Kroenke, Kurt

This cross-sectional study analyzes patient-reported outcome findings from the Enhanced, Electronic Health Record–Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial to investigate level of symptom burden in adolescents and young adults with cancer.

AbstractThe Enhanced EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial is a pragmatic trial testing a collaborative care approach for managing common cancer symptoms. There were challenges in identifying cancer site and metastatic status.This study compares three different approaches to determine cancer site and six strategies for identifying the presence of metastasis using EHR and cancer registry data.The E2C2 cohort included 50,559 patients seen in the medical oncology clinics of a large health system. SPPADE symptoms were assessed with 0 to 10 numeric rating scales (NRS). A multistep process was used to develop three approaches for representing cancer site: the single most prevalent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code, the two most prevalent codes, and any diagnostic code. Six approaches for identifying metastatic disease were compared: ICD-10 codes, natural language processing (NLP), cancer registry, medications typically prescribed for incurable disease, treatment plan, and evaluation for phase 1 trials.The approach counting the two most prevalent ICD-10 cancer site diagnoses per patient detected a median of 92% of the cases identified by counting all cancer site diagnoses, whereas the approach counting only the single most prevalent cancer site diagnosis identified a median of 65%. However, agreement among the three approaches was very good (kappa > 0.80) for most cancer sites. ICD and NLP methods could be applied to the entire cohort and had the highest agreement (kappa = 0.53) for identifying metastasis. Cancer registry data was available for less than half of the patients.Identification of cancer site and metastatic disease using EHR data was feasible in this large and diverse cohort of patients with common cancer symptoms. The methods were pragmatic and may be acceptable for covariates, but likely require refinement for key dependent and independent variables.

1543 Background: Treatment toxicity may limit the ability of cancer patients to receive all recommended cycles of therapy. Four to six cycles of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) is a common adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for early-stage breast cancer. We assessed the impact of routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), coupled with a collaborative care model-based symptom management intervention, on the number of cycles of TC received by patients with breast cancer. Methods: The Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) trial was a cluster-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial, conducted between March 2019 and January 2023 at Mayo Clinic Rochester and within the Mayo Clinic Health System in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Patients regularly reported the severity of 6 SPPADE symptoms (Sleep deficit, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) on 11-point numerical rating scales. Each symptom score was interpreted as none to mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). The E2C2 intervention included symptom management education modules, clinician decision support aids, and the option to discuss severe symptoms with a nurse, physical therapist, or social worker. Patients with breast cancer who received at least one cycle of TC were included in this analysis. We compared the number of cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide completed by patients in the control condition versus those in the intervention condition. Results: We identified 198 patients with breast cancer who received TC during the control condition and 128 who received TC during the intervention condition. Median age was 61.3 years in the control group and 60.3 years in the intervention group, and 94% and 95% were white, respectively. Those receiving treatment during the control condition, on average, completed 3.53 cycles of docetaxel, while those receiving TC during the intervention condition completed 3.77 cycles ( p = 0.014). Seventy-eight percent in the control group completed at least 4 cycles of docetaxel, compared to 84% in the intervention group. Those receiving TC during the control condition completed an average of 3.71 cycles of cyclophosphamide, compared to 3.78 cycles in the intervention condition (p = 0.231). Eighty-four percent of patients in the control group and 86% in the intervention group completed at least 4 cycles of cyclophosphamide. Conclusions: Routine PRO surveillance, coupled with guideline-based collaborative care interventions, was associated with completion of a greater number of cycles of docetaxel. These findings suggest that routine symptom surveillance and management may enhance the docetaxel tolerance profile and improve treatment adherence in patients with early-stage breast cancer, allowing for delivery of an optimized treatment course.

