Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Metrics in Cancer Rehabilitation

  • Published:
Current Oncology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The current panorama of measurement tools for use in cancer rehabilitation is reviewed. For rehabilitation purposes, evaluating function is of the highest priority.

Recent Findings

From a patient-reported outcome (PRO) standpoint, SF-36 and EORTC-QLQ-C30 are in most common use in cancer rehabilitation research; these are quality of life measures that contain functional subdomains. Newer tools which are based on item response theory and have options for both computer assisted or short form (SF) administration, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and Activity Measure for Post-acute Care (AMPAC) instruments, show increasing use, especially PROMIS Physical Function SF, and, recently, PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D, which has been validated in the cancer population, with domains of physical function, fatigue, and social participation, to track clinical rehabilitation outcomes. Evaluating objective measures of function in cancer patients is also crucial.

Summary

Utilization of clinically feasible tools for cancer rehabilitation, to employ for both screening purposes and for monitoring of rehabilitation treatment efficacy, is an evolving area, much needed to promote further research and improved, consistent clinical care for cancer patients and survivors.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care: 2020 Standards (facs.org). Standard 4.6. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancerprograms/commission-on-cancer/standards-and-resources/2020/. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

  2. Sleight A, Gerber LH, Marshall TF, Livinski A, Alfano CM, Harrington S, Flores AM, Virani A, Hu X, Mitchell SA, Varedi M, Eden M, Hayek S, Reigle B, Kerkman A, Neves R, Jablonoski K, Hacker ED, Sun V, Newman R, McDonnell KK, L’Hotta A, Schoenhals A, Dpt NLS. Systematic review of functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;S0003–9993(22):00165–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.142. This systematic review examines the oncology literature for the current landscape in type of functions that have been assessed (ADL, mobility, cognition, etc), including by type of cancer and whether statisticalsignificance was reached with interventions, and by phase and setting of care.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ommundsen N, Wyller TB, Nesbakken A, Jordhøy MS, Bakka A, Skovlund E, Rostoft S. Frailty is an independent predictor of survival in older patients with colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2014;19(12):1268–75. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0237.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Popovic G, Harhara T, Pope A, Al-Awamer A, Banerjee S, Bryson J, Mak E, Lau J, Hannon B, Swami N, Le LW, Zimmermann C. Patient-reported functional status in outpatients with advanced cancer: correlation with physician-reported scores and survival. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018;55(6):1500–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.02.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhuang CL, Zhang FM, Li W, Wang KH, Xu HX, Song CH, Guo ZQ, Shi HP. Associations of low handgrip strength with cancer mortality: a multicentre observational study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11(6):1476–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12614.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheville AL. Functional outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93(10):909–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000167. Excellent general discussion of challenges and priorities regarding functional assessment in cancer rehabilitation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fu JB, Stout NL, Egleston BL. The critical need to implement and utilize patient-reported measures of function in cancer care delivery. Cancer. 2022;128(17):3155–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34373.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Simcock R, Wright J. Beyond Performance Status. Clin Oncol. 2020;32(9):553–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2020.06.016. This article provides reflection on the historical use of traditional oncologic performance status measures, and their limitations.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Winters-Stone KM, Medysky ME, Savin MA. Patient-reported and objectively measured physical function in older breast cancer survivors and cancer-free controls. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10(2):311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2018.10.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Painter P, Stewart AL, Carey S. Physical functioning: definitions, measurement, and expectations. Adv Ren Replace Ther. 1999;6(2):110–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1073-4449(99)70028-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Guidi J, BerrocalMontiel C, Cao J, Charlson ME, Christensen KS, Concato J, De Las CC, de Leon J, Eöry A, Fleck MP, Furukawa TA, Horwitz RI, Nierenberg AA, Rafanelli C, Wang H, Wise TN, Sonino N, Fava GA. Clinimetric criteria for patient-reported outcome measures. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(4):222–32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000516599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Willik EM, Terwee CB, Bos WJW, Hemmelder MH, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW, Meuleman Y. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) making sense of individual PROM scores and changes in PROM scores over time. Nephrology. 2021;26(5):391–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.13843. This is a good review of PRO interpretation characteristics, especially responsiveness paradigms and the concept of response shift.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lesko LJ, Zineh I, Huang SM. What is clinical utility and why should we care? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(6):729–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2010.229.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cheville AL, Basford JR, Dos Santos K, Kroenke K. Symptom burden and comorbidities impact the consistency of responses on patient-reported functional outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0. This is a systematic review of PRO implementation in cancer care, containing good discussion of feasibility issues and future needs, especially regarding meaningful incorporation into clinical practice.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022. The use of telehealth for disability evaluations in medicine and allied health: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-use-of-telehealth-for-disability-evaluations-in-medicine-and-allied-health-a-workshop. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

  18. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. https://www.healthmeasures.net/. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

  19. Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Moed R. adaptive short forms for outpatient rehabilitation outcome assessment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87:842–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith SR, Vargo M, Zucker DS, Henderson M, Shahpar S, Wisotzky EM, Custodio C, Basford J, Jay G, Gerber L, Cheville A. The Cancer Rehabilitation Medicine Metrics Consortium: a path to enhanced, multi-site outcome assessment to enhance care and demonstrate value. Front Oncol. 2021;10:article 625700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.625700. This paper explores the need for an assessment tool in cancer rehabilitation settings to support data-driven decision making, and describes the preliminary development of an IRT-based, PROMIS-derived questionnaire to capture the prioritized functional domains of gross physical function, upper extremity function, fatigue and social participation.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Harrington SE, Stout NL, Hile E, Fisher MI, Eden M, Marchese V, Pfalzer LA. Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008–2018) With a focus on physical function: a scoping review. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):363–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz184. This study provides an analysis of functional measurement tools used in cancer-related research studies and includes quantitative breakdown of measurement tools by type of application (screening, assessment, intervention) and by type of cancer. The study highlights commonly used measures and, especially in its appendices, it also includes exhaustive listing of less common measures that have been employed by investigators.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Atkinson TM, Stover AM, Storfer DF, Saracino RM, D’Agostino TA, Pergolizzi D, Matsoukas K, Li Y, Basch E. Patient-reported physical function measures in cancer clinical trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2017;39(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxx008.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Schag CA, Heinrich RL. Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology. 1990;4:135–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Chie W-C, Conroy T, Costantini A, Dirven L, Fayers P, Gamper E-M, Giesinger JM, Habets EJJ, Hammerlid E, Helbostad J, Hjermstad MJ, Holzner B, Johnson C, Kemmler G, King MT, Kaasa S, Loge JH, Reijneveld JC, Singer S, Taphoorn MJB, Thamsborg LH, Tomaszewski KA, Velikova G, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Young T, Groenvold M. The EORTC CAT Core—the computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Eur J Cancer. 2018;100:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.04.016. (ISSN 0959-8049).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Jensen RE, Potosky AL, Moinpour CM, Lobo T, Cella D, Hahn EA, Thissen D, Smith AW, Ahn J, Luta G, Reeve BB. United States population-based estimates of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System symptom and functional status reference values for individuals with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(17):1913–20. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4410. This study examines PRO reporting of cancer patients compared to general population reference norms, employing PROMIS short forms of pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, physical function, social function and cognitive function.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Jensen RE, Potosky AL, Reeve BB, Hahn E, Cella D, Fries J, Smith AW, Keegan TH, Wu XC, Paddock L, Moinpour CM. Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2333–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0992-9. Four PROMIS Physical Function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were determined to be valid and reliable in a large community cancer population.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Jensen RE, Moinpour CM, Potosky AL, Lobo T, Hahn EA, Hays RD, Cella D, Smith AW, Wu XC, Keegan TH, Paddock LE, Stroup AM, Eton DT. Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort. Cancer. 2017;123(2):327–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30354. Responsiveness of 8 PROMIS short forms was verified in a community cancer population, with the short forms including Physical Function (15-items), Fatigue (14-items), Pain Interference (11-items), Anxiety (11-items), Depression (10-items), Ability to Participate in Social Roles v2 (“Social Function” 10-items), Cognitive Function v2 (8-items), and Sleep Disturbance (8-items). The authors note that a 3 to 5 point change is sufficient across all PROMIS measures to identify clinically meaningful change.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. McDonough CM, Ni P, Coster WJ, Haley SM, Jette AM. Development of an IRT-based short form to assess applied cognitive function in outpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000340.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Barnes CA, Stout NL, Varghese TK Jr, Ulrich CM, Couriel DR, Lee CJ, Noren CS, LaStayo PC. Clinically integrated physical therapist practice in cancer care: a new comprehensive approach. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):543–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz169. This study is noteworthy in that it incorporates implementation of PRO findings, linking the patient’s PRO-derived functional stage to specific functional exercise approaches, and also demonstrates clinical feasibility with more efficient (shorter) physical therapy evaluation sessions.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Thackeray A, Hanmer J, Yu L, McCracken P, Marcus R. Linking AM-PAC mobility and daily activity to the PROMIS physical function metric. Phys Ther. 2021;101(8):pza084. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab084.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Harrington S, Michener LA, Kendig T, Miale S, George SZ. Patient-reported upper extremity outcome measures used in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.022.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. LeBlanc M, Stineman M, DeMichele A, Stricker C, Mao JJ. Validation of QuickDASH outcome measure in breast cancer survivors for upper extremity disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):493–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Maldonado E, Thalla N, Nepaul S, Wisotzky E. Outcome measures in cancer rehabilitation: pain, function, and symptom assessment. Front Pain Res. 2021;2:692237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpain.2021.692237. The authors provide an empiric selection of common measures for use in cancer rehabilitation settings, for purposes including pain outcomes, functional outcomes, quality of life measures, fatigue measures, cognitive assessment, and objective outcome measures, featuring tables including psychometric properties, burden of use, scoring guidelines and clinical relevance.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Smith SR, Vargo M, Zucker D, Shahpar S, Gerber L, Henderson M, Jay G, Lee M, Cheville A. Psychometric characteristics and validity of the PROMIS cancer function brief 3D profile. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103(5S):S146–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.027. This paper presents the final 12-item PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D, with physical function, fatigue, and social participation domains, including psychometric characteristics and validity data, with T-score conversions for each functional category.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lehmann J, Rothmund M, Riedl D, Rumpold G, Grote V, Fischer MJ, Holzner B. Clinical outcome assessment in cancer rehabilitation and the central role of patient-reported outcomes. Cancers. 2021;14(1):84. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14010084. This paper contains an excellent discussion of PRO measure use in cancer rehabilitation research and beyond, including types of outcome assessment, methodological issues, some commonly used measures, and focus on future directions of including the role of PRO’s in informing value-based care, integration into rehabilitation pathways, and implementation into electronic data collection.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Fisher MI, Cohn JC, Harrington SE, Lee JQ, Malone D. Screening and assessment of cancer-related fatigue: a clinical practice guideline for health care providers. Phys Ther. 2022;102(9):pzac120. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzac120. This is a new clinical practice guideline on measures for cancer related fatigue.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Zhi WI, Gentile D, Diller M, Kinney A, Bao T, Master V, Wang XS. Patient-reported outcomes of pain and related symptoms in integrative oncology practice and clinical research: evidence and recommendations. Oncology. 2021;35(1):35–41. https://doi.org/10.46883/ONC.2021.3501.0035.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Smith SR, Vargo M, Zucker DS, Shahpar S, Gerber LH, Henderson M, Jay G, Cheville AL. Responsiveness and interpretation of the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D Profile. Cancer. 2022;128(17):3217–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34376. This paper presents responsiveness data for PROMIS CF-3D. Minimal important change (MIC) ratings were in the < 1–2 range (of raw scores) for each category, range 0.19–1.91, with standard deviations in 2 range, and reliable change score with 95% confidence (DC95) was in the 6–7 range for all categories, without any significant floor or ceiling effects.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Chan L, Sandel ME, Jette AM, Appelman J, Brandt DE, Cheng P, Teselle M, Delmonico R, Terdiman JF, Rasch EK. Does postacute care site matter? A longitudinal study assessing functional recovery after a stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94(4):622–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2012.09.033.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), v5.0Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/ctc.htm#ctc_50; accessed 11/19/2022

  42. Blackwood J, Karczewski H, Huang MH, Pfalzer L. Katz activities of daily living disability in older cancer survivors by age, stage, and cancer type. J Cancer Surviv. 2020;14(6):769–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-020-00891-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Basch E, Becker C, Rogak LJ, Schrag D, Reeve BB, Spears P, Smith ML, Gounder MM, Mahoney MR, Schwartz GK, Bennett AV, Mendoza TR, Cleeland CS, Sloan JA, Bruner DW, Schwab G, Atkinson TM, Thanarajasingam G, Bertagnolli MM, Dueck AC. Composite grading algorithm for the National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Clin Trials. 2021;18(1):104–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774520975120.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Neo J, Fettes L, Gao W, Higginson IJ, Maddocks M. Disability in activities of daily living among adults with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Treat Rev. 2017;61:94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ctrv.2017.10.006. This systematic review focuses on self-care disability in adults with cancer and includes outcome measures that have been employed.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Dos Santos BV, Bassi-Dibai D, Guedes CLR, Morais DN, Coutinho SM, de Oliveira SG, Mendes LP, da Cunha LP, Dibai-Filho AV. Barthel Index is a valid and reliable tool to measure the functional independence of cancer patients in palliative care. BMC Palliat Care. 2022;21(1):124. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12904-022-01017-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Gilchrist LS, Galantino ML, Wampler M, Marchese VG, Morris GS, Ness KK. A framework for assessment in oncology rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 2009;89(3):286–306. https://doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20070309.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Fisher MI, Lee J, Davies C, Geyer H, Colon G, Pfalzer L. Oncology section EDGE task force on breast cancer outcomes: a systematic review of outcome measures for functional mobility. Rehabil. Oncol. 2015;33(3):9–31. This study provides recommendations for physical mobility tools based on a systematic review of breast cancer studies, incorporating considerations of psychometric properties, clinical utility, and previous use in research.

  48. Huang MH, Hile E, Croarkin E, Wampler-Kuhn M, Blackwood J, Colon G, Pfalzer LA. Academy of Oncologic Physical Therapy EDGE Task Force: a systematic review of measures of balance in adult cancer survivors. Rehab Oncol. 2019;37:92–103. This is an evidence-based systematic review of balance measures for cancer rehabilitation, making recommendations based on validity, reliability and clinical usefulness.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Blackwood J, Rybicki K. Physical function measurement in older long-term cancer survivors. J Frailty Sarcopenia Falls. 2021;3:139–46. https://doi.org/10.22540/JFSF-06-139. This study assesses reliability, validity, and minimal detectable change of four objective measures (5xSTS, 30sTCR, Short Physical Performance Battery, and Physical Performance Test-7) in older cancer survivors, finding convergent and discriminant validity; reliability good with 5XSTS, 30sTCR and SPPB but did not reach good level with PPT-7. The 5XSTS, 30sTCR and SPPB measures had MDC95 values in 3 range and PPT-7 in 4 range, which noted as being higher than seen in the general geriatric population.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Evans ES, Ketcham CJ, Hibberd JC, Cullen ME, Basiliere JG, Murphy DL. Examination of clinical and laboratory measures of static and dynamic balance in breast cancer survivors. Physiother Theory Pract. 2021;37(11):1199–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2019.1692391.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Treacy D, Hassett L. The short physical performance battery. J Physiother. 2018;64(1):61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Miyata C, Tsuji T, Tanuma A, Ishikawa A, Honaga K, Liu M. Cancer Functional Assessment Set: a new tool for functional evaluation in cancer. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93(8):656–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000082.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Díaz-Balboa E, González-Salvado V, Rodríguez-Romero B, Martínez-Monzonís A, Pedreira-Pérez M, Cuesta-Vargas AI, López-López R, González-Juanatey JR, Pena-Gil C. Thirty-second sit-to-stand test as an alternative for estimating peak oxygen uptake and 6-min walking distance in women with breast cancer: a cross-sectional study. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30(10):8251–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-022-07268-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Blackwood J, Rybicki K. Assessment of gait speed and timed up and go measures as predictors of falls in older breast cancer survivors. Integr Cancer Ther. 2021;20:15347354211006462. https://doi.org/10.1177/15347354211006462.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Zhang Q, Li YX, Li XL, Yin Y, Li RL, Qiao X, Li W, Ma HF, Ma WH, Han YF, Zeng GQ, Wang QY, Kang J, Hou G. A comparative study of the five-repetition sit-to-stand test and the 30-second sit-to-stand test to assess exercise tolerance in COPD patients. Int J Chron Obstruct Pulmon Dis. 2018;13:2833–9. https://doi.org/10.2147/COPD.S173509.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Wefel JS, Vardy J, Ahles T, Schagen SB. International Cognition and Cancer Task Force recommendations to harmonise studies of cognitive function in patients with cancer. Lancet Oncol. 2011;12(7):703–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70294-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Asher A, Myers JS. The effect of cancer treatment on cognitive function. Clin Adv Hematol Oncol. 2015;13(7):441–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Allen DH, Myers JS, Jansen CE, Merriman JD, Von Ah D. Assessment and management of cancer- and cancer treatment-related cognitive impairment. J Nurse Pract. 2018;14(4):217-224 e5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2017.11.026.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Magnuson A, Ahles T, Chen BT, Mandelblatt J, Janelsins MC. Cognitive function in older adults with cancer: assessment, management, and research opportunities. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39(19):2138–49. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.21.00239. This is a review of cognitive assessment and management for older adults with cancer and includes recommendations for “exemplar measures” of cognitive function including patient-reported and objective measures.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Denlinger CS, Ligibel JA, Are M, Baker KS, Demark-Wahnefried W, Friedman DL, Goldman M, Jones L, King A, Ku GH, Kvale E, Langbaum TS, Leonardi-Warren K, McCabe MS, Melisko M, Montoya JG, Mooney K, Morgan MA, Moslehi JJ, O’Connor T, Overholser L, Paskett ED, Raza M, Syrjala KL, Urba SG, Wakabayashi MT, Zee P, McMillian NR, Freedman-Cass DA. Survivorship cognitive function, version 1. 2014. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2014;12(7):976–86.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Lange M, Joly F, Vardy J, Ahles T, Dubois M, Tron L, Winocur G, De Ruiter MB, Castel H. Cancer-related cognitive impairment: an update on state of the art, detection, and management strategies in cancer survivors. Ann Oncol. 2019;30(12):1925–40. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz410. This article contains a good discussion on factors impacting cognitive function in cancer patients, including clinical characteristics, neuropsychological measures, treatment-related contributors, clinical symptom interferences, genetic and biomarker factors, and rehabilitative treatment.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Parsons MW, Dietrich J. Assessment and management of cognitive changes in patients with cancer. Cancer. 2019;125(12):1958–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Blackwood J, Rybicki K, Huang M. Cognitive measures in older cancer survivors: an examination of validity, reliability, and minimal detectable change. J Geriatr Oncol. 2021;12(1):146–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2020.06.015. This paper examines psychometric properties of three common cognitive tests, the mini-COG, Trailmaking test A and Trailmaking Test B, and finds most favorable reliability with TMT-B. The clock-drawing portion of the mini-COG also had good reliability in a post-hoc analysis.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Isenberg-Grzeda E, Huband H, Lam H. A review of cognitive screening tools in cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2017;11(1):24–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000257.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Bray VJ, Dhillon HM, Vardy JL. Systematic review of self-reported cognitive function in cancer patients following chemotherapy treatment. J Cancer Surviv. 2018;12(4):537–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-018-0692-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. O’Farrell E, Smith A, Collins B. Objective-subjective disparity in cancer-related cognitive impairment: does the use of change measures help reconcile the difference? Psychooncology. 2017;26(10):1667–74. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4190.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Boone AE, Wolf TJ. Initial development and evaluation of the Executive Function Performance Test-Enhanced (EFPT-E) in women with cancer-related cognitive impairment. Am J Occup Ther. 2021;75(2):7502345020p1–7. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2020.041210.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Wolf TJ, Dahl A, Auen C, Doherty M. The reliability and validity of the Complex Task Performance Assessment: a performance-based assessment of executive function. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2017;27(5):707–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09602011.2015.1037771.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kolva E, Rosenfeld B, Saracino RM. Neuropsychological predictors of decision-making capacity in terminally Ill patients with advanced cancer. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2019;35(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acz027.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Li T, Park SB, Battaglini E, King MT, Kiernan MC, Goldstein D, Rutherford C. Assessing chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy with patient reported outcome measures: a systematic review of measurement properties and considerations for future use. Qual Life Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03154-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Haryani H, Fetzer SJ, Wu CL, Hsu YY. Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy assessment tools: a systematic review. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017;44(3):E111–23. https://doi.org/10.1188/17.ONF.E111-E123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Wampler M, Miaskowski C, Hamel K, Byl N, Rugo H, Topp KS. The Modified Total Neuropathy Score: a clinically feasible and valid measure of taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy in women with breast cancer. J Support Oncol. 2006;4:W9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Molassiotis A, Cheng HL, Lopez V, Au JSK, Chan A, Bandla A, Leung KT, Li YC, Wong KH, Suen LKP, Chan CW, Yorke J, Farrell C, Sundar R. Are we mis-estimating chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy? Analysis of assessment methodologies from a prospective, multinational, longitudinal cohort study of patients receiving neurotoxic chemotherapy. BMC Cancer. 2019;19(1):132. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5302-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Williams GR, Al-Obaidi M, Dai C, Bhatia S, Giri S. SARC-F for screening of sarcopenia among older adults with cancer. Cancer. 2021;127(9):1469–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.33395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Fu X, Tian Z, Thapa S, Sun H, Wen S, Xiong H, Yu S. Comparing SARC-F with SARC-CalF for screening sarcopenia in advanced cancer patients. Clin Nutr. 2020;39(11):3337–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clnu.2020.02.020.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Puts M, Soo WK, Szumacher E, Decoster L. Methods for frailty screening and geriatric assessment in older adults with cancer. Curr Opin Support Palliat Care. 2021;15(1):16–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/SPC.0000000000000533.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. van Cappellen-van Maldegem SJM, Hoedjes M, Seidell JC, van de Poll-Franse LV, Buffart LM, Mols F, Beijer S. Self-performed five times sit-to-stand test at home as (pre-)screening tool for frailty in cancer survivors: reliability and agreement assessment. J Clin Nurs. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.16299. In this era of telemedicine, this study demonstrates acceptable reliability of in-home 5XSTS testing compared to clinician-supervised testing. The authors also suggest utility of 5XSTS as a screening measure for need for prehabilitation services.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Cuesta-Vargas A, Buchan J, Alba E, Campos MI, Roldan-Jiminez C, Pajares B. Development of a functional assessment task in metastatic breast cancer patients: the 30-second lie-to-sit test. Disabil Rehabil. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2022.2076937.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Horan MR, Sim J, Krull KR, Baker JN, Huang I-C. A review of patient-reported outcome measures in childhood cancer. Children. 2022;9:1497. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9101497.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Ness KK, Hudson MM, Ginsberg JP, Nagarajan R, Kaste SC, Marina N, Whitton J, Robison LL, Gurney JG. Physical performance limitations in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study cohort. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(14):2382–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.21.1482.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Reeve BB, McFatrich M, Mack JW, Pinheiro LC, Jacobs SS, Baker JN, Withycombe JS, Lin L, Mann CM, Villabroza KR, Hinds PS. Expanding construct validity of established and new PROMIS Pediatric measures for children and adolescents receiving cancer treatment. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2020;67(4):e28160. https://doi.org/10.1002/pbc.28160.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  82. Johnson KC, Kennedy AG, Henry SM. Clinical measurements of lymphedema. Lymphat Res Biol. 2014;12(4):216–21. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2014.0019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Cornish BH, Chapman M, Hirst C, et al. Early diagnosis of lymphedema using multiple frequency bioimpedance. Lymphology. 2001;34:2–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Hayes S, Cornish B, Newman B. Comparison of methods to diagnose lymphoedema among breast cancer survivors: 6-month follow-up. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2005;89:221–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Ridner SH, Dietrich MS, Boyages J, Koelmeyer L, Elder E, Hughes TM, French J, Ngui N, Hsu J, Abramson VG, Moore A, Shah C. A comparison of bioimpedance spectroscopy or tape measure triggered compression intervention in chronic breast cancer lymphedema prevention. Lymphat Res Biol. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1089/lrb.2021.0084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  86. Beelen LM, van Dishoeck AM, Tsangaris E, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in lymphedema: a systematic review and COSMIN analysis. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28:1656–68. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09346-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Klassen AF, Tsangaris E, Kaur MN, Poulsen L, Beelen LM, Jacobsen AL, Jørgensen MG, Sørensen JA, Vasilic D, Dayan J, Mehrara B, Pusic AL. Development and psychometric validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for arm lymphedema: the LYMPH-Q upper extremity module. Ann Surg Oncol. 2021;28(9):5166–82. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-021-09887-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Cai X, Schaverien MV, Christensen JM, Sidey-Gibbons CJ. Efficient and precise ultra-Quick DASH scale measuring lymphedema impact developed using computerized adaptive testing. Qual Life Res. 2022;31:917–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02979-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge contribution from the members of the Research Subgroup of the Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium, including Mark Emos, MD, Sara Parke, MD, Jessica Cheng, MD, Sean Smith, MD, David Zucker, MD, PhD, An Ngo-Huang, DO, and Jessica Engle, DO, for sharing their survey results of American Academy of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation’s Cancer Rehabilitation Physician Consortium membership. She also wishes to thank Dr. Grigory Syrkin for his insights on sit-to-stand testing.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, MetroHealth Medical Center, Case Western Reserve University, 4229 Pearl Road, Cleveland, OH, 44109, USA

    Mary M. Vargo

Authors
  1. Mary M. Vargo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary M. Vargo.

Ethics declarations

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by the author.

Conflict of Interest

The author was part of the group that developed the PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D tool; however, no financial compensation or other remuneration was involved. There are no other conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vargo, M.M. Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Metrics in Cancer Rehabilitation. Curr Oncol Rep 25, 869–882 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-023-01412-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-023-01412-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation