This clinical trial studies the effect of cancer directed therapy given at-home versus in the clinic for patients with cancer that may have spread from where it first started to nearby tissue, lymph nodes, or distant parts of the body (advanced). Currently most drug-related cancer care is conducted in infusion centers or specialty hospitals, where patients spend many hours a day isolated from family, friends, and familiar surroundings. This separation adds to the physical, emotional, social, and financial burden for patients and their families. The logistics and costs of navigating cancer treatments have become a principal contributor to patients' reduced quality of life. It is therefore important to reduce the burden of cancer in the lives of patients and their caregivers, and a vital aspect of this involves moving beyond traditional hospital and clinic-based care and evaluate innovative care delivery models with virtual capabilities. Providing cancer treatment at-home, versus in the clinic, may help reduce psychological and financial distress and increase treatment compliance, especially for marginalized patients and communities.
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: I. To compare mean patient-reported rating of Cancer Connected Access and Remote Expertise (CARE) using a modified question from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Cancer Care Survey after 8 weeks between patients randomized to receive care at home and care in the clinic. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: I. To evaluate patient preference for location of cancer treatment administration, at the infusion center or in the home. II. To evaluate level of comfort with receiving infusions at home based on the following measures after 24 weeks of treatment: IIa. The proportion of patients who indicate a preference for home infusion or no preference versus outpatient infusion unit administration of cancer treatment as assessed via the Patient Preference Questionnaire; IIb. The proportion of patients who indicate comfort (quite a bit or very much) with receiving infusions at home as assessed by the Patient Preference Questionnaire. III. To describe other patient experience questions within the Patient Preference Questionnaire after 24 weeks of treatment. IV. To describe whether patients felt that infusions at home was worthwhile, would do it again, and recommend it to others after 24 weeks of treatment using the Was It Worth It questionnaire. V. To test whether home-based virtual delivery of cancer directed therapy is superior to standard administration (in clinic) in patient-reported function and global health/quality of life as measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core Function 17-Item (EORTC QLQ-F17) after 8 weeks of home versus outpatient infusion unit administration of cancer treatment. VI. To test whether home-based virtual delivery of cancer directed therapy is superior to standard administration (in clinic) in patient-reported symptoms as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) after 8 weeks of home versus outpatient infusion unit administration of cancer treatment. VII. To assess the safety of home administered intravenous (IV)/subcutaneous (SQ) drug treatment when administered at home by a home health provider with remote patient monitoring and Command Center support, based on the incidence, nature, severity, and attribution to the location of cancer care of the following: VIIa. Grade 3+ adverse event (AE) clinically graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 (NCI CTCAE v5.0), particularly those possibly, probably, or definitely related to the location of cancer care (i.e., at home versus in clinic). VIII. To test whether home-based virtual delivery of cancer directed therapy is superior to standard in clinic administration in the proportion of patients with an emergency room visit or hospitalization at the end of 6 months of study treatment. IX. Overall survival. EXPLORATORY OBJECTIVES: I. To assess the cost of care in first 6 months (data collected out to 1 year). II. To evaluate administration of treatment based on clinical practice data. OUTLINE: Patients receive at least 1 cycle of their standard of care (SOC) treatment regimen in the clinic in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients are then randomized to 1 of 2 arms. ARM A: Patients continue receiving their SOC treatment regimen at home for approximately 24 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. This includes drug administrations, injections/infusions and routine clinical laboratory tests in the home from the Home Health Nurse Provider (HHNP), overseen by Mayo Clinic's home health program Cancer CARE Beyond Walls (CCBW) Command Center. Patients are also provided biometric devices for health monitoring vital signs, as well as a computer tablet for video visits with the Mayo Clinic care team. ARM B: Patients continue receiving their SOC treatment regimen in the clinic for approximately 8 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients then begin receiving their SOC treatment regimen at home as in Arm I for an approximate additional 16 weeks in the absence of disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. After completion of study intervention, patients are followed for 1 year.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
200
Receive treatment in clinic
Receive at-home treatment
Ancillary studies
Ancillary studies
Mayo Clinic in Florida
Jacksonville, Florida, United States
RECRUITINGAltru Cancer Center
Grand Forks, North Dakota, United States
RECRUITINGMean patient-reported rating of Cancer Connected Access and Remote Expertise
This hypothesis test will use patient ratings from a single 0-10 item from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Cancer Care Survey assessing "your overall cancer care experience". Will be compared between arms using a two-sample t-test.
Time frame: At 8 weeks
Patient-preferred treatment location
The proportion of patients who preferred care at home or expressed no preference will be computed and compared to 50% using a one-group test of proportions. Additional Likert patient feedback questions and "Was It Worth It" questions at each time point will be described using frequencies and relative frequencies by arm (or overall if applicable) and compared between arms (if applicable) using chi-squared tests. Numeric analog scale questions will be described using means and standard deviations and compared between arms (if applicable) using t-tests.
Time frame: At 24 weeks
Patient level of comfort with receiving infusions at home
Patient responses to comfort level with receiving infusions at home will be described using frequencies and relative frequencies. The proportion of patients who express comfort (quite a bit or very much) will also be tabulated and a proportion greater than 70% will signify acceptance. Additional Likert patient feedback questions and "Was It Worth It" questions at each time point will be described using frequencies and relative frequencies by arm (or overall if applicable) and compared between arms (if applicable) using chi-squared tests. Numeric analog scale questions will be described using means and standard deviations and compared between arms (if applicable) using t-tests.
Time frame: At 24 weeks
Patient-reported worthwhileness
Measured by the Was it Worth It questionnaire. The Was It Worth It questionnaire asks patients whether they thought that receiving chemo/infusions at home was worthwhile, whether they would do it again, and whether they would recommend it to others.
Time frame: At 24 weeks
Patient-reported function
Measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Mean and standard deviation of each scale will be computed by arm. Means and standard deviations of each scale will also be computed at all other assessment time points. Mean changes from baseline in each scale at 8 weeks (and other assessment time points) will be compared between arms using a linear combination of parameters from a general linear mixed model. Each model will include all available data from all time points. Fixed effects will include arm, time point, and arm-by-time point interaction. Repeated observations by patient will be modeled using compound symmetric correlation structure over time. Such values as the mean change from baseline at 8 weeks by arm, and difference in mean change from baseline at 8 weeks between arms will be estimated with confidence intervals based on the mixed model. Comparisons at other time points will also be carried out and graphically displayed using mean plots.
Time frame: At 8 weeks
Patient-reported symptoms
Will be measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) and summarized using composite grades. The baseline adjustment approach will be applied and resulting maximum baseline-adjusted grade will be reported by symptomatic adverse events (AE) as the proportion of patients with at least one grade \>=1 AE during the first 8 weeks. The proportion of patients with at least one grade \>= 3 AE per symptomatic AE will also be tabulated during the first 8 weeks. Comparisons between arms will employ Fisher's exact tests. Additional summaries over the 24 weeks by tables and graphics will also be generated.
Time frame: At 8 weeks
Patient-reported side effect impact
Will be measured by the General Physical-5 (GP5). The frequency and relative frequency of patient responses to the GP5 at 8 weeks will be computed by arm and compared between arms using a chi-squared test. The categorical analysis will also be computed at other assessment time points. Mean GP5 scores over time will also be explored using a general linear mixed model and mean plots.
Time frame: At 8 weeks
Incidence of adverse events
The maximum grade for each type of adverse event will be summarized using CTCAE version 5.0. The frequency and percentage of grade 3+ adverse events (by individual AEs and overall) will be reported by arm and compared between arms using a Fisher's exact test.
Time frame: Up to 24 weeks
Emergency room visits and hospitalizations
The proportion of patients with an emergency room visit or hospitalization will be computed per arm and compared between arms using a Fisher's exact test. In subsequent analyses, emergency room visits and hospitalizations will be explored separately. Proportion of patients with emergency room visits or hospitalizations will also be summarized over the entire study.
Time frame: At 8 weeks
Overall survival
Will be estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between arms using a log-rank test.
Time frame: The time from study entry to death from any cause, assessed up to 1 year after completion of study intervention
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.