About

Ethan Basch, MD, MSc, is a professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health. He is also the Director of the Cancer Outcomes Research Program at UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and a Distinguished Professor of Medical Oncology in the School of Medicine. Dr. Basch is a medical oncologist with clinical expertise in prostate cancer and a health services researcher specializing in patient-reported outcomes, drug regulatory policy, and comparative effectiveness research. He has led initiatives such as the development of a patient-reported adverse event monitoring system for clinical research (the PRO-CTCAE) and serves as study chair for multiple trials employing patient-reported endpoints. His research focuses on improving patient-centered outcomes and integrating patient perspectives into clinical research and practice.

Research topics

• Medicine
• Internal medicine
• Intensive care medicine
• Family medicine
• Political Science
• Medical emergency
• Virology
• Pathology
• Physical therapy
• Oncology
• Law
• Psychology
• Medical physics

Selected publications

• Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer

  JAMA · 2022 · 367 citations

  1st authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Physical therapy
  • Internal medicine

  <h3>Importance</h3> Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene. <h3>Objective</h3> To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes. <h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3> Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021. <h3>Interventions</h3> In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available. <h3>Results</h3> Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53];<i>P</i> = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17];<i>P</i> = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96];<i>P</i> = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70];<i>P</i> = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95];<i>P</i> = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81];<i>P</i> = .006). <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival. <h3>Trial Registration</h3> ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT03249090

  DOI

• The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline

  Annals of Oncology · 2022 · 464 citations

  • Medicine
  • Intensive care medicine
  • Family medicine

  This ESMO Guideline provides key recommendations on the role of PROMs during the care of patients with cancer. It covers the use of PROMs in patients with cancer from the start of active treatment during follow-up and at the end of life. Recommendations are based on available scientific evidence and the authors’ collective expert consensus. Authorship includes a multidisciplinary group of experts from Europe, North America, Asia and Australia.

  DOI

• <i>JAMA Network Open</i> Peer Reviewers in 2019

  JAMA Network Open · 2020 · 1 citations

  • Political Science
  • Psychology
  • Political Science
  DOI

• Antiemetics: ASCO Guideline Update

  Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2020 · 439 citations

  • Medicine
  • Intensive care medicine
  • Internal medicine

  PURPOSE: To update the guideline to include new anticancer agents, antiemetics, and antiemetic regimens and to provide recommendations on the use of dexamethasone as a prophylactic antiemetic in patients receiving checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and updated the systematic review to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs published between June 1, 2016, and January 24, 2020. To address the dexamethasone and CPI question, we conducted a systematic review of RCTs that evaluated the addition of a CPI to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The systematic reviews included 3 publications from the updated search and 10 publications on CPIs. Two phase III trials in adult patients with non-small-cell lung cancers evaluating a platinum-based doublet with or without the programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab recommended that all patients receive dexamethasone as a component of the prophylactic antiemetic regimen. In both studies, superior outcomes were noted in the PD-1 inhibitor-containing arms. Other important findings address olanzapine in adults and fosaprepitant in pediatric patients. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations for adults are unchanged with the exception of the option of adding olanzapine in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Dosing information now includes the option of a 5-mg dose of olanzapine in adults and intravenous formulations of aprepitant and netupitant-palonosetron. The option of fosaprepitant is added to pediatric recommendations. There is no clinical evidence to warrant omission of dexamethasone from guideline-compliant prophylactic antiemetic regimens when CPIs are administered to adults in combination with chemotherapy. CPIs administered alone or in combination with another CPI do not require the routine use of a prophylactic antiemetic.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

  DOI

• Oncology Practice During the COVID-19 Pandemic

  JAMA · 2020 · 261 citations

  Senior authorCorresponding
  • Medicine
  • Intensive care medicine
  • Medical emergency

  This Viewpoint proposes a framework for modifying cancer care in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that balances considerations about the time-sensitivity of patient need for visits and treatment, risk of infectious exposure, and hospital and staff capacity and stress.

  DOI

Recent grants

• Analyzing and Interpreting PRO-CTCAE with CTCAE and Other Clinical Data to Characterize Drug Tolerability

  NIH · $3.0M · 2023–2024

• Cancer Genetics Research Program

  NIH · $80.2M · 1997–2027

• NIH Grant K07CA124851

  NIH · $769k · 2013

• NIH Grant R25CA116339

  NIH · $4.0M · 2018

Frequent coauthors

• Deborah Schrag

  764 shared

• Wolfgang C. Winkelmayer­

  Baylor College of Medicine

  604 shared

• Naomi Vaisrub

  Perspectives Charter School

  604 shared

• David Mark

  Perspectives Charter School

  604 shared

• Fred Furtner

  International Rescue Committee

  604 shared

• Beverly Stewart

  Perspectives Charter School

  604 shared

• W Feero

  604 shared

• Maria Kowalkowski

  604 shared

Education

• M. Sc., Epidemiology

  Harvard School of Public Health

  2005

• MD, Medicine

  Harvard Medical School

  1998

• M. Phil., Literature

  University of Oxford University College Oxford

  1991

• BA, Literature

  Brown University

  1989

Awards & honors

• Ware/Tarlov Career Achievement Prize in Patient-Reported Out…
• Appointee, Board of Scientific Advisors, National Cancer Ins…
• Elected to Board of Directors, American Society of Clinical…
• Board of Directors, International Society for Quality of Lif…

Similar researchers at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

• Barry M. Popkinh-170
• Cynthia Bulikh-134
• Doug Perkinsh-115
• Paul Watkinsh-107
• Linda Adairh-106