scholarly journals The Effect of Collaborative Reviews of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on the Congruence of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Toxicity in Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Clinical Trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Trojan ◽  
Nicolas Leuthold ◽  
Christoph Thomssen ◽  
Achim Rody ◽  
Thomas Winder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Level Of Agreement

BACKGROUND Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) are a relatively novel form of data and have the potential to improve clinical practice for cancer patients. In this prospective, multicenter, observational clinical trial, efforts were made to demonstrate the reliability of patient-reported symptoms. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement κ between symptom ratings by physicians and patients via a shared review process in order to determine the future reliability and utility of self-reported electronic symptom monitoring. METHODS Patients receiving systemic therapy in a (neo-)adjuvant or noncurative intention setting captured ePRO for 52 symptoms over an observational period of 90 days. At 3-week intervals, randomly selected symptoms were reviewed between the patient and physician for congruency on severity of the grading of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-physician agreement for the symptom review was assessed via Cohen kappa (κ), through which the interrater reliability was calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether the patient-reported outcome was different among symptoms, types of cancer, demographics, and physicians’ experience. RESULTS Among the 181 patients (158 women and 23 men; median age 54.4 years), there was a fair scoring agreement (κ=0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.33) for symptoms that were entered 2 to 4 weeks before the intended review (first rating) and a moderate agreement (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.34-0.48) for symptoms that were entered within 1 week of the intended review (second rating). However, the level of agreement increased from moderate (first rating, κ=0.43) to substantial (second rating, κ=0.68) for common symptoms of pain, fever, diarrhea, obstipation, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis. Similar congruency levels of ratings were found for the most frequently entered symptoms (first rating: κ=0.42; second rating: κ=0.65). The symptom with the lowest agreement was hair loss (κ=–0.05). With regard to the latency of symptom entry into the review, hardly any difference was demonstrated between symptoms that were entered from days 1 to 3 and from days 4 to 7 before the intended review (κ=0.40 vs κ=0.39, respectively). In contrast, for symptoms that were entered 15 to 21 days before the intended review, no congruency was demonstrated (κ=–0.15). Congruency levels seemed to be unrelated to the type of cancer, demographics, and physicians’ review experience. CONCLUSIONS The shared monitoring and review of symptoms between patients and clinicians has the potential to improve the understanding of patient self-reporting. Our data indicate that the integration of ePRO into oncological clinical research and continuous clinical practice provides reliable information for self-empowerment and the timely intervention of symptoms. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731

scholarly journals The Effect of Collaborative Reviews of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on the Congruence of Patient- and Clinician-Reported Toxicity in Cancer Patients Receiving Systemic Therapy: Prospective, Multicenter, Observational Clinical Trial

10.2196/29271 ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (8) ◽  
pp. e29271
Author(s):  
Andreas Trojan ◽  
Nicolas Leuthold ◽  
Christoph Thomssen ◽  
Achim Rody ◽  
Thomas Winder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Level Of Agreement

Background Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) are a relatively novel form of data and have the potential to improve clinical practice for cancer patients. In this prospective, multicenter, observational clinical trial, efforts were made to demonstrate the reliability of patient-reported symptoms. Objective The primary objective of this study was to assess the level of agreement κ between symptom ratings by physicians and patients via a shared review process in order to determine the future reliability and utility of self-reported electronic symptom monitoring. Methods Patients receiving systemic therapy in a (neo-)adjuvant or noncurative intention setting captured ePRO for 52 symptoms over an observational period of 90 days. At 3-week intervals, randomly selected symptoms were reviewed between the patient and physician for congruency on severity of the grading of adverse events according to the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE). The patient-physician agreement for the symptom review was assessed via Cohen kappa (κ), through which the interrater reliability was calculated. Chi-square tests were used to determine whether the patient-reported outcome was different among symptoms, types of cancer, demographics, and physicians’ experience. Results Among the 181 patients (158 women and 23 men; median age 54.4 years), there was a fair scoring agreement (κ=0.24; 95% CI 0.16-0.33) for symptoms that were entered 2 to 4 weeks before the intended review (first rating) and a moderate agreement (κ=0.41; 95% CI 0.34-0.48) for symptoms that were entered within 1 week of the intended review (second rating). However, the level of agreement increased from moderate (first rating, κ=0.43) to substantial (second rating, κ=0.68) for common symptoms of pain, fever, diarrhea, obstipation, nausea, vomiting, and stomatitis. Similar congruency levels of ratings were found for the most frequently entered symptoms (first rating: κ=0.42; second rating: κ=0.65). The symptom with the lowest agreement was hair loss (κ=–0.05). With regard to the latency of symptom entry into the review, hardly any difference was demonstrated between symptoms that were entered from days 1 to 3 and from days 4 to 7 before the intended review (κ=0.40 vs κ=0.39, respectively). In contrast, for symptoms that were entered 15 to 21 days before the intended review, no congruency was demonstrated (κ=–0.15). Congruency levels seemed to be unrelated to the type of cancer, demographics, and physicians’ review experience. Conclusions The shared monitoring and review of symptoms between patients and clinicians has the potential to improve the understanding of patient self-reporting. Our data indicate that the integration of ePRO into oncological clinical research and continuous clinical practice provides reliable information for self-empowerment and the timely intervention of symptoms. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731

