Evaluating potential overuse of surveillance care in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) communicate cancer-related information from oncology providers to patients and primary care providers. SCPs may limit overuse testing by specifying necessary follow-up care. From a randomized, controlled trial of SCP delivery, we examined whether cancer-related tests not specified in SCPs, but conducted after SCP receipt, were appropriate or consistent with overuse. METHODS: Survivors of breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer treated at urban-academic or rural-community health systems were randomized to one of three SCP delivery arms. Tests during 18 months after SCP receipt were classified as consistent with overuse if they were (1) not included in SCPs and (2) on a guideline-based predetermined list of "not recommended surveillance." After chart abstraction, physicians performed review and adjudication of potential overuse. Descriptive analyses were conducted of tests consistent with overuse. Negative binomial regression models determined if testing consistent with overuse differed across study arms. RESULTS: Among 316 patients (137 breast, 67 colorectal, 112 prostate), 140 individual tests were identified as potential overuse. Upon review, 98 were deemed to be consistent with overuse: 78 tumor markers and 20 imaging tests. The majority of overuse testing was breast cancer-related (95%). Across sites, 27 patients (9%) received ≥1 test consistent with overuse; most were breast cancer patients (22/27). Exploratory analyses of overuse test frequency by study arm showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis identified practice patterns consistent with overuse of surveillance testing and can inform efforts to improve guideline-concordant care. Future interventions may include individual practice patterns and provider education.

Colorectal cancer survivorship care plans: Variations in documentation and posttreatment surveillance recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans (SCP) should outline pertinent information about cancer treatment and follow-up. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed the content of 74 colorectal cancer SCPs completed as part of a randomized, controlled trial of SCPs at an academic and community cancer center. Surveillance recommendations were compared with American Cancer Society, American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in >80% of the plans included participant age, cancer diagnosis, details, and side-effects of treatment (surgery, chemotherapy, radiation) and health promotion recommendations. SCP content documented less frequently included predisposing conditions, genetic counseling/testing information and staging. Posttreatment surveillance recommendations were documented in >90% SCPs. For stage 2-3 cancer, rates of guideline concordant recommendations were 100% for colonoscopy surveillance (Year 1 only), 87% for imaging surveillance, 65% for carcinoembryonic antigen surveillance, and 33% for follow-up visits. Excluding colonoscopy, >15 unique recommendations were listed for each modality across stages and sites, with more variation at the academic site. CONCLUSIONS: SCPs consistently recorded information about cancer diagnosis and treatment but omitted critical information about cancer-specific details denoting risk. Surveillance recommendations varied considerably between cancer centers. Future work to improve the consistency of surveillance recommendations documented in SCPs may be needed.

What are survivorship care plans failing to tell men after prostate cancer treatment?

BACKGROUND: Survivorship care plans contain important information for patients and primary care physicians regarding appropriate care for cancer survivors after treatment. We describe the completeness of prostate cancer survivorship care plans and evaluate the concordance of follow-up recommendations with guidelines. METHODS: We analyzed 119 prostate cancer survivorship care plans from one academic and one community cancer center, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, and follow-up recommendations. Follow-up recommendations were compared with the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. RESULTS: Content in >90% of plans included cancer TNM stage; prostate-specific antigen (PSA) at diagnosis; radiation treatment details (98% of men received radiation); and PSA monitoring recommendations. Potential treatment-specific side effects were listed for 82% of men who had surgery, 86% who received androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), and 97% who underwent radiation. The presence of posttreatment symptoms was noted in 71% of plans. Regarding surveillance follow-up, all guidelines recommend an annual digital rectal exam (DRE). No plans specified DRE. However, all 71 plans at the community site recommended at least annual follow-up visits with urology, radiation oncology, and primary care. Only 2/48 plans at the academic site specified follow-up visits. All guidelines recommend PSA testing every 6-12 months for 5 years, then annually. For the first 5 years, 90% of plans were guideline-concordant, 8% suggested oversurveillance, and 2% were incomplete. In men receiving ADT, ACS and ASCO recommend bone density imaging and NCCN recommends testosterone levels. Of 77 men on ADT, 1% were recommended bone density imaging and 16% testosterone level testing. CONCLUSIONS: While care plan content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information, both sites had gaps in reporting posttreatment symptoms and ADT-related testing recommendations. These findings highlight the need to improve the quality of information in care plans, which are important in communicating appropriate follow-up recommendations to patients and primary care physicians.

