Original Article
The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of malignant pleural mesothelioma: a descriptive literature survey
Abstract
Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) remains a highly symptomatic and aggressive malignancy. The treatment options are for most patients limited to palliative chemotherapy and best supportive care. Therefore, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is recommended for the improvement of the quality of care. The aim of this literature survey is to provide an up to date review of the use of PROMs in mesothelioma. A concise comparison is made of the identified instruments.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar for the use of PROMs in MPM. Quality of the study and risk of bias were assessed using the appraisal tools recommended by the Dutch Cochrane Center.
Results: A total of 31 articles on PROMs in MPM were identified that met the inclusion criteria and a total of 14 instruments. The instruments are categorized in generic (n=2), cancer-specific (n=4), lung cancer-specific (n=3), mesothelioma-specific (n=2) and symptom-specific (n=3). They were mostly used in clinical trials.
Conclusions: PROMs have the potential to improve the management of MPM. No particular instrument is specifically recommended, although there is a preference for patient-reported disease-specific instruments encompassing the concept of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) and relevant symptoms. Such instruments are the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS-Meso and FACT-L, which measure the impact of malignant mesothelioma and its treatment on patients. Assessments should be made on baseline and post-treatment. The frequency of assessments should be further evaluated in this population.
Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science and Google Scholar for the use of PROMs in MPM. Quality of the study and risk of bias were assessed using the appraisal tools recommended by the Dutch Cochrane Center.
Results: A total of 31 articles on PROMs in MPM were identified that met the inclusion criteria and a total of 14 instruments. The instruments are categorized in generic (n=2), cancer-specific (n=4), lung cancer-specific (n=3), mesothelioma-specific (n=2) and symptom-specific (n=3). They were mostly used in clinical trials.
Conclusions: PROMs have the potential to improve the management of MPM. No particular instrument is specifically recommended, although there is a preference for patient-reported disease-specific instruments encompassing the concept of health-related quality of life (hrQoL) and relevant symptoms. Such instruments are the EORTC QLQ-LC13, LCSS-Meso and FACT-L, which measure the impact of malignant mesothelioma and its treatment on patients. Assessments should be made on baseline and post-treatment. The frequency of assessments should be further evaluated in this population.
