PURPOSE: We aimed to assess if patients' ratings of symptoms can be used to provide an early indication of disease recurrence or progression in lung cancer. We proposed a simple self-evaluation form made of six clinical parameters weekly scored by patients at home as a follow-up--here named sentinel--to improve relapse detection. Its performances were compared to those of a routine imaging follow-up. METHODS: Patients with lung cancer were prospectively recruited to weekly fill a form at home for self-assessing weight, fatigue, pain, appetite, cough, and breathlessness during at least 4 months. Each patient reported weight and assessed the severity of each symptom by grading it from 0 (no symptom) to 3 (major symptom). A score was retrospectively designed for discriminating patients with relapse from those without. Accuracy of relapse detection was then compared to values of the routine planned imaging. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included in our center and recruited for 16 weeks or more follow-up during which at least one tumor imaging assessment was performed (CT scan or PET-CT). Forty-one completed the form weekly. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of sentinel were high (86, 93, 86 % and 93 vs 79, 96, 92, and 90 % for routine imaging--p = ns) and well correlated with relapse (pχ2 > 0.001). Moreover, relapses were detectable with sentinel on average 6 weeks earlier than the planned imaging. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a personalized cancer follow-up based on a weekly self-evaluation of six symptoms is feasible and may be accurate for earlier detection of lung cancer relapse, allowing integration in electronic devices for real-time patient outcome follow-up.
PURPOSE: We aimed to assess if patients' ratings of symptoms can be used to provide an early indication of disease recurrence or progression in lung cancer. We proposed a simple self-evaluation form made of six clinical parameters weekly scored by patients at home as a follow-up--here named sentinel--to improve relapse detection. Its performances were compared to those of a routine imaging follow-up. METHODS:Patients with lung cancer were prospectively recruited to weekly fill a form at home for self-assessing weight, fatigue, pain, appetite, cough, and breathlessness during at least 4 months. Each patient reported weight and assessed the severity of each symptom by grading it from 0 (no symptom) to 3 (major symptom). A score was retrospectively designed for discriminating patients with relapse from those without. Accuracy of relapse detection was then compared to values of the routine planned imaging. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included in our center and recruited for 16 weeks or more follow-up during which at least one tumor imaging assessment was performed (CT scan or PET-CT). Forty-one completed the form weekly. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of sentinel were high (86, 93, 86 % and 93 vs 79, 96, 92, and 90 % for routine imaging--p = ns) and well correlated with relapse (pχ2 > 0.001). Moreover, relapses were detectable with sentinel on average 6 weeks earlier than the planned imaging. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that a personalized cancer follow-up based on a weekly self-evaluation of six symptoms is feasible and may be accurate for earlier detection of lung cancer relapse, allowing integration in electronic devices for real-time patient outcome follow-up.
Authors: David G Pfister; David H Johnson; Christopher G Azzoli; William Sause; Thomas J Smith; Sherman Baker; Jemi Olak; Diane Stover; John R Strawn; Andrew T Turrisi; Mark R Somerfield Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-12-22 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Carolyn Miller Reilly; Deborah Watkins Bruner; Sandra A Mitchell; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch; Amylou C Dueck; David Cella; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2013-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: U Khalid; A Spiro; C Baldwin; B Sharma; C McGough; A R Norman; T Eisen; M E R O'Brien; D Cunningham; H J N Andreyev Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2006-06-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Perran Fulden Yumuk; Nazia Mohammed; Alexander P W M Maat; Christian Fink; Benedicte Marchal; Mary E R O'Brien Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-05-26 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Jordanka Kirkova; Mellar P Davis; Declan Walsh; Eoin Tiernan; Norma O'Leary; Susan B LeGrand; Ruth L Lagman; K Mitchell Russell Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Tendas; Pasquale Niscola; Laura Scaramucci; Marco Giovannini; Teresa Dentamaro; Alessio Pio Perrotti; Paolo de Fabritiis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-07-04 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Fabrice Denis; Louise Viger; Alexandre Charron; Eric Voog; Olivier Dupuis; Yoann Pointreau; Christophe Letellier Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-01-12 Impact factor: 3.603
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: Afaf Girgis; Adeola Bamgboje-Ayodele; Orlando Rincones; Shalini K Vinod; Sandra Avery; Joseph Descallar; Allan 'Ben' Smith; Belinda Arnold; Anthony Arnold; Victoria Bray; Ivana Durcinoska; Nicole M Rankin; Geoff P Delaney Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2022-06-20
Authors: Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Anthony Arnold; Joseph Descallar; Nasreen Kaadan; Eng-Siew Koh; Andrew Miller; Weng Ng; Martin Carolan; Stephen A Della-Fiorentina; Sandra Avery; Geoff P Delaney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 5.428