晚期癌症患者及其照护者免疫治疗教育干预的试点随机试验

IF 16.4 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.6004/jnccn.2024.7079
Laura A Petrillo, Kelly Hsu, Kedie Pintro, Dustin J Rabideau, Ashley Z Zhou, Roshni Sarathy, An Tran, Ryan Sullivan, Kerry L Reynolds, Areej El-Jawahri, Angelo Volandes, Joseph A Greer, Jennifer S Temel
{"title":"晚期癌症患者及其照护者免疫治疗教育干预的试点随机试验","authors":"Laura A Petrillo, Kelly Hsu, Kedie Pintro, Dustin J Rabideau, Ashley Z Zhou, Roshni Sarathy, An Tran, Ryan Sullivan, Kerry L Reynolds, Areej El-Jawahri, Angelo Volandes, Joseph A Greer, Jennifer S Temel","doi":"10.6004/jnccn.2024.7079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used cancer drugs. We developed \"UPLIFT,\" a video and question prompt list (QPL) intervention to educate patients about ICI risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized controlled trial of UPLIFT versus usual care among 130 adults initiating ICIs and caregivers. Dyads were randomized 1:1 to receive UPLIFT or usual care prior to ICI initiation. Participants completed surveys at enrollment, 72 hours, and 6 weeks post-ICI initiation. The primary outcomes were feasibility (≥70% enrollment of eligible patients and ≥80% of UPLIFT patients reviewing the video and QPL) and ICI knowledge (8 items, scored as % correct). We also assessed acceptability of UPLIFT (3 items), anxiety (6-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and patient activation (number of questions asked in oncology visit). We used descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and negative binomial models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 130 of 178 eligible patients (73%) and 56 caregivers. Patients (mean age, 67 years [range, 31-92]) had diagnoses of melanoma (41%), lung cancer (26%), or other cancers. All UPLIFT patients (100%) watched the video; 47% used the QPL. Nearly all patients (61/65; 94%) felt \"somewhat\" or \"very comfortable\" with UPLIFT. ICI knowledge improved among UPLIFT patients versus controls at 72 hours (difference in adjusted mean % correct at 72 hours, 9% [95% CI, 3%-16%]). The change in anxiety at 72 hours did not significantly differ and there was no difference in knowledge or anxiety change at 6 weeks across groups. UPLIFT patients asked more questions (ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.97-1.66]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A novel educational intervention about ICI risks and benefits was feasible to deliver, deemed acceptable, and shows promise in improving knowledge and activation to ask questions without increasing anxiety. A future study evaluating UPLIFT's efficacy in these and other outcomes, including severe ICI toxicity, is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":17483,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","volume":"23 2","pages":"12-20"},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pilot Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention About Immunotherapy for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Caregivers.\",\"authors\":\"Laura A Petrillo, Kelly Hsu, Kedie Pintro, Dustin J Rabideau, Ashley Z Zhou, Roshni Sarathy, An Tran, Ryan Sullivan, Kerry L Reynolds, Areej El-Jawahri, Angelo Volandes, Joseph A Greer, Jennifer S Temel\",\"doi\":\"10.6004/jnccn.2024.7079\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used cancer drugs. We developed \\\"UPLIFT,\\\" a video and question prompt list (QPL) intervention to educate patients about ICI risks and benefits.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>We conducted a randomized controlled trial of UPLIFT versus usual care among 130 adults initiating ICIs and caregivers. Dyads were randomized 1:1 to receive UPLIFT or usual care prior to ICI initiation. Participants completed surveys at enrollment, 72 hours, and 6 weeks post-ICI initiation. The primary outcomes were feasibility (≥70% enrollment of eligible patients and ≥80% of UPLIFT patients reviewing the video and QPL) and ICI knowledge (8 items, scored as % correct). We also assessed acceptability of UPLIFT (3 items), anxiety (6-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and patient activation (number of questions asked in oncology visit). We used descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and negative binomial models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 130 of 178 eligible patients (73%) and 56 caregivers. Patients (mean age, 67 years [range, 31-92]) had diagnoses of melanoma (41%), lung cancer (26%), or other cancers. All UPLIFT patients (100%) watched the video; 47% used the QPL. Nearly all patients (61/65; 94%) felt \\\"somewhat\\\" or \\\"very comfortable\\\" with UPLIFT. ICI knowledge improved among UPLIFT patients versus controls at 72 hours (difference in adjusted mean % correct at 72 hours, 9% [95% CI, 3%-16%]). The change in anxiety at 72 hours did not significantly differ and there was no difference in knowledge or anxiety change at 6 weeks across groups. UPLIFT patients asked more questions (ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.97-1.66]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A novel educational intervention about ICI risks and benefits was feasible to deliver, deemed acceptable, and shows promise in improving knowledge and activation to ask questions without increasing anxiety. A future study evaluating UPLIFT's efficacy in these and other outcomes, including severe ICI toxicity, is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17483,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network\",\"volume\":\"23 2\",\"pages\":\"12-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2024.7079\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2024.7079","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)是广泛应用的抗癌药物。我们开发了“UPLIFT”,一种视频和问题提示列表(QPL)干预,以教育患者ICI的风险和益处。患者和方法:我们进行了一项随机对照试验,在130名开始使用ICIs的成年人和护理人员中进行了UPLIFT与常规护理的比较。两组患者按1:1随机分组,在ICI开始前接受UPLIFT或常规护理。参与者在入组、ici启动后72小时和6周完成调查。主要结局为可行性(≥70%入组符合条件的患者和≥80%的UPLIFT患者回顾视频和QPL)和ICI知识(8项,以正确率评分)。我们还评估了UPLIFT(3个项目)、焦虑(6个项目的状态-特质焦虑量表)和患者激活(肿瘤就诊时询问的问题数量)的可接受性。我们使用描述性统计、协方差分析(ANCOVA)和负二项模型。结果:我们招募了178名符合条件的患者中的130名(73%)和56名护理人员。患者(平均年龄67岁[范围31-92岁])诊断为黑色素瘤(41%)、肺癌(26%)或其他癌症。所有UPLIFT患者(100%)观看了视频;47%的人使用QPL。几乎所有患者(61/65;94%的人对UPLIFT感到“有些”或“非常舒服”。与对照组相比,在72小时时,UPLIFT患者的ICI知识有所改善(72小时调整后的平均正确率差异为9% [95% CI, 3%-16%])。72小时的焦虑变化没有显著差异,6周的知识和焦虑变化也没有差异。UPLIFT患者提出的问题较多(比值为1.27 [95% CI, 0.97-1.66])。结论:一种新的关于ICI风险和益处的教育干预是可行的,被认为是可接受的,并且在不增加焦虑的情况下,有望提高知识和激活提问。未来的研究将评估UPLIFT对这些和其他结果的疗效,包括严重的ICI毒性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Pilot Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention About Immunotherapy for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Caregivers.

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are widely used cancer drugs. We developed "UPLIFT," a video and question prompt list (QPL) intervention to educate patients about ICI risks and benefits.

Patients and methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of UPLIFT versus usual care among 130 adults initiating ICIs and caregivers. Dyads were randomized 1:1 to receive UPLIFT or usual care prior to ICI initiation. Participants completed surveys at enrollment, 72 hours, and 6 weeks post-ICI initiation. The primary outcomes were feasibility (≥70% enrollment of eligible patients and ≥80% of UPLIFT patients reviewing the video and QPL) and ICI knowledge (8 items, scored as % correct). We also assessed acceptability of UPLIFT (3 items), anxiety (6-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and patient activation (number of questions asked in oncology visit). We used descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and negative binomial models.

Results: We enrolled 130 of 178 eligible patients (73%) and 56 caregivers. Patients (mean age, 67 years [range, 31-92]) had diagnoses of melanoma (41%), lung cancer (26%), or other cancers. All UPLIFT patients (100%) watched the video; 47% used the QPL. Nearly all patients (61/65; 94%) felt "somewhat" or "very comfortable" with UPLIFT. ICI knowledge improved among UPLIFT patients versus controls at 72 hours (difference in adjusted mean % correct at 72 hours, 9% [95% CI, 3%-16%]). The change in anxiety at 72 hours did not significantly differ and there was no difference in knowledge or anxiety change at 6 weeks across groups. UPLIFT patients asked more questions (ratio, 1.27 [95% CI, 0.97-1.66]).

Conclusions: A novel educational intervention about ICI risks and benefits was feasible to deliver, deemed acceptable, and shows promise in improving knowledge and activation to ask questions without increasing anxiety. A future study evaluating UPLIFT's efficacy in these and other outcomes, including severe ICI toxicity, is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
20.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
388
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JNCCN—Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network is a peer-reviewed medical journal read by over 25,000 oncologists and cancer care professionals nationwide. This indexed publication delivers the latest insights into best clinical practices, oncology health services research, and translational medicine. Notably, JNCCN provides updates on the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology® (NCCN Guidelines®), review articles elaborating on guideline recommendations, health services research, and case reports that spotlight molecular insights in patient care. Guided by its vision, JNCCN seeks to advance the mission of NCCN by serving as the primary resource for information on NCCN Guidelines®, innovation in translational medicine, and scientific studies related to oncology health services research. This encompasses quality care and value, bioethics, comparative and cost effectiveness, public policy, and interventional research on supportive care and survivorship. JNCCN boasts indexing by prominent databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed, Chemical Abstracts, Embase, EmCare, and Scopus, reinforcing its standing as a reputable source for comprehensive information in the field of oncology.
期刊最新文献
How Healthy Are the Diets of Cancer Survivors? Characteristics of Those Most at Risk and Opportunities for Improvement. Assessing the Performance of the PREDICT Breast Version 3.0 Prognostic Tool in Patients With Breast Cancer in the United States. A Case of Cryptic CBFB::MYH11 Acute Myeloid Leukemia With Noncanonical Breakpoints Detected by Optical Genome Mapping. Authors' Reply to the Letter to the Editor by Kim et al: Are We Asking the Right Question for New Biomarkers - "Ready for Prime Time" Versus Demonstrated Clinical Utility? Letter to the Editor: Are We Asking the Right Question for New Biomarkers - "Ready for Prime Time" Versus Demonstrated Clinical Utility?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1