Electronic symptom monitoring in patients with metastatic lung cancer: a feasibility study

Rasmus Blechingberg Friis, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Caroline Trillingsgaard Mejdahl, Helle Pappot, Halla Skuladottir, Rasmus Blechingberg Friis, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Caroline Trillingsgaard Mejdahl, Helle Pappot, Halla Skuladottir

Abstract

Objectives: To design an electronic questionnaire for symptom monitoring and to evaluate the feasibility, usability and acceptability when applied to patients with metastatic lung cancer.

Setting: Single-centre feasibility study.

Participants: Patients with stage IV lung cancer in antineoplastic treatment.

Interventions: This study describes the first three phases of a complex intervention design: phase 1, development of the intervention; phase 2, feasibility testing and phase 3, evaluation of the intervention. In phase 1, items were selected for the questionnaire and adjusted following patient interviews. In phase 2, patients completed the electronic questionnaire weekly during a 3-week feasibility test. In case of symptom deterioration, a nurse was notified with the aim to contact the patient. In phase 3, patients evaluated phase 2 by paper questionnaires, and interviews were conducted with the participating nurses.

Primary outcome measures: The study outcomes: phase 1, usability and relevance; phase 2, recruitment rate, compliance and threshold functionality and phase 3, usability, acceptability and relevance.

Results: In phase 1, a questionnaire was designed and reviewed by patients (n=8). The interviews revealed high usability and relevance of the intervention.For phases 2 and 3, 20 of 29 approached patients (69%) responded to the questionnaire on a weekly basis. Two patients did not complete any questionnaires (compliance 90%). The remaining 18 patients completed 65 of a total of 72 possible questionnaires (7 missed, 93% completed). Reported symptoms led to a phone call from a nurse in 30% of the responses.The patients reported high usability and acceptability of questionnaire and software. The substance of the telephonic conversations was relevant, and the study set-up was logistically acceptable.

Conclusions: An electronic questionnaire designed for symptom monitoring revealed high usability, acceptability and relevance in the target population. In conclusion, the study set-up was considered feasible for a randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration number: NCT03529851.

Keywords: interstitial lung disease; oncology; telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The logistic set-up. Symptoms are reported weekly via the internet. Patients who have reported symptoms that require attention are placed on a notification list. The symptom chart is reviewed daily by a nurse who contacts the patients. ePRO, electronic patient-reported outcome.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, et al. . Global cancer Observatory: cancer today. Lyon, France: IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2018.
    1. Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N. NORDCAN: cancer incidence, mortality, prevalence and survival in the Nordic countries. Version 8.2 Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society, 2016.
    1. Statistics Denmark Statistics Denmark - Mortality Denmark 2012-2016. Available: [Accessed 13 Aug 2019].
    1. Lutz S, Norrell R, Bertucio C, et al. . Symptom frequency and severity in patients with metastatic or locally recurrent lung cancer: a prospective study using the lung cancer symptom scale in a community hospital. J Palliat Med 2001;4:157–65. 10.1089/109662101750290191
    1. Iyer S, Taylor-Stokes G, Roughley A. Symptom burden and quality of life in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients in France and Germany. Lung Cancer 2013;81:288–93. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.03.008
    1. Simmons CP, Koinis F, Fallon MT, et al. . Prognosis in advanced lung cancer—a prospective study examining key clinicopathological factors. Lung Cancer 2015;88:304–9. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2015.03.020
    1. Ambroggi M, Biasini C, Toscani I, et al. . Can early palliative care with anticancer treatment improve overall survival and patient-related outcomes in advanced lung cancer patients? A review of the literature. Support Care Cancer 2018;26:2945–53. 10.1007/s00520-018-4184-3
    1. Atkinson TM, Dueck AC, Satele DV, et al. . Clinician vs patient reporting of baseline and Postbaseline symptoms for adverse event assessment in cancer clinical trials. JAMA Oncol 2019:jamaoncol.2019.5566. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.5566
    1. Pakhomov SV, Jacobsen SJ, Chute CG, et al. . Agreement between patient-reported symptoms and their documentation in the medical record. Am J Manag Care 2008;14:530–9.
    1. Laugsand EA, Sprangers MAG, Bjordal K, et al. . Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:104. 10.1186/1477-7525-8-104
    1. Homsi J, Walsh D, Rivera N, et al. . Symptom evaluation in palliative medicine: patient report vs systematic assessment. Support Care Cancer 2006;14:444–53. 10.1007/s00520-005-0009-2
    1. Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, et al. . What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1480–501. 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948
    1. Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, et al. . Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res 2016;5:507–19. 10.2217/cer-2015-0014
    1. Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, et al. . Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract 2014;10:e215–22. 10.1200/JOP.2013.001067
    1. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:336–47. 10.3322/caac.21150
    1. Denis F, Lethrosne C, Pourel N, et al. . Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017;109:1–8. 10.1093/jnci/djx029
    1. Denis F, Basch E, Septans AL, et al. . Two-Year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA 2019;321:jama.2018.18085:306. 10.1001/jama.2018.18085
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, et al. . Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 2017;318:197. 10.1001/jama.2017.7156
    1. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, et al. . Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res 2012;21:1305–14. 10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x
    1. Wintner LM, Sztankay M, Aaronson N, et al. . The use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice—a synopsis of a newly developed manual. Eur J Cancer 2016;68:73–81. 10.1016/j.ejca.2016.08.024
    1. Hjollund NHI, Larsen LP, Biering K, et al. . Use of patient-reported outcome (pro) measures at group and patient levels: experiences from the generic integrated pro system, WestChronic. Interact J Med Res 2014;3:e5. 10.2196/ijmr.2885
    1. Schougaard LMV, Larsen LP, Jessen A, et al. . AmbuFlex: tele-patient-reported outcomes (telePRO) as the basis for follow-up in chronic and malignant diseases. Qual Life Res 2016;25:525–34. 10.1007/s11136-015-1207-0
    1. Grove BE, Schougaard LM, Hjollund NH, et al. . Self-Rated health, quality of life and appetite as predictors of initiation of dialysis and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease stages 4-5: a prospective cohort study. BMC Res Notes 2018;11:371. 10.1186/s13104-018-3472-9
    1. Schougaard LMV, Mejdahl CT, Petersen KH, et al. . Effect of patient-initiated versus fixed-interval telePRO-based outpatient follow-up: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled study. BMC Health Serv Res 2017;17:83. 10.1186/s12913-017-2015-8
    1. Baeksted C, Pappot H, Nissen A, 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. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2017;1:1. 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6
    1. Dørfinger L, Grønbæk C, Rahbek T. Clinical use of patient reported outcome measures (PROM)—an evaluation report, 2016.
    1. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, et al. . Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical Research Council guidance. Int J Nurs Stud 2013;50:587–92. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.09.010
    1. Richards DA, Hallberg IR. Complex Interventions in Health—an overview of research methods. 1st edn Routledge, 2015.
    1. Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, et al. . User’s Guide to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Clinical Practice Produced on behalf of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, 2015: 1–47.
    1. Chan EKH, Edwards TC, Haywood K, et al. . Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user's guide. Qual Life Res 2019;28:621–7. 10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4
    1. EORTC The EORTC quality of life Group. EORTC Item Library. Available: [Accessed 16 Apr 2019].
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, et al. . Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2016;34:557–65. 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830
    1. Collins D. Pretesting survey instruments: an overview of cognitive methods. Qual Life Res 2003;12:229–38. 10.1023/A:1023254226592
    1. Malterud K. Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis. Scand J Public Health 2012;40:795–805. 10.1177/1403494812465030
    1. Stallard N. Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Stat Med 2012;31:1031–42. 10.1002/sim.4357
    1. Julious SA. Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharm Stat 2005;4:287–91. 10.1002/pst.185
    1. Maguire R, Ream E, Richardson A, et al. . Development of a novel remote patient monitoring system: the advanced symptom management system for radiotherapy to improve the symptom experience of patients with lung cancer receiving radiotherapy. Cancer Nurs 2015;38:E37–47. 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000150
    1. Yount SE, Rothrock N, Bass M, et al. . A randomized trial of Weekly symptom telemonitoring in advanced lung cancer. J Pain Symptom Manage 2014;47:973–89. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.07.013
    1. Denis F, Viger L, Charron A, et al. . Detecting lung cancer relapse using self-evaluation forms Weekly filled at home: the sentinel follow-up. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:79–85. 10.1007/s00520-013-1954-9
    1. DeSalvo KB, Bloser N, Reynolds K, et al. . Mortality prediction with a single General self-rated health question. A meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med 2006;21:267–75. 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.00291.x
    1. Shadbolt B, Barresi J, Craft P. Self-Rated health as a predictor of survival among patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:2514–9. 10.1200/JCO.2002.08.060
    1. Denis F, Viger L, Charron A, et al. . Detection of lung cancer relapse using self-reported symptoms transmitted via an internet web-application: pilot study of the sentinel follow-up. Support Care Cancer 2014;22:1467–73. 10.1007/s00520-013-2111-1
    1. Temel JS, Greer JA, Muzikansky A, et al. . Early palliative care for patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;363:733–42. 10.1056/NEJMoa1000678

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться