Acceptability and accuracy of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for surveillance of breathlessness in routine lung cancer care: A mixed-method study.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness in lung cancer negatively impacts on quality of life but often goes undetected and undertreated in clinical practice. There is a need for routine surveillance for early identification and proactive management of breathlessness using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care but it is unclear what PROMs should be used or are accurate for use in routine care. METHODS: We used mixed-methods (quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews) to examine the predictors of breathlessness in 339 lung cancer participants and acceptability of PROMs. In addition to multivariate analysis to examine predictors of dyspnea, participants completed an acceptability survey and themes were derived for the qualitative data (n = 26) to explore patient experience of PROMs. We also tested the accuracy of PROMs using a Receiver Operating Characteristic and Area Under the Curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients completed the breathlessness PROMs and acceptability survey and 26 patients participated in an in-depth interview to investigate their experiences of breathlessness and its PROMs. Prevalence of breathlessness was 51.9 % (n = 176) and 70.5 % of patients preferred the Medical Research Council (MRC) scale followed by the Breathlessness Intensity (BI) scale (63.7 %) among the five measures for breathlessness- Modified Borg Scale (MBS), Cancer Dyspnea Scale (CDS), MRC, BI, and Breathlessness Distress (BD). The finding showed wide variation in the MRC grades across the BI rating even among patients with the same BI score. AUC scores for the Borg scale was 0.71 (using MRC cut-off score of < 2), for CDS, 0.72, for BD, 0.70, and for BI 0.79. For an MRC score of 2, the Borg score cut-off was 0.8 (optimal sensitivity, 50 %; specificity, 93.3 %); the cut-off score of CDS, BD, BI score was 1.4 (optimal sensitivity, 67.1 %; specificity, 70 %), 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 57.5 %; specificity, 73.3 %), and 1.5 (optimal sensitivity, 72.6 %; specificity, 83.3 %) respectively. AUC by ROC analysis for breathlessness and modest concordance among five PROMs showed important gaps between the individuals' experience and PROMs data. Three main themes from qualitative data included 1) Making sense of symptom reporting, 2) Valuing the reported data, 3) Managing the symptom of breathlessness. CONCLUSION: This study examined measurement of breathlessness using PROMs for routine clinical care and showed that severity measures alone do not accurately detect this symptomnor the experiential dimensions of breathlessness that are critical to guide appropriate intervention.

Acceptability of Routine Evaluations Using Patient-Reported Outcomes of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events and Other Patient-Reported Symptom Outcome Tools in Cancer Outpatients: Princess Margaret Cancer Centre Experience.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with real-time patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO questionnaires) using questions adapted for patient use from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Outside of the clinical trial setting, limited information exists on factors affecting the completion of PRO questionnaires in routine practice. The primary aim of this prospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient willingness to complete PRO questionnaires on a regular basis and to better understand responder biases to improve patient feedback. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients performing PRO-CTCAE toxicity and symptom PRO questionnaires in oncology clinics at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2013 to 2016 were assessed for their willingness to complete PRO questionnaires using a nine-item, tablet-based acceptability survey. Patient-reported characteristics (i.e., age, sex, language, marital status, education, occupation, etc.), cancer type, treatment modalities, and health metrics (i.e., Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) were also collected. Characteristics were evaluated by logistic regression (odds ratios [OR]) using the primary outcome with prespecified levels of significance for univariate (p ≤ .10), and additional multivariate (p ≤ .05) testing. RESULTS: A total of 1,792 patients (median age 60 years; range 18-97) with various cancer diagnoses were assessed. A greater proportion of female (56%) and white (74%) respondents with an annual household income of <$100,000 (69%) participated. More than half (58%) of respondents were willing to complete PRO questionnaires at every clinic visit, and a high proportion (77%) found utility in reporting physical and emotional feelings to clinicians using PRO questionnaires. In general, patients did not find that PRO questionnaires made clinic visits more difficult (93%). In uni- and multivariable testing, patients were more willing to complete sleep- and fatigue-related PRO questionnaires relative to chemotoxicity-based PRO questionnaires (OR 1.52; p = .012). Patients aged 40-65 versus 18-40 years were also more likely to report high PRO questionnaire acceptability (OR 1.49; p = .025). Additional patient characteristics such as white ethnicity (OR 1.76), Canada as country of birth (OR 1.66), and English language (OR 2.15) relative to other had higher acceptability on uni- (p < .001) and multivariable (p < .001) analyses. Patients reporting treatment intent as palliative (OR 0.69; p = .0013) or hematological (OR 0.73; p = .027) were less likely to report high PRO questionnaire acceptability on univariable analysis; however, only palliative patients (OR 0.72) maintained this effect on multivariable testing (p = .012). Patients reporting higher health utility scores (per change in .05) also had significantly increased PRO questionnaire acceptability in uni- (OR 1.06; p < .001) and multivariable (OR 1.05; p = .008) analyses. No significant differences in PRO questionnaire acceptability were seen between cancer types, education level, household income, employment status, or treatment modality. CONCLUSION: Routine assessment using PRO questionnaires is associated with moderate acceptability by patients with cancer. Specific patient characteristics are associated with higher completion willingness. Additional research is necessary to identify factors associated with low acceptability of PRO questionnaires and to develop site-, ethnicity-, and treatment-specific instruments to assess the value of PRO questionnaires for symptom monitoring in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study will help to identify the clinical, demographic, and survey characteristics associated with willingness to complete patient-reported outcome questionnaires regularly in the cancer outpatient setting.

Development and prospective evaluation of CAPLET, a cancer ambulatory patient physical function longitudinal evaluation tool for routine clinical practice.

PURPOSE: A patient's physical function is a critical outcome variable for measuring and improving chronic care management. However, patient-reported outcome measures of physical function are not routinely assessed in cancer outpatients, in part due to limitations of tools available. This study presents the development and evaluation of the Cancer Ambulatory Patient Physical Function Longitudinal Evaluation Tool (CAPLET) as an adaptive response tool for routinely screening for physical dysfunction in oncology clinical practice. METHODS: In phase 1, 407 adult outpatients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre completed the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), EuroQuol-5D-3L ( EQ-5D-3L), and patient-reported outcome (PRO)-Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG). CAPLET was developed based on a branching logic algorithm navigating patients to appropriate domains of HAQ-DI/WHOAS using their responses to the PRO-ECOG/EQ-5D-3L as screeners. Sensitivity/specificity of CAPLET screeners for HAQ-DI/WHODAS items were reported. In phase 2, CAPLET vs the WHODAS/HAQ-DI were alternatively administrated to 318 adult outpatients in a two-arm trial comparing time to completion and acceptability between the tools. RESULTS: Using a patient's ECOG status and the sum of the mobility, self-care, and usual activity dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L to dichotomize patients as with or without difficulty, CAPLET achieved a sensitivity > 90% against recommended WHODAS and HAQ-DI cutoffs for significant dysfunction. Sensitivity of screeners for capturing dysfunction in individual WHODAS/HAQ-DI items ranged from 85 to 100%. Compared to the HAQ-DI/WHODAS, CAPLET was associated with a 50% reduction in administration times and improved patient acceptability, while reducing question burden by 84% for half the sample population. CONCLUSIONS: CAPLET improves the feasibility of capturing detailed assessments of patient-reported physical function in cancer outpatients.