Recommendations for Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research in Adult Oncology
Top Cited Papers
- 1 December 2012
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Vol. 30 (34), 4249-4255
- https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.5967
Abstract
Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit:
- Recommendations for Clinical Trials of Off-Label Drugs Used to Treat Advanced-Stage CancerJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2012
- Needs assessments can identify scores on HRQOL questionnaires that represent problems for patients: an illustration with the Supportive Care Needs Survey and the QLQ-C30Quality of Life Research, 2010
- The Missing Voice of Patients in Drug-Safety ReportingThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2010
- Feasibility and Acceptability to Patients of a Longitudinal System for Evaluating Cancer-Related Symptoms and Quality of Life: Pilot Study of an e/Tablet Data-Collection System in Academic OncologyJournal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2009
- Patient Online Self-Reporting of Toxicity Symptoms During ChemotherapyJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2005
- How Accurate Is Clinician Reporting of Chemotherapy Adverse Effects? A Comparison With Patient-Reported Symptoms From the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire C30Journal of Clinical Oncology, 2004
- Health-Related Quality-of-Life Assessments and Patient-Physician CommunicationJAMA, 2002
- Role of Health-Related Quality of Life in Palliative Chemotherapy Treatment DecisionsJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2002
- Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatientsPsycho‐Oncology, 2000
- The effectiveness of the use of patient‐based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature reviewJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 1999