Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice

  • Special Section: Feedback Tools
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Routine Electronic Monitoring of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) (REMOQOL) in clinical care with real-time feedback to physicians could help to enhance patient-centered care. We evaluated the feasibility of REMOQOL in the French context in the QOLIBRY study. The primary objective was to assess the patients’ compliance with REMOQOL.

Methods

The QOLIBRY study was a single-center, prospective study conducted in the University Hospital of Besançon (France). Eligible patients were those treated with systemic therapies for breast, lung or colorectal cancer at any stage. Patients were invited to complete the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire and cancer-site-specific modules before each visit on tablets and/or computers in the hospital or at home. During the consultation, physicians had real-time access to visual summaries of HRQoL scores. Compliance was assessed as adequate if at least 66% of HRQoL assessments were completed during the 4 months of follow-up.

Results

Between March 2016 and October 2018, 177 patients were included in the QOLIBRY study. Median age was 64 years (IQR 54–71). The proportion of patients with an adequate compliance rate was 95.5% (n = 63) in the breast cancer cohort, 98.2% (n = 55) in the colorectal cancer cohort, and 90.9% (n = 50) in the lung cancer cohort. The physicians checked the HRQoL results in 73.1% of visits and prescribed supportive care and adapted patient management in 8.3% and 5.2% of visits, respectively.

Conclusion & perspectives

The results of QOLIBRY study suggest that REMOQOL is feasible in the French context. However, information about HRQoL monitoring, training of the physicians in the use of the software, and recommendations for using HRQoL results to guide care are essential and must be improved.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ANSM:

French national drug agency

PRO:

Patient-reported outcome

BC:

Breast cancer

CHES:

Computer-based health evaluation system

CRC:

Colorectal cancer

EORTC:

European organization for research and treatment against cancer

HRQoL:

Health-related quality of life

LC:

Lung cancer

REMOQOL:

Routine electronic monitoring of health-related quality of life

References

  1. Bottomley, A., Pe, M., Sloan, J., et al. (2016). Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: A start in setting international standards. The Lancet Oncology, 17, e510–e514. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30510-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. European Medicines Agency European Medicines Agency. (2016). Clinical efficacy and safety—Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man—the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Retrieved July 27, 2016 from http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/regulation/general/general_content_001127.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580034cf3.

  3. Luckett, T., Butow, P. N., & King, M. T. (2009). Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient-reported data in cancer clinics: Future directions. Psychooncology, 18, 1129–1138. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.1545.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kotronoulas, G., Kearney, N., Maguire, R., et al. (2014). What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. JCO, 32, 1480–1501. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Howell, D., Molloy, S., Wilkinson, K., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: A scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. The Annals of Oncology, 26, 1846–1858. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv181.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. King, S., Exley, J., Parks, S., et al. (2016). The use and impact of quality of life assessment tools in clinical care settings for cancer patients, with a particular emphasis on brain cancer: Insights from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations. Quality of Life Research, 25, 2245–2256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1278-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Yang, L. Y., Manhas, D. S., Howard, A. F., & Olson, R. A. (2018). Patient-reported outcome use in oncology: A systematic review of the impact on patient-clinician communication. Supportive Care in Cancer, 26, 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-017-3865-7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Anatchkova, M., Donelson, S. M., Skalicky, A. M., et al. (2018). Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: Need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. The Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 2, 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Berry, D. L., Hong, F., Halpenny, B., et al. (2014). Electronic self-report assessment for cancer and self-care support: Results of a multicenter randomized trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32, 199–205. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2013.48.6662.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chen, J., Ou, L., & Hollis, S. J. (2013). A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 211. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-211.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., et al. (2016). Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34, 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Denis, F., Lethrosne, C., Pourel, N., et al. (2017). Randomized trial comparing a web-mediated follow-up with routine surveillance in lung cancer patients. The Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djx029.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Dueck, A. C., et al. (2017). Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318, 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Denis, F., Basch, E., Septans, A.-L., et al. (2019). Two-year survival comparing web-based symptom monitoring vs routine surveillance following treatment for lung cancer. JAMA, 321, 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.18085.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Wever, L. D., et al. (2001). The patient-physician relationship. Patient-physician communication during outpatient palliative treatment visits: An observational study. JAMA, 285, 1351–1357.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., et al. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Wintner, L. M., Sztankay, M., Aaronson, N., et al. (2016). The use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice-A synopsis of a newly developed manual. The European Journal of Cancer, 68, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2016.08.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Basch, E., & Snyder, C. (2017). Overcoming barriers to integrating patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice and electronic health records. The Annals of Oncology, 28, 2332–2333. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Chan, E. K. H., Edwards, T. C., Haywood, K., et al. (2018). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: A companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Quality of Life Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Mouillet, G., Fritzsch, J., Paget-Bailly, S., et al. (2019). Health-related quality of life assessment for patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with a tyrosine kinase inhibitor using electronic patient-reported outcomes in daily clinical practice (QUANARIE trial): Study protocol. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 17, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-019-1085-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Aaronson, N. K., 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. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bergman, B., Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., et al. (1994). The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. The European Journal of Cancer, 30A, 635–642.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., et al. (1996). The European Organization for research and treatment of cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. The Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.10.2756.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Whistance, R. N., Conroy, T., Chie, W., et al. (2009). Clinical and psychometric validation of the EORTC QLQ-CR29 questionnaire module to assess health-related quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer. The European Journal of Cancer, 45, 3017–3026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2009.08.014.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rabin, R., & de Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33, 337–343. https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890109002087.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Holzner, B., Giesinger, J. M., Pinggera, J., et al. (2012). The Computer-based Health Evaluation Software (CHES): A software for electronic patient-reported outcome monitoring. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 12, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-12-126.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Mouillet, G., Fritzsch, J., Thiery-Vuillemin, A., et al. (2019). Physicians’ satisfaction with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment in daily clinical practice using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) for cancer patients. Annals of Oncology, 30, v729–v730. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz265.035.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Julious, S. A. (2005). Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study. Pharmaceutical Statistics, 4, 287–291. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Sim, J., & Lewis, M. (2012). The size of a pilot study for a clinical trial should be calculated in relation to considerations of precision and efficiency. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.07.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., et al. (1999). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: Eortc.

    Google Scholar 

  32. R: The R Project for Statistical Computing (2020). Retrieved November 10, 2020 from https://www.r-project.org/index.html.

  33. Schuler, M. K., Trautmann, F., Radloff, M., et al. (2016). Implementation of a mobile inpatient quality of life (QoL) assessment for oncology nursing. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 3391–3399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3163-9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Bottomley, A., Vachalec, S., Bjordal, K., et al. (2002). The development and utilisation of the European Organisation for research and treatment of cancer quality of life group item bank. The European Journal of Cancer, 38, 1611–1614. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-8049(02)00125-9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R. E., Geller, G., et al. (2010). Relevant content for a patient-reported outcomes questionnaire for use in oncology clinical practice: Putting doctors and patients on the same page. Quality of Life Research, 19, 1045–1055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9655-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Trautmann, F., Hentschel, L., Hornemann, B., et al. (2016). Electronic real-time assessment of patient-reported outcomes in routine care-first findings and experiences from the implementation in a comprehensive cancer center. Supportive Care in Cancer, 24, 3047–3056. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-016-3127-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Duncan, E. A. S., & Murray, J. (2012). The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 12, 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Antunes, B., Harding, R., Higginson, I. J., & EUROIMPACT. (2014). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliative Medicine, 28, 158–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216313491619.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mitchell, A. J. (2013). Screening for cancer-related distress: When is implementation successful and when is it unsuccessful? Acta Oncologica, 52, 216–224. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2012.745949.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Mejdahl, C. T., Schougaard, L. M. V., Hjollund, N. H., et al. (2020). Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician—A multi-perspective qualitative study. The Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 4, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0170-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Velikova, G., Keding, A., Harley, C., et al. (2010). Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: Secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. The European Journal of Cancer, 46, 2381–2388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.04.030.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Whittle, A. K., Kalsi, T., Babic-Illman, G., et al. (2017). A comprehensive geriatric assessment screening questionnaire (CGA-GOLD) for older people undergoing treatment for cancer. The European Journal of Cancer Care (Engl). https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Giesinger, J. M., Loth, F. L. C., Aaronson, N. K., et al. (2020). Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 118, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr Fiona Ecarnot who assisted in the proof-reading of the manuscript and English language editing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Methodological and Quality of Life Unit in Oncology, University Hospital of Besançon, 25000, Besançon, France

    Guillaume Mouillet, Antoine Falcoz, Joëlle Fritzsch, Astrid Pozet, Oumelkheir Djoumakh, Virginie Westeel, Amélie Anota & Sophie Paget-Bailly

  2. Department of Medical Oncology, University Hospital of Besançon, Boulevard Fleming, 25000, Besançon, France

    Guillaume Mouillet, Hamadi Almotlak, Laura Mansi, Stefano Kim, Elsa Curtit, Nathalie Meneveau, Olivier Adotevi, Marine Jary, Angelique Vienot, Fabien Calcagno & Christophe Borg

  3. INSERM, EFS BFC, UMR1098, Interactions Hôte-Greffon-Tumeur/Ingénierie Cellulaire Et Génique, University Bourgogne Franche-Comté, 25000, Besançon, France

    Guillaume Mouillet, Antoine Falcoz, Joëlle Fritzsch, Laura Mansi, Stefano Kim, Elsa Curtit, Olivier Adotevi, Marine Jary, Guillaume Eberst, Angelique Vienot, Astrid Pozet, Oumelkheir Djoumakh, Christophe Borg, Virginie Westeel, Amélie Anota & Sophie Paget-Bailly

  4. Respiratory Medicine Department, University Hospital of Besançon, 25000, Besançon, France

    Pascale Jacoulet, Guillaume Eberst & Virginie Westeel

  5. Institut de Cancérologie Strasbourg Europe, Strasbourg, France

    Xavier Pivot

  6. Centre de Cancérologie de Grand Montpellier, 34040, Montpellier, France

    Cristian Villanueva

  7. French National Platform Quality of Life and Cancer, Besançon, France

    Amélie Anota

Authors
  1. Guillaume Mouillet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antoine Falcoz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joëlle Fritzsch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hamadi Almotlak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Pascale Jacoulet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Xavier Pivot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Cristian Villanueva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Laura Mansi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stefano Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Elsa Curtit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Nathalie Meneveau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Olivier Adotevi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Marine Jary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Guillaume Eberst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Angelique Vienot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Fabien Calcagno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Astrid Pozet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Oumelkheir Djoumakh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Christophe Borg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Virginie Westeel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Amélie Anota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  22. Sophie Paget-Bailly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guillaume Mouillet.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

G.M. received honoraria from Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, BMS, and Ipsen. A.A. received travel fees from Novartis and Roche. The other authors have stated that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Est-II French Committee for Protection of Persons on January 25 2016 and the French national drug Agency (ANSM) on February 18 2016) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Information 1 (DOCX 45 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mouillet, G., Falcoz, A., Fritzsch, J. et al. Feasibility of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment for cancer patients using electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) in daily clinical practice. Qual Life Res 30, 3255–3266 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02721-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02721-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation