Top

Published in:

01-02-2021 | Care | Original Article

AMTRA: a multicentered experience of a web-based monitoring and tailored toxicity management system for cancer patients

Authors: Marika Rasschaert, Christof Vulsteke, Sven De Keersmaeker, Kathleen Vandenborne, Stefanie Dias, Vincent Verschaeve, Peter Vuylsteke, Ilse Van Brussel, Jo Ravelingien, Peter Van Dam, Eva Segelov, Marc Peeters

Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer | Issue 2/2021

Abstract

Background

Technology-based interventions are increasingly being introduced in routine clinical cancer care. There is a need for reliable systems to monitor treatment-related toxicity in a standardized manner. Such electronic tools bridge the gap in providing quality home-based monitoring.

Methods

From July 2017 to December 2017, we performed a multicentered, non-randomized prospective cohort analysis with patients who were receiving routine chemotherapy for various solid tumors, using a web-based patient-reported toxicity registration, management, and intervention system called AMTRA (ambulatory Monitoring of cancer Therapy using an interactive Application) linked to the homecare nursing organization Remedus®. Twelve common toxicities plus pain and two biometrics could be registered daily or more frequently as required. These were processed centrally to generate tailored advice for lesser symptoms or a phone call from a dedicated nurse in case of severe or prolonged toxicity. A compliance tool to monitor oral therapies was incorporated in the system.

Results

One hundred sixty-eight patients (92%) were enrolled, with 31,514 registrations analyzed. One hundred eight patients reported severe toxicity (> 1461 registrations), resulting in 102 clinical interventions ranging from self-management advice, supplemental consultations to hospitalizations. Compliance to oral chemotherapy was high using AMTRA with a median of 98.7% (95 confidence interval (CI) [93.5–100.0%]). Seventy-nine percent of patients stated that the availability of AMTRA self-reports was useful in communication with the care provider, while 75% felt more in control while managing their treatment.

Conclusions

The application of an interactive PRO-system in routine symptom management of cancer patients allowed standardized documentation of toxicities and recorded a high compliance with oral treatment. It allows for rapid interaction for toxicities and cancer-related symptoms experienced at home.

Available only for authorised users

Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I et al (2018) Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin 68:394–424CrossRef

Nirenberg A, Mulhearn L, Lin S, Larson E (2004) Emergency department waiting times for patients with cancer with febrile neutropenia: a pilot study. Oncol Nurs Forum 31:711–715CrossRef

Warrington L, Hoch P, Kenyon L et al (2016) An audit of acute oncology services: patient experiences of admission procedures and staff utilization of a new telephone triage system. Support Care Cancer 24:5041–5048CrossRef

Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl N et al (2015) Symptomatic toxicity experienced during anticancer treatment: agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol 33:910–915CrossRef

Atkinson T, Ryan S, Bennett A et al (2016) The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes(PRO): a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 24(8):3669–3676CrossRef

Atkinson T, Rogak L, Heon N et al (2017) Exploring differences in adverse symptom event grading thresholds between clinicians and patients in the clinical trial setting. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 143(4):735–743CrossRef

Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, Barz A, Sit L, Fruscione M, Appawu M, Iasonos A, Atkinson T, Goldfarb S, Culkin A, Kris MG, Schrag D (2009) Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst 101:1624–1632CrossRef

Nipp R, Horick N, Deal A et al (2019) Differential effects of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention based on the age of patients with advanced cancer. Ann Oncol 31:123–130CrossRef

Basch E, Reeve B, Mitchell S et al (2014) Development of the national cancer institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 106(9):dju244CrossRef

10.

Dueck A, Mendoza T, Reeve B et al (2010) Validation study of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). ASCO 18(15s. suppl):abstr TPS274

11.

Basch E, Iasonos A, Donough M et al (2006) Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 7:903–909CrossRef

12.

Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitpatrick R et al (2006) Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract 12:559–568CrossRef

13.

Valderas JM, Alonso J (2008) Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice. Qual Life Res 17:1125–1135CrossRef

14.

Bennet AV, Jensen RE, Basch E (2012) Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 62:336–347CrossRef

15.

Snyder C, Jensen R, Courtin S et al (2009) PatientViewpoint: a website for patient-reported outcomes assessment. Qual life research 18(7):793–800

16.

Basch E, Artz D, Dulko D, Scher K, Sabbatini P, Hensley M, Mitra N, Speakman J, McCabe M, Schrag D (2005) Patient online self-reporting of toxicity symptoms during chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 23:3552–3561CrossRef

17.

Dy SM, Roy J, Att GE et al (2011) Tell Us™: a web-based tool for improving communication among patient, families and providers in hospice and paliative care through systematic data specification, collection and use. J Pain Symptom Manag 42:526–534CrossRef

18.

