Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T22:58:41.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

28 - Reflections on COMWG findings and moving to the next phase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2009

Carolyn C. Gotay Ph.D.
Affiliation:
Professor Cancer Research Center of Hawai'i, Honolulu, HI
Joseph Lipscomb Ph.D.
Affiliation:
Professor of Public Health National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
Claire Snyder M.H.S.
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD
Joseph Lipscomb
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Carolyn C. Gotay
Affiliation:
Cancer Research Center, Hawaii
Claire Snyder
Affiliation:
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The perspectives of individuals who receive cancer-related interventions provide important information about diagnosis, treatment, and continuing care. These patient-centered data also have implications for the effectiveness of interventions and the quality of cancer care and can thus be an important resource for decision makers who deliver, pay for, regulate, and evaluate cancer care. At the same time, measuring such outcomes poses challenges different from those of biomedical outcomes. In particular, certain patient-centered outcomes (e.g., health-related quality of life) are subjective, by design, and not directly verifiable by physiological or other objective indicators, while others (e.g., economic outcomes) are not generally part of standard clinical information systems. Because of the growing importance of outcomes data, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened the Cancer Outcomes Measurement Working Group (COMWG) to assess the current state of the science and to provide recommendations for future research to improve the field. This book reports on findings from the COMWG effort.

The COMWG focused on three primary outcomes — health-related quality of life (HRQOL), patient needs and satisfaction, and economic burden — in the four cancers that affect the largest numbers of individuals in the USA: breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate. The group also considered outcomes measurement across the entire spectrum of cancer prevention, treatment, survivorship, and end-of-life care. COMWG members provided critical review and discussion of current literature in specified topics, as well as identification of areas where more work is needed.

Type
Chapter
Information
Outcomes Assessment in Cancer
Measures, Methods and Applications
, pp. 568 - 583
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Lipscomb, et al., this volume, Chapter 1
Lohr, K. N. (for the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust) (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteriaQuality of Life Research 11:193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganz, Goodwin, this volume, Chapter 5
Moinpour, Provenzale, this volume, Chapter 8
Earle, Weeks, this volume, Chapter 7
Litwin, Talcott, this volume, Chapter 6
Ferrell, this volume, Chapter 12
Snyder, this volume, Chapter 16
Erickson, this volume, Chapter 3
Darby, this volume, Chapter 14
Gustafson, this volume, Chapter 15
Zebrack, Cella, this volume, Chapter 11
Potosky, A. L., Harlan, L. C., Stanford, J. L.et al. (1999). Prostate cancer practice patterns and quality of life: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes StudyJournal of the National Cancer Institute 91(20):1719–24CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gotay, C. (2004). Assessing cancer-related quality of life across a spectrum of applications.Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 33:126–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spilker, this volume, Invited Paper A
Fairclough, this volume, Chapter 17
Sloan, this volume, Chapter 18
Aaronson, this volume, Chapter 20
Hambleton, this volume, Chapter 22
Mandelblatt, Selby, this volume, Chapter 10
Holland, J. C. (2003). Psychological care of patients: psycho-oncology's contribution (American Cancer Society Award lecture). Journal of Clinical Oncology 21 (23 Suppl.): 253s–65sCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferrans, this volume, Chapter 2
Fayers, P. M., Machin, D. (2002). Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Reise, S., this volume, Chapter 21
Hornbrook, this volume, Chapter 24
Williams, this volume, Chapter 13
Willis et al., this volume Invited Paper C
Barry, Dancey, this volume, Chapter 9
Schwartz, C. E., Sprangers, M. A. G. (2000). Adaptation to Changing Health: Response Shift in Quality-of-Life Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association
Sprangers, M. A. G., Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical modelSocial Science and Medicine 48:1507–15CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patrick, D. L., Kinne, S., Engleberg, R. A.et al. (2000). Functional status and perceived quality of life in adults with and without chronic conditionsJournal of Clinical Epidemiology 53:779–85CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Osoba, this volume, Chapter 19
Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., Frost, M. H.et al. (2002). Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of termsMayo Clinic Proceedings 77:367–70CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dowie, J. (2002). Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisionsHealth Economics 11:1–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasson, J. H. (2003). Office practice today: as good as it gets? tomorrow: as good as it can be? International Society for Quality of Life Research, 10th Annual Conference, Prague, Czech Republic
Gotay, C. C., Wilson, M. E. (1998). Use of quality of life outcome assessments in current cancer clinical trialsEvaluation and the Health Professions 21:157–78CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gotay, C. C. (2003). Quality of life assessment in cancer clinical research: current status and a look to the futureExpert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research 3:479–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, C., Vasa, S., Sawyer, W. T.et al. (1998). Quality of life and preferences for treatment following systemic adjuvant therapy for early-stage breast cancerJournal of Clinical Oncology 16:1380–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slevin, M. L., Stubbs, L., Plant, H. J.et al. (1990). Attitudes to chemotherapy: comparing views of patients with cancer with those of doctors, nurses, and general publicBritish Medical Journal 300:1458–60CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, this volume, Chapter 23
McHorney, Cook, this volume, Invited Paper B
Feeny, this volume, Chapter 4
O'Brien, this volume, Chapter 25
Donaldson, M. S. (2004). Taking stock of health-related quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice in the United StatesJournal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 33:155–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barofsky, I., Sugarbaker, P. H. (1990). Cancer. In Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials, ed. B. Spilker, pp. 419–39. New York: Raven Press
Sugarbaker, P. H., Barofsky, I., Rosenberg, S. A. (1982). Quality of life assessment in patients with extremity sarcoma clinical trialsSurgery 91:17–23Google ScholarPubMed
Clauser, S. B. (2004). Use of cancer performance measures in population health: a macro-level perspectiveJournal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 33:142–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Revicki, this volume, Chapter 27
Copley-Merriman et al. this volume, Invited Paper D
Johnson, J. R., Williams, G., Pazdur, R. (2003). End points and United States Food and Drug Administration approval of oncology drugsJournal of Clinical Oncology 21:1404–11CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipscomb, J., Snyder, C. F. (2002). The outcomes of cancer outcomes research: focusing on the National Cancer Institute's quality-of-care initiativeMedical Care 40 [supplement]:III:3–10CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Cancer Institute. “Improving the quality of cancer care” in The Nation's Investment in Cancer Research: a Plan and Budget Document for Fiscal Year 2005. Available at http://plan.cancer.gov. Last accessed on September 18, 2004
National Institutes of Health. “Dynamic Assessment of Patient-Reported Chronic Disease Outcomes.” NIH Roadmap Initiative RFA-AR-04–007, released November 18, 2003. Available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-RM-04-011.html. Last accessed on September 18, 2004
Gotay, Lipscomb, this volume, Chapter 26

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×