Utility of the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS-r) and the Patient-Reported Functional Status (PRFS) in lung cancer patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 767-775 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. N. Yogananda ◽  
Valliappan Muthu ◽  
Kuruswamy Thurai Prasad ◽  
Adarsh Kohli ◽  
Digambar Behera ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Functional Status ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported

Selecting a PRO-CTCAE based subset for patient reported symptom monitoring during lung cancer treatment (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evalien Veldhuijzen ◽  
Iris Walraven ◽  
Jose Belderbos
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
European Organization ◽  
Specific Patient ◽  
Symptom Monitoring ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND The Patient Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) item library covers a wide range of symptoms relevant for oncology care. To enable implementation of PRO-CTCAE-based symptom monitoring in clinical practice, there is a need to select a subset of items relevant for specific patient populations. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to develop a PRO-CTCAE subset relevant for patients with lung cancer. METHODS The PRO-CTCAE-based subset for lung cancer patients was generated using a mixed methods approach based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) guidelines for developing questionnaires, consisting of a literature review and semi-structured interviews with both lung cancer patients and health care practitioners (HCPs). Both patients and HCPs were queried on the relevance and impact of all PRO-CTCAE items. Results were summarized and, after a final round of expert review, a selection of clinically relevant items for lung cancer patients was made. RESULTS A heterogeneous group of lung cancer patients (n=25) from different treatment modalities and HCPs (n=22) participated in the study. A final list of eight relevant PRO-CTCAE items was created: decreased appetite, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, constipation, nausea, sadness, and pain (general). CONCLUSIONS Based on literature and both professional and patient input, a subset of PRO-CTCAE items has been identified for use in lung cancer patients in clinical practice. Future work is needed to confirm the validity and effectiveness of this PRO-CTCAE lung cancer subset internationally, and in the real-world clinical practice setting.

scholarly journals Comparison of Chief Complaints and Patient-Reported Symptoms of Treatment-Naive Lung Cancer Patients Before Surgery

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yaqian Feng ◽  
Wei Dai ◽  
Yaqin Wang ◽  
Jia Liao ◽  
Xing Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Physical Examination ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal Study ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Outcome Instrument ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Chief Complaints ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal

Abstract BackgroundLung cancer patients without chief complaints have been increasingly identified by physical examination. This study aimed to profile and compare chief complaints with patient-reported symptoms of lung cancer patients before surgery.MethodsData was extracted from a multicenter, prospective longitudinal study (CN-PRO-Lung 1) in China from November 2017 and January 2020. A comparison between chief complaints and patient-reported symptoms was analyzed using the Chi-squared test.ResultsA total of 201 (50.8%) lung cancer patients without chief complaints were found by physical examination at admission, and 195(49.2%) patients had chief complaints. The top 5 chief complaints were coughing (38.1%), expectoration (25.5%), chest pain (13.6%), hemoptysis (10.6%), and shortness of breath (5.1%). There were significantly more patients with chief complaints of coughing (38.1% vs. 15.0 %, P <0.001) and pain (20.5% vs. 6.9%, P<0.001) than those with the same symptoms rated ≥4 via MDASI-LC. There were less patients with chief complaints of fatigue (1.8% vs. 10.9%, P<0.001), nausea (0.3% vs. 2.5%, P=0.006), and vomiting (0.3% vs. 1.8%, p=0.032) than those with the same symptoms rated ≥4 via MDASI-LC. In patients without chief complaints, the five most common moderate to severe patient-reported symptoms were disturbed sleep (19.5%), distress (13.5%), dry mouth (13%), sadness (12%), and difficulty remembering (11.1%).ConclusionsSymptoms of lung cancer patients not included in the chief complaint could be identified via a patient-reported outcome instrument, suggesting the necessity of implementing the patient-reported outcome assessment before lung cancer surgery for better patient care.

scholarly journals Prescreening of Patient-reported Symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Outpatient Palliative Cancer Care

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Garden Lee ◽  
Han Sang Kim ◽  
Si Won Lee ◽  
Eun Hwa Kim ◽  
Bori Lee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Severe Symptom ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Advanced Cancer Patients ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Although early palliative care is associated with a better quality of life and improved outcomes in end-of-life cancer care, the criteria of palliative care referral are still elusive. Methods: We collected patient-reported symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) at the baseline, first, and second follow-up visit. The ESAS evaluates ten symptoms: pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, dyspnea, sleep disorder, appetite, and wellbeing. A total of 71 patients were evaluable, with a median age of 65 years, male (62%), and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status distribution of 1/2/3 (28%/39%/33%), respectively. Results: Twenty (28%) patients had moderate/severe symptom burden with the mean ESAS ≥5. Interestingly, most of the patients with moderate/severe symptom burdens (ESAS ≥5) had globally elevated symptom expression. While the mean ESAS score was maintained in patients with mild symptom burden (ESAS<5; 2.7 at the baseline; 3.4 at the first follow-up; 3.0 at the second follow-up; P =0.117), there was significant symptom improvement in patients with moderate/severe symptom burden (ESAS≥5; 6.5 at the baseline; 4.5 at the first follow-up; 3.6 at the second follow-up; P <0.001). Conclusions: Advanced cancer patients with ESAS ≥5 may benefit from outpatient palliative cancer care. Prescreening of patient-reported symptoms using ESAS can be useful for identifying unmet palliative care needs in advanced cancer patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of Chief Complaints and Patient-Reported Symptoms of Treatment-Naive Lung Cancer Patients Before Surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol Volume 15 ◽  
pp. 1101-1106
Author(s):  
Yaqian Feng ◽  
Wei Dai ◽  
Yaqin Wang ◽  
Jia Liao ◽  
Xing Wei ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Chief Complaints ◽  
Treatment Naïve

Patient-reported outcomes in light of supportive medications in treatment-naïve lung cancer patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 1809-1816
Author(s):  
Johnny M. Hoang ◽  
Navneet Upadhyay ◽  
Dozie N. Dike ◽  
Jaekyu Lee ◽  
Michael L. Johnson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Treatment Naïve

scholarly journals Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Patients in Routine Clinical Care

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 1299-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Evans ◽  
Alysha Glazer ◽  
Rebecca Lum ◽  
Esti Heale ◽  
Marnie MacKinnon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measure ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measure ◽  
Symptom Screening ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Provider Communication

Background and objectivesThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4–6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation.ResultsIn total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionsThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.

Health and quality of life (QOL) issues in four groups of lung cancer patients: Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screened, chest x-ray detected, incidentally found, and routinely diagnosed.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1610-1610
Author(s):  
Ping Yang ◽  
Kathleen J. Yost ◽  
Matthew M. Clark ◽  
Mariza de Andrade ◽  
Katherine M. Piderman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Incidental Finding ◽  
X Ray ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Chest X Ray ◽  
Low Dose Computed Tomography

1610 Background: Low dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans have reduced lung cancer deaths by 20.3% in high risk populations, although there is an unknown balance between the benefits and harms of LDCT scans as a screening tool. Our purpose was to compare health-related QOL issues among lung cancer patients who were initially detected by LDCT scans; 4 comparison groups included: lung cancer diagnosed by a screening chest X-ray, as an incidental finding from procedures taken for other medical reasons, or based on symptoms indicative for lung cancer and routinely diagnosed, and individuals who were LDCT screened but found no lung cancer (controls who participated in Mayo’s lung cancer CT screening trial). Methods: A total of 1,658 lung cancer patients (cared at Mayo Clinic) in the 4 groups (37, 151, 389, and 1081 respectively) and 488 controls were compared on following patient-reported outcomes (collected via validated tools): overall QOL, four symptoms (cough, pain, dyspnea, fatigue), mental/ physical/ emotional/ social/ spiritual QOL, and other concerns (e.g., family/ friends/ financial/ legal). A clinically significant deficit was defined as at least 10-points in difference (or <50 points) on a 0-100 scale. The rates of deficits were compared via Fisher’s exact tests and average QOL values via Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: Overall QOL and individual symptoms were significantly worse (p<0.05) in all lung cancer groups than in controls, except for pain. LDCT-screened patients reported the greatest deficit among the 4 lung cancer groups in physical (41%), emotional (24%), social (38%), and spiritual QOL (24%); whereas chest X-ray detected patients had the least deficit in overall QOL (22%) and pain (32%). All 4 lung cancer groups experienced much worse fatigue (52-64%) than the controls (32%). Conclusions: Our preliminary results suggest that LDCT-screening detected lung cancer patients reported a different QOL profile from other lung cancer patients and non-lung cancer controls. The clinical course, smoking behavior, and QOL related health issues associated with LDCT screening for lung cancer warrant thorough investigation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document