Pereira J, Green E, Molloy S, Dudgeon D, Howell D, Krzyzanowska MK, Mahase W, Tabing R, Urowitz S, Macdougall L (2014) Population-based standardized symptom screening: Cancer Care Ontario’s Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Performance Status Initiatives. J Oncol Pactice 10(3):212–214CrossRef

19.

Mc Cann J, Maguire R, Miller M et al (2009) Patients’ perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phone-based advanced symptom management system (aSyMS) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 18:156–164CrossRef

20.

Absolom K, Hoch P, Warrington L et al (2017) Electronic patient self-reporting of adverse-events: patient information and advice (eRAPID): a randomised controlled trial in systemic cancer treatment. BMC Cancer 17:318CrossRef

21.

Maguire R, Kotronoulas G, Donnan P et al (2018) Development and preliminary testing of a brief clinical tool to enable daily monitoring of chemotherapy toxicity: the daily chemotherapy toxicity self-assessment questionnaire. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 27(6):e12890CrossRef

22.

Denis F, Lethronsne C, Pourel N et al (2017) Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. J Natl Cancer Inst 109(9):djx029CrossRef

23.

Rasschaert M, Helsen S, Rolfo C, van Brussel I, Ravelingien J, Peeters M (2016) Feasibility of an interactive electronic self-report tool for oral cancer therapy in an outpatient setting. Support Care Cancer 24(8):3567–3571CrossRef

24.

Jensen M, Karoly P, Braver S et al (1986) The measurement of clinical pain intensity: a comparison of six methods. Pain 27:117–126CrossRef

25.

Baltagi BH (2008) Econometric analysis of panel data (Fourth ed.), New York, Wiley, pp 54–55 ISBN 978-0-470-51886-1

26.

Efron B, Tibshirani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton ISBN 0-412-04231-2CrossRef

27.

Bakken S, Grullon-Figueroa L, Izquierdo R, Lee NJ, Morin P, Palmas W, Teresi J, Weinstock RS, Shea S, Starren J, for the IDEATel Consortium (2006) Development, validation, and use of English and Spanish versions of the telemedicine satisfaction and usefulness questionnaire. J Am Med Inform Assoc 13(6):660–667CrossRef

28.

Jacobs J, Pensak N, Sporn N et al (2017) Treatment satisfaction and adherence to oral chemotherapy in patients with cancer. J Oncol Pract 13(5):e474–e485CrossRef

29.

Stapleton S, Holden J, Wilkie D (2016) A systematic review of the symptom distress scale in advanced cancer studies. Cancer Nurs 39(4):E4–E23CrossRef

30.

Reeve B, Mitchell S, Dueck A et al (2014) Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. JNCI 106(7):dju 129CrossRef

31.

Basch E, Deal A, Kris M et al (2016) Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 34(6):557–565CrossRef

32.

Zerillo J, Goldenberg B, Kotecha R et al (2018) Interventions to improve oral chemotherapy safety and quality: a systematic review. JAMA Oncol 4(1):105–117CrossRef

33.

Nixon NA, Spackman E, Clement F, Verma S, Manns B (2018) Cost-effectiveness of symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment. J Cancer Policy 15:32–36CrossRef

34.

Tuckson R, Edmunds M, Hodgkins M et al (2017) Telehealth. N Engl J Med 377(16):1585–1592CrossRef

Title: AMTRA: a multicentered experience of a web-based monitoring and tailored toxicity management system for cancer patients
Authors: Marika Rasschaert
Christof Vulsteke
Sven De Keersmaeker
Kathleen Vandenborne
Stefanie Dias
Vincent Verschaeve
Peter Vuylsteke
Ilse Van Brussel
Jo Ravelingien
Peter Van Dam
Eva Segelov
Marc Peeters
Publication date: 01-02-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword: Care
Published in: Supportive Care in Cancer / Issue 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0941-4355
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7339
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-020-05550-6

Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras

Prof. Fabrice Barlesi

Developed by: Springer Medicine

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 2/2021

Sequential use of the Demoralization Scale in palliative care: feasibility, strain, and personal benefits of participation for patients at the end of life

Emerging challenges in the evaluation of fever in cancer patients at risk of febrile neutropenia in the era of COVID-19: a MASCC position paper

Patient acceptance of prehabilitation for major surgery: an exploratory survey

Pain characteristics in medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws

Healthcare provider perspectives on pediatric cancer survivorship care plans: a single institution pilot study

Poor sleep quality among newly diagnosed head and neck cancer patients: prevalence and associated factors

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer