Summary

Interpretation approaches are helpful for HCPs to understand the possible meaning of PROM scores.
Interpreting PRO data in routine clinical care requires judging clinical relevance and contextualising scores within the patient’s individual situation and health status. Any assumptions based on the scores should be checked and validated through targeted discussion with the patient
For EORTC PROMs, thresholds for clinical importance (TCIs), reference values and norm data and PRO score interpretation thresholds (PROSITs) have been developed.
TCIs help quickly identify symptom/functioning areas that warrant further attention.
Reference values and normative data can be used to compare a patient’s scores with those of similar patient groups or the general population.
PROSITs can support identification of deterioration or improvement over time if multiple assessment points (monitoring) are available.

Angelos P. Kassianos (Ed.). (2022). Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84702-9

Desomer, A., Van den Heede, K.,Triemstra, M., Paget, J., De Boer, D., Kohn, L., Cleemput, I. (2018). Use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in patient care and policy – Short report. Health Services Research (HSR): Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). KCE Reports 303Cs. D/2018/10.273/39.

Giesinger, J. M., Aaronson, N. K [Neil K.], Arraras, J. I., Efficace, F., Groenvold, M [Mogens], Kieffer, J. M., Loth, F. L., Petersen, M. A [Morten Aa], Ramage, J., Tomaszewski, K. A [Krzysztof A.], Young, T., & Holzner, B [Bernhard] (2018). A cross-cultural convergent parallel mixed methods study of what makes a cancer-related symptom or functional health problem clinically important. Psychooncology, 27(2), 548–555. https://doi.org/10.1002/pon.4548

Giesinger, J. M., Loth, F. L. C., Aaronson, N. K [Neil K.], Arraras, J. I., Caocci, G., Efficace, F., Groenvold, M [Mogens], van Leeuwen, M., Petersen, M. A [Morten Aa], Ramage, J., Tomaszewski, K. A [Krzysztof A.], Young, T., & Holzner, B [Bernhard] (2020). Thresholds for clinical importance were established to improve interpretation of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in clinical practice and research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 118, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.003

Giesinger, J. M., Lehmann, J. (2022). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Measurement System. In Angelos P. Kassianos (Ed.), Handbook of Quality of Life in Cancer (pp. 61–77). Springer. (Original work published 2022)

King, M. T [M. T.] (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research : An International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 5(6), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00439229

King, M. T [Madeleine T.] (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9

Musoro, J. Z., Coens, C., Sprangers, M. A. G., Brandberg, Y., Groenvold, M., Flechtner, H. H., Cocks, K., Velikova, G., Dirven, L., Greimel, E., Singer, S., Pogoda, K., Gamper, E. M., Sodergren, S. C., Eggermont, A., Koller, M., Reijneveld, J. C., Taphoorn, M. J. B., King, M. T., Bottomley, A., … EORTC Melanoma, Breast, Head and Neck, Genito-urinary, Gynecological, Gastro-intestinal, Brain, Lung and Quality of Life Groups (2023). Minimally important differences for interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 change scores over time: A synthesis across 21 clinical trials involving nine different cancer types. European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 188, 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2023.04.027

Nolte, S., Liegl, G., Petersen, M. A [M. A.], Aaronson, N. K [N. K.], Costantini, A., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M [M.], Holzner, B [B.], Johnson, C. D., Kemmler, G., Tomaszewski, K. A [K. A.], Waldmann, A., Young, T. E., & Rose, M. (2019). General population normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 health-related quality of life questionnaire based on 15,386 persons across 13 European countries, Canada and the Unites States. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England : 1990), 107, 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.024

Porter, I., Gonçalves-Bradley, D., Ricci-Cabello, I., Gibbons, C., Gangannagaripalli, J., Fitzpatrick, R., Black, N., Greenhalgh, J., & Valderas, J. M. (2016). Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Evidence, challenges and opportunities. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 5(5), 507–519. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2015-0014

Scott et al. (2008). EORTC QLQ-C30 Reference Values. https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/reference_values_manual2008.pdf

Sztankay, M., Wintner, L. M., Roggendorf, S., Nordhausen, T., Dirven, L., Taphoorn, M. J. B., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Velikova, G., Bottomley, A., Kulis, D., Kachel, T., Schmidt, H., & on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group (2022). Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals’ preferences for learning content and methods. Supportive Care in Cancer, 30(3), 2555–2567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-021-06676-x

Wintner, L., Sztankay, M., Giesinger, J. M., Aaronson, N., Bottomley, A., Velikova, G., Verdonck de Leeuw, I., van de Poll-Franse, L., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M.A., Holzner, B. (2016). EORTC Quality of Life Group Manual for the use of EORTC measures in daily clinical practice. https://www.eortc.org/app/uploads/sites/2/2018/02/EORTC_QLQ_Clinical_Practice_User_Manual-1.0.pdf