Routine Cancer Care Research Articles

COVID-19 in patients with cancer: managing a pandemic within a pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted health care worldwide. Patients with cancer seem to be particularly susceptible to morbidities and mortality from this novel disease. No COVID-19-specific therapy currently seems to offer a survival benefit to this unique patient population. Furthermore, the global effects on routine cancer care will likely be felt for decades to come.

Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Routine Cancer Care at an Academic Center: Identifying Opportunities and Challenges.

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) can help clinicians proactively assess and manage their patients' symptoms. Despite known benefits, there is limited adoption of ePROs into routine clinical care as a result of workflow and technologic challenges. This study identifies oncologists' perspectives on factors that affect integration of ePROs into clinical workflows. We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 16 oncologists from a large academic medical center, across diverse subspecialties and cancer types. Oncologists were asked how they currently use or could imagine using ePROs before, during, and after a patient visit. We used an inductive approach to thematically analyze these qualitative data. Results were categorized into the following three main themes: (1) selection and development of ePRO tool, (2) contextual drivers of adoption, and (3) patient-facing concerns. Respondents preferred diagnosis-based ePRO tools over more general symptom screeners. Although they noted information overload as a potential barrier, respondents described strong data visualization and ease of use as facilitators. Contextual drivers of oncologist adoption include identifying target early adopters, incentivizing uptake through use of ePRO data to support billing and documentation, and emphasizing benefits for patient care and efficiency. Respondents also indicated the need to focus on patient-facing issues, such as patient response rate, timing of survey distribution, and validity and reliability of responses. Respondents identified several barriers and facilitators to successful uptake of ePROs. Understanding oncologists' perspectives is essential to inform both practice-level implementation strategies and policy-level decisions to include ePROs in alternative payment models for cancer care.

A review of the barriers to using Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care.

IntroductionPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are direct reports from patients about the status of their health condition without amendment or interpretation by others. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure PROs; they are usually validated questionnaires patients complete by self‐assessing their health status. Whilst the benefits of using PROs and PROMs to guide real‐time patient care are well established, they have not been adopted by many oncology institutions worldwide. This literature review aimed to examine the barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs in routine oncology care.MethodsA literature search was conducted across EMBASE, Medline and CINAHL databases. Studies detailing barriers to routine PRO use for real‐time patient care were included; those focusing on PRO collection in the research setting were excluded.ResultsOf 1165 records captured, 14 studies informed this review. At the patient level, patient time, incapacity and difficulty using electronic devices to complete PROMs were prominent barriers. At the health professional level, major barriers included health professionals’ lack of time and knowledge to meaningfully interpret and integrate PRO data into their clinical practice and the inability for PRO data to be acted upon. Prominent barriers at the service level included difficulties integrating PROs and PROMs into clinical workflows and inadequate information technology (IT) infrastructures for easy PRO collection.ConclusionThis review has outlined potential barriers to routine PRO use in the oncology setting. Such barriers should be considered when implementing PROs into routine clinical practice.

Somatic Testing and Germline Genetic Status: Implications for Cancer Treatment Decisions and Genetic Counseling

We review recent precision oncology literature pertaining to the implications of germline and somatic genetic information in cancer treatment. The goal of this work is to provide a practical resource for oncology practitioners and genetic providers and discuss practice considerations for those on the frontline of precision oncology. Understanding germline and somatic tumor alterations, patients can be matched to targeted therapy options attacking the specific genetic makeup of that tumor. This information informs treatment decisions about which therapies the cancer is likely to respond to and which treatment options should be avoided. Timely access to germline and somatic genetic testing is critical to ensure that patients have this information for treatment planning, both at diagnosis and through later lines of therapy. The hope of precision oncology is here although significant challenges remain for implementation for routine cancer care.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study

BackgroundListening to “patient voices” in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice.MethodsThe project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase.DiscussionThe documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03968718) May 30th, 2019.

