Dataset Information

Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities.

Data sources

Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017.

Study design

Secondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities.

Data collection methods

Patients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management.

Principal findings

Of 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital.

Conclusions

Querying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens.

SUBMITTER: Friese CR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7704472 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe National Institute of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses computerised-adaptive testing to reduce survey burden and improve sensitivity. PROMIS is being used across medical and surgical disciplines but has not been studied in orthopaedic oncology.Questions/purposesThe aim of the study was to compare PROMIS measures with upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) by assessing the following: (1) responder burden, (2) correlation between scores and (3) floor/ceiling effects.Patients and methodsThis cross-sectional trial analysed all 97 adult patients treated surgically for a bone or soft tissue tumour at a tertiary institution between November 2015 and March 2016. TESS (UE or LE) and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference and Depression) surveys were administered preoperatively. Pearson correlations between each PROMIS domain and TESS were calculated, as were floor/ceiling effects of each outcome measure.Results(1) Completion of three PROMIS questionnaires required a mean total of 16.8 (+/- 5.8 standard deviation) questions, compared with 31 and 32 questions for the LE and UE TESS questionnaires, respectively. (2) The PROMIS Physical Function scores demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the LE TESS (r = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.91; p < 0.001) and moderate positive correlation with the UE TESS (r = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-0.83; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a weak negative correlation with both the LE TESS (r = -0.38; 95% CI, -0.61 to -0.10; p = 0.010) and with UE TESS (r = -0.38; 95% CI, -0.67 to -0.01; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Pain Interference scores demonstrated a strong negative correlation with the LE TESS (r = -0.71; 95% CI, -0.83 to -0.52; p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with the UE TESS (r = -0.62; 95% CI, -0.81 to -0.30; p = 0.001). (3) The UE TESS had a range of scores from 16 to 100 with a 27% ceiling effect and no floor effect, and the LE TESS had a range from 10 to 98 with no floor or ceiling effect. There was no floor or ceiling effect for any PROMIS measures.ConclusionsIn an orthopaedic oncology population, the PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference scores correlate with the TESS and have the benefit of reduced survey burden and ceiling effect. The PROMIS Depression scores may provide additional information regarding patient outcomes not captured by the TESS.Level of evidenceLevel III.The translational potential of this articlePatient reported outcome measures asses patients' symptoms, function and health-related quality of life and are designed to capture more clinical information than can be gathered by objective medial testing alone. As reimbursements and the understanding of patient outcomes are becoming tied to performance on PROMIS measures, it is an important step to establish how PROMIS measures correlate and compare to traditional legacy measures.

Project description:BackgroundLittle research has focused on implementation of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (e-PROs) for meaningful use in patient management in 'real-world' oncology practices. Our quality improvement collaborative used multi-faceted implementation strategies including audit and feedback, disease-site champions and practice coaching, core training of clinicians in a person-centered clinical method for use of e-PROs in shared treatment planning and patient activation, ongoing educational outreach and shared collaborative learnings to facilitate integration of e-PROs data in multi-sites in Ontario and Quebec, Canada for personalized management of generic and targeted symptoms of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress (depression, anxiety).Patients and methodsWe used a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative data) program evaluation design to assess process/implementation outcomes including e-PROs completion rates, acceptability/use from the perspective of patients/clinicians, and patient experience (surveys, qualitative focus groups). We secondarily explored impact on symptom severity, patient activation and healthcare utilization (Ontario sites only) comparing a pre/post population cohort not exposed/exposed to our implementation intervention using Mann Whitney U tests. We hypothesized that the iPEHOC intervention would result in a reduction in symptom severity, healthcare utilization, and higher patient activation. We also identified key implementation strategies that sites perceived as most valuable to uptake and any barriers.ResultsOver 6000 patients completed e-PROs, with sites reaching 51%-95% population completion rates depending on initial readiness. e-PROs were acceptable to patients for communicating symptoms (76%) and by clinicians for treatment planning (80%). Patient experience was better than the provincial average. Compared to the pre-population, we observed a significant reduction in levels of anxiety (p?=?0.008), higher levels of patient activation (p =?0.045), and reduced hospitalization rates (12.3% not exposed vs 10.1% exposed, p?=?0.034). A pre/post population trend towards significance for reduced emergency department visit rates (14.8% not exposed vs 12.8% exposed, p?=?0.081) was also noted.ConclusionThis large-scale pragmatic quality improvement project demonstrates the impact of implementation strategies and a collaborative improvement approach on acceptability of using PROs in clinical practice and their potential for reducing anxiety and healthcare utilization; and improving patient experience and patient activation when implemented in 'real-world' multi-site oncology practices.

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: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:BACKGROUND:The growing movement toward more accountable care delivery and the increasing number of people with chronic illnesses underscores the need for primary care practices to engage patients in their own care. OBJECTIVE:For adult primary care practices seeing patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease, we examined the relationship between selected practice characteristics, patient engagement, and patient-reported outcomes of care. DESIGN:Cross-sectional multilevel observational study of 16 randomly selected practices in two large accountable care organizations (ACOs). PARTICIPANTS:Patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) who met study eligibility criteria (n?=?4368) and received care in 2014 were randomly selected to complete a patient activation and PRO survey (51% response rate; n?=?2176). Primary care team members of the 16 practices completed surveys that assessed practice culture, relational coordination, and teamwork (86% response rate; n?=?411). MAIN MEASURES:Patient-reported outcomes included depression (PHQ-4), physical functioning (PROMIS SF12a), and social functioning (PROMIS SF8a), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care instrument (PACIC-11), and the Patient Activation Measure instrument (PAM-13). Patient-level covariates included patient age, gender, education, insurance coverage, limited English language proficiency, blood pressure, HbA1c, LDL-cholesterol, and disease comorbidity burden. For each of the 16 practices, patient-centered culture and the degree of relational coordination among team members were measured using a clinician and staff survey. The implementation of shared decision-making activities in each practice was assessed using an operational leader survey. KEY RESULTS:Having a patient-centered culture was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (odds ratio [OR]?=?1.51; confidence interval [CI] 1.04, 2.19) and better physical function scores (OR?=?1.85; CI 1.25, 2.73). Patient activation was positively associated with fewer depression symptoms (OR?=?2.26; CI 1.79, 2.86), better physical health (OR?=?2.56; CI 2.00, 3.27), and better social health functioning (OR?=?4.12; CI 3.21, 5.29). Patient activation (PAM-13) mediated the positive association between patients' experience of chronic illness care and each of the three patient-reported outcome measures-fewer depression symptoms, better physical health, and better social health. Relational coordination and shared decision-making activities reported by practices were not significantly associated with higher patient-reported outcome scores. CONCLUSIONS:Diabetic and CVD patients who received care from ACO-affiliated practices with more developed patient-centered cultures reported lower PHQ-4 depression symptom scores and better physical functioning. Diabetic and CVD patients who were more highly activated to participate in their care reported lower PHQ-4 scores and better physical and social outcomes of care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:GOG 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. METHODS:Eligible 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. FINDINGS:Between 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). INTERPRETATION:Improvements 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. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.