Colorectal cancer survivorship care plans: Variations in documentation and posttreatment surveillance recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCP) should outline pertinent information about cancer treatment and follow-up. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed the content of 74 colorectal cancer SCPs completed as part of a randomized, controlled trial of SCPs at an academic and community cancer center. Surveillance recommendations were compared with American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in >80% of the plans included participant age, cancer diagnosis, details, and side-effects of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) and health promotion recommendations. SCP content documented less frequently included predisposing conditions, genetic counseling/testing information and staging. Posttreatment surveillance recommendations were documented in >90% SCPs. For stage 2-3 cancer, rates of guideline concordant recommendations were 100% for colonoscopy surveillance (Year 1 only), 87% for imaging surveillance, 65% for carcinoembryonic antigen surveillance, and 33% for follow-up visits. Excluding colonoscopy, >15 unique recommendations were listed for each modality across stages and sites, with more variation at the academic site. CONCLUSIONS: SCPs consistently recorded information about cancer diagnosis and treatment but omitted critical information about cancer-specific details denoting risk. Surveillance recommendations varied considerably between cancer centers. Future work to improve the consistency of surveillance recommendations documented in SCPs may be needed.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Breast cancer survivorship care plans: what are they covering and how well do they align with national guidelines?

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) provide key information about cancer treatment history and follow-up recommendations. We describe the completeness of breast cancer SCPs and evaluate guideline concordance of follow-up recommendations. METHODS: We analyzed 149 breast cancer SCPs from two sites, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, surveillance plans, and health promotion advice. SCP recommendations and provided information were compared to American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in > 90% of the plans included patient age; relevant providers; cancer stage; treatment details; and physical exam, mammogram, and health promotion recommendations. SCP components completed less frequently included post-treatment symptoms/side effects (67%). All SCPs at the community site were uniform but had the potential for oversurveillance if visits occurred every 3 months in years 1-2 or every 6 months in years 3-5 with multiple cancer providers. The academic site recommended three predominant patterns of follow-up: (1) primary care provider every 6-12 months; (2) cancer team every 3-6 months (year 1), every 6-12 months (years 4-5); and (3) alternating oncology providers every 3-6 months (years 1-2) then every 6 months. Compared to guidelines, these patterns recommend under- and oversurveillance at various times. Mammography recommendations showed guideline concordance (annual) for 84%, oversurveillance for 10%, and were incomplete for 6%. SCPs of only 12/79 (15%) women on aromatase inhibitors recommended guideline-concordant bone density testing. CONCLUSIONS: SCP content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information but has follow-up recommendation gaps. Efforts to improve follow-up recommendations are needed.

Change in health-related quality of life in older women after diagnosis of a small breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality at the cost of frequent false-positive results that lead to unnecessary medical procedures, and the treatment of indolent breast cancers that would never threaten life or health. Earlier diagnosis generally permits less disruptive treatment, but it is possible that even the diagnosis of a very small breast cancer could significantly adversely impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older women. METHODS: The authors compared changes in HRQOL measured by either the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) or the Veterans Rand 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) between 198 women diagnosed with in situ or invasive breast cancer measuring ≤1 cm and 36,814 matched controls using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry linked with the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. RESULTS: The mean age of the cases and controls was 75 years. The SF-36/VR-12 physical component score 12 was found to decrease by 1.6 points between the baseline and follow-up surveys for the controls compared with 3.2 points for women diagnosed with small breast cancers (P = .016). A 2-point decline is recognized as the minimally significant difference for this measure. On multivariable analysis, diagnosis of a small breast cancer was found to be one of the strongest predictors of a significant decrease in both the physical and mental domains of HRQOL (P = .012 and P = .023, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving the diagnosis of even a very small breast cancer significantly impacts the physical and mental domains of HRQOL in older women. This finding can inform discussions regarding the relative benefits and costs of screening mammography in older women.

Survivorship care visits in a high-risk population of breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivors face numerous challenges after diagnosis and treatment. Several models have been developed to attempt to improve quality of care. Here, we describe characteristics and outcomes of patients who participated in survivorship visits (SV) at Johns Hopkins (JH). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of breast cancer patients who participated in an optional SV 1-3 months after completing locoregional therapy and initial systemic therapy. We report patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, treatments, and responses to symptom questionnaires. We compared the characteristics of SV participants to stage I-III analytical cases in the 2010-2015 JH Cancer Registry (JHCR). RESULTS: We identified 87 women with stage I-III breast cancer who participated in SVs from 2010 to 2016. Compared to patients in the JHCR (n = 2942), SV participants were younger, more likely to be African American and more likely to have a higher TNM stage, hormone receptor-negative disease, and HER2-positive disease. They were more likely to have received chemotherapy and radiation therapy. They also have similar recurrence rates despite the SV cohort's shorter median follow-up time. Among SV participants, the prevalence of comorbidities including peripheral neuropathy, anemia, lymphedema, anxiety, deep vein thrombosis, and depression increased significantly from time of diagnosis to most recent follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the JHCR cohort, SV participants had higher risk cancers and a high frequency of comorbidities potentially associated with breast cancer and therapy. These high-risk patients may benefit most from specific interventions targeting survivorship care, and their experiences may help improve care delivery models.

Association between patients' perception of the comorbidity burden and symptoms in outpatients with common solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients' symptom burden is commonly attributed to their cancer and treatment. Increasingly, cancer patients have many other chronic comorbid conditions. However, the degree to which these comorbid conditions may contribute to the patient-reported symptom burden is unclear. METHODS: This study explored the relations between the presence of comorbid conditions, the symptom experience and burden, and the perceived bother from cancer or comorbid conditions in 3106 cancer patients. The associations between the number of comorbidities (identified from current medications), the patient-reported symptom burden (the number of symptoms scored as ≥7 on the 13-item MD Anderson Symptom Inventory physical scale), the patient-reported bother from comorbid conditions and from cancer (from "not at all" to "extremely"), and the clinician-reported difficulty in caring for patients' symptoms were examined. RESULTS: According to medication lists, 19% of the patients had at least 5 of 12 comorbid conditions. Approximately 39% rated at least 1 symptom as ≥ 7, and this proportion increased with an increasing number of comorbid conditions (48% with ≥ 5 comorbid conditions vs 36% with 1 comorbid condition). One-third of the patients reported moderate or worse bother, and this was significantly associated with an increased number of comorbid conditions (odds ratio [OR], 2.4) and an increased symptom burden (OR, 1.22). Clinician ratings of difficulty in managing patients' symptoms were significantly associated with bother from cancer (OR, 2.0), comorbid conditions (OR, 1.6), and symptom burden (OR, 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity is common in cancer patients and is associated with a greater symptom burden and clinician reports of difficulty in managing patients' symptoms. Greater attention to comorbid conditions is needed to optimize the symptom management of cancer patients with multimorbidity. Cancer 2017;123:3835-3842. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format. RESULTS: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful." CONCLUSIONS: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Early Discontinuation in Aromatase Inhibitor-Treated Postmenopausal Women With Early Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early discontinuation of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is common and leads to poor outcomes but is challenging to predict. In the Exemestane and Letrozole Pharmacogenetics trial, a high rate of early discontinuation due to intolerance was observed. We hypothesized that early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) predict AI discontinuation and that biochemical factors are associated with changes in PROs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer enrolled in a prospective randomized trial of exemestane versus letrozole completed questionnaires at baseline and serially over 24 months to assess overall quality of life (EuroQOL Visual Analog Scale [VAS]); mood; and multiple symptoms, including a musculoskeletal symptom cluster. A joint mixed-effects/survival model was used to estimate the effect of the change in PROs on AI discontinuation. Associations between biochemical factors and change in PROs were examined. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were analyzed. Worsening of EuroQOL VAS and the musculoskeletal cluster were associated with the highest risk for early discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.72-2.81; p = .015]; HR, 4.39 [95% CI, 2.40-8.02; p < .0001], respectively). Pharmacokinetics and estrogen metabolism were not consistently associated with change in PRO measures. No clinically significant differences in any PRO between AIs were observed. CONCLUSION: Changes in PROs early during AI therapy were associated with treatment discontinuation. Identification of these changes could be used to target interventions in patients at high risk for early discontinuation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can predict nonpersistence to aromatase inhibitor therapy. If used in clinical practice, PROs might identify women at highest risk for early discontinuation and allow for interventions to improve tolerance before significant toxicities develop. Further research is needed to improve capturing PROs in routine clinical practice.

