Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Radiation Oncology: Initial Experience After Workflow Implementation.
Activities of Daily Living
/ psychology
Aged
Big Data
Electronic Data Processing
/ instrumentation
Fatigue
/ epidemiology
Feasibility Studies
Female
Head and Neck Neoplasms
/ pathology
Humans
Implementation Science
Male
Middle Aged
Neoplasm Staging
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
/ psychology
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Pelvic Neoplasms
/ pathology
Quality of Life
Radiation Oncology
/ statistics & numerical data
Radiotherapy
/ adverse effects
Surveys and Questionnaires
Telemedicine
/ instrumentation
Thoracic Neoplasms
/ pathology
Workflow
eHealth
mHealth
patient reported outcome measures
radiation oncology
Journal
JMIR mHealth and uHealth
ISSN: 2291-5222
Titre abrégé: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101624439
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 07 2019
24 07 2019
Historique:
received:
27
09
2018
accepted:
31
03
2019
revised:
31
01
2019
entrez:
26
7
2019
pubmed:
26
7
2019
medline:
28
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far. The aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients. In the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors. In total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life. This study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients.
METHODS
In the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors.
RESULTS
In total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life.
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31342906
pii: v7i7e12345
doi: 10.2196/12345
pmc: PMC6685133
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e12345Informations de copyright
©Franziska Hauth, Verena Bizu, Rehan App, Heinrich Lautenbacher, Alina Tenev, Michael Bitzer, Nisar Peter Malek, Daniel Zips, Cihan Gani. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 24.07.2019.
Références
J Oncol Manag. 2002 Mar-Apr;11(2):15-21
pubmed: 11989815
Med Care. 2003 May;41(5):582-92
pubmed: 12719681
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Jan 1;22(1):19-22
pubmed: 14657230
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714-24
pubmed: 14966096
J Clin Oncol. 2005 May 20;23(15):3552-61
pubmed: 15908666
J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Dec;58(12):1217-9
pubmed: 16291464
Lancet Oncol. 2006 Nov;7(11):903-9
pubmed: 17081915
Br J Cancer. 2007 Sep 17;97(6):717-24
pubmed: 17848910
Value Health. 2008 Mar-Apr;11(2):322-33
pubmed: 18380645
Am J Manag Care. 2008 Aug;14(8):530-9
pubmed: 18690769
Psychol Bull. 2008 Sep;134(5):700-741
pubmed: 18729569
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S10-9
pubmed: 20171502
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 11;13:211
pubmed: 23758898
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014 Aug;93(8):675-86
pubmed: 24743466
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2017 Jun 1;98(2):318-337
pubmed: 28463151
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Jun 14;5(6):e81
pubmed: 28615159
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Dec 04;5(12):e187
pubmed: 29203459
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Sep 1;102(1):44-52
pubmed: 30102201
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Aug 30;6(8):e10916
pubmed: 30166275
Qual Life Res. 2019 Mar;28(3):567-592
pubmed: 30284183
Br J Dermatol. 2019 May;180(5):1018-1029
pubmed: 30362522
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Oct 29;20(10):e273
pubmed: 30578205
JMIR Cancer. 2018 Dec 21;4(2):e10932
pubmed: 30578238
Cancer. 2019 Apr 15;125(8):1350-1356
pubmed: 30620401
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 22;21(1):e10004
pubmed: 30668517
Semin Hematol. 1997 Jul;34(3 Suppl 2):4-12
pubmed: 9253778