Abstract
Purpose
To understand oncologists’ attitudes toward patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and to learn how PRO data influence their clinical decision-making.
Methods
Twenty practicing oncologists participated in 1 of 4 semi-structured focus groups.
Results
Most oncologists had no experience with PRO measures, but were able to identify several concepts appropriate for patient-reported assessment. Participants agreed that clinical measures such as performance status were more meaningful to them, but acknowledged that PRO measures were more appropriate for assessing patient symptoms and treatment response. All oncologists believed that clinical efficacy and toxicity data were of primary importance, but that PROs become increasingly important when multiple treatments are available, in advanced or incurable disease, and in palliative care. Several issues prevented oncologists from being able to draw meaningful conclusions from PRO data: lack of familiarity with PRO measures, being presented with too much data to process, lack of clarity around a meaningful change in PRO measure scores, and lack of standardization in the use of PRO measures.
Conclusions
Oncologists indicated that PRO data are most influential in advanced or incurable disease and in palliative care. Improving the interpretability of PRO measures could increase the usefulness of PRO data in treatment decision-making.
Abbreviations
- ClinRO:
-
Clinician-reported outcome
- ECOG:
-
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
- EORTC:
-
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer
- FACT:
-
Functional assessment of cancer therapy
- HRQL:
-
Health-related quality of life
- PRO:
-
Patient-reported outcome
References
Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. F. (2007). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: A review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 57(5), 278–300.
McKee, A. E., Farrell, A. T., Pazdur, R., & Woodcock, J. (2010). The role of the US food and drug administration review process: Clinical trial endpoints in oncology. The Oncologist, 15(suppl 1), 13–18.
Coons, S. J., Kothari, S., Monz, B. U., & Burke, L. B. (2011). The patient-reported outcome (PRO) consortium: Filling measurement gaps for PRO endpoints to support labeling claims. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 90(5), 743–748.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Muhr, T. (2004) User’s Manual for ATLAS.ti 5.0. Berlin: ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH.
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376.
Karnofsky, D. A., & Burchenal, J. H. (1949). The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In C. M. MacLeod (Ed.), Evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents (pp. 191–205). New York: Columbia University Press.
Oken, M. M., Creech, F. H., Tormey, D. C., Horton, J., Davis, T. E., McFadden, E. T., et al. (1982). Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. American Journal of Clinical Oncology, 5(6), 649–665.
Brundage, M., Bass, B., Jolie, R., & Foley, K. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.
Bezjak, A., Ng, P., Skeel, R., DePetrillo, A. D., Comis, R., & Taylor, K. M. (2001). Oncologists’ use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.
Sloan, J. A., Frost, M. H., Berzon, R., Dueck, A., Guyatt, G., Moinpour, C., et al. (2006). The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: A summary for clinicians. Supportive Care in Cancer, 14(10), 988–998.
Osoba, D., Bezjak, A., Brundage, M., Zee, B., Tu, D., Pater, J., et al. (2005). Analysis and interpretation of health-related quality-of-life data from clinical trials: basic approach of The National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group. European Journal of Cancer, 41(2), 280–287.
Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., & Guyatt, G. H. (2006). Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician’s perspective. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 62.
Guyatt, G., & Schunemann, H. (2007). How can quality of life researchers make their work more useful to health workers and their patients? Quality of Life Research, 16(7), 1097–1105.
US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. December: Guidance for Industry.
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by Eli Lilly and Company.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meldahl, M.L., Acaster, S. & Hayes, R.P. Exploration of oncologists’ attitudes toward and perceived value of patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res 22, 725–731 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0209-4
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0209-4