Youssef Ben Bouazza1, Jan P Van Meerbeeck1,2,3. 1. Faculty of Medicine and Health Care, Antwerp University, Antwerpen, Belgium. 2. Department of Pulmonology, Department of Thoracic Oncology, Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium. 3. Multidisciplinary Oncological Center Antwerp (MOCA), Antwerp University Hospital, Edegem, Belgium.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a highly symptomatic and aggressive malignancy. The treatment options are for most patients limited to palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is recommended for the improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this literature survey is to provide an up to date review of the use of PROMs in mesothelioma. A concise comparison is made of the identified instruments. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar for the use of PROMs in MPM. Quality of the study and risk of bias were assessed using the appraisal tools recommended by the Dutch Cochrane Center. RESULTS: A total of 31 articles on PROMs in MPM were identified that met the inclusion criteria and a total of 14 instruments. The instruments are categorized in generic (n=2), cancer-specific (n=4), lung cancer-specific (n=3), mesothelioma-specific (n=2) and symptom-specific (n=3). They were mostly used in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs have the potential to improve the management of MPM. No particular instrument is specifically recommended, although there is a preference for patient-reported disease-specific instruments encompassing the concept of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) and relevant symptoms. Such instruments are the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS-Meso and FACT-L, which measure the impact of malignant mesothelioma and its treatment on patients. Assessments should be made on baseline and post-treatment. The frequency of assessments should be further evaluated in this population.
BACKGROUND: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a highly symptomatic and aggressive malignancy. The treatment options are for most patients limited to palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is recommended for the improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this literature survey is to provide an up to date review of the use of PROMs in mesothelioma. A concise comparison is made of the identified instruments. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar for the use of PROMs in MPM. Quality of the study and risk of bias were assessed using the appraisal tools recommended by the Dutch Cochrane Center. RESULTS: A total of 31 articles on PROMs in MPM were identified that met the inclusion criteria and a total of 14 instruments. The instruments are categorized in generic (n=2), cancer-specific (n=4), lung cancer-specific (n=3), mesothelioma-specific (n=2) and symptom-specific (n=3). They were mostly used in clinical trials. CONCLUSIONS: PROMs have the potential to improve the management of MPM. No particular instrument is specifically recommended, although there is a preference for patient-reported disease-specific instruments encompassing the concept of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) and relevant symptoms. Such instruments are the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS-Meso and FACT-L, which measure the impact of malignant mesothelioma and its treatment on patients. Assessments should be made on baseline and post-treatment. The frequency of assessments should be further evaluated in this population.
Entities:
Keywords:
Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM); health-related quality of life (hrQoL); patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs); quality improvement; questionnaires
Authors: Dean A Fennell; Jeremy P C Steele; Jonathan Shamash; Marie T Evans; Paula Wells; Michael T Sheaff; Robin M Rudd; Justin Stebbing Journal: Cancer Date: 2007-01-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Steven C Kao; Janette Vardy; Rozelle Harvie; Mark Chatfield; Nico van Zandwijk; Stephen Clarke; Nick Pavlakis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Youssef Ben Bouazza; Ibrahim Chiairi; Ouiam El Kharbouchi; Lesley De Backer; Greetje Vanhoutte; Annelies Janssens; Jan P Van Meerbeeck Journal: Lung Cancer Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 5.705
Authors: Patricia J Hollen; Richard J Gralla; Astra M Liepa; James T Symanowski; James J Rusthoven Journal: Cancer Date: 2004-08-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: P J Hollen; R J Gralla; M G Kris; C Cox; C P Belani; S M Grunberg; J Crawford; J A Neidhart Journal: Cancer Date: 1994-04-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew Bottomley; Corneel Coens; Fabio Efficace; Rabab Gaafar; Christian Manegold; Sjaak Burgers; Mark Vincent; Catherine Legrand; Jan P van Meerbeeck Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-12-20 Impact factor: 44.544