{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology.
{Author}: Warsame R;Cook J;Fruth B;Hubbard J;Croghan K;Price KAR;Jatoi A;Kumar S;Thompson C;Buckner J;Dispenzieri A;Sloan J;Dueck AC;
{Journal}: Contemp Clin Trials Commun
{Volume}: 29
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: Oct 2022
暂无{DOI}: 10.1016/j.conctc.2022.100964
{Abstract}: <B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL).<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a "was it worth it" survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31-87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0-10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow.<BR><B>UNASSIGNED: </B>Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.