How Vital are Patient Reported Outcomes?

Thresholds in PROMIS Scores Anchored to Subsequent Unscheduled Health Service Use Among People Diagnosed With Cancer

PURPOSE

To establish thresholds in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference, physical function, fatigue, and depression scores on the basis of their association with subsequent use of the emergency department (ED) or urgent care by people diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

Retrospective data from 952 people seen at Henry Ford Cancer and insured through the Health Alliance Plan were analyzed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. The log odds of ED or urgent care use during 14 or 30 days after each patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment were related to PRO scores, while adjusting for comorbidity, sociodemographic, and tumor characteristics.

RESULTS

Pain interference and physical function were associated with subsequent ED or urgent care visits, but fatigue and depression were not, and the results for 14- and 30-day visits were similar. Thresholds anchored in the likelihood of these visits differed according to cancer stage. For people with advanced cancer, a pain interference score of 60 or higher (odds ratio [OR] 3.75, [95% CI, 1.53 to 7.87]) and a physical function score lower than 40 (OR 2.94, [95% CI, 1.22 to 7.06]) produced the largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits. For people with nonadvanced cancer, the thresholds of 65 for pain interference (OR 2.64, [95% CI, 1.40 to 5.01]) and 35 for physical function (OR 1.87, [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.45]) produced largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits.

CONCLUSION

These anchor-based thresholds in PROMIS scores can inform clinicians' actions with the goal of preventing ED or urgent care visits.

THE USE OF DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AMONG COMPARATIVE OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES IN ORTHODONTICS: A METHODOLOGICAL STUDY

OBJECTIVE

To identify and summarize the presence and characteristics of dental patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) and dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) within comparative observational studies published in 5 leading orthodontic journals.

METHODS

Electronic searching was performed to identify intervention (therapeutic or preventive) related comparative observational studies published in selected journals between 2015 and 2021. Two authors extracted the characteristics of each included study independently and in duplicate and summarized the dPROs and dPROMs used in these studies. All dPROs were classified into 2 general types (oral health-related quality of life [OHRQoL] and others), while dPROMs were divided into 3 categories (single-item questionnaires, generic multiple-item questionnaires, and specific multiple-item questionnaires). In addition, dPROMs were examined, if they evaluated the 4 dimensions of OHRQoL (oral function, orofacial pain, orofacial appearance, and psychosocial impact).

RESULTS

A total of 683 observational studies were eligible and included of which 117 (17.1%) used dPROs and dPROMs. Seven different dPROs (OHRQoL, patients' satisfaction with treatment, preferences, concerns, compliance, duration, and unwanted events) and 33 different dPROMs (including 8 single-item questionnaires, 11 generic multiple-item questionnaires, and 14 specific multiple-item questionnaires) were identified in these studies. OHRQoL was the most commonly used dPRO (92/117, 78.6%), while Oral Health Impact Profile 14 (OHIP-14) was the most frequently used dPROM (20/92, 21.7%). In terms of study design, cross-sectional studies had the highest proportion of dPRO usage (62/148, 41.9%), followed by cohort studies (63/505, 12.5%) and case-control studies (1/30, 3.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Only one-sixth of comparative observational studies published in leading orthodontic journals could reflect patients' perspectives. Observational studies in orthodontics need to provide more patient-important information through the use of dPROs and dPROMs.

Dose-Escalated Radiation Alone or in Combination With Short-Term Total Androgen Suppression for Intermediate-Risk Prostate Cancer: Patient-Reported Outcomes From NRG/Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0815 Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To report patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of a phase III trial evaluating total androgen suppression (TAS) combined with dose-escalated radiation therapy (RT) for patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer.

METHODS

Patients with intermediate-risk prostate cancer were randomly assigned to dose-escalated RT alone (arm 1) or RT plus TAS (arm 2) consisting of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist with oral antiandrogen for 6 months. The primary PRO was the validated Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50). Secondary PROs included Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-fatigue and EuroQOL five-dimensions scale questionnaire (EQ-5D). PRO change scores, calculated for each patient as the follow-up score minus baseline score (at the end of RT and at 6, 12, and 60 months), were compared between treatment arms using a two-sample t test. An effect size of 0.50 standard deviation was considered clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

For the primary PRO instrument (EPIC), the completion rates were ≥86% through the first year of follow-up and 70%-75% at 5 years. For the EPIC hormonal and sexual domains, there were clinically meaningful (P < .0001) deficits in the RT + TAS arm. However, there were no clinically meaningful differences by 1 year between arms. There were also no clinically meaningful differences at any time points between arms for PROMIS-fatigue, EQ-5D, and EPIC bowel/urinary scores.

CONCLUSION

Compared with dose-escalated RT alone, adding TAS demonstrated clinically meaningful declines only in EPIC hormonal and sexual domains. However, even these PRO differences were transient, and there were no clinically meaningful differences between arms by 1 year.

Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system

BACKGROUND

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform.

METHODS

After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion.

RESULTS

From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.

MRI-guided Radiotherapy (MRgRT) for treatment of Oligometastases: Review of clinical applications and challenges

PURPOSE

Early clinical results on the application of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) coupled with a linear accelerator to deliver MR-guided radiation therapy (MRgRT) have demonstrated feasibility for safe delivery of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in treatment of oligometastatic disease. Here we set out to review the clinical evidence and challenges associated with MRgRT in this setting.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We performed a systematic review of the literature pertaining to clinical experiences and trials on the use of MRgRT primarily for the treatment of oligometastatic cancers. We reviewed the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of MRgRT.

RESULTS

Benefits of MRgRT pertaining to superior soft-tissue contrast, real-time imaging and gating, and online adaptive radiotherapy facilitate safe and effective dose escalation to oligometastatic tumors while simultaneously sparing surrounding healthy tissues. Challenges concerning further need for clinical evidence and technical considerations related to planning, delivery, quality assurance (QA) of hypofractionated doses, and safety in the MRI environment must be considered.

CONCLUSIONS

The promising early indications of safety and effectiveness of MRgRT for SBRT-based treatment of oligometastatic disease in multiple treatment locations should lead to further clinical evidence to demonstrate the benefit of this technology.

Patient reported outcomes in genital gender-affirming surgery: the time is now

Transgender and non-binary (TGNB) individuals often experience gender dysphoria. TGNB individuals with gender dysphoria may undergo genital gender-affirming surgery including vaginoplasty, phalloplasty, or metoidioplasty so that their genitourinary anatomy is congruent with their experienced gender. Given decreasing social stigma and increasing coverage from private and public payers, there has been a rapid increase in genital gender-affirming surgery in the past few years. As the incidence of genital gender-affirming surgery increases, a concurrent increase in the development and utilization of patient reported outcome measurement tools is critical. To date, there is no systematic way to assess and measure patients' perspectives on their surgeries nor is there a validated measure to capture patient reported outcomes for TGNB individuals undergoing genital gender-affirming surgery. Without a systematic way to assess and measure patients' perspectives on their care, there may be fragmentation of care. This fragmentation may result in challenges to ensure patients' goals are at the forefront of shared- decision making. As we aim to increase access to surgical care for TGNB individuals, it is important to ensure this care is patient-centered and high-quality. The development of patient-reported outcomes for patients undergoing genital gender-affirming surgery is the first step in ensuring high quality patient-centered care. Herein, we discuss the critical need for development of validated patient reported outcome measures for transgender and non-binary patients undergoing genital reconstruction. We also propose a model of patient-engaged patient reported outcome measure development.