Search

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Objectives During 2015–2018, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluated eRAPID, an eHealth intervention designed to capture patient-reported symptoms online during cancer treatment. eRAPID provides patients with advice on when to self-manage or seek medical support. Clinicians accessed symptom reports within electronic patient records. 508 participants starting systemic cancer treatment were recruited and followed for 18 weeks. The intervention group (n=256) was asked to access eRAPID and complete weekly online symptom reports. Clinicians received training on accessing and interpreting symptom reports. Overall, eRAPID had a positive impact on patients’ symptoms, quality of life and self-efficacy, particularly early in treatment and for patients with early-stage disease. Using mixed methods, we aimed to gather insight from patients and clinicians on how eRAPID worked to facilitate the interpretation of RCT findings.Methods Following a concurrent triangulation design, patient experiences of eRAPID were gathered via end-of-study interviews (n=45) and questionnaires (n=186). Clinician experiences were obtained by end-of-study interviews (n=18) and completion, throughout the trial, of feedback questionnaires (n=787 from n=55 clinicians). Framework analysis was applied to examine qualitative data and close-ended questions were descriptively summarised. Findings were mapped against results from the RCT.Setting Medical oncology services, UK cancer centre.Results Patient feedback indicated eRAPID was easy to use. Adherence to weekly reporting was influenced by health status, reminders, perceived value and clinical use. Patient-reported benefits of eRAPID included an enhanced connection with the hospital, provision of practical advice and personal monitoring, which provided reassurance and empowerment. Clinicians were positive about the potential for online symptom monitoring but had mixed levels of direct experience with using eRAPID during the trial. Patients echoed this and recommended more explicit clinician use of symptom data.Conclusions The mixed-method approach to capturing patient and clinician opinions provided valuable insight into the eRAPID intervention and complementary information on how the intervention was received and functioned.

BackgroundElectronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are commonly used in oncology clinical practice and have shown benefits for patients and health resource use. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the isolated effect of administering ePROs to patients with cancer versus a control condition. MethodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ePRO interventions that aimed to improve health-related outcomes among patients with cancer were included. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the secondary outcomes were symptoms, hospital admissions, unplanned visits, chemotherapy completion, survival, and satisfaction with care. The effect sizes of ePROs on health-related outcomes were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs using a random effects model. ResultsThe search identified 10,965 papers, of which 19 (0.17%) from 15 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 3 months, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General (SMD 0.28, 95% CI –1.22 to 1.78), and at 6 months, assessed using various HRQOL measures (SMD 0.07, 95% CI –1.24 to 1.39). The results should be interpreted with caution, given the wide 95% CIs. Of the 15 studies, 9 (60%) reported a positive signal on HRQOL, with two-thirds of the studies (n=6, 67%) including tailored patient advice and two-thirds (n=6, 67%) using clinician alert systems. ConclusionsThe meta-analysis showed a potential improvement in HRQOL at 6 months and in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General scores at 3 months for studies that included tailored advice and clinician alerts, suggesting that these elements may improve ePRO effectiveness. The findings will provide guidance for future use and help health care professionals choose the most suitable ePRO features for their patients. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO CRD42020175007; https://tinyurl.com/5cwmy3j6

Abstract Background Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality. However, up to three-quarters of women with breast cancer do not take AET as prescribed. Existing interventions to support adherence to AET have largely been unsuccessful, and have not focused on the most salient barriers to adherence. This paper describes the process of developing four theory-based intervention components to support adherence to AET. Our aim is to provide an exemplar of intervention development using Intervention Mapping (IM) with guidance from the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST). Methods Iterative development followed the six-stage IM framework with stakeholder involvement. Stage 1 involved a literature review of barriers to adherence and existing interventions, which informed the intervention objectives outlined in Stage 2. Stage 3 identified relevant theoretical considerations and practical strategies for supporting adherence. Stage 4 used information from Stages 1-3 to develop the intervention components. Stages 1-4 informed a conceptual model for the intervention package. Stages 5 and 6 detailed implementation considerations and evaluation plans for the intervention package, respectively. Results The final intervention package comprised four individual intervention components: Short Message Service to encourage habitual behaviours surrounding medication taking; an information leaflet to target unhelpful beliefs about AET; remotely delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help to reduce psychological distress; and a website to support self-management of AET side-effects. Considerations for implementation within the NHS, including cost, timing and mode of delivery were outlined, with explanation as to how using MOST can aid this. We detail our plans for the final stage of IM which involve feasibility testing. This involved planning an external exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, and a process evaluation to assess acceptability and fidelity of intervention components. Conclusions We have described a systematic and logical approach for developing a theoretically informed intervention package to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer using AET. Further research to optimise the intervention package, guided by MOST, has the potential to lead to more effective, efficient and scalable interventions.

