The use of patient-reported outcomes to detect adverse events in metastatic melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy: a randomized controlled pilot trial.
Adverse events
E-health
Immunotherapy
Melanoma
PRO
Patient involvement
Patient-reported outcomes
RCT
Toxicity
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Oct 2020
30 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
20
05
2020
accepted:
11
10
2020
entrez:
30
10
2020
pubmed:
31
10
2020
medline:
31
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
A randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted to assess if melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy had the number of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment reduced by 50% using a tailored electronic patient-reported outcomes tool in addition to standard toxicity monitoring compared to standard monitoring alone. Secondary endpoints were: if more AEs were reported in the intervention group, if there was a difference between the two groups in the number of telephone consultations, extra out-patient visits, number of days in the hospital, days in steroid treatment and the time patients experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity. Melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark participated. Standard care included assessment of AEs by a clinician before each treatment cycle using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. In addition, patients randomized to the intervention reported their AEs weekly by an electronic PRO-tool based on the PRO-CTCAE platform. One hundred forty-six melanoma patients were randomized. In this study, we did not detect a difference between the two groups in the number of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P = 0.983), in the overall number of AEs (P = 0.560) or in the time the patients in the two groups experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity (0.516). The number of phone contacts was significantly higher in the intervention group (P = 0.009) and there was a tendency towards patients in the intervention group having more extra visits (P = 0.156). It has been examined if the number of severe AEs for melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy could be reduced by involving the patients in the reporting of symptoms. The results do not justify the expansion of the pilot study into a regular phase III study with this particular set-up. However, a significant difference in the number of phone contacts was found as patients in the intervention group called more frequently, indicating that their attention to AEs was increased. Even though the use of an electronic PRO tool could not reduce the number of severe AEs in this melanoma population, a positive impact on other endpoints such as QoL, communication, or treatment-planning, cannot be excluded. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03073031 Registered 8 March 2017, Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
A randomized controlled pilot trial was conducted to assess if melanoma patients treated with immunotherapy had the number of grade 3 or 4 adverse events during treatment reduced by 50% using a tailored electronic patient-reported outcomes tool in addition to standard toxicity monitoring compared to standard monitoring alone. Secondary endpoints were: if more AEs were reported in the intervention group, if there was a difference between the two groups in the number of telephone consultations, extra out-patient visits, number of days in the hospital, days in steroid treatment and the time patients experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity.
PATIENTS AND METHODS
METHODS
Melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy at the Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Denmark participated. Standard care included assessment of AEs by a clinician before each treatment cycle using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. In addition, patients randomized to the intervention reported their AEs weekly by an electronic PRO-tool based on the PRO-CTCAE platform.
RESULTS
RESULTS
One hundred forty-six melanoma patients were randomized. In this study, we did not detect a difference between the two groups in the number of grade 3 or 4 AEs (P = 0.983), in the overall number of AEs (P = 0.560) or in the time the patients in the two groups experienced grade 2 or higher toxicity (0.516). The number of phone contacts was significantly higher in the intervention group (P = 0.009) and there was a tendency towards patients in the intervention group having more extra visits (P = 0.156).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
It has been examined if the number of severe AEs for melanoma patients receiving immunotherapy could be reduced by involving the patients in the reporting of symptoms. The results do not justify the expansion of the pilot study into a regular phase III study with this particular set-up. However, a significant difference in the number of phone contacts was found as patients in the intervention group called more frequently, indicating that their attention to AEs was increased. Even though the use of an electronic PRO tool could not reduce the number of severe AEs in this melanoma population, a positive impact on other endpoints such as QoL, communication, or treatment-planning, cannot be excluded.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03073031 Registered 8 March 2017, Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33125537
doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00255-0
pii: 10.1186/s41687-020-00255-0
pmc: PMC7599285
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT03073031']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
88Subventions
Organisme : Kræftens Bekæmpelse
ID : 52271009-3
Organisme : Region Syddanmark
ID : 17/3122
Références
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-1858
pubmed: 25888610
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 29;106(9):
pubmed: 25265940
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jan 22;372(4):320-30
pubmed: 25399552
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Mar 21;3(1):19
pubmed: 30900035
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 20;14:41
pubmed: 24650044
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5374-80
pubmed: 18048818
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Aug;63:201-17
pubmed: 27367293
Clin Trials. 2017 Jun;14(3):255-263
pubmed: 28545337
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 25;372(26):2521-32
pubmed: 25891173
JAMA Oncol. 2019 Jul 1;5(7):1008-1019
pubmed: 31021376
JAMA Dermatol. 2015 Oct;151(10):1087-95
pubmed: 26061591
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:13-19
pubmed: 30231401
N Engl J Med. 2010 Aug 19;363(8):711-23
pubmed: 20525992
Med Care. 2019 May;57 Suppl 5 Suppl 1:S66-S72
pubmed: 30531525
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 Aug;13(8):473-86
pubmed: 27141885
Crit Care Med. 2009 Jan;37(1 Suppl):S69-74
pubmed: 19104228
Eur J Cancer. 2019 Sep;119:1-10
pubmed: 31400634
J Clin Oncol. 2014 Apr 1;32(10):1020-30
pubmed: 24590637
N Engl J Med. 2017 Nov 9;377(19):1824-1835
pubmed: 28891423
In Vivo. 2019 Jan-Feb;33(1):17-21
pubmed: 30587597
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28423407
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Nov;17(11):1558-1568
pubmed: 27622997
Semin Oncol. 2010 Oct;37(5):499-507
pubmed: 21074065
Lancet Oncol. 2015 Aug;16(8):908-18
pubmed: 26115796
Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):525-34
pubmed: 26790427
N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2006-17
pubmed: 25891304
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2019 Jul;58(1):137-156.e1
pubmed: 30905677
West J Nurs Res. 2003 Oct;25(6):746-55
pubmed: 14528620
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jul 2;373(1):23-34
pubmed: 26027431
Ann Oncol. 2016 Apr;27(4):559-74
pubmed: 26715621
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 9;22(4):e14896
pubmed: 32271150
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Aug;52(2):292-7
pubmed: 27090851
Lancet Oncol. 2016 Jul;17(7):943-955
pubmed: 27269740
Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):668-74
pubmed: 19916634
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv119-iv142
pubmed: 28881921