Aarhus University Seal / Aarhus Universitets segl

Pernille Tine Jensen

Association of patient-reported outcomes and ovarian cancer recurrence

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

DOI

  • Anette Stolberg Kargo, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Syddansk Universitet
  • ,
  • Pernille Tine Jensen
  • Kristina Lindemann, University of Oslo
  • ,
  • Niels Henrik Hjøllund
  • Gabor Istvan Liposits, Regional Hospital West Jutland
  • ,
  • Nicoline Raaschou-Jensen, Herlev Hospital
  • ,
  • Bettina Mølri Knudsen, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Syddansk Universitet
  • ,
  • Sören Möller, Syddansk Universitet
  • ,
  • Dorte Gilså Hansen, Syddansk Universitet, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark
  • ,
  • Karina Dahl Steffensen, Lillebaelt Hospital – University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Syddansk Universitet

Background The vast majority of patients with advanced ovarian cancer experience disease recurrence after primary treatment. Objective To explore the diagnostic accuracy of repeated measurement of patient-reported outcomes and quality-of-life scores in relation to ovarian cancer recurrence. Methods Patients with ovarian cancer were recruited to the PROMova study by the end of their primary treatment at eight centers in Denmark. The purpose of the PROMova study was to explore the applicability of repeated use of patient-reported outcomes, which consisted of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer generic questionnaire and the ovarian specific questionnaire. The patient-reported outcomes were completed 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15 months after enrollment or until recurrence. The 3-month interval between completions was the period in which recurrence was assessed. Imaging and the biomarker CA125 were used as reference modality for recurrence. Mixed effects logistic regression was used to investigate the association between mean patient-reported outcome scores and recurrence. Receiver operating curves were used to establish cut-off scores. The diagnostic accuracy of patient-reported outcomes, including sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values was estimated based on the Youden index. For combined scales, diagnostic accuracy was investigated based on multivariate analysis. Results The analysis included 196 patients with an overall recurrence rate of 50.5% and an overall mean time to recurrence of 302 days. With imaging as reference, patients with recurrence reported significantly lower global health, worse physical functioning, and more abdominal symptoms preceding recurrence. With CA125 as reference, global health, physical and emotional functioning were impaired. Despite the worsening of a number of symptoms prior to recurrence whichever reference modality was applied, the patient-reported outcome scores did not provide adequate diagnostic accuracy. Conclusion Repeated use of patient-reported outcomes during surveillance of ovarian cancer was not of diagnostic value. Future efforts should be directed at improving the administration of patient-reported outcomes as well as exploring the potential of using these outcomes as an indicator of clinical relevance.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftInternational Journal of Gynecological Cancer
Vol/bind31
Nummer9
Sider (fra-til)1248-1259
Antal sider12
ISSN1048-891X
DOI
StatusUdgivet - sep. 2021

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 223312229