Basch, Ethan

Background In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered. Methods This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran–Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent. Results A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach’s alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106. Conclusion The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

BackgroundDecision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within‐visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled.MethodsThe interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12‐item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation.ResultsFour sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within‐visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within‐visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within‐visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within‐visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual‐care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within‐visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively).ConclusionsDAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

349527 Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Abstract Background Racial disparities in patient-reported outcomes (PROs; e.g., symptoms, financial burden) among patients with cancer are well documented. Prior studies have attributed such disparities to patient- and provider-level factors, but less is known about the contribution of practice-level factors. Hospital racial composition of patients has been linked to disparities in care quality and outcomes, but questions remain regarding whether oncology practice racial composition mediates racial disparities. Using 2017-2020 data from the Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03249090), we examined racial disparities in PROs among patients with metastatic cancer, and whether oncology practice racial composition accounted for observed disparities. Methods Our sample included 1099 patients (n=198 Black; n=901 White) from 51 community oncology practices across the US. Predictors of interest were patient race (Black vs. White) and practice-reported racial composition (Black patient population >20% vs. ≤20%). Patient-reported outcome metrics included pain, appetite loss, fatigue, nausea, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial burden, measured at baseline and at 1- and 3-month follow-up using the EORTC Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). Raw EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were standardized to range from 0 (best) to 100 (worst). We estimated multilevel linear mixed models predicting each PRO as a function of patient race, adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic factors, followed by further adjustment for practice racial composition. Results Twelve out of fifty-one (23.5%) practices reported a Black racial composition of >20%, with 41.6% of Blacks and 14.5% Whites receiving care at these practices. Across all practices, Blacks reported worse pain (β=5.5, p=0.02), nausea (β=2.5, p=0.04) and financial burden (β=7.6, p<0.01), but less fatigue (β=-4.1, p=0.05) when compared with Whites. Regardless of race, patients receiving care at practices with a Black racial composition of >20% reported more pain (β=5.5, p=0.01), appetite loss (β=8.1, p<0.01), fatigue (β=5.1, p=0.01), nausea (β=2.3, p=0.05), dyspnea (β=4.3, p=0.04), and insomnia (β=4.8, p=0.03) than patients receiving care at practices comprised of ⇐20% Blacks. Practice racial composition did not mediate racial disparities in PROs. Conclusion Racial disparities in PROs were observed among patients treated at US community oncology practices. Practice racial composition was associated with multiple PROs, regardless of patient race, but racial disparities in PROs were not explained by practice racial composition. These findings suggest that identifying and addressing the needs of practices serving a disproportionate share of Black patents may be one effective strategy to mitigate practice-level disparities in cancer outcomes. Citation Format: Cleo A. Samuel, Olive Mbah, Wendi Elkins, Marjory Charlot, Amylou Dueck, Brenda F. Ginos, Jennifer Jansen, Deborah Schrag, Patty Spears, Angela Stover, Ethan Basch. Separate and unequal: Examining the role of race and site of care on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer (AFT-39) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-119.

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events is an item library designed for eliciting patient-reported adverse events in oncology. For each adverse event, up to three individual items are scored for frequency, severity, and interference with daily activities. To align the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events with other standardized tools for adverse event assessment including the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, an algorithm for mapping individual items for any given adverse event to a single composite numerical grade was developed and tested. Methods: A five-step process was used: (1) All 179 possible Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events score combinations were presented to 20 clinical investigators to subjectively map combinations to single numerical grades ranging from 0 to 3. (2) Combinations with <75% agreement were presented to investigator committees at a National Clinical Trials Network cooperative group meeting to gain majority consensus via anonymous voting. (3) The resulting algorithm was refined via graphical and tabular approaches to assure directional consistency. (4) Validity, reliability, and sensitivity were assessed in a national study dataset. (5) Accuracy for delineating adverse events between study arms was measured in two Phase III clinical trials (NCT02066181 and NCT01522443). Results: In Step 1, 12/179 score combinations had <75% initial agreement. In Step 2, majority consensus was reached for all combinations. In Step 3, five grades were adjusted to assure directional consistency. In Steps 4 and 5, composite grades performed well and comparably to individual item scores on validity, reliability, sensitivity, and between-arm delineation. Conclusion: A composite grading algorithm has been developed and yields single numerical grades for adverse events assessed via the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and can be useful in analyses and reporting.

PURPOSE There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients’ symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090 ). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.