Search

Introduction: Although there are over 500 mobile health (mHealth) applications (apps) available for download in the field of oncology, little research has addressed their acceptability among health care providers. In addition, the providers' perspectives regarding patient app use has been largely unexamined. We conducted a qualitative study to explore opportunities and barriers for mHealth app use for oncology care., Methods: We developed a structured interview guide focusing on acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, and sustainability of the use of apps in cancer care. We interviewed 15 oncology providers about their attitudes and preferences. De-identified audio recordings were transcribed and coded for emerging themes., Results: Providers interviewed included physicians (n = 8) and advanced practice (n = 3) and supportive services (n = 4) providers who care for a wide range of cancer types; ages ranged from 32 to 68 years. Interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes. Oncology providers reported limited exposure to mHealth apps in patient care, but were generally open to recommending or prescribing apps in the future. Key themes included opportunities for mobile app use (including general health promotion, tracking symptoms, and engaging patients) and barriers to implementation (including access to technology, responsibility, workflow, and the source of the app itself)., Conclusion: Our results show openness among oncology providers to using mHealth technology as part of patient care, but concerns regarding implementation. Designing acceptable apps may be challenging and require involvement of key stakeholders, partnering with trustworthy institutions, and outcome-based research.

Purpose: We aimed to update a previously published, multi-institutional nomogram of outcomes for salvage radiotherapy (SRT) following radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer, including patients treated in the contemporary era., Methods: Individual data from node-negative patients with a detectable post-RP prostate-specific antigen (PSA) treated with SRT with or without concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) were obtained from 10 academic institutions. Freedom from biochemical failure (FFBF) and distant metastases (DM) rates were estimated, and predictive nomograms were generated., Results: Overall, 2,460 patients with a median follow-up of 5 years were included; 599 patients (24%) had a Gleason score (GS) ≤ 6, 1,387 (56%) had a GS of 7, 244 (10%) had a GS of 8, and 230 (9%) had a GS of 9 to 10. There were 1,370 patients (56%) with extraprostatic extension (EPE), 452 (18%) with seminal vesicle invasion (SVI), 1,434 (58%) with positive surgical margins, and 390 (16%) who received ADT (median, 6 months). The median pre-SRT PSA was 0.5 ng/mL (interquartile range, 0.3 to 1.1). The 5-yr FFBF rate was 56% overall, 71% for those with a pre-SRT PSA level of 0.01 to 0.2 ng/mL (n = 441), 63% for those with a PSA of 0.21 to 0.50 ng/mL (n = 822), 54% for those with a PSA of 0.51 to 1.0 ng/mL (n = 533), 43% for those with a PSA of 1.01 to 2.0 ng/mL (n = 341), and 37% for those with a PSA > 2.0 ng/mL (n = 323); P < .001. On multivariable analysis, pre-SRT PSA, GS, EPE, SVI, surgical margins, ADT use, and SRT dose were associated with FFBF. Pre-SRT PSA, GS, SVI, surgical margins, and ADT use were associated with DM, whereas EPE and SRT dose were not. The nomogram concordance indices were 0.68 (FFBF) and 0.74 (DM)., Conclusion: Early SRT at low PSA levels after RP is associated with improved FFBF and DM rates. Contemporary nomograms can estimate individual patient outcomes after SRT in the modern era.

Purpose: Conventional radiotherapy (C-RT) treatment schedules for patients with prostate cancer typically require 40 to 45 treatments that take place from > 8 to 9 weeks. Preclinical and clinical research suggest that hypofractionation-fewer treatments but at a higher dose per treatment-may produce similar outcomes. This trial was designed to assess whether the efficacy of a hypofractionated radiotherapy (H-RT) treatment schedule is no worse than a C-RT schedule in men with low-risk prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: A total of 1,115 men with low-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to C-RT (73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks) or to H-RT (70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks). This trial was designed to establish (with 90% power and an α of .05) that treatment with H-RT results in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) that is not worse than C-RT by more than 7.65% (H-RT/C-RT hazard ratio [HR] < 1.52)., Results: A total of 1,092 men were protocol eligible and had follow-up information; 542 patients were assigned to C-RT and 550 to H-RT. Median follow-up was 5.8 years. Baseline characteristics were not different according to treatment assignment. The estimated 5-year DFS was 85.3% (95% CI, 81.9 to 88.1) in the C-RT arm and 86.3% (95% CI, 83.1 to 89.0) in the H-RT arm. The DFS HR was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.14), and the predefined noninferiority criterion that required that DFS outcomes be consistent with HR < 1.52 was met (P < .001). Late grade 2 and 3 GI and genitourinary adverse events were increased (HR, 1.31 to 1.59) in patients who were treated with H-RT., Conclusion: In men with low-risk prostate cancer, the efficacy of 70 Gy in 28 fractions over 5.6 weeks is not inferior to 73.8 Gy in 41 fractions over 8.2 weeks, although an increase in late GI/genitourinary adverse events was observed in patients treated with H-RT., (© 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)