Dataset Information

Characteristics of Participation in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Data Capture Components of NRG Oncology Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To assess the reasons why patients do not consent to patient-reported outcome (PRO) and electronic PRO data capture components of clinical trials and potential selection bias by having a separate consent.

Methods and materials

Selected NRG Oncology trials were included based on disease site and inclusion of PROs and electronic PRO data capture via VisionTree Optimal Care as separate consent questions. Reasons for not participating were assessed. Pretreatment characteristics between patients who did and did not consent were tested using χ² and t tests for univariate comparisons and logistic regression for multivariable analyses.

Results

Ten trials were selected in head and neck, prostate, gynecologic, breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers, with 4 of these trials having electronic PRO data capture. Most patients consented to the PRO component (75.3%) but not electronic PRO data capture (37.8%). More white patients consented to PROs than nonwhite patients across all trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.63; P < .001), and more patients with education after high school consented compared with those with less education (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.46-2.02; P < .001). Patients who are younger (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), white (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .001), and a never or former smoker (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.78; P = .001) are more likely to participate in electronic PRO data capture.

Conclusions

These results suggest that a patient's race, age, and education can affect whether a patient chooses to consent or is offered to participate in PRO or electronic PRO data capture components. More investigation is needed, but this analysis provides support for making PROs integrated in the trial.

SUBMITTER: Pugh SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572717 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS:NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 weeks) or 12 fractions (4.3 Gy in 2.5 weeks). The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a change in EPIC-50 bowel score at 1 year (baseline to 1 year) >5 points and in EPIC-50 urinary score >2 points tested with a 1-sample binomial test. RESULTS:The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 analyzed) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 analyzed). Median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 3.8 years. The 1-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 29.8% (P < .001) and 28.4% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 1-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 45.7% (P < .001) and 42.2% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 32.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ?11 points (P = .34); for 12 fractions, 30.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ? 11 points (P = .20). Disease-free survival at 2 years is 99.2% (95% confidence interval: 97.5-100) in the 5-fraction arm and 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms that, based on changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity (acute and late), the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Project description:BackgroundGOG 240 was a practice-changing randomised phase 3 trial that concluded that chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer significantly improves overall and progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients achieving an overall objective response, compared with chemotherapy alone. In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240.MethodsEligible adult participants (aged ≥18 years) had primary stage IVB or recurrent or persistent carcinoma of the cervix with measurable disease and GOG performance status of 0-1. Participants were randomly assigned by web-based permuted block randomisation (block size 4) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to the four treatment groups: cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 or 2 of the treatment cycle) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2) intravenously over 24 h or 175 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 h on day 1), with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 or 2), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) and topotecan (0·75 mg/m(2) for 30 min on days 1-3) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1). Treatment assignment was concealed at randomisation (everyone was masked to treatment assignment, achieved by the use of a computer encrypted numbering system at the National Cancer Institute) and became open-label when each patient was registered to the trial. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were overall survival and safety; the primary quality-of-life endpoint was the score on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Cx TOI). For our analysis of patient-reported outcomes, participants were assessed before treatment cycles 1, 2, and 5, and at 6 and 9 months after the start of cycle 1, with the FACT-Cx TOI, items from the FACT-GOG-Neurotoxicity subscale, and a worst pain item from the Brief Pain Inventory. All patients who completed baseline quality-of-life assessments and at least one further follow-up assessment were evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062.FindingsBetween April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, a total of 452 patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 390 completed baseline quality-of-life assessment and at least one further assessment and were therefore evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (94%) of 452 (at baseline) to 193 (63%) of 307 (9 months post-cycle 1), but completion rates did not differ significantly between treatment regimens (p=0·78). The baseline FACT-Cx TOI scores did not differ significantly between patients who received bevacizumab versus those who did not (p=0·27). Compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone, patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab reported FACT-Cx TOI scores that were an average of 1·2 points lower (98·75% CI -4·1 to 1·7; p=0·30).InterpretationImprovements in overall survival and progression-free survival attributed to the incorporation of bevacizumab into the treatment of advanced cervical cancer were not accompanied by any significant deterioration in health-related quality of life. Patients responding to anti-angiogenesis therapy who maintain an acceptable quality of life could be suitable at progression for treatment with other novel therapies that might confer additional benefit.FundingNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients. METHODS:In the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors. RESULTS:In total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.

Project description:ImportanceFor many types of epithelial malignant neoplasms that are treated with definitive radiotherapy (RT), treatment prolongation and interruptions have an adverse effect on outcomes.ObjectiveTo analyze the association between RT duration and outcomes in patients with esophageal cancer who were treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT).Design, setting, and participantsThis study was an unplanned, post hoc secondary analysis of 3 prospective, multi-institutional phase 3 randomized clinical trials (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] 8501, RTOG 9405, and RTOG 0436) of the National Cancer Institute-sponsored NRG Oncology (formerly the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project, RTOG, and Gynecologic Oncology Group). Enrolled patients with nonmetastatic esophageal cancer underwent definitive CRT in the trials between 1986 and 2013, with follow-up occurring through 2014. Data analyses were conducted between March 2022 to February 2023.ExposuresTreatment groups in the trials used standard-dose RT (50 Gy) and concurrent chemotherapy.Main outcomes and measuresThe outcomes were local-regional failure (LRF), distant failure, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS). Multivariable models were used to examine the associations between these outcomes and both RT duration and interruptions. Radiotherapy duration was analyzed as a dichotomized variable using an X-Tile software to choose a cut point and its median value as a cut point, as well as a continuous variable.ResultsThe analysis included 509 patients (median [IQR] age, 64 [57-70] years; 418 males [82%]; and 376 White individuals [74%]). The median (IQR) follow-up was 4.01 (2.93-4.92) years for surviving patients. The median cut point of RT duration was 39 days or less in 271 patients (53%) vs more than 39 days in 238 patients (47%), and the X-Tile software cut point was 45 days or less in 446 patients (88%) vs more than 45 days in 63 patients (12%). Radiotherapy interruptions occurred in 207 patients (41%). Female (vs male) sex and other (vs White) race and ethnicity were associated with longer RT duration and RT interruptions. In the multivariable models, RT duration longer than 45 days was associated with inferior DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.34; 95% CI, 1.01-1.77; P = .04). The HR for OS was 1.33, but the results were not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.99-1.77; P = .05). Radiotherapy duration longer than 39 days (vs ≤39 days) was associated with a higher risk of LRF (HR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.06-1.65; P = .01). As a continuous variable, RT duration (per 1 week increase) was associated with DFS failure (HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.01-1.28; P = .03). The HR for LRF 1.13, but the result was not statistically significant (95% CI, 0.99-1.28; P = .07).Conclusions and relevanceResults of this study indicated that in patients with esophageal cancer receiving definitive CRT, prolonged RT duration was associated with inferior outcomes; female patients and those with other (vs White) race and ethnicity were more likely to have longer RT duration and experience RT interruptions. Radiotherapy interruptions should be minimized to optimize outcomes.

Project description:PurposeDespite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.MethodsThe guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).ResultsSelection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.ConclusionE-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the "data actionable" within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

Project description:BackgroundKnowledge of treatment assignment may affect patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which is of concern in oncology, where open-label trials are common. This study measured the magnitude of open-label bias by comparing PROs for similar patient groups in oncology trials with different degrees of concealment.MethodsIndividual patient data from ipilimumab arms of 2 melanoma and docetaxel arms of 2 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trials were adjusted for differences using propensity score weighting. Patients were aware of treatment assignment in CA184-022 and CheckMate 057 (open-label) but not in MDX010-20 and VITAL (blinded). Overall survival (OS) and mean changes from baseline to week 12 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (melanoma) and Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (NSCLC) scores were compared between open-label and blinded groups.ResultsAfter adjustment, baseline characteristics were balanced between blinded (melanoma, n = 125; NSCLC, n = 424) and open-label (melanoma, n = 69; NSCLC, n = 205) groups. Study discontinuation and PRO completion rates at week 12 and OS were similar. There was no clear direction in differences in change scores between groups. In the melanoma trials, role functioning (mean = -5.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -15.4 to 5.0), global health status (mean = -1.3, 95% CI = -8.7 to 6.1), and pain (mean = 6.2 , 95% CI = -1.8 to 14.2) favored the blinded, whereas emotional functioning (mean = 2.2, 95% CI = -5.8 to 10.2) and diarrhea (mean = -8.3, 95% CI = -17.3 to 0.7) favored the open-label group. In the NSCLC trials, changes in dyspnea (mean = 5.4, 95% CI = -0.7 to 11.5) favored the blinded and changes in appetite (mean = -1.2, 95% CI = -8.1 to 5.7) favored the open-label group. None were clinically or statistically significant.ConclusionsThis study adds to the growing evidence demonstrating that concerns regarding open-label bias should not prohibit the interpretation of large and meaningful treatment effects on PROs.