Breast cancer survivorship care plans: what are they covering and how well do they align with national guidelines?

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) provide key information about cancer treatment history and follow-up recommendations. We describe the completeness of breast cancer SCPs and evaluate guideline concordance of follow-up recommendations. METHODS: We analyzed 149 breast cancer SCPs from two sites, abstracting demographics, cancer/treatment details, surveillance plans, and health promotion advice. SCP recommendations and provided information were compared to American Cancer Society/American Society of Clinical Oncology and National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines. RESULTS: SCP information provided in > 90% of the plans included patient age; relevant providers; cancer stage; treatment details; and physical exam, mammogram, and health promotion recommendations. SCP components completed less frequently included post-treatment symptoms/side effects (67%). All SCPs at the community site were uniform but had the potential for oversurveillance if visits occurred every 3 months in years 1-2 or every 6 months in years 3-5 with multiple cancer providers. The academic site recommended three predominant patterns of follow-up: (1) primary care provider every 6-12 months; (2) cancer team every 3-6 months (year 1), every 6-12 months (years 4-5); and (3) alternating oncology providers every 3-6 months (years 1-2) then every 6 months. Compared to guidelines, these patterns recommend under- and oversurveillance at various times. Mammography recommendations showed guideline concordance (annual) for 84%, oversurveillance for 10%, and were incomplete for 6%. SCPs of only 12/79 (15%) women on aromatase inhibitors recommended guideline-concordant bone density testing. CONCLUSIONS: SCP content is more complete for demographic and treatment summary information but has follow-up recommendation gaps. Efforts to improve follow-up recommendations are needed.

Change in health-related quality of life in older women after diagnosis of a small breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality at the cost of frequent false-positive results that lead to unnecessary medical procedures, and the treatment of indolent breast cancers that would never threaten life or health. Earlier diagnosis generally permits less disruptive treatment, but it is possible that even the diagnosis of a very small breast cancer could significantly adversely impact health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in older women. METHODS: The authors compared changes in HRQOL measured by either the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form (SF-36) or the Veterans Rand 12-item Health Survey (VR-12) between 198 women diagnosed with in situ or invasive breast cancer measuring ≤1 cm and 36,814 matched controls using the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry linked with the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. RESULTS: The mean age of the cases and controls was 75 years. The SF-36/VR-12 physical component score 12 was found to decrease by 1.6 points between the baseline and follow-up surveys for the controls compared with 3.2 points for women diagnosed with small breast cancers (P = .016). A 2-point decline is recognized as the minimally significant difference for this measure. On multivariable analysis, diagnosis of a small breast cancer was found to be one of the strongest predictors of a significant decrease in both the physical and mental domains of HRQOL (P = .012 and P = .023, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Receiving the diagnosis of even a very small breast cancer significantly impacts the physical and mental domains of HRQOL in older women. This finding can inform discussions regarding the relative benefits and costs of screening mammography in older women.

