Patient–provider communication data: linking process and outcomes in oncology care

Lisa Kennedy Sheldon1,2, Fangxin Hong3,4, Donna Berry4,51University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA; 2St Joseph Hospital, Nashua, NH, USA; 3Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, Boston, MA, USA; 4Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Phyllis F Cantor Center for Research in Nursing and Patient Care Services, Boston, MA, USA; 5Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USAOverview: Patient–provider communication is vital to quality patient care in oncology settings and impacts health outcomes. Newer communication datasets contain patient symptom reports, real-time audiofiles of visits, coded communication data, and visit outcomes. The purpose of this paper is to: (1) review the complex communication processes during patient–provider interaction during oncology care; (2) describe methods of gathering and coding communication data; (3) suggest logical approaches to analyses; and (4) describe one new dataset that allows linking of patient symptoms and communication processes with visit outcomes.Challenges: Patient–provider communication research is complex due to numerous issues, including human subjects’ concerns, methods of data collection, numerous coding schemes, and varying analytic techniques.Data collection and coding: Coding of communication data is determined by the research question(s) and variables of interest. Subsequent coding and timestamping the behaviors provides categorical data and determines the interval between and patterns of behaviors.Analytic approaches: Sequential analyses move from descriptive statistics to explanatory analyses to direct analyses and conditional probabilities. In the final stage, explanatory modeling is used to predict outcomes from communication elements. Examples of patient and provider communication in the ambulatory oncology setting are provided from the new Electronic Self Report Assessment-Cancer II dataset.Summary: More complex communication data sets provide opportunities to link elements of patient–provider communication with visit outcomes. Given more complex datasets, a step-wise approach is necessary to analyze and identify predictive variables. Sequential analyses move from descriptive results to predictive models with communication data, creating links between patient symptoms and concerns, real-time audiotaped communication, and visit outcomes. The results of these analyses will be useful in developing evidence-based interventions to enhance communication and improve psychosocial outcomes in oncology settings.Keywords: communication, analysis, distress, cancer, outcome

When study site contributes to outcomes in a multi-center randomized trial: a secondary analysis of decisional conflict in men with localized prostate cancer

Purpose Evaluate baseline factors that may explain the influence of study site on decisional conflict (DC) in men from the Personal Patient Profile: Prostate (P3P) randomized trial. Materials and methods 476 cases from 5 P3P sites were included. Participants completed baseline demographic assessments, 4 subscales of the DC scale at baseline (uncertainty, informed, values clarity, and support), the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (short form) and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Site data regarding typical practices were collected. Linear regressions were used to model the relation between baseline DC scores and study site adjusting for the list of variables. Results: Baseline decisional uncertainly (p = 0.001) and informed (p = 0.03) subscales were significantly different across sites. Participant demographic and baseline measures were significantly different (p < 0.05) between sites except for trait anxiety. We identified participant level factors that explained study site differences at baseline for the decisional uncertainty and values clarity subscales: a preferred treatment choice at study entry, whether the study program was accessed at home vs. in clinic, number of doctors consulted pre-study, working status, state anxiety, information from the media or a health care provider, and perceived knowledge level. State anxiety was associated with higher DC across all subscales. Conclusions: Individual characteristics of men seeking consultation for LPC were associated with DC at baseline, not the site alone; anxiety contributed to higher conflict. These findings will inform future development and implementation of the P3P and other decision support interventions. Trial registration NCT00692653

Subset of heat-shock transcription factors required for the early response of Arabidopsis to excess light

Sunlight provides energy for photosynthesis and is essential for nearly all life on earth. However, too much or too little light or rapidly fluctuating light conditions cause stress to plants. Rapid changes in the amount of light are perceived as a chang

Self-reported adherence to oral cancer therapy: relationships with symptom distress, depression, and personal characteristics

