Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective Primary objective was to determine the feasibility of three times weekly symptom reporting by pediatric cancer patients for eight weeks. Methods We included English-speaking patients 8–18 years of age with cancer. Patients were sent reminders by text or email to complete Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) three times weekly for eight weeks. When patients reported at least one severely bothersome symptom, the symptom report was emailed to the primary healthcare team. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained at baseline, week 4 ± 1 and week 8 ± 1. Symptom documentation, intervention provision for symptoms and unplanned healthcare encounters were determined by chart review at weeks 4 and 8. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as at least 75% patients achieving adherence with at least 60% of SSPedi evaluations. We planned to enroll successive cohorts until this threshold was met. Results Two cohorts consisting of 30 patients (cohort 1 ( n  = 20) and cohort 2 ( n  = 10)) were required to meet the feasibility threshold. In cohort 1, 11/20 (55%) met the SSPedi completion threshold. Interventions applied after cohort 1 included engaging parents to facilitate pediatric patient self-report, offering mechanisms to remember username and password and highlighting potential benefits of symptom feedback to clinicians. In cohort 2, 9/10 (90%) met the SSPedi completion threshold and thus feasibility was met. Patient-reported outcomes and chart review outcomes were obtained for all participants in cohort 2. Conclusions Three times weekly symptom reporting by pediatric patients with cancer for eight weeks was feasible. Mechanisms to enhance three times weekly symptom reporting were identified and implemented. Future studies of longitudinal symptom screening can now be planned.

Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) (age 8‐18 years) and mini‐SSPedi (age 4‐7 years) can be used to self‐report and proxy‐report bothersome symptoms in pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. There are limitations of sole child self‐report or proxy‐report. An approach in which children and parents complete symptom reports together may be useful. The aim of our study was to describe discordance between child self‐report and parent proxy‐report symptom scores, and to determine how these scores compare to an approach in which reporting is performed together (co‐SSPedi). Children and parents completed SSPedi or mini‐SSPedi separately. Discordant symptoms were shared with respondents and discussed. Next, the dyad completed co‐SSPedi together and were asked which approach they preferred. Discordance was evaluated for each symptom and was defined as a difference of at least 2 points on an ordinal scale ranging from 0 (not at all bothered) to 4 (extremely bothered). Of the 48 enrolled dyads (children, median age, 10.8 years; 54.2% male), 41 (85.4%) had discordance in at least one symptom. There was no clear pattern in discordance by age group. When a dyad approach was used, more co‐SSPedi scores agreed with the original child self‐report scores (59 dyads, 56.2%) compared to original parent proxy‐report scores (15 dyads, 14.3%) for discordant symptoms. Forty‐three (89.6%) dyads preferred to complete SSPedi together. Future work should evaluate the psychometric properties of co‐SSPedi. Discordance is common between child self‐report and parent proxy‐report of symptom in children receiving cancer treatments, with no clear pattern in discordance by whether the symptom was subjective or objective, nor was there a clear pattern by age group. When a dyad approach was used, more scores agreed with the original child self‐report scores compared to original parent proxy‐report scores for discordant symptoms.

Background Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web application focused on improving symptom control. It enables pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients to self-report and track symptoms, and allows healthcare professionals to access guidelines for symptom management. Objective was to determine the feasibility of longitudinal collection of symptom data. Methods In this longitudinal, single-armed feasibility study, respondents were children 8–18 years of age with cancer or pediatric HSCT recipients. Participants completed symptom reporting daily for 5 days. Cognitive interviews were conducted on day 5. Quantitative evaluation included SPARK ease of use and understandability of SPARK reports. Qualitative feedback on facilitators and barriers to daily symptom screening was solicited. Feasibility was defined as ≥75% of participants completing symptom screening on at least 60% of on-study days during the five-day study. Results Among the 30 children enrolled, the median number of days SSPedi was completed at least once was 5 (range 3 to 5). Overall, 28/29 (96.6%) thought completing symptom screening using SPARK was easy or very easy. All participants understood SPARK symptom reports. Severe symptoms was the most common barrier to daily reporting while an alarm reminder system was the most commonly identified facilitator. Conclusions Daily completion of symptom screening using SPARK over 5 days was feasible in children aged 8 to 18 years with cancer and pediatric HSCT recipients. SPARK is now appropriate for use in randomized trials to evaluate the effect of symptom screening and symptom feedback.

