Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional's perspective.

BACKGROUND: In the last decades, the number of cancer survivors has increased significantly due to improved treatment and better detection of recurrence. This increased survival redirects the scope from survival towards optimising functional outcomes and improving health-related quality of life (HRQol). Functional and HRQoL outcomes can be assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the use of PROMs in daily oncological care is not common. This qualitative study investigates the barriers and facilitators of PROM use in an oncological setting, from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCPs). METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among Dutch oncological HCPs. Barriers and facilitators of PROM implementation were identified on various levels of the healthcare system (i.e. level of the patient, individual professional, medical team, and healthcare organisation). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were manually analysed by two independent reviewers using a thematic approach. Identified barriers and facilitators were categorised into Grol and Wensing's framework for changing healthcare practice. RESULTS: Nineteen oncological HCPs working in academic and non-academic hospitals were interviewed. Barriers for PROM implementation were lack of good IT support, lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs, lack of time to complete and interpret PROMs, and a high administrative burden. PROM implementation can be facilitated by providing clear guidance regarding PROM interpretation, evidence that PROMs can save time, and stimulating multidisciplinary teamwork. CONCLUSION: From a HCP point of view, adequately functioning IT technology, sufficient knowledge on PROMs, and dedicated time during the consultation are essential for successful implementation of PROMs in oncological care. Additional local context-specific factors need to be thoroughly addressed.

Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: In current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs). METHODS: A systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs. RESULTS: After screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed. CONCLUSION: This review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Development and content validation of the Assessment of Burden of ColoRectal Cancer (ABCRC)-tool.

BACKGROUND: It is essential to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as health-related quality of life and symptom burden, in follow-up care of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors. These outcomes are most valuable when they are discussed with patients and used to guide follow-up care. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate the Assessment of Burden of Colorectal cancer (ABCRC)-tool: a tool that includes a patient-reported questionnaire covering the experienced burden of colorectal cancer, assessment of lifestyle parameters, visualisation of the results, and treatment advice. METHODS: A 5-step method was used to develop the ABCRC-tool: (1) definition of the experienced burden of CRC, (2) determination of the components of experienced burden, (3) formulation of the instrument preconditions, (4) literature study on existing instruments, (5) development of an integrated instrument. Content validity was evaluated by think-aloud interviews with 11 patients and 22 healthcare professionals (HCPs). RESULTS: The ABCRC-tool consists of a generic module and three CRC specific modules with items related to experienced disease burden, and lifestyle. The CRC specific modules are available for both colon and rectal cancer patients with anastomosis, and patients with a stoma. An algorithm with cut-off points was developed to visualise outcomes and offer treatment advice based on (inter)national guidelines. The evaluation of content led to a few minor amendments. CONCLUSION: The ABCRC-tool is a product of close cooperation between patients and HCPs and has good face and content validity. It is aimed to incorporate PROs in treatment decisions in oncological care.

Near-infrared fluorescence image-guidance in plastic surgery: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Near-infrared fluorescence (NIRF) imaging technique, after administration of contrast agents with fluorescent characteristics in the near-infrared (700-900 nm) range, is considered to possess great potential for the future of plastic surgery, given its capacity for perioperative, real-time anatomical guidance and identification. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive literature review concerning current and potential future applications of NIRF imaging in plastic surgery, thereby guiding future research. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed in databases of Cochrane Library CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (last search Oct 2017) regarding NIRF imaging in plastic surgery. Identified articles were screened and checked for eligibility by two authors independently. RESULTS: Forty-eight selected studies included 1166 animal/human subjects in total. NIRF imaging was described for a variety of (pre)clinical applications in plastic surgery. Thirty-two articles used NIRF angiography, i.e., vascular imaging after intravenous dye administration. Ten articles reported on NIRF lymphography after subcutaneous dye administration. Although currently most applied, general protocols for dosage and timing of dye administration for NIRF angiography and lymphography are still lacking. Three articles applied NIRF to detect nerve injury, and another three studies described other novel applications in plastic surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Future standard implementation of novel intraoperative optical techniques, such as NIRF imaging, could significantly contribute to perioperative anatomy guidance and facilitate critical decision-making in plastic surgical procedures. Further investigation (i.e., large multicenter randomized controlled trials) is mandatory to establish the true value of this innovative surgical imaging technique in standard clinical practice and to aid in forming consensus on protocols for general use.Level of Evidence: Not ratable.