Frequency of standardized patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical care of patients with cancer.

Abstract

342 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assess a patient’s self-reported health status, including disease symptoms, treatment experience, functional outcomes, and quality of life. Incorporation of PROs has been linked to improved patient symptom control and increased shared decision making. Standardized PRO measures (PROMs) are becoming more frequent as an endpoint for clinical trials, however their use is less frequent in routine care for patients with cancer. The goal of this study was to assess the utilization of PROMs and identify barriers to their use. Methods: US-licensed oncologists/hematologists convened at one of three live meetings in 2023 to review recent clinical updates. Respondent demographics were collected ahead via an online survey. During the meetings, participants responded to queries on their use and perceptions of PROs and PROMs. Responses were captured via audience response system technology; not all participants answered every question. Pooled data were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Of the 146 respondents, 77.4% self-identified as community-setting providers, spent 84.3% of their time seeing patients, saw an average of 19.8 patients/day, and averaged 17.7 years of experience. Respondents found PROs to be most useful in early detection/management of treatment toxicities and symptoms (63.8%) and tailoring of clinical/supportive care (56%). The majority of PROs are typically recorded through informal verbal inquiries, while 18.1% and 10.9% of respondents use validated and non-validated PROMs, respectively. Few respondents (11.3%) administer PROMs to every patient at every visit, while over one-third (38.3%) never administer PROMs. Within the practice, medical assistants and nurses are most likely to be the provider administering PROMs. PROMs are most commonly administered when the patient is in the office and are infrequently administered through other means. Lack of time to administer or review PRO surveys (45.1%), and lack of reimbursement (38.9%) and EMR integration (38.9%) were the most common reported barriers to using PROMs in the respondents’ practices. Conclusions: Despite the majority of respondents finding PROs useful in practice, a minority use formal measures to record PROs. Further, usage is infrequent across patient visits. Lack of time, lack of reimbursement, and logistic barriers are the most common reasons for not using PROMs in routine care. These barriers may be overcome by efforts or guideline changes from regulatory agencies, payors, or clinical guideline organizations. Future work will assess how physicians are using PROMs in treatment selection for their patients with cancer.