Background Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web-based application that facilitates symptom screening and access to supportive care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for children and adolescents receiving cancer treatments. Objective was to develop SPARK family member web pages for pediatric patient family members accessing: (1) proxy symptom screening and symptom reports, and (2) care recommendations for symptom management based on CPGs. Methods SPARK family member web pages were developed and included access to symptom screening and care recommendations sections. Care recommendations for fatigue and mucositis were created. These were iteratively refined based upon cognitive interviews with English-speaking family members ≥16 years of age until less than two participants incorrectly understood sections as adjudicated by two independent raters. Results A total of 100 family members were enrolled who evaluated the SPARK family member web pages ( n  = 40), fatigue care recommendation ( n  = 30) and mucositis prevention care recommendation ( n  = 30). Among the last 10 participants, none said that the SPARK family member web pages were hard or very hard to use, one incorrectly understood one web page, none said either care recommendation was hard to understand and none were incorrect in their understanding of the care recommendations. Conclusions We successfully developed SPARK web pages for use by family members of pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. We also developed a process for translating CPG recommendations designed for healthcare professionals to lay language. The utility of SPARK family member web pages after clinical implementation could be a focus for future research.

Background We developed Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK), a web-based application designed to facilitate symptom screening by children receiving cancer treatments and access to supportive care clinical practice guidelines primarily by healthcare providers. The objective was to describe the initial development and evaluation of SPARK from the perspective of children. Implementation Development and evaluation occurred in three phases: (1) low fidelity focused on functionality, (2) design focused on “look and feel” and (3) high fidelity confirmed functionality and design. Cognitive interviews were conducted with children receiving cancer treatments 8–18 years of age. Evaluation occurred after every five interviews and changes were guided by a Review Panel. Quantitative evaluation included SPARK ease of use and understandability of SPARK reports. Results The number of children included by phase were: low fidelity ( n  = 30), design (n = 30) and high fidelity (n = 30). Across phases, the median age was 13.2 (range 8.5 to 18.4) years. During low-fidelity and design phases, iterative refinements to SPARK improved website navigation, usability and likability from the perspective of children and established symptom report design. Among the last 10 children enrolled to high-fidelity testing, all (100%) understood how to complete symptom screening, access reports and interpret reports. Among these 10 respondents, all (100%) found SPARK easy to use and 9 (90%) found SPARK reports were easy to understand. Conclusions SPARK is a web-based application which is usable and understandable, and it is now appropriate to use for research. Future efforts will focus on clinical implementation of SPARK.

There is growing recognition of the degree to which symptoms negatively impact on children receiving cancer treatments. A recent study described that almost all inpatient pediatric oncology patients are experiencing at least one bothersome symptom and almost 60% are experiencing at least one severely bothersome symptom. Poor symptom control occurs because of challenges with communication of bothersome symptoms to clinicians, lack of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for most of these symptoms, and failure to administer preventative and therapeutic interventions known to be effective for symptom control. This article reviews approaches used to improve symptom control for children receiving cancer treatments. Areas addressed include systematic symptom screening and creation of CPGs for symptom management. Challenges with electronic health integration are also addressed. Several multi-symptom assessment scales have been developed but none have yet been used to directly influence patient management. The number of CPGs applicable to symptom control in pediatric oncology is increasing but remains small. Improving the creation of and adherence to CPGs for symptom management is an important priority. Finally, identifying ways that symptom management systems can be integrated into clinical work flows is essential; these will likely need to focus on electronic health records.

PurposeTo qualitatively describe reasons for disagreement in ratings of bothersome symptoms between child self-report and parent proxy-report.MethodsWe enrolled child and parent dyads, who understood English and where children (4–18 years of age) were diagnosed with cancer or were hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) recipients. Each child and parent separately reported symptoms using self-report or proxy-report Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi). We then used semi-structured interviews to elicit reasons for discrepancies in symptom reporting.ResultsWe enrolled 12 dyads in each of four age cohorts, resulting in 48 dyads. Forty-one dyads (85.4%) had disagreement in rating the presence or absence of at least one symptom. Themes identified as reasons for disagreement included (1) perception, differing perception of symptom or availability or palatability of intervention; (2) understanding, difficulty orienting to time frame or concept of bother; (3) lack of communication, including child not acknowledging or talking about experiences; (4) projection, of how the parent felt or how they assumed the child would feel; and (5) discrepancy, in how the amount of symptom bother that was initially reported on SSPedi, by either child or parent, did not align with what was reported during the dyad discussion.ConclusionWe identified themes that explained disagreement in ratings of bothersome symptoms between child self-report and parent proxy-report. Some disagreement may be reduced by enhancing communication about symptom reporting between child and parent. Future research should focus on methods of symptom screening that encourage communication between children with cancer and their caregivers.

