Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Patient-Reported Outcomes as Independent Prognostic Factors for Survival in Oncology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Efficace, Fabio; Collins, Gary S; Cottone, Francesco; Giesinger, Johannes M; Sommer, Kathrin; Anota, Amelie; Schlussel, Michael Maia; Fazi, Paola; Vignetti, Marco.
Afiliação
  • Efficace F; Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy. Electronic address: f.efficace@gimema.it.
  • Collins GS; Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Cottone F; Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy.
  • Giesinger JM; University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
  • Sommer K; Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy.
  • Anota A; French National Platform Quality of Life and Cancer, Besançon, France; Methodology and Quality of Life in Oncology Unit (INSERM UMR 1098), University Hospital of Besançon, Besançon, France.
  • Schlussel MM; Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology, and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
  • Fazi P; Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy.
  • Vignetti M; Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy.
Value Health ; 24(2): 250-267, 2021 02.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33518032
ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES:

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is of critical importance because it provides unique information that may also predict clinical outcomes.

METHODS:

We conducted a systematic review of prognostic factor studies to examine the prognostic value of PROs for survival in cancer. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed for studies published between 2013 and 2018. We considered any study, regardless of the research design, that included at least 1 PRO domain in the final multivariable prognostic model. The protocol (EPIPHANY) was published and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018099160).

RESULTS:

Eligibility criteria selected 138 studies including 158 127 patients, of which 43 studies were randomized, controlled trials. Overall, 120 (87%) studies reported at least 1 PRO to be statistically significantly prognostic for overall survival. Lung (n = 41, 29.7%) and genitourinary (n = 27, 19.6%) cancers were most commonly investigated. The prognostic value of PROs was investigated in secondary data analyses in 101 (73.2%) studies. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was the most frequently used measure, and its physical functioning scale (range 0-100) the most frequent independent prognostic PRO, with a pooled hazard ratio estimate of 0.88 per 10-point increase (95% CI 0.84-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS:

There is convincing evidence that PROs provide independent prognostic information for overall survival across cancer populations and disease stages. Further research is needed to translate current evidence-based data into prognostic tools to aid in clinical decision making.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente / Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Clinical_trials / Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article