Survivorship care visits in a high-risk population of breast cancer survivors.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer survivors face numerous challenges after diagnosis and treatment. Several models have been developed to attempt to improve quality of care. Here, we describe characteristics and outcomes of patients who participated in survivorship visits (SV) at Johns Hopkins (JH). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed charts of breast cancer patients who participated in an optional SV 1-3 months after completing locoregional therapy and initial systemic therapy. We report patient demographics, comorbidities, tumor characteristics, treatments, and responses to symptom questionnaires. We compared the characteristics of SV participants to stage I-III analytical cases in the 2010-2015 JH Cancer Registry (JHCR). RESULTS: We identified 87 women with stage I-III breast cancer who participated in SVs from 2010 to 2016. Compared to patients in the JHCR (n = 2942), SV participants were younger, more likely to be African American and more likely to have a higher TNM stage, hormone receptor-negative disease, and HER2-positive disease. They were more likely to have received chemotherapy and radiation therapy. They also have similar recurrence rates despite the SV cohort's shorter median follow-up time. Among SV participants, the prevalence of comorbidities including peripheral neuropathy, anemia, lymphedema, anxiety, deep vein thrombosis, and depression increased significantly from time of diagnosis to most recent follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to the JHCR cohort, SV participants had higher risk cancers and a high frequency of comorbidities potentially associated with breast cancer and therapy. These high-risk patients may benefit most from specific interventions targeting survivorship care, and their experiences may help improve care delivery models.

Oh, the Places We'll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records.

The growing measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve health care for patients and populations. The integration of PROs into EHRs can promote patient-centered care and advance quality improvement initiatives, research, and population health. Despite these potential benefits, there are few best practices to help organizations achieve integration. To integrate PROs into EHRs, organizations should evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches within three themes: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Planning considerations for integration include what strategy will be used, how the integrated system will be governed, ethical and legal issues, and how data from multiple EHRs can be pooled across organizations. Selection considerations involve identifying which patient population to target for PRO data collection on the basis of the intended use of the data in the health care system, and then choosing specific outcomes and their measures. Engagement considerations include how, where, and with what frequency patients will respond to PRO measures, how to display PRO data in EHRs, how clinical teams will act upon PRO data, and how to train, support and incent clinical teams and patients to incorporate PRO data into care. There is no most effective model that will work in all contexts. Organizations wishing to integrate PROs and EHRs should assemble the multidisciplinary expertise needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches for their particular context. We specifically recommend that organizations think carefully about stakeholder participation; design their system with data sharing in mind; develop a framework to aid in PRO selection; create guidelines to support PRO interpretation and action for patients and clinicians; and ensure patients have access to their own PRO data.

Association between patients' perception of the comorbidity burden and symptoms in outpatients with common solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Cancer patients' symptom burden is commonly attributed to their cancer and treatment. Increasingly, cancer patients have many other chronic comorbid conditions. However, the degree to which these comorbid conditions may contribute to the patient-reported symptom burden is unclear. METHODS: This study explored the relations between the presence of comorbid conditions, the symptom experience and burden, and the perceived bother from cancer or comorbid conditions in 3106 cancer patients. The associations between the number of comorbidities (identified from current medications), the patient-reported symptom burden (the number of symptoms scored as ≥7 on the 13-item MD Anderson Symptom Inventory physical scale), the patient-reported bother from comorbid conditions and from cancer (from "not at all" to "extremely"), and the clinician-reported difficulty in caring for patients' symptoms were examined. RESULTS: According to medication lists, 19% of the patients had at least 5 of 12 comorbid conditions. Approximately 39% rated at least 1 symptom as ≥ 7, and this proportion increased with an increasing number of comorbid conditions (48% with ≥ 5 comorbid conditions vs 36% with 1 comorbid condition). One-third of the patients reported moderate or worse bother, and this was significantly associated with an increased number of comorbid conditions (odds ratio [OR], 2.4) and an increased symptom burden (OR, 1.22). Clinician ratings of difficulty in managing patients' symptoms were significantly associated with bother from cancer (OR, 2.0), comorbid conditions (OR, 1.6), and symptom burden (OR, 1.1). CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidity is common in cancer patients and is associated with a greater symptom burden and clinician reports of difficulty in managing patients' symptoms. Greater attention to comorbid conditions is needed to optimize the symptom management of cancer patients with multimorbidity. Cancer 2017;123:3835-3842. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Prospective assessment of patient-reported outcomes and estradiol and drug concentrations in patients experiencing toxicity from adjuvant aromatase inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Aromatase inhibitors (AI), which decrease circulating estradiol concentrations in post-menopausal women, are associated with toxicities that limit adherence. Approximately one-third of patients will tolerate a different AI after not tolerating the first. We report the effect of crossover from exemestane to letrozole or vice versa on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and whether the success of crossover is due to lack of estrogen suppression. METHODS: Post-menopausal women enrolled on a prospective trial initiating AI therapy for early-stage breast cancer were randomized to exemestane or letrozole. Those that discontinued for intolerance were offered protocol-directed crossover to the other AI after a washout period. Changes in PROs, including pain [Visual Analog Scale (VAS)] and functional status [Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ)], were compared after 3 months on the first versus the second AI. Estradiol and drug concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients participated in the crossover protocol, of whom 91.3% reported improvement in symptoms prior to starting the second AI. Functional status worsened less after 3 months with the second AI (HAQ mean change AI #1: 0.2 [SD 0.41] vs. AI #2: -0.05 [SD 0.36]; p = 0.001); change in pain scores was similar between the first and second AI (VAS mean change AI #1: 0.8 [SD 2.7] vs. AI #2: -0.2 [SD 2.8]; p = 0.19). No statistical differences in estradiol or drug concentrations were found between those that continued or discontinued AI after crossover. CONCLUSIONS: Although all AIs act via the same mechanism, a subset of patients intolerant to one AI report improved PROs with a different one. The mechanism of this tolerance remains unknown, but does not appear to be due to non-adherence to, or insufficient estrogen suppression by, the second AI.