Purpose Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web-based application that enables symptom screening and access to clinical practice guidelines for symptom management. Objective was to determine the feasibility of a randomized trial of daily symptom screening for 5 days among children receiving cancer treatments. Methods We included English-speaking pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients who were 8–18 years of age at enrollment and who were expected to be in the hospital or in clinic daily for five consecutive days. We randomized children to either undergo daily symptom screening with symptom reports provided to the healthcare team using the SPARK vs. standard of care. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as being able to enroll at least 30 participants within 1 year, and among those randomized to intervention, at least 75% completing symptom screening on at least 60% of on-study days. Results From July 2018 to November 2018, we enrolled and randomized 30 participants. The median age at enrollment was 12.5 (range 8–18) years. Among the intervention group, the median number of days Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) was completed at least once was 5 (range 4 to 5), with one participant missing 1 day of symptom screening. Among all participants, baseline and day 5 SSPedi scores were obtained in 29/30 participants. Conclusion A randomized trial of the SPARK with daily symptom screening for 5 days was feasible. It is now appropriate to proceed toward a definitive multi-center trial to test the efficacy of SPARK to improve symptom control.

Adenosinergic activities are suggested to participate in SUDEP pathophysiology; this study aimed to evaluate the adenosine hypothesis of SUDEP and specifically the role of adenosine A 2A receptor (A 2A R) in the development of a SUDEP mouse model with relevant clinical features. Using a combined paradigm of intrahippocampal and intraperitoneal administration of kainic acid (KA), we developed a boosted-KA model of SUDEP in genetically modified adenosine kinase (ADK) knockdown (Adk +/- ) mice, which has reduced ADK in the brain. Seizure activity was monitored using video-EEG methods, and in vivo recording of local field potential (LFP) was used to evaluate neuronal activity within the nucleus tractus solitarius (NTS). Our boosted-KA model of SUDEP was characterized by a delayed, postictal sudden death in epileptic mice. We demonstrated a higher incidence of SUDEP in Adk +/- mice (34.8%) vs. WTs (8.0%), and the ADK inhibitor, 5-Iodotubercidin, further increased SUDEP in Adk +/- mice (46.7%). We revealed that the NTS level of ADK was significantly increased in epileptic WTs, but not in epileptic Adk +/- mutants, while the A 2A R level in NTS was increased in epileptic (WT and Adk +/- ) mice vs. non-epileptic controls. The A 2A R antagonist, SCH58261, significantly reduced SUDEP events in Adk +/- mice. LFP data showed that SCH58261 partially restored KA injection-induced suppression of gamma oscillation in the NTS of epileptic WT mice, whereas SCH58261 increased theta and beta oscillations in Adk +/- mutants after KA injection, albeit with no change in gamma oscillations. These LFP findings suggest that SCH58261 and KA induced changes in local neuronal activities in the NTS of epileptic mice. We revealed a crucial role for NTS A 2A R in SUDEP pathophysiology suggesting A 2A R as a potential therapeutic target for SUDEP risk prevention.

The all-oral combination of ixazomib, cyclophosphamide, and dexamethasone (ICD) is well tolerated and effective in newly diagnosed and relapsed multiple myeloma (MM). We carried out MUKeight, a randomised, controlled, open, parallel group, multi-centre phase II trial in patients with relapsed MM after prior treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor (ISRCTN58227268), with the primary objective to test whether ICD has improved clinical activity compared to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD) in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Between January 2016 and December 2018, 112 participants were randomised between ICD (n = 58) and CD (n = 54) in 33 UK centres. Patients had a median age of 70 years and had received a median of four prior lines of therapy. 74% were classed as frail. Median PFS in the ICD arm was 5.6 months, compared to 6.7 months with CD (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21, 80% CI 0.9–1.6, p = 0.3634). Response rates and overall survival were not significantly different between ICD and CD. Dose modifications or omissions, and serious adverse events (SAEs), occurred more often in the ICD arm. In summary, the addition of ixazomib to cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone did not improve outcomes in the comparatively frail patients enroled in the MUKeight trial.