First Phase Development of a Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Midface Oncology
- PMID: 38525491
- PMCID: PMC10959565
- DOI: 10.1097/GOX.0000000000005689
First Phase Development of a Patient-reported Outcome Measure for Midface Oncology
Abstract
Background: Facial cancer surgery involving the midface (comprising the lower eyelids, nose, cheeks, and upper lip) can have debilitating life-changing functional, social, and psychological impacts on the patient. Midface symptoms are inadequately captured by existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are increasingly used for individual patient care, quality improvement, and standardized reporting of treatment outcomes. This study aimed to present our findings from the first phase of the development of a midface, specifically periocular and nasal, PROM.
Methods: After international guidance for PROM development, the first phase comprised identification of salient issues and item generation. Fifteen patients who had midface surgery and 10 clinicians from various specialties with more than 5 years' experience treating these patients were recruited. Semi-structured interviews explored aesthetic, functional, social, and psychological outcomes, with specific attention to deficiencies in current PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop an item pool, and group interviews with clinicians were carried out to create and refine PROM scales.
Results: Qualitative data from patient interviews were grouped into aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial domains for the eyelids and nose. Ninety-nine draft items were generated across these domains. Following focus group discussions, the final version of the midface-specific PROM contained 31 items (13 eye-specific, 10-nose-specific, eight general midface items).
Conclusions: This midface-specific PROM is valuable in assessing and comparing patient-reported outcomes in those who have undergone complex resection and reconstruction of the midface. This PROM is currently undergoing field testing.
Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.
References
-
- Rifkin WJ, Kantar RS, Ali-Khan S, et al. . Facial disfigurement and identity: a review of the literature and implications for facial transplantation. AMA J Ethics. 2018;20:309–323. - PubMed
-
- Youl PH, Janda M, Aitken JF, et al. . Body-site distribution of skin cancer, pre-malignant and common benign pigmented lesions excised in general practice. Br J Dermatol. 2011;165:35–43. - PubMed
-
- Subramaniam P, Olsen CM, Thompson BS, et al. ; QSkin Sun and Health Study Investigators. Anatomical distributions of basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma in a population-based study in Queensland, Australia. JAMA Dermatol. 2017;153:175–182. - PubMed
-
- Franceschi S, Levi F, Randimbison L, et al. . Site distribution of different types of skin cancer: new aetiological clues. Int J Cancer. 1996;67:24–28. - PubMed
-
- Cancer Council Australia Keratinocyte Cancers Guideline Working Party. Clinical practice guidelines for keratinocyte cancer. Sydney: Cancer Council Australia. Available at https://wiki.cancer.org.au/australiawiki/index.php?oldid=213931. Published 2019. Accessed January 14, 2024.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources