Place de la E-Santé outre-atlantiquePoint d’un vue du Pr BASCH, oncologue américain

Publié le 1670849485000



The Current Landscape for Remote Digital Symptom Monitoring with Patient-Reported Outcomes during Cancer Care


Multiple clinical trials and population studies have demonstrated benefits of remote digital symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during systemic cancer therapy, including impro-vements in symptom control, quality of life, physical function, emergency room visits and hospitaliza-tions, and overall survival (1-11) Digital symptom monitoring generally involves software that prompts patients to self-report their symptoms on a regular basis via a survey (e.g., weekly), using a computer or connected device (Figure 1). Severe or worsening symptoms trigger electronic alert notifications to the care team to react and manage concerning symptoms.


Based on this evidence, implementation of remote digital symptom monitoring programs has com-menced in many health systems and oncology practices internationally. However, this field is still in the early adoption stage. Widely accepted standards have not been established yet, and there is not a uniform approach for financial support of these programs.
mplementation of digital symptom monitoring requires selection of a software system, decisions on which symptom questions to include, training patients, monitoring patient compliance, allocating ad-ministrative staff time to train patients, and allocating clinical staff time to receive and react to alert notifications (12, 13). On average, about 30% of surveys will trigger an alert notification, so for a clinical staff member managing a panel of 100 patients, there will be up to 30 alert notifications each time all patients self-report. Nonetheless, these programs have been found to be cost-eff ective (14).In the United States, progress with implementation has been made in the past five years. The major electronic health record vendors have developed digital symptom monitoring PRO functionality either native to their software or through partnerships with PRO software companies. Implementation has occurred in multiple oncology practices nationally, with attention to challenges and solutions to successful rollout (15).However, widespread adoption has been limited by the lack of a consistent financial support model from governmental or private payers. It is clear that successful implemen-tation requires expenses to practices related to staff time and technology. Without clear sources of financial support, adequate resources for successful and durable implementation are limited.


Implementation of digital symptom monitoring requires selection of a software system, decisions on which symptom questions to include, training patients, monitoring patient compliance, allocating ad-ministrative staff time to train patients, and allocating clinical staff time to receive and react to alert notifications (12, 13). On average, about 30% of surveys will trigger an alert notification, so for a clinical staff member managing a panel of 100 patients, there will be up to 30 alert notifications each time all patients self-report. Nonetheless, these programs have been found to be cost-eff ective (14).In the United States, progress with implementation has been made in the past five years. The major electronic health record vendors have developed digital symptom monitoring PRO functionality either native to their software or through partnerships with PRO software companies. Implementation has occurred in multiple oncology practices nationally, with attention to challenges and solutions to successful rollout (15).However, widespread adoption has been limited by the lack of a consistent financial support model from governmental or private payers. It is clear that successful implemen-tation requires expenses to practices related to staff time and technology. Without clear sources of financial support, adequate resources for successful and durable implementation are limited.


Recently, sources of payment to support digital symptom monitoring have evolved in the United States (16). For example, this year, the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new payment model for oncology called the Enhancing Oncology Model, which requires oncology clinics to implement symptom monitoring with PROs (https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/fact-sheets/enhancing-oncology-model).

This lays a path for payments to practices for supporting digital symptom monitoring programs. However, this is a voluntary payment model, so not all practices will participate. An additional mechanism for financial reimbursement to practices is within new CMS billing codes for “Remote Therapeutic Monitoring” and “Remote Patient Monitoring”. These codes provide payments to practices for training and monitoring activities by clinical staff related to remote monitoring technologies. However, there some technical limitations of these codes that will likely be worked out in the next 1-2 years to make them fit better with current models of digital symptom monitoring in oncology (15).


In summary, there have been multiple implementation eff orts in U.S. oncology practices for remote symptom monitoring using PROs. Widespread adoption has been limited in the past by lack of a consistent financial model for supporting related practice expenses. New payment initiatives from CMS in the U.S. provide a promising path forward towards broader implementation.

 


Figure 1.

