The use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative radiotherapy: A topical review

Choosing the right questions - A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures used in radiotherapy and proton beam therapy

The implementation of PROMs into clinical practice has been shown to improve quality of care. This systematic review aims to identify which PROMs are suitable for implementation within routine clinical practice in a radiotherapy or PBT service.The bibliographic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMCARE were searched. Articles published between 1st January 2008 to 1st June 2023, that reported PROMs being utilised as an outcome measure were included. Inclusion criteria also included being written in English, involving human patients, aged 16 and above, receiving external beam radiotherapy or PBT for six defined tumour sites. PROMs identified within the included articles were subjected to quality assessment using the COSMIN reporting guidelines. Results are reported as per PRISMA guidelines. A total of 268 studies were identified in the search, of which 52 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The use of 39 different PROMs was reported. The PROMs identified were mostly tumour or site-specific quality of life (n = 23) measures but also included generic cancer (n = 3), health-related quality-of-life (n = 6), and symptom specific (n = 7) measures.None of the PROMs identified received a high GRADE score for good content. There were 13 PROMs that received a moderate GRADE score. The remaining PROMs either had limited evidence of development and validation within the patient cohorts investigated, or lacked relevance or comprehensiveness needed for routine PROMs collection in a radiotherapy or PBT service.This review highlights that there are a wide variety of PROMs being utilised within radiotherapy research, but most lack specificity to radiotherapy side-effects. There is a risk that by using non-specific PROMs in clinical practice, patients might not receive the supportive care that they need.

The use of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: A survey study in Belgium

Objective

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) could be used to monitor patients' symptoms after treatment. However, ePROM implementation in clinical practice has been challenging, especially in (palliative) radiation oncology. The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of healthcare providers (HCP) active in radiation oncology in Belgium on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up after palliative radiotherapy.

Methods

An anonymous online survey was conducted with different HCP in radiation oncology in Belgium. Participants were recruited through several professional organizations with approximately 390 members actively working in the field of radiation oncology. The survey used was a self-developed questionnaire, based on existing literature on implementation of (e)PROMs in cancer care, our previous research on this topic as well as our personal experience in the field of oncology and palliative care.

Results

Of the 128 respondents, 26% had experience with ePROMs in clinical practice. Eighty-four percent considered ePROMs beneficial for patients' health and symptom knowledge, symptom self-management and active participation in care. ePROMs could help HCP to focus on detection of relevant symptoms and improve their management. Almost 75% were willing to implement and use ePROMs. Assigning ePROM introduction and follow-up to a dedicated person, such as a nurse navigator, was suggested to promote ePROM implementation and use in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Despite limited experience with ePROMs in clinical care for palliative radiotherapy patients, the majority of respondents is willing to implement and use ePROMs for this particular patient population.

Innovation

This is one of the first studies specifically focusing on experiences and opinions of HCP in radiation oncology on the use of ePROMs for symptom follow-up in palliative radiotherapy. HCP should be actively involved in implementation of ePROMs after palliative radiotherapy, to translate their vision of their ideals in practice.

Advances in the management of radiation-induced cystitis in patients with pelvic malignancies

OBJECTIVE

Radiotherapy plays a vital role as a treatment for malignant pelvic tumors, in which the bladder represents a significant organ at risk involved during tumor radiotherapy. Exposing the bladder wall to high doses of ionizing radiation is unavoidable and will lead to radiation cystitis (RC) because of its central position in the pelvic cavity. Radiation cystitis will result in several complications (e.g. frequent micturition, urgent urination, and nocturia) that can significantly reduce the patient's quality of life and in very severe cases become life-threatening.

METHODS

Existing studies on the pathophysiology, prevention, and management of radiation-induced cystitis from January 1990 to December 2021 were reviewed. PubMed was used as the main search engine. Besides the reviewed studies, citations to those studies were also included.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this review, the symptoms of radiation cystitis and the mainstream grading scales employed in clinical situations are presented. Next, preclinical and clinical research on preventing and treating radiation cystitis are summarized, and an overview of currently available prevention and treatment strategies as guidelines for clinicians is provided. Treatment options involve symptomatic treatment, vascular interventional therapy, surgery, hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), bladder irrigation, and electrocoagulation. Prevention includes filling up the bladder to remove it from the radiation field and delivering radiation based on helical tomotherapy and CT-guided 3D intracavitary brachytherapy techniques.

Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards.

METHOD

A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation.

RESULTS

A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'.

CONCLUSIONS

While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

FINDINGS

Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Using ePROMs for follow-up after palliative radiotherapy: An exploratory study with patients and health care providers

OBJECTIVES

Patients treated with palliative radiotherapy may experience symptoms decreasing their quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) could provide an opportunity to follow-up patients after treatment.

METHODS

A mixed-method study was performed using self-constructed questionnaires, focus groups and interviews with patients and health care professionals (HCP). A qualitative approach was used to code the data.

RESULTS

Forty-two patients, 21 radiation-oncologists, 15 general practitioners (GPs) and 24 home-care nurses completed a questionnaire. Ten patients, 6 radiation-oncologists, 14 GPs and 5 nurses were interviewed or participated in a focus group. Although patients and HCP are satisfied with current care, they believe ePROMs could improve follow-up, communication, continuity of care and self-management of symptoms. An easy to use, versatile ePROM platform seems to be important for successful implementation. Self-care tips and contact information should be added to relevant ePROM-questions, on both physical and psychological symptoms.

CONCLUSION

Patients and HCP agree that ePROMs could improve systematical clinical follow-up after palliative radiotherapy, with self-management support being the primary objective of such a system. Practice implications ePROMs after palliative radiotherapy seem feasible, the exact patient population that could benefit the most will need to be explored further; as the palliative population is very diverse.

Miguel A, David A, Patrick B, Pierre B, Erik B, Renée B, Patricia CC, Jenny CC, Ananya C, Gilles D, Sylvian D, Dunning Alison M, Elliott Rebecca M, Dawn E, Corinne FF, Marzia F, Sara GE, Carsten H, Higginson Daniel S, Kerns Sarah L, Kerstie J, Meritxell M, Maarten L, Mónica R, Tiziana R, Andreas R, Rosenstein Barry S, Ruysscher Dirk D, Ahmed S, Claudia S, Petra S, Paloma SF, Elena S, Hilary S, Holly S, Veerle S, Paul S, Begoña TL, Talbot Christopher J, Riccardo V, Ana V, Liv V, Veldwijk Marlon R, Tim W, Adam W, West Catharine M, Yolande L. Overview of health-related quality of life and toxicity of non-small cell lung cancer patients receiving curative-intent radiotherapy in a real-life setting (the REQUITE study)

OBJECTIVES

Radiotherapy-induced toxicity may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This report investigates the impact of curative-intent radiotherapy on HRQoL and toxicity in early stage and locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy enrolled in the observational prospective REQUITE study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire up to 2 years post radiotherapy. Eleven toxicities were scored by clinicians using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4. Toxicity scores were calculated by subtracting baseline values. Mixed model analyses were applied to determine statistical significance (p ≤ 0.01). Meaningful clinical important differences (MCID) were determined for changes in HRQoL. Analysis was performed on the overall data, different radiotherapy techniques, multimodality treatments and disease stages.

RESULTS

Data of 510 patients were analysed. There was no significant change in HRQoL or its domains, except for deterioration in cognitive functioning (p = 0.01). Radiotherapy technique had no significant impact on HRQoL. The addition of chemotherapy was significantly associated with HRQoL over time (p <.001). Overall toxicity did not significantly change over time. Acute toxicities of radiation-dermatitis (p =.003), dysphagia (p =.002) and esophagitis (p <.001) peaked at 3 months and decreased thereafter. Pneumonitis initially deteriorated but improved significantly after 12 months (p =.011). A proportion of patients experienced meaningful clinically important improvements and deteriorations in overall HRQoL and its domains. In some patients, pre-treatment symptoms improved gradually.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall HRQoL and toxicity did not change over time, some patients improved, whereas others experienced acute radiotherapy-induced toxicities and deteriorated HRQoL, especially physical and cognitive functioning. Patient characteristics, more so than radiotherapy technique and treatment modality, impact post-radiotherapy toxicity and HRQoL outcomes. This stresses the importance of considering the potential impact of radiotherapy on individuals' HRQoL, symptoms and toxicity in treatment decision-making.

[Evaluation of quality of life: Clinical relevance for patient]

The quality of life of patients and its evaluation remains one of the primordial objectives in oncology. Different methods and tools of evaluation of quality of life have been developed with the objective of having a global evaluation, throughout different aspects, be it physical, emotional, psychological or social. The quality of life questionnaires improve and simplify the reevaluation and follow-up of patients during clinical trials. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an evaluation of the quality of life as experienced by the patients (patient-reported-outcomes [PROs]) and allow for physicians a personalized treatment approach. In radiotherapy, PROMs are a useful tool for the follow-up of patients during or after treatment. The technological advances, notably in data collecting, but also in their integration and treatment with regard to artificial intelligence will allow integrating these evaluation tools in the management of patients in oncology.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessing the Impact of Palliative Radiotherapy on Quality of Life and Symptom Burden in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review

Incurable head and neck cancer has a poor prognosis and impairs a patient's health-related quality of life. Palliative radiotherapy may improve or stabilize health-related quality of life and symptoms, best measured by patient-reported outcomes. There is no systematic analysis if palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer improves or stabilizes health-related quality of life or symptoms as validly measured by patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic review (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020166434) was to assess the effect of palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer on patient-reported outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess the rate and quality of use of patient-reported outcomes in relevant studies claiming a "palliative effect" of radiotherapy. The databases MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, "ClinicalTrials.gov" were searched. Concerning the primary objective, four studies were eligible to assess the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy as measured by patient-reported outcomes. A narrative synthesis suggests a favorable impact of palliative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life and symptom burden. The risk of bias, however, is considerable and the overall quality of evidence low. Concerning the secondary objective, over 90% of studies claiming a "palliative effect" of palliative radiotherapy did either not use patient-reported outcomes or did so by limited quality. In conclusion, implementation of patient-reported outcomes in studies assessing palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer should be fostered. Palliative radiotherapy remains an option for head and neck cancer patients, although more studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes are needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020166434.