Search

Purpose: Emotional and functional well-being (EWB and FWB) are important components of mental health and quality of life. This study aims to evaluate long-term EWB and FWB in breast cancer (BC) survivors. Methods: The Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3 oversampled Black and younger (< 50 years in age) women so that they each represent approximately 50% of the study population and assessed participants' EWB and FWB with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast (FACT-B) at 5- (baseline), 25-, and 84-months post diagnosis. Multinomial logit models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and well-being change relative to baseline. Results: Among 2,781 participants with BC, average EWB and FWB improved with time since diagnosis. Persistent FWB decrements were associated with Black race [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2–1.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1–1.6), at 25-months and 84-months respectively], older age [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1–1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2–1.8), respectively], no chemotherapy, and recurrence [OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.8–4.8) and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1–4.6), respectively]. EWB decrements were associated with advanced stage and recurrence. Decrements in combined (FWB+EWB) well-being were associated with recurrence at both follow-up survey timepoints [ORs 4.7 (95% CI 2.7–8.0) and 4.3 (95% CI 2.8–6.6), respectively]. Conclusions: Long-term well-being varies by demographics and clinical features, with Black women and women with aggressive disease at greatest risk of long-term decrements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many interventions improve care and outcomes for people with Alzheimer's Disease and related dementias (ADRD), yet are never disseminated. Pragmatic trials facilitate the adoption and dissemination of best practices, but gaps in pragmatic outcome measurement are a critical obstacle. Our objectives are (1) to describe the development and structure of the IMbedded Pragmatic ADRD Clinical Trials Collaboratory (IMPACT) iLibrary of potential outcome measures for ADRD pragmatic trials, and (2) to assess their pragmatic characteristics. Methods: We identified potential outcome measures from several sources: a database of administrative and clinical outcome measures from ADRD clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, published reviews, and IMPACT pilot pragmatic trial outcome measures. The iLibrary reports (a) number of items, (b) completion time, (c) readability for diverse populations, (d) cost or copyright barriers to use, (e) method of administration, (f) assessor training burden, and (g) feasibility of data capture and interpretation in routine care; a summary of pragmatic characteristics of each outcome measure (high, moderate, low); items or descriptions of items; and links to primary citations regarding development or psychometric properties. Results: We included 140 outcome measures in the iLibrary: 66 administrative (100% were pragmatic) and 74 clinical (52% were pragmatic). The most commonly addressed outcome domains from administrative assessments included physical function, quality of care or communication concerns, and psychological symptoms or distress behaviors. The most commonly addressed outcome domains from clinical assessments were psychological symptoms or distress behaviors, physical function, cognitive function, and health‐related quality of life. Conclusions: Pragmatic outcome measures are brief, meaningful to diverse populations, easily scored and interpreted by clinicians, and available in electronic format for analysis. The iLibrary can facilitate the selection of measures for a wide range of outcomes relevant to people with ADRD and their care partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Institute on Aging (NIA) Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease and Alzheimer's Related Dementia Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory convened a Lived Experience Panel (LEP) to inform the development of research priorities and provide input on conducting embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) of dementia care interventions. Given the importance of people with lived experience to dementia research, and the unique considerations of engaging people with dementia, we report on our process for the recruitment, selection, and initial convening of the IMPACT LEP. Methods: The IMPACT Engaging Partners Team, in partnership with the Alzheimer's Association, sought nominations of individuals with mild cognitive impairment or early‐stage dementia, care partners of other people living with dementia (PLWD), and proxy representatives for individuals with mid‐to‐late stage dementia. The 11‐member LEP was composed of individuals with diverse personal experiences in part due to their age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, geography, disability, or type of dementia. In its first year, the LEP met with IMPACT's Patient and Caregiver Relevant Outcomes Core and Ethics and Regulation Core. Results: LEP members provided valuable insights and nuanced discussion of issues relevant to ePCTs in dementia care from a broad range of personal experience. Panelists identified key research priorities and provided insight on outcomes often studied by researchers. The LEP also informed investigators' approaches to waivers and modifications of written informed consent and evaluation of minimal risk. Summary reports of the LEP meetings with each Core are available on the IMPACT website. At the end of the first year, changes were made to the composition of the LEP, and opportunities were identified for expanding panelist engagement with IMPACT investigators, as were priorities and scope for future input. Conclusions: The IMPACT LEP provides a model for engaging PLWD and care partners in the research process as collaborators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify real‐world patterns of first line treatment, treatment sequence and outcomes for older adults diagnosed with advanced melanoma who received immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Methods: The study population included older adults (ages 65+) diagnosed with unresectable or metastatic melanoma between 2012 and 2017 and who received first line immunotherapy or targeted therapy. Using the linked surveillance, epidemiology, and end results‐medicare data, we described patterns of first line treatment and treatment sequence through 2018. We used descriptive statistics to report patient and provider characteristics by first line treatment receipt and changes in first line therapy use over calendar time. We also described overall survival (OS) and time to treatment failure (TTF) by first line treatment using the Kaplan–Meier method. For patterns of treatment sequence, we reported commonly observed treatment switch patterns by treatment sub‐category and calendar year. Results: The analyses included 584 patients (mean age = 76.3 years). A majority (n = 502) received first line immunotherapy. There was a sustained increase in immunotherapy uptake, most notably from 2015 to 2016. The estimated median OS and TTF were longer with first line immunotherapy than with targeted therapy. Individuals treated with CTLA‐4 + PD‐1 inhibitors had the longest median OS (28.4 months). The most common treatment switch pattern was from a first line CTLA‐4 inhibitor to a second line PD‐1 inhibitor. Conclusions: Our findings inform understanding of treatment patterns of currently used immunotherapies and targeted therapies in older adults with advanced melanoma. Immunotherapy use has increased steadily with PD‐1 inhibitors becoming a dominant treatment option since 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective We performed a scoping review of algorithms using electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), to advance their use in research and clinical care. Materials and Methods Starting with a previous scoping review of EHR phenotypes, we performed a cumulative update (April 2020 through March 1, 2023) using Pubmed, PheKB, and expert review with exclusive focus on ADRD identification. We included algorithms using EHR data alone or in combination with non-EHR data and characterized whether they identified patients