Patient-reported outcomes in neuro-oncology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide up-to-date evidence on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in neuro-oncology, with a focus on the core constructs of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the use of PROs in clinical trials and clinical practice.[Supplemental Digital Content: Video Abstract PROs in Neuro-Oncology.mov]. RECENT FINDINGS: PROs are gaining importance in brain tumor research and medical care. For patients with a brain tumor, core PRO constructs are pain, difficulty communicating, perceived cognition, seizures, symptomatic adverse events, physical functioning and role and social functioning, which are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Initiatives have been taken to improve the reliability and robustness of PRO data, including standardization of items included in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-PRO extension) and formulation of PRO priority objectives for use in clinical trials (the SISAQOL-Innovative Medicines Initiative). In brain tumor patients with cognitive impairment, caregiver-reported outcomes may complement or replace PROs to increase accuracy. The next key challenge will be to widely implement PROs and apply PRO data in clinical practice to benefit patients with brain tumors. SUMMARY: PROs are clinically relevant endpoints providing information only known by the patient. Standardization of the use of PROs in clinical trials and wide implementation in clinical practice is needed to improve HRQoL of brain tumor patients.

Contralateral prophylactic mastectomy: A narrative review of the evidence and acceptability.

The uptake of contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) has increased steadily over the last twenty years in women of all age groups and breast cancer stages. Since contralateral breast cancer is relatively rare and the breast cancer guidelines only recommend CPM in a small subset of patients with breast cancer, the drivers of this trend are unknown. This review aims to evaluate the evidence for and acceptability of CPM, data on patient rationales for choosing CPM, and some of the factors that might impact patient preferences. Based on the evidence, future recommendations will be provided. First, data on contralateral breast cancer risk and CPM rates and trends are addressed. After that, the evidence is structured around four main patient rationales for CPM formulated as questions that patients might ask their surgeon: Will CPM reduce mortality risk? Will CPM reduce the risk of contralateral breast cancer? Can I avoid future screening with CPM? Will I have better breast symmetry after CPM? Also, three different guidelines regarding CPM will be reviewed. Studies indicate a large gap between patient preferences for radical risk reduction with CPM and the current approaches recommended by important guidelines. We suggest a strategy including shared decision-making to enhance surgeons' communication with patients about contralateral breast cancer and treatment options, to empower patients in order to optimize the use of CPM incorporating accurate risk assessment and individual patient preferences.