Prognostic value of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in adults with non-small cell Lung Cancer: a scoping review.
Clinical decision rules
Lung neoplasms
Non-small cell lung cancer
Patient-reported outcome measures
Prognosis
Review
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Oct 2022
19 Oct 2022
Historique:
received:
18
05
2022
accepted:
08
09
2022
entrez:
19
10
2022
pubmed:
20
10
2022
medline:
22
10
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking. To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC. We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies. Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias. There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is growing interest in the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to support clinical decision making in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). However, an overview of research into the prognostic value of PROMs is currently lacking.
AIM
OBJECTIVE
To explore to what extent, how, and how robustly the value of PROMs for prognostic prediction has been investigated in adults diagnosed with NSCLC.
METHODS
METHODS
We systematically searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus and Scopus for English-language articles published from 2011 to 2021 that report prognostic factor study, prognostic model development or validation study. Example data charting forms from the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group guided our data charting on study characteristics, PROMs as predictors, predicted outcomes, and statistical methods. Two reviewers independently charted the data and critically appraised studies using the QUality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool for prognostic factor studies, and the risk of bias assessment section of the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic model studies.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Our search yielded 2,769 unique titles of which we included 31 studies, reporting the results of 33 unique analyses and models. Out of the 17 PROMs used for prediction, the EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (16/33); 12/33 analyses used PROM subdomain scores instead of the overall scores. PROMs data was mostly collected at baseline (24/33) and predominantly used to predict survival (32/33) but seldom other clinical outcomes (1/33). Almost all prognostic factor studies (26/27) had moderate to high risk of bias and all four prognostic model development studies had high risk of bias.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
There is an emerging body of research into the value of PROMs as a prognostic factor for survival in people with NSCLC but the methodological quality of this research is poor with significant bias. This warrants more robust studies into the prognostic value of PROMs, in particular for predicting outcomes other than survival. This will enable further development of PROM-based prediction models to support clinical decision making in NSCLC.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36261794
doi: 10.1186/s12885-022-10151-z
pii: 10.1186/s12885-022-10151-z
pmc: PMC9580146
doi:
Types de publication
Systematic Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1076Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Cancer. 2016 Jul 20;16:505
pubmed: 27439430
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Nov;26(11):3925-3932
pubmed: 29777380
Radiother Oncol. 2018 Nov;129(2):218-226
pubmed: 30473058
BMJ. 2009 Feb 23;338:b375
pubmed: 19237405
Lung Cancer. 2019 Apr;130:101-107
pubmed: 30885329
Lancet Oncol. 2019 Dec;20(12):e685-e698
pubmed: 31797795
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2016 Jul;25(4):580-91
pubmed: 26676876
Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2016 May;33(4):374-80
pubmed: 25670717
Ann Glob Health. 2019 Jan 22;85(1):
pubmed: 30741509
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012 Sep;21(5):614-22
pubmed: 22309434
J Clin Oncol. 2012 May 1;30(13):1498-504
pubmed: 22454418
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009 Dec 23;7:102
pubmed: 20030832
Transpl Int. 2017 Jan;30(1):6-10
pubmed: 27896874
Springerplus. 2016 Jun 22;5(1):836
pubmed: 27386285
Qual Life Res. 2013 Oct;22(8):2143-50
pubmed: 23371797
BMJ. 2006 May 6;332(7549):1080
pubmed: 16675816
Cancer Lett. 2016 Jul 10;377(1):65-73
pubmed: 27126360
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2000 Feb;19(2):137-53
pubmed: 10699541
Ann Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;170(1):51-58
pubmed: 30596875
Int J Cancer. 2020 Dec 1;147(11):3085-3089
pubmed: 32492185
Ann Oncol. 2017 Jul 1;28(suppl_4):iv1-iv21
pubmed: 28881918
Ecancermedicalscience. 2017 Nov 10;11:779
pubmed: 29225686
Qual Life Res. 2017 Jul;26(7):1703-1712
pubmed: 28194618
Thorac Cancer. 2021 Mar;12(6):835-844
pubmed: 33508893
J Clin Oncol. 2008 Mar 10;26(8):1355-63
pubmed: 18227528
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
BMC Med. 2010 Mar 30;8:21
pubmed: 20353579
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2022 Feb;34(2):102-113
pubmed: 34922799
Br J Cancer. 2014 May 13;110(10):2427-33
pubmed: 24743709
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 19;18(1):143
pubmed: 30453902
Clin Kidney J. 2020 Nov 24;14(1):49-58
pubmed: 33564405
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):141-6
pubmed: 26134548
Onco Targets Ther. 2016 Feb 29;9:1023-8
pubmed: 27013895
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Sep 1;109(9):
pubmed: 28423407
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jun 29;20(1):172
pubmed: 32600262
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 May 15;12:73
pubmed: 24884836
J Thorac Oncol. 2015 Feb;10(2):353-9
pubmed: 25611228
Acta Oncol. 2015 Mar;54(3):340-8
pubmed: 25225010
Int Wound J. 2019 Jun;16(3):800-812
pubmed: 30821117
Res Synth Methods. 2021 Jan;12(1):55-61
pubmed: 32336025
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 25;6:32020
pubmed: 27558285
BMJ. 2013 Feb 05;346:e5595
pubmed: 23386360
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001 Jul-Aug;8(4):391-7
pubmed: 11418546
BMC Cancer. 2011 Aug 15;11:353
pubmed: 21843358
Clin Lung Cancer. 2021 Mar;22(2):e169-e179
pubmed: 33160899
Ann Intern Med. 2018 Oct 2;169(7):467-473
pubmed: 30178033
BMC Public Health. 2012 Sep 15;12:790
pubmed: 22978682
Ann Oncol. 2018 Oct 1;29(Suppl 4):iv192-iv237
pubmed: 30285222
Int J Qual Health Care. 2017 Oct 1;29(6):874-879
pubmed: 29025001
Ann Surg Oncol. 2013 Jun;20(6):1941-8
pubmed: 23263699
JAMA Oncol. 2016 Mar;2(3):359-67
pubmed: 26606200
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7818
pubmed: 25670183
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Oct;48(4):548-57
pubmed: 24680623
Value Health. 2021 Feb;24(2):250-267
pubmed: 33518032
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013 May;43(5):905-10
pubmed: 23091229
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 19;158(4):280-6
pubmed: 23420236
Am J Transl Res. 2018 Aug 15;10(8):2234-2245
pubmed: 30210667
Acta Oncol. 2012 Nov;51(8):1029-35
pubmed: 22663251
Lung Cancer. 2017 Nov;113:140-151
pubmed: 29110842
Springerplus. 2016 Oct 21;5(1):1833
pubmed: 27818871
Biom J. 2018 May;60(3):431-449
pubmed: 29292533
Cancer Med. 2015 Sep;4(9):1334-43
pubmed: 26108458
BMJ Open. 2021 Jan 15;11(1):e043229
pubmed: 33452199
Diagn Progn Res. 2019 Mar 07;3:5
pubmed: 31093575
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Nov 18;(11):CD010299
pubmed: 24249483
Clin Med (Lond). 2018 Apr 1;18(Suppl 2):s41-s46
pubmed: 29700092
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015 Mar;149(3):718-25; discussion 725-6
pubmed: 25500100
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013 Aug;146(2):385-90.e1-2
pubmed: 23651911
Sci Rep. 2020 Jul 1;10(1):10693
pubmed: 32612283
Eur J Cancer. 2016 Jan;52:120-8
pubmed: 26682871
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2016 Jun;5(3):288-300
pubmed: 27413711