Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
CASTLE: Cancer Survivorship and Treatment, Late Effects National Research Center, Blegdamsvej 58, 2100, Copehnagen Ø, Denmark.
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2023 Oct 9;7(1):99. doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00640-5.
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are getting widely implemented, but little is known of the impact of applying PROs in specific cancer diagnoses. We report the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the active use of PROs in patients with locally advanced or metastatic bladder cancer (BC) undergoing medical oncological treatment (MOT) with focus on determining the clinical effects of using PROs during chemo- or immunotherapy compared to standard of care.
We recruited patients from four departments of oncology from 2019 to 2021. Inclusion criteria were locally advanced or metastatic BC, initiating chemo- or immunotherapy. Patients were randomized 1:1 between answering selected PRO-CTCAE questions electronically once weekly with a built-in alert-algorithm instructing patients of how to handle reported symptoms as a supplement to standard of care for handling of side effects (intervention arm (IA)) vs standard procedure for handling of side effects (control arm (CA)). No real-time alerts were sent to the clinic when PROs exceeded threshold values. Clinicians were prompted to view the completed PROs in the IA at each clinical visit. The co-primary clinical endpoints were hospital admissions and treatment completion rate. Secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), quality of life (EORTC's QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BLM30) and dose reductions.
228 patients with BC were included, 76% were male. 141 (62%) of the patients had metastatic disease. 51% of patients in the IA completed treatment vs. 56% of patients in the CA, OR 0.83 (95% CI 0.47-1.44, p = 0.51). 41% of patients in the IA experienced hospitalization vs. 32% in the CA, OR 1.48 (95% CI 0.83-2.65, p = 0.17). OS was comparable between the two arms (IA: median 22.3mo (95% CI 17.0-NR) vs. CA: median 23.1mo (95% CI 17.7-NR). Patient and clinician compliance was high throughout the study period (80% vs 94%).
This RCT did not show an effect of PRO on completion of treatment, hospitalizations or OS for BC patients during MOT despite a high level of patient and clinician compliance. The lack of real-time response to alerts remains the greatest limitation to this study.
患者报告的结果(PROs)正在得到广泛应用,但对于在特定癌症诊断中应用 PROs 的影响知之甚少。我们报告了一项在接受医学肿瘤治疗(MOT)的局部晚期或转移性膀胱癌(BC)患者中积极应用 PROs 的随机对照试验(RCT)的结果,重点是确定在化疗或免疫治疗期间使用 PROs 与标准护理相比的临床效果。
我们从 2019 年至 2021 年从四个肿瘤学部门招募了患者。纳入标准为局部晚期或转移性 BC,开始接受化疗或免疫治疗。患者以 1:1 的比例随机分为两组,一组每周通过内置警报算法回答选定的 PRO-CTCAE 问题,告知患者如何处理报告的症状,作为处理副作用的标准护理的补充(干预组(IA)),另一组为处理副作用的标准程序(对照组(CA))。当 PROs 超过阈值时,不会向诊所发送实时警报。临床医生在每次就诊时都会提示查看 IA 中完成的 PROs。主要临床终点是住院和治疗完成率。次要终点是总生存(OS)、生活质量(EORTC 的 QLQ-C30 和 QLQ-BLM30)和剂量减少。
共纳入 228 例 BC 患者,76%为男性。141 例(62%)患者患有转移性疾病。IA 组中 51%的患者完成了治疗,而 CA 组中 56%的患者完成了治疗,OR 为 0.83(95%CI 0.47-1.44,p=0.51)。IA 组中 41%的患者住院,而 CA 组中 32%的患者住院,OR 为 1.48(95%CI 0.83-2.65,p=0.17)。两组之间的 OS 无差异(IA:中位 22.3 个月(95%CI 17.0-NR)vs. CA:中位 23.1 个月(95%CI 17.7-NR))。在整个研究期间,患者和临床医生的依从性都很高(80%对 94%)。
尽管患者和临床医生的依从性很高,但这项 RCT 并未显示 PRO 对 MOT 期间 BC 患者的治疗完成率、住院率或 OS 有影响。对警报的实时响应缺乏仍然是这项研究的最大限制。