Clinical workfl ow for digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (reproduced with permission from E. Basch)

 

Références


1. Basch E, Schrag D, Henson S, Jansen J, Ginos B, Stover AM, Carr P, Spears PA, Jonsson M, Deal AM, Bennett AV, Thanarajasingam G, Rogak LJ, Reeve BB, Snyder C, Bruner D, Cella D, Kottschade LA, Perlmutter J, Geoghegan C, Samuel-Ryals CA, Given B, Mazza GL, Miller R, Strasser JF, Zylla DM, Weiss A, Blinder VS, Dueck AC. Eff ect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2022 Jun 28;327(24):2413-2422.
2. Denis F, Basch E, Septans AL, Bennouna J, Urban T, Dueck AC, Letellier C. Two-Year Survival Comparing Web-Based Symptom Monitoring vs Routine Surveillance Following Treatment for Lung Cancer. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306-307.
3. Mir O, Ferrua M, Fourcade A, Mathivon D, Dufl ot-Boukobza A, Dumont S, Baudin E, Delaloge S, Malka D, Albiges L, Pautier P, Robert C, Planchard D, de Botton S, Scotté F, Lemare F, Abbas M, Guillet M, Puglisi V, Di Palma M, Minvielle E. Digital remote monitoring plus usual care versus usual care in patients treated with oral anticancer agents: the randomized phase 3 CAPRI trial. Nat Med. 2022 Jun;28(6):1224-1231.
4. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, Selby PJ. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22(4):714-24.
5. Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Seow H, Mittmann N, Howell D, Earle CC, Li Q, Thiruchelvam D. The impact of routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) use on overall survival in cancer patients: Results of a population-based retrospective matched cohort analysis. Cancer Med. 2020 Aug 14;9(19):7107–15.
6. Barbera L, Sutradhar R, Seow H, Earle CC, Howell D, Mittmann N, Li Q, Thiruchelvam D. Impact of Standardized Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Use on Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalization: Results of a Population-Based Retrospective Matched Cohort Analysis. JCO Oncol Pract. 2020 Sep;16(9):e958-e965.
7. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, Scher HI, Hudis CA, Sabbatini P, Rogak L, Bennett AV, Dueck AC, Atkinson TM, Chou JF, Dulko D, Sit L, Barz A, Novotny P, Fruscione M, Sloan JA, Schrag D. Symptom Monitoring With Patient-Reported Outcomes During Routine Cancer Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34:557-565.
8. Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC, Scher HI, Kris MG, Hudis C, Schrag D. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198.
9. Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):3027-34.
10. Cleeland CS, Wang XS, Shi Q, Mendoza TR, Wright SL, Berry MD, Malveaux D, Shah PK, Gning I, Hofstetter WL, Putnam JB Jr, Vaporciyan AA. Automated symptom alerts reduce postoperative symptom severity after cancer surgery: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):994-1000.
11. Berry DL, Blumenstein BA, Halpenny B, Wolpin S, Fann JR, Austin-Seymour M, Bush N, Karras BT, Lober WB, McCorkle R. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):1029-35.
12. Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, Hess R, Miller DM, Reeve BB, Santana M. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012 Oct;21(8):1305-14.
13. Basch E, Stover AM, Schrag D, Chung A, Jansen J, Henson S, Carr P, Ginos B, Deal A, Spears PA, Jonsson M, Bennett AV, Mody G, Thanarajasingam G, Rogak LJ, Reeve BB, Snyder C, Kottschade LA, Charlot M, Weiss A, Bruner D, Dueck AC. Clinical Utility and User Perceptions of a Digital System for Electronic Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Care: Findings From the PRO-TECT Trial. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2020 Oct;4:947-957.
14. Lizée T, Basch E, Trémolières P, Voog E, Domont J, Peyraga G, Urban T, Bennouna J, Septans AL, Balavoine M, Detournay B, Denis F. Cost-Eff ectiveness of Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Surveillance in Patients With Lung Cancer. J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Jun;14(6):1012-1020.
15. Patt D, Wilfong L, Hudson KE, Patel A, Books H, Pearson B, Boren R, Patil S, Olson-Celli K, Basch E. Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Practice: Dancing the Texas Two-Step Through a Pandemic. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021 May;5:615-621.
16. Basch E, Wilfong L, Schrag D. Adding Patient-Reported Outcomes to Medicare’s Oncology Value-Based Payment Model. JAMA. 2020 Jan 21;323(3):213-214.


Pr Ethan BASCHMD

Division of Oncology,
University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, NC USA
Article paru dans la revue « Société Française des Jeunes Radiothérapeutes Oncologues » /
SFjRO n°03

 

Publié le 1670849485000