Tools to facilitate communication during physician-patient consultations in cancer care: An overview of systematic reviews.

Tools have been developed to facilitate communication and support information exchange between people diagnosed with cancer and their physicians. Patient-reported outcome measures, question prompt lists, patient-held records, tape recordings of consultations, decision aids, and survivorship care plans have all been promoted as potential tools, and there is extensive literature exploring their impact on patient outcomes. Eleven systematic reviews of studies evaluating tools to facilitate patient-physician communication were reviewed and summarized in this overview of systematic reviews. Across the systematic reviews, 87 publications reported on 84 primary studies involving 15,381 participants. Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures and feedback of results to clinicians can improve pain management, physician-patient communication, and symptom detection and control; increase utilization of supportive care; and increase patient involvement in care. Question prompt lists can increase the number of questions asked by patients without increasing consultation length and may encourage them to reflect and plan questions before the consultation. There is limited benefit in audio recording consultations or using patient-held records during consultations. Physicians should be supported by adequately resourced health services to respond effectively to the range of clinical and broader patient needs identified through the routine use of tools to facilitate communication.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year. METHODS: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates. RESULTS: Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms. CONCLUSIONS: Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

IL-13 and IL-13-induced periostin levels are specifically decreased in patients following endoscopic sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 (T2) inflammation plays a pathogenic role in chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS). The effects of endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS) on T2 inflammation are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare T2 inflammatory biomarkers from middle meatal (MM) mucus for distinguishing patients with CRS from CRS-free patients, identifying major phenotypes (CRS without nasal polyps [CRSsNP] and CRS with nasal polyps [CRSwNP]), assessing endotypic change, and establishing cross-sectional and longitudinal outcomes in patients undergoing ESS. METHODS: MM mucus samples were collected from patients with CRSsNP and patients with CRSwNP before and 6 to 12 months after ESS and compared with samples from CRS-free control patients. T2 biomarkers were evaluated both continuously and using threshold-based definitions of T2 endotype to identify relationships with patient-reported (based on the 22-Item Sinonasal Outcomes Test and Chronic Rhinosinusitis Patient-Reported Outcomes Measure) and clinician-reported (radiographic and endoscopic) severity. Linear mixed models were developed to analyze clinical variables associated with T2 biomarker levels. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients with CRS (89 with CRSsNP and 65 with CRSwNP) were enrolled, with a mean interval of 9 months between ESS and follow-up. An analysis of pre-ESS MM mucus samples revealed elevated levels of T2 mediators in patients with CRSwNP versus in patients with CRSsNP and CRS-free controls. Temporally stable correlations between levels of IL-13 and IL-5, levels of periostin and complement 5a, and levels of eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) and eotaxin-3 were observed. On this basis and on the basis of pathologic significance, levels of IL-13, periostin and ECP were further analyzed. After ESS, levels of IL-13 and periostin decreased significantly, whereas ECP levels remained unchanged. Across pre- and post-ESS evaluation, the T2 endotype was associated with radiographic severity but did not predict outcomes. CRSwNP status and African American race were associated with higher levels of IL-13 and periostin, whereas ECP level was higher in patients undergoing extensive surgery. CONCLUSION: ESS decreased levels of IL-13 and periostin in the middle meatus. T2 inflammation after ESS was correlated with patient- and clinician-reported severity across phenotypes. Pre-ESS T2 inflammation did not predict post-ESS outcomes.

Effect of Torsemide Versus Furosemide on Symptoms and Quality of Life Among Patients Hospitalized for Heart Failure: The TRANSFORM-HF Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are a primary therapy for the symptomatic treatment of heart failure (HF), but whether torsemide improves patient symptoms and quality of life better than furosemide remains unknown. As prespecified secondary end points, the TRANSFORM-HF trial (Torsemide Comparison With Furosemide for Management of Heart Failure) compared the effect of torsemide versus furosemide on patient-reported outcomes among patients with HF. METHODS: TRANSFORM-HF was an open-label, pragmatic, randomized trial of 2859 patients hospitalized for HF (regardless of ejection fraction) across 60 hospitals in the United States. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to a loop diuretic strategy of torsemide or furosemide with investigator-selected dosage. This report examined effects on prespecified secondary end points, which included Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Clinical Summary Score (KCCQ-CSS; assessed as adjusted mean difference in change from baseline; range, 0-100 with 100 indicating best health status; clinically important difference, ≥5 points) and Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (range, 0-6; score ≥3 supporting evaluation for depression) over 12 months. RESULTS: Baseline data were available for 2787 (97.5%) patients for KCCQ-CSS and 2624 (91.8%) patients for Patient Health Questionnaire-2. Median (interquartile range) baseline KCCQ-CSS was 42 (27-60) in the torsemide group and 40 (24-59) in the furosemide group. At 12 months, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide in change from baseline in KCCQ-CSS (adjusted mean difference, 0.06 [95% CI, -2.26 to 2.37]; P=0.96) or the proportion of patients with Patient Health Questionnaire-2 score ≥3 (15.1% versus 13.2%: P=0.34). Results for KCCQ-CSS were similar at 1 month (adjusted mean difference, 1.36 [95% CI, -0.64 to 3.36]; P=0.18) and 6-month follow-up (adjusted mean difference, -0.37 [95% CI, -2.52 to 1.78]; P=0.73), and across subgroups by ejection fraction phenotype, New York Heart Association class at randomization, and loop diuretic agent before hospitalization. Irrespective of baseline KCCQ-CSS tertile, there was no significant difference between torsemide and furosemide on change in KCCQ-CSS, all-cause mortality, or all-cause hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients discharged after hospitalization for HF, a strategy of torsemide compared with furosemide did not improve symptoms or quality of life over 12 months. The effects of torsemide and furosemide on patient-reported outcomes were similar regardless of ejection fraction, previous loop diuretic use, and baseline health status. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03296813.

CADA-PRO: A Patient Questionnaire Measuring Key Cognitive, Motor, Emotional, and Behavioral Outcomes in CADASIL.

BACKGROUND: Cerebral small vessel disease (cSVD) of ischemic type, either sporadic or genetic, as cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL), can impact the quality of daily life on various cognitive, motor, emotional, or behavioral aspects. No instrument has been developed to measure these outcomes from the patient's perspective. We thus aimed to develop and validate a patient-reported questionnaire. METHODS: In a development study, 79 items were generated by consensus between patients, family representatives, and cSVD experts. A first sample of patients allowed assessing the feasibility (missing data, floor and ceiling effect, and acceptability), internal consistency, and dimensionality of a first set of items. Thereafter, in a validation study, we tested a reduced version of the item set in a larger sample to assess the feasibility, internal consistency, dimensionality, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: The scale was developed in 44 patients with cSVD and validated in a second sample of 89 individuals (including 43 patients with CADASIL and 46 with another cSVD). The final CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome scale comprised 18 items covering 4 categories of consequences (depression/anxiety, attention/executive functions, motor, and daily activities) of the disease. The proportion of missing data was low, and no item displayed a major floor or ceiling effect. Both the internal consistency and test-retest reliability were good (Cronbach alpha=0.95, intraclass correlation coefficient=0.88). In patients with CADASIL, CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome scores correlated with the modified Rankin Scale, Starkstein Apathy Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Working Memory Index, and trail making test times. In patients with other cSVDs, CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome correlated only with Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and Starkstein Apathy Scale. CONCLUSIONS: The CADASIL Patient-Reported Outcome may be an innovative instrument for measuring patient-reported outcomes in future cSVD trials. Full validation was obtained for its use in patients with CADASIL, but further improvement is needed for its application in other cSVDs.

Socioeconomic Differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures 3 Months After Stroke: A Nationwide Swedish Register-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a well-known association between low socioeconomic status (SES), poor survival, and clinician-reported outcomes after stroke. We aimed to assess socioeconomic differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures 3 months after stroke. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study included patients registered with acute stroke in the Swedish Stroke Register 2015-2017. Patient Reported Outcome Measures included activities of daily living (mobility, toileting, and dressing), and poststroke symptoms (low mood, fatigue, pain, and poor general health). Information on SES prestroke was retrieved from Statistics Sweden and defined by a composite measure based on education and income tertiles. Associations between SES and Patient Reported Outcome Measures were analyzed using logistic regression adjusting for confounders (sex and age) and additionally for potential mediators (stroke type, severity, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and living alone). Subgroup analyses were performed for stroke type, men and women, and younger and older patients. RESULTS: The study included 44 511 patients. Of these, 31.1% required assistance with mobility, 18% with toileting, and 22.2% with dressing 3 months after stroke. For poststroke symptoms, 12.3% reported low mood, 39.1% fatigue, and 22.7% pain often/constantly, while 21.4% rated their general health as poor/very poor. Adjusted for confounders, the odds of needing assistance with activities of daily living were highest for patients with low income and primary school education, for example, for mobility, odds ratio was 2.06 (95% CI, 1.89-2.24) compared with patients with high income and university education. For poststroke symptoms, odds of poor outcome were highest for patients with low income and university education (eg, odds ratio, 1.79 [95% CI, 1.49-2.15] for low mood). Adjustments for potential mediators attenuated but did not remove associations. The associations were similar in ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes and more pronounced in men and patients <65 years old. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial SES-related differences in Patient Reported Outcome Measures poststroke. The more severe outcome associated with low SES is more pronounced in men and in patients of working age.