How does pain experience relate to the need for pain relief? A secondary exploratory analysis in a large sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To explore (1) the information obtained from related but conceptually different approaches to pain assessment and (2) the extent to which the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) can be used as a screening tool to predict patient-reported need for pain relief. METHODS: Cancer patients randomly sampled from 56 hospital departments were included. Questionnaire items assessed patients' (a) pain experience using the EORTC QLQ-C30 pain scale and its two pain items separately (pain intensity and pain interference) and (b) pain burden and (c) need for pain relief using the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ). RESULTS: Of the 2364 patients contacted by mail, 1447 (61 %) completed the questionnaires. Among these, 51 % reported at least "a little" pain on the pain intensity item. The number of patients reporting pain to be a burden was similar, and pain experience and pain burden were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91). Pain experience and pain burden were moderately correlated with the need for pain relief. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the EORTC QLQ-C30 discriminated between patients with and without a need for pain relief to an acceptable degree (area under the curve (AUC) 0.73-0.77). The cut-point a little gave a sensitivity of 84 % and specificity of 59 % for the item "Have you had pain?" and a sensitivity of 72 % and a specificity of 72 % for the pain scale. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who experienced pain felt it to be a problem. Pain experience and pain burden were substantially related to need for pain relief, and the latter could be predicted from the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). METHODS: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). RESULTS: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient-centered care by using PRO research results ("group-level data") to inform decision making and by monitoring individual patient's PROs ("individual-level data") to inform care. We investigated the interpretability of current PRO data presentation formats. METHOD: This cross-sectional mixed-methods study randomized purposively sampled cancer patients and clinicians to evaluate six group-data or four individual-data formats. A self-directed exercise assessed participants' interpretation accuracy and ratings of ease-of-understanding and usefulness (0 = least to 10 = most) of each format. Semi-structured qualitative interviews explored helpful and confusing format attributes. RESULTS: We reached thematic saturation with 50 patients (44 % < college graduate) and 20 clinicians. For group-level data, patients rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 8.0; 33 % selected for easiest to understand/most useful) and clinicians rated simple line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding and usefulness (median 9.0, 8.5) but most often selected line graphs with confidence limits or norms (30 % for each format for easiest to understand/most useful). Qualitative results support that clinicians value confidence intervals, norms, and p values, but patients find them confusing. For individual-level data, both patients and clinicians rated line graphs highest for ease-of-understanding (median 8.0 patients, 8.5 clinicians) and usefulness (median 8.0, 9.0) and selected them as easiest to understand (50, 70 %) and most useful (62, 80 %). The qualitative interviews supported highlighting scores requiring clinical attention and providing reference values. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified preferences and opportunities for improving on current formats for PRO presentation and will inform development of best practices for PRO presentation. Both patients and clinicians prefer line graphs across group-level data and individual-level data formats, but clinicians prefer greater detail (e.g., statistical details) for group-level data.

Cancer patients' function, symptoms and supportive care needs: a latent class analysis across cultures.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an umbrella term covering a range of outcomes, including symptoms, functioning, health-related quality of life, and supportive care needs. Research regarding the appropriate PRO questionnaires to use is informative. A previously published latent class analysis (LCA) examined patterns of function, symptoms, and supportive care needs in a sample of US cancer patients. The current analysis investigated whether the findings from the original study were replicated in new samples from different countries and whether a larger sample combining all the data would affect the classes identified. METHODS: This secondary analysis of data from 408 Japanese and 189 Canadian cancer patients replicated the methods used in the original LCA using data from 117 US cancer patients. In all samples, subjects completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). We first dichotomized individual function, symptom, and need domain scores. We then performed LCA to investigate the patterns of domains for each of the outcomes, both in the individual country samples and then combining the data from all three samples. RESULTS: Across all analyses, class assignment was made by level of function, symptoms, or needs. In individual samples, only two-class models ("high" vs. "low") were generally identifiable while in the combined sample, three-class models ("high" vs. "moderate" vs. "low") best fit the data for all outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis, the level of burden experienced by patients was the key factor in defining classes.

Identifying changes in scores on the EORTC-QLQ-C30 representing a change in patients' supportive care needs.

PURPOSE: Using health-related quality-of-life measures for patient management requires knowing what changes in scores require clinical attention. We estimated changes on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life-Questionnaire-Core-30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30), representing important changes by comparing to patient-reported changes in supportive care needs. METHODS: This secondary analysis used data from 193 newly diagnosed cancer patients (63 % breast, 37 % colorectal; mean age 60 years; 20 % male) from 28 Canadian surgical practices. Participants completed the Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34) and EORTC-QLQ-C30 at baseline, 3, and 8 weeks. We calculated mean changes in EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores associated with improvement, worsening, and no change in supportive care needs based on the SCNS-SF34. Mean changes in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 scores associated with the SCNS-SF34 improved and worsened categories were used to estimate clinically important changes, and the 'no change' category to estimate insignificant changes. RESULTS: EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from 6 to 32 points for patients reporting improved supportive care needs; statistically significant changes were 10-32 points. EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from 21-point worsening to 21-point improvement for patients reporting worsening supportive care needs; statistically significant changes were 9-21 points in the hypothesized direction and a 21-point statistically significant change in the opposite direction. EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes ranged from a 1-point worsening to 16-point improvement for patients reporting stable supportive care needs. CONCLUSION: These data suggest 10-point EORTC-QLQ-C30 score changes represent changes in supportive care needs. When using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice, scores changing ≥10 points should be highlighted for clinical attention.

Patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Despite treatment availability, many cancer patients experience severe pain. Although patient assessments of care are increasingly employed to evaluate quality of care, little is known about its association with cancer symptom burden. The objective of our study was to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in a nationally representative cohort of cancer patients. METHOD: Quality of care was measured in three domains: physician communication, care coordination/responsiveness, and nursing care. Quality scores were dichotomized as optimal versus nonoptimal. Pain was measured on a scale of 0 (least) to 100 (worst). We utilized multivariable linear regression to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 2,746 individuals. Fifty and 54% of patients, respectively, rated physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal; 28% rated nursing care as nonoptimal. In adjusted models, rating physician communication as nonoptimal (versus optimal) was associated with a 1.8-point higher pain severity (p = 0.018), and rating care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal was associated with a 2.2-point higher pain severity (p = 0.006). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Patient-reported quality of care was significantly associated with pain severity, although the differences were small. Interventions targeting physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness may result in improved pain control for some patients.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) aims to improve care quality and patient outcomes by providing information that patients, clinicians, and family members need regarding treatment alternatives, and emphasizing patient input to inform the research process. PCOR capitalizes on available data sources and generates new evidence to provide timely and relevant information and can be conducted using prospective data collection, disease registries, electronic medical records, aggregated results from prior research, and administrative claims. Given PCOR's emphasis on the patient perspective, methods to incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical. PROs are defined by the US Food and Drug Administration as "Any report coming directly from patients… about a health condition and its treatment." However, PROs have not routinely been collected in a way that facilitates their use in PCOR. Electronic medical records, disease registries, and administrative data have only rarely collected, or been linked to, PROs. Recent technological developments facilitate the electronic collection of PROs and linkage of PRO data, offering new opportunities for putting the patient perspective in PCOR. This paper describes the importance of and methods for using PROs for PCOR. We (1) define PROs; (2) identify how PROs can be used in PCOR and the critical role of electronic data methods for facilitating the use of PRO data in PCOR; (3) outline the challenges and key unanswered questions that need to be addressed for the routine use of PROs in PCOR; and (4) discuss policy and research interventions to accelerate the integration of PROs with clinical data.

Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: The PatientViewpoint website collects patient-reported outcomes and links them with the electronic health record to aid patient management. This pilot test evaluated PatientViewpoint's use, usefulness, and acceptability to patients and clinicians. METHODS: This was a single-arm prospective study that enrolled breast and prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment and the clinicians who managed them. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes every 2 weeks, and clinicians could access the results for patient visits. Scores that were poor relative to norms or substantially worse than the previous assessment were highlighted. After three on-study visits, we assessed patient and clinician perspectives on PatientViewpoint using close-ended and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Eleven out of 12 eligible clinicians (92%) and 52/76 eligible patients (68%) enrolled. Patients completed a median of 71% of assigned questionnaires; clinicians reported using the information for 79% of patients, most commonly as a source of additional information (51%). At the median, score reports identified three potential issues, of which 1 was discussed during the visit. Patients reported the system was easy to use (92%), useful (70%), aided recall of symptoms/side effects (72%), helped them feel more in control of their care (60%), improved discussions with their provider (49%), and improved care quality (39%). Patients and clinicians desired more information on score interpretation and minor adjustments to site navigation. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint. An ongoing study is using a continuous quality improvement approach to further refine PatientViewpoint. Future studies will evaluate its impact on patient care and outcomes.

Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician's attention.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly for individual patient management. Identifying which PRO scores require a clinician's attention is an ongoing challenge. Previous research used a needs assessment to identify EORTC-QLQ-C30 cutoff scores representing unmet needs. This analysis attempted to replicate the previous findings in a new and larger sample. METHODS: This analysis used data from 408 Japanese ambulatory breast cancer patients who completed the QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). Applying the methods used previously, SCNS-SF34 item/domain scores were dichotomized as no versus some unmet need. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate QLQ-C30 scores' ability to discriminate between patients with no versus some unmet need based on SCNS-SF34 items/domains. For QLQ-C30 domains with AUC ≥ 0.70, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of various cutoffs for identifying unmet needs. We hypothesized that compared to our original analysis, (1) the same six QLQ-C30 domains would have AUC ≥ 0.70, (2) the same SCNS-SF34 items would be best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores, and (3) the sensitivity and specificity of our original cutoff scores would be supported. RESULTS: The findings from our original analysis were supported. The same six domains with AUC ≥ 0.70 in the original analysis had AUC ≥ 0.70 in this new sample, and the same SCNS-SF34 item was best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores. Cutoff scores were identified with sensitivity ≥0.84 and specificity ≥0.54. CONCLUSION: Given these findings' concordance with our previous analysis, these QLQ-C30 cutoffs could be implemented in clinical practice and their usefulness evaluated.

ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research.

PURPOSE: An essential aspect of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) and comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the integration of patient perspectives and experiences with clinical data to evaluate interventions. Thus, PCOR and CER require capturing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data appropriately to inform research, healthcare delivery, and policy. This initiative's goal was to identify minimum standards for the design and selection of a PRO measure for use in PCOR and CER. METHODS: We performed a literature review to find existing guidelines for the selection of PRO measures. We also conducted an online survey of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) membership to solicit input on PRO standards. A standard was designated as "recommended" when >50 % respondents endorsed it as "required as a minimum standard." RESULTS: The literature review identified 387 articles. Survey response rate was 120 of 506 ISOQOL members. The respondents had an average of 15 years experience in PRO research, and 89 % felt competent or very competent providing feedback. Final recommendations for PRO measure standards included: documentation of the conceptual and measurement model; evidence for reliability, validity (content validity, construct validity, responsiveness); interpretability of scores; quality translation, and acceptable patient and investigator burden. CONCLUSION: The development of these minimum measurement standards is intended to promote the appropriate use of PRO measures to inform PCOR and CER, which in turn can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare delivery. A next step is to expand these minimum standards to identify best practices for selecting decision-relevant PRO measures.

Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.