Search

Background: Malnutrition is a common and distressing condition among pancreatic cancer patients. Fewer than a quarter of pancreatic cancer patients receive medical nutrition therapy (MNT), important for improving nutritional status, weight maintenance, quality of life and survival. System, provider, and patient level barriers limit access to MNT. We propose to examine the feasibility of a 12-week multi-level, digital health intervention designed to expand MNT access among pancreatic cancer patients. Methods: Individuals with advanced pancreatic cancer starting chemotherapy (N = 80) will be 1:1 randomized to the intervention or usual care. The Support Through Remote Observation and Nutrition Guidance (STRONG) intervention includes system-level (e.g., routine malnutrition and screening), provider-level (e.g., dietitian training and web-based dashboard), and patient-level strategies (e.g., individualized nutrition plan, self-monitoring of dietary intake via Fitbit, ongoing goal monitoring and feedback). Individuals receiving usual care will be referred to dietitians based on their oncologists’ discretion. Study assessments will be completed at baseline, 4-, 8-, 12-, and 16-weeks. Results: Primary outcomes will be feasibility (e.g., recruitment, retention, assessment completion) and acceptability. We will collect additional implementation outcomes, such as intervention adherence, perceived usability, and feedback on intervention quality via an exit interview. We will collect preliminary data on outcomes that may be associated with the intervention including malnutrition, quality of life, treatment outcomes, and survival. Conclusion: This study will advance our knowledge on the feasibility of a digital health intervention to reduce malnutrition among individuals with advanced pancreatic cancer. Trial registration: NCT05675059, registered on December 9, 2022.

Summary: Background: Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies. Methods: A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL). Findings: We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9–25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6–15), RCC (11.86, range: 6–15), UC (11.50, range: 9–14), and PC (10.56, range: 6–15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations. Interpretation: Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care. Funding: None.