at high risk of or with a current diagnosis of ADRD. Results For our cumulative focused update, we reviewed 271 titles meeting our search criteria, 49 abstracts, and 26 full text papers. We identified 8 articles from the original systematic review, 8 from our new search, and 4 recommended by an expert. We identified 20 papers describing 19 unique EHR phenotypes for ADRD: 7 algorithms identifying patients with diagnosed dementia and 12 algorithms identifying patients at high risk of dementia that prioritize sensitivity over specificity. Reference standards range from only using other EHR data to in-person cognitive screening. Conclusion A variety of EHR-based phenotypes are available for use in identifying populations with or at high-risk of developing ADRD. This review provides comparative detail to aid in choosing the best algorithm for research, clinical care, and population health projects based on the use case and available data. Future research may further improve the design and use of algorithms by considering EHR data provenance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Many large-scale population-based surveys, research studies, and clinical care allow for inclusion of proxy reporting as a strategy to collect outcomes when patients are unavailable or unable to provide reliable self-report. Prior work identified an absence of methodological guidelines regarding proxy reporting in adult populations, including who can serve as a proxy, and considerations for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The primary objective of this work by the ISOQOL Proxy Task Force was to review documents and clinical outcome assessment measures with respect to proxy reporting and to develop, through consensus, considerations for proxy reporting. Methods: We assembled an international group with clinically relevant and/or methodological expertise on proxy use in adult populations. We conducted a targeted review of documentation based on regulatory, non-regulatory, professional society, and individual measure sources. Using a standardized collection form, proxy-related information was extracted from each source including definitions of a proxy, characteristics of a proxy, domains addressable or addressed by a proxy, and observer-reporting. Results: The definition of proxy was inconsistent across 39 sources, except regulatory documents which defined a proxy as a person other than the patient who reports on an outcome as if she/he were the patient. While proxy report was discouraged in regulatory documentation, it was acknowledged there were instances where self-report was impossible. Many documentation sources indicated proxies would be well-justified in certain contexts, but did not indicate who could act as a proxy, when proxies could be used, what domains of patient health they could report on, or how data should be reported. Observer-reported outcomes were typically defined as those based on observed behaviors, however there was not a consistent differentiation between proxy and observer reporting. Based on information extracted from these resources, we developed a checklist of considerations when including proxy-reported measures or using proxies in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of proxy reported data. Conclusion: Our targeted review highlights a lack of clarity in capturing, interpreting and reporting data from proxies in adult populations. We provide a checklist of considerations to assist researchers and clinicians with including proxies in research studies and clinical care. Lastly, our review identified areas where further guidance and future research are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are increasingly being used for symptom monitoring during routine cancer care, but have rarely been evaluated in diverse patient populations. We assessed ePRO user experiences and perceived value among Black and White cancer patients.Methods: We recruited 30 Black and 49 White bladder and prostate cancer patients from a single institution. Participants reported symptoms using either a web-based or automated telephone interface over 3 months and completed satisfaction surveys and qualitative interviews focused on user experiences and value. Using a narrative mixed methods approach, we evaluated overall and race-specific differences in ePRO user experiences and perceived value.Results: Most participants selected the web-based system, but Blacks were more likely to use the automated telephone-based system than Whites. In satisfaction surveys, Whites more commonly reported ease in understanding and reporting symptoms compared with Blacks. Blacks more often reported that the ePRO system was helpful in facilitating symptom-related discussions with clinicians. During interviews, Blacks described how the ePRO helped them recognize symptoms, while Whites found value in better understanding and tracking symptoms longitudinally. Blacks also expressed preferences for paper-based ePRO options due to perceived ease in better understanding of symptom items.Conclusion: Electronic patient-reported outcomes are perceived as valuable for variable reasons by Black and White cancer populations, with greater perceived value for communicating with clinicians reported among Blacks. To optimize equitable uptake of ePROs, oncology practices should offer several ePRO options (e.g., web-based, phone-based), as well as paper-based options, and consider the e-health literacy needs of patients during implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To create a crosswalk that predicts Short Form 6D (SF-6D) utilities from Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) scores. Methods: The data come from prostate cancer patients enrolled in the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS, N = 1016). Cross-sectional data from 12- to 24-month follow-up were used as estimation and validation datasets, respectively. Participants' SF-12 scores were used to generate SF-6D utilities in both datasets. Beta regression mixture models were used to evaluate SF-6D utilities as a function of MAX-PC scores, race, education, marital status, income, employment status, having health insurance, year of cancer diagnosis and clinically significant prostate cancer-related anxiety (PCRA) status in the estimation dataset. Models' predictive accuracies (using mean absolute error [MAE], root mean squared error [RMSE], Akaike information criterion [AIC] and Bayesian information criterion [BIC]) were examined in both datasets. The model with the highest prediction accuracy and the lowest prediction errors was selected as the crosswalk. Results: The crosswalk had modest prediction accuracy (MAE = 0.092, RMSE = 0.114, AIC = − 2708 and BIC = − 2595.6), which are comparable to prediction accuracies of other SF-6D crosswalks in the literature. About 24% and 52% of predictions fell within ± 5% and ± 10% of observed SF-6D, respectively. The observed mean disutility associated with acquiring clinically significant PCRA is 0.168 (standard deviation = 0.179). Conclusion: This study provides a crosswalk that converts MAX-PC scores to SF-6D utilities for economic evaluation of clinically significant PCRA treatment options for prostate cancer survivors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Despite evidence-based guidelines recommending early palliative care, it remains unclear how to identify and refer oncology patients, particularly in settings with constrained access to palliative care. We hypothesize that patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can be used to characterize patients with palliative care needs. To determine if PRO data can identify latent phenotypes that characterize indications for specialty palliative care referral. METHODS We conducted a retrospective study of self-reported symptoms on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System collected from solid tumor oncology patients (n = 745) referred to outpatient palliative care. Data were collected as part of routine clinical care from October 2012 to March 2018 at eight community and academic sites. We applied latent profile analysis to identify PRO phenotypes and examined the association of phenotypes with clinical and demographic characteristics using multinomial logistic regression. RESULTS We identified four PRO phenotypes: (1) Low Symptoms (n = 295, 39.6%), (2) Moderate Pain/Fatigue + Mood (n = 180, 24.2%), (3) Moderate