Claire F Snyder1, Joseph M Herman2, Sharon M White2, Brandon S Luber2, Amanda L Blackford2, Michael A Carducci2, Albert W Wu2. 1. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD csnyder@jhsph.edu. 2. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine; Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; and Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly being used in clinical practice to inform individual patient management, but evidence is needed on which PROs are best suited for clinical use. METHODS: This controlled trial randomly assigned patients with breast and prostate cancer undergoing treatment to complete one of three PRO measures: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF34), or six domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Patients completed the PRO measures before clinic visits, and the results were provided to both the patient and clinician. At treatment completion, patients and clinicians completed brief feedback forms on the intervention's usefulness and value. Exit interviews were conducted with patients (at end of treatment) and clinicians (at end of study). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each arm who either strongly agreed or agreed to all feedback form items. RESULTS: Of 294 eligible patients invited to participate, 224 (76%) enrolled (median age 66 years, 78% white, 72% prostate). Of the 181 patients (81%) who completed at least one feedback form item, participants in the QLQ-C30 study arm were most likely to strongly agree/agree to all items (74%) followed by PROMIS (61%) and SCNS-SF34 (52%; P = .03). Of the 116 participants (52%) who completed all feedback form items, the results were similar: 82% for the QLQ-C30, 62% for PROMIS, and 56% for SCNS-SF34 (P = .05). Clinicians did not prefer one questionnaire over the others. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, when using PROs in clinical practice for patient management, the measure matters in terms of usefulness to patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are increasingly being used in clinical practice to inform individual patient management, but evidence is needed on which PROs are best suited for clinical use. METHODS: This controlled trial randomly assigned patients with breast and prostate cancer undergoing treatment to complete one of three PRO measures: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form (SCNS-SF34), or six domains from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Patients completed the PRO measures before clinic visits, and the results were provided to both the patient and clinician. At treatment completion, patients and clinicians completed brief feedback forms on the intervention's usefulness and value. Exit interviews were conducted with patients (at end of treatment) and clinicians (at end of study). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each arm who either strongly agreed or agreed to all feedback form items. RESULTS: Of 294 eligible patients invited to participate, 224 (76%) enrolled (median age 66 years, 78% white, 72% prostate). Of the 181 patients (81%) who completed at least one feedback form item, participants in the QLQ-C30 study arm were most likely to strongly agree/agree to all items (74%) followed by PROMIS (61%) and SCNS-SF34 (52%; P = .03). Of the 116 participants (52%) who completed all feedback form items, the results were similar: 82% for the QLQ-C30, 62% for PROMIS, and 56% for SCNS-SF34 (P = .05). Clinicians did not prefer one questionnaire over the others. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that, when using PROs in clinical practice for patient management, the measure matters in terms of usefulness to patients.
Authors: S A McLachlan; A Allenby; J Matthews; A Wirth; D Kissane; M Bishop; J Beresford; J Zalcberg Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-11-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Maria-Jose Santana; David Feeny; Jeffrey A Johnson; Finlay A McAlister; Daniel Kim; Justin Weinkauf; Dale C Lien Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu; Robert S Miller; Roxanne E Jensen; Elissa T Bantug; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer J Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 3.360
Authors: Ethan Basch; David Artz; Alexia Iasonos; John Speakman; Kevin Shannon; Kai Lin; Charmaine Pun; Henry Yong; Paul Fearn; Allison Barz; Howard I Scher; Mary McCabe; Deborah Schrag Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Catherine Acquadro; Rick Berzon; Dominique Dubois; Nancy Kline Leidy; Patrick Marquis; Dennis Revicki; Margaret Rothman Journal: Value Health Date: 2003 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Amanda L Blackford; Jonathan Sussman; Daryl Bainbridge; Doris Howell; Hsien Y Seow; Michael A Carducci; Albert W Wu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-11-15 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carol A Rosenberg; Carol Flanagan; Bruce Brockstein; Jennifer C Obel; Leon H Dragon; Douglas E Merkel; Elaine L Wade; Teresa M Law; Janardan D Khandekar; Thomas A Hensing Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Albert W Wu; Sharon M White; Amanda L Blackford; Antonio C Wolff; Michael A Carducci; Joseph M Herman; Claire F Snyder Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Ryan Honomichl; Nicolas Thompson; Susannah Rose; Abby Abelson; Chad Deal; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.147