LCCC 1636: Using PROMIS as Part of Routine Clinical Care for Racially Diverse Prostate and Bladder Cancer Patients
LCCC 1636: Using PROMIS as Part of Routine Clinical Care for Racially Diverse Prostate and Bladder Cancer Patients
In this pilot study, a total of 80 patients with prostate or bladder cancer (40 black, 40 white) will complete 3 patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys: baseline (pre-treatment), during treatment, and after treatment. The overall goal of this study is to assess whether collecting patient-reported data is feasible as part of clinical care of cancer patients, and whether these data are useful for clinicians and patients. Among these 80 patients, those who agree will also undergo a semi-structured interview to assess value of HRQOL assessment at the end of the study. Of specific interest is an evaluation of whether feasibility and perceived value differ between black and white participants.
Cancer treatments, including surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, are often linked to acute and late side effects. Historically, these effects were assessed by physicians and scored using standardized scales such as the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Thorough and accurate assessment of symptoms facilitates timely and patient-centered symptom management.
Multiple studies have demonstrated that PROs more accurately capture patient symptoms than physician assessment. In a prospective trial, Falchook et al. investigated patient vs. physician report of symptoms in head and neck cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy (N=44). Patients and physicians separately completed weekly symptom assessments during treatment and once during follow-up. Patients tended to report more severe symptoms than physicians. For example, in week six, physicians rated 86% of patients' fatigue as non-existent or mild while 86% of patients rated their own fatigue as moderate to very severe. In a larger study conducted at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center of 163 lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, Basch et al. similarly examined patient vs. physician report of symptoms over one year. Compared to patients, physicians reported less severe and lower rates of fatigue, nausea, and pain and higher functional status.
Findings from these prior studies are consistent with evidence from a recent systematic review, which concluded that PRO data were essential for the evaluation of symptoms in cancer survivors. Many researchers have hypothesized the reasons behind this discrepancy in physician/patient ratings of symptoms, including poor communication, inadequate physician time spent per patient, and patients' underreporting of symptoms to physicians. Thus, incorporation of PRO data into routine clinical care can facilitate better detection and management of cancer and treatment-related effects.
Therefore, the goal of this pilot study is to move PRO data collection from a purely research exercise into using this as a tool to improve care for cancer patients. This pilot study will assess the feasibility of collecting PRO data as part of clinical care, and assess its "value" from the patient and physician perspectives. The investigators will recruit 80 patients with prostate or bladder cancers from the UNC Genitourinary Oncology clinics (including Urology and Radiation Oncology). PRO data that is most relevant to this patient population will be collected, including: gastrointestinal, urinary, sexual function, anxiety/depression, and sleep.
Further, given longstanding racial disparities in symptom experiences (e.g., symptom assessment, severity, frequency) among cancer patients and limited evidence of effective strategies for mitigating such inequities, this pilot study will also examine Black-White differences in terms of the feasibility and perceived value of sharing of patient-reported data to improve communication and decision-making.
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria: