Comparison of patient reported symptom burden on an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) care pathway in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing primary vs. interval tumor reductive surgery

Patient-reported symptom burden and circulating cytokines undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot study in patients with ovarian cancer

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the fluctuations of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and their relationships with cytokines in the peripheral blood of patients undergoing chemotherapy for ovarian cancer (OC).

METHODS

PROs burden was prospectively measured by the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Ovarian Cancer (MDASI-OC) at baseline before chemotherapy, on a daily basis during and post-chemotherapy days (PCD) 7, 14, and 20. Cytokines were collected at baseline, days prior to hospital discharge and PCD 20. Pearson correlation was used to explore the associations between PROs and cytokines levels in peripheral blood.

RESULTS

The top 8 rated symptoms were compared between the neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) group (n=20) and the postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (PAC) group (n=7). Before chemotherapy, the mean scores of fatigue and lack of appetite in the NACT group were higher than those in the PAC group. After chemotherapy, pain, nausea, vomiting, disturbed sleep, lack of appetite, and constipation increased to peak during PCD 2-6; while, fatigue and numbness or tingling remained at high levels over PCD 2-13. By PCD 20, disturbed sleep and fatigue showed a significant increase in mean scores, particularly in the NACT group; while, other symptom scores decreased and returned to baseline levels. Additionally, the longitudinal fluctuations in pain, fatigue, and lack of appetite were positively associated with circulating levels of interleukin-6 and interferon gamma (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

MDASI-OC was feasible and adaptable for demonstrating the fluctuations of symptom burden throughout chemotherapy course. Moreover, symptoms changing along with cytokines levels could provide clues for exploring mechanism underlying biochemical etiology.

Patient-reported outcomes after oncologic hepatic resection predict the risk of delayed readiness to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT)

BACKGROUND

Optimal surgical recovery is critical to readiness to return to intended oncologic therapy (RIOT). The current study defined the value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in predicting the risk for delayed RIOT after oncologic hepatic resection.

METHODS

In a prospective longitudinal study, perioperative symptoms were assessed using a valid PRO assessment tool, the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory module for hepatectomy perioperative care (MDASI-PeriOp-Hep), for 4 weeks after surgery. The timed up and go test (TUGT) was administered before surgery, by discharge day, and at the first postoperative follow-up visit. Multivariate logistic regression analysis assessed the predictive value of PROs for delayed RIOT.

RESULTS

We enrolled 210 patients and analyzed 148 patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and contributed more than 3 PRO assessments postoperatively. About 36 percent of the patients had delayed RIOT (>5 weeks, range 1-14 weeks). MDASI scores for drowsiness, fatigue, dry mouth, and interference with general activity, walking, and work on day 7 after discharge and MDASI scores for incisional tightness, fatigue, dry mouth, shortness of breath, and interference with work on day 14 after discharge were associated with delayed RIOT (all P < 0.05). Walking and general activity items on the MDASI-Interference subscale on day 7 after discharge were highly correlated with prolonged TUGT scores at discharge (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

We defined clinically meaningful PROs on MDASI-PeriOp-Hep after hepatic resection that predicted increased risk of delayed RIOT. These findings highlight the importance PROs for monitoring symptoms and functioning 1-2 weeks after discharge to be implementing into perioperative care.

Longitudinal perioperative patient-reported outcomes in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy

BACKGROUND

There are few prospective studies in the gynecologic surgical literature that compared patient-reported outcomes between open and minimally invasive hysterectomies within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare prospectively collected perioperative patient-reported symptom burden and interference measures in open compared with minimally invasive hysterectomy cohorts within enhanced recovery after surgery pathways.

STUDY DESIGN

We compared patient-reported symptom burden and functional interference in 646 patients who underwent a hysterectomy (254 underwent open surgery and 392 underwent minimally invasive surgery) for benign and malignant indications under enhanced recovery after surgery protocols. Outcomes were prospectively measured using the validated MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, which was administered perioperatively up to 8 weeks after surgery. Cohorts were compared using Fisher exact and chi-squared tests, adjusted longitudinal generalized linear mixed modeling, and Kaplan Meier curves to model return to no or mild symptoms.

