Symptoms and General Pathology

All Conditions

Critical Illness

Disease Attributes

Patients assigned to this arm will discuss scan results revealing progressive disease with an Oncolo-GIST trained physician.

Oncolo-GIST: Behavioral: Oncolo-GIST Oncolo-GIST is a brief, manualized communication intervention that guides oncologists in "gist communication" by itemizing 4 key steps in the process of imparting prognostic information.

Topics covered include:

Principles of introducing prognosis in the setting of worsened scan results Coupling communicating realistic prognoses with psychological support (e.g., saying "average life-expectancy is months..." with emphasizing that the oncology team "will always provide care for you") Addressing informational needs and psychological reactions Applying proven techniques for supporting patients who are reluctant to discuss prognosis.

Patients assigned to this arm will will discuss scan results revealing progressive disease with a physician that was not trained with the Oncolo-GIST intervention.

Usual Care Arm: Oncologists will provide care in non-specific manner.

Physicians assigned to this arm will receive the Oncolo-GIST training intervention.

Physicians assigned to this arm will not receive the Oncolo-GIST training intervention.

Behavioral: Oncolo-GIST Oncolo-GIST is a brief, manualized communication intervention that guides oncologists in "gist communication" by itemizing 4 key steps in the process of imparting prognostic information.

Topics covered include:

Principles of introducing prognosis in the setting of worsened scan results Coupling communicating realistic prognoses with psychological support (e.g., saying "average life-expectancy is months..." with emphasizing that the oncology team "will always provide care for you") Addressing informational needs and psychological reactions Applying proven techniques for supporting patients who are reluctant to discuss prognosis.

The 4-step guide will include brief video-clips of demonstrating each "talking point" with a standardized patient, including ideal scenarios, common pitfalls to avoid, and how to respond to patient reactions that are particularly challenging, such as responding to optimism, death anxiety, and reliance on faith.

Oncolo-GIST

Oncologists will provide care in non-specific manner.

Usual Care Arm

Holly G Prigerson, PhD

When advanced disease progresses, there comes a time when an oncologists must explain to their patients that they only have months left to live. During these discussions the oncologist attempts to explain to the patient their prognoses and what it means for them going forward. However our prior studies shown that even when patients only have months left to live, most do not understand that their cancer is incurable and that it is late/end-stage.

Dying cancer patients who fully understand their prognosis are able to make more informed decisions and are therefore more likely to engage in advanced care planning, and receive care what in consistent with their values and preferences. They are also in a better position to avoid burdensome, non-beneficial care. The investigator developed Oncolo-GIST in order to help increase the number of patients who fully understand their prognosis and its implications.

Oncolo-GIST is an intervention aimed at enhancing clinicians' communication with patients by teaching them to relay information both sensitively and using simple terminology. The Oncolo-GIST training will provide instruction in areas such as how to introduce the topic of prognosis (describe scan results as "worse"), how to phrase the prognosis itself ("likely months, not years"), how to explain expected treatment outcomes (e.g., "not expected to be cured by treatment") and how to describe expected treatments impact on quality of life - that is, whether the anticancer treatment is likely to make them feel overall better or worse. The training materials consist of a manual and a set of videos that act out situations described in the manual.

The second phase of this study will be a randomized controlled trial. The investigator will recruit (n=50) adults with metastatic GI or lung cancers with scan results that reveal progression (worsened disease) on an initial systemic treatment; that is, patients whose life-expectancy can reliably be estimated to be months, not years. Medical oncologists (n=4) who care for these patients will also be consented for study participation and half (n=2) will be randomized to receive the Oncolo-GIST training.

Patients will be assessed by trained research staff in the week prior to a scheduled meeting with their oncologist to discuss the scan results. This will provide patients' baseline levels of prognostic understanding and enable the investigator to determine how the intervention relates to pre-post scan visit changes in prognostic understanding. Patients will be assessed post-scan within a week of that progressive scan visit.

The assessment battery that will be administered at these time-points will measure the patient's degree of prognostic understanding, the primary outcome of the study. Other outcomes that will be measured by the assessment battery include the patients quality of life, therapeutic alliances of the patient, whether or not a DNR was ordered, the care received by the patient, whether or not the patient preferred greater quality of longer quantity of life, and whether or not the patients received "value-consistent" care.

Despite exciting recent advances in cancer treatments, there still, ultimately, comes a time when advanced disease progresses, and patients can reliably be expected to have months, not years, left to live. For patients with metastatic cancers studied in the investigator's Coping with Cancer NCI R01s, this comes after progression on 1st- or 2nd-line therapy -- be it chemo-, immune-, or targeted therapy. Prior studies conducted by the investigator have found that oncologists can reliably predict when patients have only months to live (e.g., remarkable agreement between oncologist estimates of months to live shared with patients and patients' actual survival of months). By contrast, patients appear largely unaware of their prognosis. For example, 5% of patients a median of 5 months from death, accurately understood they had incurable, late/end-stage, terminal cancer, and likely only months to live. Dying cancer patients appear to lack the prognostic understanding needed to make informed choices.

Patients who grasp that they are dying (e.g., the 8.6% who "get the gist" that they likely have months to live), relative to those who do not, have been shown to have: a) higher rates of advance care planning (ACP), b) receive less burdensome, unbeneficial care (e.g., fewer intensive care unit, ICU, stays, less cardiopulmonary resuscitation, CPR), and c) more value-consistent care. The investigator has found that patient prognostic understanding is improved by oncologist discussions of life-expectancy, but despite 71% of patients wanting to discuss prognosis with their oncologists (83% adult cancer patients thought prognostic information was extremely/very important), only 17.6% of cancer patients within months of death reported that they had discussed prognosis with their oncologist. Not only do oncologists appear to discuss prognosis less than patients want them to, but even when prognostic discussions do occur, the investigator has found that some approaches (e.g., matter-of-fact) are more effective than others (e.g., vague) for promoting patients' prognostic understanding. Thus, prior work identifies a need to improve communication to promote patient prognostic understanding in a way that oncologists will likely learn, accept, use, and possibly implement more broadly in clinical practice.

To address this need, the investigator developed the "Giving Information Simply \&Transparently" (GIST), Oncolo-GIST intervention -- a manualized oncologist communication intervention that simplifies how to impart prognostic information by focusing on 4 basic steps: 1) Giving scan information, 2) Informing prognosis, 3) Strategizing sensitively, and 4) Transparently asking what the patient heard. Unlike traditional emphasis on numerical or medical details, the Oncolo-GIST approach is based on Reyna's Fuzzy-Trace Theory of decision-making, which emphasizes the need for an understanding of the bottom-line gist of a situation. The Oncolo-GIST approach distills prognostic discussions to clear communication of end-of-life (EoL) decision-making essentials (e.g., life-expectancy). 3 specific aims of the Oncolo-GIST approach will be tested in 2 phases:

Phase 1 will consist of two parts: 1) An interview of key stakeholders/key informants regarding Oncolo-GIST Version 1.0 in order to inform refinements to produce Oncolo-GIST Version 2.0. 2) An open trial of Oncolo-GIST Version 1.0 to inform refinements to produce Oncolo-GIST Version 2.0.

Phase 2 will involve a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Oncolo-GIST Version 2.0 on 50 patients with metastatic cancers worse on at least 1 line of therapy (chemo-, immune-, targeted), whose oncologists do not expect them to survive 12 months. Patients will be assessed in the week prior to their scheduled scan, within 1 week of the clinic visit in which progressive scan results are discussed, and then 2 and 4 months later to explore intervention effects on primary and secondary outcomes, respectively. Oncologists will be assessed in the week following that same clinic visit to obtain their impressions of the discussion of prognosis and the patient's prognostic understanding.

