scholarly journals Patient reported outcome data as performance indicators in surgically treated lung cancer patients

Lung Cancer ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 130 ◽  
pp. 143-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Majken M. Brønserud ◽  
Maria Iachina ◽  
Anders Green ◽  
Mogens Groenvold ◽  
Erik Jakobsen
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Performance Indicators ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported

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 Development of a hospital-based patient-reported outcome framework for lung cancer patients: a study protocol

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Moloczij ◽  
Karla Gough ◽  
Benjamin Solomon ◽  
David Ball ◽  
Linda Mileshkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Outcome Framework ◽  
Patient Reported

Identifying tools for capturing the overall experience of dyspnea in a lung cancer population: The patient’s perspective.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 73-73
Author(s):  
Gursharan Gill ◽  
Aixin Liu ◽  
Brandon Chan ◽  
Brandon Tsui ◽  
Elizabeth Hall ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Functional Impairment ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Lung Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Experience Intensity

73 Background: Efficient methods of tracking dyspnea can improve quality of care. We asked lung cancer patients to assess five validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools and determine whether these tools captured different domains of their dyspnea experience. Methods: This cross-sectional study of adult lung cancer outpatients of all stages utilized touch screen tablets to administer five dyspnea tools (Borg severity (B), Reduced Cancer Dyspnea (R), Breathlessness intensity (I), breathlessness distress (D), and MRC breathlessness (M) scales) that focused on the severity, experience, intensity, extent, and functional impairment of dyspnea, respectively. Patients were then asked whether each tool captured their dyspnea experience. Results: Of 226 lung cancer patients, 120 reported some level of dyspnea, and their responses were analyzed. Median age (range) was 67 (30-97) years; 53% were males; 37% were stage I-II; 56%, were stage III-IV. All the tools except B were completed by over 90% of patients (R 95%, I 93%, D 91%, M 91%). 71% of patients thought that M captured functional impairment well, while 58-62% of patients thought that R, S, A captured experience, intensity and distress well. B had the lowest completion rate (83%) and the lowest patient perception that is captured severity of dyspnea well (49%). Qualitative analysis suggests that most dyspnea is activity-related in this population, which would be consistent with patients favoring M (functional assessment) over B (dyspnea at present in clinic). I+D+M takes under 5 minutes to complete, whilst R takes 5+ minutes alone to complete. Conclusions: In a sample of cancer patients with high prevalence of dyspnea, patients felt four of five tools were useful in capturing various domains of their dyspnea experience. The majority of patients felt that the questions were relevant to their circumstances. I, D, M are appropriate screening tools, whilst R may be useful under specific circumstances. Our next step is the application and evaluation of self management tools in the dyspnea setting using these four tools.

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 ◽  
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

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