David Hui1, Eduardo Bruera2. 1. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. Electronic address: dhui@mdanderson.org. 2. Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
CONTEXT: Routine symptom assessment represents the cornerstone of symptom management. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is one of the first quantitative symptom assessment batteries that allows for simple and rapid documentation of multiple patient-reported symptoms at the same time. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the historical development of ESAS, its current uses in different settings, and future developments. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Since its development in 1991, ESAS has been psychometrically validated and translated into over 20 languages. We will discuss the variations, advantages, and limitations with ESAS. From the clinical perspective, ESAS is now commonly used for symptom screening and longitudinal monitoring in patients seen by palliative care, oncology, nephrology, and other disciplines in both inpatient and outpatient settings. From the research perspective, ESAS has offered important insights into the nature of symptom trajectory, symptom clusters, and symptom modulators. Furthermore, multiple clinical studies have incorporated ESAS as a study outcome and documented the impact of various interventions on symptom burden. On the horizon, multiple groups are actively investigating further refinements to ESAS, such as incorporating it in electronic health records, using ESAS as a trigger for palliative care referral, and coupling ESAS with personalized symptom goals to optimize symptom response assessment. CONCLUSION: ESAS has evolved over the past 25 years to become an important symptom assessment instrument in both clinical practice and research. Future efforts are needed to standardize this tool and explore its full potential to support symptom management.
CONTEXT: Routine symptom assessment represents the cornerstone of symptom management. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is one of the first quantitative symptom assessment batteries that allows for simple and rapid documentation of multiple patient-reported symptoms at the same time. OBJECTIVES: To discuss the historical development of ESAS, its current uses in different settings, and future developments. METHODS: Narrative review. RESULTS: Since its development in 1991, ESAS has been psychometrically validated and translated into over 20 languages. We will discuss the variations, advantages, and limitations with ESAS. From the clinical perspective, ESAS is now commonly used for symptom screening and longitudinal monitoring in patients seen by palliative care, oncology, nephrology, and other disciplines in both inpatient and outpatient settings. From the research perspective, ESAS has offered important insights into the nature of symptom trajectory, symptom clusters, and symptom modulators. Furthermore, multiple clinical studies have incorporated ESAS as a study outcome and documented the impact of various interventions on symptom burden. On the horizon, multiple groups are actively investigating further refinements to ESAS, such as incorporating it in electronic health records, using ESAS as a trigger for palliative care referral, and coupling ESAS with personalized symptom goals to optimize symptom response assessment. CONCLUSION:ESAS has evolved over the past 25 years to become an important symptom assessment instrument in both clinical practice and research. Future efforts are needed to standardize this tool and explore its full potential to support symptom management.
Authors: Wendy H Oldenmenger; Pleun J de Raaf; Cora de Klerk; Carin C D van der Rijt Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Sharon M Watanabe; Alysa Fairchild; Edith Pituskin; Patricia Borgersen; John Hanson; Konrad Fassbender Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David Hui; Omar Shamieh; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Pedro Emilio Perez-Cruz; Jung Hye Kwon; Mary Ann Muckaden; Minjeong Park; Sriram Yennu; Jung Hun Kang; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Cancer Date: 2015-06-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David Hui; Kelly Kilgore; Susan Frisbee-Hume; Minjeong Park; Anne Tsao; Marvin Delgado Guay; Charles Lu; William William; Katherine Pisters; George Eapen; Frank Fossella; Sapna Amin; Eduardo Bruera Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: R D Nipp; A El-Jawahri; M Ruddy; C Fuh; B Temel; S M D'Arpino; B J Cashavelly; V A Jackson; D P Ryan; E P Hochberg; J A Greer; J S Temel Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Judith Lacey; Anna J Lomax; Catriona McNeil; Michael Marthick; David Levy; Steven Kao; Theresa Nielsen; Haryana M Dhillon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Vanessa J Thomas; Catherine Seet-Lee; Michael Marthick; Birinder S Cheema; Michael Boyer; Kate M Edwards Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-05-21 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Morten Thronæs; Trude Rakel Balstad; Cinzia Brunelli; Erik Torbjørn Løhre; Pål Klepstad; Ola Magne Vagnildhaug; Stein Kaasa; Anne Kari Knudsen; Tora Skeidsvoll Solheim Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David Hui; Masanori Mori; Yee-Choon Meng; Sharon M Watanabe; Augusto Caraceni; Florian Strasser; Tiina Saarto; Nathan Cherny; Paul Glare; Stein Kaasa; Eduardo Bruera Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 3.603