scholarly journals Electronic patient-reported outcomes and machine learning in predicting immune-related adverse events of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanna Iivanainen ◽  
Jussi Ekstrom ◽  
Henri Virtanen ◽  
Vesa V. Kataja ◽  
Jussi P. Koivunen
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Early Detection ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Prediction Models ◽  
Accuracy Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Auc Value

Abstract Background Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have introduced novel immune-related adverse events (irAEs), arising from various organ systems without strong timely dependency on therapy dosing. Early detection of irAEs could result in improved toxicity profile and quality of life. Symptom data collected by electronic (e) patient-reported outcomes (PRO) could be used as an input for machine learning (ML) based prediction models for the early detection of irAEs. Methods The utilized dataset consisted of two data sources. The first dataset consisted of 820 completed symptom questionnaires from 34 ICI treated advanced cancer patients, including 18 monitored symptoms collected using the Kaiku Health digital platform. The second dataset included prospectively collected irAE data, Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) class, and the severity of 26 irAEs. The ML models were built using extreme gradient boosting algorithms. The first model was trained to detect the presence and the second the onset of irAEs. Results The model trained to predict the presence of irAEs had an excellent performance based on four metrics: accuracy score 0.97, Area Under the Curve (AUC) value 0.99, F1-score 0.94 and Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC) 0.92. The prediction of the irAE onset was more difficult with accuracy score 0.96, AUC value 0.93, F1-score 0.66 and MCC 0.64 but the model performance was still at a good level. Conclusion The current study suggests that ML based prediction models, using ePRO data as an input, can predict the presence and onset of irAEs with a high accuracy, indicating that ePRO follow-up with ML algorithms could facilitate the detection of irAEs in ICI-treated cancer patients. The results should be validated with a larger dataset. Trial registration Clinical Trials Register (NCT3928938), registration date the 26th of April, 2019

scholarly journals Linguistic validation of the simplified Chinese version of the US National Cancer Institute’s patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE™)

BMC Cancer ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng KKF ◽  
S. A. Mitchell ◽  
N. Chan ◽  
E. Ang ◽  
W. Tam ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Cognitive Interviews ◽  
Simplified Chinese ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Common ◽  
Response Choices

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to translate and linguistically validate the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) into Simplified Chinese for use in Singapore. Methods All 124 items of the English source PRO-CTCAE item library were translated into Simplified Chinese using internationally established translation procedures. Two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted with 96 cancer patients undergoing adjuvant treatment to determine if the translations adequately captured the PRO-CTCAE source concepts, and to evaluate comprehension, clarity and ease of judgement. Interview probes addressed the 78 PRO-CTCAE symptom terms (e.g. fatigue), as well as the attributes (e.g. severity), response choices, and phrasing of ‘at its worst’. Items that met the a priori threshold of ≥20% of participants with comprehension difficulties were considered for rephrasing and retesting. Items where < 20% of the sample experienced comprehension difficulties were also considered for rephrasing if better phrasing options were available. Results A majority of PRO-CTCAE-Simplified Chinese items were well comprehended by participants in Round 1. One item posed difficulties in ≥20% and was revised. Two items presented difficulties in < 20% but were revised as there were preferred alternative phrasings. Twenty-four items presented difficulties in < 10% of respondents. Of these, eleven items were revised to an alternative preferred phrasing, four items were revised to include synonyms. Revised items were tested in Round 2 and demonstrated satisfactory comprehension. Conclusions PRO-CTCAE-Simplified Chinese has been successfully developed and linguistically validated in a sample of cancer patients residing in Singapore.

A feasibility exploratory study of a novel modality of using patient-reported outcomes (PROsEXPLOR) in the real world

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 464-470
Author(s):  
Federica Grosso ◽  
Stefania Crivellari ◽  
Marinella Bertolotti ◽  
Michela Lia ◽  
Antonina De Angelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Satisfaction Survey ◽  
Home Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Hospital Visits

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help clinicians better evaluate chemotherapy and immunotherapy toxicity based on patient perspectives. In this exploratory study, we tested a simplified PRO questionnaire (sPQ) in routine clinical practice and patient satisfaction with this tool. Methods: We included 16 items related to the main toxicities of chemotherapy and immunotherapy to be filled in by patients. A baseline sPQ was completed by patients before starting treatment and then in the interval between courses for a total of 4 sPQs. Patients communicated the results to a data manager, who alerted the referral oncologist in case of replies differing from the basal or previous sPQ. According to the severity of symptoms, the patient was then referred to the team nurse, the general practitioner, or another specialist. A satisfaction survey was also completed. Results: In a 3-month interval, 27 patients were enrolled. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequent symptoms reported as worsening during treatment. The oncologist was involved in the management of adverse events in 4 cases, home therapy variations were recommended by the dedicated nurse in 14 cases, additional visits were performed in 6 patients, and 1 patient was admitted to the oncology ward. None of the patients had unplanned visits to the emergency department or to the hospital. The sPQ was judged to be simple, useful, and satisfactory. Conclusions: Using sPQs in routine clinical practice was feasible and well-accepted by patients. PROs allowed us to recognize and promptly manage adverse events, reducing unplanned emergency department or hospital visits to zero.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice

Hematology ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 (1) ◽  
pp. 501-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Dobrozsi ◽  
Julie Panepinto
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Physician Communication ◽  
Valuable Data ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Improve Patient

Abstract Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement plays an increasingly important role in health care and understanding health outcomes. PROs are any report of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient, and can measure patient symptoms, patient function, and quality-of-life. PROs have been used successfully to assess impairment in a clinical setting. Use of PROs to systematically quantify the patient experience provides valuable data to assist with clinical care; however, initiating use of PROs in clinical practice can be daunting. Here we provide suggestions for implementation of PROs and examples of opportunities to use PROs to tailor individual patient therapy to improve patient outcomes, patient–physician communication, and the quality of care for hematology/oncology patients.

scholarly journals Characteristics and patient-reported outcomes associated to dropout in severely affected oncological patients

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pimrapat Gebert ◽  
Daniel Schindel ◽  
Johann Frick ◽  
Liane Schenk ◽  
Ulrike Grittner
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Social Support ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Poor Quality ◽  
Drop Out ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used and are surrogates for clinical outcomes in cancer research. In the research setting of very severe diseases such as cancer, it is difficult to avoid the problem of incomplete questionnaires from drop-out or missing data due to patients who deceased during observation period. We aimed to explore patient characteristics and patient-reported outcomes associated with the time-to-dropout. MethodsIn the Oncological Social Care Project (OSCAR) study the condition of participants was assessed four times within 12 months (t0: baseline, t1: 3 months, t2: 6 months, and t3: 12 months) by validated PROMs. We performed competing-risks regression based on Fine and Gray’s proportional sub-distribution hazards model for exploring factors associated with time-to-dropout. Death was considered as competing risk. ResultsThree hundred sixty-two participants were analyzed in the study. 193 (53.3%) completed follow-up at 12 months, 67 (18.5%) patients dropped out, and 102 patients (28.2%) died during the study period. Poor subjective social support was related to higher risk for drop-out (SHR=2.10; 95%CI: 1.01 – 4.35). Lower values in health-related quality of life were related to drop-out and death. The subscales global health status/QoL, role functioning, physical functioning, and fatigue symptom in the EORTC QLQ-C30 were key characteristics associated with early drop-out.ConclusionSeverely affected cancer patients with poor social support and poor quality of life seem more likely to drop out of studies compared to patients with higher levels of social support and quality of life. This should be considered when planning studies assessing cancer patients. Methods to monitor drop-outs timely and handle missing outcomes might be used. Results of such studies have to be interpreted with caution in light of the particular drop-out mechanisms.

Efficacy and feasibility of OncoSmart, a tool for remote detection and monitoring chemoterapy-related adverse events in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: a pilot retrospective study. (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Teresa Troiani ◽  
Stefania Napolitano ◽  
Marinella Terminiello ◽  
Pietro Paolo Vitiello ◽  
Fortunato Ciardiello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Metastatic Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Wearable Device ◽  
Strong Impact ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Symptom Intensity ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment-related health symptoms may have a strong impact on patient’s quality of life (QoL). It has been shown that a considerable number of health care providers underestimates symptom intensity. In this context, the systematic collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has been demonstrated to be a valid, reliable, feasible and precise approach to tabulating symptomatic toxicities and to detect symptoms missed by clinicians. OBJECTIVE We aimed to evaluate feasibility as well as patients’ acceptance of remote technology system to detect and monitoring chemotherapy-related adverse events in metastatic colorectal cancer outpatients. METHODS We enrolled 8 mCRC outpatients who received an oncological treatment. A wearable device (smart watch) allowing automatic vitals measurement (blood pressure, heart rate, oxygen saturation, respiratory rate, pedometer and sleeping monitor) has been provided to all patients. Moreover, two mobile applications have been developed: the first one to monitor vital measurements recorded by the wearable device, the second one to identify treatment-related toxicities and QoL parameters using a 30-items questionnaire (some taken from EORTCQLQ-C30 and others composed by the investigators). Clinicians filled the electronic health records (EHR) at each visit with symptoms reported by patients, physical examination and any treatment modifications. RESULTS a total of 8 patients were enrolled, 2 women (25%) and 6 men (75%); median age was 54 years (range 35-69). Compliance was 77%. Overall concordance between ePRO and symptoms detected by clinicians was 80%; in 15% of cases of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) included symptoms missed during the visit, while in 5% of cases clinicians reported toxicities not recorded by patients. Regarding the symptoms that led to treatment modifications and/or suspension, the concordance between ePROs and clinician’s evaluation during the visit was 100%. CONCLUSIONS In our pilot experience this type of ePROs is feasible and well tolerated, showing high compliance (80%), and allowing identification of toxicities missed by clinicians in 15% of cases. These data suggest that the integration of ePROs with EHR may improve the management of cancer patients. These strategies should be prioritized to optimize active oncological treatments and supportive care in order to improve patient’s QoL and reduce inappropriate hospitalization.

A pilot study of the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE) in a phase I clinical trial.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6587-6587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rui Qin ◽  
Amylou C. Dueck ◽  
Daniel Satele ◽  
Julian R. Molina ◽  
Charles Erlichman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Pilot Study ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trial ◽  
Phase I Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Reported

6587 Background: Recently the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the CTCAE was developed to augment clinically graded adverse events with information reported directly by patients on clinical trials (Basch, 2009). The validation and potential application of PRO-CTCAE in phase I clinical trials are of great interest as toxicity is the primary endpoint. Methods: Selected PRO-CTCAE items (21 items measuring 12 symptomatic adverse events) corresponding to the major adverse events required to be graded clinically were collected in an ongoing phase I clinical trial of weekly cilengitide and paclitaxel in patients with advanced solid malignancies (NCT01276496). PRO-CTCAE was administered in a paper booklet by a clinical research associate prior to treatment on days 1, 8 and 15 of their regular visits. These PRO-CTCAE items were summarized descriptively in comparison to clinician-assessed CTCAE ver 4.0 (NCI, 2009) during the first cycle. As a pilot study to assess feasibility of PRO-CTCAE in phase I trials, PRO-CTCAE was not intended for determination of dose-limiting toxicity. Results: Twelve patients were accrued to two separate doses of cilengitide and paclitaxel. The median age was 56 (range 36—67) and half of patients were female. All patients had an ECOG performance score <= 1. Over 90% of patients had received prior surgery and chemotherapy. All but one patient completed weekly PRO-CTCAE during the first cycle, the only patient refused to complete weeks 2 and 3 did not give a reason. PRO-CTCAE captured most of the symptomatic adverse events reflected in clinician-assessed CTCAE. Some symptomatic adverse events were not reported clinically by CTCAE but were reported by patients by PRO-CTCAE. Overall, PRO-CTCAE items indicated slightly more severe degree of symptoms experienced by patients than those reported in CTCAE. Conclusions: This is the first study that PRO-CTCAE items were integrated within regular study visits in a phase I trial. The administration of PRO-CTCAE has been proved feasible and fruitful, providing consistent and enhanced symptomatic toxicity from the patient point of view. The addition of PRO-CTCAE did not significantly increase patient burden. Clinical trial information: NCT01276496.

Approach and Feasibility of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in a Phase III Clinical Trial for Advanced Stage Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma (cHL) in Children and Adolescents

Blood ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (22) ◽  
pp. 3583-3583 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tara O Henderson ◽  
Sharon M Castellino ◽  
Frank G Keller ◽  
Kara M. Kelly ◽  
Rachael Curtis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Healthcare Utilization ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Parent Report ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction: Given the high cure rates in classical Hodgkin lymphoma (cHL) with conventional therapy, careful consideration of the economics of newer agents should be considered. We describe the feasibility of embedding Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) and cost effectiveness (CEA) in a randomized, multi-institutional Phase III study [NCT02166463; Children's Oncology Group (COG) AHOD1331], evaluating the efficacy of the novel agent, Brentuximab vedotin, for advanced cHL in children and adolescents. Methods: Recruitment for PROs of interest is targeted for 250 of the planned 600 trial participants. Participation in the trial includes prospective collection of patient- and parent proxy-reported outcomes. CIPN is evaluated with the 11-item FACT-GOG-NTX and paired with the 9-item CHRIs-Global to serially evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQL) consequences of CIPN from initial diagnosis to 12 months off therapy. For CEA, US-based participants are queried from diagnosis through 36 months off therapy with the 4-item Stanford Healthcare Utilization Questionnaire (parent-report), the Health Utilities Index (HUI) 2/3, and the 23-item Caregiver Work Limitations Questionnaire (parent-report) as a measure of productivity loss. A study-designated research assistant is charged with contacting site personnel at study entry and at each scheduled assessment. All data are uploaded into a web-based relational database for future analysis. Units of healthcare utilization from the Stanford Healthcare Utilization measure and adverse events (AE) requiring hospitalization will be monetized with unit costs from US-based administrative databases, including the US National Inpatient Sample (NIS) and Kids' Inpatient Database (KID), Massachusetts All-Payer Claims Database (APCD) and Medicare, based on site of care and diagnostic and/or procedure codes. Data on severe AE from the two predecessor trials (COG AHOD 0031 and AHOD 0831) will be monetized as a training exercise. Total costs will be calculated by study arm and will include monetization of significant adverse events and health care utilization and will be expressed as cost per quality-adjusted life year derived from the HUI. Results: The clinical trial, activated in March 2015, has enrolled 161 participants; accrual is ongoing at 172 participating institutions. 156 participants (>95%) have completed the baseline CIPN and CEA measures. Among participants who have completed the baseline CIPN and CEA assessments, 90% have completed subsequent measures. Monetization of significant adverse events and utilization is in progress. Conclusion: We demonstrate a feasible approach evidenced by high completion rates of assessments for prospective evaluation of CIPN, HRQL, and healthcare utilization in a multi-institutional trial of children with advanced HL. Our experience serves as a proof of principle to cooperative groups regarding the resources and the feasibility of incorporating necessary PRO and health utilization outcomes into Phase III clinical trials as a component of cancer care delivery research. Disclosures Henderson: Seattle Genetics: Research Funding.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document