Wei Dai1, Wenhong Feng2, Yuanqiang Zhang3, Xin Shelley Wang4, Yangjun Liu5, Cecilia Pompili6,7, Wei Xu8, Shaohua Xie1, Yaqin Wang1, Jia Liao1, Xing Wei1, Run Xiang1, Bin Hu1, Bo Tian1, Xiaozun Yang1, Xiang Wang1, Ping Xiao1, Qi Lai1, Xin Wang1, Bangrong Cao9, Qifeng Wang10, Fang Liu11, Xiaoqin Liu1, Tianpeng Xie1, Xiaojun Yang1, Xiang Zhuang1, Zhong Wu12, Guowei Che13, Qiang Li1, Qiuling Shi14,15. 1. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, Sichuan, China. 2. Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Jiangyou People's Hospital, Jiangyou, Sichuan, China. 3. Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Zigong First People's Hospital, Zigong, Sichuan, China. 4. Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX. 5. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Section of Patient-Centred Outcomes Research, Leeds Institute for Medical Research at St James's, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom. 7. Department of Thoracic Surgery, Leeds Teaching Hospital Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom. 8. School of Public Health and Management, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China. 9. Radiation Oncology Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. 10. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institution, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. 11. Traditional Chinese Medicine Department of Oncology, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. 12. Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 13. Department of Thoracic Surgery, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China. 14. Center for Cancer Prevention Research, Sichuan Cancer Hospital & Institute, Sichuan Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China. 15. State Key Laboratory of Ultrasound in Medicine and Engineering, School of Public Health and Management, Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom management in the early period after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Before surgery, patients with clinically diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive postoperative PRO-based symptom management or usual care. All patients reported symptoms on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer presurgery, daily postsurgery, and twice a week after discharge for up to 4 weeks via an electronic PRO system. In the intervention group, treating surgeons responded to overthreshold electronic alerts driven by any of the five target symptom scores (score ≥ 4 on a 0-10 scale for pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, shortness of breath, and coughing). The control group patients received usual care and no alerts were generated. The primary outcome was the number of symptom threshold events (any target symptom with a score of ≥ 4) at discharge. Per-protocol analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 166 participants, 83 were randomly allocated to each group. At discharge, the intervention group reported fewer symptom threshold events than the control group (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-2] v 2 [0-3]; P = .007). At 4 weeks postdischarge, this difference was maintained between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-0] v 0 [0-1]; P = .018). The intervention group had a lower complication rate than the control group (21.5% v 40.6%; P = .019). Surgeons spent a median of 3 minutes managing an alert. CONCLUSION: PRO-based symptom management after lung cancer surgery showed lower symptom burden and fewer complications than usual care for up to 4 weeks postdischarge.
PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and feasibility of patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based symptom management in the early period after lung cancer surgery. METHODS: Before surgery, patients with clinically diagnosed lung cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive postoperative PRO-based symptom management or usual care. All patients reported symptoms on MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer presurgery, daily postsurgery, and twice a week after discharge for up to 4 weeks via an electronic PRO system. In the intervention group, treating surgeons responded to overthreshold electronic alerts driven by any of the five target symptom scores (score ≥ 4 on a 0-10 scale for pain, fatigue, disturbed sleep, shortness of breath, and coughing). The control group patients received usual care and no alerts were generated. The primary outcome was the number of symptom threshold events (any target symptom with a score of ≥ 4) at discharge. Per-protocol analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Of the 166 participants, 83 were randomly allocated to each group. At discharge, the intervention group reported fewer symptom threshold events than the control group (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-2] v 2 [0-3]; P = .007). At 4 weeks postdischarge, this difference was maintained between the intervention and control groups (median [interquartile range], 0 [0-0] v 0 [0-1]; P = .018). The intervention group had a lower complication rate than the control group (21.5% v 40.6%; P = .019). Surgeons spent a median of 3 minutes managing an alert. CONCLUSION: PRO-based symptom management after lung cancer surgery showed lower symptom burden and fewer complications than usual care for up to 4 weeks postdischarge.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Ethan Basch; Allison M Deal; Amylou C Dueck; Howard I Scher; Mark G Kris; Clifford Hudis; Deborah Schrag Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lindsey M Philpot; Sunni A Barnes; Rachel M Brown; Jessica A Austin; Cameron S James; Richard H Stanford; Jon O Ebbert Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Anja van der Hout; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Karen Holtmaat; Femke Jansen; Birgit I Lissenberg-Witte; Grard A P Nieuwenhuijzen; José A Hardillo; Robert J Baatenburg de Jong; Nicolette L Tiren-Verbeet; Dirkje W Sommeijer; Koen de Heer; Cees G Schaar; Robert-Jan E Sedee; Koop Bosscha; Michiel W M van den Brekel; Japke F Petersen; Matthijs Westerman; Jimmie Honings; Robert P Takes; Ilse Houtenbos; Wim T van den Broek; Remco de Bree; Patricia Jansen; Simone E J Eerenstein; C René Leemans; Josée M Zijlstra; Pim Cuijpers; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2019-12-11 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Christopher W Noel; Rinku Sutradhar; Lesley Gotlib Conn; David Forner; Wing C Chan; Rui Fu; Julie Hallet; Natalie G Coburn; Antoine Eskander Journal: JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2022-08-01 Impact factor: 8.961