Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 14, Issue 8, pp 837–848 | Cite as

Understanding cancer patients’ experience and outcomes: development and pilot study of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance patient survey

  • Jennifer L. Malin
  • Clifford Ko
  • John Z. Ayanian
  • David Harrington
  • David R. Nerenz
  • Katherine L. Kahn
  • Julie Ganther-Urmie
  • Paul J. Catalano
  • Alan M. Zaslavsky
  • Robert B. Wallace
  • Edward Guadagnoli
  • Neeraj K. Arora
  • Maryse D. Roudier
  • Patricia A. Ganz
Original Article

Abstract

Goals of work

The National Cancer Institute’s Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) Consortium is conducting a population-based study of newly diagnosed patients with lung and colorectal cancer to describe the experience of persons living with cancer and to understand which barriers present the most significant obstacles to their receipt of appropriate care. The keystone to this effort is the baseline patient survey administered approximately 4 months after diagnosis.

Patients and methods

We developed a survey to obtain information from patients newly diagnosed with lung and colorectal cancer about their personal characteristics, decision making, experience of care, and outcomes. We conducted a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of a lengthy and clinically detailed interview in a convenience sample of patients within 8 months of diagnosis (n=71).

Main results

The median length of the interviews was 75 min for patients with lung cancer (range 43–130) and 82 min for patients with colorectal cancer (range 46–119). Most patients had received some form of treatment for their cancer: 66.1% had undergone surgery, 28.2% had received radiation therapy, and 54.9% were treated with chemotherapy. In addition, 26.7% reported their overall health was less than 70 on a 0–100 scale, demonstrating that patients with substantial health impairment were able to complete the survey.

Conclusions

A clinically detailed survey of newly diagnosed lung and colorectal cancer patients is feasible. A modified version of this survey is being fielded by the CanCORS Consortium and should provide much needed population-based data regarding patients’ experiences across the continuum of cancer care and their outcomes.

Keywords

Quality of health care Patterns of care Outcome assessment Process assessment Patient satisfaction Decision making Health disparities 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Marci Campbell, Virginia Casey, Elizabeth Chrischilles, Craig Earle, Mona Fouad, Nancy Keating, Josh Klapow, Carrie Klabunde, Joseph Lipscomb, Arnold Potosky, Robert Sandler, Joan Teno, Jane Weeks, and Dee West for their thoughtful suggestions; Ronald Hays, Jack Fowler, and Gordon Willis for reviewing an initial draft of the patient survey; and Gary Ansell, Susan Baum, Diana Evensen, Judy Goldstein, Susan Jackson, Barbara Kahn, and Erin Sedars for recruiting patients for the pilot study and helpful feedback on the survey design. This study is supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (U01 CA93324, U01 CA93326, U01 CA93329, U01 CA93332, U01 CA93339, U01 CA93344, and U01 CA93348) and from the Department of Veterans Affairs (CRS 02-164). Dr. Malin received funding from a CI-10 Damon Runyon-Lilly Clinical Investigator Award from the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.