An integrated model of exercise support for people affected by cancer: consensus through scoping

Introduction Exercise support for people with cancer is a national priority. The purpose of this study was to identify the success factors necessary to create a model of exercise support for people affected by cancer in a large city in the north of England. Method Two groups of participants were recruited; people affected by cancer (n = 26) and professional stakeholders (n = 14) contributing to either focus groups or semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using framework analysis. Results Results from this study suggest that the promotion of exercise is not a priority in routine cancer care. Patients identified a lack of support and difficulty attaining information as a barrier to becoming active, emphasising a gulf between the patients’ needs and the health professionals’ priorities. People affected by cancer and professionals agreed that exercise was beneficial to cancer patients both during and after treatment. For an exercise pathway to be successful, key factors were identified including accessibility; tailored support; social interaction; affordability; competence of exercise delivery staff. Conclusions There was consensus on the importance of exercise and critical factors required to develop a sustainable, accessible and effective service. Evidence to inform the development of an exercise pathway for people affected by cancer is provided. Implications for rehabilitation Exercise should be an included component of a cancer treatment plan, discussed and initiated from diagnosis. Health professionals have a responsibility to provide clear, consistent evidence-based advice on exercise. Exercise professionals must be appropriately trained in cancer rehabilitation according to National Institute for Health and care Excellence (2014). Individual assessments of exercise needs, preferences and cancer limitations will result in a bespoke plan of recommendations and support. The option of group activities has the advantage of increased social interaction, peer support and shared experiences. Available exercise/physical activity services should be accessible and affordable but may involve a modest contribution.

Electronic reporting of patient-reported outcomes in a fragile and comorbid population during cancer therapy \u2013 a feasibility study

BackgroundElectronic collection of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is becoming widespread in health care, but the implementation into routine cancer care during therapy remains to be seen. Especially, little is known of the use and success of electronic reporting during active cancer treatment in fragile and comorbid patients. The aim of this study was to test the feasibility of ePRO and its incorporation into routine cancer care, measured by physician compliance, for a fragile and comorbid bladder cancer (BC) population receiving chemo- or immunotherapy.MethodsAll BC patients initiating treatment for locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer at Rigshospitalet or Herlev Hospital, Denmark, were approached during an 8 month period. Exclusion criteria were patients not speaking Danish or not being signed up for electronic communication with health authorities. Enrolled patients were prompted to complete weekly ePROs from home. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer’s general quality of life questionnaire, QLQ-C30, and the module for muscle-invasive bladder cancer QLQ-BLM30, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS, and selected items from the Patient Reported-Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE), in total 158 questions weekly. If failing to report when prompted, patients were sent two e-mail reminders. Patients were informed that the physician would have an overview of the reported ePROs at their following clinical visits. Physicians were at all clinical visits informed to look at the ePROs in a software solution separate from the medical records. Physicians were logged to check their compliance to the task. No continuous surveillance of ePROs was established.ResultsOf 91 patients screened for enrolment, 19 patients (21%) were not found eligible for standard treatment, eight patients (9%) were not signed up for electronic communication with the health authorities and nine patients (10%) declined participation. Another six patients did not meet other inclusion criteria. In total 49 BC patients were enrolled, 29 initiating chemotherapy and 20 initiating immunotherapy. A total of 466 electronic questionnaires were completed. The overall adherence of the patients to complete ePROs was at an expected level for an elderly cancer population (75%) and remained above 70% until the 6th cycle of treatment. The physician’ compliance was in contrast low (0–52%) throughout the course of treatment.ConclusionsElectronic reporting of PROs is feasible in a fragile and comorbid population of patients during routine active cancer treatment. Despite clear implementation strategies the physician compliance remained low throughout the study proving the need for further implementation strategies.

Keeping Patients With Cancer Exercising in the Age of COVID-19.

The novel 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic is a global public health emergency. To date, physical distancing and good personal hygiene have been the only effective measures to limit spread. The pandemic has altered routine cancer care, including allied health and supportive care interventions. Clinicians must adapt and find ways to continue to deliver optimal patient care at this time. The prescription of exercise to people with cancer has been demonstrated to have meaningful benefits for both physical and mental health and quality of life, and may even enhance survival. Such exercise interventions provide the largest benefit to patients when delivered in a supervised, group, clinic-based setting. In the age of COVID-19, group-based exercise in communal facilities presents risks for both aerosol and surface transmission of the virus among people exercising, necessitating a pivot from the usual methods of exercise delivery to home-based exercise programs. In this article, we discuss the challenges that need to be overcome in moving to a home-based program for patients with cancer while maintaining the benefits of targeted and high-fidelity exercise medicine. We provide practical recommendations for how home-based exercise can be supported and nurtured by qualified exercise professionals who treat people living with cancer, as well as pointing to resources that are available online to assist practitioners. Despite the challenges faced during this pandemic, we believe that it is important for people to continue to benefit from exercise in a safe environment with the support of exercise specialists.

Acceptability and accuracy of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for surveillance of breathlessness in routine lung cancer care: A mixed-method study

BackgroundBreathlessness in lung cancer negatively impacts on quality of life but often goes undetected and undertreated in clinical practice. There is a need for routine surveillance for early identification and proactive management of breathlessness using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care but it is unclear what PROMs should be used or are accurate for use in routine care. MethodsWe used mixed-methods (quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews) to examine the predictors of breathlessness in 339 lung cancer participants and acceptability of PROMs. In addition to multivariate analysis to examine predictors of dyspnea, participants completed an acceptability survey and themes were derived for the qualitative data (n = 26) to explore patient experience of PROMs. We also tested the accuracy of PROMs using a Receiver Operating Characteristic and Area Under the Curve analysis. ResultsA total of 339 patients completed the breathlessness PROMs and acceptability survey and 26 patients participated in an in-depth interview to investigate their experiences of breathlessness and its PROMs. Prevalence of breathlessness was 51.9 % (n = 176) and 70.5 % of patients preferred the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale followed by the Breathlessness Intensity (BI) scale (63.7 %) among the five measures for breathlessness- Modified Borg Scale (MBS), Cancer Dyspnea Scale (CDS), MRC, BI, and Breathlessness Distress (BD). The finding showed wide variation in the MRC grades across the BI rating even among patients with the same BI score. AUC scores for the Borg scale was 0.71 (using MRC cut-off score of < 2), for CDS, 0.72, for BD, 0.70, and for BI 0.79. For an MRC score of 2, the Borg score cut-off was 0.8 (optimal sensitivity, 50 %; specificity, 93.3 %); the cut-off score of CDS, BD, BI score was 1.4 (optimal sensitivity, 67.1 %; specificity, 70 %), 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 57.5 %; specificity, 73.3 %), and 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 72.6 %; specificity, 83.3 %) respectively. AUC by ROC analysis for breathlessness and modest concordance among five PROMs showed important gaps between the individuals’ experience and PROMs data. Three main themes from qualitative data included 1) Making sense of symptom reporting, 2) Valuing the reported data, 3) Managing the symptom of breathlessness. ConclusionThis study examined measurement of breathlessness using PROMs for routine clinical care and showed that severity measures alone do not accurately detect this symptomnor the experiential dimensions of breathlessness that are critical to guide appropriate intervention.

AMTRA: a multicentered experience of a web-based monitoring and tailored toxicity management system for cancer patients.

Technology-based interventions are increasingly being introduced in routine clinical cancer care. There is a need for reliable systems to monitor treatment-related toxicity in a standardized manner. Such electronic tools bridge the gap in providing quality home-based monitoring. From July 2017 to December 2017, we performed a multicentered, non-randomized prospective cohort analysis with patients who were receiving routine chemotherapy for various solid tumors, using a web-based patient-reported toxicity registration, management, and intervention system called AMTRA (ambulatory Monitoring of cancer Therapy using an interactive Application) linked to the homecare nursing organization Remedus®. Twelve common toxicities plus pain and two biometrics could be registered daily or more frequently as required. These were processed centrally to generate tailored advice for lesser symptoms or a phone call from a dedicated nurse in case of severe or prolonged toxicity. A compliance tool to monitor oral therapies was incorporated in the system. One hundred sixty-eight patients (92%) were enrolled, with 31,514 registrations analyzed. One hundred eight patients reported severe toxicity (> 1461 registrations), resulting in 102 clinical interventions ranging from self-management advice, supplemental consultations to hospitalizations. Compliance to oral chemotherapy was high using AMTRA with a median of 98.7% (95 confidence interval (CI) [93.5-100.0%]). Seventy-nine percent of patients stated that the availability of AMTRA self-reports was useful in communication with the care provider, while 75% felt more in control while managing their treatment. The application of an interactive PRO-system in routine symptom management of cancer patients allowed standardized documentation of toxicities and recorded a high compliance with oral treatment. It allows for rapid interaction for toxicities and cancer-related symptoms experienced at home.

The use of a chatbot based on artificial intelligence to collect patients reported outcomes in oncology practice. A pilot study with real-world data.

e19119 Background: There is growing interest in enhancing symptoms monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The quality of evidence that demonstrates clinical benefits of this type of assistance is also increasing. However, the best method for this approach is evolving and there are many barriers to implement these tools in the real world scenario. We aim to describe a pilot study about a chatbot with artificial intelligence developed to collect PROs and to optimize adherence to systemic cancer treatment. Methods: This is a case series that reports the first patients in a private oncology clinic in Belo Horizonte, Southeast Brazil who consecutively underwent regular conversations with a chatbot based on artificial intelligence. Data was collected from February the 23th to December the 3rd 2019. The virtual assistant interacted with the patient in four different ways, being the first three of these an active search from the chatbot: a) search for adverse events, b) adherence to oral treatment c) screening for depression d) spontaneous patient demand (not an active search). Results: Interaction with the chatbot was offered to 193 patients. A total of 107 patients were included. Of these 74% were female, 55% older than 60 years and 22% had at least 7 years education.194 protocols of treatment were analysed, 66% of these being chemotherapy regimens and 23% hormone therapy. Oral drugs corresponded to 23% of the protocols. The main adverse events reported were fatigue 20%, nausea 13%, pain 11%, diarrhea 10%, lack of appetite 6%. Adverse effects were classified by patients as grade III or IV approximately 24% of the time. For patient safety the system runs a script twice a day to detect any adverse effect and send it to the service attended. A total of 3883 dialogues were initiated, the majority of which (3772) was carried out by the machine. Only 3% of the dialogues were spontaneously initiated by the patients. Once the conversation started, adherence was considerably satisfactory since engagement was 73% for questions about adherence to oral medications and 76% of people reported at least one adverse event. Conclusions: An initial barrier must be surpassed since the chatbot was offered to 193 patients and 86 (44%) did not register for use. Once the contact started, we understand that the use of AI is promising since the engagement rates were very good. It is important to highlight the potential capacity for early identification of symptoms since most dialogues were initiated by the virtual assistant.

Integrating PROs with prognostic value into oncologic care: High ESAS global distress score associated with lower overall survival in advanced cancer patients.

12021 Background: Despite compelling data supporting their use, patient reported outcomes (PROs) are not widely integrated into routine cancer care. In our Palliative Care (PC) practice, all patients complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), a simple, validated 10-item PRO tool which uses a 0 to 10 rating of 10 common symptoms (pain, fatigue, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, sleep, dyspnea, well-being, anxiety &amp; depression). Our team has previously validated the Global Distress Score (GDS), a sum of 9 physical + psychosocial ESAS items. Here, we studied the implementation of the GDS as a streamlined way to capture the overall symptom burden while providing prognostic value. Methods: We queried a PC database for patients w metastatic cancer at time of 1st PC visit. GDS was calculated &amp; grouped into 3 cohorts based on previous work &amp; clinical experience: high (GDS of 35+), Moderate (16-34) or Low (0-15). Overall Survival was defined as time from 1st PC visit date to death. Regression analysis, ANOVA and t-tests were conducted. Results: 333 patients met the inclusion criteria: median age 62.4y (range 20.5-88.4y), 25 AYA (15-39y), 169 mid age (35-64y), 140 seniors (65y+); 190 female 143 male; median prior therapies 2 (range 0-11), 227 patients were in 2nd line + above therapy. Median ECOG PS 2; 124 patients w ECOG PS 3 &amp; 33 w ECOG PS 4. 262 patients had died at time of analysis. Lower OS was associated w higher GDS (r 0.21, P &lt; 0.001). OS in Low, Mod, High GDS cohorts was 13.1m, 7.9m, &amp; 3.7m, respectively (p &lt; 0.001). There were no sig OS difference between 3 age cohorts (AYA 5.2m, mid age 6m, seniors 5.4m, p0.56). Conclusions: Higher GDS score was associated with a clinically significant decrease in overall survival highlighting the potential of the ESAS as a PRO tool in prognostication and clinical decision making for patients with advanced cancers with a high symptom burden. In the realm of increasingly complex PRO instruments, the ESAS represents a simple, well-validated tool which, in our studies and 25 years of clinical experience, takes the patient less than a minute to complete, with subscores such as the GDS which carry a highly prognostic utility for patients with advanced cancers.

Emergency management of immune-related toxicity.

Emergency presentations in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a clinical challenge. Clinicians need to be vigilant in diagnosing and treating immune-mediated toxicities. In this review, we consider the approach to managing an acutely unwell patient being treated with ICIs presenting as an emergency. A minority of acutely unwell patients treated with ICIs will have an immune-mediated toxicity. Early recognition and intervention in those with immune-mediated toxicity can reduce the duration and severity of the complications. The use of early immunosuppressive agents along corticosteroid therapy may improve outcomes in patients with life-threatening immune-mediated toxicity. Individualized management of immune-mediated toxicities is a key challenge for emergency oncology services; this has become part of routine cancer care.

Early nutrition intervention in cancer patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

e14037 Background: Malnutrition is a common finding seen in 50-80% of cancer patients. Malnutrition negatively impacts quality of life (QOL), treatment-related outcomes, and survival. While early nutrition interventions (ENI) may be beneficial in preventing malnutrition, they are not part of routine cancer care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the benefits of ENI compared to standard of care (SC) on nutritional status, QOL, and survival in patients with newly diagnosed cancer. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, and CINAHL databases from inception through October 2019 to identify randomized control trials (RCT) and cohort studies comparing ENI to SC in adult patients with newly diagnosed oncologic malignancies. We required that nutrition interventions began within 8 weeks of diagnosis and lasted at least 6 weeks. Outcomes of interest included nutritional status (change in weight or BMI), mortality, and QOL. We assessed for risk of bias among included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RCT) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (cohort studies). We summarized change in weight (kilogram, kg) at 3 and 6 months using standardized mean differences (SMD) and 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). Because some studies had insufficient data on weight to allow for quantitative analysis, we summarized their findings qualitatively. We used a qualitative approach to summarize QOL. Mortality at 1 and 2 years was compared using relative risk (RR) and 95%CI. Random effects models were used to pool data as there was meaningful and statistically significant heterogeneity (I2 &gt; 50%; p-value &lt; 0.1). Results: 2,781 studies were identified and screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. 18 independent studies (subjects = 1936) met inclusion criteria. Among 9 studies included in the quantitative analysis for nutritional status, patients who received ENI had better nutritional status compared to SC (SMD at 3 months 0.49kg, 95%CI 0.08-0.79; at 6 months: 0.27kg, 95% CI 0.09-0.45). ENI was also associated with a lower risk of death compared to SC, although the findings were not significant (1 year RR: 0.41[95% CI 0.09-1.81]; 2 year RR: 0.79 [95 CI 0.58-1.09]). Of the ten studies reporting on QOL, six found that patients in the ENI group had improved QOL outcomes. There was insufficient data available to perform subgroup analysis based on cancer type. The quality of studies was generally good and 11 of the included studies had low risk of bias. Conclusions: Patients with newly diagnosed cancer may benefit from ENI due to better weight outcomes, QOL, and survival.

Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology

PurposeComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM.MethodsA systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well.ResultsAfter examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail.ConclusionsConcerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability.

PCN327 THE IMPORTANCE OF MEASURING HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE IN ROUTINE CANCER CARE FOR OLDER PATIENTS WITH BLADDER CANCER

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcome can be used to monitor health and well-being and is one of the important outcomes that may predict overall survival (OS) in cancer patients. This study examined the association of OS and HRQoL measured before (T0), after cancer diagnosis (T1), and HRQoL changes from T0 to T1 (T1-T0) in patients diagnosed with bladder cancer (BC). This longitudinal retrospective cohort study used the 1998-2013 Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database linked with Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS). HRQoL was measured using the SF-36 (1998-2005)/Veterans Rand-12 (2006 onwards) and reported as physical (PCS), mental (MCS) component scores, and 8 domain scores. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs [95%CI]) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for demographics, comorbidities, and cancer specific characteristics. 438 BC patients aged ≥65 years who had HRQoL data at both T0 and T1 were identified. Among those, 220 (50.2%) died and 218 (49.8%) remained alive (censored). Compared to deceased patients, the censored patients were younger (75.3±6.0 vs. 77.2±6.8 years; p<0.01), had longer OS (90.4±39.9 vs. 67.9±42.0 months; p<0.001), had a lower-stage tumor at diagnosis (p<0.001), and had non-invasive tumors (p<0.01). Risk of death was negatively associated with increased PCS at T0 and T1 (aHRT0=0.984 [0.970-0.998] and aHRT1=0.976 [0.962-0.990], respectively). At T1, 6 out of 8 domain scores were also significantly associated with OS. However, PCST1-T0 and MCS at T0, T1, and T1-T0 were not associated with risk of death. We found that PCS was significantly associated with OS in older BC patients in our sample, which implies that older BC patients with better physical health are more likely to survive longer. Therefore, if HRQoL is measured in a routine cancer care, clinicians will be able to intervene early in order to improve or maintain patient’s physical health.

The impact of financial toxicity in gastrointestinal cancer patients

BackgroundBiopsychosocial distress screening is a critical component of comprehensive cancer care. Financial issues are a common source of distress in this patient population. This study uses a biopsychosocial distress screening tool to determine the factors associated with financial toxicity and the impact of these stressors on gastrointestinal cancer patients. MethodsA 48-question, proprietary distress screening tool was administered to patients with gastrointestinal malignancies from 2009 to 2015. This validated, electronically-administered tool is given to all new patients. Responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (not a problem) to 5 (very severe problem), with responses rated at ≥3 indicative of distress. Univariate and multivariate logistic regressions were used to analyze the data. ResultsMost of the 1,027 patients had colorectal (50%) or hepatobiliary (31%) malignancies. Additionally, 34% of all patients expressed a high level of financial toxicity. Age greater than 65 (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% confidence interval: 0.47–0.86, P < .01), college education (odds ratio: 0.53, 95% confidence interval: 0.38–0.73, P < .0001), being partnered (odds ratio: 0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.44–0.84, P < .01), and annual income greater than $40,000 (odds ratio: 0.27, 95% confidence interval: 0.19–0.38, P < .0001) were all protective against financial toxicity on univariate analysis. Also, heavy tobacco use was associated significantly with increased distress on univariate analysis (odds ratio: 2.79, 95% confidence interval: 1.38–5.78, P < .01). With the exception of partnered status (odds ratio: 1.18, 95% confidence interval: 0.76–1.85, P = .46), all these variables retained their significant association with financial toxicity in the multivariate model. ConclusionFinancial toxicity impacts a large number of cancer patients. Further study of at-risk populations may identify patients who would benefit from pre-emptive education and counseling interventions as part of their routine cancer care.

Racial differences in user experiences and perceived value of electronic symptom monitoring in a cohort of black and white bladder and prostate cancer patients.

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. 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 3months 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. 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. 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.

Real-World Data Reveals Quality Gaps in Routine Cancer Care

Real-World Data Reveals Quality Gaps in Routine Cancer Care

Development of a conceptual framework to improve sexual wellbeing communication in routine prostate cancer care

ObjectiveTo systematically develop a framework to improve sexual wellbeing communication in routine prostate cancer care. MethodsThe Theoretical Domains Framework was used to guide a multi-phase process used to identify components of the framework based on evidence reviews, semi-structured interviews and stakeholder workshops. ‘Think-aloud’ testing was used to explore usability, potential barriers and other factors relevant to implementation. ResultsA conceptual communication framework consisting of ‘Engagement’ (E), ‘Assessment’ (A), information and ‘Support’ (S) and ‘Sign-posting’ (Si) sections was developed. The framework emphasises routine engagement to normalise sexual concerns, brief, non-sensitive assessment, personalised advice based on treatment type and relationship status, and a mechanism for referral to additional support or self-management resources in the form of a patient and partner handout. Usability testing identified strategies to promote implementation. ConclusionsThe proposed framework is appropriate for use in routine practice and appears to be acceptable to patients, partners and healthcare professionals. Its use may help address gaps in sexual wellbeing support for men and partners living with prostate cancer. Further work will be conducted evaluating an online engagement tool, modelled on the framework. Practice ImplicationsThe EASSi framework can facilitate and structure sexual wellbeing conversations and ensure fundamental but individualised support is provided routinely in prostate cancer care.