Patient related outcome measures for follow-up after gynaecological cancer treatment

Nama, Vivek; Nordin, Andy; Bryant, Andrew

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010299

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is also growing evidence that PRO tools improve the monitoring of treatment response and the detection of unrecognized problems [31,32]. However, there is a gap in our current knowledge with respect to the effects on care processes and health outcomes of routine collection of PRO-CTCAE as part of cancer care delivery [25,[33][34][35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Routine Surveillance of Chemotherapy Toxicities in Cancer Patients Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Systematic documentation of chemotoxicities in outpatient clinics is challenging. Incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical workflows can be an efficient strategy to strengthen the assessment of symptomatic treatment toxicities in oncology clinical practice. We compared the adequateness, feasibility, and acceptability of toxicity documentation using systematic, prospective, application of the PRO Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) tool. Methods: At a comprehensive cancer center, data abstraction of electronic health record reviews elucidated current methods and degree of chemotoxicity documentation. Web-based 32-item PRO-CTCAE questionnaires, administered in ambulatory clinics of patients receiving chemotherapy, captured chemotoxicities and respective severities. Patient telephone surveys assessed whether healthcare providers had addressed chemotoxicities to the patients' satisfaction. Results: Over a broad demographic of 497 patients receiving chemotherapy, 90% (95% CI 84-96%) with significant chemotoxicities (n = 107) reported that their providers had discussed toxicities with them; of these, 70% received a therapy management change, while among the rest, 17% desired a change in management. Of patients surveyed, 91% (95% CI 82-99%) were satisfied with their current chemotoxicity management. Clinician chart documentation varied greatly; descriptors rather than numerical grading scales were typically used. Although 93% of patients were willing to complete the PRO survey, only 50% thought that it would be acceptable to complete this survey at routine clinic visits. Conclusion: Use of PRO-CTCAE in routine clinical practice promotes systematic evaluation of symptomatic toxicities and improves the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of clinician documentation; however, methods to improve patient willingness to complete this tool routinely are needed.

show abstract