Start Your Search
Majken Munk Brønserud
P3.15 - Treatment in the Real World - Support, Survivorship, Systems Research (Not CME Accredited Session) (ID 981)
- Event: WCLC 2018
- Type: Poster Viewing in the Exhibit Hall
- Presentations: 1
- Coordinates: 9/26/2018, 12:00 - 13:30, Exhibit Hall
P3.15-05 - Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) as Performance Measures After Surgery for Lung Cancer (ID 13220)
12:00 - 13:30 | Presenting Author(s): Majken Munk Brønserud
In Denmark and other countries, quality in lung cancer care is measured using performance indicators from clinical registries. The registries and the indicators are based on data from professionals taking care of patients and their treatment. What is missing in this quality measurement, however, is the patients’ perspective. The objective of this study was to examine if patient reported outcomes (PROs) from patients with lung cancer could be used in performance measurement after surgery. Would it be feasible to use PROs in benchmarking, comparing treatment quality in different regions of Denmark?a9ded1e5ce5d75814730bb4caaf49419 Method
All patients registered in the Danish Lung Cancer Registry(DLCR) from 1 October 2013 until 30 September 2015, who received curatively intended surgical treatment, were eligible(N=1,718). They were asked to complete the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire six months after surgery. From the questionnaire we chose the global health score (GHS) and role functioning (RF) as indicators, and the threshold for good performance was set to 65 points (on a scale 0-100 where 100 is the best). Information about the patients’ socioeconomic position was obtained from Statistics Denmark. Results were compared between the five regions within Denmark, using the patients’ home address. Patient characteristics of the five groups were compared using t-tests and chi squared tests.4c3880bb027f159e801041b1021e88e8 Result
Of 1,615 patients alive six months after surgery, questionnaires were completed by 999 patients (61.9%). Patient characteristics of the five groups differed significantly in e.g. performance status, cancer stage, and income. There were difference in GHS between groups, but mean RF varied significantly (see table).
Global health score (GHS) and Role functioning (RF) for the five regions All patients Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Region 4 Region 5 p N = 999 N = 154 N = 207 N = 212 N = 256 N = 170 GHS mean (SD) 66.8 (22.0) 65.9 (20.5) 65.7 (23.5) 68.2 (21.8) 67.4 (21.7) 66.5 (22.5) 0.706 % with GHS ≥ 65 63.6 62.3 61.8 67.5 64.8 60.0 0.581 RF mean (SD) 68.9 (29.5) 66.0 (29.6) 67.4 (28.1) 71.5 (28.6) 69.8 (29.8) 68.9 (31.3) 0.013 % with RF ≥ 65 69.8 62.3 71.5 73.1 69.5 70.6 0.239
In a population with lung cancer receiving surgery, it may be feasible to use PROs for benchmarking. The next step in our study is to examine whether differences in GHS and RF are a consequence of different outcomes, or of different patient populations.6f8b794f3246b0c1e1780bb4d4d5dc53
Only Active Members that have purchased this event or have registered via an access code will be able to view this content. To view this presentation, please login or select "Add to Cart" and proceed to checkout.