Utilization and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Randomized Clinical Trials of Acute Stroke (2010-2020).

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) describe health status from the perspective of the patient. There is growing interest in incorporating PROMs into clinical trials, but the extent that such measures are used in contemporary stroke trials is uncertain. We sought to determine how often acute stroke trials included PROMs as outcome measures and assessed the completeness of methodological reporting. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials published in 9 high-impact journals between 2010 and 2020. Eligible studies were phase 2 or 3 trials that tested therapeutic interventions within 1 month of stroke onset. Using the trial's primary publication and protocol, we abstracted key study characteristics including all primary and secondary outcome measures. We defined PROMs as self-reported measures of quality of life, symptoms, or function collected without interpretation of an external party. RESULTS: Of 116 trials that met eligibility, 57 (49%) included at least 1 PROM. Of these, 41 trials (35%) included a PROM in its primary publication, while 16 (14%) identified a PROM in its protocol. Only 1 trial used a PROM as a primary outcome. Among the 57 total trials, the most commonly used measures were Euro-QOL (n=41, 72%), Stroke Impact Scale (n=10, 18%), and Short-Form 36 (n=6, 11%). Trials were more likely to include a PROM if they were published after 2016, were phase 3, or included only hemorrhagic stroke. Of the 41 trials that included a PROM in the primary publication, 40 (97%) provided PROM results, but only 9 (22%) found statistically significant differences between treatment groups. Quality of methodological reporting was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS: Half of contemporary acute stroke trials published in high-impact journals listed at least 1 PROM as a secondary outcome, but they played a minor role in the presentation of the final trial results. Inclusion of PROMs in acute stroke trials requires greater attention during both the design and reporting phases of the trial. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019128727.

Randomized phase 2 trial of tremelimumab and durvalumab in combination versus sequentially in recurrent platinum-resistant ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have demonstrated limited responses in recurrent ovarian cancer; however, 30%-40% of patients achieve stable disease. The primary objective was to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) after sequential versus combination cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 and programmed death ligand 1 ICIs in patients with platinum-resistant high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC). METHODS: Patients were randomized to a sequential arm (tremelimumab followed by durvalumab on progression) or a combination arm (tremelimumab plus durvalumab, followed by durvalumab) via a Bayesian adaptive design that made it more likely for patients to be randomized to the more effective arm. The primary end point was immune-related PFS (irPFS). RESULTS: Sixty-one subjects were randomized to sequential (n = 38) or combination therapy (n = 23). Thirteen patients (34.2%) in the sequential arm received durvalumab. There was no difference in PFS in the sequential arm (1.84 months; 95% CI, 1.77-2.17 months) compared with the combination arm (1.87 months; 95% CI, 1.77-2.43 months) (p = .402). In the sequential arm, no responses were observed, although 12 patients (31.6%) demonstrated stable disease. In the combination arm, two patients (8.7%) had partial response, whereas one patient (4.4%) had stable disease. Adverse events were consistent with those previously reported for ICIs. Patient-reported outcomes were similar in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in irPFS for combination tremelimumab plus durvalumab compared to tremelimumab alone (administered as part of a sequential treatment strategy) in a heavily pretreated population of patients with platinum-resistant HGSOC. Response rates were comparable to prior reports, although the combination regimen did not add significant benefit, as has been previously described.

Making progress against rare cancers: A case study on neuroendocrine tumors.

In April 2023, the National Cancer Institute offered a roadmap for cancer research to achieve Cancer Moonshot goals. To reach these goals requires making progress for all cancers, not just those that are most common. Achieving progress against rare cancers, as well as common cancers, requires involvement of large clinical research networks. In 2020, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) launched an initiative on Conducting Rare Disease Research using PCORnet, the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. The purpose of this commentary is to introduce the broader community of cancer researchers to the PCORnet NET-PRO study (comparing the effects of different treatment approaches for neuroendocrine tumors on patient-reported outcomes) thereby demonstrating how researchers can use the PCORnet infrastructure to conduct large-scale patient-centered studies of rare cancers.

Reliability, validity, and change thresholds of the NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index (NFBlSI-18) in patients with advanced urothelial cancer.

BACKGROUND: The NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index-18 (NFBlSI-18) is a bladder cancer-specific instrument. We aimed to psychometrically evaluate the reliability and validity of NFBlSI-18 and estimate change thresholds for total, disease-related symptoms-physical (DRS-P), DRS-emotional (DRS-E), and function/well-being (F/WB) scales in patients with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC). METHODS: JAVELIN Bladder 100 trial data were analyzed. Anchors to evaluate validity included: 5-level EuroQoL-5D utility index (EQ-5D-5L UI), visual analog scale (VAS), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status, and number of symptoms. Responsiveness to change was tested by anchoring to time to tumor progression (TTP), best overall response (BOR), and differences in means between ECOG categories to estimate meaningful between-group differences. Meaningful within-group change thresholds were estimated using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, anchoring to change in EQ-5D-5L UI. Significant within-individual patient change thresholds were estimated with reliable and likely change indexes. RESULTS: Correlations with EQ-5D-5L UI and VAS ranged from 0.53 to 0.73. Standardized effect sizes were >0.20. Compared with patients with TTP of ≥6 months, patients with TTP of >0-2 and 3-5 months had larger declines; results for BOR were similar. Thresholds (points) for meaningful between-group differences were: total, 6-11; DRS-P, 3-6; and DRS-E and F/WB, 1. Thresholds (points) for meaningful within-group worsening were: total, 4; and DRS-P, 3, and for significant individual change they were: total, 3-9; DRS-P, 2-6; DRS-E, 1-3; and F/WB, 2-4. CONCLUSIONS: NFBlSI-18 exhibited evidence of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to assess quality of life in studies of la/mUC, and change thresholds are established for future studies. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: The NCCN/FACT Bladder Symptom Index-18 (NFBlSI-18) is a questionnaire used to assess quality of life for people with advanced bladder cancer. People with advanced bladder cancer who took part in the JAVELIN Bladder 100 study completed the NFBlSI-18 when they joined the study and after each treatment with avelumab maintenance or best supportive care. This study showed that NFBlSI-18 is suitable for capturing bladder cancer symptoms and is able to detect important changes in a person's quality of life over time. This study also provides thresholds for changes in NFBlSI-18 scores, which will be useful for future studies.

Incomplete reporting of clinically significant acute rejection episodes in the national kidney transplant registry.

Administrative claims data could provide a unique opportunity to identify acute rejection (AR) events using specific antirejection medications and to validate rejected data reported to the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. This retrospective cohort study examined differences in registry-reported events and those identified using claims data among adult kidney transplant recipients from 2012 to 2017 using Standard Analysis Files from the US Renal Data System. Rejection rates, survival estimates, and center-level differences were assessed using each approach. Among 45 880 first-time kidney transplant recipients, we identified 3841 AR events within 12 months of transplant reported by centers in the registry; claims data yielded 2945 events. Of all events occurring within 12 months of transplant, 48.5% were reported using registry only, 32.9% were identified using claims only, and 18.6% were identified using both approaches. A 3-year death-censored graft survival probability was 90.0%, 88.4%, and 81.2% (P < .001) for ARs identified using registry only, claims data only, and both approaches, respectively. The large discordance between registry-reported and claims-based events suggests incomplete and potentially inaccurate reporting of events in the Organ Procurement Transplant Network registry. These findings have important implications for analyses that use AR data and underscore the need for improved capture of clinically meaningful events.

Iron deficiency, anemia, and patient-reported outcomes in kidney transplant recipients.

Kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) experience more fatigue, anxiety, and depressive symptoms and lower concentration and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) compared with the general population. Anemia is a potential cause that is well-recognized and treated. Iron deficiency, however, is often unrecognized, despite its potential detrimental effects related to and unrelated to anemia. We investigated the interplay of anemia, iron deficiency, and patient-reported outcomes in 814 outpatient KTRs (62% male, age 56 ± 13 years) enrolled in the TransplantLines Biobank and Cohort Study (Groningen, The Netherlands). In total, 28% had iron deficiency (ie, transferrin saturation < 20% and ferritin < 100 µg/L), and 29% had anemia (World Health Organization criteria). In linear regression analyses, iron deficiency, but not anemia, was associated with more fatigue, worse concentration, lower wellbeing, more anxiety, more depressive symptoms, and lower HRQoL, independent of age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate, anemia, and other potential confounders. In the fully adjusted logistic regression models, iron deficiency was associated with an estimated 53% higher risk of severe fatigue, a 100% higher risk of major depressive symptoms, and a 51% higher chance of being at risk for sick leave/work disability. Clinical trials are needed to investigate the effect of iron deficiency correction on patient-reported outcomes and HRQoL in KTRs.

The Relationship Between Health-Related Quality of Life and Overall Survival in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma in CheckMate 214.

BACKGROUND: In CheckMate 214 (median follow-up, 25.2 months), nivolumab plus ipilimumab yielded greater overall survival (OS) benefit than sunitinib in patients with intermediate-/poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessed by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index-19 (FKSI-19) was also more favorable for the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group than the sunitinib group. We investigated whether HRQoL scores can predict OS of patients with 5 years follow-up in CheckMate 214. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CheckMate 214 was an open-label, phase III trial in previously untreated aRCC (N = 1096). Patients with intermediate-/poor-risk disease (International mRCC Database Consortium prognostic score ≥ 1; n = 847) were randomized to either nivolumab plus ipilimumab or sunitinib monotherapy. Pooled data for OS and FKSI-19 total and subscales (disease-related symptoms [DRS], DRS-physical [DRS-P], and function/well-being [FWB]) were analyzed. Relationships between HRQoL and OS were assessed using Cox proportional hazard models with baseline and longitudinal scores. Associations between HRQoL changes and OS were assessed by landmark analyses. RESULTS: Patients with higher FKSI-19 total and subscale scores at baseline had longer OS than patients with lower scores (HR ≤ 0.834; P < .0001). Longitudinal models indicated stronger associations between HRQoL and OS (HR ≤ 0.69; P < .001 for each). At 3 months after randomization, patients with stable/improved HRQoL versus baseline had longer median OS than patients with worsened/unobserved HRQoL versus baseline (55.9 and 26.0 months, respectively; HR = 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46-0.67; P < .0001). Results at 6-, 9-, and 12-month landmarks were consistent with these findings. CONCLUSION: In aRCC, patient-reported outcomes are important for HRQoL and prognostic evaluation. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02231749; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02231749.

Validation of the Laryngeal Cognitive-Affective Tool.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cognitive-affective processes, including hypervigilance and symptom-specific anxiety, may contribute to chronic laryngeal symptoms and are potentially modifiable; however, a validated instrument to assess these constructs is lacking. The aims of this study were to develop and validate the Laryngeal Cognitive-Affective Tool (LCAT) instrument. METHODS: This 2-phase single-center prospective study enrolled participants from November 2021 to June 2023. In the initial phase 1:1 patient cognitive interviews and multidisciplinary team consensus were conducted to develop the LCAT. In the second phase asymptomatic and symptomatic participants completed a series of questionnaires to examine psychometric properties of the LCAT. RESULTS: A total of 268 participants were included: 8 in the initial phase and 260 in the validation phase (56 asymptomatic; 204 symptomatic). A 15-item LCAT was developed. In the validation phase, mean total LCAT and hypervigilance/anxiety subscores were significantly higher in symptomatic versus asymptomatic participants (P < .01). The LCAT had excellent internal consistency (α = 0.942) and split-half reliability (Guttman = 0.853). Using a median split, a score of 33 or greater was defined as elevated. CONCLUSIONS: The 15-item LCAT evaluates laryngeal hypervigilance and symptom-specific anxiety among patients with laryngeal symptoms. It has excellent reliability and construct validity. The LCAT highlights burdensome cognitive-affective processes that can accordingly help tailor treatments.