References

  1. 1.
    Cancer survivorship—United States, 1971–2001 (2004) MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 53:526–529Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cella DF, Bonomi AE (1995) Measuring quality of life: 1995 update. Oncology (Huntingt) 9:47–60Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ganz PA (2002) What outcomes matter to patients: a physician-researcher point of view. Med Care 40:III11–III19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ganz PA (1994) Quality of life and the patient with cancer. Individual and policy implications. Cancer 74:1445–1452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Aaronson NK (1988) Quality of life: what is it? How should it be measured? Oncology (Huntingt) 2:69–76Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hewitt M, Rowland JH, Yancik R (2003) Cancer survivors in the United States: age, health, and disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 58:82–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowland JH, Aziz N, Tesauro G et al (2001) The changing face of cancer survivorship. Semin Oncol Nurs 17:236–240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lipscomb J, Donaldson MS (2003) Outcomes research at the National Cancer Institute: measuring, understanding, and improving the outcomes of cancer care. Clin Ther 25:699–712CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brown ML, Lipscomb J, Snyder C (2001) The burden of illness of cancer: economic cost and quality of life. Annu Rev Public Health 22:91–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freeman HP, Reuben SH (eds) (2002) Voices of a broken system: real people, real problems. President’s Cancer Panel, Report of the Chairman, 2000–2001. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Reuben SH (2004) Living beyond cancer: finding a new balance. President’s Cancer Panel, 2003–2004 Annual Report. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hewitt M, Simone J (eds) (1999) Ensuring quality cancer care. National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, pp i–236Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yabroff KR, Lawrence WF, Clauser S et al (2004) Burden of illness in cancer survivors: findings from a population-based national sample. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1322–1330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shavers VL, Brown ML (2002) Racial and ethnic disparities in the receipt of cancer treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst 94:334–357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Potosky AL, Harlan LC, Kaplan RS et al (2002) Age, sex, and racial differences in the use of standard adjuvant therapy for colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 20:1192–1202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Potosky AL, Saxman S, Wallace RB et al (2004) Population variations in the initial treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:3261–3268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bach PB, Cramer LD, Warren JL et al (1999) Racial differences in the treatment of early-stage lung cancer. N Engl J Med 341:1198–1205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schrag D, Cramer LD, Bach PB et al (2001) Age and adjuvant chemotherapy use after surgery for stage III colon cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:850–857CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hodgson DC, Fuchs CS, Ayanian JZ (2001) Impact of patient and provider characteristics on the treatment and outcomes of colorectal cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 93:501–515CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Fuchs CS et al (2003) Use of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation therapy for colorectal cancer in a population-based cohort. J Clin Oncol 21:1293–1300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hillner BE, McDonald MK, Desch CE et al (1998) A comparison of patterns of care of nonsmall cell lung carcinoma patients in a younger and Medigap commercially insured cohort. Cancer 83:1930–1937CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    de Rijke JM, Schouten LJ, Schouten HC et al (1996) Age-specific differences in the diagnostics and treatment of cancer patients aged 50 years and older in the province of Limburg, The Netherlands [see comments]. Ann Oncol 7:677–685PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fry WA, Menck HR, Winchester DP (1996) The National Cancer Data Base report on lung cancer. Cancer 77:1947–1955CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Earle CC, Venditti LN, Neumann PJ et al (2000) Who gets chemotherapy for metastatic lung cancer? Chest 117:1239–1246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lackan NA, Ostir GV, Freeman JL et al (2004) Decreasing variation in the use of hospice among older adults with breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer. Med Care 42:116–122CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ayanian JZ, Chrischilles EA, Wallace RB et al (2004) Understanding cancer treatment and outcomes: the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium. J Clin Oncol 22:2992–2996CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    National Cancer Institute: The Nation’s Investment in Cancer Research (2002) NIH Publication No. 03-4373. Bethesda, MDGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ganz PA, Haskell CM, Figlin RA et al (1988) Estimating the quality of life in a clinical trial of patients with metastatic lung cancer using the Karnofsky performance status and the Functional Living Index-Cancer. Cancer 61:849–856PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Finkelstein DM, Cassileth BR, Bonomi PD, Ruckdeschel JC, Ezdinli EZ, Wolter JM (1988) A pilot study of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC) scale for the assessment of quality of life for metastatic lung cancer patients. An Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group study. Am J Clin Oncol 11:630–633PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frey JH (1989) Survey research by telephone, 2nd edn. In: SAGE Libr Soc Res, vol 150. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA, pp 33–78Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ketola E, Klockars M (1999) Computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) in primary care. Fam Pract 6:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    California Health Interview Survey (2001) UCLA Center for Health Policy ResearchGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ponce NA, Lavarreda SA, LS, Yen W, Brown ER, DiSogra C, Satter DE (2004) The California Health Interview Survey 2001: translation of a major survey for California’s multiethnic population. Public Health Rep 119:388–395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bradley CJ Labor market outcomes of long-term cancer survivors, R01 CA86045-01A1. National Cancer InstituteGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Tao ML, Malin J, Ganz P et al (2004) Predictors of use of sentinel lymph node biopsy (SNB) in a population-based cohort of breast cancer (BC) patients (pts). J Clin Oncol, 2004 ASCO Annual Meeting Proceedings (Post-Meeting Edition) 22:6006Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Comis RL, Miller JD, Aldige CR, Krebs L, Stoval E (2003) Public attitudes toward participation in cancer clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 21:830–835CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220–233CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sprangers MA, te Velde A, Aaronson NK (1999) The construction and testing of the EORTC colorectal cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire module (QLQ-CR38). European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group on Quality of Life. Eur J Cancer 35:238–247CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S et al (1994) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology. Int J Ment Health 23:75–96Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Huba GJ, Melchior LA (1995) Staff of The Measurement Group, and HRSA/HAB’s SPNS Cooperative Agreement Steering Committee: Module 26B: CES-D8 Form (Interview). http://www.themeasurementgroup.com/modules/ins_mod26b.htm. Last accessed 10 September 2004
  42. 42.
    Melchior LA, Huba GJ, Brown VB, Reback CJ (1993) A short depression index for women. Educ Psychol Meas 53:1117–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Cleeland C (1991) Brief Pain Inventory Short Form. http://www.mdanderson.org/pdf/bpisf.pdf. Last accessed 9 September 2004
  44. 44.
    Cleeland CS RK (1994) Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore 23:129–138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ware JE Jr, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS et al (1995) Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33:AS264–AS279PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Katz JN, Chang LC, Sangha O et al (1996) Can comorbidity be measured by questionnaire rather than medical record review? Med Care 34:73–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Klabunde CN, Reeve BB, Harlan LC et al (2005) Do patients consistently report comorbid conditions over time? Results from the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. Med Care 43:391–400CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hedley AA, Ogden CL, Johnson CL et al (2004) Prevalence of overweight and obesity among US children, adolescents, and adults, 1999–2002. JAMA 291:2847–2850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wagenknecht LE, Burke GL, Perkins LL et al (1992) Misclassification of smoking status in the CARDIA study: a comparison of self-report with serum cotinine levels. Am J Public Health 82:33–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    National Cancer Institute Diet History Questionnaire, Version 1.0. Available at http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/DHQ/forms/. Last accessed 21 August 2005
  52. 52.
    Brooks R, Rabin RE, de Charro FE (eds) (2003) The measurement and valuation of health status using EQ-5D: a European perspective. Kluwer, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hays RD, Shaul JA, Williams VS et al (1999) Psychometric properties of the CAHPS 1.0 survey measures. Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study. Med Care 37:MS22–MS31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cleary PD, Edgman-Levitan S, Roberts M et al (1991) Patients evaluate their hospital care: a national survey. Health Aff (Millwood) 10:254–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ayanian JZ, Zaslavsky AM, Guadagnoli E et al (2005) Patients’ perceptions of quality of care for colorectal cancer by race, ethnicity, and language. J Clin Oncol 23:6576–6586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Degner LF, Kristjanson KL, Bowman D, Sloan JA, Carriere KC, O’Neil J, Bilodeau B WP, Mueller B (1997) Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA 277:1485–1492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Degner LF, Sloan JA, Venkatesh P (1997) The Control Preferences Scale. Can J Nurs Res 29:21–43PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–636Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Fry E (1977) Fry’s readability graph: clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. J Read 21:242–252Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Morales LS, Weidmer BO, Hays RD (2001) Readability of CAHPS 2.0 Child and Adult Core Surveys. In: Cynamon ML, Kulka RA (eds) Proceedings of the seventh conference on health survey research methods. Department of Health and Human Services, Hyattsville, MD, pp 83–90Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Aaronson N (1989) Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methodologic issues. Control Clin Trials 10:195S–208SCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Fromme EK, Eilers KM, Mori M et al (2004) How accurate is clinician reporting of chemotherapy adverse effects? A comparison with patient-reported symptoms from the quality-of-life questionnaire C30. J Clin Oncol 22:3485–3490CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jennifer L. Malin
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Clifford Ko
    • 5
  • John Z. Ayanian
    • 6
    • 7
  • David Harrington
    • 8
  • David R. Nerenz
    • 9
  • Katherine L. Kahn
    • 1
    • 3
  • Julie Ganther-Urmie
    • 10
  • Paul J. Catalano
    • 8
  • Alan M. Zaslavsky
    • 7
  • Robert B. Wallace
    • 10
  • Edward Guadagnoli
    • 7
  • Neeraj K. Arora
    • 11
  • Maryse D. Roudier
    • 12
  • Patricia A. Ganz
    • 13
  1. 1.Division of General Internal Medicine-Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.RANDSanta MonicaUSA
  4. 4.AmgenThousand OaksUSA
  5. 5.Department of Surgery, David Geffen School of MedicineUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  6. 6.Division of General Medicine, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA
  7. 7.Department of Health Care PolicyHarvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  8. 8.Department of Biostatistics and Computational BiologyDana-Farber Cancer InstituteBostonUSA
  9. 9.Center for Health Services ResearchHenry Ford Health SystemDetroitUSA
  10. 10.Department of Epidemiology, College of Public HealthUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  11. 11.Outcomes Research Branch, A.R.P., D.C.C.P.S.National Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  12. 12.Frontier Science and Technology Research FoundationBostonUSA
  13. 13.Department of Health Services, School of Public HealthUniversity of CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations