Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Chapter
  • Print publication year: 2004
  • Online publication date: December 2009

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

Export citation

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.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
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 11:193–205
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):1719–24
Gotay, C. (2004). Assessing cancer-related quality of life across a spectrum of applications.Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 33:126–33
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–65s
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 48:1507–15
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 53:779–85
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 77:367–70
Dowie, J. (2002). Decision validity should determine whether a generic or condition-specific HRQOL measure is used in health care decisionsHealth Economics 11:1–8
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 21:157–78
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 3:479–86
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 16:1380–7
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 300:1458–60
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 33:155–67
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 91:17–23
Clauser, S. B. (2004). Use of cancer performance measures in population health: a macro-level perspectiveJournal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 33:142–54
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 21:1404–11
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:3–10
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