Ethan Basch1, William A Wood2, Deborah Schrag3, Camelia S Sima4, Mary Shaw4, Lauren J Rogak4, Mark G Kris5, Marwan Shouery4, Antonia Bennett2, Thomas Atkinson6, M Catherine Pietanza5. 1. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ebasch@med.unc.edu. 2. Cancer Outcomes Research Program, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 3. Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Thoracic Oncology Service, Division of Solid Tumor Oncology, Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 6. Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians can miss up to half of patients' symptomatic toxicities in cancer clinical trials and routine practice. Although patient-reported outcome questionnaires have been developed to capture this information, it is unclear whether clinicians will make use of patient-reported outcomes to inform their own toxicity documentation, or to prompt symptom management activities. METHODS: 44 lung cancer patients that participated in a phase 2 treatment trial self-reported 13 symptomatic toxicities derived from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Karnofsky Performance Status via tablet computers in waiting areas immediately preceding scheduled visits. During visits, clinicians viewed patients' self-reported toxicity and performance status ratings on a computer interface and could agree or disagree/reassign grades ("shared" reporting). Agreement of clinicians with patient-reported grades was tabulated, and compared using weighted kappa statistics. Clinical actions in response to patient-reported severe (grade 3/4) toxicities were measured (e.g. treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, supportive medications). For comparison, 45 non-trial patients with lung cancer being treated in the same clinic by the same physicians were simultaneously enrolled in a parallel cohort study in which patients also self-reported toxicity grades but reports were not shared with clinicians ("non-shared" reporting). RESULTS: Toxicities and performance status were reported by patients and reviewed by clinicians at (780/782) 99.7% of study visits in the phase 2 trial which used "shared" reporting. Clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time with kappas 0.82-0.92. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of severe patient-reported toxicities. In the "non-shared" reporting comparison group, clinicians agreed with patients 56% of the time with kappas 0.04-0.48 (significantly worse than shared reporting for all symptoms), and clinical actions were taken in response to 44% of severe patient-reported toxicities. CONCLUSION: Clinicians will frequently agree with patient-reported symptoms and performance status, and will use this information to guide documentation and symptom management. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00807573).
BACKGROUND: Clinicians can miss up to half of patients' symptomatic toxicities in cancer clinical trials and routine practice. Although patient-reported outcome questionnaires have been developed to capture this information, it is unclear whether clinicians will make use of patient-reported outcomes to inform their own toxicity documentation, or to prompt symptom management activities. METHODS: 44 lung cancerpatients that participated in a phase 2 treatment trial self-reported 13 symptomatic toxicities derived from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Karnofsky Performance Status via tablet computers in waiting areas immediately preceding scheduled visits. During visits, clinicians viewed patients' self-reported toxicity and performance status ratings on a computer interface and could agree or disagree/reassign grades ("shared" reporting). Agreement of clinicians with patient-reported grades was tabulated, and compared using weighted kappa statistics. Clinical actions in response to patient-reported severe (grade 3/4) toxicities were measured (e.g. treatment discontinuation, dose reduction, supportive medications). For comparison, 45 non-trial patients with lung cancer being treated in the same clinic by the same physicians were simultaneously enrolled in a parallel cohort study in which patients also self-reported toxicity grades but reports were not shared with clinicians ("non-shared" reporting). RESULTS:Toxicities and performance status were reported by patients and reviewed by clinicians at (780/782) 99.7% of study visits in the phase 2 trial which used "shared" reporting. Clinicians agreed with patients 93% of the time with kappas 0.82-0.92. Clinical actions were taken in response to 67% of severe patient-reported toxicities. In the "non-shared" reporting comparison group, clinicians agreed with patients 56% of the time with kappas 0.04-0.48 (significantly worse than shared reporting for all symptoms), and clinical actions were taken in response to 44% of severe patient-reported toxicities. CONCLUSION: Clinicians will frequently agree with patient-reported symptoms and performance status, and will use this information to guide documentation and symptom management. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00807573).
Authors: Carolyn Miller Reilly; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Sandra A Mitchell; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch; Amylou C Dueck; David Cella; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Ethan Basch; David Artz; Alexia Iasonos; John Speakman; Kevin Shannon; Kai Lin; Charmaine Pun; Henry Yong; Paul Fearn; Allison Barz; Howard I Scher; Mary McCabe; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Caitlin C Murphy; Simon J Craddock Lee; David E Gerber; John V Cox; Hannah M Fullington; Robin T Higashi Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-06-20
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Lauren J Rogak; Narre Heon; Sean J Ryan; Mary Shaw; Liora P Stark; Antonia V Bennett; Ethan Basch; Yuelin Li Journal: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Date: 2017-01-16 Impact factor: 4.553
Authors: Kirsten A Nyrop; Allison M Deal; Shlomit S Shachar; Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Seul Ki Choi; Jordan T Lee; William A Wood; Carey K Anders; Lisa A Carey; Elizabeth C Dees; Trevor A Jolly; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Gretchen G Kimmick; Meghan S Karuturi; Raquel E Reinbolt; JoEllen C Speca; Hyman B Muss Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: M C Pietanza; Matthew D Hellmann; John J Fiore; Stephanie Smith-Marrone; Ethan M Basch; Lawrence H Schwartz; Michelle S Ginsberg; Marwan Shouery; Samantha K Newman; Mary Shaw; Lauren J Rogak; Alex E Lash; Patrick Hilden; Mark G Kris Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-08 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Margaret Bevans; Areej El-Jawahri; D Kathryn Tierney; Lori Wiener; William A Wood; Flora Hoodin; Erin E Kent; Paul B Jacobsen; Stephanie J Lee; Matthew M Hsieh; Ellen M Denzen; Karen L Syrjala Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Ethan Basch; Amylou C Dueck; Lauren J Rogak; Sandra A Mitchell; Lori M Minasian; Andrea M Denicoff; Jennifer K Wind; Mary C Shaw; Narre Heon; Qian Shi; Brenda Ginos; Garth D Nelson; Jeffrey P Meyers; George J Chang; Harvey J Mamon; Martin R Weiser; Tatjana Kolevska; Bryce B Reeve; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 44.544