Pain/Fatigue + Appetite + Dyspnea (n = 201, 27.0%), and (4) High Symptoms (n = 69, 9.3%). In a secondary analysis of 421 patients, we found that two brief items assessing social and existential needs aligned with higher severity symptom and psychological distress phenotypes. CONCLUSION Oncology patients referred to outpatient palliative care in a real-world setting can be differentiated into clinically meaningful phenotypes using brief, routinely collected PRO measures. Latent modeling provides a mechanism to use patient-reported data on a population level to identify distinct subgroups of patients with unmet palliative needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Scant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial. Methods: Participants (n = 119) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized to treatment arms and rated their pain on the average and at its worst during a baseline week and at weeks 3, 6, and 12 of study treatment. For each reporting period, participants rated their pain daily for 7 days. On day 7, participants rated their pain over the prior 7 days. We estimated mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients of the weekly ratings and the mean and the maximum daily ratings. We compared the ability of the weekly ratings and the daily rating descriptors to detect change in pain and evaluated the agreement of the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst to detect treatment response. Results: For both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55–0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's κ = 0.71). Conclusion: Use of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unmet need for postpartum contraception is high. Integration of family planning with routine child immunization services may help to satisfy unmet need. However, evidence about the determinants and effects of integration has been inconsistent, and more evidence is required to ascertain whether and how to invest in integration. In this study, facility-level family planning and immunization integration index scores are used to: (1) determine whether integration changes over time and (2) identify whether facility-level characteristics, including exposure to the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative (NURHI), are associated with integration across facilities in six urban areas of Nigeria.Methods: This study utilizes health facility data collected at baseline (n = 400) and endline (n = 385) for the NURHI impact evaluation. Difference-in-differences models estimate the associations between facility-level characteristics, including exposure to NURHI, and Provider and Facility Integration Index scores. The two outcome measures, Provider and Facility Integration Index scores, reflect attributes that support integrated service delivery. These indexes, which range from 0 (low) to 10 (high), were constructed using principal component analysis. Scores were calculated for each facility. Independent variables are (1) time period, (2) whether the facility received the NURHI intervention, and (3) additional facility-level characteristics.Results: Within intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 6.46 at baseline and 6.79 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 7.16 (baseline) and 7.36 (endline). Within non-intervention facilities, mean Provider Integration Index scores were 5.01 at baseline and 6.25 at endline; mean Facility Integration Index scores were 5.83 (baseline) and 6.12 (endline). Provider Integration Index scores increased significantly (p = 0.00) among non-intervention facilities. Facility Integration Index scores did not increase significantly in either group. Results identify facility-level characteristics associated with higher levels of integration, including smaller family planning client load, family planning training among providers, and public facility ownership. Exposure to NURHI was not associated with integration index scores.Conclusion: Programs aiming to increase integration of family planning and immunization services should monitor and provide targeted support for the implementation of a well-defined integration strategy that considers the influence of facility characteristics and concurrent initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Integrating family planning into child immunization services may address unmet need for contraception by offering family planning information and services to postpartum women during routine child immunization visits. However, policies and programs promoting integration are often based on insubstantial or conflicting evidence about its effects on service delivery and health outcomes. While integration models vary, many studies measure integration as binary (a facility is integrated or not) rather than a multidimensional and varying continuum. It is thus challenging to ascertain the determinants and effects of integrated service delivery. This study creates Facility and Provider Integration Indexes, which measure capacity to support integrated family planning and child immunization services and applies them to analyze the extent of integration across 400 health facilities. Methods: This study utilizes cross-sectional health facility (N = 400; 58% hospitals, 42% primary healthcare centers) and healthcare provider (N = 1479) survey data that were collected in six urban areas of Nigeria for the impact evaluation of the Nigerian Urban Reproductive Health Initiative. Principal Component Analysis was used to develop Provider and Facility Integration Indexes that estimate the extent of integration in these health facilities. The Provider Integration Index measures provider skills and practices that support integrated service delivery while the Facility Integration Index measures facility norms that support integrated service delivery. Index scores range from zero (low) to ten (high). Results: Mean Provider Integration Index score is 5.42 (SD 3.10), and mean Facility Integration Index score is 6.22 (SD 2.72). Twenty-three percent of facilities were classified as having low Provider Integration scores, 32% as medium, and 45% as high. Fourteen percent of facilities were classified as having low Facility Integration scores, 38% as medium, and 48% as high. Conclusion: Many facilities in our sample have achieved high levels of integration, while many others have not. Results suggest that using more nuanced measures of integration may (a) more accurately reflect true variation in integration within and across health facilities, (b) enable more precise measurement of the determinants or effects of integration, and (c) provide more tailored, actionable information about how best to improve integration. Overall, results reinforce the importance of utilizing more nuanced measures of facility-level integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS: PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION: These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aimed to examine psychometric properties of a caregiver version of the well-established Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Scale (FACT-G) after conducting focus groups and obtaining expert input. Methods: We made minor wording modifications to the Patient FACT-G to enable caregivers to report how the illness affected their overall quality of life (QOL) and well-being on four subscales (physical, social, emotional, functional). We tested the acceptability, precision, factor structure, reliability and validity of the Caregiver FACT-G among partners of prostate cancer patients (N = 263) and caregivers (spouses, siblings, adult children) of patients with advanced cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate) (N = 484) using data from two Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs). Results: With a factor structure similar to the Patient FACT-G, Caregiver FACT-G was acceptable and precise in measuring caregiver QOL, with high inter-factor correlations and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alphas 0.81–0.91). The Caregiver FACT-G had strong convergent validity demonstrated by significant positive correlations with caregiver self-efficacy (0.25–0.63), dyadic communication (0.18–0.51), and social support (0.18–0.54) in both samples. It also had strong discriminant validity evidenced by significant inverse correlations with negative appraisal of caregiving (− 0.37 to − 0.69), uncertainty (− 0.28 to − 0.53), hopelessness (− 0.25 to − 0.60), and avoidant coping (− 0.26 to − 0.58) in both samples. Caregivers' baseline FACT-G scores were significantly associated with their physical (0.23) and mental well-being (0.54; 4-month follow-up) and their depression (− 0.69; 3-month follow-up), indicating strong predictive validity. Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating the psychometric properties of the Caregiver FACT-G. More psychometric testing is warranted, especially among caregivers of diverse sociocultural backgrounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient‐ and caregiver‐reported outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient‐ and Caregiver‐Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD‐Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD‐related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55–S61, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are uncertainties about prostate cancer‐related anxiety's (PCRA) associations with health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) and major depression, and these could affect the quality of mental healthcare provided to prostate cancer patients. Addressing these uncertainties will provide more insight into PCRA and inform further research on the value of PCRA prevention. The goals of this study were to measure associations between PCRA and HRQOL at domain and subdomain levels, and to evaluate the association between PCRA and probable (ie, predicted major) depression. Method: We analyzed secondary cross‐sectional data from the North Carolina Prostate Cancer Comparative Effectiveness & Survivorship Study (NC ProCESS—a population‐based cohort of prostate cancer patients enrolled shortly after diagnosis [between January 2011 and June 2013] and followed prospectively). Patient‐reported measures of PCRA and HRQOL from 1,016 enrollees who participated in NC ProCESS's 1‐year follow‐up survey were assessed. Outcomes of interests were a) linear correlations between contemporaneous memorial anxiety scale for prostate cancer (MAX‐PC) and Short Form 12 (SF‐12) scores, and b) measures of association between indicators of clinically significant PCRA (ie, MAX‐PC > 27) and probable depression during survey contact (ie, SF‐12 mental component score ≤43). Results: PCRA measures had notable associations with SF‐12's mental health subscale (assesses low mood/nervousness [rho = −0.42]) and emotional role functioning subscale (assesses subjective productivity loss [rho = −0.46]). Additionally, the risk of probable depression was significantly higher in participants with clinically significant PCRA compared with those without it (weighed risk ratio = 5.3, 95% confidence interval 3.6‐7.8; P <.001). Conclusion: Prostate cancer patients with clinically significant PCRA should be assessed for major depression and productivity loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Persons living with serious illness often need skilled symptom management, communication, and spiritual support. Palliative care addresses these needs and may be delivered by either specialists or clinicians trained in other fields. It is important to understand core elements of palliative care to best provide patient-centered care.Objective: To describe frequency, predictors, and timing of core elements of palliative care during the last 6 months of life.Design: Retrospective chart review.Setting: Inpatient academic medical center.Participants: Decedents with cancer, dementia, or chronic kidney disease (CKD) admitted during the 6 months preceding death.Exposures: We identified receipt and timing of core elements of palliative care: pain and symptom management, goals of care, spiritual care; and specialty palliative care utilization; hospital encounters; demographics; and comorbid diagnoses. We ran Poisson regression models to assess whether diagnosis or hospital encounters were associated with core elements of palliative care.Results: Among 402 decedents, the mean (SD) number of appropriately screened and treated symptoms was 2.9 (1.7)/10. Among 76.1% with documented goals of care, 58.0% had a primary goal of comfort; 55.0% had documented spiritual care. In multivariable models, compared with decedents with cancer, those with dementia or CKD were less likely to have pain and symptom management (respectively, 31% (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and 17% (IRR, 0.83; CI, 0.71-0.97)). There was a median of 3 days (IQR, 0-173) between transition to a goal of comfort and death, and a median of 12 days (IQR, 5-47) between hospice referral and death.Conclusions and Relevance: Although a high proportion of patients received elements of palliative care, transitions to a goal of comfort or hospice happened very near death. Palliative care delivery can be improved by systematizing existing mechanisms, including prompts for earlier goals-of-care discussion, symptom screening, and spiritual care, and by building collaboration between primary and specialty palliative care services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) have varied symptoms during their hospitalization. This study examined whether daily symptom reporting (with electronic patient-reported outcomes [PROs]) in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced symptom burden on post-transplant days +7, +10, and +14.Methods: A prospective, single-institution 1:1 pilot randomized, two-arm study recruited HCT patients. HCT inpatients (N = 76) reported daily on 16 common symptoms using the PRO version of the Common Terminology for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Fisher's exact test was used to examine differences in the proportion of patients reporting individual symptoms. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine group differences in peak symptom burden, while controlling for symptom burden at baseline, age, comorbidity, and transplantation type (autologous or allogeneic).Results: HCT patients receiving the PRO intervention also experienced lower peak symptom burden (average of 16 symptoms) at days +7, +10, and +14 (10.4 vs 14.5, p = 0.03).Conclusions: Daily use of electronic symptom reporting to nurses in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced peak symptom burden and improved individual symptoms during the 2 weeks post-transplant. A multi-site trial is warranted to demonstrate the generalizability, efficacy, and value of this intervention.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02574897. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer is the third-leading cause of mortality in Kenya, resulting in unique challenges to the country's health system. An increase in the number of cancer cases in Kenya over the past decade resulted in legislative actions and policies to guide delivery of cancer services. Kenya's new national cancer control strategy and past policy efforts provide an opportunity to synergise information and enhance understanding to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment in the country. The objectives of this study are to (1) document policy-modifiable factors based on a review of policy documents and results of a key informant survey and (2) develop recommendations to improve policies affecting cancer testing and treatment services in Kenya. This study builds upon our previous study Improving Access to Cancer Testing and Treatment in Kenya (Makau Barasa et al. J Global Oncol 2(216), 2017).Methods: The study applied an in-depth systematic review of Kenya's cancer policies and guidelines, a qualitative analysis of results from a section of a semi-structured key informant survey focused on the opinions of clinicians delivering cancer services as well as cancer support groups and advocacy leaders, and a stakeholder analysis identifying key policy-makers and implementers. Details of the complete key informant survey were published in our previous study.Results: Kenya's cancer policies have guided progress made in providing the legal and implementation frameworks for the development and delivery of cancer services at the national and county levels. Some policy implementation gaps are noted. These include inadequate financing for cancer services, limited research and data to support policy formulation, and the concentration of cancer services in urban areas. The key informant survey identified policy-modifiable actions that can address some of the gaps and improve the delivery of and access to cancer testing and treatment services in the country. Some of these include addressing the financial barriers affecting cancer testing and treatment services; increasing stakeholder engagement in training health personnel to deliver cancer testing and treatment services; decentralising cancer services and improving cancer surveillance and research; and increasing education and awareness about cancer symptoms, screening procedures and treatment options. A set of priority policy actions were selected from the study findings and used to develop recommendations for Kenya's policy-makers and stakeholders.Conclusions: Revisions to Kenya's cancer policies are seeking to address gaps noted in past policies and to improve access to cancer testing and treatment in Kenya. However, based on study findings, additional actions can be taken to strengthen policy implementation. Considering the policy formulation and implementation process and costs, this study recommends focusing on three priority policy actions that can have significant impact on improving access to cancer testing and treatment services. These include addressing financing, insurance and human resources gaps; increasing stakeholder engagement; and decentralising health services for better surveillance and data to inform policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic identification of patients allows researchers and clinicians to test new models of care delivery. EHR phenotypes-structured algorithms based on clinical indicators from EHRs-can aid in such identification.Objective: To develop EHR phenotypes to identify decedents with stage 4 solid-tumor cancer or stage 4-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD).Design: We developed two EHR phenotypes. Each phenotype included International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 and ICD-10 codes. We used natural language processing (NLP) to further specify stage 4 cancer, and lab values for CKD.Subjects: Decedents with cancer or CKD who had been admitted to an academic medical center in the last 6 months of life and died August 26, 2017-December 31, 2017.Main Measure: We calculated positive predictive values (PPV), false discovery rates (FDR), false negative rates (FNR), and sensitivity. Phenotypes were validated by a comparison with manual chart review. We also compared the EHR phenotype results to those admitted to the oncology and nephrology inpatient services.Key Results: The EHR phenotypes identified 271 decedents with cancer, of whom 186 had stage 4 disease; of 192 decedents with CKD, 89 had stage 4-5 disease. The EHR phenotype for stage 4 cancer had a PPV of 68.6%, FDR of 31.4%, FNR of 0.5%, and 99.5% sensitivity. The EHR phenotype for stage 4-5 CKD had a PPV of 46.4%, FDR of 53.7%, FNR of 0.0%, and 100% sensitivity.Conclusions: EHR phenotypes efficiently identified patients who died with late-stage cancer or CKD. Future EHR phenotypes can prioritize specificity over sensitivity, and incorporate stratification of high- and low-palliative care need. EHR phenotypes are a promising method for identifying patients for research and clinical purposes, including equitable distribution of specialty palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stable angina patients have difficulty understanding the tradeoffs between treatment alternatives. In this analysis, we assessed treatment planning conversations for stable angina to determine whether inadequate health literacy acts as a barrier to communication that may partially explain this difficulty. Methods: We conducted a descriptive analysis of patient questionnaire data from the PCI Choice Trial. The main outcomes were the responses to the Decisional Conflict Scale and the proportion of correct responses to knowledge questions about stable angina. We also conducted a qualitative analysis on recordings of patient-clinician discussions about treatment planning. The recordings were coded with the OPTION12 instrument for shared decision-making. Two analysts independently assessed the number and types of patient questions and expressions of preferences. Results: Patient engagement did not differ by health literacy level and was generally low for all patients with respect to OPTION12 scores and the number of questions related to clinical aspects of treatment. Patients with inadequate health literacy had significantly higher decisional conflict. However, the proportion of knowledge questions answered correctly did not differ significantly by health literacy level. Conclusions: Patients with inadequate health literacy had greater decisional conflict but no difference in knowledge compared to patients with adequate health literacy. Inadequate health literacy may act as a barrier to communication, but gaps were found in patient engagement and knowledge for patients of all health literacy levels. The recorded patient-clinician encounters and the health literacy measure were valuable resources for conducting research on care delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between exercise and sleep disturbance in a sample of individuals diagnosed with stage I, II, and III colorectal cancer (CRC) as patients transitioned off first-line treatment. We also sought to identify heterogeneity in the relationship between sleep disturbance and exercise.Methods: Data were obtained from the MY-Health study, a community-based observational study of adults diagnosed with cancer. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) measures (e.g., PROMIS Sleep) were administered, and participants self-reported demographics, comorbidities, cancer treatment, and exercise. Regression mixture and multiple regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between sleep disturbance and exercise cross-sectionally at an average of 10 months after diagnosis, and the change in sleep disturbance over a 7-month period, from approximately 10 to 17 months post-diagnosis.Results: Patients whose exercise was categorized as likely at or above American College of Sports Medicine's guidelines did not report statistically better sleep quality compared to patients who were classified as not active. However, retirement (B = - 2.4), anxiety (B = 0.21), and fatigue (B = 0.24) had statistically significant relationships with sleep disturbance (p < 0.05). Increase in exercise was not significantly associated with a decrease in sleep disturbance. No statistical heterogeneity was revealed in the relationship between sleep and exercise.Conclusions: Further prospective research using an objective measure of exercise is warranted to confirm or refute the nature of the relationship between exercise and sleep disturbance in individuals diagnosed with CRC transitioning off first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To identify patient characteristics associated with sleep disturbance and worsening of sleep in individuals diagnosed with localized colorectal cancer and assess heterogeneity in these relationships.Methods: Data were from the MY-Health study, a community-based observational study of adults diagnosed with cancer. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® Sleep Disturbance, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, and Pain Interference measures were administered. Participants self-reported demographics, comorbidities, and treatment information. Regression mixture and multiple regression models were used to evaluate the relationship between sleep disturbance and patient characteristics cross-sectionally at an average of 10 months after diagnosis (n = 613) as well as change in sleep disturbance over a 6-month period (n = 361).Results: Pain, anxiety, fatigue, and the existence of multiple comorbid conditions had statistically significant relationships with sleep disturbance (B = 0.09, 0.22, 0.29, and 1.53, respectively; P < 0.05). Retirement (B = -2.49) was associated with sleep quality in the cross-sectional model. Worsening anxiety (B = 0.14) and fatigue (B = 0.20) were associated with worsening sleep disturbance, and more severe sleep disturbance 10 months after diagnosis (B = -0.21) was associated with improvement in sleep quality after diagnosis (P < 0.05). No evidence of latent subgroups of patients (heterogeneity) was present.Conclusions: Pain, anxiety, fatigue, employment, and comorbid conditions were associated with sleep disturbance, but regression coefficients were small (< |2.5|). Results suggest that screening for anxiety, depression, fatigue, or pain is not sufficient for identifying sleep disturbance. Given the negative consequences of sleep disturbance, sleep disturbance screening may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose In response to the increasing cancer burden in Kenya, this study identified barriers to patients seeking access to cancer testing and treatment and to clinicians in delivering these services. Policy recommendations based on findings are presented. Methods This qualitative study used semistructured key informant interviews. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 14 participants: seven oncology clinicians and seven support and advocacy leaders for patients with cancer. Qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. Results Seven barriers to cancer testing and treatment were identified: high cost of testing and treatment, low level of knowledge about cancer among population and clinicians, poor health-seeking behaviors among population, long distances to access diagnostic and treatment services, lack of decentralized diagnostic and treatment facilities, poor communication, and lack of better cancer policy development and implementation. Conclusion Kenyans seeking cancer services face significant barriers that result in late presentation, misdiagnosis, interrupted treatment, stigma, and fear. Four policy recommendations to improve access for patients with cancer are (1) improve health insurance for patients with cancer; (2) establish testing and treatment facilities in all counties; (3) acquire diagnosis and treatment equipment and train health personnel to screen, diagnose, and treat cancer; and (4) increase public health awareness and education about cancer to improve diagnoses and treatment. Effective cancer testing and treatment options can be developed to address cancer in a resource-constrained environment like Kenya. An in-depth look at effective interventions and policies being implemented in countries facing similar challenges would provide valuable lessons to Kenya’s health sector and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms pose a significant burden to patients receiving chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for anal cancer; however, the impact of symptoms from the patient perspective has not been quantified. This retrospective study examined and compared patient and clinician reports of acute GI toxicity during CRT.Materials and Methods: Patients treated with definitive RT using intensity-modulated radiation therapy for anal cancer between 9/09 and 11/12 were reviewed. Median RT dose was 56 Gy (range 45-56), and 76 patients (97%) received concurrent 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. During RT, patients completed the 7-item Bowel Problem Scale (BPS) weekly. Clinicians assessed toxicity separately using CTCAE v. 3.0. Scores of BPS ≥ 3 and CTCAE ≥ 1 were considered to be clinically meaningful. Agreement of the two assessments was evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient.Results: Seventy-eight patients completed at least one BPS and had a corresponding clinician assessment. Patients reporting scores of ≥3 was highest at week 5 (n = 68) for diarrhea (44.1%), proctitis (57.4%), and mucus (48.4%), while urgency (47.6%), tenesmus (31.7%), and cramping (27%) were highest at week 4 (n = 63). Baseline bleeding scores (26.7%; score ≥3) improved during treatment (13.4% at week 5). "Poor" agreement was observed between patient- and clinician-reported proctitis (Cohen's k = 0.11; n = 58); however, there was "good" agreement for diarrhea (Cohen's k = 0.68; n = 58).Conclusions: Acute GI toxicity during definitive CRT for anal cancer was most significant during weeks 4-5, while rectal bleeding improved during treatment. Discrepancies in patient- and clinician-reported symptoms demonstrate the potential for patient-reported outcomes to be useful tools for anal cancer clinical assessments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To describe the prevalence, severity, and risk factors of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and its impact on function and quality of life (QOL) among women treated for breast cancer in a large U.S. Community Oncology practice.Methods: Women previously treated with taxane-based chemotherapy for early-stage breast cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-BR23, and QLQ-CIPN20. Subscales are scored 0-100; higher scores indicate greater symptom severity. Pre-specified hypotheses were tested.Results: 126 women with mean age 56.7 years (SD 11.8) were stage I-II (79.4%) or stage III (20.6%) at the time of the survey; 65.1% were White and 27.8% were Black or African American. The mean time since last taxane chemotherapy cycle was 144.9 weeks (SD 112.9). 73.0% reported having CIPN. QLQ-CIPN20 mean scores for the sensory, motor, and autonomic subscales were 18.9 (SD 23.1), 18.6 (SD 18.7), and 17.1 (SD 21.8), respectively. CIPN symptom severity was negatively correlated with global health status/QOL and physical and role functioning (range of r = -0.46 to -0.72). It was not associated with age, body mass index, diabetes, or cumulative taxane dosage, but was greater for Black or African American women (e.g., sensory, p < 0.002). CIPN sensory impairment was marginally greater for patients treated with paclitaxel compared to docetaxel (p < 0.064).Conclusions: CIPN was prevalent in this community oncology practice and significantly impacts function and QOL. These data highlight the importance of developing methods to mitigate CIPN, and for screening for CIPN particularly among Black or African American women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study aims to characterize the symptom burden and life challenges that chordoma patients and their caregivers experience.Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we analyzed data from the Chordoma Foundation online community survey conducted in 2014. Frequency counts and percentages were calculated to determine the prevalence of self-reported symptoms and life challenges in the sample. We used Fisher's exact test to compare self-reported symptoms among subgroups with different disease status, tumor locations, and treatments received.Results: Among the survey participants, 358 identified themselves as chordoma patients and 208 as caregivers. The majority of the patients were over 45 years (72%), male (56%), educated beyond high school degree (87%), and from North America (77%). Skull base was the most prevalent tumor location (40%). Chronic pain (38%) was the most commonly reported symptom followed by depression or severe anxiety (35%), and chronic fatigue (34%). Among patients, the most commonly-reported challenges included delayed diagnosis (37%), long-term disability (33%), and change in career or reduced ability to work (33%). For caregivers, grief (55%), delayed diagnosis (47%), and difficulty helping the patient cope with his or her disease (45%) were most common.Conclusions: Our study findings suggest a high symptom burden and life challenges among chordoma patients and their caregivers. This study provides preliminary, limited estimates of the prevalence of a wide range of self-reported symptoms and challenges that will inform the assessment of patient-reported outcomes in future clinical trials and help clinicians better manage chordoma patients' symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In response to the increasing cancer burden in Kenya, this study identified barriers to patients seeking access to cancer testing and treatment and to clinicians in delivering these services. Policy recommendations based on findings are presented. Methods: This qualitative study used semistructured key informant interviews. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 14 participants: seven oncology clinicians and seven support and advocacy leaders for patients with cancer. Qualitative analysis was used to identify themes. Results: Seven barriers to cancer testing and treatment were identified: high cost of testing and treatment, low level of knowledge about cancer among population and clinicians, poor health-seeking behaviors among population, long distances to access diagnostic and treatment services, lack of decentralized diagnostic and treatment facilities, poor communication, and lack of better cancer policy development and implementation. Conclusion: Kenyans seeking cancer services face significant barriers that result in late presentation, misdiagnosis, interrupted treatment, stigma, and fear. Four policy recommendations to improve access for patients with cancer are (1) improve health insurance for patients with cancer; (2) establish testing and treatment facilities in all counties; (3) acquire diagnosis and treatment equipment and train health personnel to screen, diagnose, and treat cancer; and (4) increase public health awareness and education about cancer to improve diagnoses and treatment. Effective cancer testing and treatment options can be developed to address cancer in a resource-constrained environment like Kenya. An in-depth look at effective interventions and policies being implemented in countries facing similar challenges would provide valuable lessons to Kenya's health sector and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The US National Cancer Institute recently developed the PRO-CTCAE (Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events). PRO-CTCAE is a library of questions for clinical trial participants to self-report symptomatic adverse events (e.g. nausea). The objective of this study is to inform evidence-based selection of a recall period when PRO-CTCAE is included in a trial. We evaluated differences between 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods, using daily reporting as the reference. Methods: English-speaking patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy were enrolled at four US cancer centers and affiliated community clinics. Participants completed 27 PRO-CTCAE items electronically daily for 28 days, and then weekly over 4 weeks, using 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-week recall periods. For each recall period, mean differences, effect sizes, and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding ratings obtained using longer recall periods (e.g. maximum of daily scores over 7 days vs 1-week recall). Analyses were repeated using the average of daily scores within each recall period rather than the maximum of daily scores. Results: A total of 127 subjects completed questionnaires (57% male; median age: 57). The median of the 27 mean differences in scores on the PRO-CTCAE 5-point response scale comparing the maximum daily versus the longer recall period (and corresponding effect size) was -0.20 (-0.20) for 1-week recall, -0.36 (-0.31) for 2-week recall, -0.45 (-0.39) for 3-week recall, and -0.47 (-0.40) for 4-week recall. The median intraclass correlation across 27 items between the maximum of daily ratings and the corresponding longer recall ratings for 1-week recall was 0.70 (range: 0.54-0.82), for 2-week recall was 0.74 (range: 0.58-0.83), for 3-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.61-0.84), and for 4-week recall was 0.72 (range: 0.64-0.86). Similar results were observed for all analyses using the average of daily scores rather than the maximum of daily scores. Conclusion: A 1-week recall corresponds best to daily reporting. Although intraclass correlations remain stable over time, there are small but progressively larger differences between daily and longer recall periods at 2, 3, and 4 weeks, respectively. The preferred recall period for the PRO-CTCAE is the past 7 days, although investigators may opt for recall periods of 2, 3, or 4 weeks with an understanding that there may be some information loss. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.Results: Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).Conclusions: The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We evaluated pedometry as a novel patient-centered outcome because it enables passive continuous assessment of activity and may provide information about the consequences of symptomatic toxicity complementary to self-report.Methods: Adult patients undergoing hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) wore pedometers and completed PRO assessments during transplant hospitalization (4 weeks) and 4 weeks post-discharge. Patient reports of symptomatic treatment toxicities (single items from PRO-CTCAE, http://healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov/pro-ctcae ) and symptoms, physical health, mental health, and quality of life (PROMIS(®) Global-10, http://nih.promis.org ), assessed weekly with 7-day recall on Likert scales, were compared individually with pedometry data, summarized as average daily steps per week, using linear mixed models.Results: Thirty-two patients [mean age 55 (SD = 14), 63 % male, 84 % white, 56 % autologous, 43 % allogeneic] completed a mean 4.6 (SD = 1.5, range 1-8) evaluable assessments. Regression model coefficients (β) indicated within-person decrements in average daily steps were associated with increases in pain (β = -852; 852 fewer steps per unit increase in pain score, p < 0.001), fatigue (β = -886, p < 0.001), vomiting (β = -518, p < 0.01), shaking/chills (β = -587, p < 0.01), diarrhea (β = -719, p < 0.001), shortness of breath (β = -1018, p < 0.05), reduction in carrying out social activities (β = 705, p < 0.01) or physical activities (β = 618, p < 0.01), and global physical health (β = 101, p < 0.001), but not global mental health or quality of life.Conclusions: In this small sample of HCT recipients, more severe symptoms, impaired physical health, and restrictions in the performance of usual daily activities were associated with statistically significant decrements in objectively measured daily steps. Pedometry may be a valuable outcome measure and validation anchor in clinical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system.Methods: Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0-4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed.Results: 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55-0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62-0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60-0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = -0.04 [-0.16-0.22]; tablet vs paper = -0.02 [-0.11-0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [-0.07-0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/-0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported "no problems" responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper.Conclusions: Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration.Trial Registration: NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02158637. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. In this paper, we provide background and context regarding the potential for a new data-sharing platform, the Project Data Sphere (PDS) initiative, funded by financial and in-kind contributions from the CEO Roundtable on Cancer, to transform cancer research and improve patient outcomes. Given the relatively modest decline in cancer death rates over the past several years, a new research paradigm is needed to accelerate therapeutic approaches for oncologic diseases. Phase III clinical trials generate large volumes of potentially usable information, often on hundreds of patients, including patients treated with standard of care therapies (i.e., controls). Both nationally and internationally, a variety of stakeholders have pursued data-sharing efforts to make individual patient-level clinical trial data available to the scientific research community. Potential Benefits and Risks of Data Sharing. For researchers, shared data have the potential to foster amore collaborative environment, to answer research questions in a shorter time frame than traditional randomized control trials, to reduce duplication of effort, and to improve efficiency. For industry participants, use of trial data to answer additional clinical questions could increase research and development efficiency and guide future projects through validation of surrogate end points, development of prognostic or predictive models, selection of patients for phase II trials, stratification in phase III studies, and identification of patient subgroups for development of novel therapies. Data transparency also helps promote a public image of collaboration and altruism among industry participants. For patient participants, data sharing maximizes their contribution to public health and increases access to information that may be used to develop better treatments. Concerns about data-sharing efforts include protection of patient privacy and confidentiality. To