scholarly journals Collaborative review of ePROs for shared reporting in breast cancer patients affects the number of data entries (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Trojan
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Trial ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Digital Monitoring ◽  
Severity Grading ◽  
Standardized Reporting ◽  
Outpatient Settings

UNSTRUCTURED Aims: Digital monitoring of treatment related symptoms and patient self-reported outcome gain importance for quality of care in cancer. Here we compare the utility of two versions of a subsequently employed mobile application (app) for monitoring of electronically captured patient-reported outcome (ePRO), and test our hypothesis that an intended shared review of symptoms in patient-physician collaboration creates an impact on the number of data entries. Materials and methods: The Consilium Care app engages cancer patients for standardized reporting of wellbeing and treatment related symptoms in outpatient settings. For descriptive comparison of utility of two slightly different app versions information was made available from an early breast cancer trial (app version 1) and an ongoing study also including patients with advanced disease (version 2). In both app versions, patients and doctors were allowed to share the information from data entries during consultations. App version 2, however, randomly selected symptoms with request for a detailed and shared regular patient-doctor review in order to focus on collection and appropriate interpretation regarding awareness and guidance for severity grading. Number and type of symptom entries, satisfaction with both app versions and patients` perceived effects during consultations were included for the analysis. Results: Symptom severity grading according to CTCAE was performed using a horizontal slider and indicated in descriptive terminology in both apps, while a graphical display facilitated the illustration of symptom history charts. In total, 192 patients electronically reported 11`437 data entries on wellbeing and 33`380 data entries on individual symptoms. 628 (of 872 intended) requested patient-doctor symptom reviews were performed in App version 2. Both, the amount of data entries per patient and day for wellbeing (0.3 vs 1.0; p<0.001) and for symptoms appeared significantly higher in App version 2 (1.3 vs 1.9 data entries; p=0.04).Overall satisfaction with both app versions was high, although version 2 was perceived in general to be more helpful. Conclusions: Request of collaborative patient-doctor symptom review is likely to affect the number of digital symptom data entries.

Patient reported outcome measures in breast cancer patients

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (7) ◽  
pp. 963-968 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lagendijk ◽  
L.S.E. van Egdom ◽  
C. Richel ◽  
N. van Leeuwen ◽  
C. Verhoef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Among Breast Cancer Survivors in Malaysia: A Comparative Study With Patients From High-Income Countries

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement 2) ◽  
pp. 103s-103s
Author(s):  
Z.Y. Lim ◽  
N. Rajaram ◽  
C.V. Song ◽  
R. Kaur ◽  
N.A. Mohd Taib ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Sexual Functioning ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Perceived Importance

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential for identifying how patients perceive the outcomes of their cancer treatment, and is the ultimate success of cancer care. Although a growing number of studies have focused on PROMs in high income countries (HICs), outcomes relevant to patients in developing countries are less understood. Furthermore, the lack of standardization in PROMs makes it difficult to interpret these data for research or quality monitoring. Aim: In this study, we compared the results of PROM measures between patients in Malaysia, a middle income country, and those in HICs, using standard PROMs questionnaires. We also explored the differences in perceived importance of patient reported outcomes within the multiracial Malaysian cohort. Methods: Breast cancer patients (n=1063) were recruited in hospitals serving suburban areas of Malaysia. Of these, 969 patients were eligible for analysis. The surveys were conducted through face-to-face interviews (68%) or were self-administered (30%). An outcome was considered important if it was scored between 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale. We compared PROMs scores between Malaysian patients and data previously collected from patients in HICs using logistic regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. A two-step cluster analysis was conducted to explore differences in the perceived importance of PROMs between clusters of Malaysian patients. Results: Compared with 1777 patients from HICs, Malaysian patients were less likely to rate overall and recurrence free survival, as well as emotional, cognitive, social and sexual functioning as very important outcomes. Interestingly, more Malaysian women reported that pain (50% vs. 39%), breast symptoms (51% vs. 35%), and major complications (60% vs. 44%) were very important outcomes ( P < 0.001). Compared with young, married Malaysian women, the cluster of older married women (mean age of 57 vs. 52), who were less likely to have received breast reconstructive surgery (8.6% vs. 16.8%), was more likely to rate sexual functioning (32.8% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.036), body image (63.9% vs. 42.4%, P < 0.001), and satisfaction with the breast (50.7% vs. 37.0%, P = 0.011) as very important outcomes. Conclusion: The differences in breast cancer patient needs between and within populations should be considered carefully to better clinician-patient relationship, patient care and satisfaction and assess the outcomes of our cancer care. Future research is needed to find suitable targeted interventions to identify and address the diverse needs of breast cancer patients in low and middle income countries.

scholarly journals Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of treatments for aromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia in breast cancer patients: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e033461
Author(s):  
Kyeore Bae ◽  
Si Yeon Song
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Aromatase Inhibitor ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Indirect Evidence ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Breast Cancer Patients ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionAromatase inhibitor-induced arthralgia (AIA) is a major adverse event of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) and leads to premature discontinuation of AI therapy in breast cancer patients. The objective of this protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) is to provide the methodology to compare the change in pain intensity between different AIA treatments and demonstrate the rank probabilities for different treatments by combining all available direct and indirect evidence.Methods and analysisPubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched to identify publications in English from inception to November 2019. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of different treatments for AIA in postmenopausal women with stage 0–III hormone receptor-positive breast cancer. The primary endpoints will be the change in patient-reported pain intensity from baseline to post-treatment. The number of adverse events will be presented as a secondary outcome.Both pairwise meta-analysis and NMA with the Frequentist approach will be conducted. We will demonstrate summary estimates with forest plots in meta-analysis and direct and mixed evidence with a ranking of the treatments as the P-score in NMA. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials will be used to assess the methodological quality within individual RCTs. The quality of evidence will be assessed.Ethics and disseminationAs this review does not involve individual patients, ethical approval is not required. The results of this systematic review and NMA will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. This review will provide valuable information on AIA therapeutic options for clinicians, health practitioners and breast cancer survivors.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019136967.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document