SNF-CLIMEDIN: A Prospective Randomized Trial of Digital Intervention in Patients with Advanced NSCLC—A HeCOG Study.

Paris A. Kosmidis,Thanos Kosmidis,Kyriaki Papadopoulou,Nikolaos Korfiatis,Athanassios Vozikis,Sofia Lampaki,Amanda Psyrri,Elena Fountzilas,Athina Christopoulou,Epaminondas Samantas,Anastasios Vagionas,Giannis Socrates Mountzios,Georgios Gkoumas,Nikolaos Tsoukalas,Ilias Athanasiadis,Dimitris Bafaloukos,Chris G. Panopoulos,Margarita Ioanna Koufaki,George Fountzilas,Helena Linardou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.1520

IF: 45.3

2024-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1520 Background: The purpose of this trial is to investigate the effectiveness of online digital intervention to NSCLC patients in terms of quality of life (QoL), cost and the interrelation with clinical and molecular characteristics. Methods: This prospective randomized trial recruited 200 advanced NSCLC patients (3/22-10/23). All had NGS tissue analysis for 161 genes and received standard treatment (predominantly immuno-chemotherapy). Through the CareAcross online platform they received information about their disease and treatment, and periodically reported any of 22 preplanned adverse events (AEs). Patients were randomized 1:1 in the intervention (A) and control (B) arm; patients in arm A received digitally, additionally, evidence-based guidance for the reported AEs. The study was designed to assess QoL improvement (measured per patient as reduction of the number of AEs reported at last contact, compared to those previously reported). EQ5D-5L scores were collected. Patient-case level hospitalizations data were collected and costs were estimated based on reimbursed costs as defined by the Ministry of Health. Results were correlated with patients’ clinical and molecular characteristics. Results: Clinical and molecular characteristics will be presented during ASCO Congress. For all patients, responses were: CR: 2%, PR: 35.5%, SD: 35%, PD: 10.5%. Median PFS was 7.0 months (95%CI: 5-8), 1-year 18% (38%-55%). Median OS: 12 months (11-14), 1-year 47% (38%-55%). No difference was found between the two arms in any of the above, nor in OS in relation to clinical and molecular characteristics. The most common AEs that patients reported were fatigue, cough, anorexia, nausea. More patients submitted AE reports online than their clinicians (89% vs 68% of patients, p<0.01); more AEs were reported per submission, compared to their clinicians. Patients in arm Α reported marginally higher improvement compared to B (77.2% vs 75.7%); 15 of 22 AEs were associated with higher (14) or same (1) improvement in arm A vs B (not statistically significant); of the most common: fatigue (61.3% vs 48.6%), anorexia (86.5% vs 70.2%; p<0.05) and nausea (93.0% vs 87.2%). Baseline EQ5D was similar in both arms; comparing post-treatment (6th cycle) results shows higher improvement in all 5 dimensions in arm A vs B, especially in Anxiety/Depression (final values: 1.9 vs 2.2). The mean AE-related costs in Euros in arm A vs B were: hospitalization: 455.4 (95%CI: 91.9-941.5) vs 779.5 (346.6-1328.5) (p<0.001); diagnostics: 20.3 (0.5-50.8) vs 73.3 (1.3-186.1) (p<0.001). Follow up is ongoing. Conclusions: Digital oncology is feasible, cost-effective by reducing hospitalizations, improves certain AEs and tends to improve QoL of NSCLC patients regardless of clinical and molecular status. Patients report digitally more informative AEs for clinical and research analysis. Online platforms can complement the Oncology team. Clinical trial information: NCT05372081 .