Background The benefits of electronic patient reported outcomes (PRO) questionnaires have been demonstrated in many settings, including in hospitals and patient homes. However, it remains to be investigated how melanoma patients and their treating clinicians experience the electronic self-reporting of side effects and the derived communication. Objective The primary objective of this study was to examine patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with an eHealth intervention for weekly monitoring of side effects during treatment with immunotherapy. Methods An eHealth intervention based on questions from the PRO-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) library was used and tested in a randomized clinical trial with patients receiving immunotherapy for malignant melanoma and clinicians at a university hospital in Denmark. On a weekly basis, patients reported their symptoms from home during the treatment via a provided tablet. The electronic patient reports were available to clinicians in the outpatient clinic. A mixed methods approach was applied to investigate the patients’ and clinicians’ experiences with the intervention. Data from patient experiences were collected in a short survey, the Patient Feedback Form. Moreover, a subset of the patients participating in the survey was interviewed about their experience. Furthermore, one focus group interview with clinicians was carried out to elucidate their views. Results A total of 57 patients completed the Patient Feedback Form, and 14 patients were interviewed. The focus group interview included 5 clinicians. Overall, patients and clinicians were satisfied with the tool. They believed it enhanced patients’ awareness of side effects and increased their feeling of involvement. The patients reported that it was easy to fill out the questionnaire and that it made sense to do so. However, a minority of the patients expressed in the interviews that they did not believe that the health care professionals had seen their reports when they came to the clinic, and that the reporting did not lead to increased contact with the department. Conclusions Overall, satisfaction with the eHealth intervention was high among patients and their treating clinicians. The tool was easy to use and contributed to greater symptom awareness and patient involvement. Thus, in terms of patient and clinician satisfaction with the tool, it makes sense to continue using the tool beyond the project period. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03073031; https://tinyurl.com/tjx3gtu

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 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 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 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 Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03073031 Registered 8 March 2017, Retrospectively registered.

IntroductionVandetanib has recently demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits in patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Given the potential for long-term vandetanib therapy in this setting, in addition to treatment for disease-related symptoms, effective management of related adverse events (AEs) is vital to ensure patient compliance and maximize clinical benefit with vandetanib therapy.MethodsThis expert meeting-based review aims to summarize published data on AEs associated with vandetanib therapy and to provide clinicians with specific practical guidance on education, monitoring, and management of toxicities induced in patients treated with vandetanib in advanced and metastatic MTC. The content of this review is based on the expert discussions from a multidisciplinary meeting held in October 2012.ResultsCharacteristics, frequency, and risk data are outlined for a number of dermatological, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and general AEs related to vandetanib treatment. Preventive strategies, practical treatment suggestions, and points for clinical consideration are provided.ConclusionsGood patient and team communication is necessary for the prevention, early detection, and management of AEs of vandetanib. Physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers play a critical role in providing AE management and patient support to optimize outcomes with vandetanib in MTC.

This study investigated experiences and levels of distress and resilience of Danish cancer patients during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: The mixed methods design included a subset of cancer patients who responded to a cross-sectional survey in May 2020. Data were collected through telephone interviews. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT), and Connor-Davidson-Resilience Scale (CD-RISC2) were used to measure distress and resilience. Data were analysed by thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: Forty patients with lung, breast, colorectal and skin (melanoma) cancer were included; 65% were women. Mean age was 62.2 years (standard deviation [SD], 13.2). Most patients had curable disease (65%); 50% were in treatment and 50% in post-treatment follow up. The interviews revealed four themes: 1) the cost of living with cancer during COVID-19, 2) changes in cancer care delivery, 3) particularly vulnerable, and 4) importance of family support. Mean NCCN DT score was 2.3 (SD, 2.6) while the mean CD-RISC2 score was 7.25 (SD, 1.1). Conclusion: Despite drastic changes in daily life imposed by COVID-19 restrictions, Danish cancer patients had remarkably low levels of distress and high levels of resilience. Patients in active treatment, with comorbidities or elderly felt vulnerable. Family support was invaluable in critical times.