Association of patient-reported outcomes and ovarian cancer recurrence.

BACKGROUND: The vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience disease recurrence after primary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic accuracy of repeated measurement of patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life scores in relation to ovarian cancer recurrence. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer were recruited to the PROMova study by the end of their primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. The purpose of the PROMova study was to explore the applicability of repeated use of patient-reported outcomes, which consisted of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic questionnaire and the ovarian specific questionnaire. The patient-reported outcomes were completed 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after enrollment or until recurrence. The 3-month interval between completions was the period in which recurrence was assessed. Imaging and the biomarker CA125 were used as reference modality for recurrence. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between mean patient-reported outcome scores and recurrence. Receiver operating curves were used to establish cut-off scores. The diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported outcomes, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was estimated based on the Youden index. For combined scales, diagnostic accuracy was investigated based on multivariate analysis. RESULTS: The analysis included 196 patients with an overall recurrence rate of 50.5% and an overall mean time to recurrence of 302 days. With imaging as reference, patients with recurrence reported significantly lower global health, worse physical functioning, and more abdominal symptoms preceding recurrence. With CA125 as reference, global health, physical and emotional functioning were impaired. Despite the worsening of a number of symptoms prior to recurrence whichever reference modality was applied, the patient-reported outcome scores did not provide adequate diagnostic accuracy. CONCLUSION: Repeated use of patient-reported outcomes during surveillance of ovarian cancer was not of diagnostic value. Future efforts should be directed at improving the administration of patient-reported outcomes as well as exploring the potential of using these outcomes as an indicator of clinical relevance.

The PROMova study comparing active and passive use of patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer follow-up: effect on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, and usefulness.

BACKGROUND: Patients with ovarian cancer often experience substantial health problems and side effects resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Different models of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during follow-up may improve the quality of care. This national, multicenter observational study investigated the effect of active use of PROMs on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL during follow-up of ovarian cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ovarian cancer patients were recruited at the end of primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. During 18 months of follow-up patients repeatedly completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires covering health related QoL and symptoms. At the sites using PROMs actively (ACT), the clinician had access to an overview of the patient's scores during the clinical encounter. Clinicians using PROMs passively were alerted in case of severe development of symptoms. Following each encounter, patients evaluated their health service experience by completing the CollaboRATE scale of involvement in decision making, the Patient Experience Questionnaire, and ad hoc questions covering patient-perceived usefulness of the PROMs. RESULTS: A total of 223 patients were enrolled, i.e., 168 (75.3%) at five sites using ACT and 53 (23.8%) at three sites using them passively. We found no statistically significant difference in involvement in the decision making, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL between the two groups. The majority of patients found it useful to complete the PROMs, although it did not seem to significantly support them in raising issues with the oncologist. CONCLUSION: Active use of PROMs did not improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care as compared to passive use.

Use of PROM during follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer: the PROMova study protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of high-level evidence on the optimal follow-up of patients with ovarian cancer after primary treatment. A debate is ongoing on the extent to which follow-up should consider patient preferences and patient-reported outcome measures. Incorporation of patient-reported outcome measures supports the dialog between patient and clinician and may be instrumental in symptom monitoring and detection of underlying issues, especially when used actively during the clinical consultation. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE AND ENDPOINT: The PROMova study aims to assess whether proactive use of patient-reported outcome measures during follow-up care increases patient involvement as perceived by the patient compared with standard care. Another objective is to measure satisfaction with the care provided. STUDY HYPOTHESIS: It is hypothesized that proactive use of patient-reported outcome measures during the clinical encounter will improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care. TRIAL DESIGN: PROMova is a multi-center, observational cohort study collecting data from eight departments in Denmark. Five departments use the patient-reported outcome measures proactively during the consultation and three provide standard care. Participants are followed up with patient-reported outcome measures for up to 3 years. The patient-reported outcome measures package comprises EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-OV28, a questionnaire screening tool for recurrence, CollaboRATE, and selected questions from the Patient Experience Questionnaire. MAJOR INCLUSION/EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Patients older than 18 years diagnosed with ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer are eligible when entering the follow-up program after primary treatment. Participants must be able to speak and read Danish. SAMPLE SIZE: 223 patients with ovarian cancer. ESTIMATED DATES FOR COMPLETING ACCRUAL AND PRESENTING RESULTS: The protocol closed for enrollment in 2019. Publication of final results is expected in spring 2022. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROMova was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov November 2016 Identifier: NCT02916875.

Proactive use of PROMs in ovarian cancer survivors: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has increased during the past decade, and the focus on how to use them has resulted in a more proactive application. Studies have shown that proactive use of PROMs during treatment improves patient-clinician communication, leads to better symptom management and may prolong survival among advanced cancer patients. Ovarian cancer is a serious disease in which the majority of patients experience recurrence during the follow-up period and suffer from a number of severe symptoms from underlying disease. This systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence on the proactive use of PROMs as a dialogue tool during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. RESULTS: The following databases were searched for relevant literature; PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The search was conducted in April 2019 without any filters or limits. A total of 643 publications were identified, and 48 studies were found to be potentially eligible. Of the 48 papers, none met the final inclusion criterion of using PROMs proactively as a dialogue tool for ovarian cancer patients during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Studies have shown that PROMs can identify otherwise undetected symptoms. Using PROMs proactively during the consultation has been shown to improve symptom management for patients with some other types of cancer. However, we found no studies that had examined the proactive use of PROMs during follow-up of ovarian cancer patients. Future studies should evaluate if the proactive use of PROMs could facilitate a more individualized and more effective follow-up program tailored to the ovarian cancer patient's needs and preferences.