Search

Background Since the onset of COVID-19, oncology practices across the US have integrated telemedicine (TM) and remote patient monitoring (RPM) into routine care and clinical trials. The extent of provider experience and comfort with TM/RPM in treatment trials, however, is unknown. We surveyed oncology researchers to assess experience and comfort with TM/RPM. Methods Between April 10 and June 1, 2022, we distributed email surveys to US-based members of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) whose member records indicated interest or specialization in clinical research. We collected respondent demographic data, clinical trial experience, workplace characteristics, and comfort and experience with TM/RPM use across trial components in phase I and phase II/III trials. TM/RPM was defined as clinical trial-related healthcare and monitoring for patients geographically separated from trial site. Results There were 141 surveys analyzed (5.1% response rate). Ninety percent of respondents had been Principal Investigators, 98% practiced in a norural site. Most respondents had enrolled patients in phase I (82%) and phase II/III trials (99%). Across all phases and trial components, there was a higher frequency of researcher comfort compared to experience. Regarding remote care in treatment trials, 75% reported using TM, RPM, or both. Among these individuals, 62% had never provided remote care to trial patients before the pandemic. Conclusion COVID-19 spurred the rise of TM/RPM in cancer treatment trials, and some TM/RPM use continues in this context. Among oncology researchers, higher levels of comfort compared with real-world experience with TM/RPM reveal opportunities for expanding TM/RPM policies and guidelines in oncology research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment of NSCLC, but little is known about the activity of programmed cell death 1 and programmed death ligand 1 blockade across age groups., Methods: We retrospectively evaluated patients with NSCLC who initiated programmed cell death 1 and programmed death ligand 1 inhibitors from January 2013 through July 2017. Medical records and radiographic imaging were reviewed to determine progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We also compared immunotherapy-related toxicities, steroid use, and hospitalizations by age., Results: Of the 245 patients, 26.1% were younger than 60 years, 31.4% were age 60 to 69 years, 31.0% were age 70 to 79 years, and 11.4% were age 80 years or older. The median PFS times by age group were as follows: younger than 60 years, 1.81 months; age 60 to 69 years, 2.53 months; age 70 to 79 years, 3.75 months; and age 80 years or older, 1.64 months (log-rank p value = 0.055). The median OS times by age group were as follows: younger than 60 years, 13.01 months; age 60 to 69 years, 14.56 months; age 70 to 79 years, 12.92 months; and age 80 years or older, 3.62 months (log-rank p value = 0.011). Rates of immunotherapy-related toxicities, steroid use, and hospitalizations did not differ by age., Conclusions: Although the OS and PFS benefits of immunotherapy differ by age, the rates of toxicity are similar regardless of age., (Copyright © 2018 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)