RESULTS

The open cohort had significantly worse preoperative physical functional interference (P=.001). At the time of hospital discharge postoperatively, the open cohort reported significantly higher mean symptom severity scores and more moderate or severe scores for overall (P<.001) and abdominal pain (P<.001), fatigue (P=.001), lack of appetite (P<.001), bloating (P=.041), and constipation (P<.001) when compared with the minimally invasive cohort. The open cohort also had significantly higher interference in physical functioning (score 5.0 vs 2.7; P<.001) than the minimally invasive cohort at the time of discharge with no differences in affective interference between the 2 groups. In mixed modeling analysis of the first 7 postoperative days, both cohorts reported improved symptom burden and functional interference over time with generally slower recovery in the open cohort. From 1 to 8 postoperative weeks, the open cohort had worse mean scores for all evaluated symptoms and interference measures except for pain with urination, although scores indicated mild symptomatic burden and interference in both cohorts. The time to return to no or mild symptoms was significantly longer in the open cohort for overall pain (14 vs 4 days; P<.001), fatigue (8 vs 4 days; P<.001), disturbed sleep (2 vs 2 days; P<.001), and appetite (1.5 vs 1 days; P<.001) but was significantly longer in the minimally invasive cohort for abdominal pain (42 vs 28 days; P<.001) and bloating (42 vs 8 days; P<.001). The median time to return to no or mild functional interference was longer in the open than in the minimally invasive hysterectomy cohort for physical functioning (36 vs 32 days; P<.001) with no difference in compositive affective functioning (5 vs 5 days; P=.07) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

Open hysterectomy was associated with increased symptom burden in the immediate postoperative period and longer time to return to no or mild symptom burden and interference with physical functioning. However, all patient-reported measures improved within days to weeks of both open and minimally invasive surgery and differences were not always clinically significant.

Patient-reported nausea after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery protocol for gynae-oncology patients

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to analyze the adherence to strategies to prevent post-operative nausea and vomiting after implementation of an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocol for gynae-oncology patients. Patient-reported nausea before and after ERAS was also studied.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included all patients undergoing laparotomy for a suspicious pelvic mass or confirmed advanced ovarian cancer before (pre-ERAS) and after the implementation of ERAS (post-ERAS) at Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Patients were a priori stratified according to the planned extent of surgery into two cohorts (Cohort 1: Surgery of advanced disease; Cohort 2: Surgery for a suspicious pelvic tumor). Clinical data including baseline characteristics and outcome data were prospectively collected.

RESULTS

A total of 439 patients were included, 243 pre-ERAS and 196 post-ERAS. At baseline, 27% of the patients reported any grade of nausea. In the post-ERAS cohort, statistically significantly more patients received double post-operative nausea and vomiting prophylaxis (64% pre-ERAS vs 84% post-ERAS, p<0.0001). There was no difference in the need for rescue medication (82% pre-ERAS vs 79% post-ERAS; p=0.17) and no statistically significant difference between pre- and post-ERAS or between the surgical cohorts in patient-reported nausea of any grade on day 2. Patients who reported none/mild nausea on day 2 had significantly less peri-operative fluid administered during surgery than those who reported moderate or severe nausea (median 12.5 mL/kg/hour vs 16.5 mL/kg/hour, p=0.045) but, in multivariable analysis, fluid management did not remain significantly associated with nausea.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of an ERAS protocol increased the adherence to post-operative nausea and vomiting prevention guidelines. Nausea, both before and after laparotomy, remains an unmet clinical need of gynae-oncology patients also in an ERAS program. Patient-reported outcome measures warrant further investigation in the evaluation of ERAS.

Patient-reported symptoms at discharge and risk of complications after gynecologic surgery

OBJECTIVE

Current gaps in knowledge limit clinicians from fully implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine post-operative care.

METHODS

This prospective study assessed symptoms via the gynecologic module of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-PeriOp-GYN) in patients who underwent open laparotomy.

RESULTS

At discharge, patient-reported moderate to severe (≥4 on a 0-10 scale) abdominal bloating or abdominal cramping, combined with length of stay of ≥4 days, were found to be associated with a higher risk of 30-day post-operative grade II-IV complications by the Clavien-Dindo system (all p values <0.01). Also, length of stay of ≥4 days and moderate to severe urinary urgency at discharge were found to be associated with the need for re-admission (all p values <0.01).

CONCLUSION

This study defined the clinically meaningful symptoms that related to the risk of developing important complications after discharge from major open gynecological surgery.These findings support the integration of assessment of patient-reported outcomes into patient-centered post-operative care.

Opioid-sparing anesthesia and patient-reported outcomes after open gynecologic surgery: a historical cohort study

PURPOSE

Dexmedetomidine and ketamine may be administered intraoperatively as continuous infusions to provide opioid-sparing anesthesia. Recent evidence has yielded controversial results regarding the impact of opioid-free anesthesia on postoperative complications, and there is a gap in knowledge regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This study aimed to determine the impact of opioid-sparing anesthesia and opioid-based anesthesia on PROs among gynecologic patients within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program.

METHODS

We formed a single-center historical cohort from patients enrolled in another study who underwent open gynecologic surgery on an ERAS program from November 2014 to December 2020 (n = 2,095). We identified two cohorts based on the type of balanced anesthesia administered: 1) opioid-sparing anesthesia defined as the continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine and ketamine (adjuvants) during surgery or 2) opioid-based anesthesia (no adjuvants). We measured the quality of postoperative recovery using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), a 29-item validated tool that was administered preoperatively, daily while admitted, and weekly after discharge until week 6. The primary outcome was interference with walking. We matched both cohorts and used a multilevel linear mixed-effect model to evaluate the effect of opioid-sparing anesthesia on the primary outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 498 patients were eligible (159 in the opioid-sparing anesthesia cohort and 339 in the opioid-based anesthesia cohort), of whom 149 matched pairs were included in the final analysis. Longitudinal assessment showed no significant or clinically important difference in interference with walking (P = 0.99), general activity (P = 0.99), or other PROs between cohorts. Median [interquartile range (IQR)] intraoperative opioid administration (expressed as morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) among matched patients in the opioid-sparing anesthesia cohort was 30 [25-55] mg vs 58 [8-70] mg in the opioid-based anesthesia cohort (P < 0.01). Patients in the opioid-sparing anesthesia cohort had a lower opioid consumption in the postanesthesia care unit than those in the opioid-based anesthesia cohort (MME, 3 [0-10] mg vs 5 [0-15] mg; P < 0.01), but there was no significant difference between cohorts in total postoperative opioid consumption (MME, 23 [0-94] mg vs 35 [13-95] mg P = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

In this single-center historical cohort study, opioid-sparing anesthesia had no significant or clinically important effects on interference with walking or other PROs in patients undergoing gynecologic surgery compared with opioid-based anesthesia. Opioid-sparing anesthesia was associated with less short-term opioid consumption than opioid-based anesthesia.

Patient-reported outcomes: Is this the missing link in patient-centered perioperative care?

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been increasingly recognized as valuable information for delivery of optimal perioperative care to high-risk surgical patients in recent years. However, progress from clinical research on PROs has not been widely adopted in routine patient care. This review discusses the current concepts and practice status regarding PROs and addresses the missing links from research to practice adoption to further improve patient's experiences and clinical outcomes in perioperative care. Insufficient empirical research on appropriate PROs and its methodologies, insufficient implementation research to solve the practical issues, and insufficient data collection methods and experiences on ePROs are also discussed. Future research agenda should focus on evidence-supported, PRO-based symptom monitoring systems for early diagnosis and management of impending compromised clinical outcomes.

Data Quality of Longitudinally Collected Patient-Reported Outcomes After Thoracic Surgery: Comparison of Paper- and Web-Based Assessments

Background

High-frequency patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments are used to measure patients' symptoms after surgery for surgical research; however, the quality of those longitudinal PRO data has seldom been discussed.

Objective

The aim of this study was to determine data quality-influencing factors and to profile error trajectories of data longitudinally collected via paper-and-pencil (P&P) or web-based assessment (electronic PRO [ePRO]) after thoracic surgery.

Methods

We extracted longitudinal PRO data with 678 patients scheduled for lung surgery from an observational study (n=512) and a randomized clinical trial (n=166) on the evaluation of different perioperative care strategies. PROs were assessed by the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory Lung Cancer Module and single-item Quality of Life Scale before surgery and then daily after surgery until discharge or up to 14 days of hospitalization. Patient compliance and data error were identified and compared between P&P and ePRO. Generalized estimating equations model and 2-piecewise model were used to describe trajectories of error incidence over time and to identify the risk factors.

Results

Among 678 patients, 629 with at least 2 PRO assessments, 440 completed 3347 P&P assessments and 189 completed 1291 ePRO assessments. In total, 49.4% of patients had at least one error, including (1) missing items (64.69%, 1070/1654), (2) modifications without signatures (27.99%, 463/1654), (3) selection of multiple options (3.02%, 50/1654), (4) missing patient signatures (2.54%, 42/1654), (5) missing researcher signatures (1.45%, 24/1654), and (6) missing completion dates (0.30%, 5/1654). Patients who completed ePRO had fewer errors than those who completed P&P assessments (ePRO: 30.2% [57/189] vs. P&P: 57.7% [254/440]; P<.001). Compared with ePRO patients, those using P&P were older, less educated, and sicker. Common risk factors of having errors were a lower education level (P&P: odds ratio [OR] 1.39, 95% CI 1.20-1.62; P<.001; ePRO: OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.22-2.72; P=.003), treated in a provincial hospital (P&P: OR 3.34, 95% CI 2.10-5.33; P<.001; ePRO: OR 4.73, 95% CI 2.18-10.25; P<.001), and with severe disease (P&P: OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.33-1.99; P<.001; ePRO: OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.53-4.75; P<.001). Errors peaked on postoperative day (POD) 1 for P&P, and on POD 2 for ePRO.

Conclusions

It is possible to improve data quality of longitudinally collected PRO through ePRO, compared with P&P. However, ePRO-related sampling bias needs to be considered when designing clinical research using longitudinal PROs as major outcomes.

Assessment of physical function by subjective and objective methods in patients undergoing open gynecologic surgery

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the utility of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to measure physical functioning in perioperative care for patients with gynecological (GYN) tumors.

METHODS

180 patients with GYN tumors undergoing open surgery participated in this longitudinal study. The physical functioning was measured by a subjective PRO tool, the Interference subscales of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI-I); as well as by an objective tool, the Timed Up & Go test (TUGT), perioperatively. Longer time (>20 s) needed to complete the TUGT was defined as "Prolonged". Patients completed EuroQoL-5D as well. The association between the scores of MDASI-I items and TUGT was assessed via the Spearman correlation coefficient. The known-group validity was assessed using the t-test and Cohen's D effect size.

RESULTS

Compliance rates at preoperative, discharge and postoperative time points of MDASI-I were 98%, 95%, 96%; while TUGT completion rates were 92%, 75%, and 80%, respectively. Patients who had refused TUGT at discharge reported a significantly worse "MDASI-general activity" score compared to patients who completed TUGT (mean score of 7.00 vs. 5.38, P = 0.020). Patient-reported "Walking" on MDASI-I significantly differentiated patients with prolonged vs. those with frail/normal TUGT at discharge (mean score of 4.89 vs. 2.79, Cohen's d effect size = 0.82, P < 0.001). MDASI-I demonstrated excellent known-group validity per performance status and for the EuroQoL-5D subscales.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported physical functioning impairment after GYN surgery correspond with observed worse scores of the objective functioning measure test (TUGT). MDASI-I assessment represents a feasible and valid tool to evaluate functional status and warrants further implementation in the perioperative setting.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations - Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management

BACKGROUND

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management.

METHODS

The core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations.

RESULTS

Response rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma.

CONCLUSION

The present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Surgical Oncology: An Overview of Instruments and Scores

Traditional measures of quality and effectiveness in surgical oncology have focused on morbidity, mortality, and when available, recurrence rates. Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has become more widely accepted during the last decade. This article reviews instruments commonly used in the surgical treatment of cancer patients to evaluate PROs. In addition, it discusses the linkage of PROs and health-related quality of life measures with traditional surgical complications and highlights future directions related to the expanding use of PROs in the surgical care of cancer patients.