A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology

Rahma Warsame, Joselle Cook, Briant Fruth, Joleen Hubbard, Katrina Croghan, Katharine A.R. Price, Aminah Jatoi, Shaji Kumar, Carrie Thompson, Jan Buckner, Angela Dispenzieri, Jeff Sloan, Amylou C. Dueck

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: Clinicians have limited time during patient encounters which can result in patients' concerns not being addressed. This study's objective was to test whether an electronic patient-reported outcome quality of life tool (PROQOL) in which patients identify their primary concern during clinic visits improves cancer patient quality of life (QOL). Patients and methods: This single center non-blinded prospective clinical trial randomized patients (2:1) to PROQOL versus usual care (UC). Two patient cohorts were enrolled: those with hematologic malignancies (multiple myeloma [MM] or light chain amyloidosis [AL]) and solid tumors (head and neck [H/N] or gynecologic [GYN] malignancies). Primary endpoint was patient-reported QOL at 12 months measured by a single-item Linear Analog Self-Assessment. Value to patients and impact on clinician workflow was measured using a “was it worth it” survey. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference between groups. Results: Overall 383 patients were enrolled, 171 with MM, 62 AL, 113 GYN, and 37 H/N between July 2016 and April 2018, with 12-month follow-up. There were 171 (44.6%) male patients and median age was 62 years (range 31–87). The most often selected concern was physical health (30.9%), and second was cancer diagnosis and treatment (29.1%). Mean QOL was 7.12 for PROQOL and 6.98 for UC (0–10 scale) at 12 months, with no between-group difference overall (p = 0.56) or within hematologic or solid tumor cohorts, respectively. Among patients, 74% thought the PROQOL tool was worthwhile, 86% would choose PROQOL again, and 81% would recommend it to others. Among clinicians, 95% responded that PROQOL was worthwhile and did not think that PROQOL negatively impacted their workflow. Conclusions: Although we did not demonstrate a QOL difference between PROQOL and UC groups; the PROQOL tool held considerable value in identifying patients' main concerns over time and was worthwhile for patients and clinicians.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number100964
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials Communications
StatePublished - Oct 2022


  • Health care delivery
  • Patient-reported outcomes
  • Quality of life

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology


Dive into the research topics of 'A prospective, randomized trial of patient-reported outcome measures to drive management decisions in hematology and oncology'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this