Background: Therapeutic cancer chemotherapy is most successful when complete dosing is achieved. Because many newer therapeutic agents are oral and self-administered by the patient, adherence is a concern. The purpose of our analysis was to explore relationships between adherence, patient characteristics, and barriers to adherence. Methods: This secondary analysis utilized self-reported data from a randomized trial of self-care management conducted at two cancer centers in the US. Symptom distress was measured using the 15-item Symptom Distress Scale (SDS-15) and depression with the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9). Adherence to oral medication was self-reported using the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Measures were collected via Web-based, study-specific software ~8 weeks after treatment start date. Odds of low/medium adherence (score <8) were explored using univariate logistic regression. Given the number of factors and possible relationships among factors, a classification tree was built in lieu of a multivariable logistic regression model. Results: Of the eligible participants enrolled, 77 were on oral therapy and 70 had an MMAS score. Forty-nine (70%) reported a high adherence score (=8). Higher odds of low/medium adherence were associated with greater symptom distress (P=0.09), more depression (P=0.05), chemotherapy vs hormonal oral medication (P=0.03), being female (P=0.02), and being randomized to the control group in the parent trial (P=0.09). Conversely, high adherence was associated with working (P=0.08), being married/partnered (P=0.004), and being older (P=0.02). Factors identified as significantly related to low/medium adherence from the univariate logistic regression analyses were supported by the classification tree results. Conclusion: Nonadherence to therapeutic oral medications in patients with cancer was associated with being unmarried/unpartnered, symptom distress, younger age, not working, and female sex. These findings may help to identify patients at risk for nonadherence and for whom supportive interventions to enhance adherence may be needed

The electronic self report assessment and intervention for cancer: promoting patient verbal reporting of symptom and quality of life issues in a randomized controlled trial

Background: The electronic self report assessment - cancer (ESRA-C), has been shown to reduce symptom distress during cancer therapy The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate aspects of how the ESRA-C intervention may have resulted in lower symptom distress (SD). Methods: Patients at two cancer centers were randomized to ESRA-C assessment only (control) or the Web-based ESRA-C intervention delivered to patients’ homes or to a tablet in clinic. The intervention allowed patients to self-monitor symptom and quality of life (SxQOL) between visits, receive self-care education and coaching to report SxQOL to clinicians. Summaries of assessments were delivered to clinicians in both groups. Audio-recordings of clinic visits made 6 weeks after treatment initiation were coded for discussions of 26 SxQOL issues, focusing on patients’/caregivers’ coached verbal reports of SxQOL severity, pattern, alleviating/aggravating factors and requests for help. Among issues identified as problematic, two measures were defined for each patient: the percent SxQOL reported that included a coached statement, and an index of verbalized coached statements per SxQOL. The Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare measures between groups. Clinician responses to problematic SxQOL were compared. A mediation analysis was conducted, exploring the effect of verbal reports on SD outcomes. Results: 517 (256 intervention) clinic visits were audio-recorded. General discussion of problematic SxQOL was similar in both groups. Control group patients reported a median 75% of problematic SxQOL using any specific coached statement compared to a median 85% in the intervention group (p = .0009). The median report index of coached statements was 0.25 for the control group and 0.31 for the intervention group (p = 0.008). Fatigue, pain and physical function issues were reported significantly more often in the intervention group (all p < .05). Clinicians' verbalized responses did not differ between groups. Patients' verbal reports did not mediate final SD outcomes (p = .41). Conclusions: Adding electronically-delivered, self-care instructions and communication coaching to ESRA-C promoted specific patient descriptions of problematic SxQOL issues compared with ESRA-C assessment alone. However, clinician verbal responses were no different and subsequent symptom distress group differences were not mediated by the patients' reports. Trial registration NCT00852852; 26 Feb 200

Network Discovery Pipeline Elucidates Conserved Time-of-Day–Specific cis-Regulatory Modules

Correct daily phasing of transcription confers an adaptive advantage to almost all organisms, including higher plants. In this study, we describe a hypothesis-driven network discovery pipeline that identifies biologically relevant patterns in genome-scale data. To demonstrate its utility, we analyzed a comprehensive matrix of time courses interrogating the nuclear transcriptome of Arabidopsis thaliana plants grown under different thermocycles, photocycles, and circadian conditions. We show that 89% of Arabidopsis transcripts cycle in at least one condition and that most genes have peak expression at a particular time of day, which shifts depending on the environment. Thermocycles alone can drive at least half of all transcripts critical for synchronizing internal processes such as cell cycle and protein synthesis. We identified at least three distinct transcription modules controlling phase-specific expression, including a new midnight specific module, PBX/TBX/SBX. We validated the network discovery pipeline, as well as the midnight specific module, by demonstrating that the PBX element was sufficient to drive diurnal and circadian condition-dependent expression. Moreover, we show that the three transcription modules are conserved across Arabidopsis, poplar, and rice. These results confirm the complex interplay between thermocycles, photocycles, and the circadian clock on the daily transcription program, and provide a comprehensive view of the conserved genomic targets for a transcriptional network key to successful adaptation

Ipilimumab, Nivolumab and Brentuximab Vedotin in Patients with Relapsed Hodgkin Lymphoma: Phase 1 Results of a Multicenter Phase 1/2 Clinical Trial

Background: Recognising that the immune suppressive microenvironment promotes tumour growth in Hodgkin lymphoma, we hypothesised that activating immunity might augment the activity of targeted chemotherapy. We evaluated the safety and activity of combinations of brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab or ipilimumab, or both in patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma. Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, phase 1/2 trial, patients with relapsed or refractory Hodgkin lymphoma aged 18 years or older who had relapsed after at least one line of therapy, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2 or lower, and adequate organ and marrow function, with no pulmonary dysfunction were eligible for inclusion. Phase 1 primary objectives were to determine the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicities of brentuximab vedotin combined with ipilimumab (ipilimumab group), nivolumab (nivolumab group), or both (triplet therapy group) using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design with expansion cohorts. During the dose escalation phase, patients were enrolled sequentially into one of six cohorts: in the ipilimumab group fixed brentuximab vedotin 1·8 mg/kg with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg (cohort A) or 3 mg/kg (cohort B); in the nivolumab group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort D) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort E); and in the triplet therapy group fixed nivolumab 3 mg/kg and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg with brentuximab vedotin 1·2 mg/kg (cohort G) or 1·8 mg/kg (cohort H). Additional patients were enrolled in the expansion phase at the same doses of cohorts B, E, and H. All drugs were given intravenously; brentuximab vedotin and nivolumab were given every 3 weeks, ipilimumab was given every 6 weeks in the ipilimumab group and every 12 weeks in the triplet therapy group. All eligible and treated patients were included in the analysis. This phase 1/2 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01896999. The phase 2, randomised portion of the trial is still enrolling. Findings: Between March 7, 2014, and Dec 28, 2017, 64 patients were enrolled; two patients in the ipilimumab group and one patient in the nivolumab group were excluded due to ineligibility after enrolment and 61 were evaluable. A total of six dose limiting toxicities were reported in four patients, and the doses used in cohorts B, E, and H were established as maximum tolerated doses and patients were subsequently enrolled onto expansion cohorts (C, F, and I) with these schedules. There were ten (43%) grade 3-4 treatment related adverse events in the ipilimumab group, three (16%) in the nivolumab group, and 11 (50%) in the triplet therapy group including: eight (13%) of 64 patients reporting rash, and colitis, gastritis, pancreatitis and arthritis, and diabetic ketoacidosis each occurring in one (2%) patient. There were two (3%) treatment related deaths, one in the nivolumab group and one in the triplet therapy group. The overall response rate was 76% (95% CI 53-92) in the ipilimumab group, 89% (65-99) in the nivolumab group, and 82% (60-95) in the triplet therapy group, and the complete response rate was 57% (95% CI 34-78%) in the ipilimumab group, 61% (36-83%) in the nivolumab group, and 73% (50-89%) in the triplet therapy group. With a median follow-up of 2·6 years (IQR 1·8-2·9) in the ipilimumab group, 2·4 years (2·2-2·6) in the nivolumab group, and 1·7 years (1·6-1·9) in the triplet therapy group, median progression-free survival is 1·2 years (95% CI 1·7-not reached) in the ipilimumab group, but was not reached in the other two treatment groups. Median overall survival has not been reached in any of the groups. Interpretation: There are clear differences in activity and toxicity of the three combination regimens. The tolerability and preliminary activity for the two most active regimens, brentuximab vedotin with nivolumab and the triplet therapy, are being compared in a randomised phase 2 trial (NCT01896999)