Literature DB >> 19952928

Management of gastrointestinal symptoms in advanced cancer patients: the rapid learning cancer clinic model.

Amy P Abernethy1, Jane L Wheeler, S Yousuf Zafar.   

Abstract

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gastrointestinal symptoms are prevalent, often persistent, and detrimental to patients' quality of life. This review discusses evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms as patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and presents an information technology-based system for symptom monitoring and management. The electronic PRO (ePRO) system is then placed within the larger context of rapid learning healthcare, a concept currently under development in which data obtained through both research and clinical care continuously build large datasets for analysis, seed future research, fuel expansion of the evidence base, and support clinical decision-making. RECENT
FINDINGS: PROs are increasingly recognized as valid measures of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. They have demonstrated prognostic significance and are being developed as a component of toxicity reporting in clinical trials. Recent studies have validated an information technology-based approach for collecting ePROs in routine clinical care. The system is feasible and acceptable; electronic and paper-based data, collected on validated assessment instruments, are equivalent; ePRO collection supports real-time symptom monitoring and management. The ePRO system represents a first step toward implementing rapid learning healthcare at the clinic level.
SUMMARY: ePROs provide a rich source of information to support monitoring and clinical management of troubling symptoms such as gastrointestinal complaints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 19952928      PMCID: PMC2871247          DOI: 10.1097/SPC.0b013e32833575fd

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Opin Support Palliat Care        ISSN: 1751-4258            Impact factor:   2.302


  47 in total

1.  Infrastructure for a learning health care system: CaBIG.

Authors:  Kenneth H Buetow; John Niederhuber
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

2.  Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument.

Authors:  M J Brady; D F Cella; F Mo; A E Bonomi; D S Tulsky; S R Lloyd; S Deasy; M Cobleigh; G Shiomoto
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Assessing symptom distress in cancer patients: the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory.

Authors:  C S Cleeland; T R Mendoza; X S Wang; C Chou; M T Harle; M Morrissey; M C Engstrom
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-10-01       Impact factor: 6.860

4.  Use of a modified symptom distress scale in assessment of the cancer patient.

Authors:  S Holmes
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 5.837

5.  Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials.

Authors:  Chantal Quinten; Corneel Coens; Murielle Mauer; Sylvie Comte; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Charles Cleeland; David Osoba; Kristin Bjordal; Andrew Bottomley
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2009-08-18       Impact factor: 41.316

Review 6.  Evidence-based recommendations for cancer nausea and vomiting.

Authors:  Arash Naeim; Sydney M Dy; Karl A Lorenz; Homayoon Sanati; Anne Walling; Steven M Asch
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2008-08-10       Impact factor: 44.544

7.  Medicare's future: cancer care.

Authors:  Lynn M Etheredge
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.301

8.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2004-02-15       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  The relationship between opioid use and laxative use in terminally ill cancer patients.

Authors:  N P Sykes
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.762

10.  The relationship between quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and survival in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancer.

Authors:  M McKernan; D C McMillan; J R Anderson; W J Angerson; R C Stuart
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  10 in total

1.  Longitudinal patient-reported performance status assessment in the cancer clinic is feasible and prognostic.

Authors:  Sang-Yeon Suh; Thomas W Leblanc; Rebecca A Shelby; Gregory P Samsa; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2011-11       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Toward patient-centered cancer care: patient perceptions of problematic events, impact, and response.

Authors:  Kathleen M Mazor; Douglas W Roblin; Sarah M Greene; Celeste A Lemay; Cassandra L Firneno; Josephine Calvi; Carolyn D Prouty; Kathryn Horner; Thomas H Gallagher
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-04-16       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.

Authors:  Michael D Brundage; Katherine C Smith; Emily A Little; Elissa T Bantug; Claire F Snyder
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-05-27       Impact factor: 4.147

4.  Online assessment of ALS functional rating scale compares well to in-clinic evaluation: a prospective trial.

Authors:  André Maier; Teresa Holm; Paul Wicks; Laura Steinfurth; Peter Linke; Christoph Münch; Robert Meyer; Thomas Meyer
Journal:  Amyotroph Lateral Scler       Date:  2012-02

5.  Duodeno-colic fistula as a rare presentation of lung cancer - surgical treatment of a stage IV oligometastatic lung disease.

Authors:  Vitor Nunes; Inês Santiago; Rui Marinho; David Pires; Rita Theias; António Gomes; Nuno Pignatelli
Journal:  Int J Surg Case Rep       Date:  2015-07-09

6.  Longitudinal validity and reliability of the Myeloma Patient Outcome Scale (MyPOS) was established using traditional, generalizability and Rasch psychometric methods.

Authors:  Christina Ramsenthaler; Wei Gao; Richard J Siegert; Steve A Schey; Poly M Edmonds; Irene J Higginson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-07-27       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

Authors:  Claire F Snyder; Katherine C Smith; Elissa T Bantug; Elliott E Tolbert; Amanda L Blackford; Michael D Brundage
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-01-13       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Quality of life among long-term survivors of non-Hodgkin lymphoma: a follow-up study.

Authors:  Sophia K Smith; Deborah K Mayer; Sheryl Zimmerman; Christianna S Williams; Habtamu Benecha; Patricia A Ganz; Lloyd J Edwards; Amy P Abernethy
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Using patient-reported outcome measures for improved decision-making in patients with gastrointestinal cancer - the last clinical frontier in surgical oncology?

Authors:  Kjetil Søreide; Annbjørg H Søreide
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 6.244

Review 10.  A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting.

Authors:  Jack Chen; Lixin Ou; Stephanie J Hollis
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 2.655

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.