Physical Activity Program for the Survival of Elderly Patients With Lymphoma: Study Protocol for Randomized Phase 3 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The practice of regular physical activity can reduce the incidence of certain cancers (colon, breast, and prostate) and improve overall survival after treatment by reducing fatigue and the risk of relapse. This impact on survival has only been demonstrated in active patients with lymphoma before and after treatment. As poor general health status reduces the chances of survival and these patients are most likely to also have sarcopenia, it is important to be able to improve their physical function through adapted physical activity (APA) as part of supportive care management. Unfortunately, APA is often saved for patients with advanced blood cancer. As a result, there is a lack of data regarding the impact of standardized regular practice of APA and concomitant chemotherapy as first-line treatment on lymphoma survival. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of a new and open rehabilitation program suitable for a frail population of patients treated for diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). METHODS: PHARAOM (Physical Activity Program for the Survival of Elderly Patients with Lymphoma) is a phase 3 randomized (1:1) study focusing on a frail population of patients treated for DLBCL. The study will include 186 older adult patients with DLBCL (aged >65 years) receiving rituximab and chemotherapy. Overall, 50% (93/186) of patients (investigational group) will receive APA along with chemotherapy, and they will be supervised by a dedicated qualified kinesiologist. The APA program will include endurance and resistance training at moderate intensity 3 times a week during the 6 months of chemotherapy. The primary end point of this study will be event-free survival of the patients. The secondary end points will include the overall survival, progression-free survival, prevalence of sarcopenia and undernutrition, and patients' quality of life. This study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. RESULTS: Recruitment, enrollment, and data collection began in February 2021, and 4 participants have been enrolled in the study as of July 2022. Data analysis will begin after the completion of data collection. Future outcomes will be published in peer-reviewed health-related research journals and presented at national congress, and state professional meetings. This publication is based on protocol version 1.1, August 3, 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The PHARAOM study focuses on highlighting the benefits of APA intervention on survival during the period of first-line treatment of patients with DLBCL. This study could also contribute to our understanding of how an APA program can reduce complications such as sarcopenia in patients with lymphoma and improve their quality of life. By documenting the prevalence and relationship between sarcopenia and exercise load, we might be able to help physicians plan better interventions in the care of patients with DLBCL. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04670029; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04670029. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40969.

Cost-Effectiveness of Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Surveillance in Patients With Lung Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: A multicenter randomized clinical trial in France found an overall survival benefit of web-based patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based surveillance after initial treatment for lung cancer compared with conventional surveillance. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of this PRO-based surveillance in lung cancer patients. METHODS: This medico-economic analysis used data from the clinical trial, augmented by abstracted chart data and costs of consultations, imaging, transportations, information technology, and treatments. Costs were calculated based on actual reimbursement rates in France, and health utilities were estimated based on scientific literature review. Willingness-to-pay thresholds of €30,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and €90,000 per QALY were used to define a very cost-effective and cost-effective strategy, respectively. Average annual costs of experimental and control surveillance approaches were calculated. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was expressed as cost per life-year gained and QALY gained, from the health insurance payer perspective. One-way and multivariate probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Average annual cost of surveillance follow-up was €362 lower per patient in the PRO arm (€941/year/patient) compared to control (€1,304/year/patient). The PRO approach presented an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of €12,127 per life-year gained and €20,912 per QALY gained. The probabilities that the experimental strategy is very cost-effective and cost-effective were 97% and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance of lung cancer patients using web-based PRO reduced the follow-up costs. Compared to conventional monitoring, this surveillance modality represents a cost-effective strategy and should be considered in cancer care delivery.

Randomized Trial Comparing a Web-Mediated Follow-up With Routine Surveillance in Lung Cancer Patients.

Background: The use of web-based monitoring for lung cancer patients is growing in interest because of promising recent results suggesting improvement in cancer and resource utilization outcomes. It remains an open question whether the overall survival (OS) in these patients could be improved by using a web-mediated follow-up rather than classical scheduled follow-up and imaging. Methods: Advanced-stage lung cancer patients without evidence of disease progression after or during initial treatment were randomly assigned in a multicenter phase III trial to compare a web-mediated follow-up algorithm (experimental arm), based on weekly self-scored patient symptoms, with routine follow-up with CT scans scheduled every three to six months according to the disease stage (control arm). In the experimental arm, an alert email was automatically sent to the oncologist when self-scored symptoms matched predefined criteria. The primary outcome was OS. Results: From June 2014 to January 2016, 133 patients were enrolled and 121 were retained in the intent-to-treat analysis; 12 deemed ineligible after random assignment were not subsequently followed. Most of the patients (95.1%) had stage III or IV disease. The median follow-up was nine months. The median OS was 19.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI] = 12.5 to noncalculable) in the experimental and 12.0 months (95% CI = 8.6 to 16.4) in the control arm (one-sided P = .001) (hazard ratio = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.67, one-sided P = .002). The performance status at first detected relapse was 0 to 1 for 75.9% of the patients in the experimental arm and for 32.5% of those in the control arm (two-sided P < .001). Optimal treatment was initiated in 72.4% of the patients in the experimental arm and in 32.5% of those in the control arm (two-sided P < .001). Conclusions: A web-mediated follow-up algorithm based on self-reported symptoms improved OS due to early relapse detection and better performance status at relapse.