Integrating Patient Reported Outcomes with Clinical Cancer Registry Data: A Feasibility Study of the Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system.

Background: Routine measurement of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) linked with clinical data across the patient pathway is increasingly important for informing future care planning. The innovative electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system was developed to integrate PROs, collected online at specified post-diagnostic time-points, with clinical and treatment data in cancer registries. Objective: This study tested the technical and clinical feasibility of ePOCS by running the system with a sample of potentially curable breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer patients in their first 15 months post diagnosis. Methods: Patients completed questionnaires comprising multiple Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) via ePOCS within 6 months (T1), and at 9 (T2) and 15 (T3) months, post diagnosis. Feasibility outcomes included system informatics performance, patient recruitment, retention, representativeness and questionnaire completion (response rate), patient feedback, and administration burden involved in running the system. Results: ePOCS ran efficiently with few technical problems. Patient participation was 55.21% (636/1152) overall, although varied by approach mode, and was considerably higher among patients approached face-to-face (61.4%, 490/798) than by telephone (48.8%, 21/43) or letter (41.0%, 125/305). Older and less affluent patients were less likely to join (both P<.001). Most non-consenters (71.1%, 234/329) cited information technology reasons (ie, difficulty using a computer). Questionnaires were fully or partially completed by 85.1% (541/636) of invited participants at T1 (80 questions total), 70.0% (442/631) at T2 (102-108 questions), and 66.3% (414/624) at T3 (148-154 questions), and fully completed at all three time-points by 57.6% (344/597) of participants. Reminders (mainly via email) effectively prompted responses. The PROs were successfully linked with cancer registry data for 100% of patients (N=636). Participant feedback was encouraging and positive, with most patients reporting that they found ePOCS easy to use and that, if asked, they would continue using the system long-term (86.2%, 361/419). ePOCS was not administratively burdensome to run day-to-day, and patient-initiated inquiries averaged just 11 inquiries per month. Conclusions: The informatics underlying the ePOCS system demonstrated successful proof-of-concept – the system successfully linked PROs with registry data for 100% of the patients. The majority of patients were keen to engage. Participation rates are likely to improve as the Internet becomes more universally adopted. ePOCS can help overcome the challenges of routinely collecting PROs and linking with clinical data, which is integral for treatment and supportive care planning and for targeting service provision

Feasibility test of a UK-scalable electronic system for regular collection of patient-reported outcome measures and linkage with clinical cancer registry data: The electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Cancer survivors can face significant physical and psychosocial challenges; there is a need to identify and predict which survivors experience what sorts of difficulties. As highlighted in the UK National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, routine post-diagnostic collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is required; to be most informative, PROMs must be linked and analysed with patients' diagnostic and treatment information. We have designed and built a potentially cost-efficient UK-scalable electronic system for collecting PROMs via the internet, at regular post-diagnostic time-points, for linking these data with patients' clinical data in cancer registries, and for electronically managing the associated patient monitoring and communications; the electronic Patient-reported Outcomes from Cancer Survivors (ePOCS) system. This study aims to test the feasibility of the ePOCS system, by running it for 2 years in two Yorkshire NHS Trusts, and using the Northern and Yorkshire Cancer Registry and Information Service.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Non-metastatic breast, colorectal and prostate cancer patients (largest survivor groups), within 6 months post-diagnosis, will be recruited from hospitals in the Yorkshire Cancer Network. Participants will be asked to complete PROMS, assessing a range of health-related quality-of-life outcomes, at three time-points up to 15 months post-diagnosis, and subsequently to provide opinion on the ePOCS system via a feedback questionnaire. Feasibility will be examined primarily in terms of patient recruitment and retention rates, the representativeness of participating patients, the quantity and quality of collected PROMs data, patients' feedback, the success and reliability of the underpinning informatics, and the system running costs. If sufficient data are generated during system testing, these will be analysed to assess the health-related quality-of-life outcomes reported by patients, and to explore if and how they relate to disease, treatment and/or individual differences characteristics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>There is currently no system in the UK for collecting PROMs online and linking these with patients' clinical data in cancer registries. If feasible, ePOCS has potential to provide an affordable UK-scalable technical platform to facilitate and support longitudinal cohort research, and improve understanding of cancer survivors' experiences. Comprehensive understanding of survivorship difficulties is vital to inform the development and provision of supportive services and interventions.</p

Experience of developing and evaluating a fertility preservation patient decision aid for teenage and adult women with cancer for use in oncology settings, UK (The Cancer, Fertility and Me study)

The study was supported in part by the Danish Cancer Society, Grant# R150-A10080Purpose Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is a significantly distressing problem that affects a substantial number of patients with and survivors of cancer; however, the overall efficacy of available psychological interventions on FCR remains unknown. We therefore evaluated this in the present systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched key electronic databases to identify trials that evaluated the effect of psychological interventions on FCR among patients with and survivors of cancer. Controlled trials were subjected to meta-analysis, and the moderating influence of study characteristics on the effect were examined. Overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE system. Open trials were narratively reviewed to explore ongoing developments in the field (PROSPERO registration no.: CRD42017076514). Results A total of 23 controlled trials (21 randomized controlled trials) and nine open trials were included. Small effects (Hedges’s g) were found both at postintervention (g = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.20 to 0.46; P < .001) and at follow-up (g = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.40; P < .001). Effects at postintervention of contemporary cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs; g = 0.42) were larger than those of traditional CBTs (g = 0.24; β = .22; 95% CI, .04 to .41; P = .018). At follow-up, larger effects were associated with shorter time to follow-up (β = −.01; 95% CI, −.01 to −.00; P = .027) and group-based formats (β = .18; 95% CI, .01 to .36; P = .041). A GRADE evaluation indicated evidence of moderate strength for effects of psychological intervention for FCR. Conclusion Psychological interventions for FCR revealed a small but robust effect at postintervention, which was largely maintained at follow-up. Larger postintervention effects were found for contemporary CBTs that were focused on processes of cognition—for example, worry, rumination, and attentional bias—rather than the content, and aimed to change the way in which the individual relates to his or her inner experiences. Future trials could investigate how to further optimize and tailor interventions to individual patients’ FCR presentation.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe