PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS: PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION: These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.
PURPOSE: There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems. METHODS: PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians. RESULTS: Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often. CONCLUSION: These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.
Authors: Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen M Castro; Lauren J Rogak; Thomas M Atkinson; Antonia V Bennett; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B Clauser; Donna M Bryant; James D Bearden; Theresa A Gillis; Jay K Harness; Robert D Siegel; Diane B Paul; Charles S Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A Sloan; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Yuelin Li; Charles W Coffey; Laura Sit; Mary Shaw; Dawn Lavene; Antonia V Bennett; Mike Fruscione; Lauren Rogak; Jennifer Hay; Mithat Gönen; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-10-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Charles S Cleeland; Fengmin Zhao; Victor T Chang; Jeff A Sloan; Ann M O'Mara; Paul B Gilman; Matthias Weiss; Tito R Mendoza; Ju-Whei Lee; Michael J Fisch Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-24 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Angela M Stover; Carrie Tompkins Stricker; Karen Hammelef; Sydney Henson; Philip Carr; Jennifer Jansen; Allison M Deal; Antonia V Bennett; Ethan M Basch Journal: Med Care Date: 2019-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Tito R Mendoza; Amylou C Dueck; Antonia V Bennett; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Thomas M Atkinson; Yuelin Li; Kathleen M Castro; Andrea Denicoff; Lauren J Rogak; Richard L Piekarz; Charles S Cleeland; Jeff A Sloan; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2017-03-20 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: David H Henry; Hema N Viswanathan; Eric P Elkin; Shana Traina; Shawn Wade; David Cella Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2008-01-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Martin W Schoen; Ethan Basch; Lori L Hudson; Arlene E Chung; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Diane St Germain; Paul Baumgartner; Laura Sit; Lauren J Rogak; Marwan Shouery; Eve Shalley; Bryce B Reeve; Maria R Fawzy; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Charles Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Amylou C Dueck; Amy P Abernethy Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2018-07-16
Authors: Joseph Ali; Stephanie R Morain; P Pearl O'Rourke; Benjamin Wilfond; Emily C O'Brien; Christina K Zigler; Karen L Staman; Kevin P Weinfurt; Jeremy Sugarman Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Ethan Basch; Deborah Schrag; Sydney Henson; Jennifer Jansen; Brenda Ginos; Angela M Stover; Philip Carr; Patricia A Spears; Mattias Jonsson; Allison M Deal; Antonia V Bennett; Gita Thanarajasingam; Lauren J Rogak; Bryce B Reeve; Claire Snyder; Deborah Bruner; David Cella; Lisa A Kottschade; Jane Perlmutter; Cindy Geoghegan; Cleo A Samuel-Ryals; Barbara Given; Gina L Mazza; Robert Miller; Jon F Strasser; Dylan M Zylla; Anna Weiss; Victoria S Blinder; Amylou C Dueck Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-06-28 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Matthew R LeBlanc; Ashley Leak Bryant; Thomas W LeBlanc; Qing Yang; Emily Sellars; Cristiana Costa Chase; Sophia K Smith Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Olivier Mir; Marie Ferrua; Aude Fourcade; Delphine Mathivon; Adeline Duflot-Boukobza; Sarah Dumont; Eric Baudin; Suzette Delaloge; David Malka; Laurence Albiges; Patricia Pautier; Caroline Robert; David Planchard; Stéphane de Botton; Florian Scotté; François Lemare; May Abbas; Marilène Guillet; Vanessa Puglisi; Mario Di Palma; Etienne Minvielle Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-04-25 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Erin E Kent; Eliza M Park; William A Wood; Ashley Leak Bryant; Michelle A Mollica Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Suneetha Devpura; Aharon M Feldman; Samuel D Rusu; Essa Mayyas; Avielle Movsas; Stephen L Brown; Andrew Cook; Michael J Simoff; Zhen Sun; Mei Lu; Sean Vance; Munther I Ajlouni; M Salim Siddiqui; Indrin J Chetty; Benjamin Movsas Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2021-09-29