Niels Henrik Ingvar Hjøllund

Feasibility and acceptability of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in Danish prostate cancer patients

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskrift/Konferencebidrag i tidsskrift /Bidrag til avisTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review


  • Christina Bæksted, Kræftens Bekæmpelse, Department of Oncology, The Finsen Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Danmark
  • Helle Pappot, Department of Oncology, The Finsen Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen
  • ,
  • Aase Nissen, Kræftens Bekæmpelse
  • ,
  • Niels Henrik Ingvar Hjøllund
  • Sandra A Mitchell, USA
  • Ethan Basch, USA
  • Pernille E Bidstrup, Danmark
  • Susanne Dalton, Kræftens Bekæmpelse, Danmark
  • Christoffer Johansen, Nationalt Forskningscenter for Kræftrehabilitering, Danmark
Background: The aim was to examine the feasibility, acceptability and clinical utility of electronic symptom surveillance with clinician feedback using a subset of items drawn from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) in a cancer treatment setting.

Methods: Danish-speaking men with castration-resistant metastatic prostate cancer receiving treatment at the Department of Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen between March 9, 2015 and June 8, 2015 were invited to participate (n = 63 eligible). Participants completed the PRO-CTCAE questionnaire on tablet computers using AmbuFlex software at each treatment visit in the outpatient clinic. In total, 22 symptomatic toxicities (41 PRO-CTCAE items), corresponding to the symptomatic adverse-events profile associated with the regimens commonly used for prostate cancer treatment (Docetaxel, Cabazitaxel, Abiraterone, Alpharadin), were selected. Participants’ PRO-CTCAE responses were presented graphically to their treating oncologists via an AmbuFlex dashboard, for real-time use to enhance the patient-clinician dialogue that occurs during the consultation prior to each treatment cycle. Technical and clinical barriers and acceptability were evaluated through semi-structured interviews with both patients and oncologists. Patients receiving active treatment at the end of the study period completed an evaluation questionnaire.

Results: Fifty-four out of sixty-three (86%) eligible patients were enrolled. The PRO-CTCAE questionnaire was completed a total of 168 times by 54 participants (median number per patient was 3, range 1–5). Eight surveys were missed, resulting in a compliance rate of 97%. At the end of the study period, 35 patients (65%) were still receiving active treatment and completed the evaluation questionnaire. Patients reported that their PRO-CTCAE responses served as a communication tool. Oncologists stated that the availability of the PRO-CTCAE self-reports during the consultation improved patient-clinician communication about side effects.

Conclusion: Electronic capture of symptomatic toxicities using PRO-CTCAE and the submission of self-reports to clinicians prior to consultation were feasible among metastatic prostate cancer patients receiving chemotherapy in an outpatient setting, and this procedure was acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Continued research, including a cluster-randomized trial, will evaluate the effects of submitting patients’ PRO-CTCAE results to clinicians prior to consultation on the quality of side-effects management and resultant clinical outcomes.
TidsskriftJournal of Patient Reported Outcomes
Antal sider11
StatusUdgivet - sep. 2017

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 118793156