Transforming the oncology data paradigm by creating, capturing, and retrieving structured cancer data at the point of care: A Mayo Clinic pilot.

INTRODUCTION: Structured data capture requires defined languages such as minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE). This pilot assessed the feasibility of capturing 5 mCODE categories (stage, disease status, performance status (PS), intent of therapy and intent to change therapy). METHODS: A tool (SmartPhrase) using existing and custom structured data elements was Built to capture 4 data categories (disease status, PS, intent of therapy and intent to change therapy) typically documented as free-text within notes. Existing functionality for stage was supported by the Build. Participant survey data, presence of data (per encounter), and time in chart were collected prior to go-live and repeat timepoints. The anticipated outcome was capture of >50% sustained over time without undue burden. RESULTS: Pre-intervention (5-weeks before go-live), participants had 1390 encounters (1207 patients). The median percent capture across all participants was 32% for stage; no structured data was available for other categories pre-intervention. During a 6-month pilot with 14 participants across three sites, 4995 encounters (3071 patients) occurred. The median percent capture across all participants and all post-intervention months increased to 64% for stage and 81%-82% for the other data categories post-intervention. No increase in participant time in chart was noted. Participants reported that data were meaningful to capture. CONCLUSIONS: Structured data can be captured (1) in real-time, (2) sustained over time without (3) undue provider burden using note-based tools. Our system is expanding the pilot, with integration of these data into clinical decision support, practice dashboards and potential for clinical trial matching.

Patient-targeted education (ePRO-E) to increase ePRO intent within an Alliance clinical trial (A221805-SI1).

BACKGROUND: The Patient Cloud ePRO app was adopted by the National Cancer Institute National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) to facilitate capturing electronic patient-reported (ePRO) outcome data, but use has been low. The study objectives were to test whether a patient-targeted ePRO educational resource (ePRO-E) would increase ePRO intent (number of users) and improve data quality (high quality: ≥80% of the required surveys submitted) within an ongoing NCTN study. METHODS: The ePRO-E intervention, a patient-targeted educational resource (written material and 6-minute animated YouTube video), was designed to address ePRO barriers. ePRO intent and data quality were compared between 2 groups (N = 69): a historical control group and a prospectively recruited intervention group exposed to ePRO-E. Covariates included technology attitudes, age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and comorbidity. RESULTS: Intervention group ePRO intent (78.8%) was statistically significantly higher than historical control group intent (47.1%) (P = .03). Patients choosing ePRO versus paper surveys had more positive and higher technology attitudes scores (P = .03). The odds of choosing ePRO were 4.7 times higher (95% Confidence Interval [CI] = 1.2 to 17.8) (P = .02) among intervention group patients and 5.2 times higher (95% CI = 1.3 to 21.6) (P = .02) among patients with high technology attitudes scores, after controlling for covariates. However, the 80% submission rate (percentage submitting ≥80% of required surveys) in the ePRO group (30.6%) was statistically significantly lower than in the paper group (57.9%) (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: ePRO-E exposure increased ePRO intent. High technology attitudes scores were associated with ePRO selection. Since the ePRO survey submission rate was low, additional strategies are needed to promote high-quality data submission.

Olanzapine With or Without Fosaprepitant for Preventing Chemotherapy Induced Nausea and Vomiting in Patients Receiving Highly Emetogenic Chemotherapy: A Phase III Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial (ALLIANCE A221602).

PURPOSE: A protocol was developed to evaluate the value of an NK-1 receptor antagonist for preventing nausea and vomiting resulting from highly emetogenic chemotherapy when an olanzapine-based antiemetogenic regimen was used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A221602, a prospective double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, was developed to compare 2 -olanzapine-containing antiemetic regimens, one with an NK-1 receptor antagonist (aprepitant or fosaprepitant) and one without. Trial patients had a malignant disease for which they received intravenous highly emetogenic chemotherapy (single day cisplatin ≥ 70 mg/m2 or doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide on 1 day). Patients on both arms received commonly administered doses of a 5-HT3 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and olanzapine. Additionally, patients were randomized to receive an NK-1 receptor antagonist (fosaprepitant 150 mg IV or aprepitant 130 mg IV) or a corresponding placebo. The primary objective was to compare the proportion of patients with no nausea for 5 days following chemotherapy between the 2 study arms. This trial was designed to test for the noninferiority of deleting the NK-1 receptor antagonist, with noninferiority defined as a decrease in freedom from nausea by less than 10%. RESULTS: A total of 690 patients were entered on this trial, 50% on each arm. The proportion of patients without nausea for the complete 5-day study period was 7.4% lower (upper limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was 13.5%) in the arm without an NK-1 receptor antagonist compared with the arm with an NK-1 receptor antagonist. CONCLUSION: This trial did not provide sufficient evidence to support that deletion of the NK-1 receptor antagonist was as good as keeping it, as a part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for highly emetogenic chemotherapy (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03578081).

Electronic Geriatric Assessment: Is It Feasible in a Multi-Institutional Study That Included a Notable Proportion of Older African American Patients? (Alliance A171603).

PURPOSE: This study determined whether an electronic version of the geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional, diverse setting. METHODS: Ten sites within the Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology participated. Patients who had active cancer or a history of cancer and were 65 years of age or older were eligible. The geriatric assessment was completed with an electronic data capture system that had been loaded onto iPads. Feasibility was defined a priori as completion in at least 70% of patients either with or without help. To enhance racial diversity, the original sample size was later changed and augmented by 50% with the intention of increasing enrollment of older minority patients. RESULTS: A total of one hundred fifty-four patients were registered with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-91 years). Forty-three (28%) identified themselves as African American or Black. One hundred forty-one patients (92%) completed the electronic geriatric assessment. Feasibility was observed across all subgroups, regardless of race, education, performance status, comorbidities, and cognition; 124 patients (81%) completed the geriatric assessment without help. Reasons for not completing the geriatric assessment are as follows: clinic visit did not occur (n = 6), no iPad connection to the Internet (n = 3), patient declined (n = 2), prolonged hospitalization (n = 1), and patient died (n = 1). Reasons for needing help, as reported by study personnel, were as follows: the patient preferred that research personnel ask the questions (n = 9), vision problem (n = 3), lack of comfort with the iPad (n = 2), questions were not clear (n = 1), less proficient in English (n = 1), and challenge in pressing the green button to go to the next question (n = 1). CONCLUSION: The electronic geriatric assessment is feasible in a multi-institutional setting that includes a notable proportion of African American or Black patients.

How Did a Multi-Institutional Trial Show Feasibility of Electronic Data Capture in Older Patients With Cancer? Results From a Multi-Institutional Qualitative Study (Alliance A171902).

PURPOSE: New technology might pose problems for older patients with cancer. This study sought to understand how a trial in older patients with cancer (Alliance A171603) was successful in capturing electronic patient-reported data. METHODS: Study personnel were invited via e-mail to participate in semistructured phone interviews, which were audio-recorded and qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Twenty-four study personnel from the 10 sites were interviewed; three themes emerged. The first was that successful patient-reported electronic data capture shifted work toward patients and toward study personnel at the beginning of the study. One interviewee explained, "I mean it kind of lost all advantages…by being extremely laborious." Study personnel described how they ensured electronic devices were charged, wireless internet access was up and running, and login codes were available. The second theme was related to the first and dealt with data filtering. Study personnel described high involvement in data gathering; for example, one interviewee described, "I answered on the iPad, whatever they said. They didn't even want to use it at all." A third theme dealt with advantages of electronic data entry, such as prompt data availability at study completion. Surprisingly, some remarks described how electronic devices brought people together, "Some of the patients, you know, it just gave them a chance to kinda talk about, you know, what was going on." CONCLUSION: High rates of capture of patient-reported electronic data were viewed favorably but occurred in exchange for increased effort from patients and study personnel and in exchange for data that were not always patient-reported in the strictest sense.