Overview on the use of patient reported outcomes in colorectal cancer care

Date 22 October 2018
Event ESMO 2018 Congress
Session Poster display session: Breast cancer - early stage, locally advanced & metastatic, CNS tumours, Developmental therapeutics, Genitourinary tumours - prostate & non-prostate, Palliative care, Psycho-oncology, Public health policy, Sarcoma, Supportive care
Topics Colon and Rectal Cancer
Patient Education and Advocacy
Presenter Luciana Neamtiu
Citation Annals of Oncology (2018) 29 (suppl_8): viii562-viii575. 10.1093/annonc/mdy297
Authors L. Neamtiu1, S. Deandrea2, Z. Saz Parkinson3, L. Pylkkanen4
  • 1Health In Society, JRC - ISPRA, 21027 - Ispra/IT
  • 2Medical Department, ATS Milano, Milan/IT
  • 3Health In Society, JRC - ISPRA, Ispra/IT
  • 4Medical Department, Finnish Medicines Agency Fimea, 00130 - Turku/FI

Abstract

Background

The burden of colorectal cancer is high in Europe and still increasing. The disease and treatment can have profound impacts on the patientś quality of life (QoL), emphasizing the importance of measuring QoL. An important tool in this process is Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). The goal of this study is to give an overview on the use of PROMs throughout the colorectal cancer care pathway in Europe.

Methods

Studies were searched via Pubmed until end of April 2018 regarding the development, validation and use of PROMs in colorectal cancer , focusing on the whole care pathway, i.e., screening, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, follow-up, and palliative care. Only studies conducted in Europe, with at least an abstract in English were included.

Results

In total, 49 studies and 7 systematic reviews were analysed. Thirty-six studies evaluated PROMs in clinical trial settings, while 20 focused on screening and patient management. Most of the studies were conducted in the Netherlands (n = 13) and United Kingdom (n = 19). Concerning care processes, most studies focused on treatment – systemic therapy, surgery and radiotherapy - in both trials and patient management. There is a great variation in the PROMs instruments used, as well as in the domains included in them (physical function, symptoms, psychological distress, general QoL, financial aspects, patient satisfaction/experience and decision sharing). The most used standardised instrument was EORTC QoL C30, sometimes in combination with other colorectal cancer specific questionnaires. In almost all studies included, PROMs were assessed at pre-defined key moments: at least before the treatment, during the intervention and at three time points after the intervention (up to 12 months).

Conclusions

In Europe, the use and content of PROMs in colorectal cancer varies, but is still limited. Implementation of a core standardised set of PROMs would allow comparability of patient-perceived quality of care across Europe. Despite some current initiatives (e.g. ICHOM) more work is still needed. Incorporation of a requirement for the use of PROMs in quality assurance measures (e.g. European Initiative on Colorecatal Cancer) may increase patient centredness of the care standards and improve patient experience.

Clinical trial identification

Legal entity responsible for the study

Luciana Neamtiu.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Editorial Acknowledgement

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.