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]

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]

Purpose: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent’s level of cognitive impairment.Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen’s d effect sizes and misclassification rates.In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR–0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR–0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR–3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.Methods: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent’s level of cognitive impairment.Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen’s d effect sizes and misclassification rates.In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR–0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR–0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR–3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.Results: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent’s level of cognitive impairment.Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen’s d effect sizes and misclassification rates.In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR–0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR–0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR–3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment.Conclusions: The Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) is widely used to screen for depression in clinical practice and to assess symptoms of depression in research about older adults. To determine whether the 15-item GDS can be used in adults with dementia, this study investigated whether item- or test-level bias in the GDS-15 is associated with the respondent’s level of cognitive impairment.Using a large U.S. sample of 24,674 adults, we first conducted sample matching procedures between the five groups defined by CDR® Dementia Staging Instrument scores to control for potential confounding effects of common demographic variables. Then, we employed confirmatory factor analysis (for single-group and configural-invariance models only) and item response theory models to test potential differential item/test functioning effects associated with the GDS-15 across the five CDR groups. Practical consequences of the identified biases were quantified using sample-based Cohen’s d effect sizes and misclassification rates.In general, people with higher CDR scores were older and had fewer years of education. In comparison to the normal cognition group (CDR–0), negligible biases in GDS-15 scores were found for the groups with questionable, mild, or moderate cognitive impairment (CDR–0.5/1/2). For individuals with severe cognitive impairment (CDR–3), their responses were inconsistent with the normal cognition group and their depression scores were significantly biased with a small-to-medium effect size.The GDS-15 can be used to assess depression in individuals with mild or moderate cognitive impairment, but not in individuals with severe cognitive impairment. [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: 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]

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]

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]

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]

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: 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: Traditional concordance metrics have shortcomings based on dataset characteristics (e.g., multiple attributes rated, missing data); therefore it is necessary to explore supplemental approaches to quantifying agreement between independent assessments. The purpose of this methodological paper is to apply an Item Response Theory (IRT) -based framework to an existing dataset that included unidimensional clinician and multiple attribute patient ratings of symptomatic adverse events (AEs), and explore the utility of this method in patient-reported outcome (PRO) and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) research. Methods: Data were derived from a National Cancer Institute-sponsored study examining the validity of a measurement system (PRO-CTCAE) for patient self-reporting of AEs in cancer patients receiving treatment (N = 940). AEs included 13 multiple attribute patient-reported symptoms that had corresponding unidimensional clinician AE grades. A Bayesian IRT Model was fitted to calculate the latent grading thresholds between raters. The posterior mean values of the model-fitted item responses were calculated to represent model-based AE grades obtained from patients and clinicians. Results: Model-based AE grades showed a general pattern of clinician underestimation relative to patient-graded AEs. However, the magnitude of clinician underestimation was associated with AE severity, such that clinicians' underestimation was more pronounced for moderate/very severe model-estimated AEs, and less so with mild AEs. Conclusions: The Bayesian IRT approach reconciles multiple symptom attributes and elaborates on the patterns of clinician-patient non-concordance beyond that provided by traditional metrics. This IRT-based technique may be used as a supplemental tool to detect and characterize nuanced differences in patient-, clinician-, and proxy-based ratings of HRQOL and patient-centered outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01031641. Registered 1 December 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from − 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from − 3 to 3.Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091)Methods: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from − 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from − 3 to 3.Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091)Results: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from − 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from − 3 to 3.Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091)Conclusion: We derived meaningful individual-level change thresholds for worsening in selected patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE®) items and their composite scores.We used two data sources, the PRO-TECT trial (Alliance AFT-39) that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults with advanced cancer at 26 United States (U.S.) community oncology practices and the PRO-CTCAE validation study that collected PRO-CTCAE data from adults undergoing chemotherapy or radiation therapy at nine U.S. cancer centers or community oncology practices. Both studies administered selected PRO-CTCAE items and EORTC QLQ-C30 scales. Conceptually, relevant QLQ-C30 domains were used as anchors to estimate meaningful change thresholds for deterioration in corresponding PRO-CTCAE items and their composite scores. Items or composites with ǀρǀ ≥ 0.30 correlation with QLQ-C30 scales were included. Changes in PRO-CTCAE scores and composites were estimated for patients who met or exceeded a 10-point deterioration on the corresponding QLQ-C30 scale. Change scores were computed between baseline and the 3-month timepoint in PRO-TECT, and in the PRO-CTCAE validation study between baseline and a single follow-up visit that occurred between 1 and 7 weeks later. For each PRO-CTCAE item, change scores could range from − 4 to 4; for a composite, change scores could range from − 3 to 3.Change scores in QLQ-C30 and PRO-CTCAE were available in 406 and 792 patients in PRO-TECT and the validation study, respectively. Across QLQ-C30 scales, the proportion of patients with a 10-point or greater worsening on QLQ-C30 ranged from 15 to 30% in the PRO-TECT data and 13% to 34% in the validation data. Across PRO-CTCAE items, anchor-based meaningful change estimates for deterioration ranged from 0.05 to 0.30 (mean 0.19) in the PRO-TECT data and from 0.19 to 0.53 (mean 0.36) in the validation data. For composites, they ranged from 0.06 to 0.27 (mean 0.17) in the PRO-TECT data and 0.22 to 0.51 (mean 0.37) in the validation data.In both datasets, the minimal meaningful individual-level change threshold for worsening was one point for all items and composite scores.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03249090 (AFT-39), NCT02158637 (MC1091) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]