Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2019 Jan-Feb;33(1):17-21.
doi: 10.21873/invivo.11433.

Clinical Relevance of Routine Monitoring of Patient-reported Outcomes Versus Clinician-reported Outcomes in Oncology

Frederic Fiteni  1   2   3 , Alice Cuenant  4   3   5 , Mireille Favier  6 , Christelle Cousin  6 , Nadine Houede  4   3   5
Affiliations
Review

Clinical Relevance of Routine Monitoring of Patient-reported Outcomes Versus Clinician-reported Outcomes in Oncology

Frederic Fiteni et al. In Vivo. 2019 Jan-Feb.

Abstract

The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classification is the standard classification used by the physicians in oncology for reporting adverse events. This classification has evolved over the last years according to the emergence of new therapies. Reporting symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and toxicities via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice is not yet a standard of care, nevertheless many studies have been conducted recently to assess feasibility and impact of routine monitoring of PROs, which should enable for better management of toxicities and earlier detection of disease progression in a more patient-centered health care delivery system. The aim of this article was to discuss the advantages and limitations of both approaches, clinicians-reported outcomes and PROs. Growing evidence supports that the routine collection of PROs leads to improvement of QoL and overall survival of cancer patients.

Keywords: Patient-reported outcomes; clinicians-reported outcomes; electronic patient-reported outcomes; oncology; quality of life; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. National Institute of Cancer. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). NIH Publ National Institute of Cancer. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). NIH Publ. 2010;2009:1–71.
    1. Di Maio M, Gallo C, Leighl NB, Piccirillo MC, Daniele G, Nuzzo F, Gridelli C, Gebbia V, Ciardiello F, De Placido S, Ceribelli A, Favaretto AG, de Matteis A, Feld R, Butts C, Bryce J, Signoriello S, Morabito A, Rocco G, Perrone F. Symptomatic toxicities experienced during anticancer treatment: Agreement between patient and physician reporting in three randomized trials. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(8):910–915. - PubMed
    1. Haanen JBAG, Carbonnel F, Robert C, Kerr KM, Peters S, Larkin J, Jordan K. ESMO Guidelines Committee:Management of toxicities from immunotherapy: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up†. Ann Oncol. 2017;28(4):iv119–iv142. - PubMed
    1. Thanarajasingam G, Atherton PJ, Novotny PJ, Loprinzi CL, Sloan JA, Grothey A. Longitudinal adverse event assessment in oncology clinical trials: The Toxicity over Time (ToxT) analysis of Alliance trials NCCTG N9741 and 979254. Lancet Oncol. 2016;17(5):663–670. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gravis G, Marino P, Joly F, Oudard S, Priou F, Esterni B, Latorzeff I, Delva R, Krakowski I, Laguerre B, Rolland F, Théodore C, Deplanque G, Ferrero JM, Pouessel D, Mourey L, Beuzeboc P, Zanetta S, Habibian M, Berdah JF, Dauba J, Baciuchka M, Platini C, Linassier C, Labourey JL, Machiels JP, El Kouri C, Ravaud A, Suc E, Eymard JC, Hasbini A, Bousquet G, Soulie M, Fizazi K. Patients’ self-assessment versus investigators’ evaluation in a phase III trial in non-castrate metastatic prostate cancer (GETUG-AFU 15) Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(5):953–962. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources