SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung):Study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

Introduction Lung cancer and its treatment cause a wide range of symptoms impacting the patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor symptoms during and after cancer treatment has been shown not only to improve symptom management but also to improve HRQoL and overall survival (OS). Collectively, these results favour implementation of PRO-symptom monitoring in daily clinical care. However, these promising outcomes have been obtained under trial conditions in which patients were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria, and in countries with a dissimilar healthcare system than in the Netherlands. The primary aim of the SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung) study is to evaluate the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring during and after lung cancer treatment on HRQoL in daily clinical practice. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on progression-free survival, OS, the incidence and grade of PRO symptoms, medication adherence, implementation fidelity and cost-effectiveness. Methods and analysis The SYMPRO-Lung study is a prospective, multicentre trial with a stepped wedge cluster randomised design. Study participants (n=292 intervention, n=292 controls) include patients with lung cancer (stages I–IV) starting treatment with surgery, systemic treatment, targeted treatment and/or radiotherapy. Every participating centre will consecutively switch from the control period to the intervention period, in which patients report their symptoms weekly via an online tool. In the intervention group, we evaluate two alert approaches: the active and reactive approach. If the symptoms exceed a predefined threshold, an alert is sent to the healthcare provider (active approach) or to the patient (reactive approach). Both the control and intervention group complete HRQoL questionnaires at 4 time points: at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 1-year post treatment). Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using linear mixed modelling analyses, accounting for within-centre clustering, potential time effects and confounding. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC (under number NL 68440.029.18) and the institutional review boards of the participating study sites. The dissemination of the results will be conducted through publication in peer-reviewed journals and through scientific conferences. Trial registration number Trial register identifier: Netherlands Trial register Trial NL7897. Date of registration: 24 July 2019. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7897

Quality of life after patient-initiated vs physician-initiated response to symptom monitoring:the SYMPRO-Lung trial

BackgroundPrevious studies using patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) to monitor symptoms during and after (lung) cancer treatment used alerts that were sent to the health-care provider, although an approach in which patients receive alerts could be more clinically feasible. The primary aim of this study was to compare the effect of weekly PROM symptom monitoring via a reactive approach (patient receives alert) or active approach (health-care provider receives alert) with care as usual on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 15 weeks after start of treatment in lung cancer patients.MethodsThe SYMPRO–Lung trial is a multicenter randomized controlled trial using a stepped wedge design. Stage I-IV lung cancer patients in the reactive and active groups reported PROM symptoms weekly, which were linked to a common alerting algorithm. HRQOL was measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and after 15 weeks. Linear regression analyses and effect size estimates were used to assess mean QOL–C30 change scores between groups, accounting for confounding.ResultsA total of 515 patients were included (160 active group, 89 reactive group, 266 control group). No differences in HRQOL were observed between the reactive and active group (summary score: unstandardized beta [B] = 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -3.22 to 4.24, Cohen d effect size [ES] = 0.06; physical functioning: B = 0.25, 95% CI = -5.15 to 4.64, ES = 0.02). The combined intervention groups had statistically and clinically significantly better mean change scores on the summary score (B = 4.85, 95% CI = 1.96 to 7.73, ES = 0.57) and physical functioning (B = 7.00, 95% CI = 2.90 to 11.09, ES = 0.71) compared with the control group.ConclusionsWeekly PRO symptom monitoring statistically and clinically significantly improves HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The logistically less intensive, reactive approach may be a better fit for implementation

Health-Related Quality of Life and Survival in Metastasized Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients with and without a Targetable Driver Mutation

Background: The aim of this study is to compare long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and survival in metastatic NSCLC patients with (M+) and without (M−) a targetable driver mutation. Methods: An observational study was performed within the prospective SYMPRO-lung study (NL7897). HRQOL questionnaires were completed at baseline, 15 weeks, and 6 months. Generalized estimating equations (GEE) were used to assess clinically significant declines in HRQOL (>10 points) over time. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were plotted for both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Results: 81 metastatic NSCLC patients were included (M+ patients; 16 (20%)). M+ patients had a significantly better global HRQOL (mean difference 12.8, ES 0.61), physical functioning (mean difference 13.4, ES 0.63), and less appetite loss (mean difference 23.1, ES 0.73) at 15 weeks of follow-up compared to M− patients. Patients with a clinically relevant decline in HRQOL at 6 months of follow-up had a significantly shorter PFS (5 months vs. 12 months, p-value < 0.001) and OS (11 months vs. 16 months, p-value 0.002). Conclusions: M− NSCLC patients have less favorable HRQOL over time compared to M+ patients. Furthermore, clinically relevant HRQOL declines over time were significantly associated with worse survival. HRQOL can therefore play an important role in in shaping patients’ expectations of their prognosis

SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung): Study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised controlled trial

Introduction Lung cancer and its treatment cause a wide range of symptoms impacting the patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) to monitor symptoms during and after cancer treatment has been shown not only to improve symptom management but also to improve HRQoL and overall survival (OS). Collectively, these results favour implementation of PRO-symptom monitoring in daily clinical care. However, these promising outcomes have been obtained under trial conditions in which patients were selected based on stringent inclusion criteria, and in countries with a dissimilar healthcare system than in the Netherlands. The primary aim of the SYMptom monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes using a web application among patients with Lung cancer in the Netherlands (SYMPRO-Lung) study is to evaluate the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring during and after lung cancer treatment on HRQoL in daily clinical practice. Secondary objectives include assessing the effect of PRO-symptom monitoring on progression-free survival, OS, the incidence and grade of PRO symptoms, medication adherence, implementation fidelity and cost-effectiveness. Methods and analysis The SYMPRO-Lung study is a prospective, multicentre trial with a stepped wedge cluster randomised design. Study participants (n=292 intervention, n=292 controls) include patients with lung cancer (stages I–IV) starting treatment with surgery, systemic treatment, targeted treatment and/or radiotherapy. Every participating centre will consecutively switch from the control period to the intervention period, in which patients report their symptoms weekly via an online tool. In the intervention group, we evaluate two alert approaches: the active and reactive approach. If the symptoms exceed a predefined threshold, an alert is sent to the healthcare provider (active approach) or to the patient (reactive approach). Both the control and intervention group complete HRQoL questionnaires at 4 time points: at baseline, 15 weeks, 6 months and 1-year post treatment). Differences in HRQoL between the groups will be compared using linear mixed modelling analyses, accounting for within-centre clustering, potential time effects and confounding. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Medical Ethics Committee of the Amsterdam UMC (under number NL 68440.029.18) and the institutional review boards of the participating study sites. The dissemination of the results will be conducted through publication in peer-reviewed journals and through scientific conferences. Trial registration number Trial register identifier: Netherlands Trial register Trial NL7897. Date of registration: 24 July 2019. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7897

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Background: There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners’ experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care. Methods: Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings. Results: In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia–Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as “high frequency users” who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P <.0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P =.006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P =.001) as an implementation barrier. Conclusions: Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care