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
. 2021 Dec 24;14(1):84.
doi: 10.3390/cancers14010084.

Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Jens Lehmann  1 , Maria Rothmund  1 , David Riedl  1 , Gerhard Rumpold  1 , Vincent Grote  2 , Michael J Fischer  2   3 , Bernhard Holzner  1
Affiliations
Review

Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Jens Lehmann et al. Cancers (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

Keywords: cancer rehabilitation; outcome assessment; patient reported outcome measures; patient-reported outcomes; rehabilitation; value-based care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of the International Classification of Functioning (ICF).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Miller K.D., Nogueira L., Mariotto A.B., Rowland J.H., Yabroff K.R., Alfano C.M., Jemal A., Kramer J.L., Siegel R.L. Cancer Treatment and Survivorship Statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J. Clin. 2019;69:363–385. doi: 10.3322/caac.21565. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Arnold M., Rutherford M.J., Bardot A., Ferlay J., Andersson T.M.-L., Myklebust T.Å., Tervonen H., Thursfield V., Ransom D., Shack L., et al. Progress in Cancer Survival, Mortality, and Incidence in Seven High-Income Countries 1995-2014 (ICBP SURVMARK-2): A Population-Based Study. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:1493–1505. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30456-5. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Truant T.L., Fitch M.I., O’Leary C., Stewart J. Global Perspectives on Cancer Survivorship: From Lost in Transition to Leading into the Future. Can. Oncol. Nurs. J. 2017;27:287–294. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Götze H., Taubenheim S., Dietz A., Lordick F., Mehnert A. Comorbid Conditions and Health-Related Quality of Life in Long-Term Cancer Survivors-Associations with Demographic and Medical Characteristics. J. Cancer Surviv. 2018;12:712–720. doi: 10.1007/s11764-018-0708-6. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stein K.D., Syrjala K.L., Andrykowski M.A. Physical and Psychological Long-Term and Late Effects of Cancer. Cancer. 2008;112:2577–2592. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23448. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources