparison, 45 non-trial patients with lung cancer being treated in the same clinic by the same physicians were simultaneously enrolled in a parallel cohort study in which patients also self-reported toxicity grades but reports were not shared with clinicians ("non-shared" reporting). RESULTS: Toxicities and performance status were reported by patients and reviewed by clinicians at (780/782) 99.7% of study visits in the phase 2 trial which used "shared" reporting. Clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time with kappas 0.82-0.92. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of severe patient-reported toxicities. In the "non-shared" reporting comparison group, clinicians agreed with patients 56% of the time with kappas 0.04-0.48 (significantly worse than shared reporting for all symptoms), and clinical actions were taken in response to 44% of severe patient-reported toxicities. CONCLUSION: Clinicians will frequently agree with patient-reported symptoms and performance status, and will use this information to guide documentation and symptom management. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00807573).

Harnessing technology to improve clinical trials: study of real-time informatics to collect data, toxicities, image response assessments, and patient-reported outcomes in a phase II clinical trial.

PURPOSE: In clinical trials, traditional monitoring methods, paper documentation, and outdated collection systems lead to inaccuracies of study information and inefficiencies in the process. Integrated electronic systems offer an opportunity to collect data in real time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We created a computer software system to collect 13 patient-reported symptomatic adverse events and patient-reported Karnofsky performance status, semi-automated RECIST measurements, and laboratory data, and we made this information available to investigators in real time at the point of care during a phase II lung cancer trial. We assessed data completeness within 48 hours of each visit. Clinician satisfaction was measured. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled, for 721 total visits. At each visit, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) reflecting toxicity and disease-related symptoms were completed using a dedicated wireless laptop. All PROs were distributed in batch throughout the system within 24 hours of the visit, and abnormal laboratory data were available for review within a median of 6 hours from the time of sample collection. Manual attribution of laboratory toxicities took a median of 1 day from the time they were accessible online. Semi-automated RECIST measurements were available to clinicians online within a median of 2 days from the time of imaging. All clinicians and 88% of data managers felt there was greater accuracy using this system. CONCLUSION: Existing data management systems can be harnessed to enable real-time collection and review of clinical information during trials. This approach facilitates reporting of information closer to the time of events, and improves efficiency, and the ability to make earlier clinical decisions.

Validation study of a web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Good clinical care of prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy depends on careful assessment of post-operative morbidities, yet physicians do not always judge patient symptoms accurately. Logistical problems associated with using paper questionnaire limit their use in the clinic. We have implemented a web-interface ("STAR") for patient-reported outcomes after radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We analyzed data on the first 9 months of clinical implementation to evaluate the validity of the STAR questionnaire to assess functional outcomes following radical prostatectomy. We assessed response rate, internal consistency within domains, and the association between survey responses and known predictors of sexual and urinary function, including age, time from surgery, nerve sparing status and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Of 1581 men sent an invitation to complete the instrument online, 1235 responded for a response rate of 78%. Cronbach's alpha was 0.84, 0.86 and 0.97 for bowel, urinary and sexual function respectively. All known predictors of sexual and urinary function were significantly associated with survey responses in the hypothesized direction. CONCLUSIONS: We have found that web-based assessment of functional recovery after radical prostatectomy is practical and feasible. The instrument demonstrated excellent psychometric properties, suggested that validity is maintained when questions are transferred from paper to electronic format and when patients give responses that they know will be seen by their doctor and added to their clinic record. As such, our system allows ready implementation of patient-reported outcomes into routine clinical practice.