alleviate these concerns, data sets are deidentified to maintain anonymity. To address industry concerns about protection of intellectual property and competitiveness, we illustrate several models for data sharing with varying levels of access to the data and varying relationships between trial sponsors and data access sponsors. The Project Data Sphere Initiative. PDS is an independent initiative of the CEO Roundtable on Cancer Life Sciences Consortium, built to voluntarily share, integrate, and analyze comparator arms of historical cancer clinical trial data sets to advance future cancer research. The aim is to provide a neutral, broad-access platform for industry and academia to share raw, deidentified data from late-phase oncology clinical trials using comparator-arm data sets. These data are likely to be hypothesis generating or hypothesis confirming but, notably, do not take the place of performing a well-designed trial to address a specific hypothesis. Prospective providers of data to PDS complete and sign a data sharing agreement that includes a description of the data they propose to upload, and then they follow easy instructions on the website for uploading their deidentified data. The SAS Institute has also collaborated with the initiative to provide intrinsic analytic tools accessible within the website itself. As of October 2014, the PDS website has available data from 14 cancer clinical trials covering 9,000 subjects, with hopes to further expand the database to include more than 25,000 subject accruals within the next year. PDS differentiates itself from other data-sharing initiatives by its degree of openness, requiring submission of only a brief application with background information of the individual requesting access and agreement to terms of use. Data from several different sponsors may be pooled to develop a comprehensive cohort for analysis. In order to protect patient privacy, data providers in the U.S. are responsible for deidentifying data according to standards set forth by the Privacy Rule of the U.S. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Using Data Sharing to Improve Outcomes in Cancer: The "Prostate Cancer Challenge." Control-arm data of several studies among patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are currently available through PDS. These data sets have multiple potential uses. The "Prostate Cancer Challenge" will ask the cancer research community to use clinical trial data deposited in the PDS website to address key research questions regarding mCRPC. General themes that could be explored by the cancer community are described in this article: prognostic models evaluating the influence of pretreatment factors on survival and patient-reported outcomes; comparative effectiveness research evaluating the efficacy of standard of care therapies, as illustrated in our companion article comparing mitoxantrone plus prednisone with prednisone alone; effects of practice variation in dose, frequency, and duration of therapy; level of patient adherence to elements of trial protocols to inform the design of future clinical trials; and age of subjects, regional differences in health care, and other confounding factors that might affect outcomes. Potential Limitations and Methodological Challenges. The number of data sets available and the lack of experiment alarm data limit the potential scope of research using the current PDS. The number of trials is expected to grow exponentially over the next year and may include multiple cancer settings, such as breast, colorectal, lung, hematologic malignancy, and bone marrow transplantation. Other potential limitations include the retrospective nature of the data analyses performed using PDS and its generalizability, given that clinical trials are often conducted among younger, healthier, and less racially diverse patient populations. Methodological challenges exist when combining individual patient data from multiple clinical trials; however, advancements in statistical methods for secondary database analysis offer many tools for reanalyzing data arising from disparate trials, such as propensity score matching. Despite these concerns, few if any comparable data sets include this level of detail across multiple clinical trials and populations. Conclusion. Access to large, late-phase, cancer-trial data sets has the potential to transform cancer research by optimizing research efficiency and accelerating progress toward meaningful improvements in cancer care. This type of platform provides opportunities for unique research projects that can examine relatively neglected areas and that can construct models necessitating large amounts of detailed data.The full potential of PDS will be realized only when multiple tumor types and larger numbers of data sets are available through the website. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The Brief Pain Inventory ( BPI) was designed to yield separate scores for pain intensity and interference. It has been proposed that the pain interference factor can be further broken down into unique factors of affective (e.g., mood) and activity (e.g., work) interference. The purpose of this analysis was to confirm this affective/activity interference dichotomy. Patients and Methods A retrospective confirmatory factor analysis was completed for a sample of 184 individuals diagnosed with castrate-resistant prostate cancer (age 40-86, mean = 65.46, 77% White non- Hispanic) who had been administered the BPI as part of Cancer and Leukemia Group B trial 9480. A one-factor model was compared against two-factor and three-factor models that were developed based on the design of the instrument. Results Root mean squared error of approximation (0.075), comparative fit index (0.971), and change in chi-square, given the corresponding change in degrees of freedom (13.33, P < 0.05) values for the three-factor model (i.e., pain intensity, activity interference, and affective interference), were statistically superior in comparison with the one- and two-factor models. This three-factor structure was found to be invariant across age, mean prostate-specific antigen, and hemoglobin levels. Conclusions These results confirm that the BPI can be used to quantify the degree to which pain separately interferes with affective and activity aspects of a patient's everyday life. These findings will provide clinical trialists, pharmaceutical sponsors, and regulators with confidence in the flexibility of the BPI as they consider the use of this instrument to assist with understanding the patient experience as it relates to treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Answer questions and earn CME/CNE Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires assess topics a patient can report about his or her own health. This includes symptoms (eg, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, pain, or frequent urination), physical functioning (eg, difficulty climbing stairs or difficulty fastening buttons), and mental health (eg, anxiety, fear, or worry). Electronic PRO (ePRO) systems are used in oncology clinical care because of 1) their ability to enhance clinical care by flagging important symptoms and saving clinicians time; 2) the availability of standardized methods for creating and implementing PROs in clinics; and 3) the existence of user-friendly platforms for patient self-reporting like tablet computers and automated telephone surveys. Many ePRO systems can provide actionable links to clinical care such as summary reports in a patient's electronic medical record and real-time e-mail alerts to providers when patients report acute needs. This review presents 5 examples of ePRO systems currently in use in oncology practice. These systems support multiple clinical activities, including assessment of symptoms and toxicities related to chemotherapy and radiation, postoperative surveillance, and symptom management during palliative care and hospice. Patient self-reporting is possible both at clinical visits and between visits over the Internet or by telephone. The implementation of an ePRO system requires significant resources and expertise, as well as user training. ePRO systems enable regular monitoring of patient symptoms, function, and needs, and can enhance the efficiency and quality of care as well as communication with patients. CA Cancer J Clin 2012. © 2012 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]