Abstract Background Ovarian cancer patients require monitoring for relapse. Innovative follow-up methods are increasingly being explored. An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) follow-up pathway was developed for women treated for ovarian cancer. This feasibility study explored patient acceptability and compliance. Methods A single-arm non-blinded prospective feasibility study was undertaken at two hospitals. Participants were women who had completed treatment for ovarian cancer whose clinician was happy for them to be monitored remotely. Automated 3-monthly reminders were sent to participants to complete an ePRO questionnaire and obtain blood tests. Participants were reviewed over the phone by their clinical nurse specialist instead of attending clinic-based follow-up. The primary outcome was compliance (expected ePRO completions/blood tests) across the 12-month study period. Secondary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, resource use, symptom severity/alerts and patient acceptability. Results Twenty-four women consented (50% consent rate), and 13 remained on study at 12 months. Seven women relapsed, 3 chose to withdraw, and 1 withdrew for other clinical reasons. ePRO compliance was high and consistent at 75-82%, although the two hospitals differed. Adherence to the clinical protocol was evident for blood tests and contacts with staff (fewer visits, more phonecalls compared to an earlier audit). End-of-study feedback indicated high patient satisfaction. Conclusions Remote ePRO follow-up for ovarian cancer is feasible and acceptable to patients who are able and willing to participate. However, the low recruitment rate (ineligible + declined) indicate it is not suitable/acceptable to all patients immediately post-treatment. Further large-scale research and implementation work is required, especially in a post-COVID era. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02847715 (first registered 19/05/2016).

Background: The Refining and Optimising a behavioural intervention to Support Endocrine Therapy Adherence (ROSETA) programme has developed four intervention components aiming to improve medication adherence in women with early-stage breast cancer. These are (a) text messages, (b) information leaflet, (c) Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help (ACT), (d) side-effect management website. Guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, our pilot trial will use a fractional factorial design to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking a larger optimisation trial. The pilot will include a process evaluation to maximise learning regarding the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention components before proceeding with a larger trial. The trial process evaluation has three aims: to assess the (1) fidelity and (2) acceptability of the intervention components; and (3) to understand participant’s trial experience, and barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Methods: The process evaluation will use multiple methods. Fidelity of the intervention components will be assessed using self-reported questionnaire data, trial data on intervention component adherence, and observations of the ACT sessions. Acceptability of the intervention components and trial experience will be explored using an acceptability questionnaire and interviews with patients and trial therapists. Trial experience will be assessed using a questionnaire and interviews with participants, while barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention will be assessed using a questionnaire completed by research nurses and participant interviews. The pilot trial opened for recruitment on 20th May 2022 and was open at the time of submission. Conclusions: This process evaluation will provide information regarding whether the intervention components can be delivered with fidelity within a national healthcare setting and are acceptable to participants. We will also better understand participant experience in a pilot trial with a fractional factorial design, and any barriers and facilitators to recruitment and retention. Registration: ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN10487576, 16/12/2021).

