Digital Medicine in Men with Advanced Prostate Cancer - A Feasibility Study of Electronic Patient-reported Outcomes in Patients on Systemic Treatment.

AIMS: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures have the potential to improve patient care, both at an individual level by detecting symptoms and at an organisational level to rationalise follow-up. The introduction of ePROs has many challenges, including funding, institutional rigidity and acceptability for both patients and clinicians. There are multiple examples of successful ePRO programmes but no specific feasibility studies in those who are less digitally engaged. Prostate cancer is predominantly a disease of older men and digital exclusion is associated with increased age. We assessed the feasibility of ePRO completion in older men receiving treatment for advanced prostate cancer both within the clinic and from home. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men receiving palliative systemic treatment were asked to complete ePROs on a tablet computer in the outpatient department at 0 and 3 months. Participants were also offered optional completion from home. Feasibility was assessed via a mixed methods approach. RESULTS: On-site ePRO completion was acceptable to most patients, with 90% finding it easy or straightforward and 80% preferring electronic over paper. Remote completion was more challenging, even for those who accessed e-mail daily and owned a tablet, with only 20% of participants successfully completing ePROs. Barriers to electronic completion can be categorised as technical, attitudinal and medical. Quality of life and symptom ePRO results were comparable with published data. CONCLUSIONS: On-site completion is achievable in this population with limited staff support. However, remote completion requires further work to improve systems and acceptability for patients. Remote completion is critical to add significantly to current clinical care by detecting symptoms or stratifying follow-up.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life Following Radiotherapy for Bladder Cancer.

Bladder cancer is the 11th most common cancer in the UK and with an ageing population the incidence is increasing. There is a relative lack of prospective quality of life (QoL) data evaluating the impact of the illness and treatment on QoL and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Here we evaluate the available tools to assess QoL and PROs, and summarise the published data evaluating outcomes in patients treated with radiotherapy for muscle-invasive disease. We also discuss some of the recently completed studies and those ongoing that will help to shape future care and assist in decision making for patients and their clinicians.

Radiotherapy Trial Set-up in the UK: Identifying Inefficiencies and Potential Solutions.

AIMS: Radiotherapy clinical trials are integral to the development of new treatments to improve the outcomes of patients with cancer. A collaborative study by the National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group and the National Institute for Health Research was carried out to understand better if and why inefficiencies occur in the set-up of radiotherapy trials in the UK. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two online surveys collected information on the time taken for UK radiotherapy trials to reach key milestones during set-up and the research support currently being provided to radiotherapy centres to enable efficient clinical trial set-up. Semi-structured interviews with project managers and chief investigators identified better ways of working to improve trial set-up in the future. RESULTS: The timelines for the set-up of 39 UK radiotherapy trials were captured in an online survey showing that the median time from grant approval to trial opening was 600 days (range 169-1172). There were 38 responses from radiotherapy centres to a survey asking about the current support provided for radiotherapy research. Most of these centres have more than one type of staff member dedicated to supporting radiotherapy research. The most frequent barrier to radiotherapy trial set-up identified was lack of physicists' time and lack of time for clinical oncologists to carry out research activities. Four main themes around trial set-up were identified from semi-structured interviews: the importance of communication and building relationships, the previous experience of the chief investigator and clinical trials units, a lack of resources and having the time and personnel required to produce trial documentation and to process trial approval requests. CONCLUSIONS: This unique, collaborative project has provided up to date information about the current landscape of trial set-up and research support in the UK and identified several avenues on which to focus future efforts in order to support the excellent radiotherapy trial work carried out across the UK.

Innovative Solutions for Clinical Trial Follow-up: Adding Value from Nationally Held UK Data.

Clinical trials provide the data that underpin evidence-based oncological practice. Over and above their primary outcome measures, collected and analysed by the clinical trials unit, trials provide an opportunity to generate a wide range of additional information over a prolonged period of time. Nationally held data have potential to facilitate longer term follow-up and explore associated toxicities and downstream consequences and in the UK include data from secondary care, including hospital episode statistics, national chemotherapy and radiotherapy datasets and primary care records. Specific to use in oncological practice, the National Cancer Data Repository contains linked data from a variety of sources for patients with a diagnosis of cancer, both cancer and non-cancer related. The challenge of using these data in clinical trials relates to the need to extract identifiable patient data, with the associated ethical and legal issues. The data access processes are time consuming and require evidence of information governance compliance. This overview article reviews the current data available, the current and potential uses both within and outside clinical trials and the challenges encountered in the process of acquiring data. We focus specifically on the use of nationally held data for non-cancer outcomes, including toxicity and associated conditions.