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

12079 Background: Many troublesome symptoms experienced by men with prostate cancer are not specific to a particular disease state or treatment modality. As such, these issues' scope is neither fully appreciated nor characterized in the reporting of clinical trial data. A modern accounting of poorly controlled symptoms is needed to better inform survivorship and supportive care efforts. Methods: Data are drawn from the Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) study, a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial examining the effectiveness of routine symptom assessment and management on patient-centered outcomes and healthcare utilization (NCT03892967). This is a population-level study supporting patients with cancer, who are cared for in medical oncology clinics across the Midwest United States. The trial utilizes an automated symptom monitoring system with EHR-enabled algorithms for symptom triage and intervention. The current analysis focuses on pre-intervention surveys. The cohort includes E2C2 participants with prostate cancer (as determined by the Mayo Clinic Cancer Registry) receiving curative or palliative-intent therapies, along with prostate cancer survivors who previously completed their treatment. The prevalence of SPPADE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, impaired physical function, anxiety, depression, fatigue [low energy]) was assessed using 0 to 10 numerical rating scales (NRS), with scores of 4-6 indicating moderate symptoms and 7-10 indicating severe symptoms. Results: A total of 1,388 men with prostate cancer completed a pre-intervention survey between March 2019 and January 2023. The median age at completion of first survey was 74 years. The cohort includes patients living in diverse settings, including urban (n=718, 52%), micropolitan (n=250, 18%), small town (n=218, 16%), and rural (n=200, 14%) environments. The proportion of patients experiencing moderate-to-severe symptoms (NRS score ≥4) was 47% for fatigue, 40% for impaired physical function, 32% for sleep disturbance, 27% for pain, 22% for anxiety, and 20% for depression/emotional distress. The three domains with the highest prevalence of severe symptoms (NRS score ≥7) were fatigue (17%), impaired physical function (12%), and sleep disturbance (10%). Conclusions: Proactive symptom monitoring identifies a high overall burden of moderate-to-severe symptoms, particularly fatigue and impaired physical function, among prostate cancer patients and survivors. Collaborative care approaches and symptom control trials are needed to mitigate and manage these burdensome symptoms. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 . [Table: see text]

12065 Background: Incidence of cancer, including colorectal, breast, pancreas, kidney, and uterine cancer, is increasing in younger populations. Adolescents and young adults (AYA, defined as age 15-39) with cancer face unique challenges. This study aimed to characterize how symptom burden differs between AYA and non-AYA (aged 40+) patients with cancer. Methods: We performed a subgroup analysis of the E2C2 study, a cluster-randomized, pragmatic trial examining the effectiveness of routine symptom assessment and guideline-based management on patient-centered and healthcare utilization metrics during and following cancer treatment. Six symptoms [Sleep disturbance, Pain, Physical function impairment, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue (SPPADE)] were evaluated using 11-point numerical rating scales (NRS). Symptom severity was classified as mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (7-10). We conducted a subgroup analysis of symptom burden among AYA patients (defined as age 18-39 in this study), using their first-reported NRS scores. Results: The E2C2 cohort included 2,598 AYA patients and 38,061 non-AYA patients who completed >1 SPPADE NRS on at least one survey. AYA patients were more likely than non-AYA patients to report severe anxiety ( p<0.0001) and depression ( p<0.0001) (Table). Non-AYA patients were more likely to report severe pain ( p=0.02179), fatigue ( p=0.0022), and physical function limitations ( p<0.0001). Sociodemographic differences were also noted. A higher proportion of AYA patients held a bachelor’s degree or higher (38% vs 28%), were employed (73% vs 37%), and lived in an urban setting (67% vs 56%), compared to non-AYA patients. Non-AYA patients were more likely to have government insurance (63% vs 21%) and to be married (72% vs 59%). Conclusions: AYA patients with cancer were more likely to report severe depression and anxiety compared to their counterparts age 40 and above, underscoring the need for targeted and tailored psycho-oncology care for this population. [Table: see text]

LBA12006 Background: Symptom burden and functional decline are prevalent, inconsistently treated, and associated with adverse health outcomes in patients with cancer. Symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) has yielded mixed results due, in part, to care teams’ variable bandwidth and resourcing for symptom management. The collaborative care model (CCM) offers a validated means to address these issues and potentially improve clinical and health services outcomes. Capturing ePROMS through the electronic health record (EHR) for use in CCM delivery provides a potentially scalable approach to manage symptoms at the population level. Methods: E2C2 is a cluster-randomized, population-level, stepped wedge pragmatic trial that compares a bundled, EHR-facilitated, CCM-based intervention to improve control of SPPADE symptoms (Sleep interference, Pain, impaired Physical function, Anxiety, Depression, and Energy deficit/fatigue) with usual care. All patients, regardless of cancer type or stage, treated in the medical oncology clinics of a multi-state health system, were assigned to one of fifteen clusters. Control and intervention conditions monitored SPPADE symptoms with Epic EHR administered 11-point numerical rating scales (NRSs). Moderate and severe symptoms were defined as 4-6/10 and >7/10, respectively. The intervention added EHR clinician decision support; automated delivery of symptom self-management information; and options to address severe symptoms with a dedicated symptom care manager. The primary outcome was post-baseline SPPADE scores assessed using multivariate regression of six cluster-period mean SPPADE symptom scores against E2C2 exposure, fixed cluster and secular time effects. Results: From March 2019 to January 2023, 50,559 patients were assigned to E2C2 clusters and 40,295 completed at least one ePROM. At first assessment, participants’ mean age was 63.3 years; 58% were female; 26% were rural, and the prevalences of moderate or worse symptoms were fatigue 42%, impaired function 34%, sleep disturbance 34%, anxiety 27%, pain 26%, and depression 23%. The intervention significantly reduced mean composite SPPADE symptom scores, p <0.001, among all patients, as well as those with >1 moderate or worse symptom. All mean symptom scores were lower in the intervention group, with the largest effects detected among patients with fatigue -0.2 (-0.4, -0.07), anxiety -0.14 (-0.2, -0.03), and depression -0.1 (-0.2, -0.002). Conclusions: In this large cluster-randomized trial, an EHR-facilitated, bundled intervention that scaled CCM-based surveillance and management of SPPADE symptoms significantly reduced population-level symptom burden, particularly for fatigue, anxiety, and depression. This study provides real world evidence and the foundation for future national efforts aimed at controlling symptoms in patients with cancer. Clinical trial information: NCT03892967 .

11108 Background: Advances in cancer treatment have led to a growing population of patients living with metastatic cancer. Symptom burden for these patients is understudied. Our objective is to report the prevalence and severity of SPPADE symptoms (sleep disturbance, pain, physical function impairment, anxiety, depression, and low energy /fatigue) in a large cohort of patients with metastatic cancer. Methods: These data are drawn from the Enhanced, EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) stepped wedge pragmatic trial evaluating a symptom management intervention for cancer patients (NCT03892967). This analysis was limited to those identified with metastatic disease using ICD- codes and a natural language processing algorithm prior to or within 30 days of their baseline symptom survey. Symptom severity was measured on a 0-10 scale with scores of 1-3 categorized as “mild”, 4-6 as “moderate”, and ≥7 as “severe.” A SPPADE composite score was calculated by summing six individual symptom scores and is an indicator of total symptom burden. We report descriptive statistics for each symptom by severity category. We also test for differences in SPPADE composite score by race, disability status, employment status, education and cancer type using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: 12,824 patients with metastatic disease completed a survey between March 2019 and January 2023. Discretized score distributions for the SPPADE symptoms are reported in the Table. The SPPADE composite mean score for the cohort was 17.6 (SD +/- 12.0). Significant differences were found in total symptom burden by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics ( p<0.01): Higher total symptom burden (Mean [SD])was experienced by individuals who were American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) (23.8[13.5]) or African American (AA) (20.5[14.7]), disabled (24.0[12.8]) or unemployed (21.1[13.0]), and had a high school education (20.0[13.3]) or less than high school education (18.5[12.4]). There were also statistically significant differences ( p<0.01) in symptom burden across cancer types, with patients with metastatic lung cancer reporting the highest symptom burden (20.0[12.2]) and those with metastatic melanoma reporting the lowest (14.7[11.4]). Conclusions: SPPADE symptoms are common in patients with metastatic cancer, especially fatigue, sleep disturbance, and physical function impairment. Symptom burden is especially high in AI/AN, AA, disabled/unemployed, and less educated patients. Further research is needed to tailor symptom interventions among those living with metastatic disease. [Table: see text]

AbstractCancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium’s conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abstract Objective To conduct a scoping review of models of care for chronic disease management to identify potentially effective components for management of chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI). Methods Information sources : Systematic searches of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from January 2010 to May 2021. Eligibility criteria : Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses reporting on the effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), collaborative/integrated care, and other chronic disease management models. Data : Target diseases, model components used ( n = 11), and six outcomes (disease‐specific, generic health‐related quality of life and functioning, adherence, health knowledge, patient satisfaction, and cost/health care use). Synthesis : Narrative synthesis, including proportion of reviews documenting outcome benefits. Results More than half (55%) of the 186 eligible reviews focused on collaborative/integrated care models, with 25% focusing on CCM and 20% focusing on other chronic disease management models. The most common health conditions were diabetes ( n = 22), depression ( n = 16), heart disease ( n = 12), aging ( n = 11), and kidney disease ( n = 8). Other single medical conditions were the focus of 22 reviews, multiple medical conditions of 59 reviews, and other or mixed mental health/behavioral conditions of 20 reviews. Some type of quality rating for individual studies was conducted in 126 (68%) of the reviews. Of reviews that assessed particular outcomes, 80% reported disease‐specific benefits, and 57% to 72% reported benefits for the other five types of outcomes. Outcomes did not differ by the model category, number or type of components, or target disease. Conclusions Although there is a paucity of evidence for TBI per se, care model components proven effective for other chronic diseases may be adaptable for chronic TBI care.