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients’ well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients’ conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Abstract Background Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy is affected by medication side-effects and associated distress. Previous interventions focused on educating women to enhance adherence have proved minimally effective. We co-designed an Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) intervention to enhance medication decision-making and quality of life by targeting a broader range of factors, including side-effect management and psychological flexibility. This study aims to establish key trial parameters, assess the acceptability of the intervention and the extent to which it can be delivered with fidelity, and to demonstrate “proof of principle” regarding its efficacy on primary and process outcomes. Methods The ACTION intervention includes an individual 1:1 ACT session followed by three group sessions involving 8–10 women and two practitioner psychologists. Participants are also provided with access to a website containing evidence-based methods for self-managing side-effects. The ACT sessions were adapted during the COVID-19 pandemic to be remotely delivered via video conferencing software. To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of this intervention, a multi-site, exploratory, two-arm, individually randomised external pilot trial with a nested qualitative study will be undertaken. Eighty women with early stage breast cancer prescribed adjuvant endocrine therapy will be randomised (1:1) to receive treatment as usual or treatment as usual plus the ACTION intervention. The planned future primary outcome is medication adherence assessed by the ASK-12 measure. Progression to a phase III RCT will be based on criteria related to recruitment and follow-up rates, acceptability to patients, competency and fidelity of delivery, and proof of principle for change in medication adherence. Discussion This external pilot trial will be used to ascertain the feasibility of undertaking a future phase III RCT to definitively evaluate an ACT-based intervention to support medication taking behaviour and quality of life in women with early stage breast cancer on adjuvant endocrine therapy. Trial registration ISRCTN: 12027752. Registered 24 December 2020, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12027752

Introduction Women with breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) have increased risks of mortality and recurrence. There are multiple barriers to AET adherence, including medication side-effects, beliefs about medication, memory and psychological distress. We developed four intervention components, each targeting a different barrier. This pilot trial is part of the preparation phase of the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, and aims to establish key trial parameters, establish intervention component adherence, establish availability and feasibility of outcome and process data, estimate variability in planned outcome measures and estimate cost of developing and delivering each intervention component.Methods and analysis The four intervention components are as follows: short message service text reminders (target: memory); a written information leaflet (target: medication beliefs); a guided self-help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy programme (target: psychological flexibility to reduce distress) and a self-management website (target: side-effect management). To evaluate the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of the intervention components and the availability of outcome data, we will conduct a multisite, exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, with a nested process evaluation. We will randomise 80 women with early-stage breast cancer who have been prescribed AET to one of eight experimental conditions. This will determine the combination of intervention components they receive, ranging from zero to four, with all conditions receiving usual care. Key outcomes of interest include medication adherence and quality of life. Progression to the optimisation phase will be based on predefined criteria for consent rates, patient adherence to intervention components and availability of medication adherence data.Ethics and dissemination The study was reviewed by the Wales Research Authority Research Ethics Committee 3 (21/WA/0322). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients before randomisation. The results of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number ISRTCN10487576.

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to estimate the minimally important difference (MID) for interpreting group-level change over time, both within a group and between groups, for the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) scores in patients with prostate cancer. Methods We used data from two published EORTC trials. Clinical anchors were selected by strength of correlations with QLQ-C30 scales. In addition, clinicians’ input was obtained with regard to plausibility of the selected anchors. The mean change method was applied for interpreting change over time within a group of patients and linear regression models were fitted to estimate MIDs for between-group differences in change over time. Distribution-based estimates were also evaluated. Results Two clinical anchors were eligible for MID estimation; performance status and the CTCAE diarrhoea domain. MIDs were developed for 7 scales (physical functioning, role functioning, social functioning, pain, fatigue, global quality of life, diarrhoea) and varied by scale and direction (improvement vs deterioration). Within-group MIDs ranged from 4 to 14 points for improvement and − 13 to − 5 points for deterioration and MIDs for between-group differences in change scores ranged from 3 to 13 for improvement and − 10 to − 5 for deterioration. Conclusions Our findings aid the meaningful interpretation of changes on a set of EORTC QLQ-C30 scale scores over time, both within and between groups, and for performing more accurate sample size calculations for clinical trials in prostate cancer.

Abstract Purpose Evidence suggests that the patient‐reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non‐reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods Semi‐structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results Forty‐four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines.

Abstract Background Immunotherapy is revolutionising the treatment of patients diagnosed with melanoma and other cancers. The first immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab (targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), showed a survival advantage over standard chemotherapy. Subsequently the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were shown to be more effective than ipilimumab. Ipilimumab combined with nivolumab gives an incremental gain in overall survival compared with nivolumab alone but increases the risk of severe, potentially life-threatening toxicities. In contrast to ipilimumab monotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibodies are licensed to be continued until disease progression. Follow-up of patients recruited to the first trials evaluating 2 years of pembrolizumab showed that three-quarters of responding patients continue responding after stopping treatment. Suggestive of early response, we hypothesised that continuing anti-PD-1 treatment beyond 1 year in progression-free patients may be unnecessary and so designed the DANTE trial. Methods DANTE is a multicentre, randomised, phase III, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic (unresectable stage III and stage IV) melanoma. It uses a two-stage recruitment strategy, registering patients before they complete 1 year of first-line anti-PD-1 +/− CTLA-4 therapy and randomising eligible patients who have received 12 months of treatment and are progression-free at 1 year. At randomisation, 1208 patients are assigned (1:1) to either 1) continue anti-PD-1 treatment until disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity/ for at least 2 years in the absence of disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity or 2) to stop treatment. Randomisation stratifies for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and then, 6-monthly for up to 4-years. Secondary outcomes collected at all timepoints include overall survival, response-rate and duration and safety, with quality of life and cost-effectiveness outcomes collected 3-monthly for up to 18-months. Sub-studies include a qualitative analysis of patient acceptance of randomisation and sample collection to inform future translational studies into response/ toxicity biomarkers. Discussion DANTE is a unique prospective trial investigating the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes will inform future use of these high burden drugs. Trial registration ISRCTN15837212 , 31 July 2018.

BackgroundWomen with a new cancer diagnosis face complex decisions about interventions aiming to preserve their fertility. Decision aids are more effective in supporting decision making than traditional information provision. We describe the development and field testing of a novel patient decision aid designed to support women to make fertility preservation treatment decisions around cancer diagnosis.MethodsA prospective, mixed-method, three stage study involving: 1) co-development of the resource in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group of key stakeholders including oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and patient partners (n=24), 2) alpha testing with a group of cancer patients who had faced a fertility preservation treatment decision in the past (n=11), and oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and stakeholders (n=14) and, 3) beta testing with women in routine care who had received a recent diagnosis of cancer and were facing a fertility preservation treatment decision (n=41) and their oncology and fertility healthcare professionals (n=3). Ten service users recruited from a closed Breast Cancer Now Facebook group and the support group Cancer and Fertility UK also provided feedback on CFM via an online survey.ResultsA 60-page paper prototype of the Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid was initially developed. Alpha testing of the resource found that overall, it was acceptable to cancer patients, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders and it was considered a useful resource to support fertility preservation treatment decision-making. However, the healthcare professionals felt that the length of the patient decision aid, and elements of its content may be a barrier to its use. Subsequently, the prototype was reduced to 40 pages. During beta testing of the shortened version in routine care, women who received the resource described its positive impact on their ability to make fertility preservation decisions and support them at a stressful time. However, practical difficulties emerged which impacted upon its wider dissemination in clinical practice and limited some elements of the evaluation planned.DiscussionWomen receiving the decision aid within the cancer treatment pathway found it helped them engage with decisions about fertility preservation, and make better informed, values-based care plans with oncology and fertility teams. More work is needed to address access and implementation of this resource as part of routine oncology care pathways.

Abstract Background Increasing numbers of ovarian cancer patients are living longer and requiring regular follow-up to detect disease recurrence. New models of follow-up care are needed to meet the growing number and needs of this patient group. The potential for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to capture key symptoms and online technology to facilitate long-term follow-up has been suggested. Objectives Prior to a pilot study exploring the potential for electronic patient-reported symptom monitoring, the content of an online intervention was developed via Delphi methodology. Design and setting A Delphi process was conducted aiming to obtain consensus amongst the clinicians and patients from 4 hospitals on the key aspects to monitor during follow-up after ovarian cancer treatment, and how to monitor them in an online intervention. A two round Delphi was conducted. Consensus was defined as at least 70% agreement. Results Out of 43 participants, 30 (18 patients, 12 healthcare professionals) completed round 1 and 19 (11 patients, 8 healthcare professionals) completed round 2. Consensus was reached on the key symptoms to monitor, and the importance of monitoring both duration and frequency of symptoms. Opportunity for review of psychological wellbeing and holistic needs were considered important by both groups. The frequency of online questionnaire completion, timeframe for patients to reflect on (e.g. during the past X weeks), and the choice of PROMs items to monitor symptoms did not reach the consensus threshold. Conclusion It is crucial that any intervention and the selection of PROMs is fully described to ensure transparency about the development and decisions taken. In this work, a set of key symptoms and areas to monitor were agreed, which has informed the design of an online intervention and a subsequent pilot study is now underway. The proposed model of remote follow-up using electronic PROMs could be adapted and explored in other cancer sites.

Abstract Background In early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients, little is known about how to measure patient participation in Shared-Decision Making (SDM). We examined the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the Decision Self-Efficacy scale (DSE) in a cohort of patients undergoing to Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) or Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) to capture patient involvement in treatment decisions. Methods In the context of a prospective longitudinal study (Life after Lung Cancer-LiLAC) involving 244 patients with early-stage NSCLC, 158 (64.7%) patients completed the DSE either on paper or electronically online prior to treatment with SABR or VATS pulmonary resection. DSE psychometric properties were examined using: principal components analysis of item properties and internal structure, and internal construct validity; we also performed a sensitivity analysis according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), gender, age and treatment received (VATS or SABR) difference. Results Exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations substantiated that the 11 item DSE is one scale accounting for 81% of the variance. We calculated a value of 0.96 for Cronbach’s alpha for the total DSE score. DSE scores did not differ by gender (p = 0.37), between the two treatment groups (p = 0.09) and between younger and older patients (p = 0.4). However, patients with an ECOG PS > 1 have a DSE mean of 73.8 (SD 26) compared to patients with a PS 0–1 who have a DSE mean of 85.8 (SD 20.3 p = 0.002). Conclusion Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the DSE questionnaire in this population. However, future studies are warranted to identify the most appropriate SDM tool for clinical practice in the lung cancer treatment field.

Background: Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events. Objectives: The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective? Design: Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment. Setting: The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol). Participants: The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients. Intervention: eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms. Main outcome measures: In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance. Results: eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive. Limitations: The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions). Conclusions: This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs. Future work: Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended. Trial registration: The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction More people are living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis. There is limited understanding of the long-term effects of cancer and cancer treatment on quality of life and personal and household finances when compared to people without cancer. In a separate protocol we have proposed to link de-identified data from electronic primary care and hospital records for a large population of cancer survivors and matched controls. In this current protocol, we propose the linkage of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures data to the above data for a subset of this population. The aim of this study is to investigate the full impact of living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis compared to age and gender matched controls. A secondary aim is to test the feasibility of the collection of Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMS) data and the linkage procedures of the PROMs data to electronic health records data. Materials and methods This is a cross-sectional study, aiming to recruit participants treated at the Leeds Teaching Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Eligible patients will be cancer survivors at around 5 years post-diagnosis (breast, colorectal and ovarian cancer) and non-cancer patient matched controls attending dermatology out-patient clinics. They will be identified by running a query on the Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust patient records system. Approximately 6000 patients (2000 cases and 4000 controls) will be invited to participate via post. Participants will be invited to complete PROMs assessing factors such as quality of life and finances, which can be completed on paper or online (surveys includes established instruments, and bespoke instruments (demographics, financial costs). This PROMs data will then be linked to routinely collected de-identified data from patient’s electronic primary care and hospital records. Discussion This innovative work aims to create a truly ‘comprehensive patient record’ to provide a broad picture of what happens to cancer patients across their cancer pathway, and the long-term impact of cancer treatment. Comparisons can be made between the cases and controls, to identify the aspects of life that has had the greatest impact following a cancer diagnosis. The feasibility of linking PROMs data to electronic health records can also be assessed. This work can inform future support offered to people living with and beyond a cancer diagnosis, clinical practice, and future research methodologies.

Abstract Background The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. Methods The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. Discussion The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. Trial registration PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). Trial status At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Abstract Background Patients undergoing major cancer surgery frequently require post-acute care for complications and adverse effects. Enhanced recovery after surgery programmes mean that patients are increasingly discharged home earlier. Symptom/complication detection post-discharge is sub-optimal. Systematic patient monitoring post-discharge following surgery may be optimally achieved through routine electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) data capture. ePRO systems that employ clinical algorithms to guide management of patients and automatically alert clinicians of clinically-concerning symptoms can improve patient outcomes and decrease hospital admissions. ePRO systems that provide individually-tailored self-management advice and integrate live ePRO data into electronic health records (EHR) may also advance personalised health and patient-centred care. This study aims to develop a hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system to improve detection and management of complications post-discharge following cancer-related surgery. Methods The ePRO system was developed in two phases: (1) Development of a web-based ePRO symptom-report from validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires, clinical opinion and patient interviews, followed by hospital EHR integration; (2) Development of clinical algorithms triggering symptom severity-dependent patient advice and clinician alerts from: (i) prospectively-collected patient-completed ePRO symptom-report data; (ii) stakeholder meetings; (iii) patient interviews. Patient advice was developed from: (i) clinician-patient telephone consultations and patient interviews; (ii) review of hospital patient information leaflets (PIL) and patient support websites. Results Phase 1, including interviews with 18 patients, identified 35 symptom-report items. In phase 2, 130/300 (43%) screened patients were eligible. 61 (47%) consented to participate and 59 (97%) provided 444 complete self-reports. Stakeholder meetings (9 clinicians, 1 patient/public representative) and patient interviews (n = 66) refined advice/alert accuracy. 15 telephone consultations, 7 patient interviews and review of 28 PILs and 3 patient support websites identified 4 themes to inform self-management advice. Comparisons between ePRO symptom-report data, telephone consultations and clinical events/outcomes (n = 27 patients) further refined clinical algorithms. Conclusions A hospital EHR-integrated ePRO system that alerts clinicians and provides patient self-management advice has been developed to improve the detection and management of problems and complications after discharge following surgery. An ongoing pilot study will inform a multicentre randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the ePRO system compared to usual care.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients’ symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item’s importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Prompted by Frye’s classification of literary works the present paper embarks on an investigation of the ice motif and its manifestations in a mythological and literary context. It is based on a restricted corpus, yet the survey made proves the recurrent meaning of ice to be a symbol of death and its various other connotations – inherently associated with the primal meaning revealing it in different aspects in the works to be analyzed.

Plain English summary Roger Wilson challenged cancer professionals in research and care to place the patient perspective and patient reported outcome measures centre stage. The ability to collect information from patients using structured questionnaires (known as Patient Reported Outcome Measures or PROMs) which ask about clinical issues (such as disease symptoms or treatment side-effects) as well as social, emotional and psychological issues has existed for 40 years. They provide a powerful way of working out whether an aspect of diagnosis or treatment for cancer is bringing real benefits to patients that can be measured using these structured questionnaires. When they are used, studies and cancer service developments are clearly constrained to focus on what matters to patients rather than, perhaps what matters to health service professionals or recent exciting but perhaps relatively unproven new technologies. There is good evidence that PROMs can contribute valuable inputs into the results of randomised controlled trials, clinical consultations and surveys of whole populations even at a national level. However, there is a great deal more work to be done on methodology and perhaps to change attitudes and cultures within the healthcare professions before they can deliver all of their potential to bring benefits to cancer patients. Abstract In response to Roger Wilson’s challenge to place a patient-centred approach using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) across all of the patient pathway, we have summarised progress over 40 years. We have critically evaluated what has been achieved to use patient reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials, in routine clinical practice and in population surveys. We conclude that there has been substantial scientific progress but that it has, arguably, been relatively slow. Barriers to placing PROMs centre stage in all of these areas of activity remain in methodology and to a degree in professional attitudes and culture. Active research programmes on methodology and closer working between healthcare professionals, cancer patients and patient advocates are the key requirements to speed up the use and application of PROMs and which should bring benefits to cancer patients and healthcare services.

Abstract Background An estimated 17,000 patients are treated annually in the UK with radical radiotherapy (RT) for pelvic cancer. New treatment approaches in RT have increased survivorship and changed the subjective toxicity profile for patients who experience acute and long-term pelvic-related adverse events (AE). Multi-disciplinary follow-up creates difficulty for monitoring and responding to these events during treatment and beyond. Originally developed for use in systemic oncology therapy eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an online system for patients to report AEs from home. eRAPID enables patient data to be integrated into the electronic patient records for use in clinical practice, provides patient management advice for mild and moderate AE and advice to contact the hospital for severe AE. The system has now been developed for pelvic RT patients, and we aim to test the intervention in a pilot study with staff and patients to inform a future randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods Eligible patients are those attending St James’s University hospital cancer centre and The Christie Hospital Manchester undergoing pelvic radiotherapy+/−chemotherapy/hormonotherapy for prostate, lower gastrointestinal and gynaecological cancers. A prospective 1:1 randomised (intervention or usual care) parallel group design with repeated measures and mixed methods will be employed. We aim to recruit 168 patients following recommendations for sample size estimates for pilot studies. Participants using eRAPID will report AE (at least weekly) from home weekly for 6 weeks and 6 weeks post-treatment (12-week total) then at 18 and 24 weeks. Hospital staff will review eRAPID reports and use information during consultations. Notifications will be sent to the relevant clinical team when severe symptoms are reported. We will measure patient-reported outcomes using validated questionnaires (Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30), process of care impact (hospital records of patient contacts and admissions) and economic variables (EQ5D-5L, patient use of resources)). Staff and patient experiences will be explored via semi-structured interviews. Discussion The objectives are to establish feasibility, recruitment, integrity of the system and attrition rates, determine effect sizes and aid selection of the primary outcome measure for a future RCT. We will also refine the intervention by exploring staff and patient views. The overall goal of this complex intervention is to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise documentation of AE within the clinical datasets. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264.

Abstract Background eRAPID (electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice) is an internet based system for patients to self-report symptoms and side effects (adverse events or AE) of cancer treatments. eRAPID allows AE reporting from home and patient reported data is accessible via Electronic Patient Records (EPR) for use in routine care. The system can generate alerts to clinical teams for severe AE and provides patient advice on managing mild AEs. The overall aims of eRAPID are to improve the safe delivery of cancer treatments, enhance patient care and standardise AE documentation. Methods The trial is a prospective randomised two-arm parallel group design study with repeated measures and mixed methods. Participants (adult patients with breast cancer on neo-adjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy, colorectal and gynaecological cancer receiving chemotherapy) are randomised to receive the eRAPID intervention or usual care over 18 weeks of treatment. Participants in the intervention arm receive training in using the eRAPID system to provide routine weekly adverse event reports from home. Hospital staff can access eRAPID reports via the EPR and use the information during consultations or phone calls with patients. Prior to commencing the full trial an internal pilot phase was conducted (N = 87 participants) to assess recruitment procedures, consent and attrition rates, the integrity of the intervention information technology and establish procedures for collecting outcome data. The overall target sample for the trial is N = 504. The primary outcome of the trial is quality of life (FACT-G) with secondary outcomes including health economics (costs to patients and the NHS), process of care (e.g. contacts with the hospital, number of admissions, clinic appointments and changes to treatment/medications) and patient self-efficacy. Outcome data is collected at baseline, 6, 12, 18 weeks and 12 months. The intervention is also being evaluated via end of study interviews with patient participants and clinical staff. Discussion The pilot phase was completed in February 2016 and recruitment and attrition rates met criteria for continuing to the full trial. Recruitment recommenced in May 2016 and is planned to continue until December 2017. Overall findings will determine the value of the eRAPID intervention for supporting the care of patients receiving systemic cancer treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN88520246 . Registered 11 September 2014.

Abstract Background Cancer-related fatigue is a common problem in persons with cancer, influencing health-related quality of life and causing a considerable challenge to society. Current evidence supports the beneficial effects of physical exercise in reducing fatigue, but the results across studies are not consistent, especially in terms of exercise intensity. It is also unclear whether use of behaviour change techniques can further increase exercise adherence and maintain physical activity behaviour. This study will investigate whether exercise intensity affects fatigue and health related quality of life in persons undergoing adjuvant cancer treatment. In addition, to examine effects of exercise intensity on mood disturbance, adherence to oncological treatment, adverse effects from treatment, activities of daily living after treatment completion and return to work, and behaviour change techniques effect on exercise adherence. We will also investigate whether exercise intensity influences inflammatory markers and cytokines, and whether gene expressions following training serve as mediators for the effects of exercise on fatigue and health related quality of life. Methods/design Six hundred newly diagnosed persons with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer undergoing adjuvant therapy will be randomized in a 2 × 2 factorial design to following conditions; A) individually tailored low-to-moderate intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques or B) individually tailored high intensity exercise with or without behaviour change techniques. The training consists of both resistance and endurance exercise sessions under the guidance of trained coaches. The primary outcomes, fatigue and health related quality of life, are measured by self-reports. Secondary outcomes include fitness, mood disturbance, adherence to the cancer treatment, adverse effects, return to activities of daily living after completed treatment, return to work as well as inflammatory markers, cytokines and gene expression. Discussion The study will contribute to our understanding of the value of exercise and exercise intensity in reducing fatigue and improving health related quality of life and, potentially, clinical outcomes. The value of behaviour change techniques in terms of adherence to and maintenance of physical exercise behaviour in persons with cancer will be evaluated. Trial registration NCT02473003 , October, 2014.

Table of contents S1 Using computerized adaptive testing Tim Croudace S2 Well-being: what is it, how does it compare to health and what are the implications of using it to inform health policy John Brazier O1 “Am I going to get better?”—Using PROMs to inform patients about the likely benefit of surgery Nils Gutacker, Andrew Street O2 Identifying Patient Reported Outcome Measures for an electronic Personal Health Record Dan Robotham, Samantha Waterman, Diana Rose, Safarina Satkunanathan, Til Wykes O3 Examining the change process over time qualitatively: transformative learning and response shift Nasrin Nasr, Pamela Enderby O4 Developing a PROM to evaluate self-management in diabetes (HASMID): giving patients a voice Jill Carlton, Donna Rowen, Jackie Elliott, John Brazier, Katherine Stevens, Hasan Basarir, Alex Labeit O5 Development of the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) Mairead Murphy, Sandra Hollinghurst, Chris Salisbury O6 Developing the PKEX score- a multimodal assessment tool for patients with shoulder problems Dominic Marley, James Wilson, Amy Barrat, Bibhas Roy O7 Applying multiple imputation to multi-item patient reported outcome measures: advantages and disadvantages of imputing at the item, sub-scale or score level Ines Rombach, Órlaith Burke, Crispin Jenkinson, Alastair Gray, Oliver Rivero-Arias O8 Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility study Ian Porter, Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli, Charlotte Bramwell, Jose M. Valderas O9 eRAPID: electronic self-report and management of adverse-events for pelvic radiotherapy (RT) patients Patricia Holch, Susan Davidson, Jacki Routledge, Ann Henry, Kevin Franks, Alex Gilbert, Kate Absolom & Galina Velikova O10 Patient reported outcomes (PROMs) based recommendation in clinical guidance for the management of chronic conditions in the United Kingdom Ian Porter, Jose M.Valderas O11 Cross-sectional and longitudinal parameter shifts in epidemiological data: measurement invariance and response shifts in cohort and survey data describing the UK’s Quality of Life Jan R. Boehnke O12 Patient-reported outcomes within health technology decision making: current status and implications for future policy Andrew Trigg, Ruth Howells O13 Can social care needs and well-being be explained by the EQ-5D? Analysis of Health Survey for England dataset Jeshika Singh, Subhash Pokhrel, Louise Longworth O14 Where patients and policy meet: exploring individual-level use of the Long-Term Conditions Questionnaire (LTCQ) Caroline Potter, Cheryl Hunter, Laura Kelly, Elizabeth Gibbons, Julian Forder, Angela Coulter, Ray Fitzpatrick, Michele Peters