Is It Okay To Ask: Transgender Patient Perspectives on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Collection in Healthcare.

OBJECTIVE: The National Academy of Medicine and Joint Commission recommend routine documentation of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) in healthcare to address lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) health disparities. We explored transgender patient-reported views on the importance on SO/GI collection, their willingness to disclose, and their perceived facilitators of SO/GI collection in primary care and emergency department (ED) settings. METHODS: We recruited a national sample of self-identified transgender patients. Participants completed demographic questions, survey questions, and free-response comments regarding their views on SO/GI collection. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; inductive content analysis was conducted with open-ended responses. RESULTS: Patients mostly self-identified as male gender (54.5%), white (58.4%), and SO other than heterosexual or LGB (33.7%; N = 101). Patients felt that it was more important for primary care providers to know their GI than SO (89.1% vs. 57%; p < 0.001); there was no difference among reported importance for ED providers to know the patients' SO versus GI. Females were more likely than males to report medical relevance to chief complaint as a facilitator to SO disclosure (89.1% vs. 80%; p = 0.02) and less likely to identify routine collection from all patients as a facilitator to GI disclosure (67.4% vs. 78.2%; p = 0.09). Qualitatively, many patients reported that medical relevance to chief complaint and an LGBT-friendly environment would increase willingness to disclose their SO/GI. Patients also reported need for educating providers in LGBT health prior to implementing routine SO/GI collection. CONCLUSIONS: Patients see the importance of providing GI more than SO to providers; nonetheless they are willing to disclose SO/GI in general.. Findings also suggest that gender differences may exist in facilitators of SO/GI disclosure. Given the underrepresentation of transgender patients in healthcare, it is crucial for providers to address their concerns with SO/GI disclosure, which include LGBT education for medical staff and provision of a safe environment.

