Elsevier

Gynecologic Oncology

Volume 158, Issue 1, July 2020, Pages 194-200
Gynecologic Oncology

A Society of Gynecologic Oncology White Paper
Patient reported outcomes measures in gynecologic oncology: A primer for clinical use, part I

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.04.696Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Patient reported outcomes measurements (PROMs) are an essential component of comprehensive, patient centered care.

  • Practical considerations and challenges to collecting PROMs in routine gynecologic oncology practice are discussed.

  • Pragmatic, disease-specific recommendations for the use of PROMs are provided for women with gynecologic malignancies.

Introduction

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has been increasingly recognized as a critical metric to ensure delivery of high quality, patient-centered cancer care. HRQoL can be measured in several ways, but often involves collecting patient reported outcomes (PROs). PROs collected on validated questionnaires are known as patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

PROs may be one of the most meaningful measures of value delivered in healthcare, demonstrating when a patient's symptoms are improving or worsening in association with interactions with his or her care team. PROMs can address any potential discordance between the physician and the patient as to the magnitude of their symptoms, [[1], [2], [3]] and their use has led to improved overall survival in the setting of metastatic cancer. For these reasons, payors and regulators are also interested in the collection and use of PROs to assess the value of care delivered by a particular provider or health care system.

Oncology has a long and rich tradition of valuing PROs. The administration of PROMs plays an important role in identifying treatment toxicities, improving symptom management and end of life care and increasingly serves as a prognostic factor for survival in select clinical trial settings. It is important to note, however, that the knowledge base around PROMs has developed almost exclusively from the clinical trial setting. Though a growing body of literature suggests that collection of PROMs is feasible in the routine clinical setting and perhaps represents best practice, comparatively little is known about how to export these tools from clinical trials into routine clinical practice and determine what will be acceptable to patients and providers.

In early 2019, a survey was sent to 1146 SGO members in the US regarding their use of PROMs in clinical practice. While results are likely to be biased by the low response rate (10%), they are nevertheless informative. Among the 121 responders, tremendous variability was reported in the PRO instruments used, with 23% using (presumably nonvalidated) instruments developed within their institution, with the remainder equally divided between FACT, EORTC, and PRO-CTCAE, demonstrating an opportunity for standardization. While 57% of responders reported PROMs were integrated into their electronic health record, only 30% felt they were easy to use and 70% received no tabulated feedback on results. Time and support services were identified as the most common barriers to implementation. Other obstacles to routinely collecting PROs in clinical practice, discussed below, include: selection of the most appropriate PROM for a given symptom or disease site, building an infrastructure that can accommodate the administration of PROMs, training physician and nursing personnel on how to interpret and act upon the PROM, and data warehousing in order to analyze aggregate results [1].

Rather than duplicate exhaustive reviews of PROMs in the past [4], the intent of this two-part manuscript is the following:

  • 1.

    To affirm that the Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) believes the collection and use of PRO data is an essential component of comprehensive, patient centered care.

  • 2.

    To provide an overview of the current landscape for clinical collection of PROMs.

  • 3.

    To discuss practical considerations for collecting PROMs in routine gynecologic oncology practice, including challenges to implementation and opportunities to standardize collection.

  • 4.

    To make pragmatic, disease-specific recommendations around specific PROMs that can be helpful in assessing women with gynecologic malignancies.

In December 2018, the Policy, Quality, and Outcomes Taskforce of the SGO convened a daylong seminar including experts in the field of PROs to further SGO's vision of integrating PROMs into routine clinical practice as a component of patient-centric care. Recognizing our role in managing cancer patients across the entire continuum of surgical and medical care, we believe gynecologic oncologists are uniquely positioned to make important contributions to this field and influence the delivery of care in the wider discipline of oncology.

Part I includes a primer on PROMs in oncology, a review of available instruments, and a discussion of challenges to consider prior to clinical implementation. Also included is a discussion of social determinants of health in the context of patient reported outcomes assessment. Part II includes recommendations for specific PROMs for clinical use in gynecologic oncology by disease site.

Section snippets

Background: a primer on PROMS in oncology

PROMs have evolved since the early 1990s, having been originally developed as self-reported symptoms for secondary aims in clinical research [5]. The most commonly used tools include the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) [5,6]. Typical PRO surveys consist of four broad domains of well-being: physical, functional, social, and emotional, posing multiple questions within

Available PROM instruments

The instruments in Table 1 are a partial, but representative list of available measures ranging from general QoL questionnaires to cancer-specific questionnaires, symptom measures, and measures of sexuality, stress, and emotional health. The range and scope of all these options can be overwhelming, and many measures include questions that are not relevant for routine clinical purposes. Excessive survey length may discourage patients from participating. One strategy to render PROMs more

Obstacles to collecting PROMs in clinical practice

Previous sections have discussed challenges in PROM selection; this section will discuss challenges in PROMs program implementation. Implementing a high functioning PROM program into clinical practice requires a robust platform for PROMs collection, engagement of patients and providers, and an informatics infrastructure that is capable not only of collecting PROMs data, but making it actionable at the patient level and useful for quality improvement efforts at a system level. Challenges in each

Social determinants of health

A range of social, economic, and environmental factors directly and indirectly drive health and healthcare outcomes for all people across the world [30]. These are referred to as social determinants of health and include income, wealth, education, environment, and exposure to discrimination. The physical, emotional, functional, and social wellbeing domains of PROMs are all influenced by social determinants of health. For example, Medicaid insurance is associated with greater odds of

Summary

In Part I of this review, we discuss the importance of measuring PROs in clinical practice and identify obstacles to implementation. There is little published evidence available to guide appropriate clinical use of PROMs. Nevertheless, due to their importance, we encourage clinicians and clinical research to focus on the clinical use of PROMs. Challenges to implementation are significant and many solutions remain elusive. In particular, obstacles created by diverse and flawed EHR platforms are

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Rachel C. Sisodia: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Summer B. Dewdney: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Amanda N. Fader: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Stephanie L. Wethington: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Alexander Melamed: Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Vivian E. Von Gruenigen: Writing -

Declaration of competing interest

The authors report no conflict of interest.

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (66)

  • R.G. Arms et al.

    Improvement in quality of life after robotic surgery results in patient satisfaction

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2015 Sep)
  • I.J. Rowlands et al.

    Quality of life of women with lower limb swelling or lymphedema 3-5 years following endometrial cancer

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2014 May)
  • G. Ferrandina et al.

    Evaluation of quality of life and emotional distress in endometrial cancer patients: a 2-year prospective, longitudinal study

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2014 Jun)
  • S.E. Ferguson et al.

    Prospective cohort study comparing quality of life and sexual health outcomes between women undergoing robotic, laparoscopic and open surgery for endometrial cancer

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2018 Jun)
  • L. Aerts et al.

    Are primary and secondary provoked vestibulodynia two different entities? A comparison of pain, psychosocial, and sexual characteristics

    J. Sex. Med.

    (2015 Jun)
  • C.M. Donnelly et al.

    A randomised controlled trial testing the feasibility and efficacy of a physical activity behavioural change intervention in managing fatigue with gynaecological cancer survivors

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2011 Sep)
  • M.L. McCarroll et al.

    Self-efficacy, quality of life, and weight loss in overweight/obese endometrial cancer survivors (SUCCEED): a randomized controlled trial

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2014 Feb)
  • N.L. Nock et al.

    Rationale and design of REWARD (revving-up exercise for sustained weight loss by altering neurological reward and drive): a randomized trial in obese endometrial cancer survivors

    Contemp Clin Trials

    (2014 Nov)
  • P. Dangsuwan et al.

    Blood transfusion reduction with intravenous iron in gynecologic cancer patients receiving chemotherapy

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2010 Mar)
  • J. Carter et al.

    A pilot study using the Gynecologic Cancer Lymphedema Questionnaire (GCLQ) as a clinical care tool to identify lower extremity lymphedema in gynecologic cancer survivors

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2010 May)
  • D. Cella et al.

    Patient-reported peripheral neuropathy of doxorubicin and cisplatin with and without paclitaxel in the treatment of advanced endometrial cancer: results from GOG 184

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2010 Dec)
  • N. Onujiogu et al.

    Survivors of endometrial cancer: who is at risk for sexual dysfunction?

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2011 Nov)
  • S.D. Armbruster et al.

    Sexual health of endometrial cancer survivors before and after a physical activity intervention: a retrospective cohort analysis

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2016 Dec)
  • K.R. Honerlaw et al.

    Biopsychosocial predictors of pain among women recovering from surgery for endometrial cancer

    Gynecol. Oncol.

    (2016 Feb)
  • E. Basch et al.

    Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes

    J. Natl. Cancer Inst.

    (2009 Dec 2)
  • E.A. Laugsand et al.

    Health care providers underestimate symptom intensities of cancer patients: a multicenter European study

    Health Qual. Life Outcomes

    (2010 Sep 21)
  • D.F. Cella et al.

    The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure

    Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

    (1993 Mar)
  • N.K. Aaronson et al.

    The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology

    J. Natl. Cancer Inst.

    (1993 Mar 3)
  • A.B. Smith et al.

    Role of patient-reported outcomes in postsurgical monitoring in oncology

    Journal of Oncology Practice

    (2017 Aug)
  • C.C. Gotay et al.

    The prognostic significance of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

    Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

    (2008 Mar 10)
  • L. Wenzel et al.

    Quality-of-life comparisons in a randomized trial of interval secondary cytoreduction in advanced ovarian carcinoma: a Gynecologic Oncology Group study

    Journal of Clinical Oncology : Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology

    (2005 Aug 20)
  • S.B. Detmar et al.

    Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial

    Jama

    (2002 Dec 18)
  • S.K. Dobscha et al.

    Effectiveness of an intervention to improve primary care provider recognition of depression

    Effective Clinical Practice : ECP

    (2001 Jul-Aug)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text