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
  • [31] Calls for routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures are getting louder
    Gutacker, Nils
    Street, Andrew
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY, 2019, 24 (01) : 1 - 2
  • [32] Clinically meaningful improvements in patient-reported outcomes for patients with moderate to severe psoriasis receiving etanercept
    Krueger, G
    Woolley, J
    Zitnik, R
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE DERMATOLOGY, 2004, 122 (03) : A55 - A55
  • [33] Patient-reported outcome or physician-reported outcome?
    Guex, Jean-Jerome
    PHLEBOLOGY, 2008, 23 (06) : 251 - 251
  • [34] Incorporating patient-reported outcome data into a predictive calculator for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation recipients
    Shaw, Bronwen E.
    Flynn, Kathryn E.
    He, Naya
    Cusatis, Rachel
    D'Souza, Anita
    Hamilton, Betty K.
    Horowitz, Mary M.
    Mattila, Deborah
    Phelan, Rachel
    Lee, Stephanie J.
    Brazauskas, Ruta
    CANCER, 2024, 130 (10) : 1826 - 1835
  • [35] PROMIS pediatric measures in pediatric oncology: Valid and clinically feasible indicators of patient-reported outcomes
    Hinds, Pamela S.
    Nuss, Suzanne L.
    Ruccione, Kathleen S.
    Withycombe, Janice S.
    Jacobs, Shana
    DeLuca, Holly
    Faulkner, Charisse
    Liu, Yang
    Cheng, Yao I.
    Gross, Heather E.
    Wang, Jichuan
    DeWalt, Darren A.
    PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER, 2013, 60 (03) : 402 - 408
  • [36] An Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Mobile App for Data Collection in Type A Hemophilia: Design and Usability Study
    Petracca, Francesco
    Tempre, Rosaria
    Cucciniello, Maria
    Ciani, Oriana
    Pompeo, Elena
    Sannino, Luigi
    Lovato, Valeria
    Castaman, Giancarlo
    Ghirardini, Alessandra
    Tarricone, Rosanna
    JMIR FORMATIVE RESEARCH, 2021, 5 (12)
  • [37] Patient-Reported Outcomes (Pros) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (Proms)
    Weldring, Theresa
    Smith, Sheree M. S.
    HEALTH SERVICES INSIGHTS, 2013, 6 : 61 - 68
  • [38] Perspectives of Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients on Electronic Communication and Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection: A Qualitative Study
    Navarro-Millan, Iris
    Zinski, Anne
    Shurbaji, Sally
    Johnson, Bernadette
    Fraenkel, Liana
    Willig, James
    Danila, Maria I.
    Yun, Huifeng
    Curtis, Jeffrey R.
    Safford, Monika M.
    ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, 2019, 71 (01) : 80 - 87
  • [39] Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Opening the Gates for Faithful Migration
    McLeod, Lori D.
    Rockwood, Nicholas J.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (05) : 620 - 622
  • [40] Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement and Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Hand Surgeons
    Garcia, Brittany N.
    Tyser, Andrew
    Roca, Hernan
    Kazmers, Nikolas H.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2023, 31 (15) : 756 - 765