Three and twelve-month analysis of the PROM-Q study: comparison of patient-reported outcome measures using the BREAST-Q questionnaire in pre- vs. sub-pectoral implant-based immediate breast reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Implant-based breast reconstruction (IBR) is being increasingly performed with implant placed above the pectoral muscle (pre-pectoral), instead of below the pectoral muscle (sub-pectoral). Currently, there is a lack of comparative data on clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- vs. sub-pectoral IBR. We investigated whether this difference in surgical approach influenced clinical or patient-perceived outcomes. METHODS: This prospective non-randomised longitudinal cohort study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04842240) recruited patients undergoing immediate IBR at the Leeds Breast Unit (Sep 2019-Sep 2021). Data collection included patient characteristics and post-operative complications. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures were collected using the BREAST-Q questionnaire at baseline, 2 weeks, 3- and 12-months post-surgery. RESULTS: Seventy-eight patients underwent IBR (46 patients pre-pectoral; 59% vs. 32 patients sub-pectoral; 41%). Similar complication rates were observed (15.2% pre-pectoral vs. 9.4% sub-pectoral; p = 0.44). Overall implant loss rate was 3.8% (6.5% pre-pectoral vs. 0% sub-pectoral; p = 0.13). Respective median Breast-Q scores for pre- and sub-pectoral IBR at 3 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 48; p = 0.01), psychosocial well-being (60 vs. 57; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 76; p = 0.53), and Animation Q scores (73 vs. 76; p = 0.45). Respective Breast-Q scores at 12 months were: breast satisfaction (58 vs. 53; p = 0.3), psychosocial well-being (59 vs. 60; p = 0.9), physical well-being (68 vs. 78; p = 0.18), and Animation Q scores (69 vs. 73; p = 0.4). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates equivalent clinical and patient-perceived outcomes between pre- and sub-pectoral IBR. The study findings can be utilised to aid informed decision making regarding either surgical option.

Development of a core outcome set for breast cancer-related lymphedema: a Delphi study.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome domains (OD) should be measured to assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? A Core Outcome Set (COS) that promotes standardized measurement of outcomes within the constraints of time influenced by work environments is essential for patients and the multidisciplinary professionals that manage and research BCRL. METHODS: Using Delphi methodology, a multidisciplinary group of BCRL experts (physical and occupational therapists, physicians, researchers, physical therapist assistants, nurses, and massage therapist) completed two waves of online surveys. BCRL expert respondents that completed the first survey (n = 78) had an average of 26.5 years in practice, whereas, respondents who completed the second survey (n = 33) had an average of 24.9 years. ODs were included in the COS when consensus thresholds, ranging from 70% to 80%, were met. RESULTS: A total of 12 ODs made up the COS. Reaching a minimum consensus of 70%; volume, tissue consistency, pain, patient-reported upper quadrant function, patient-reported health-related quality of life, and upper extremity activity and motor control were recommended at different phases of the BCRL continuum in a time-constrained environment. Joint function, flexibility, strength, sensation, mobility and balance, and fatigue met an 80% consensus to be added when time and resources were not constrained. CONCLUSION: The COS developed in this study thoroughly captures the burden of BCRL. Using this COS may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields, which manage or research BCRL.

Development of a core set of outcome measures to be applied toward breast cancer-related lymphedema core outcome domains.

PURPOSE: For breast cancer survivors (BCS) living with breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), what outcome measures (OMs) are recommended to be used to measure standardized outcome domains to fully assess the burden of the disease and efficacy of interventions? An integral component of a standardized core outcome set (COS) are the OMs used to measure the COS. METHODS: A supplemental online survey was linked to a Delphi study investigating a COS for BCRL. OMs were limited to a maximum of 10 options for each outcome domain (OD). There were 14 ODs corresponding to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework and respondents rated the OMs with a Likert level of recommendation. The feasibility of the listed OMs was also investigated for most outpatient, inpatient, and research settings. RESULTS: This study identified 27 standardized OMs with a few ODs having 2-3 highly recommended OMs for proper measurement. A few of the recommended OMs have limitations with reliability due to being semi-quantitative measures requiring the interpretation of the rater. CONCLUSION: Narrowing the choices of OMs to 27 highly recommended by BCRL experts may reduce selective reporting, inconsistency in clinical use, and variability of reporting across interdisciplinary healthcare fields which manage or research BCRL. There is a need for valid, reliable, and feasible OMs that measure tissue consistency. Measures of upper extremity activity and motor control need further research in the BCS with BCRL population.

Patient-reported outcome measures for medication treatment satisfaction: a systematic review of measure development and measurement properties.

