Accéder directement au contenu Accéder directement à la navigation
Article dans une revue

Clinical Relevance of Routine Monitoring of Patient-reported Outcomes Versus Clinician-reported Outcomes in Oncology

Abstract : The National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events classification is the standard classification used by the physicians in oncology for reporting adverse events. This classification has evolved over the last years according to the emergence of new therapies. Reporting symptoms, quality of life (QoL) and toxicities via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice is not yet a standard of care, nevertheless many studies have been conducted recently to assess feasibility and impact of routine monitoring of PROs, which should enable for better management of toxicities and earlier detection of disease progression in a more patient-centered health care delivery system. The aim of this article was to discuss the advantages and limitations of both approaches, clinicians-reported outcomes and PROs. Growing evidence supports that the routine collection of PROs leads to improvement of QoL and overall survival of cancer patients.
Type de document :
Article dans une revue
Liste complète des métadonnées

https://hal.umontpellier.fr/hal-02419826
Contributeur : Anthony Herrada <>
Soumis le : jeudi 19 décembre 2019 - 15:59:53
Dernière modification le : vendredi 12 juin 2020 - 16:58:20

Lien texte intégral

Identifiants

Collections

Citation

Frédéric Fiteni, Alice Cuenant, Mireille Favier, Christelle Cousin, Nadine Houédé. Clinical Relevance of Routine Monitoring of Patient-reported Outcomes Versus Clinician-reported Outcomes in Oncology. In Vivo, International Institute of Anticancer Research (IIAR), 2019, 33 (1), pp.17-21. ⟨10.21873/invivo.11433⟩. ⟨hal-02419826⟩

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de la notice

79