Wang Tian Qi, Samuel Joseph N, Brown M Catherine, Vennettilli Ashlee, Solomon Hannah, Eng Lawson, Liang Mindy, Gill Gursharan, Merali Zahra, Tian Chenchen, Cheng Nicholas Y H, Campbell Matthew, Patel Devalben, Liu Ai Xin, Liu Geoffrey, Howell Doris
Princess Margaret Cancer Center, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Oncol Ther. 2018 Dec;6(2):189-201. doi: 10.1007/s40487-018-0065-7. Epub 2018 Oct 22.
Systematic documentation of chemotoxicities in outpatient clinics is challenging. Incorporating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical workflows can be an efficient strategy to strengthen the assessment of symptomatic treatment toxicities in oncology clinical practice. We compared the adequateness, feasibility, and acceptability of toxicity documentation using systematic, prospective, application of the PRO Common Toxicity Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) tool.
At a comprehensive cancer center, data abstraction of electronic health record reviews elucidated current methods and degree of chemotoxicity documentation. Web-based 32-item PRO-CTCAE questionnaires, administered in ambulatory clinics of patients receiving chemotherapy, captured chemotoxicities and respective severities. Patient telephone surveys assessed whether healthcare providers had addressed chemotoxicities to the patients' satisfaction.
Over a broad demographic of 497 patients receiving chemotherapy, 90% (95% CI 84-96%) with significant chemotoxicities (n = 107) reported that their providers had discussed toxicities with them; of these, 70% received a therapy management change, while among the rest, 17% desired a change in management. Of patients surveyed, 91% (95% CI 82-99%) were satisfied with their current chemotoxicity management. Clinician chart documentation varied greatly; descriptors rather than numerical grading scales were typically used. Although 93% of patients were willing to complete the PRO survey, only 50% thought that it would be acceptable to complete this survey at routine clinic visits.
Use of PRO-CTCAE in routine clinical practice promotes systematic evaluation of symptomatic toxicities and improves the clarity, consistency, and efficiency of clinician documentation; however, methods to improve patient willingness to complete this tool routinely are needed.
在门诊诊所对化学毒性进行系统记录具有挑战性。将患者报告结局(PRO)指标纳入临床工作流程可能是一种有效的策略,可加强肿瘤临床实践中对症治疗毒性的评估。我们比较了使用PRO不良事件通用毒性标准(PRO-CTCAE)工具进行系统、前瞻性应用来记录毒性的充分性、可行性和可接受性。
在一家综合癌症中心,通过对电子健康记录审查进行数据提取,阐明了当前化学毒性记录的方法和程度。在接受化疗患者的门诊诊所发放基于网络的32项PRO-CTCAE问卷,收集化学毒性及相应严重程度。通过患者电话调查评估医疗服务提供者是否就化学毒性与患者沟通至其满意。
在497名接受化疗的广泛人群中,90%(95%CI 84 - 96%)有显著化学毒性(n = 107)的患者报告其医疗服务提供者与他们讨论过毒性;其中,70%接受了治疗管理变更,而其余患者中,17%希望变更管理。在接受调查的患者中,91%(95%CI 82 - 99%)对其当前的化学毒性管理感到满意。临床医生的病历记录差异很大;通常使用描述性词语而非数字分级量表。尽管93%的患者愿意完成PRO调查,但只有50%的患者认为在常规门诊就诊时完成该调查是可以接受的。
在常规临床实践中使用PRO-CTCAE可促进对症状性毒性的系统评估,并提高临床医生记录的清晰度、一致性和效率;然而,需要采取方法提高患者常规完成该工具的意愿。