Purpose
Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse ...Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.
Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.
Results
Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (
n
= 21).
Conclusions
The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.
>Goal-concordant care is a priority outcome for palliative care research, yet the field lacks consensus on optimal methods for measurement. We sought to 1) categorize methods used to measure ...goal-concordant care, and 2) discuss strengths and limitations of each method using empirical examples from palliative care research. We categorized measurement methods for goal-concordant care. We identified empirical examples of each method to illustrate the strengths, limitations, and applicability of each method to relevant study designs. We defined four methods used to measure goal-concordant care: 1) Patient- or Caregiver-Reported, 2) Caregiver-Reported After Death, 3) Concordance in Longitudinal Data, and 4) Population-Level Indicators. Patient or caregiver-reported goal-concordant care draws on strengths of patient-reported outcomes, and can be captured for multiple aspects of treatment; these methods are subject to recall bias or family-proxy bias. Concordance in longitudinal data is optimal when a treatment preference can be specifically and temporally linked to actual treatment; the method is limited to common life-sustaining treatment choices and validity may be affected by temporal variation between preference and treatment. Population-level indicators allow pragmatic research to include large populations; its primary limitation is the assumption that preferences held by a majority of persons should correspond to patterns of actual treatment in similar populations. Methods used to measure goal-concordant care have distinct strengths and limitations, and methods should be selected based on research question and study design. Existing methods could be improved, yet a future gold standard is unlikely to suit all research designs.
IMPORTANCE: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate ...whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference MCID, 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. RESULTS: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 58.3% women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 95% CI, 0.41-4.53; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 95% CI, 0.95-4.17; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 95% CI, 0.90-3.96; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio OR, 1.35 95% CI, 1.08-1.70; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 95% CI, 1.15-1.95; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 95% CI, 1.10-1.81; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090
There is growing interest to enhance symptom monitoring during routine cancer care using patient-reported outcomes, but evidence of impact on clinical outcomes is limited.
We randomly assigned ...patients receiving routine outpatient chemotherapy for advanced solid tumors at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center to report 12 common symptoms via tablet computers or to receive usual care consisting of symptom monitoring at the discretion of clinicians. Those with home computers received weekly e-mail prompts to report between visits. Treating physicians received symptom printouts at visits, and nurses received e-mail alerts when participants reported severe or worsening symptoms. The primary outcome was change in health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 6 months compared with baseline, measured by the EuroQol EQ-5D Index. Secondary endpoints included emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and survival.
Among 766 patients allocated, HRQL improved among more participants in the intervention group than usual care (34% v 18%) and worsened among fewer (38% v 53%; P < .001). Overall, mean HRQL declined by less in the intervention group than usual care (1.4- v 7.1-point drop; P < .001). Patients receiving intervention were less frequently admitted to the ER (34% v 41%; P = .02) or hospitalized (45% v 49%; P = .08) and remained on chemotherapy longer (mean, 8.2 v 6.3 months; P = .002). Although 75% of the intervention group was alive at 1 year, 69% with usual care survived the year (P = .05), with differences also seen in quality-adjusted survival (mean of 8.7 v. 8.0 months; P = .004). Benefits were greater for participants lacking prior computer experience. Most patients receiving intervention (63%) reported severe symptoms during the study. Nurses frequently initiated clinical actions in response to e-mail alerts.
Clinical benefits were associated with symptom self-reporting during cancer care.
ABSTRACT
The science of measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has advanced substantially in recent decades, allowing evaluation of how patients feel and function in clinical research. Assessment ...of the patient experience in populations with rare diseases can be successfully achieved using PRO measures when careful planning and rigorous methods are employed. A number of challenges exist when designing and implementing PRO analyses in rare disease contexts, including heterogeneity of outcomes, availability of suitable measures, recruitment, and selection of appropriate data collection methods. Strategies to address these exist and have been employed in past clinical research, particularly in pediatric populations. PRO assessments in rare disease clinical trials have been particularly successful through partnerships between investigators, PRO methodologists, and patient organizations. The overall goal of PRO measurement is to understand the patient experience and it provides an essential part of evaluating the impact of disease and treatment.
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
This study aimed to examine psychometric properties of a caregiver version of the well-established Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Scale (FACT-G) after conducting focus groups ...and obtaining expert input.
Methods
We made minor wording modifications to the Patient FACT-G to enable caregivers to report how the illness affected their overall quality of life (QOL) and well-being on four subscales (physical, social, emotional, functional). We tested the acceptability, precision, factor structure, reliability and validity of the Caregiver FACT-G among partners of prostate cancer patients (
N
= 263) and caregivers (spouses, siblings, adult children) of patients with advanced cancer (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate) (
N
= 484) using data from two Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs).
Results
With a factor structure similar to the Patient FACT-G, Caregiver FACT-G was acceptable and precise in measuring caregiver QOL, with high inter-factor correlations and internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alphas 0.81–0.91). The Caregiver FACT-G had strong convergent validity demonstrated by significant positive correlations with caregiver self-efficacy (0.25–0.63), dyadic communication (0.18–0.51), and social support (0.18–0.54) in both samples. It also had strong discriminant validity evidenced by significant inverse correlations with negative appraisal of caregiving (− 0.37 to − 0.69), uncertainty (− 0.28 to − 0.53), hopelessness (− 0.25 to − 0.60), and avoidant coping (− 0.26 to − 0.58) in both samples. Caregivers’ baseline FACT-G scores were significantly associated with their physical (0.23) and mental well-being (0.54; 4-month follow-up) and their depression (− 0.69; 3-month follow-up), indicating strong predictive validity.
Conclusion
This is the first study evaluating the psychometric properties of the Caregiver FACT-G. More psychometric testing is warranted, especially among caregivers of diverse sociocultural backgrounds.
Outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) should reflect the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers, yet patient‐ and caregiver‐reported ...outcomes (PCROs) are rarely available in large clinical and administrative data sources. Although pragmatic methods may lead to use of existing administrative data rather than new data collected directly from PLWD, interventions are truly impactful only when they change outcomes prioritized by PLWD and their caregivers. The Patient‐ and Caregiver‐Reported Outcomes Core (PCRO Core) of the IMbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's Disease (AD) and AD‐Related Dementias Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory aims to promote optimal use of outcomes relevant to PLWD and their caregivers in pragmatic trials. The PCRO Core will address key scientific challenges limiting outcome measurement, such as gaps in existing measures, methodologic constraints, and burdensome data capture. PCRO Core investigators will create a searchable library of AD/AD‐related dementias (ADRD) clinical outcome measures, including measures in existing data sources with potential for AD/ADRD ePCTs, and will support best practices in measure development, including pragmatic adaptation of PCROs. Working together with other Cores and Teams within the IMPACT Collaboratory, the PCRO Core will support investigators to select from existing outcome measures, and to innovate in methods for measurement and data capture. In the future, the work of the IMPACT Collaboratory may galvanize broader embedded use of outcomes that matter to PLWD and their care partners in large health systems. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S55–S61, 2020.
The standard approach for documenting symptomatic adverse events (AEs) in cancer clinical trials involves investigator reporting using the National Cancer Institute's (NCI's) Common Terminology ...Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Because this approach underdetects symptomatic AEs, the NCI issued two contracts to create a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement system as a companion to the CTCAE, called the PRO-CTCAE. This Commentary describes development of the PRO-CTCAE by a group of multidisciplinary investigators and patient representatives and provides an overview of qualitative and quantitative studies of its measurement properties. A systematic evaluation of all 790 AEs listed in the CTCAE identified 78 appropriate for patient self-reporting. For each of these, a PRO-CTCAE plain language term in English and one to three items characterizing the frequency, severity, and/or activity interference of the AE were created, rendering a library of 124 PRO-CTCAE items. These items were refined in a cognitive interviewing study among patients on active cancer treatment with diverse educational, racial, and geographic backgrounds. Favorable measurement properties of the items, including construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and between-mode equivalence, were determined prospectively in a demographically diverse population of patients receiving treatments for many different tumor types. A software platform was built to administer PRO-CTCAE items to clinical trial participants via the internet or telephone interactive voice response and was refined through usability testing. Work is ongoing to translate the PRO-CTCAE into multiple languages and to determine the optimal approach for integrating the PRO-CTCAE into clinical trial workflow and AE analyses. It is envisioned that the PRO-CTCAE will enhance the precision and patient-centeredness of adverse event reporting in cancer clinical research.
Abstract
Objective
We performed a scoping review of algorithms using electronic health record (EHR) data to identify patients with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD), to advance their ...use in research and clinical care.
Materials and Methods
Starting with a previous scoping review of EHR phenotypes, we performed a cumulative update (April 2020 through March 1, 2023) using Pubmed, PheKB, and expert review with exclusive focus on ADRD identification. We included algorithms using EHR data alone or in combination with non-EHR data and characterized whether they identified patients at high risk of or with a current diagnosis of ADRD.
Results
For our cumulative focused update, we reviewed 271 titles meeting our search criteria, 49 abstracts, and 26 full text papers. We identified 8 articles from the original systematic review, 8 from our new search, and 4 recommended by an expert. We identified 20 papers describing 19 unique EHR phenotypes for ADRD: 7 algorithms identifying patients with diagnosed dementia and 12 algorithms identifying patients at high risk of dementia that prioritize sensitivity over specificity. Reference standards range from only using other EHR data to in-person cognitive screening.
Conclusion
A variety of EHR-based phenotypes are available for use in identifying populations with or at high-risk of developing ADRD. This review provides comparative detail to aid in choosing the best algorithm for research, clinical care, and population health projects based on the use case and available data. Future research may further improve the design and use of algorithms by considering EHR data provenance.
PDF
