Nicole E Speck, Julia Stoffel, Séverin Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Kristin M Schaefer, Loraine P Kouba, Florian Rüter, Céline Montavon, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Martin D Haug, Dirk J Schaefer, Tarek Ismail, Elisabeth A Kappos
{"title":"The Importance of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Oncological Vulvoperineal Defect Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Nicole E Speck, Julia Stoffel, Séverin Wendelspiess, Christian Appenzeller-Herzog, Kristin M Schaefer, Loraine P Kouba, Florian Rüter, Céline Montavon, Viola Heinzelmann-Schwarz, Martin D Haug, Dirk J Schaefer, Tarek Ismail, Elisabeth A Kappos","doi":"10.3390/curroncol31100470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.</p>","PeriodicalId":11012,"journal":{"name":"Current oncology","volume":"31 10","pages":"6300-6313"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11506363/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31100470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have gained increased importance in assessing outcomes after reconstructive surgery. This also applies to the reconstruction of vulvoperineal defects after resection of gynecological or colorectal cancers in women. The objective of this study is to analyze the current state of PROM tool use within this patient population.
Methods: By systematic literature searches in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science, English-language studies published after 1980, including randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case series reporting on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, which were included if they also analyzed quality of life (QoL) and/or PROMs. The PROM tools used by each study were extracted, analyzed, and compared.
Results: The primary search yielded 2576 abstracts, of which 395 articles were retrieved in full text. Of these, 50 reported on vulvoperineal defect reconstruction, among which 27 studies analyzing QoL were found. Of those, 17 met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. After full-text screening, 14 different PROM tools and 5 individual, non-standardized questionnaires were identified. Only 22% of studies used a validated PROM tool.
Conclusion: Far too few studies currently use PROM tools to assess outcomes in oncological vulvoperineal defect reconstruction. Less than half of the used PROMs are validated. No PROM was designed to specifically measure QoL in this patient population. The standardized implementation of a validated PROM tool in the clinical treatment of this patient population is an essential step to improve outcomes, enable the comparison of research, and support evidence-based treatment approaches.
期刊介绍：
Current Oncology is a peer-reviewed, Canadian-based and internationally respected journal. Current Oncology represents a multidisciplinary medium encompassing health care workers in the field of cancer therapy in Canada to report upon and to review progress in the management of this disease.
We encourage submissions from all fields of cancer medicine, including radiation oncology, surgical oncology, medical oncology, pediatric oncology, pathology, and cancer rehabilitation and survivorship. Articles published in the journal typically contain information that is relevant directly to clinical oncology practice, and have clear potential for application to the current or future practice of cancer medicine.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
