Literature DB >> 32970482

Use of Wearable Activity Tracker in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy: Toward Evaluating Risk of Unplanned Health Care Encounters.

Tanachat Nilanon1,2, Luciano P Nocera2, Alexander S Martin3, Anand Kolatkar4,5, Marcella May6, Zaki Hasnain7, Naoto T Ueno8, Sriram Yennu9, Angela Alexander10, Aaron E Mejia11, Roger Wilson Boles3, Ming Li3,11, Jerry S H Lee12, Sean E Hanlon12, Frankie A Cozzens Philips12, David I Quinn3,11,13, Paul K Newton7,11,14, Joan Broderick6, Cyrus Shahabi1,2, Peter Kuhn3,5,7,11,15, Jorge J Nieva3,11,13.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Unplanned health care encounters (UHEs) such as emergency room visits can occur commonly during cancer chemotherapy treatments. Patients at an increased risk of UHEs are typically identified by clinicians using performance status (PS) assessments based on a descriptive scale, such as the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale. Such assessments can be bias prone, resulting in PS score disagreements between assessors. We therefore propose to evaluate PS using physical activity measurements (eg, energy expenditure) from wearable activity trackers. Specifically, we examined the feasibility of using a wristband (band) and a smartphone app for PS assessments.
METHODS: We conducted an observational study on a cohort of patients with solid tumor receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy. Patients were instructed to wear the band for a 60-day activity-tracking period. During clinic visits, we obtained ECOG scores assessed by physicians, coordinators, and patients themselves. UHEs occurring during the activity-tracking period plus a 90-day follow-up period were later compiled. We defined our primary outcome as the percentage of patients adherent to band-wear ≥ 80% of 10 am to 8 pm for ≥ 80% of the activity-tracking period. In an exploratory analysis, we computed hourly metabolic equivalent of task (MET) and counted 10 am to 8 pm hours with > 1.5 METs as nonsedentary physical activity hours.
RESULTS: Forty-one patients completed the study (56.1% female; 61.0% age 40-60 years); 68% were adherent to band-wear. ECOG score disagreement between assessors ranged from 35.3% to 50.0%. In our exploratory analysis, lower average METs and nonsedentary hours, but not higher ECOG scores, were associated with higher 150-day UHEs.
CONCLUSION: The use of a wearable activity tracker is generally feasible in a similar population of patients with cancer. A larger randomized controlled trial should be conducted to confirm the association between lower nonsedentary hours and higher UHEs.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32970482      PMCID: PMC7531613          DOI: 10.1200/CCI.20.00023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform        ISSN: 2473-4276


  20 in total

1.  In-patient step count predicts re-hospitalization after cardiac surgery.

Authors:  Tetsuya Takahashi; Megumi Kumamaru; Sue Jenkins; Masakazu Saitoh; Tomoyuki Morisawa; Hikaru Matsuda
Journal:  J Cardiol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Effects of a multiple health behavior change intervention for colorectal cancer survivors on psychosocial outcomes and quality of life: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Anna L Hawkes; Kenneth I Pakenham; Suzanne K Chambers; Tania A Patrao; Kerry S Courneya
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2014-12

3.  Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group.

Authors:  M M Oken; R H Creech; D C Tormey; J Horton; T E Davis; E T McFadden; P P Carbone
Journal:  Am J Clin Oncol       Date:  1982-12       Impact factor: 2.339

4.  The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years.

Authors:  David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  Cancer, physical activity, and exercise.

Authors:  Justin C Brown; Kerri Winters-Stone; Augustine Lee; Kathryn H Schmitz
Journal:  Compr Physiol       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 9.090

Review 6.  Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers.

Authors:  Kelly R Evenson; Michelle M Goto; Robert D Furberg
Journal:  Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act       Date:  2015-12-18       Impact factor: 6.457

7.  Can a Free Wearable Activity Tracker Change Behavior? The Impact of Trackers on Adults in a Physician-Led Wellness Group.

Authors:  Lisa Gualtieri; Sandra Rosenbluth; Jeffrey Phillips
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2016-11-30

8.  Accuracy in Wrist-Worn, Sensor-Based Measurements of Heart Rate and Energy Expenditure in a Diverse Cohort.

Authors:  Anna Shcherbina; C Mikael Mattsson; Daryl Waggott; Heidi Salisbury; Jeffrey W Christle; Trevor Hastie; Matthew T Wheeler; Euan A Ashley
Journal:  J Pers Med       Date:  2017-05-24

9.  Patient reported outcomes can improve performance status assessment: a pilot study.

Authors:  Joan E Broderick; Marcella May; Joseph E Schwartz; Ming Li; Aaron Mejia; Luciano Nocera; Anand Kolatkar; Naoto T Ueno; Sriram Yennu; Jerry S H Lee; Sean E Hanlon; Frankie A Cozzens Philips; Cyrus Shahabi; Peter Kuhn; Jorge Nieva
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2019-07-16

10.  Wearable activity monitors to assess performance status and predict clinical outcomes in advanced cancer patients.

Authors:  Steven Piantadosi; Arvind M Shinde; Gillian Gresham; Andrew E Hendifar; Brennan Spiegel; Elad Neeman; Richard Tuli; B J Rimel; Robert A Figlin; Curtis L Meinert
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2018-07-05
View more
  4 in total

1.  Pilot Study of a Wearable Activity Monitor During Head and Neck Radiotherapy to Predict Clinical Outcomes.

Authors:  David J Sher; Sepeadeh Radpour; Jennifer L Shah; Nhat-Long Pham; Steve Jiang; Dat Vo; Baran D Sumer; Andrew T Day
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2022-03

Review 2.  Holistic Needs Assessment of Cancer Survivors-Supporting the Process Through Digital Monitoring of Circadian Physiology.

Authors:  Max Gibb; Hannah Winter; Sandra Komarzynski; Nicholas I Wreglesworth; Pasquale F Innominato
Journal:  Integr Cancer Ther       Date:  2022 Jan-Dec       Impact factor: 3.077

3.  Deep-Learning Approach to Predict Survival Outcomes Using Wearable Actigraphy Device Among End-Stage Cancer Patients.

Authors:  Tien Yun Yang; Pin-Yu Kuo; Yaoru Huang; Hsiao-Wei Lin; Shwetambara Malwade; Long-Sheng Lu; Lung-Wen Tsai; Shabbir Syed-Abdul; Chia-Wei Sun; Jeng-Fong Chiou
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-12-09

Review 4.  The association between wearable activity monitor metrics and performance status in oncology: a systematic review.

Authors:  Milan Kos; Esther N Pijnappel; Laurien M Buffart; Britt R Balvers; Caroline S Kampshoff; Johanna W Wilmink; Hanneke W M van Laarhoven; Martijn G H van Oijen
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-06-12       Impact factor: 3.603

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.