Benefit of adding Cureety remote patient monitoring (RPM) to usual care during injectable anticancer treatment: The OPTIMACURE multicentric French prospective randomized study.
Authors: Audrey Faveyrial, François Gernier, Benedicte Clarisse, Benjamin Duputel, Laetitia Gigan, Jean-Michel Grellard, Jean-Baptiste Meric, Adrien Estienne, Christelle Auguin, Julie Beauguitte, François Montestruc, Abderrezak Ladouani, Ingrid Alexandre, Trevor Stanbury, François-Guirec Champoiseau, Charles Parnot, Roman Rouzier
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2025)

11017 Background: In routine care, assessing whether a patient can safely be administered an injectable anticancer treatment requires the review of blood tests, risk factors and relevant adverse events (AEs). Thus, some French centers use coordinated phone calls and blood tests to improve chemotherapy prescription accuracy and reduce wait times for patients. For example, as part of usual care, the François Baclesse center uses the OPTIMA program. Digital RPM could further streamline this process by efficiently collecting and evaluating patient data without needing systematic phone calls. The OPTIMACURE study aimed to assess whether integrating Cureety RPM into usual care (with OPTIMA or equivalent) can increase the quality of care and decrease the hospital staff workload. Methods: The prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-label OPTIMACURE study was designed to assess whether adding Cureety RPM to usual care would reduce the number of phone calls during the first two months after randomization. Outpatients with solid tumor initiating injectable anticancer treatment were randomly assigned (2:1) to either usual care with Cureety RPM or usual care alone (with OPTIMA or equivalent). The numbers of phone calls were compared between arms using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) model adjusted for study arm, treatment type, infusion frequency, performance status, and center. Results: From April to August 2024, 192 patients (127 in RPM arm, 65 in control arm) were enrolled in 3 centers: women (73%), mean age 61 ± 13 yrs. The cancers were breast in 40%, non-small cell lung in 14%, colorectal in 9.5%, and prostate in 7.4%. The infusion frequency was once every 1-2 weeks in 37% and ≥3 weeks in 63%. Nine patients were excluded due to protocol deviations. Calls, for any reasons, were significantly reduced in the RPM arm (3.80 versus 2.61, relative change of -1.20, 95% CI [-1.89 to -0.53], p &lt; 0.001, ANCOVA model). Those results were further analyzed by differentiating outgoing calls to prepare the outpatient visits and those to follow-up on toxicity reports. Preparation calls were less frequent for patients in the RPM arm than those in the control arm (no preparation call for 73.2% of patients vs 12.3%; ≥3 calls for 3.2% of patients vs 69.2%), corresponding to a higher reduction of preparation calls (-2.7 [-3.12;-2.3], p &lt; 0.001, ANCOVA model). As for calls for toxicity follow-up, they were more frequent in the digital RPM arm (1.6 [1.14;2.05], p &lt; 0.01), associated with earlier report of grade 3-4 non hematological AEs (Hazard ratio for first report of severe AE: 4.06, p &lt; 0.001) and better care management for patients in the RPM arm compared to the control arm. Conclusions: Adding digital RPM to routine cancer care was beneficial, with a significant gain in time to prepare cancer treatment in day unit and with improved detection and management of toxicities. Clinical trial information: NCT06371911 .