Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes (Feb 2024)

Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy

  • Natalie R Dickson,
  • Karen D Beauchamp,
  • Toni S Perry,
  • Ashley Roush,
  • Deborah Goldschmidt,
  • Marie Louise Edwards,
  • L Johnetta Blakely

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-024-00700-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 8, no. 1
pp. 1 – 18

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics. Methods Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS). Results Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0–182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0–184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4–NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71–0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months. Conclusion Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Keywords