| Autor: |
Thomas Jordan, Thitikorn Nuamek, Isabella Fornacon-Wood, Raffaele Califano, Joanna Coote, Margaret Harris, Hitesh Mistry, Paul Taylor, David Woolf, Corinne Faivre-Finn |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2024 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Frontiers in Oncology, Vol 14 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2234-943X |
| DOI: |
10.3389/fonc.2024.1328871 |
| Popis: |
IntroductionThe use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to enhance the accuracy of symptom collection and improve overall survival and quality of life. This is the first study comparing concordance and patient preference for two PRO tools: Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE®) and the adapted-REQUITE Lung Questionnaire.Materials and MethodsPatients with lung cancer were recruited to the study while attending outpatient clinics at a tertiary cancer centre. Clinician-reported outcomes were generated through initial patient assessment with CTCAE v4.03. Participants then completed the PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Concordance between the 2 questionnaires was assessed by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient. PRO-CTCAE® and CTCAE concordance was demonstrated by calculating Pearson correlation coefficient from the linear predictors of an ordinal logistic regression. P-values were also calculated.ResultsOut of 74 patients approached, 65 provided written informed consent to participate in the study. 63 (96.9%) patients completed both PRO-CTCAE® and adapted-REQUITE questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficient between PRO tools was 0.8-0.83 (p |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