In Phase 2, for the pilot cluster RCT, the investigator will recruit (n=50) adults with metastatic GI or lung cancers with scan results that reveal progression (worsened disease) on an initial systemic treatment; that is, patients whose life-expectancy can reliably be estimated to be months, as opposed to years. Medical oncologists (n=4) who care for these patients will also be consented for study participation and half (n=2) will be randomized to receive the Oncolo-GIST training. The investigator expects 12-13 patients will be clustered within each of the 4 oncologists. Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) techniques will be employed to address the non-independence of patient assessments within each cluster. Patients (n=25) will be seen by either an Oncolo-GIST trained oncologist or an oncologist not trained in the intervention; that is, usual care (n=25). Patients in both arms will have met the same eligibility criteria (i.e., have similar prognoses).

Patients will be assessed by trained research staff in the week prior to a scheduled meeting with their oncologist to discuss the scan results. This will provide patients' baseline levels of prognostic understanding and enable the investigator to determine how the intervention relates to pre-post scan visit changes in prognostic understanding. Patients will be assessed post-scan within a week of that progressive scan visit. Although not all patients are expected to die within the study observation period, given a median life expectancy of \~4-5 months from baseline, the investigator expects nearly half of the enrolled patients will die 4 months from baseline, and that the vast majority will die during the study observation period of 12 months. Thus, for all patients enrolled in this study, the medical care that they receive can reasonably be considered end-of-life care, whether they die during the study observation period or not.

The primary outcome is the patient's degree of prognostic understanding, measured using the investigator's validated 4-item assessment. The investigator will determine if the patient understood the scan results to be "worse" and their understanding of expected outcomes of treatments proffered (re: curability, survival, quality of life). Outcomes will also include whether a DNR order was completed for the patient, the McGill Quality of Life measure, performance status (e.g., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group, ECOG), and care received (e.g., anticancer, intensive, palliative care). Treatment preferences will be assessed using the SUPPORT question regarding quality vs. quantity of life, which will be used to compare with actual EoL care received to operationalize "value-consistent" care. The investigator's validated Human Connection scale will assess therapeutic alliances from both the patient and oncologist perspective, and the investigator will assess oncologists' sense of how the scan discussion went (e.g., degree to which they think they communicated effectively, and that the patient understood them and had an accurate prognostic understanding). Demographic/background information (e.g., age, race/ethnicity, sex, education) and DNR documentation will be obtained from subject self-report at baseline and the patient's medical records. Previously validated measures will assess potential confounding influences such as time from diagnosis, prior discussions of prognosis, and health literacy using the REALM. Preferences regarding medical decision-making (e.g., an active vs. passive role in deciding the best course of treatment), patients' Religious Beliefs in EoL Care (RBEC), and the question "If your doctor knew how long you had left to live, would you want him/her to tell you?" will be assessed.

Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) will be used to evaluate intervention effects. HLM is statistically appropriate because it accounts for the clustering of patients within oncologists, creating non- independence of clustered assessments. HLM will model oncologists as a random effect as has been done in prior RCTs. Baseline covariates known to affect study outcomes (e.g., patient health literacy) will be included in models to increase the precision of effect size estimates. This will provide a preliminary effect size estimate of Oncolo-GIST Version 2.0's ability to improve patients' prognostic understanding for a future, larger study. Linear and logistic regression models will estimate effects of the Oncolo-GIST intervention on secondary and exploratory outcomes.

The details for Phase 1 of the study are enumerated in a separate record marked "Giving Information Systematically and Transparently in Lung and GI Cancer Phase 1" (Oncolo-GIST P1) with NCT # NCT04158908.

Giving Information Systematically and Transparently in Lung and GI Cancer Phase 2

Changes in illness understanding by patients as measured by three items from the investigator's validated 4-item assessment will be compared between groups at baseline and post-scan follow-up. The assessment asks three questions that assess patients' recognition of their incurable disease status, knowledge of the advanced stage of their disease, and expectation to live months as opposed to years. Responses are coded 1 or 0 to indicate the presence or absence of each of these element. These four indicators are then added together to construct summary scores (possible range, 0 to 3). Differences between pre- and post-scan visit illness understanding scores (possible range, -3 to 3) are used to define changes in illness understanding by a patient between the pre- and post-scan visit interviews. Higher total scores represent an increase in prognostic understanding. Lower scores represent a decrease in understanding.

Quality of life of patients, as measured by the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire, will be compared between groups at one-week, two-month and 4-month follow up assessments (T2, T3, and T4). This questionnaire contains 16 items and each item uses a 10-point scale, where 0 is desirable and 10 is undesirable. Separate sub-scales scoring for global, physical, psychological, emotional and existential well-being, are determined by taking the mean of the associated items. The score for overall quality of life is determined by taking the mean of all the sub-scales. Higher total scores represent better quality of life. Lower scores represent worse better quality of life.

Whether or not a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) was ordered by the patient, as determined by a medical chart abstraction, will be compared between groups at 2-month and 4-month follow up assessments (T4). This will be scored as either a 0, if there was no DNR ordered, or a 1 if there was a DNR ordered.

Methods of treatment and care received by patients, as determined from a medical chart abstraction, will be compared between groups at 2-month and 4-month follow up assessments (T4). Types of care include palliative care, hospice and hospitalization. Types of treatment include chemotherapy drugs, narcotic pain medication and radiation therapy.

National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR)

Weill Medical College of Cornell University

For the purpose of this study, an AE is defined as a participant experiencing severe psychological distress, regardless of attribution. Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) were not monitored or assessed. All-Cause Mortality and Other \[Not Including Serious\] Adverse Events were not monitored/assessed for physician participants.

Oncolo-GIST Arm - Patients

Usual Care Arm - Patients

Oncolo-GIST Arm - Physicians

Usual Care Arm - Physicians

Patients assigned to this arm will will discuss scan results revealing progressive disease with an Oncolo-GIST trained physician.

Oncolo-GIST: Behavioral: Oncolo-GIST Oncolo-GIST is a brief, manualized communication intervention that guides oncologists in "gist communication" by itemizing 4 key steps in the process of imparting prognostic information.

Topic covered include:

Principles of introducing prognosis in the setting of worsened scan results Coupling communicating realistic prognoses with psychological support (e.g., saying "average life-expectancy is months..." with emphasizing that the oncology team "will always provide care for you") Addressing informational needs and psychological reactions Applying proven techniques for supporting patients who are reluctant to discuss prognosis.

The 4-step guide will include brief video-clips of demonstrating each "talking point" with a standardized patient, including ideal scenarios, common pitfalls to avoid, and how to respond to patient reactions that are particularly challenging, such as responding to optimism, death anxiety, and reliance on faith.

Total

Age, Continuous

Sex: Female, Male

Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)

Race (NIH/OMB)

Cancer type (Diagnosis for patients; treatment specialty for physicians)

Religion

Education

All participants who completed the Baseline Survey.

Enrollment was lower than planned, limiting statistical power and generalizability of the results. Due to technical error, some measures, including the McGill Quality of Life scale and a question about terminal illness understanding from the patient assessments, were omitted. We also modified the protocol to eliminate two planned follow-ups to increase acceptability. Therefore, we did not analyze most planned secondary outcomes.

Sophia Kakarala

Patients assigned to this arm will will discuss scan results revealing progressive disease with an Oncolo-GIST trained physician.

Oncolo-GIST: Behavioral: Oncolo-GIST Oncolo-GIST is a brief, manualized communication intervention that guides oncologists in "gist communication" by itemizing 4 key steps in the process of imparting prognostic information.

Topics covered include:

Principles of introducing prognosis in the setting of worsened scan results Coupling communicating realistic prognoses with psychological support (e.g., saying "average life-expectancy is months..." with emphasizing that the oncology team "will always provide care for you") Addressing informational needs and psychological reactions Applying proven techniques for supporting patients who are reluctant to discuss prognosis.

The 4-step guide will include brief video-clips of demonstrating each "talking point" with a standardized patient, including ideal scenarios, common pitfalls to avoid, and how to respond to patient reactions that are particularly challenging, such as responding to optimism, death anxiety, and reliance on faith.

1 patient on the Oncolo-GIST arm was not analyzed due to not having completed the post-scan visit interview. Not relevant to Physician arm participants. The investigators did not include one item from the validated 4-item scale (terminal illness acknowledgement) in the follow-up assessment due to technical error, and so the measure was limited to the three items for which there was follow-up data. 2- and - 4-month assessments were not done as participants preferred not to commit to follow-up.

Change in Prognostic Understanding

Patient Quality of Life

1 Week Post-Scan

2 months Post-Scan

All patients who completed follow-up assessments and therefore had a medical chart review. This measure is not relevant to physician participants. 4-month assessments were ultimately not done, as participants preferred not to commit to follow-up.

Whether or Not a Do Not Resuscitate Was Ordered by Patient

1 Week Post-Scan : Patients enrolled in hospice care

1 Week Post-Scan : Patients who had had a palliative care consult

1 Week Post-Scan: Patients who had been hospitalized within the past week.

1 Week Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving chemotherapy

1 Week Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving radiation therapy

1 Week Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving narcotic pain medication

2 Months Post-Scan : Patients enrolled in hospice care

2 Months Post-Scan : Patients who had had a palliative care consult

2 Months Post-Scan: Patients who had been hospitalized within the past week.

2 Months Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving chemotherapy

2 Months Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving radiation therapy

2 Months Post-Scan: Patients who were receiving narcotic pain medication

Data collection for this outcome was discontinued when the assessment at 4 months was eliminated. No data was collected at 4 months.

Treatment and Care Received

Data was not collected for this measure. Patient performance status was not noted in the majority of patients' charts, and where it was noted, physicians used differing scales.

Patient Performance Status

Change in Human Connection Scale total score

Change in individual item: Likes oncologist

Change in individual item: trusts oncologist

Change in individual item: Oncologist is concerned about your quality of life.

Change in individual item: doctor asks how you are coping with cancer.

Change in individual item: Doctor asks how family members are coping with illness.

Change in individual item: Feels comfortable asking doctor questions.

Change in individual item: Oncologist takes the time to listen to concerns.

Change in individual item: Oncologist sees you as a whole person.

Change in individual item: Oncologist cares about you.

Change in individual item: Oncologist is honest with you.

Change in individual item: Oncologist offers hope.

Changes in 11-item Human Connection Scale (Mack et al., 2009) total score and individual item scores after scan discussion. Total scores have a range of 0-44 and are calculated by summing individual item scores from the 11 items on the assessment. Individual items are scored from 0-4. In both cases, higher scores mean a better outcome: a stronger physician-patient therapeutic alliance. Change scores are calculated by subtracting the mean at the week after scan (T1) from the mean at baseline. A positive change indicates a better outcome (strengthening of the therapeutic alliance), whereas a negative change indicates a worse outcome (weakening of the therapeutic alliance).

All participants who completed follow-up assessments. This measure is not relevant to physician participants.

Change in Physician-Patient Therapeutic Alliance as Measured by the Human Connection Scale

Anxiety subscore change

Depression subscore change

Changes in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety and Depression subscores, each with a minimum of 0 and maximum of 21, with a higher score meaning a worse outcome and a negative change between timepoints indicating improvement.

All patients who completed follow-up assessments. This measure is not relevant to physician participants.

Change in Anxiety and Depression as Measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety and Depression Subscores

Overall Study

Remote Phone Telegenetics:

Participants with complete pre-test and disclosure counseling with a Genetic Counselor using remote services - TELEPHONE.

Remote Videoconferencing Telegenetics:

Participants with complete pre-test and disclosure counseling with a Genetic Counselor using remote services - VIDEOCONFERENCING.

Usual Care:

Participants will receive referrals to genetic counseling providers, initiating services on their own. At 6 months, if participants have not sought and received genetic counseling services, they will be offered randomization to ARM A/ARM B.

Participants will receive standard of care pre-test and disclosure genetic counseling with a genetic counselor by Telephone.

Remote Telegenetic Counseling by Phone

Participants will receive standard of care pre-test and disclosure genetic counseling with a genetic counselor using Videoconferencing Technology.

Remote Telegenetic Counseling by Videoconferencing

Participants in the usual care arm will receive usual care services depending on which referral method they choose and if they initiate services. After a 6 month status survey, if they have not had genetic services through usual care they will be offered services and re-randomized to ARM A/ARM B.

Tara Henderson, MD

Mary A Allen

Melissa Marx, MPH

Tara Henderson, MD, MPH

Angela Bradbury, MD

Beth Wood

Aaron McDonald, PhD

Shani Alston

Tara O Henderson, MD, MPH, FASCO

To address the gap in access to genetic services, this study will evaluate the effectiveness of an adapted model of remote delivery of genetic services to increase the uptake of recommended genetic assessment and testing in childhood cancer survivors.

As childhood cancer survivors receive care locally from PCPs, the in-home, collaborative PCP model is designed to increase access to genetic services and uptake of genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors. In this model, individual survivors can access remote telegenetic services and genetic counselors will partner with PCPs to order genetic testing.

This study comprises of a 3-arm randomized Hybrid 1 Effectiveness and Implementation study in 360 CCSS survivors to evaluate the effectiveness of our in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of cancer genetic testing in childhood cancer survivors compared to usual care options for genetic testing.

Aims are as follows:

To evaluate the effectiveness of our in-home, collaborative PCP model of remote telegenetic services to increase uptake of genetic testing at 6 months as compared to usual care among childhood cancer survivors who meet criteria for cancer genetic testing. Our primary outcome will be a composite variable indicating whether a person had pre-test counseling or genetic testing.

To evaluate the effectiveness of remote videoconferencing to provide greater increase in knowledge and decrease in distress and depression as compared to remote phone services, to examine the moderators of patient outcomes with remote telegenetic services, and to estimate intervention costs and incremental cost-effectiveness of the three study arms.

To conduct a multi-stakeholder, mixed-methods process evaluation to understand patient, provider and system factors associated with uptake of counseling and testing in our adapted in-home, collaborative PCP model and facilitators and barriers to uptake to provide recommendations for future implementation.

Engaging and Activating Cancer Survivors in Genetic Services Study

Primary composite outcome collected via remote services records-Yes/No (ARMS A/B)

Change in knowledge (ARMS A/B only). Increased change score indicates increase in knowledge (better).

Change in Cancer Specific Distress (ARMS A/B only). Score Range = 0-40. Decreased score change indicates a decrease in distress (better).

Change in Depression (ARMS A/B only). Score Range = 4-20. Decreased score change indicates a decrease in depression (better).

Collected via remote services records (ARMS A/B)

Change in Anxiety (ARMS A/B only). Score Range = 4-20. Decreased score change indicates a decrease in anxiety (better).

Change in Uncertainty (ARMS A/B only). Score Range = 0-85. Decreased score change indicates a decrease in uncertainty (better).

Change in performance of risk reductive and screening behaviors and communication of results - Yes/No responses (ARMS A/B only).

Study title	NCT ID	Conditions	Interventions	Eligibility	Organization
Giving Information Systematically and Transparently in Lung and GI Cancer Phase 2	NCT04179305	Critical Illnes... Oncology Communication	Oncolo-GIST Usual Care Arm	18 Years -	Weill Medical College of Cornell University
Engaging and Activating Cancer Survivors in Genetic Services Study	NCT04455698	Cancer	Remote Telegene... Remote Telegene... Usual Care Arm	18 Years -	University of Chicago
Engaging and Activating Cancer Survivors in Genetic Services Study	NCT04455698	Cancer	Remote Telegene... Remote Telegene... Usual Care Arm	18 Years -	University of Chicago
Giving Information Systematically and Transparently in Lung and GI Cancer Phase 2	NCT04179305	Critical Illnes... Oncology Communication	Oncolo-GIST Usual Care Arm	18 Years -	Weill Medical College of Cornell University

Spots Global Cancer Trial Database for usual care arm