Centralized Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection in Transplantation Is Feasible and Clinically Meaningful

被引:45
|
作者
Shaw, Bronwen E. [1 ]
Brazauskas, Ruta [1 ]
Millard, Heather R. [1 ]
Fonstad, Rachel [2 ]
Flynn, Kathryn E. [3 ]
Abernethy, Amy [4 ]
Vogel, Jenny [2 ]
Petroske, Charney [2 ]
Mattila, Deborah [2 ]
Drexler, Rebecca [2 ]
Lee, Stephanie J. [5 ]
Horowitz, Mary M. [1 ]
Rizzo, J. Douglas [1 ]
机构
[1] Med Coll Wisconsin, Ctr Int Blood & Marrow Transplant Res, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
[2] Ctr Int Blood & Marrow Transplant Res, Minneapolis, MN USA
[3] Med Coll Wisconsin, Ctr Patient Care & Outcomes Res, Milwaukee, WI 53226 USA
[4] Flatiron Hlth, New York, NY USA
[5] Fred Hutchinson Canc Res Ctr, Clin Res Div, Seattle, WA 98104 USA
关键词
36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT); patient-reported outcomes; survival; transplantation; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; HEMATOPOIETIC-CELL TRANSPLANTATION; LONG-TERM HEALTH; BMT CTN; MALIGNANCIES; FEASIBILITY; PREDICTS; CHILDREN;
D O I
10.1002/cncr.30936
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
BACKGROUND Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) cures many patients, but often with the risk of late effects and impaired quality of life. The value of quantifying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is increasingly being recognized, but the routine collection of PROs is uncommon. This study evaluated the feasibility of prospective PRO collection by an outcome registry at multiple time points from unselected HCT patients undergoing transplantation at centers contributing clinical data to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), and then it correlated the PRO data with clinical and demographic data. METHODS The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Bone Marrow Transplant (FACT-BMT), 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), and Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory measures were administered before HCT, on day 100, and at 6 and 12 months. Patients were recruited by the transplant center, but posttransplant PRO collection was managed centrally by the CIBMTR. RESULTS There were 580 eligible patients, and 390 (67%) enrolled. Feasibility was shown by high time-specific retention rates (176 of 238 at 1 year or 74%) and participant satisfaction. Factors associated with higher response rates were an age > 50 years (odds ratio [OR], 1.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-2.41; P = .0355), white race (OR, 4.61; 95% CI, 2.66-7.99; P < .0001), and being married (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.42-3.65; P = .0006) for adults and a higher family income for children (OR, 4.99; 95% CI, 2.12-11.75; P = .0002). Importantly, pre-HCT PRO scores independently predicted survival after adjustments for patient-, disease-, and transplant-related factors. The adjusted probabilities of 1-year survival were 56%, 67%, 75%, and 76% by increasing quartiles of the pre-HCT FACT-BMT score and 58%, 72%, 62%, and 82% by increasing quartiles of the pre-HCT SF-36 physical component score. CONCLUSIONS A hybrid model of local consent for centralized PRO collection is feasible, and pretransplant PROs provide critical prognostic information for HCT outcomes. (C) 2017 American Cancer Society.
引用
收藏
页码:4687 / 4700
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Automating Patient-reported Data Collection: Does it Work?
    Bogor, Sayah
    Niknam, Kian
    Less, Justin
    Andaya, Veronica
    Swarup, Ishaan
    JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC ORTHOPAEDICS, 2024, 44 (06) : 402 - 406
  • [22] Patient-reported outcome
    Alten, R.
    Schneider, M.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE, 2014, 73 (08): : 696 - 697
  • [23] Development of a Clinically Embedded Patient-Reported Outcome Framework - Lessons Learnt
    Krishnasamy, Mei
    ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2017, 13 : 102 - 102
  • [24] Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection
    Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee
    Roydhouse, Jessica
    Rivera, Samantha Cruz
    Kamudoni, Paul
    Schache, Peter
    Wilson, Roger
    Stephens, Richard
    Calvert, Melanie
    NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, 2022, 13 (01)
  • [25] Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection
    Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
    Jessica Roydhouse
    Samantha Cruz Rivera
    Paul Kamudoni
    Peter Schache
    Roger Wilson
    Richard Stephens
    Melanie Calvert
    Nature Communications, 13
  • [26] Editorial Commentary: Is the Information Gathered From Patient-Reported Outcome Worth the Time and Effort? Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection Systems Result in Poor Response Rate
    Wetzler, Merrick J.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2017, 33 (11): : 1947 - +
  • [27] ON THE USES OF ROUTINE PATIENT-REPORTED HEALTH OUTCOME DATA
    Smith, Peter C.
    Street, Andrew D.
    HEALTH ECONOMICS, 2013, 22 (02) : 119 - 131
  • [28] Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic
    Harrison, Noah J.
    Lopez, Andrea A.
    Shroder, Megan M.
    Bachmann, Justin M.
    Burnell, Emily
    Hopkins, Michael B.
    Geiger, Timothy M.
    Hawkins, Alexander T.
    JOURNAL OF SURGICAL RESEARCH, 2022, 280 : 515 - 525
  • [29] Leveraging Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) Data to Deploy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)
    Shariff, Raheel
    Abughazaleh, Samer
    Sagr, Emad
    Ebdah, Mohammad
    Baumhauer, Judith
    NEJM CATALYST INNOVATIONS IN CARE DELIVERY, 2022, 3 (07):
  • [30] Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Collection Systems in Orthopaedic Clinical Practice
    Lizzio, Vincent A.
    Dekhne, Mihir S.
    Makhni, Eric C.
    JBJS REVIEWS, 2019, 7 (07)