A multicenter paper-based and web-based system for collecting patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer: first experiences

• Published in: Journal of patient-reported outcomes 2020-07, Vol.4 (1), p.56-56, Article 56
• Main Authors: Kowalski, Christoph, Roth, Rebecca, Carl, Günther, Feick, Günter, Oesterle, Alisa, Hinkel, Andreas, Steiner, Thomas, Brock, Marko, Kaftan, Björn, Borowitz, Rainer, Zantl, Niko, Heidenreich, Axel, Neisius, Andreas, Darr, Christopher, Bolenz, Christian, Beyer, Burkhard, Pfitzenmaier, Jesco, Brehmer, Bernhard, Fichtner, Jan, Haben, Björn, Wesselmann, Simone, Dieng, Sebastian
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Cancer surgery; Certification; Functional status; Health services research; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Multidisciplinary studies; Patient-reported outcomes; Patients; Prostate cancer; Quality of Life Research; Recruitment; Short Report; Urological surgery
• ISSN: 2509-8020; 2509-8020
• DOI: 10.1186/s41687-020-00224-7

Purpose To give an overview of the multicenter Prostate Cancer Outcomes (PCO) study, involving paper-based and web-based collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in patients undergoing local treatment for prostate cancer in certified centers in Germany. The PCO study is part of the larger Movember-funded TrueNTH Global Registry. The article reports on the study’s design and provides a brief progress report after the first 2 years of data collection. Methods Prostate cancer centers (PCCs) certified according to German Cancer Society requirements were invited to participate in collecting patient-reported information on symptoms and function before and at least once (at 12 months) after treatment. The data were matched with disease and treatment information. This report describes progress in patient inclusion, response rate, and variations between centers relative to online/paper use, and also data quality, including recruitment variations relative to treatment in the first participating PCCs. Results PCC participation increased over time; 44 centers had transferred data for 3094 patients at the time of this report. Patient recruitment varied widely across centers. Recruitment was highest among patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. The completeness of the data was good, except for comorbidity information. Conclusions The PCO study benefits from a quality improvement system first established over 10 years ago, requiring collection and harmonization of a predefined clinical dataset across centers. Nevertheless, establishing a PROM routine requires substantial effort on the part of providers and constant monitoring in order to achieve high-quality data. The findings reported here may be useful for guiding implementation in similar initiatives.