Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION AND AIM: In a randomised trial investigating the effects of regular use of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in oncology practice, we previously reported an improvement in communication (objective analysis of recorded encounters) and patient well-being. The secondary aims of the trial were to measure any impact on patient satisfaction and patients' perspectives on continuity and coordination of their care. METHODS: In a prospective trial involving 28 oncologists, 286 cancer patients were randomised to: (1) intervention arm: regular touch-screen completion of HRQOL with feedback to physicians; (2) attention-control arm: completion of HRQOL without feedback; and (3) control arm: no HRQOL assessment. Secondary outcomes were patients' experience of continuity of care (Medical Care Questionnaire, MCQ) including 'Communication', 'Coordination' and 'Preferences to see usual doctor' subscales, patients' satisfaction, and patients' and physicians' evaluation of the intervention. Analysis employed mixed-effects modelling, multiple regression and descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention arm rated their continuity of care as better than the control group for 'Communication' subscale (p=0.03). No significant effects were found for 'Coordination' or 'Preferences to see usual doctor'. Patients' evaluation of the intervention was positive. More patients in the intervention group rated the HRQOL assessment as useful compared to the attention-control group (86% versus 29%), and reported their doctors considered daily activities, emotions and quality of life. CONCLUSION: Regular use of HRQOL measures in oncology practice brought changes to doctor-patient communication of sufficient magnitude and importance to be reported by patients. HRQOL data may improve care through facilitating rapport and building inter-personal relationships

Patients' confidence in treatment decisions for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: In early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients, little is known about how to measure patient participation in Shared-Decision Making (SDM). We examined the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the Decision Self-Efficacy scale (DSE) in a cohort of patients undergoing to Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) or Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) to capture patient involvement in treatment decisions. METHODS: In the context of a prospective longitudinal study (Life after Lung Cancer-LiLAC) involving 244 patients with early-stage NSCLC, 158 (64.7%) patients completed the DSE either on paper or electronically online prior to treatment with SABR or VATS pulmonary resection. DSE psychometric properties were examined using: principal components analysis of item properties and internal structure, and internal construct validity; we also performed a sensitivity analysis according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), gender, age and treatment received (VATS or SABR) difference. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations substantiated that the 11 item DSE is one scale accounting for 81% of the variance. We calculated a value of 0.96 for Cronbach's alpha for the total DSE score. DSE scores did not differ by gender (p = 0.37), between the two treatment groups (p = 0.09) and between younger and older patients (p = 0.4). However, patients with an ECOG PS > 1 have a DSE mean of 73.8 (SD 26) compared to patients with a PS 0-1 who have a DSE mean of 85.8 (SD 20.3 p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the DSE questionnaire in this population. However, future studies are warranted to identify the most appropriate SDM tool for clinical practice in the lung cancer treatment field

Asking the right questions to get the right answers: Using cognitive interviews to review the acceptability, comprehension and clinical meaningfulness of patient self-report adverse event items in oncology patients

Background: Standardized reporting of treatment-related adverse events (AE) is essential in clinical trials, usually achieved by using the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) reported by clinicians. Patient-reported adverse events (PRAE) may add value to clinician assessments, providing patient perspective on subjective toxicity. We developed an online patient symptom report and self-management system for real-time reporting and managing AE during cancer treatment integrated with electronic patient records (eRAPID). As part of this program we developed a patient version of the CTCAE (version 4.0), rephrasing terminology into a self-report format. We explored patient understanding of these items via cognitive interviews. Material and method: Sixty patients (33 female, 27 male) undergoing treatment were purposively sampled by age, gender and tumor group (median age 61.5, range 35–84, 12 breast, 12 gynecological, 13 colorectal, 12 lung and 11 renal). Twenty-one PRAE items were completed on a touch-screen computer. Subsequent audio-recorded cognitive interviews and thematic analysis explored patients’ comprehension of items via verbal probing techniques during three interview rounds (n = 20 patients/round). Results: In total 33 item amendments were made; 29% related to question comprehension, 73% response option and 3% order effects. These amendments to phrasing and language improved patient understanding but maintained CTCAE grading and key medical information. Changes were endorsed by members of a patient advisory group (N = 11). Conclusion: Item adaptations resulted in a bank of consistently interpreted self-report AE items for use in future research program. In-depth analysis of items through cognitive interviews is an important step towards developing an internationally valid system for PRAE, thus improving patient safety and experiences during cancer treatment

