From the Journals

Self-reporting extends lung cancer survival

 

Key clinical point: Patients with nonprogressive, metastatic lung cancer who report symptoms through a weekly, web-based monitoring system may survive longer than those who undergo standard imaging surveillance.

Major finding: Median overall survival (OS) of patients in the web-based monitoring group was 22.5 months versus 13.5 months for patients in the standard imaging group (P = .005).

Study details: A prospective study of 121 nonprogressive, metastatic lung cancer patients being treated with antiangiogenic therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Disclosures: The study was funded by SIVAN Innovation. Investigators reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, SIVAN Innovation, Ipsen, Roche, the National Cancer Institute, Lilly, and others.

Source: Denis F et al. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306-7.


 

FROM JAMA

Patients with nonprogressive, metastatic lung cancer who report symptoms through a weekly, web-based monitoring system may survive longer than those who undergo standard imaging surveillance, according to a recent French study.

Self-reporting may notify care providers about adverse effects or recurrence earlier than imaging, suggested lead author, Fabrice Denis, MD, PhD, of Institut Inter-régional de Cancérologie Jean Bernard in Le Mans, France, and his colleagues. Findings were published in a letter in JAMA.

In 2017, a similar, single-center study showed that web-based symptom reporting could improve survival in patients undergoing chemotherapy. The lead investigator on that trial was Ethan Basch, MD, who coauthored the present publication.

The current, prospective study involved 121 patients treated at five centers in France between June 2014 and December 2017. Eligibility required a diagnosis of nonprogressive, metastatic lung cancer, including stage III or IV non–small cell or small cell disease. Patients were treated with antiangiogenic therapy, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, or tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

Patients in the control group had standard follow-up with imaging every 3-6 months. In contrast, the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) group completed a weekly online survey of 13 common symptoms between follow-up visits. If patients reported symptoms that matched with predefined criteria for severity or worsening, then the treating oncologist was notified.

When an 18-month interim analysis showed significant survival advantage in the PRO group, recruitment was stopped, and control patients were moved to the PRO group. After 2 years of follow-up, 40 patients (66.7%) in the control group had died, compared with 29 patients (47.5%) in the PRO group. Before censoring for crossover, median overall survival (OS) was 22.5 months in the PRO group, compared with 14.9 months in the control group (P = .03). Censoring for crossover widened the gap between groups by more than a month (22.5 vs. 13.5 months; P = .005).

“A potential mechanism of action is that symptoms suggesting adverse events or recurrence were detected earlier,” the investigators concluded.

The study was funded by SIVAN Innovation. Investigators reported financial affiliations with AstraZeneca, SIVAN Innovation, Ipsen, Roche, the National Cancer institute, Lilly, and others.

SOURCE: Denis F et al. JAMA. 2019 Jan 22;321(3):306-7.

Next Article: