Display options
Cite
Baeksted C, Pappot H, Nissen A, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1(1):1doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6.
Baeksted, C., Pappot, H., Nissen, A., Hjollund, N. H., Mitchell, S. A., Basch, E., Bidstrup, P. E., Dalton, S. O., & Johansen, C. (2017). Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients. Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6
Baeksted, Christina, et al. "Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients." Journal of patient-reported outcomes vol. 1,1 (2017): 1. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6
Baeksted C, Pappot H, Nissen A, Hjollund NH, Mitchell SA, Basch E, Bidstrup PE, Dalton SO, Johansen C. Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6. Epub 2017 Sep 12. PMID: 29757324; PMCID: PMC5934932.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2017;1(1):1. doi: 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6. Epub 2017 Sep 12.

Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients.

Journal of patient-reported outcomes

Christina Baeksted, Helle Pappot, Aase Nissen, Niels Henrik Hjollund, Sandra A Mitchell, Ethan Basch, Pernille Envold Bidstrup, Susanne Oksbjerg Dalton, Christoffer Johansen

Affiliations

  1. 1Documentation & Quality, Danish Cancer Society, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
  2. 2Department of Oncology, The Finsen Centre, Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
  3. 3Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Olof Palmes Allé 43-45, DK-8200 Aarhus, Denmark.
  4. 4WestChronic, Department of Occupational Medicine, University Clinic, Health, Aarhus University, Gl. Landevej 61, DK-7400 Herning, Denmark.
  5. 5Outcomes Research Branch, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, 3 East Suite 448, Rockville, MD 20850 USA.
  6. 6Cancer Outcomes Research Program, UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, 101 Manning Dr, Chapel Hill, NC 27514 USA.
  7. 7Unit of Survivorship, Danish Cancer Society Research Center, Strandboulevarden 49, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

PMID: 29757324 PMCID: PMC5934932 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-017-0005-6

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The aim was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using a subset of items drawn from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a cancer treatment setting.

METHODS: Danish-speaking men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer receiving treatment at the Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen between March 9, 2015 and June 8, 2015 were invited to participate (

RESULTS: Fifty-four out of sixty-three (86%) eligible patients were enrolled. The PRO-CTCAE questionnaire was completed a total of 168 times by 54 participants (median number per patient was 3, range 1-5). Eight surveys were missed, resulting in a compliance rate of 97%. At the end of the study period, 35 patients (65%) were still receiving active treatment and completed the evaluation questionnaire. Patients reported that their PRO-CTCAE responses served as a communication tool. Oncologists stated that the availability of the PRO-CTCAE self-reports during the consultation improved patient-clinician communication about side effects.

CONCLUSION: Electronic capture of symptomatic toxicities using PRO-CTCAE and the submission of self-reports to clinicians prior to consultation were feasible among metastatic prostate cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in an outpatient setting, and this procedure was acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Continued research, including a cluster-randomized trial, will evaluate the effects of submitting patients' PRO-CTCAE results to clinicians prior to consultation on the quality of side-effects management and resultant clinical outcomes.

Keywords: Electronic reporting; Feasibility; PRO-CTCAE; Prostate cancer; Symptom surveillance

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016 May;13(5):319-25 - PubMed
  2. N Engl J Med. 2004 Oct 7;351(15):1502-12 - PubMed
  3. Cancer J. 2011 Jul-Aug;17(4):231-4 - PubMed
  4. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011 Dec 21;103(24):1851-8 - PubMed
  5. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016 Aug;52(2):292-7 - PubMed
  6. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant. 2013 Mar;19(3):450-9 - PubMed
  7. Scand J Public Health. 2011 Jul;39(7 Suppl):22-5 - PubMed
  8. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2016;35:67-73 - PubMed
  9. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 May-Jun;14(3):264-8 - PubMed
  10. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2016 Jun 1;142(6):517-23 - PubMed
  11. Interact J Med Res. 2014 Feb 11;3(1):e5 - PubMed
  12. Lancet. 2010 Oct 2;376(9747):1147-54 - PubMed
  13. Cancer Nurs. 2013 Nov-Dec;36(6):E1-E16 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65 - PubMed
  15. Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):903-9 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2015 Mar 10;33(8):910-5 - PubMed
  17. Lancet Oncol. 2012 Oct;13(10):983-92 - PubMed
  18. Qual Life Res. 2016 Mar;25(3):525-34 - PubMed
  19. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Apr 1;22(7):1553-8 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Oncol. 2011 Mar 10;29(8):954-6 - PubMed
  21. BMC Cancer. 2014 Jul 12;14:513 - PubMed
  22. Psychooncology. 2013 Apr;22(4):895-901 - PubMed
  23. Qual Life Res. 2015 Jul;24(7):1707-18 - PubMed
  24. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 2;101(23):1624-32 - PubMed
  25. Transl Behav Med. 2011 Mar;1(1):110-22 - PubMed
  26. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Dec 1;25(34):5374-80 - PubMed
  27. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014 Sep 29;106(9):null - PubMed
  28. Gynecol Oncol. 2012 Nov;127(2):273-7 - PubMed
  29. J Oncol Pract. 2014 Jul;10(4):e215-22 - PubMed
  30. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jul 18;369(3):213-23 - PubMed

Publication Types