In:
Journal of Clinical Oncology, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), Vol. 40, No. 16_suppl ( 2022-06-01), p. 6527-6527
Kurzfassung:
6527 Background: Patients with cancer spend substantial time receiving cancer care. There is a need for innovative strategies to decrease the time burden of cancer therapy. The current care model consists largely of in-person visits to assess treatment toxicity. Most patients treated with immunotherapy, however, do not experience substantial toxicity. We designed and evaluated a text-based instrument to identify patients without symptoms of immunotherapy toxicity. This instrument has the potential to be combined with lab assessment to identify individuals who can safely proceed directly to treatment, lessening the need for in-person office visits. Methods: This cross-sectional study evaluated the performance characteristics of a text-based instrument to identify patient-reported immunotherapy toxicity, against the gold standard in-person provider assessment documented in the electronic medical record (EMR). Those eligible for inclusion spoke English, were receiving single agent immune checkpoint blockade for a solid tumor, and had access to a mobile device with text messaging capabilities. The instrument contained 16 questions adapted from the NCI Pro-CTCAE and was administered via text-message 96 hours prior to the patient’s scheduled infusion visit. Patient perspectives were quantified via a 13-item questionnaire. Results: Between October 1 and November 25, 2021, 50 patients enrolled in the study, and 45 patients completed the instrument (90% response). The median age was 68 (IQR 60-72), 31 (62%) were male, and 44 (88%) were white. Most patients received either pembrolizumab (n=27, 54%) or nivolumab (n=17, 34%) in the palliative setting (n=37, 74%) for genitourinary (n=15, 30%), lung (n=13, 26%), or skin (n=11, 22%) cancer. Patients who completed the instrument were younger (median age 67 vs 76) than those who did not complete the instrument. The prevalence of immune related toxicity documented in the EMR was 57.8%. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of the instrument was 100% (95% CI 0.87-1.00) and 100% (95% CI 0.664-1.00), respectively; other accuracy parameters are presented in the Table. The patient user questionnaire revealed that visual impairment, lack of access to a smart phone, and lack of recognition of the instrument were barriers to completion. Conclusions: A text-based platform is both feasible and effective at identifying patients who are not experiencing symptoms of immune toxicity, and when combined with lab assessment, can eliminate office visits for up to 47% of patients. A prospective clinical trial to assess this is underway (NCT05134636). [Table: see text]
Materialart:
Online-Ressource
ISSN:
0732-183X
,
1527-7755
DOI:
10.1200/JCO.2022.40.16_suppl.6527
Sprache:
Englisch
Verlag:
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Publikationsdatum:
2022
ZDB Id:
2005181-5
Permalink