BACKGROUND: Medication Treatment Satisfaction (M-TS) from the patients' perspective is important for comprehensively evaluating the effect of medicines. The extent to which current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for M-TS are valid, reliable, responsive, and interpretable remains unclear. To assess the measurement properties of existing PROMs for M-TS and to highlight research gaps. METHODS: Using PubMed, Embase (Ovid), Cochrane library (Ovid), IPA (Ovid), PsycINFO, Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Questionnaires biomedical databases, and four Chinese databases, we performed a systematic search for studies addressing the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS. Based on the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline, pairs of reviewers independently assessed the measurement properties of the PROMs and rated the quality of evidence on the measurement properties of each PROM. (The Open Science Framework registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/8S5ZM ). RESULTS: This review identified 69 PROMs for M-TS in 114 studies (four generic, 32 disease-specific, and 33 drug-specific) of which 60 were intended for adults. All provided limited or no information regarding interpretability. Most demonstrated appropriate construct validity including convergent validity (39/69) and discriminative or known-groups validity (40/69) (high to moderate quality of evidence). Only a few provided evidence of sufficient content validity (8/69), structural validity (13/69), and internal consistency (11/69). Of 38 PROMs reporting test-retest reliability, results in 24 provided evidence of satisfactory test-retest reliability (18 with high to moderate, 6 with low to very low quality of evidence). Few PROMs reported responsiveness (16/69). Two generic PROMs (Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication initial Version 1.4, TSQM-1.4; Treatment Satisfaction with Medicines Questionnaire, SATMED-Q) and one drug-specific PROM (Insulin Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire, ITSQ) demonstrated both satisfactory validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Most existing PROMs for M-TS require further exploration of measurement properties. Reporting guidelines are needed to enhance the reporting quality of the development and validation of PROMs for M-TS.

2023 EULAR classification criteria for hand osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to develop classification criteria for overall hand osteoarthritis (OA), interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA based on self-reported data and radiographic features. METHODS: The classification criteria sets were developed in three phases. In phase 1, we identified criteria that discriminated hand OA from controls. In phase 2, we used a consensus-based decision analysis approach to derive a clinician-based evaluation of the relative importance of the criteria. In phase 3, we refined the scoring system, determined the cut-offs for disease classification and compared the sensitivity and specificity of the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) criteria with the 1990 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria. RESULTS: In persons with hand symptoms and no other disease (including psoriasis) or acute injury that can explain the hand symptoms (mandatory criteria), hand OA can be classified based on age, duration of morning stiffness, number of joints with osteophytes and joint space narrowing, and concordance between symptoms and radiographic findings. Using a sum of scores based on each diagnostic element, overall hand OA can be classified if a person achieves 9 or more points on a 0-15 scale. The cut-off for interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA is 8 points. While the EULAR criteria demonstrated better sensitivity than the ACR criteria in the phase 1 data set, the performance of the two criteria sets was similar in two external cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: International experts developed the EULAR criteria to classify overall hand OA, interphalangeal OA and thumb base OA in clinical studies using a rigorous methodology.

Randomised trial of genetic testing and targeted intervention to prevent the development and progression of Paget's disease of bone.

INTRODUCTION: Paget's disease of bone (PDB) frequently presents at an advanced stage with irreversible skeletal damage. Clinical outcomes might be improved by earlier diagnosis and prophylactic treatment. METHODS: We randomised 222 individuals at increased risk of PDB because of pathogenic SQSTM1 variants to receive 5 mg zoledronic acid (ZA) or placebo. The primary outcome was new bone lesions assessed by radionuclide bone scan. Secondary outcomes included change in existing lesions, biochemical markers of bone turnover and skeletal events related to PDB. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 84 months (range 0-127) and 180 participants (81%) completed the study. At baseline, 9 (8.1%) of the ZA group had PDB lesions vs 12 (10.8%) of the placebo group. Two of the placebo group developed new lesions versus none in the ZA group (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.00 to 3.43, p=0.25). Eight of the placebo group had a poor outcome (lesions which were new, unchanged or progressing) compared with none of the ZA group (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.42, p=0.003). At the study end, 1 participant in the ZA group had lesions compared with 11 in the placebo group. Biochemical markers of bone turnover were significantly reduced in the ZA group. One participant allocated to placebo required rescue therapy with ZA because of symptomatic disease. The number and severity of adverse events did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic testing for pathogenic SQSTM1 variants coupled with intervention with ZA is well tolerated and has favourable effects on the progression of early PDB. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11616770.