Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients' most bothersome issues?

Claire Snyder, Amanda L. Blackford, Neil K. Aaronson, Symone B. Detmar, Michael A Carducci, Michael D. Brundage, Albert W Wu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are being investigated for their ability to aid in individual patient management. We evaluated whether PROs can identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues and compared approaches for interpreting PRO scores. Methods: This secondary data analysis included 130 patients with cancer (mean age, 57 years; 71% female) receiving outpatient palliative chemotherapy. Patients completed a PRO (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30]) at up to three consecutive visits and reported one or two of their most bothersome function and symptom issues from categories based on QLQ-C30 domains. We compared two approaches for interpreting PRO scores and identified which way better identified patients' most bothersome issues: worst scores in absolute terms or worst change from the previous time point. Results: For patients reporting one bothersome issue, absolute scores identified it correctly 91% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' accuracy of 40% for function and 26% for symptoms. For patients reporting two bothersome issues, absolute scores identified at least one correctly 98% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' 63% for function and 62% for symptoms. Absolute scores identified both issues correctly 42% of the time for function and 66% of the time for symptoms versus change scores' performance of 23% for both function and symptoms. Conclusion: Absolute scores identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues better than change scores. These results support the use of PROs in clinical practice and suggest that clinicians may want to focus on the worst absolute scores when examining PRO score reports.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1216-1220
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume29
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 20 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Quality of Life
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Outpatients
Drug Therapy
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology

Cite this

Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients' most bothersome issues? / Snyder, Claire; Blackford, Amanda L.; Aaronson, Neil K.; Detmar, Symone B.; Carducci, Michael A; Brundage, Michael D.; Wu, Albert W.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 29, No. 9, 20.03.2011, p. 1216-1220.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Snyder, Claire ; Blackford, Amanda L. ; Aaronson, Neil K. ; Detmar, Symone B. ; Carducci, Michael A ; Brundage, Michael D. ; Wu, Albert W. / Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients' most bothersome issues?. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2011 ; Vol. 29, No. 9. pp. 1216-1220.
@article{39527f594eb045a5b958bb13d25d2859,
title = "Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients' most bothersome issues?",
abstract = "Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are being investigated for their ability to aid in individual patient management. We evaluated whether PROs can identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues and compared approaches for interpreting PRO scores. Methods: This secondary data analysis included 130 patients with cancer (mean age, 57 years; 71{\%} female) receiving outpatient palliative chemotherapy. Patients completed a PRO (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30]) at up to three consecutive visits and reported one or two of their most bothersome function and symptom issues from categories based on QLQ-C30 domains. We compared two approaches for interpreting PRO scores and identified which way better identified patients' most bothersome issues: worst scores in absolute terms or worst change from the previous time point. Results: For patients reporting one bothersome issue, absolute scores identified it correctly 91{\%} of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' accuracy of 40{\%} for function and 26{\%} for symptoms. For patients reporting two bothersome issues, absolute scores identified at least one correctly 98{\%} of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' 63{\%} for function and 62{\%} for symptoms. Absolute scores identified both issues correctly 42{\%} of the time for function and 66{\%} of the time for symptoms versus change scores' performance of 23{\%} for both function and symptoms. Conclusion: Absolute scores identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues better than change scores. These results support the use of PROs in clinical practice and suggest that clinicians may want to focus on the worst absolute scores when examining PRO score reports.",
author = "Claire Snyder and Blackford, {Amanda L.} and Aaronson, {Neil K.} and Detmar, {Symone B.} and Carducci, {Michael A} and Brundage, {Michael D.} and Wu, {Albert W}",
year = "2011",
month = "3",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2080",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "1216--1220",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Can patient-reported outcome measures identify cancer patients' most bothersome issues?

AU - Snyder, Claire

AU - Blackford, Amanda L.

AU - Aaronson, Neil K.

AU - Detmar, Symone B.

AU - Carducci, Michael A

AU - Brundage, Michael D.

AU - Wu, Albert W

PY - 2011/3/20

Y1 - 2011/3/20

N2 - Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are being investigated for their ability to aid in individual patient management. We evaluated whether PROs can identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues and compared approaches for interpreting PRO scores. Methods: This secondary data analysis included 130 patients with cancer (mean age, 57 years; 71% female) receiving outpatient palliative chemotherapy. Patients completed a PRO (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30]) at up to three consecutive visits and reported one or two of their most bothersome function and symptom issues from categories based on QLQ-C30 domains. We compared two approaches for interpreting PRO scores and identified which way better identified patients' most bothersome issues: worst scores in absolute terms or worst change from the previous time point. Results: For patients reporting one bothersome issue, absolute scores identified it correctly 91% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' accuracy of 40% for function and 26% for symptoms. For patients reporting two bothersome issues, absolute scores identified at least one correctly 98% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' 63% for function and 62% for symptoms. Absolute scores identified both issues correctly 42% of the time for function and 66% of the time for symptoms versus change scores' performance of 23% for both function and symptoms. Conclusion: Absolute scores identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues better than change scores. These results support the use of PROs in clinical practice and suggest that clinicians may want to focus on the worst absolute scores when examining PRO score reports.

AB - Purpose: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires are being investigated for their ability to aid in individual patient management. We evaluated whether PROs can identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues and compared approaches for interpreting PRO scores. Methods: This secondary data analysis included 130 patients with cancer (mean age, 57 years; 71% female) receiving outpatient palliative chemotherapy. Patients completed a PRO (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire [QLQ-C30]) at up to three consecutive visits and reported one or two of their most bothersome function and symptom issues from categories based on QLQ-C30 domains. We compared two approaches for interpreting PRO scores and identified which way better identified patients' most bothersome issues: worst scores in absolute terms or worst change from the previous time point. Results: For patients reporting one bothersome issue, absolute scores identified it correctly 91% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' accuracy of 40% for function and 26% for symptoms. For patients reporting two bothersome issues, absolute scores identified at least one correctly 98% of the time for both function and symptoms versus change scores' 63% for function and 62% for symptoms. Absolute scores identified both issues correctly 42% of the time for function and 66% of the time for symptoms versus change scores' performance of 23% for both function and symptoms. Conclusion: Absolute scores identify patients' most bothersome quality-of-life issues better than change scores. These results support the use of PROs in clinical practice and suggest that clinicians may want to focus on the worst absolute scores when examining PRO score reports.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952761970&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952761970&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2080

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2010.33.2080

M3 - Article

C2 - 21343558

AN - SCOPUS:79952761970

VL - 29

SP - 1216

EP - 1220

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 9

ER -