A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G)

BACKGROUND: Although the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General questionnaire (FACT-G) has been validated few studies have explored the factor structure of the instrument, in particular using non-sample dependent measurement techniques, such as Rasch Models. Furthermore, few studies have explored the relationship between item fit to the Rasch Model and clinical utility. The aim of this study was to investigate the dimensionality and measurement properties of the FACT-G with Rasch Models and Factor analysis. METHODS: A factor analysis and Rasch analysis (Partial Credit Model) was carried out on the FACT-G completed by a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients (n = 465). For the Rasch analysis item fit (infit mean squares ≥ 1.30), dimensionality and item invariance were assessed. The impact of removing misfitting items on the clinical utility of the subscales and FACT-G total scale was also assessed. RESULTS: The factor analysis demonstrated a four factor structure of the FACT-G which broadly corresponded to the four subscales of the instrument. Internal consistency for these four scales was very good (Cronbach's alpha 0.72 – 0.85). The Rasch analysis demonstrated that each of the subscales and the FACT-G total scale had misfitting items (infit means square ≥ 1.30). All these scales with the exception of the Social & Family Well-being Scale (SFWB) were unidimensional. When misfitting items were removed, the effect sizes and the clinical utility of the instrument were maintained for the subscales and the total FACT-G scores. CONCLUSION: The results of the traditional factor analysis and Rasch analysis of the FACT-G broadly agreed. Caution should be exercised when utilising the Social & Family Well-being scale and further work is required to determine whether this scale is best represented by two factors. Additionally, removing misfitting items from scales should be performed alongside an assessment of the impact on clinical utility

Electronic Systems for Patients to Report and Manage Side Effects of Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review

Background: There has been a dramatic increase in the development of electronic systems to support cancer patients to report and manage side effects of treatment from home. Systems vary in features that they offer to patients which may impact on how patients engage with them, and subsequently on the benefit that may be derived in terms of patient centred outcomes. Objectives: This review aimed to 1) Describe the features and functions of existing electronic symptom reporting systems (e.g. symptom monitoring, tailored self-management advice etc.), 2) Explore which features may be associated with patient engagement and patient-centred outcomes. Method: The review was registered with PROSPERO and followed guidelines from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Primary searches were undertaken of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Health Technology Assessment databases. Secondary searches were undertaken by screening reference lists and citations. Two researchers applied broad inclusion criteria to identify and select relevant records. Data was extracted and summarised using Microsoft Excel. In order to meet the aims, study selection, data extraction and data synthesis evolved into two stages. Stage 1: Identifying and characterising available systems and Stage 2: Summarising data on patient engagement and patient centred outcomes. Results: 77 publications were identified relating to 41 distinct systems. Stage 1: All publications were included (n=77). Features identified which supported clinicians and care were: facility for health professionals to remotely access and monitor patient reported data (58%) and function to send alerts to health professionals for severe symptoms (41%). Features which supported patients were: facility for patients to monitor/review their symptom reports over time (e.g. graphs) (46%), general patient information about cancer treatment and side-effects (41%), tailored automated patient advice on symptom management (29%), feature for patients to communicate with the healthcare team (15%) and a forum for patients to communicate with one another (10%). Stage 2: Only publications which included some data on patient engagement and/or patient-centred outcomes were included (n=29). A lack of consistency between studies in how engagement was defined, measured or reported and a wide range of methods chosen to evaluate systems meant it was not possible to compare across studies or make conclusions on relationships with system features. Conclusion: Electronic systems have the potential to support patients to manage side effects of cancer treatment with some evidence to suggest a positive effect on patient centred outcomes. However, comparison across studies is difficult due to the wide range of assessment tools used. There is a need to develop guidelines for assessing and reporting engagement with systems, and a set of core outcomes for evaluation. We hope that this review will contribute to the field by the introduction of a taxonomy for characterising system features

Patients' views of routine quality of life assessment following a diagnosis of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: There is an increasing interest in the quality of life (QoL) evaluation following video-assisted thoracoscopic anatomical lung resection or stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy for early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). A qualitative interview study was conducted to gain insight into the optimal methods of assessing and discussing QoL in clinical practice. METHODS: A prospective observational longitudinal study of patients with early-stage NSCLC was conducted where repeated QoL measures were administered either online or on paper. A subset of participants was invited for qualitative interviews after the 6-month assessment or at the end of the study. The semi-structured interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were interviewed. Generally, patients were content with recruitment and data collection procedures. Most opted to complete the assessments on paper instead of online; this choice was influenced by the level of technology literacy. Some found the questionnaires too generic to reflect their experiences. Barriers to questionnaire completion were mostly practical, and many acknowledged benefits of QoL assessment including allowing them to express problems and health issues, and following changes over time. Generally, participants would like to discuss QoL results during clinical consultations, but reported this rarely happened. CONCLUSIONS: Lung cancer patient interviews confirm the acceptability of repeated QoL assessments, but online data capture is limited. Patients highlight the importance of discussing QoL aspects with their clinical team. Future strategies are needed to optimize the routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice

eRAPID electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice: a pilot study protocol in pelvic radiotherapy.

Background: An estimated 17,000 patients are treated annually in the UK with radical radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic cancer. New treatment approaches in RT have increased survivorship and changed the subjective toxicity profile for patients who experience acute and long-term pelvic-related adverse events (AE). Multi-disciplinary follow-up creates difficulty for monitoring and responding to these events during treatment and beyond. Originally developed for use in systemic oncology therapy eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an online system for patients to report AEs from home. eRAPID enables patient data to be integrated into the electronic patient records for use in clinical practice, provides patient management advice for mild and moderate AE and advice to contact the hospital for severe AE. The system has now been developed for pelvic RT patients, and we aim to test the intervention in a pilot study with staff and patients to inform a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Eligible patients are those attending St James's University hospital cancer centre and The Christie Hospital Manchester undergoing pelvic radiotherapy+/-chemotherapy/hormonotherapy for prostate, lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological cancers. A prospective 1:1 randomised (intervention or usual care) parallel group design with repeated measures and mixed methods will be employed. We aim to recruit 168 patients following recommendations for sample size estimates for pilot studies. Participants using eRAPID will report AE (at least weekly) from home weekly for 6 weeks and 6 weeks post-treatment (12-week total) then at 18 and 24 weeks. Hospital staff will review eRAPID reports and use information during consultations. Notifications will be sent to the relevant clinical team when severe symptoms are reported. We will measure patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires (Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), process of care impact (hospital records of patient contacts and admissions) and economic variables (EQ5D-5L, patient use of resources)). Staff and patient experiences will be explored via semi-structured interviews. Discussion: The objectives are to establish feasibility, recruitment, integrity of the system and attrition rates, determine effect sizes and aid selection of the primary outcome measure for a future RCT. We will also refine the intervention by exploring staff and patient views. The overall goal of this complex intervention is to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise documentation of AE within the clinical datasets. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264

The Added Value of Analyzing Pooled Health-Related Quality of Life Data: A Review of the EORTC PROBE Initiative

BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Patient-Reported Outcomes and Behavioural Evidence (PROBE) initiative was established to investigate critical topics to better understand health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of cancer patients and to educate clinicians, policy makers, and healthcare providers. METHODS: The aim of this paper is to review the major research outcomes of the pooled analysis of HRQOL data along with the clinical data. We identified 30 pooled EORTC randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 18 NCIC-Clinical Trials Group RCTs, and two German Ovarian Cancer Study Group RCTs, all using the EORTC QLQ-C30. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Evidence was found that HRQOL data can offer prognostic information beyond clinical measures and improve prognostic accuracy in cancer RCTs (by 5.9%-8.3%). Moreover, models that considered both patient- and clinician-reported scores gained more prognostic overall survival accuracy for fatigue (P < .001), vomiting (P = .01), nausea (P < .001), and constipation (P = .01). Greater understanding of the association between symptom and/or functioning scales was developed by identifying physical, psychological, and gastrointestinal clusters. Additionally, minimally important differences in interpreting HRQOL changes for improvement and deterioration were found to vary across different patient populations and disease stages. Finally, HRQOL scores are statistically significantly affected by deviations from the intended time point at which the questionnaire is completed. CONCLUSIONS: The use of existing pooled data shows that it is possible to learn about general aspects of cancer HRQOL and methodology. Our work shows that setting up international pooled datasets holds great promise for understanding patients' unmet psychosocial needs and calls for additional empirical investigation to improve clinical care and understand cancer through retrospective HRQOL analyses