What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) (eg, symptoms, functioning) can inform patient management. However, patients and clinicians often have difficulty interpreting score meaning. The authors tested approaches for presenting PRO data to improve interpretability. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included an Internet survey of cancer patients/survivors, oncology clinicians, and PRO researchers circulated via snowball sampling, plus individual in-person interviews. Clinical importance was conveyed using 3 approaches (presented in random order): normal score range shaded green, concerning scores circled in red, and red threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Versions also tested 2 approaches to score directionality: higher = more (better for function, worse for symptoms) and higher = better for both function and symptoms. Qualitative data from online comments and in-person interviews supplemented quantitative results on interpretation accuracy, clarity, and the "most useful" format. RESULTS: The survey included 1113 respondents: 627 survivors, 236 clinicians, and 250 researchers, plus 10 patients and 10 clinicians who were purposively sampled interviewees. Interpretation accuracy ranged from 53% to 100%. The formats in which higher = better were interpreted more accurately versus those in which higher = more (odds ratio [OR], 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-1.58) and were more likely to be rated "very"/"somewhat" clear (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.13-1.70) and "very" clear (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.18-1.58). Red circle formats were interpreted more accurately than green-shaded formats when the first format presented (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.00-1.65). Threshold-line formats were more likely to be rated "very" clear than green-shaded (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.19-1.71) and red-circled (OR, 1.22, 95% CI, 1.02-1.46) formats. Threshold lines were most often selected as "most useful." CONCLUSIONS: The current results support presenting PRO data with higher = better directionality and threshold lines indicating normal versus concerning scores. Cancer 2017;123:1848-1859. © 2017 The Authors. Cancer published byWiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations aremade.

All together now: findings from a PCORI workshop to align patient-reported outcomes in the electronic health record.

In recent years, patient-reported outcomes have become increasingly collected and integrated into electronic health records. However, there are few cross-cutting recommendations and limited guidance available in this rapidly developing research area. Our goal is to report key findings from a 2013 Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute workshop on this topic and a summary of actions that followed from the workshop, and present resulting recommendations that address patient, clinical and research/quality improvement barriers to regular use. These findings provide actionable guidance across research and practice settings to promote and sustain widespread adoption of patient-reported outcomes across patient populations, healthcare settings and electronic health record systems.

Engaging stakeholders to improve presentation of patient-reported outcomes data in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient-centered care, but previous research has documented interpretation challenges among clinicians and patients. We engaged stakeholders to improve formats for presenting individual-level PRO data (for patient monitoring) and group-level PRO data (for reporting comparative clinical studies). METHODS: In an iterative process, investigators partnered with stakeholder workgroups of clinicians and patients to address previously identified interpretation challenges. Candidate approaches were then tested in semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with cancer patients and clinicians. Interpretation issues addressed included conveying score meaning (i.e., what is good/bad) and directional inconsistency (whether higher scores are better/worse). An additional issue for individual-level PROs was highlighting potentially concerning scores and, for group-level PROs, identifying important between-group differences (clinical, statistical). RESULTS: One-on-one interviews in a purposive sample of clinicians (n = 40) and patients (n = 39) provided insights regarding approaches to address issues identified. For example, adding descriptive labels to the Y-axis (none, mild, moderate, severe) helps address directional inconsistency and aids interpretation of score meaning. Red circles around concerning data points or a threshold line indicating worse-than-normal scores indicate possibly concerning scores for individual-level PRO data. For group-level PRO data, patients and some clinicians are confused by confidence limits and clinical versus statistical significance, but almost all clinicians want p values displayed. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in interpretation accuracy demonstrate the importance of presenting PRO data in ways that promote understanding and use. In an iterative stakeholder-driven process, we developed improved PRO data presentation formats, which will be evaluated in further research across a large population of patients and clinicians.

How does pain experience relate to the need for pain relief? A secondary exploratory analysis in a large sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To explore (1) the information obtained from related but conceptually different approaches to pain assessment and (2) the extent to which the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) can be used as a screening tool to predict patient-reported need for pain relief. METHODS: Cancer patients randomly sampled from 56 hospital departments were included. Questionnaire items assessed patients' (a) pain experience using the EORTC QLQ-C30 pain scale and its two pain items separately (pain intensity and pain interference) and (b) pain burden and (c) need for pain relief using the Three-Levels-of-Needs Questionnaire (3LNQ). RESULTS: Of the 2364 patients contacted by mail, 1447 (61 %) completed the questionnaires. Among these, 51 % reported at least "a little" pain on the pain intensity item. The number of patients reporting pain to be a burden was similar, and pain experience and pain burden were highly correlated (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.85 to 0.91). Pain experience and pain burden were moderately correlated with the need for pain relief. A receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the EORTC QLQ-C30 discriminated between patients with and without a need for pain relief to an acceptable degree (area under the curve (AUC) 0.73-0.77). The cut-point a little gave a sensitivity of 84 % and specificity of 59 % for the item "Have you had pain?" and a sensitivity of 72 % and a specificity of 72 % for the pain scale. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients who experienced pain felt it to be a problem. Pain experience and pain burden were substantially related to need for pain relief, and the latter could be predicted from the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Relationship Between Quality of Comorbid Condition Care and Costs for Cancer Survivors.

