Anette Stolberg Kargo

Association of patient-reported outcomes and ovarian cancer recurrence

The vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience disease recurrence after primary treatment. To explore the diagnostic accuracy of repeated measurement of patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life scores in relation to ovarian cancer recurrence. Patients with ovarian cancer were recruited to the PROMova study by the end of their primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. The purpose of the PROMova study was to explore the applicability of repeated use of patient-reported outcomes, which consisted of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic questionnaire and the ovarian specific questionnaire. The patient-reported outcomes were completed 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after enrollment or until recurrence. The 3-month interval between completions was the period in which recurrence was assessed. Imaging and the biomarker CA125 were used as reference modality for recurrence. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between mean patient-reported outcome scores and recurrence. Receiver operating curves were used to establish cut-off scores. The diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported outcomes, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was estimated based on the Youden index. For combined scales, diagnostic accuracy was investigated based on multivariate analysis. The analysis included 196 patients with an overall recurrence rate of 50.5% and an overall mean time to recurrence of 302 days. With imaging as reference, patients with recurrence reported significantly lower global health, worse physical functioning, and more abdominal symptoms preceding recurrence. With CA125 as reference, global health, physical and emotional functioning were impaired. Despite the worsening of a number of symptoms prior to recurrence whichever reference modality was applied, the patient-reported outcome scores did not provide adequate diagnostic accuracy. Repeated use of patient-reported outcomes during surveillance of ovarian cancer was not of diagnostic value. Future efforts should be directed at improving the administration of patient-reported outcomes as well as exploring the potential of using these outcomes as an indicator of clinical relevance.

The PROMova study comparing active and passive use of patient-reported outcome measures in ovarian cancer follow-up: effect on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, and usefulness

Patients with ovarian cancer often experience substantial health problems and side effects resulting in reduced quality of life (QoL). Different models of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during follow-up may improve the quality of care. This national, multicenter observational study investigated the effect of active use of PROMs on patient-perceived involvement, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL during follow-up of ovarian cancer. Ovarian cancer patients were recruited at the end of primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. During 18 months of follow-up patients repeatedly completed European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires covering health related QoL and symptoms. At the sites using PROMs actively (ACT), the clinician had access to an overview of the patient's scores during the clinical encounter. Clinicians using PROMs passively were alerted in case of severe development of symptoms. Following each encounter, patients evaluated their health service experience by completing the CollaboRATE scale of involvement in decision making, the Patient Experience Questionnaire, and ad hoc questions covering patient-perceived usefulness of the PROMs. A total of 223 patients were enrolled, i.e., 168 (75.3%) at five sites using ACT and 53 (23.8%) at three sites using them passively. We found no statistically significant difference in involvement in the decision making, satisfaction with care, unmet needs, and QoL between the two groups. The majority of patients found it useful to complete the PROMs, although it did not seem to significantly support them in raising issues with the oncologist. Active use of PROMs did not improve patients' experience of involvement in follow-up care as compared to passive use.