Longitudinal patient-reported outcomes on genotype-guided irinotecan dosing: feasibility and clinical relevance.

INTRODUCTION: Standard investigator-based adverse events (AE) assessment is via CTCAE for clinical trials. However, including the patient perspective through PRO (patient-reported outcomes) enhances clinicians' understanding of patient toxicity and fosters early detection of AEs. We assessed longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE within clinical workflow in a phase II trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: As a sub-study in a phase II trial of genotype-directed irinotecan dosing evaluating efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving FOLFIRI and bevacizumab, patients reported on 13 AEs generating a PRO-CTCAE form. The primary objective was to estimate forms completed by patients and clinicians at least 80% of time. Secondary objectives were estimating concordance and time to first score of specific symptoms between patient and clinician pairs. RESULTS: Feasibility of longitudinal PRO-CTCAE integration was met as 96% of patients and clinician-patient pairs completed at least 80% of PRO-CTCAE forms available to them with 79% achieving 100% completion. Concordance between patient and clinician reporting a severe symptom was 73% with 24 disconcordant pairs, 21 involved patients who reported a severe symptom that the clinician did not. Although protocol-mandated dose reductions were guided by CTCAE not PRO-CTCAE responses, the median time to dose reduction of 2.53 months, and the time-to-event curve closely approximated time to patient-reported toxicity. CONCLUSION: Longitudinal integration of PRO-CTCAE paired CTCAE proved feasible. Compared to clinicians, patients reported severe symptoms more frequently and earlier. Patient-reported toxicity more closely aligned with dose decreases indicating incorporation into routine clinical practice may enhance early detection of toxicity improving patient safety and quality of life.

Learning to Overcome Barriers to Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: Lessons From the Field.

#Implementation of #ePROs in real world settings, lessons learned.

Evaluating Nurses' Time to Response by Severity and Cancer Stage in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program for Patients With Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes enables patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between in-person visits. A better understanding of key RSM implementation outcomes is crucial to optimize efficiency and guide implementation efforts. This analysis evaluated the association between the severity of patient-reported symptom alerts and time to response by the health care team. METHODS: This secondary analysis included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States (October 2020-September 2022). Symptom surveys with at least one severe symptom alert were categorized as severe. Response time was categorized as optimal if the alert was closed by a health care team member within 48 hours. Odds ratios (ORs), predicted probabilities, and 95% CIs were estimated using a patient-nested logistic regression model. RESULTS: Of 178 patients with breast cancer included in this analysis, 63% of patients identified as White and 85% of patients had a stage I-III or early-stage cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (IQR, 42-65). Of 1,087 surveys included, 36% reported at least one severe symptom alert and 77% had an optimal response time by the health care team. When compared with surveys that had no severe symptom alerts, surveys with at least one severe symptom alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.38). The results were similar when stratified by cancer stage. CONCLUSION: Response times to symptom alerts were similar for alerts with at least one severe symptom compared with alerts with no severe symptoms. This suggests that alert management is being incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or symptom alert severity.

Adaptation of Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Implementation in Real-World Settings.

PURPOSE: Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers. METHODS: This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman's Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (phase I) and workflow (phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semistructured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation. RESULTS: Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility. CONCLUSION: Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring.

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out. METHODS: This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04809740 ; date of registration 3/22/2021.

Floor and ceiling effects in the EORTC QLQ-C30 Physical Functioning Subscale among patients with advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 Physical Functioning subscale is a widely used patient-reported outcome measure that quantifies cancer patients' physical functioning. Strong floor/ceiling effects can affect a scale's sensitivity to change. The aim of this study was to characterize floor/ceiling effects of the physical functioning domain in patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer enrolled in commercial clinical trials and a community-based trial. METHODS: The clinical trial cohort comprised patients from 5 registrational trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration for review (2010-2017). The community cohort comprised a subgroup of patients from the Alliance Patient Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment (PRO-TECT) trial. The distribution of patient responses to Physical Functioning items and the summed score were assessed at the baseline and 3-month follow-up for both cohorts. Descriptive statistics were used to determine floor/ceiling effects at the item and scale levels. RESULTS: The clinical trial cohort and the community cohort consisted of 2407 and 178 patients, respectively. Twenty-four percent or more of the respondents reported "not at all" for having trouble/needing help with each Physical Functioning item across both cohorts and measurement time points. Fourteen to twenty percent of the patients scored perfectly (100 of 100) on the Physical Functioning subscale summary measure (where higher scores indicated better physical functioning) across both cohorts and time points. CONCLUSIONS: Minor floor effects and notable ceiling effects were found at the item and scale levels of the Physical Functioning subscale, regardless of cohort, and this creates some uncertainty about its ability to detect changes in physical functioning among high-functioning patients. Investigators may consider adding additional high-functioning items from the EORTC's item library to more accurately describe the impact of anticancer treatment on patients' physical functioning.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: Four 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). CONCLUSIONS: DAs 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.

Correction: A real-world evaluation of radium-223 in combination with abiraterone or enzalutamide for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0253021.].

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Aspects of High-Quality Cancer Care to Assess with Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

A real-world evaluation of radium-223 in combination with abiraterone or enzalutamide for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Radium-223, abiraterone, and enzalutamide have each been shown to significantly improve survival as monotherapy in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. However, effects of combination radium-223 plus abiraterone or enzalutamide on survival and safety remain unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-center retrospective cohort study used electronic health record data of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and bone metastases who were treated with radium-223 between April 1, 2014 and February 19, 2019. Patients who received radium-223 monotherapy were compared to patients who received a combination of radium-223 plus either abiraterone or enzalutamide. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, time to symptomatic skeletal event, symptomatic skeletal event-free survival, and incidence of drug-related adverse events. Time-to-event analyses were estimated by log rank tests using Kaplan-Meier curves. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals were derived from Cox proportional hazards models. Chi-square tests evaluated difference in serious adverse events between the two arms. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients met inclusion criteria (n = 41 in the monotherapy arm, n = 19 in the combination arm). Differences in median overall survival were not observed (12.7 vs. 12.8 months; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.59-2.23; P = 0.68), but median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the combination arm (7.6 vs. 4.9 months; HR 1.94, 95% CI 1.11-3.40; P = 0.02). Significant differences were not observed in time to first SSE (P = 0.97), SSE-free survival (P = 0.16), or in the overall incidence of serious adverse events (P = 0.45). CONCLUSION: Combination radium-223 plus abiraterone or enzalutamide did not improve overall survival, but prolonged progression-free survival without increasing the incidence of serious adverse events in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer patients with bone metastases. However, these results are limited by small numbers and patient selection inherent in retrospective analysis.

Electronic symptom monitoring in pediatric patients hospitalized for chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Using patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring in oncology has resulted in significant benefits for adult patients with cancer. The feasibility of this approach has not been established in the routine care of children with cancer. METHODS: The Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (Ped-PRO-CTCAE) is an item library that enables children and caregivers to self-report symptoms. Ten symptom items from the Ped-PRO-CTCAE were uploaded to an online platform. Patients at least 7 years old and their caregivers were prompted by text/email message to electronically self-report daily during a planned hospitalization for chemotherapy administration. Symptom reports were emailed to the clinical team caring for the patient, but no instructions were given regarding the use of this information. Rates of patient participation and clinician responses to reports were systematically tracked. RESULTS: The median age of the participating patients (n = 52) was 11 years (range, 7-18 years). All patients and caregivers completed an initial login, with 92% of dyads completing at least 1 additional symptom assessment during hospitalization (median, 3 assessments; range, 0-40). Eighty-one percent of participating dyads submitted symptom reports on at least half of hospital days, and 54% submitted reports on all hospital days. Clinical actions were taken in response to symptom reports 21% of the time. Most patients felt that the system was easy (73%) and important (79%). Most clinicians found symptom reports easy to understand and useful (97%). CONCLUSIONS: Symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcome measures for hospitalized pediatric oncology patients is feasible and generates data valued by clinicians and patients.

Comparison of weekly and daily recall of pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 trial of cabozantinib for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Scant evidence reveals whether the use of weekly versus daily pain ratings leads to meaningful differences when measuring pain as a clinical trial outcome. We compared the ability of weekly ratings and descriptors of daily ratings to evaluate pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial. METHODS: Participants (n = 119) with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were randomized to treatment arms and rated their pain on the average and at its worst during a baseline week and at weeks 3, 6, and 12 of study treatment. For each reporting period, participants rated their pain daily for 7 days. On day 7, participants rated their pain over the prior 7 days. We estimated mean differences and intraclass correlation coefficients of the weekly ratings and the mean and the maximum daily ratings. We compared the ability of the weekly ratings and the daily rating descriptors to detect change in pain and evaluated the agreement of the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst to detect treatment response. RESULTS: For both pain constructs, the weekly rating was consistently higher than the mean daily rating and lower than the maximum daily rating yet was moderately to highly correlated with both daily rating descriptors (intraclass correlation coefficient range = 0.55-0.94). The weekly rating and the daily rating descriptors consistently detected change in pain for the study sample and participant subgroups. Substantial agreement existed between the weekly rating and the mean daily rating of pain at its worst when used with trial protocol opioid criteria to detect treatment response (Cohen's κ = 0.71). CONCLUSION: Use of daily over weekly ratings delivered no added benefit in evaluating pain in this clinical trial. This study is the first to compare weekly and daily recall to measure pain as an endpoint in a randomized phase 3 drug trial, and the pattern of differences in ratings that we observed is consistent with other recent evaluations of weekly and daily symptom reporting.

Patient-reported symptom severity, interference with daily activities, and adverse events in older and younger women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: To the authors' knowledge, it is unknown whether patient-reported symptom severity and symptom interference with daily activities differ between younger (aged <65 years) and older (aged ≥65 years) women receiving similar chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer (EBC). METHODS: Study participants rated 17 side effects of chemotherapy regimens currently in use in clinical practice (2014-2019). RESULTS: Of 284 women with EBC (stage I-III), approximately 57% were aged <65 years and 43% were aged ≥65 years. For anthracycline-based regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported moderate, severe, or very severe (MSVS) hot flashes (49% vs 18%) (P < .001). For nonanthracycline regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS hot flashes (38% vs 19%) (P = .009) and a lower percentage reported MSVS arthralgia (28% vs 49%) (P = .005). With regard to symptom interference with daily activities, a higher percentage of younger women being treated with anthracycline-based regimens reported MSVS hot flashes (32% vs 7%) (P = .001) and myalgia (38% vs 18%) (P = .02). For nonanthracycline chemotherapy, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS interference for hot flashes (26% vs 9%) (P = .006) and lower percentages reported abdominal pain (13% vs 28%) (P = .02). Overall, there were no significant differences noted among younger versus older patients with regard to hospitalizations (19% vs 12%; P = .19), dose reductions (34% vs 31%; P = .50), dose delays (22% vs 25%; P = .59), or early treatment discontinuation (16% vs 16%; P = .9546). CONCLUSIONS: Older and younger women with EBC who were treated with identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events. LAY SUMMARY: In this study, women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer rated the severity of 17 symptoms and symptom interference with their activities of daily living. Older (aged ≥65 years) and younger (aged <65 years) women who received identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events.

Pilot Study of [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography (FDG-PET)/Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) for Staging of Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer (MIBC).

INTRODUCTION: Computed tomography (CT) has limited diagnostic accuracy for staging of muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC). [18F] Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a novel imaging modality incorporating functional imaging with improved soft tissue characterization. This pilot study evaluated the use of preoperative FDG-PET/MRI for staging of MIBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-one patients with MIBC with planned radical cystectomy were enrolled. Two teams of radiologists reviewed FDG-PET/MRI scans to determine: (1) presence of primary bladder tumor; and (2) lymph node involvement and distant metastases. FDG-PET/MRI was compared with cystectomy pathology and computed tomography (CT). RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included in the final analysis, most (72.2%) of whom received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Final pathology revealed 10 (56%) patients with muscle invasion and only 3 (17%) patients with lymph node involvement. Clustered analysis of FDG-PET/MRI radiology team reads revealed a sensitivity of 0.80 and a specificity of 0.56 for detection of the primary tumor with a sensitivity of 0 and a specificity of 1.00 for detection of lymph node involvement when compared with cystectomy pathology. CT imaging demonstrated similar rates in evaluation of the primary tumor (sensitivity, 0.91; specificity, 0.43) and lymph node involvement (sensitivity, 0; specificity, 0.93) when compared with pathology. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot single-institution experience of FDG-PET/MRI for preoperative staging of MIBC performed similar to CT for the detection of the primary tumor; however, the determination of lymph node status was limited by few patients with true pathologic lymph node involvement. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential role for FDG-PET/MRI in the staging of MIBC.

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Cabozantinib for Progressive Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer Following Docetaxel: Combined Analysis of Two Phase 3 Trials.

Two phase 3 trials, COMET-1 and COMET-2, have reported that cabozantinib did not significantly extend overall survival (OS) compared to prednisone and prednisone plus mitoxantrone, respectively, in post-docetaxel patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). We conducted a retrospective analysis of a combined data set from these trials to identify a benefit in subsets of patients according to prognostic risk factors. The prognostic ability of factors to predict survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models. Evaluation of potential beneficial subsets was performed using interaction terms between factors and cabozantinib. All tests were two-sided and p≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 1147 post-docetaxel patients with mCRPC were available (1028 from COMET-1 and 119 from COMET-2). The following factors were prognostic for OS: age, disease-free interval, hemoglobin, prostate-specific antigen, alkaline phosphatase, albumin, bone scan lesion area, lactate dehydrogenase, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and pain (all p<0.05). There was no interaction effect on survival between cabozantinib versus comparator arms and any prognostic group. After adjusting for prognostic factors, cabozantinib was associated with better OS (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval 0.67-0.95; p=0.012). Further investigation of cabozantinib in a better-powered trial or a rational patient population based on a molecular biomarker may be warranted. PATIENT SUMMARY: Two phase 3 trials have reported no survival benefit for cabozantinib, a multitarget oral drug, in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. This analysis pooled 1147 patients from these trials to identify a survival benefit for cabozantinib. This study suggests that further rational development may be justified.

Using Stakeholder Engagement to Overcome Barriers to Implementing Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) in Cancer Care Delivery: Approaches From 3 Prospective Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used during cancer care delivery improve communication about symptoms between patients and clinicians and reduce service utilization for uncontrolled symptoms. However, uptake of PROs in routine cancer care has been slow. In this paper, we describe stakeholder engagement activities used to overcome barriers to implementing PROs. Implementation occurred in 2 study settings: PROs completed in the waiting room and reviewed during clinical visits to guide symptom management for multiple myeloma (visit-based PROs); and weekly PROs completed by cancer patients between chemotherapy visits to monitor symptoms at home (remote PROs). METHODS: PRO implementation steps across studies included: (1) clinician and patient input on key symptoms, PRO measures, and identifying which PRO responses are clinically concerning to better target nursing actions; (2) developing PRO-based clinical decision support (CDS) for responding to concerning PROs; (3) training clinicians and clinical research assistants to interpret PROs and use software; and (4) describing implementation impact (frequency of concerning PRO responses and nursing actions). DISCUSSION: Clinician and patient input was critical for identifying key symptoms, PRO measures, and clinically concerning response options. For the visit-based PRO observational study, all symptom scores appeared on a clinician dashboard, and those rated ≥1 by patients (on a 0-4 or 0-10 scale) had PRO-based CDS available for access. For the 2 remote PROs trials, stakeholders recommended that the 2 "worst" response options (eg, PRO responses of "often"/"always" or "severe"/"very severe") would trigger an automated email alert to a nurse along with PRO-based CDS. In each study, PRO-based CDS was tailored based on clinician input. Across studies, the most common nursing response to concerning PROs was counseling patients on (or providing care plans for) self-management of symptoms. In the trials, the percentage of weekly remote PROs generating an alert to a nurse ranged from 13% at an academic center to 36% in community oncology practices. KEY POINTS: Across 3 prospective studies, PROs implemented into cancer care enabled tailored care based on issues identified on PROs. Stakeholder engagement was critical for successful implementation. This paper assists in addressing important PRO implementation challenges by describing a stakeholder-driven approach.