The Effect of Collaborative Reviews of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on the Congruence of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Toxicity in Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) are a relatively novel form of data and have the potential to improve clinical practice for cancer patients. In this prospective, multicenter, observational clinical trial, efforts were made to demonstrate the reliability of patient-reported symptoms. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement κ between symptom ratings by physicians and patients via a shared review process in order to determine the future reliability and utility of self-reported electronic symptom monitoring. METHODS: Patients receiving systemic therapy in a (neo-)adjuvant or noncurative intention setting captured ePRO for 52 symptoms over an observational period of 90 days. At 3-week intervals, randomly selected symptoms were reviewed between the patient and physician for congruency on severity of the grading of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-physician agreement for the symptom review was assessed via Cohen kappa (κ), through which the interrater reliability was calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether the patient-reported outcome was different among symptoms, types of cancer, demographics, and physicians' experience. RESULTS: Among the 181 patients (158 women and 23 men; median age 54.4 years), there was a fair scoring agreement (κ=0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.33) for symptoms that were entered 2 to 4 weeks before the intended review (first rating) and a moderate agreement (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.34-0.48) for symptoms that were entered within 1 week of the intended review (second rating). However, the level of agreement increased from moderate (first rating, κ=0.43) to substantial (second rating, κ=0.68) for common symptoms of pain, fever, diarrhea, obstipation, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis. Similar congruency levels of ratings were found for the most frequently entered symptoms (first rating: κ=0.42; second rating: κ=0.65). The symptom with the lowest agreement was hair loss (κ=-0.05). With regard to the latency of symptom entry into the review, hardly any difference was demonstrated between symptoms that were entered from days 1 to 3 and from days 4 to 7 before the intended review (κ=0.40 vs κ=0.39, respectively). In contrast, for symptoms that were entered 15 to 21 days before the intended review, no congruency was demonstrated (κ=-0.15). Congruency levels seemed to be unrelated to the type of cancer, demographics, and physicians' review experience. CONCLUSIONS: The shared monitoring and review of symptoms between patients and clinicians has the potential to improve the understanding of patient self-reporting. Our data indicate that the integration of ePRO into oncological clinical research and continuous clinical practice provides reliable information for self-empowerment and the timely intervention of symptoms. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731.

Patient preferences for allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation: how much benefit is worthwhile from the patient's perspective?

Oncological studies have shown that patients consider small benefits sufficient to make adjuvant chemotherapy worthwhile. We sought to determine the minimal survival benefits that patients considered enough to legitimate allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and the factors associated with patient preferences. One hundred eighty-four patients having previously received allogeneic HCT at our centre were included and completed a questionnaire exploring patient expectations elicited by time trade-off scenarios as well as quality of life (QoL), symptoms of graft-versus host disease (GvHD) and sociodemographic characteristics. The majority of patients considered a minimal survival benefit of at least 5 (38.6%) or 10 years (41.9%) sufficient to justify HCT, with less than 5% considering survival < 1 year sufficient to warrant HCT. In terms of minimal cure rate, a cumulative 14.8% of patients accepted cure rates below 30% and 30.6% rates below 50%. Likelihood-ratio tests were significant for the effect of age at transplant on expected minimal survival (p = 0.007) and cure rates (p = 0.0001); that is, younger patients at HCT were more likely to accept smaller survival and cure rates. Pre-transplant risk score, QoL, GvHD score and sociological factors did not seem to influence patients' expectations. In conclusion, patient expectations of treatment were much higher than what had been reported in oncological studies. Patients who experienced HCT considered a survival superior to 1 year and cure rates above 50% sufficient to make it worthwhile. Younger patients were more likely to accept smaller benefits; no other predictors for preferences could be detected.