MP83-19 REAL-WORLD USE OF EPIC FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE (EPIC-CP) TO ASSESS PATIENT-REPORTED PROSTATE CANCER QUALITY-OF-LIFE IN THE CLINICAL SETTING

2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Chang ◽  
Arie Carneiro ◽  
Ostap Dovirak ◽  
Kimberly Taylor ◽  
Catrina Crociani ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 18-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Chang ◽  
Arie Carneiro ◽  
Ostap Dovirak ◽  
Kimberly Taylor ◽  
Catrina Crociani ◽  
...  

18 Background: Prostate cancer practitioners tend to underestimate patients’ treatment-related side effects. We developed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) to facilitate patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQOL) assessment at the point-of-care (Chang P et al, J Urol Sep 2011). We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of EPIC-CP use in routine clinical care, and to compare longitudinal patient-reported and practitioner-reported prostate cancer outcomes. Methods: We reviewed practitioner- and patient-reported HRQOL outcomes in 482 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2010 to 2014. All EPIC-CP questionnaires were administered and interpreted without research personnel. Practitioner-reported outcomes were assessed using chart review. We used the paired t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare pre- and post-treatment EPIC-CP domain scores, and Fisher’s exact test to compare patient-reported and practitioner-reported outcomes. We considered p-values < 0.05 statistically significant. Results: 708 total EPIC-CP questionnaires were completed. Mean urinary incontinence domain scores increased (worsened) significantly from baseline (0.6±0.2) to 3 (3.1±2.3) and 6 months (2.2±2.1) post-treatment, but were not statistically changed from baseline at 12 months (1.6±1.7). Patient-reported incontinence pad-free rates using EPIC-CP at 3, 6, and 12 months were 47%, 76%, and 78%, respectively, which were consistent with practitioner-reported rates. Mean sexual domain scores were significantly worse at 12 months (5.9±3.3) compared to baseline (2.4±2.8). Practitioners significantly overestimated the rate of functional erections compared to patients’ EPIC-CP-reported rates at 3 months (18% vs 12%, p < 0.05) and 12 months (45% vs 23%, p < 0.05). Bowel and vitality/hormonal scores were unchanged, and urinary irritation/obstruction scores improved after surgery. Conclusions: EPIC-CP is feasible to use in the routine clinical care of prostate cancer patients, and can help practitioners more accurately assess patients’ post-treatment symptom severity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 214-214
Author(s):  
Jacob Samuel Parzen ◽  
Thomas J Quinn ◽  
Andrew B Thompson ◽  
Peter Chang ◽  
Sean P. Collins ◽  
...  

214 Background: Multiple authorities including an NCI Taskforce have recommended routine evaluation of patient reported outcomes (PRO) in cancer care. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice (EPIC-CP) is a single-page quality-of-life (QOL) tool which is easily integrated into routine clinical practice. The EPIC-CP has 5 domains (each scored 0-12). The present study evaluated whether early clinically significant changes in EPIC-CP were correlated with later changes in patients undergoing definitive radiotherapy (RT) for prostate cancer. Methods: A cohort of 979 patients including the PROSTQA study and 3 other institutions with prospective QOL data pooled for analysis were evaluated for patient-reported outcomes. Patients were treated with definitive low-dose rate brachytherapy (n=284), intensity-modulated RT (n=251), or stereotactic body RT (n=444). EPIC-CP scores were derived based upon responses to the EPIC-26. Data were evaluated using minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds to compare QOL at 1-2 months and 24 months from baseline. Univariate analysis was used to assess the correlation between early and late MCID changes. Results: On univariate analysis, early ≥1 MCID change from baseline was strongly associated with a late ≥1 MCID across all 5 domains (urinary incontinence, urinary irritation/obstruction, bowel, sexual, and vitality/hormonal) within EPIC-CP and for the overall EPIC-CP score (Table). When MCID was instead defined as 1 or 3, early toxicity remained predictive of late toxicity for all domains and the overall EPIC-CP score. Conclusions: The EPIC-CP is an easy-to-use QOL assessment with clinically relevant outcomes. Early QOL decline was strongly associated with late QOL decline in patients undergoing definitive RT for prostate cancer across all EPIC-CP domains. Patients with early QOL decline may be candidates for early QOL-based interventions to alleviate their late toxicity burden from treatment. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Åsa Kettis ◽  
Hanna Fagerlind ◽  
Jan-Erik Frödin ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
Lena Ring

Abstract Background Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice. Methods In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3–5 consultations over a period of 4–6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients’ health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients’ satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes. Results There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded. Conclusions Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 518-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Derek T. Lee ◽  
Nancy P. Mendenhall ◽  
Tamara L. Smith ◽  
Christopher G. Morris ◽  
Romaine C. Nichols ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document