Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to assess the patients' subjective health status. While both the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommend the use of PROs as end-points in paediatric clinical trials to support claims for medical product labelling, it is not known how often PROs are actually used. The aim of this study was to assess the usage of PRO instruments in childhood cancer clinical trials investigating anti-cancer medication. In June 2020 ClinicalTrials and EudraCT were systematically searched for all trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer registered between 2007 and 2020. The use of PRO measures and trials characteristics were analysed. To investigate which trial characteristics are associated with the use of PROs, a binary logistic regression was calculated. Of 4789 identified trials, 711 were included. The most frequent reason for exclusion was age limitation (age >21 years). Of all included trials, only 8.2% used PROs as end-points; .6% as the primary end-point. The most commonly used questionnaire was the PedsQL™ (32.8%), followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales (12.1%). No association was observed between the use of PROs and trial region, number of centres, trial phase, time period or intervention type (all p > .05). The use of PROs did not substantially increase over time. Only 20.3% of the closed studies had published their results. Despite recommendations of regulatory agencies, PRO assessment is extremely rare in paediatric oncology clinical trials. More efforts should be undertaken to facilitate implementation of PRO in paediatric trials to guarantee patient-centred research and treatments.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are considered the gold standard for assessing subjective health status in oncology patients. Electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) has become increasingly popular in recent years in both clinical trials and practice. However, there is limited evidence on how well older patients with cancer can complete ePRO assessments. Objective: We aimed to investigate how well adult patients with cancer of different age ranges could complete ePRO assessments at home and in a treatment facility and to identify factors associated with the ability to complete questionnaires electronically. Methods: This retrospective longitudinal single-center study involved survivors of cancer who participated in inpatient rehabilitation. Patients completed ePRO assessments before rehabilitation at home (T1) and after rehabilitation at the facility (T2). We analyzed the rate of patients who could complete the ePRO assessment at T1 and T2, the proportion of patients who required assistance, and the time it took patients to complete standardized questionnaires. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify predictors of ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance. Results: Between 2017 and 2022, a total of 5571 patients were included in this study. Patients had a mean age of 60.3 (SD 12.2) years (range 18 to 93 years), and 1135 (20.3%) of them were classified as geriatric patients (>70 years). While more than 90% (5060/5571) of all patients completed the ePRO assessment, fewer patients in the age group of >70 years (924/1135, 81.4% at T1 vs 963/1135, 84.8% at T2) completed the assessment. Approximately 19% (1056/5571) of patients reported a need for assistance with the ePRO assessment at home, compared to 6.8% (304/4483) at the institution. Patients older than 70 years had a significantly higher need for assistance than those in younger age groups. Moreover, a gender difference was observed, with older women reporting a higher need for assistance than men (71-80 years: women requiring assistance 215/482, 44.6% vs men 96/350, 27.4%; P<.001 and >80 years: women 102/141, 72.3% vs men 57/112, 50.9%; P<.001). On average, patients needed 4.9 (SD 3.20) minutes to remotely complete a 30-item questionnaire (European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire) and patients in the older age groups took significantly longer compared to younger age groups. Lower age and higher physical functioning were the clearest predictors for both the ePRO completion rate and the need for assistance in the multivariate regression analysis. Conclusions: This study’s results indicate that ePRO assessment is feasible in older individuals with cancer, but older patients may require assistance (eg, from relatives) to complete home-based assessments. It may be more feasible to conduct assessments in-house in this population. Additionally, it is crucial to carefully consider which resources are necessary and available to support patients in using ePRO devices.

Background: With increasing survival rates in pediatric oncology, the need to monitor health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is becoming even more important. However, available patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been criticized. This review aims to systematically evaluate the content validity of PROMs for HRQOL in children with cancer. Methods: In December 2021, a systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed. PROMs were included if they were used to assess HRQOL in children with cancer and had a lower age-limit between 8 and 12 years and an upper age-limit below 21 years. The COSMIN methodology for assessing the content validity of PROMs was applied to grade evidence for relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility based on quality ratings of development studies (i.e., studies related to concept elicitation and cognitive interviews for newly developed questionnaires) and content validity studies (i.e., qualitative studies in new samples to evaluate the content validity of existing questionnaires). Results: Twelve PROMs were included. Due to insufficient patient involvement and/or poor reporting, the quality of most development studies was rated ‘doubtful’ or ‘inadequate’. Few content validity studies were available, and these were mostly ‘inadequate’. Following the COSMIN methodology, evidence for content validity was ‘low’ or ‘very low’ for almost all PROMs. Only the PROMIS Pediatric Profile had ‘moderate’ evidence. In general, the results indicated that the PROMs covered relevant issues, while results for comprehensiveness and comprehensibility were partly inconsistent or insufficient. Discussion: Following the COSMIN methodology, there is scarce evidence for the content validity of available PROMs for HRQOL in children with cancer. Most instruments were developed before the publication of milestone guidelines and therefore were not able to fulfill all requirements. Efforts are needed to catch up with methodological progress made during the last decade. Further research should adhere to recent guidelines to develop new instruments and to strengthen the evidence for existing PROMs.

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

Rehabilitation is a key element in improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for pediatric cancer survivors. The aim of this study was to present data from a multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation treatment. Children took part in a four-week multidisciplinary family-oriented inpatient rehabilitation. A total of 236 children (>5–21 years) and 478 parents routinely completed electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), performance-based assessments, and clinician-rated assessments before (T1) and at the end (T2) of rehabilitation. HRQOL was assessed with the PedsQL generic core and PedsQL cancer module. Data were analyzed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant improvements with medium to large effect sizes were observed for most HRQOL scales (η² = 0.09–0.31), as well as performance-based and clinician-rated assessments for physical activity and functional status (η² > 0.28). Agreement between children’s PROs and parents’ proxy ratings was lower before (r_ICC = 0.72) than after (r_ICC = 0.86) rehabilitation. While the concordance between children and parents’ assessment of changes during rehab was low to moderate (r = 0.19–0.59), the use of the performance score led to substantially increased scores (r = 0.29–0.68). The results of this naturalistic observational study thus highlight the benefits of multidisciplinary pediatric inpatient rehabilitation for childhood cancer survivors. The use of the performance score is recommended in this field.

Background: Cancer and its treatment can have substantial impact on patients' emotional functioning. Several patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing emotional functioning are available, but differences in content limit the comparability of results. To better understand conceptual (dis)similarities, we conducted a content comparison of commonly used PROMs.Methods: We included emotional functioning items, scales, and item banks from the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ‐C30, FACT‐G, Hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS), SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE, and PROMIS (item banks for anxiety, depression, and anger). Item content was linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) and a hierarchical framework established for PROMIS. Single items could be coded with more than one ICF category but were solely assigned to one facet within the PROMIS framework.Results: The measures comprise 132 unique items covering the ICF components ‘Body functions’ (136/153 codings, 88.9%) and ‘Activities and participation’ (15/153, 9.8%). Most ICF codings (112/153, 73.2%) referred to the third‐level category ‘b1528 Emotional functions, other specified’. According to the PROMIS framework 48.5% of the items assessed depression (64/132 items), followed by anxiety (41/132, 31.1%) and anger (26/132, 19.7%). The EORTC measures covered depression, anxiety, and anger in a single measure, while the PROMIS inventory provides separate item banks for these concepts. The FACT‐G, SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE and HADS covered depression and anxiety, but not anger.Conclusion: Our results provide an in‐depth conceptual understanding of selected PROMs and important qualitative information going beyond psychometric evidence. Such information supports the identification of PROMs for which scores can be meaningfully linked with quantitative methods.