Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of lung cancer: A systematic review

Bouazza, Youssef Ben; Chiairi, Ibrahim; Kharbouchi, O. El; Backer, Lesley De; Vanhoutte, Greetje; Janssens, Annelies; Meerbeeck, Jan P. van

doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2017.09.011

Cited by 98 publications

(82 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For each study we recorded data about the publication: journal, year, first author, date of definitive and ahead-of-print publication, availability of supplementary material and/or study protocol. On the basis of the impact factor (IF) corresponding to the year of publication and obtained from the Journal of Citation Reports, papers were classified into three groups: low IF (< 15), intermediate IF (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30) and high IF (> 30).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…At the time we designed the study, there was no internationally validated standard set of indicators available, which changed recently by the virtue of the international consortium of health outcome measurement (ICHOM) [7, 9]. Quality of care measurements should cover the whole cycle of care encompassing (1) therapy effectiveness, (2) complications as well as (3) patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over time and (4) quality of death.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health Outcomes for Definite Concurrent Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: In patients with locally advanced lung cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation, outcome measurements have been mostly limited to survival. Objectives: We aimed to measure outcomes that matter to these patients beyond survival in a general clinical practice. Methods: In a prospective single-centre study, consecutive patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer reported their own outcomes using the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 at baseline, during therapy, at therapy stop and till 1 year after therapy end every 3 months. Survival, complications, quality of death and case-mix variables were measured. Results: There were 32 consecutive patients included prospectively from June 2013 until September 2016. Median overall survival was 24.3 months (95% CI 12.7–35.9). Severe toxicity (grade III–IV) was frequent (haematologic toxicity III–IV in 59%). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) documented the burden on global health status and on functional domains (physical, role, social, emotional and cognitive functioning). Deterioration was pronounced during and after treatment with drops over 20 up to 40% points from baseline for physical, role and social functioning. Clinically meaningful negative effects did persist up to 6 and 9 months for physical and role functioning. Fifty-six percent of the deceased patients died in hospital. Conclusions: The assault on health-related quality of life during concurrent chemoradiation for locally advanced lung cancer is considerable. Loss of physical and role functioning persists up to 6 and 9 months after therapy end, respectively. Measuring PROs can help to identify issues for improvement of the value of care delivered.

show abstract

“…From a validated condition-specific outcome measure set [30], an array of technologies could be used to capture digital outcome measures, which would complement some existing provider-based and patient-reported methods for high-burden health conditions such as lung cancer [31,32], diabetes mellitus [33,34], ischemic heart disease [35], and mental health disorders [36] (Table 1).…”

Section: Digital Outcome Measuresmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Digital Outcome Measure

Cohen

Mathews

2018

Digit Biomark

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving clinical outcomes remains the gold standard in advancing healthcare. Focusing on outcomes holds the potential to unite all clinical stakeholders including payers, industry, providers, and patients. Yet, the dominant ways in which outcomes are captured, provider-collected or patient-reported, have significant limitations. The emerging field of biosensors and wearables, which aims to capture many types of health data, holds promise to specifically capture outcomes while complementing existing outcome collection methods. A digital outcome measure, unlike a traditional provider-collected or patient-reported outcome measure, depends less on active patient or provider participation. Thus, digital outcome measures may be more amenable to standardization as well as greater collection consistency, frequency, and accuracy.

show abstract

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of lung cancer: A systematic review

Cited by 98 publications

References 58 publications

Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

Quality of life analysis in lung cancer: A systematic review of phase III trials published between 2012 and 2018

Health Outcomes for Definite Concurrent Chemoradiation in Locally Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Prospective Study

The Digital Outcome Measure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About