Routine self-reporting of symptoms and side effects during cancer treatment: The patient’s perspective

Introduction There has been a dramatic increase in web-based systems developed to support patients to report/manage cancer treatment side effects (ePROM systems). However, little is known about processes underpinning patient engagement and impact on experience. Aims To explore the patient perspective on using ePROM systems during chemotherapy. Mixed methods Preliminary work Interviews (n=87) and questionnaires (n=40) explored patient experience of chemotherapy and indicated that difficulty deciding when to seek medical support during treatment was common. Field usability testing of eRAPID (n=12) indicated potential to support patients but variable engagement. A systematic review of ePROM systems (n=41) indicated a scarcity of robust evidence with few RCTs, with patient engagement and psychosocial outcomes such as self-efficacy not routinely explored or assessed. Main studies Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of patient engagement/experience was integrated into an RCT to evaluate eRAPID (n=354). Engagement was evaluated by weekly symptom reports and use of website. Validated measures assessed impact of eRAPID on self-efficacy to manage side effects (CSES) and cope with cancer (CBI-B), and patient activation (PAM). Relationships between outcomes and engagement were explored. A subset of patients were interviewed (n=23) to explore patient engagement/experience. Triangulation techniques were used to compare and contrast findings. Results Engagement was generally high with few barriers to use reported. One of the main motivators for sustained patient engagement was providing information to clinicians for use in consultations. Patients reported eRAPID provided psychological benefits and improved care. There was a positive impact of eRAPID on CSES (p=.015) but not CBI-B or PAM. Engagement was a significant predictor of improvement in CSES (p<.001) and CBI-B (p<.01) but not PAM. Conclusion ePROM systems have potential to improve patients experience of chemotherapy. Further exploration using qualitative and quantitative assessments is needed to provide insights into motivators and barriers. Clinician engagement is intertwined with patient engagement and requires ongoing assessment to inform future development and implementation

An audit of acute oncology services: patient experiences of admission procedures and staff utilisation of a new telephone triage system.

OBJECTIVES: In 2010, St. James Institute of Oncology (Leeds, UK) created a new acute oncology service (AOS) consisting of a new admissions unit with a nurse-led telephone triage (TT) system. This audit cycle (March 2011 and June 2013) evaluated patient experiences of the reconfigured AOS and staff use of the TT system. METHODS: Patient views were elicited via a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. The TT forms were analysed descriptively evaluating completion and data quality, reported symptoms and their severity and advice given (including admission rates). RESULTS: Patients (n = 40) reported high satisfaction with the new AOS. However, 56 % of patients delayed 2 days or more before contacting the unit. In 2011, 26 % of all the admitted patients were triaged via the TT system; 133 TT forms were completed. In June 2013, 49 % of the admitted patients were triaged; 264 forms were completed. The most commonly reported symptoms on the TT forms were pain, pyrexia/rigors/infection, diarrhoea, vomiting and dyspnoea. Half of the patients using the TT system were admitted (52 % in 2011, 49 % in 2013). CONCLUSIONS: Our audit provided evidence of successful implementation of the TT system with the number of TT forms doubling from 2011 to 2013. The new AOS was endorsed by patients, with the majority satisfied with the care they received

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Abstract Background Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events. Objectives The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective? Design Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment. Setting The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol). Participants The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients. Intervention eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms. Main outcome measures In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance. Results eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive. Limitations The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions). Conclusions This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs. Future work Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended. Trial registration The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Genome-wide meta-analysis of common variant differences between men and women

The male-to-female sex ratio at birth is constant across world populations with an average of 1.06 (106 male to 100 female live births) for populations of European descent. The sex ratio is considered to be affected by numerous biological and environmental factors and to have a heritable component. The aim of this study was to investigate the presence of common allele modest effects at autosomal and chromosome X variants that could explain the observed sex ratio at birth. We conducted a large-scale genome-wide association scan (GWAS) meta-analysis across 51 studies, comprising overall 114 863 individuals (61 094 women and 53 769 men) of European ancestry and 2 623 828 common (minor allele frequency >0.05) single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Allele frequencies were compared between men and women for directly-typed and imputed variants within each study. Forward-time simulations for unlinked, neutral, autosomal, common loci were performed under the demographic model for European populations with a fixed sex ratio and a random mating scheme to assess the probability of detecting significant allele frequency differences. We do not detect any genome-wide significant (P < 5 × 10−8) common SNP differences between men and women in this well-powered meta-analysis. The simulated data provided results entirely consistent with these findings. This large-scale investigation across ∼115 000 individuals shows no detectable contribution from common genetic variants to the observed skew in the sex ratio. The absence of sex-specific differences is useful in guiding genetic association study design, for example when using mixed controls for sex-biased trait

A genome-wide association study identifies risk alleles in plasminogen and P4HA2 associated with giant cell arteritis

Giant cell arteritis (GCA) is the most common form of vasculitis in individuals older than 50 years in Western countries. To shed light onto the genetic background influencing susceptibility for GCA, we performed a genome-wide association screening in a well-powered study cohort. After imputation, 1,844,133 genetic variants were analysed in 2,134 cases and 9,125 unaffected controls from ten independent populations of European ancestry. Our data confirmed HLA class II as the strongest associated region (independent signals: rs9268905, P = 1.94E-54, per-allele OR = 1.79; and rs9275592, P = 1.14E-40, OR = 2.08). Additionally, PLG and P4HA2 were identified as GCA risk genes at the genome-wide level of significance (rs4252134, P = 1.23E-10, OR = 1.28; and rs128738, P = 4.60E-09, OR = 1.32, respectively). Interestingly, we observed that the association peaks overlapped with different regulatory elements related to cell types and tissues involved in the pathophysiology of GCA. PLG and P4HA2 are involved in vascular remodelling and angiogenesis, suggesting a high relevance of these processes for the pathogenic mechanisms underlying this type of vasculitis

Integrated care pathways for cancer survivors - a role for patient-reported outcome measures and health informatics

Modern cancer treatments have improved survival rates and changed the nature of cancer care. The acute and long-term physical and psychosocial comorbidities associated with treatment place increasing demands on healthcare services to provide suitable models of follow-up care for the survivor population. Aim. We discuss the value and challenges of incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and eHealth interventions into routine follow-up care. We draw on our 15 years’ experience of developing electronic systems for capturing patient-reported data in oncology settings, with particular reference to eRAPID a new online symptom reporting system for cancer patients. The redesign of healthcare pathways. New stratified care pathways have been proposed for cancer survivors with an emphasis on supported self-management and shared care. The potential role of PROMs in survivorship care pathways. PROMs can be used to evaluate rehabilitation services, provide epidemiological ‘Big Data’ and screen patients for physical and psychological morbidities to determine the need for further support. In addition, electronic PROMs systems linked to electronic patient records (EPRs) have the capability to provide tailored self-management advice to individual patients. Integration of PROMs into clinical practice. The successful clinical utilisation of PROMs is dependent on a number of components including; choosing appropriate questionnaires, developing evidence-based scoring algorithms, the creation of robust electronic platforms for recording and transferring data into EPRs, and training staff and patients to engage effectively with PROMs. Discussion. There is increasingly positive evidence for using PROMs and eHealth approaches to support cancer patients’ care during treatment. Much of what has been learnt can be applied to cancer survivorship. PROMs integrated into eHealth platforms and with EPR have the potential to play a valuable role in the development of appropriate and sustainable long-term follow-up models for cancer survivors

Collection of cancer Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) to link with primary and secondary electronic care records to understand and improve long term cancer outcomes: A protocol paper

Introduction More people are living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. There is limited understanding of the long-term effects of cancer and cancer treatment on quality of life and personal and household finances when compared to people without cancer. In a separate protocol we have proposed to link de-identified data from electronic primary care and hospital records for a large population of cancer survivors and matched controls. In this current protocol, we propose the linkage of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures data to the above data for a subset of this population. The aim of this study is to investigate the full impact of living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis compared to age and gender matched controls. A secondary aim is to test the feasibility of the collection of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMS) data and the linkage procedures of the PROMs data to electronic health records data. Materials and methods This is a cross-sectional study, aiming to recruit participants treated at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Eligible patients will be cancer survivors at around 5 years post-diagnosis (breast, colorectal and ovarian cancer) and non-cancer patient matched controls attending dermatology out-patient clinics. They will be identified by running a query on the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust patient records system. Approximately 6000 patients (2000 cases and 4000 controls) will be invited to participate via post. Participants will be invited to complete PROMs assessing factors such as quality of life and finances, which can be completed on paper or online (surveys includes established instruments, and bespoke instruments (demographics, financial costs). This PROMs data will then be linked to routinely collected de-identified data from patient’s electronic primary care and hospital records. Discussion This innovative work aims to create a truly ‘comprehensive patient record’ to provide a broad picture of what happens to cancer patients across their cancer pathway, and the long-term impact of cancer treatment. Comparisons can be made between the cases and controls, to identify the aspects of life that has had the greatest impact following a cancer diagnosis. The feasibility of linking PROMs data to electronic health records can also be assessed. This work can inform future support offered to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis, clinical practice, and future research methodologies