PURPOSE: To estimate the association between cancer survivors' comorbid condition care quality and costs; to determine whether the association differs between cancer survivors and other patients. METHODS: Using the SEER-Medicare-linked database, we identified survivors of breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers who were diagnosed in 2004, enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service for at least 12 months before diagnosis, and survived ≥ 3 years. Quality of care was assessed using nine process indicators for chronic conditions, and a composite indicator representing seven avoidable outcomes. Total costs on the basis of Medicare amount paid were grouped as inpatient and outpatient. We examined the association between care quality and costs for cancer survivors, and compared this association among 2:1 frequency-matched noncancer controls, using comparisons of means and generalized linear regressions. RESULTS: Our sample included 8,661 cancer survivors and 17,332 matched noncancer controls. Receipt of recommended care was associated with higher outpatient costs for eight indicators, and higher inpatient and total costs for five indicators. For three measures (visit every 6 months for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or diabetes, and glycosylated hemoglobin or fructosamine every 6 months for patients with diabetes), costs for cancer survivors who received recommended care increased less than for noncancer controls. The absence of avoidable events was associated with lower costs of each type. An annual eye examination for patients with diabetes was associated with lower inpatient costs. CONCLUSION: Higher-quality processes of care may not reduce short-term costs, but the prevention of avoidable outcomes reduces costs. The association between quality and cost was similar for cancer survivors and noncancer controls.

Identifying cutoff scores for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the head and neck cancer-specific module EORTC QLQ-H&N35 representing unmet supportive care needs in patients with head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates cutoff scores for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30-questions (EORTC QLQ-C30) and head and neck cancer-specific module (QLQ-H&N35) to identify patients with head and neck cancer who may require clinical attention. METHODS: Ninety-six patients with head and neck cancer completed the EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35 and questions on supportive care needs. For all EORTC domains with the ability to discriminate between patients with and without unmet needs (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] ≥0.70), the accuracy (eg, sensitivity and specificity) of potential cutoff scores were calculated. RESULTS: Cutoff scores (sensitivity ≥0.80 and specificity ≥0.60) of 90 (functioning domains) and 5 to 10 (symptom domains) were found on 7 of 28 continuous EORTC QLQ-C30/H&N35 domains. Borderline cutoff scores (sensitivity ≥0.70 and specificity ≥0.60 or sensitivity ≥0.80 and specificity ≥0.50) were found on 5 other domains. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided cutoff scores on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and H&N35 based on patients' perceptions of their needs for supportive care. Future research is needed on the replicability of these cutoff scores. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Head Neck 38: E1493-E1500, 2016.

Patient-Reported Outcomes and Early Discontinuation in Aromatase Inhibitor-Treated Postmenopausal Women With Early Stage Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early discontinuation of aromatase inhibitors (AIs) is common and leads to poor outcomes but is challenging to predict. In the Exemestane and Letrozole Pharmacogenetics trial, a high rate of early discontinuation due to intolerance was observed. We hypothesized that early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) predict AI discontinuation and that biochemical factors are associated with changes in PROs. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer enrolled in a prospective randomized trial of exemestane versus letrozole completed questionnaires at baseline and serially over 24 months to assess overall quality of life (EuroQOL Visual Analog Scale [VAS]); mood; and multiple symptoms, including a musculoskeletal symptom cluster. A joint mixed-effects/survival model was used to estimate the effect of the change in PROs on AI discontinuation. Associations between biochemical factors and change in PROs were examined. RESULTS: A total of 490 patients were analyzed. Worsening of EuroQOL VAS and the musculoskeletal cluster were associated with the highest risk for early discontinuation (hazard ratio [HR], 2.77 [95% confidence interval (CI), 2.72-2.81; p = .015]; HR, 4.39 [95% CI, 2.40-8.02; p < .0001], respectively). Pharmacokinetics and estrogen metabolism were not consistently associated with change in PRO measures. No clinically significant differences in any PRO between AIs were observed. CONCLUSION: Changes in PROs early during AI therapy were associated with treatment discontinuation. Identification of these changes could be used to target interventions in patients at high risk for early discontinuation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Early changes in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can predict nonpersistence to aromatase inhibitor therapy. If used in clinical practice, PROs might identify women at highest risk for early discontinuation and allow for interventions to improve tolerance before significant toxicities develop. Further research is needed to improve capturing PROs in routine clinical practice.

Graphical displays of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) for use in clinical practice: What makes a pro picture worth a thousand words?

UNLABELLED: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) report patients' assessments of the impact of a health condition and its treatment, and can promote patient-centered care. OBJECTIVES: To address the effectiveness of graphic display of PRO data in clinical practice by reviewing existing literature, and current recommendations, regarding graphic presentations of PROs. METHODS: We performed an integrated literature review to identify themes and emerging principles guiding effective graphic display of PRO data. The findings were placed in the context of the literature informing graphical presentation of other clinical data. RESULTS: Although a large body of literature informs graphical presentation of clinical data, only nine empirical studies addressed presentation of PROs. Four major themes emerged: many patients and most clinicians can accurately interpret some PRO graphs; interpretation accuracy, personal preference, and perceived level of understanding are sometimes discordant; patient age and education may predict PRO graph comprehension; patients tend to prefer simpler graphs than do clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Little empirical research specifically addresses graphic representation of PRO data. A single format may not work optimally for both clinicians and patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Patients and clinicians may or may not comprehend PRO data when graphically presented. Further research to determine best practices for presenting PROs optimally is needed.

Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.

PURPOSE: Our aim was to study how patients and their clinicians evaluated the usability of PatientViewpoint, a webtool designed to allow patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to be used in clinical practice. METHODS: As part of a two-round quality improvement study, breast and prostate cancer patients and their medical and radiation oncology clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about their use of PatientViewpoint. The patient interview addressed different phases of the PRO completion workflow: reminders, completing the survey, and viewing the results. The clinician interviews asked about use of PatientViewpoint, integration with the clinical workflow, barriers to use, and helpful and desired features. Responses were recorded, categorized, and reviewed. After both rounds of interviews, modifications were made to PatientViewpoint. RESULTS: Across the two rounds, 42 unique patients (n = 19 in round 1, n = 23 in round 2) and 12 clinicians (all in both rounds) completed interviews. For patients, median age was 65, 81 % were white, 69 % were college graduates, 80 % had performance status of 0, 69 % had loco-regional disease, and 81 % were regular computer users. In the quality improvement interviews, patients identified numerous strengths of the system, including its ability to flag issues for discussion with their provider. Comments included confusion about how scores were presented and that the value of the system was diminished if the doctor did not look at the results. Requests included tailoring questions to be applicable to the individual and providing more explanation about the score meaning, including having higher scores consistently indicating either better or worse status. Clinicians also provided primarily positive feedback about the system, finding it helpful in some cases, and confirmatory in others. Their primary concern was with impact on their workflow. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically collected feedback from patients and clinicians was useful to identify ways to improve a system to incorporate PRO measures into oncology practice. The findings and evaluation methods should be useful to others in efforts to integrate PRO assessments into ambulatory care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Systems to routinely collect patient-reported information can be incorporated into oncology practices and provide useful information that promote patient and clinician partnership to improve the quality of care.