Digitalization of adverse event management in oncology to improve treatment outcome-A prospective study protocol

Angelika M R Kestler, Silke D Kühlwein, Johann M Kraus, Julian D Schwab, Robin Szekely, Patrick Thiam, Rolf Hühne, Niels Jahn, Axel Fürstberger, Nensi Ikonomi, Julien Balig, Rainer Schuler, Peter Kuhn, Florian Steger, Thomas Seufferlein, Hans A Kestler, Angelika M R Kestler, Silke D Kühlwein, Johann M Kraus, Julian D Schwab, Robin Szekely, Patrick Thiam, Rolf Hühne, Niels Jahn, Axel Fürstberger, Nensi Ikonomi, Julien Balig, Rainer Schuler, Peter Kuhn, Florian Steger, Thomas Seufferlein, Hans A Kestler

Abstract

The occurrence of adverse events frequently accompanies tumor treatments. Side effects should be detected and treated as soon as possible to maintain the best possible treatment outcome. Besides the standard reporting system Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), physicians have recognized the potential of patient-reporting systems. These are based on a more subjective description of current patient reporting symptoms. Patient-reported symptoms are essential to define the impact of a given treatment on the quality of life and the patient's wellbeing. They also act against an underreporting of side effects which are paramount to define the actual value of a treatment for the individual patient. Here, we present a study protocol for a clinical trial that assesses the potential of a smartphone application for CTCAE conform symptom reporting and tracking that is adjusted to the standard clinical reporting system rather than symptom oriented descriptive trial tools. The presented study will be implemented in two parts, both lasting over six months. The first part will assess the feasibility of the application with 30 patients non-randomly divided into three equally-sized age groups (<55years, 55-75years, >75years). In the second part 36 other patients will be randomly assigned to two groups, one reporting using the smartphone and one not. This prospective second part will compare the impact of smartphone reported adverse events regarding applied therapy doses and quality of life to those of patients receiving standard care. We aim for early detection and treatment of adverse events in oncological treatment to improve patients' safety and outcomes. For this purpose, we will capture frequent adverse events of chemotherapies, immunotherapies, or other targeted therapies with our smartphone application. The presented trial is registered at the U.S. National Library of Medicine ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04493450) on July 30, 2020.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1. Second part trial design.
Fig 1. Second part trial design.
Patients who are treated with infusional combination therapy will report their occurred adverse events (symptoms) every two months to physicians. Group 1 will use a smartphone app with standardized answers to report symptoms while it depends on the patients of group 2 which symptoms they report.
Fig 2. Sample size estimation.
Fig 2. Sample size estimation.
Sample size calculation for the Mann-Whitney test given an effect size of d = 1, a type I error rate α = 0.05, a power of 80% led to a required sample size of 36 participants, separated into two groups of 18 individuals each.
Fig 3. NEMO smartphone app.
Fig 3. NEMO smartphone app.
(a) In the settings, users can choose between two therapy schemes and the corresponding questionnaires as well if they want a reminder to daily answer the questionnaire or whether they prefer to hear possible answers with a male or female voice. (b) If the smartphone app opens, the questionnaire about occurred adverse events can be started by clicking on the plus button. (c,d) Each issue is depicted on an independent site and can be passed by answering the question. An obvious color scheme with high contrast indicates the scoring of the side effect. (e) Information about the current weight or pulse can be entered with a predefined picker to avoid misinterpretation by different scales. (f) Furthermore, patients can enter a comment. (g) At the end of the questionnaire, all given answers are summarized and can be changed if the answer is not correct. (h) If the family doctor adjusts the medication, the physician in the clinic can be informed by pressing the button “medication changed”. The meaning of buttons and settings is explained by short descriptions (e.g. please press the button if there was a general change for medication).
Fig 4. Secure data transfer.
Fig 4. Secure data transfer.
If a patient is willing to transfer its data, a QR code can be generated on the mobile phone (a) that allows secure data transfer via scanning (b). Example of the data transfer from the mobile phone to the desktop computer (image copyright Institute of Medical Systems Biology, Ulm University).
Fig 5. Visualization of transferred adverse events.
Fig 5. Visualization of transferred adverse events.
The physician in charge can display patients’ transferred data of occurred adverse events as a line plot (a) or heat map (b). This allows a fast and easy analysis.

References

    1. Martins F, Sofiy L, Sykiotis GP, Lamine F, Maillard M, Fraga M, et al.. Adverse effects of immune-checkpoint inhibitors: epidemiology, management and surveillance. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2019;16:563–580. doi: 10.1038/s41571-019-0218-0
    1. Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Mitchell SA, Mendoza TR, Reeve BB, Atkinson TM, et al.. Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2016;14(24). doi: 10.1186/s12955-016-0426-6
    1. Di Maio M, Basch E, Bryce J, Perrone F. Patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of toxicity of anticancer treatments. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. 2016;13:319–325. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2015.222
    1. Kluetz PG, Chingos DT, Basch EM, Mitchell SA. Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Measuring Symptomatic Adverse Events With the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book. 2016;36:67–73. doi: 10.1200/EDBK_159514
    1. Xiao C, Polomano R, Bruner DW. Comparison between patient-reported and clinician-observed symptoms in oncology. Cancer Nursing. 2013;36(6):E1–E16. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e318269040f
    1. Andikyan V, Rezk Y, Einstein MH, Gualtiere G, Leitao MM, Sonoda Y, et al.. A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a Web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecologic Oncology. 2012;127(2):273–277. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.07.124
    1. Baeksted C, Pappot H, Nissen A, Hjollund NH, Mitchell SA, Basch E, et al.. Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. 2017;1(1). doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6
    1. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N, Theiler R. Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. 2005;64(1):80–84. doi: 10.1136/ard.2003.019307
    1. Benze G, Nauck F, Alt-Epping B, Gianni G, Bauknecht T, Ettl J, et al.. PROutine: a feasibility study assessing surveillance of electronic patient reported outcomes and adherence via smartphone app in advanced cancer. Annals of Palliative Medicine. 2019;8(2). doi: 10.21037/apm.2017.07.05
    1. Basch E, Wood WA, Schrag D, Sima CS, Shaw M, Rogak LJ, et al.. Feasibility and clinical impact of sharing patient-reported symptom toxicities and performance status with clinical investigators during a phase 2 cancer treatment trial. Clinical Trials. 2016;13(3):331–337. doi: 10.1177/1740774515615540
    1. Basch E, Pugh SL, Dueck AC, Mitchell SA, Berk L, Fogh S, et al.. Feasibility of Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a Chemoradiotherapy Cooperative Group Multicenter Clinical Trial. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics. 2017;98(2):409–418. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.02.002
    1. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC, et al.. Development of the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014;106(9). doi: 10.1093/jnci/dju244
    1. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, Barz A, Sit L, Fruscione M, et al.. Adverse Symptom Event Reporting by Patients vs Clinicians: Relationships With Clinical Outcomes. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2009;101(23):1624–1632. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp386
    1. Falchook AD, Green R, Knowles ME, Amdur RJ, Mendenhall W, Hayes DN, et al.. Comparison of Patient- and Practitioner-Reported Toxic Effects Associated With Chemoradiotherapy for Head and Neck Cancer. JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery. 2016;142(6):517–523. doi: 10.1001/jamaoto.2016.0656
    1. Dueck AC, Mendoza TR, Mitchell SA, Reeve BB, Castro KM, Rogak LJ, et al.. Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). JAMA Oncology. 2015;1(8):1051–1059. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.2639
    1. Howlader N, Noone KM AM, Miller D, Brest A, Yu M, Rul J, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2016, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD; based on November 2018 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, April 2019.
    1. Holzinger A, Searle G, Nischelwitzer A. On some aspects of improving mobile applications for the elderly. In: 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. LNCS 4554. Springer; 2007. p. 923–932.
    1. Jin ZX, Plocher T, Kiff L. Touch Screen User Interface for Older Adults: Button Size and Spacing. In: 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. LNCS 4554. Springer; 2007. p. 933–941.
    1. Kim H, Heo J, Shim J, Kim M, Park S, Park S. Contextual Research on Elderly Users’s Needs for Developing Universal Design Mobile Phone. In: 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. LNCS 4554. Springer; 2007. p. 950–959.
    1. Olwal A, Lachanas D, Zacharouli E. OldGen: Mobile Phone Personalization for Older Adults. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI’11. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery; 2011. p. 3393–3396.
    1. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al.. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A Quality-of-Life Instrument for Use in International Clinical Trials in Oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1993;85(5):365–376. doi: 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
    1. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods. 2007;39:175–191. doi: 10.3758/BF03193146
    1. Fayers P, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A, et al.. The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual (3rd Edition). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer; 2001.
    1. Jonckheere A. A distribution-free k-sample test against ordered alternatives. Biometrika. 1954;41.
    1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. 2020;70(1):7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21590
    1. Hłobaż A, Podlaski K, Milczarski P. Applications of QR Codes in Secure Mobile Data Exchange. In: Kwiecień A, Gaj P, Stera P, editors. Computer Networks. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2014. p. 277–286.
    1. Basch E, Iasonos A, Barz A, Culkin A, Kris MG, Artz D, et al.. Long-Term Toxicity Monitoring via Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Receiving Chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2007;25(34):5374–5380. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.2243

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir