Search

IMPORTANCE: Patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) recognize days spent at home (home time) vs in a hospital or nursing facility as an important factor in treatment decision making. No study has adequately described home time among older adults with AML. OBJECTIVE: To describe home time among older adults with AML (aged ≥66 years) and compare home time between 2 common treatments: anthracycline-based chemotherapy and hypomethylating agents (HMAs). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cohort of adults aged 66 years or older with a new diagnosis of AML from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database in 2004 to 2016 was identified. Individuals were stratified into anthracycline-based therapy, HMAs, or chemotherapy, not otherwise specified (NOS) using claims. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was home time, quantified by subtracting the total number of person-days spent in hospitals and nursing facilities from the number of person-days survived and dividing by total person-days. A weighted multinomial regression model with stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate adjusted home time was used. RESULTS: The cohort included 7946 patients with AML: 2824 (35.5%) received anthracyclines, 2542 (32.0%) HMAs, and 2580 (32.5%) were classified as chemotherapy, NOS. Median (IQR) survival was 11.0 (5.0-27.0) months for those receiving anthracyclines and 8.0 (3.0-17.0) months for those receiving HMAs. Adjusted home time for all patients in the first year was 52.4%. Home time was highest among patients receiving HMAs (60.8%) followed by those receiving anthracyclines (51.9%). Despite having a shorter median survival, patients receiving HMAs had more total days at home and 33 more days at home in the first year on average than patients receiving anthracyclines (222 vs 189). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This retrospective study of older adults with AML using SEER-Medicare data and propensity score weighting suggests that the additional survival afforded by receiving anthracycline-based therapy was entirely offset by admission to the hospital or to nursing facilities.

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants’ median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P < .05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P < .05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r = 0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P ≤ .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Rectal cancer patients’ expectations of health and function may affect their disease- and treatment-related experience, but how patients form expectations of postsurgery function has received little study.

Inhalation therapy has become the primary treatment mode for most pediatric pulmonary diseases. Errors in inhalation technique can decrease intrapulmonary drug deposition, which may lead to a decrease in therapeutic response. This study examined the ability of caregivers of young children with asthma, after being provided careful and standardized instruction, to correctly demonstrate how to use 1 of 2 different inhaler delivery systems. Caregivers of children aged 1–6 years, who were being prescribed an inhaler device for the first time, were trained by a staff asthma educator using a standardized educational checklist. One week later, the caregiver was required to demonstrate the correct preparation, use, and maintenance of their prescribed device to a different staff asthma educator, who rated their performance using the same standardized educational checklist. Errors (total and major) in carrying out the individual steps for each delivery device were recorded, and a Performance Mastery Score (measure of ability to do device steps correctly) was calculated. The total and major error rates were 24.8% and 15.6%, respectively, for the metered-dose inhalers (MDIs) with spacer, and 15.9% and 8.5%, respectively, for the nebulizer (P< 0.001). The mean Performance Mastery Score was 84.5% for the MDI with spacer and 91.9% for the nebulizer (P< 0.001). Caregivers of young children with asthma demonstrate a number of errors in device use, including major ones that can potentially result in poor lung delivery, even 1 week after standardized training by an asthma educator. Mastery of the MDI with spacer delivery system appears somewhat harder than that seen with the nebulizer. These findings suggest the need for repetition of sessions reinforcing inhalation instructions at follow-up in addition to initial education of proper device use, no matter what type of delivery system is selected.

Patient-reported health data provide information for pragmatic clinical trials that may not be readily available from electronic health records or administrative claims data. In this report, we present key considerations for collecting patient-reported health information in pragmatic clinical trials, which are informed by best practices from patient-reported outcome research. We focus on question design and administration via electronic data collection platforms with respect to 3 types of patient-reported health data: medication use, utilization of health care services, and comorbid conditions. We summarize key scientific literature on the accuracy of these patient-reported data compared with electronic health record data. We discuss question design in detail, specifically defining the concept to be measured, patient understanding of the concept, recall periods of the question, and patient willingness to report. In addition, we discuss approaches for question administration and data collection platforms, which are key aspects of successful patient-reported data collection.

IMPORTANCE: Standard adverse event (AE) reporting in oncology clinical trials has historically relied on clinician grading, which prior research has shown can lead to underestimation of rates of symptomatic AEs. Industry sponsors are beginning to implement in trials the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), which was developed to allow patients to self-report symptomatic AEs and improve the quality of symptomatic AE detection. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of implementing PRO-CTCAE in a prespecified correlative analysis of the phase 3 COMET-2 trial and enumerate statistically significant between-group differences in symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE and the CTCAE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This correlative study of 119 men in the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 COMET-2 trial with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer who had undergone at least 2 prior lines of systemic treatment was conducted from March 2012 to July 2014. Participants completed PRO-CTCAE items using an automated telephone system from home prior to treatment and every 3 weeks during treatment. Statistical analysis was performed from May 2018 to June 2019. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The proportion of patients who completed expected PRO-CTCAE self-reports was computed as a measure of feasibility. RESULTS: Among the 119 men in the study (median age, 65 years [range, 44-80 years]), 534 of 587 (91.0%) expected PRO-CTCAE self-reports were completed, with consistently high rates of completion throughout participation. Rates of self-report adherence were similar between groups (cabozantinib s-maleate, 286 of 317 [90.2%]; and mitoxantrone hydrochloride-prednisone, 248 of 270 [91.9%]). Of 12 measured, patient-reported PRO-CTCAE symptomatic AEs, 4 reached statistical significance when comparing the proportion of patients with at least 1 postbaseline score greater than 0 between groups (differences ranged from 20.1% to 34.1% with higher proportions in the cabozantinib group; all P &lt; .05), and use of a method for accounting for preexisting symptoms at baseline yielded 7 AEs with statistically significant differences between groups (differences ranged from 20.5% to 41.2% with higher proportions in the cabozantinib group; all P &lt; .05). In the same analysis using investigator-reported CTCAE data, no statistically significant differences were found between groups for any symptomatic AEs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: PRO-CTCAE data collection was feasible and improved the accuracy of symptomatic AE detection in a phase 3 cancer trial. This analysis adds to mounting evidence of the feasibility and value of patient-reported AEs in oncology, which should be considered for inclusion in cancer trials that incorporate AE evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01522443