PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to evaluate the feasibility of capturing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) electronically and to identify the most common distressing symptoms in women recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm pilot study. Eligible participants included those scheduled for a laparotomy for presumed or known gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based "STAR" (Symptom Tracking and Reporting for Patients) questionnaire once preoperatively and weekly during the 6-week postoperative period. The questionnaire consisted of the patient adaptation of the NCI CTCAE 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-C30 3.0. When a patient submitted a response that was concerning, an automated email alert was sent to the clinician. The patient's assessment of STAR's usefulness was measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients completed the study. The procedures included the following: hysterectomy±staging (67%), resection of tumor (22%), salpingo-oophorectomy (6%), and other (4%). Most patients (82%) completed at least 4 sessions in STAR. The CTC generated 43 alerts. These alerts resulted in 25 telephone contacts with patients, 2 ER referrals, one new appointment, and one pharmaceutical prescription. The 3 most common patient-reported symptoms generating an alert were as follows: poor performance status (19%), nausea (18%), and fatigue (17%). Most patients found STAR useful (80%) and would recommend it to others (85%). CONCLUSION: Application of a Web-based, electronic STAR system is feasible in the postoperative period, highly accepted by patients, and warrants further study. Poor performance status, nausea, and fatigue were the most common distressing patient-reported symptoms.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this study are to evaluate the feasibility of capturing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) electronically and to identify the most common distressing symptoms in women recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery. METHODS: This was a prospective, single-arm pilot study. Eligible participants included those scheduled for a laparotomy for presumed or known gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based "STAR" (Symptom Tracking and Reporting for Patients) questionnaire once preoperatively and weekly during the 6-week postoperative period. The questionnaire consisted of the patient adaptation of the NCI CTCAE 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-C30 3.0. When a patient submitted a response that was concerning, an automated email alert was sent to the clinician. The patient's assessment of STAR's usefulness was measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: Forty-nine patients completed the study. The procedures included the following: hysterectomy±staging (67%), resection of tumor (22%), salpingo-oophorectomy (6%), and other (4%). Most patients (82%) completed at least 4 sessions in STAR. The CTC generated 43 alerts. These alerts resulted in 25 telephone contacts with patients, 2 ER referrals, one new appointment, and one pharmaceutical prescription. The 3 most common patient-reported symptoms generating an alert were as follows: poor performance status (19%), nausea (18%), and fatigue (17%). Most patients found STAR useful (80%) and would recommend it to others (85%). CONCLUSION: Application of a Web-based, electronic STAR system is feasible in the postoperative period, highly accepted by patients, and warrants further study. Poor performance status, nausea, and fatigue were the most common distressing patient-reported symptoms.
Authors: D J Sargent; R M Goldberg; M R Mahoney; D W Hillman; T McKeough; S F Hamilton; J M Darcy; V L Anderson; J E Krook; M J O'Connell Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-06-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Charles S Cleeland; Xin Shelley Wang; Qiuling Shi; Tito R Mendoza; Sherry L Wright; Madonna D Berry; Donna Malveaux; Pankil K Shah; Ibrahima Gning; Wayne L Hofstetter; Joe B Putnam; Ara A Vaporciyan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Renee A Cowan; Rudy S Suidan; Vaagn Andikyan; Youssef A Rezk; M Heather Einstein; Kaity Chang; Jeanne Carter; Oliver Zivanovic; Elizabeth J Jewell; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Ethan Basch; Dennis S Chi Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: William A Wood; Allison M Deal; Amy Abernethy; Ethan Basch; Claudio Battaglini; Yoon Hie Kim; Julia Whitley; Charlotte Shatten; Jon Serody; Thomas Shea; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2012-12-16 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Aaron D Falchook; Rebecca Green; Mary E Knowles; Robert J Amdur; William Mendenhall; David N Hayes; Juneko E Grilley-Olson; Jared Weiss; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Ethan M Basch; Bhishamjit S Chera Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 6.223
Authors: Laleh G Melstrom; Andrei S Rodin; Lorenzo A Rossi; Paul Fu; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: R Iyer; A Gentry-Maharaj; A Nordin; R Liston; M Burnell; N Das; R Desai; R Gornall; A Beardmore-Gray; K Hillaby; S Leeson; A Linder; A Lopes; D Meechan; T Mould; J Nevin; A Olaitan; B Rufford; A Ryan; S Shanbhag; A Thackeray; N Wood; K Reynolds; U Menon Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2013-07-11 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; August Zabernigg; Eva-Maria Gamper; Anne S Oberguggenberger; Monika J Sztankay; Georg Kemmler; Bernhard Holzner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2014-10-10 Impact factor: 4.430