Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology

In the past decade, the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) has become a prominent topic in healthcare innovation especially in cancer care and in the direct measurement of patients’ experiences with cancer.

Patient Reported outcomes give physicians new insights into various aspects of clinical oncology and provide important information throughout the course of a therapy.1

Hearing the patient’s voice to manage symptoms and side effects in cancer care

Implementation of Patient Reported Outcome Measurements in routine chemotherapy was demonstrated to lengthen median survival in metastatic cancer patients. Potential mechanisms of action are that symptoms possibly leading to adverse events were detected and responded to earlier, and that patients could tolerate chemotherapy longer.2

Quality of life for patients with metastatic cancer can significantly improve with adequate treatment of symptoms and side effects.3PROMs are therefore a deciding factor in the delivery of high-quality cancer care.

Find out what we offer in the field of oncology for:

heartbeat PRO Sets in Oncology

To ensure the highest standard of data collection, we offer condition-specific outcome-sets and can support you with the implementation of scientifically validated and time-tested instruments to collect Patient Reported Outcomes:

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

heartbeat PRO Sets
(Patient- & Clinician-reported)

Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures 

Disease-specific instruments
Generic instruments

*upcoming

References
  1. LeBlanc T, Abernethy A. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care — hearing the patient voice at greater volume. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2017;14(12):763-772.
  2. Basch E, Deal A, Dueck A et al. Overall Survival Results of a Trial Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Treatment. JAMA 2017;318(2):197.
  3. Stover A, Basch E. Implementation of Symptom Questionnaires Into Oncology Workflow. Journal of Oncology Practice 2016;12(10):859-862.