Pilot Randomized Trial of an Educational Intervention About Immunotherapy for Patients With Advanced Cancer and Their Caregivers.

IF 14.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
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":"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":14.8000,"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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信