American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Optimal Resources for Cancer Care: 2020 Standards (facs.org). Standard 4.6. https://www.facs.org/quality-programs/cancerprograms/commission-on-cancer/standards-and-resources/2020/. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

Sleight A, Gerber LH, Marshall TF, Livinski A, Alfano CM, Harrington S, Flores AM, Virani A, Hu X, Mitchell SA, Varedi M, Eden M, Hayek S, Reigle B, Kerkman A, Neves R, Jablonoski K, Hacker ED, Sun V, Newman R, McDonnell KK, L’Hotta A, Schoenhals A, Dpt NLS. Systematic review of functional outcomes in cancer rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;S0003–9993(22):00165–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2022.01.142. This systematic review examines the oncology literature for the current landscape in type of functions that have been assessed (ADL, mobility, cognition, etc), including by type of cancer and whether statisticalsignificance was reached with interventions, and by phase and setting of care.

Article  Google Scholar 

Ommundsen N, Wyller TB, Nesbakken A, Jordhøy MS, Bakka A, Skovlund E, Rostoft S. Frailty is an independent predictor of survival in older patients with colorectal cancer. Oncologist. 2014;19(12):1268–75. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2014-0237.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Popovic G, Harhara T, Pope A, Al-Awamer A, Banerjee S, Bryson J, Mak E, Lau J, Hannon B, Swami N, Le LW, Zimmermann C. Patient-reported functional status in outpatients with advanced cancer: correlation with physician-reported scores and survival. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2018;55(6):1500–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.02.015.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhuang CL, Zhang FM, Li W, Wang KH, Xu HX, Song CH, Guo ZQ, Shi HP. Associations of low handgrip strength with cancer mortality: a multicentre observational study. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2020;11(6):1476–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcsm.12614.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cheville AL. Functional outcomes. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;93(10):909–12. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000167. Excellent general discussion of challenges and priorities regarding functional assessment in cancer rehabilitation.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Fu JB, Stout NL, Egleston BL. The critical need to implement and utilize patient-reported measures of function in cancer care delivery. Cancer. 2022;128(17):3155–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.34373.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Simcock R, Wright J. Beyond Performance Status. Clin Oncol. 2020;32(9):553–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2020.06.016. This article provides reflection on the historical use of traditional oncologic performance status measures, and their limitations.

Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Winters-Stone KM, Medysky ME, Savin MA. Patient-reported and objectively measured physical function in older breast cancer survivors and cancer-free controls. J Geriatr Oncol. 2019;10(2):311–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgo.2018.10.006.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Painter P, Stewart AL, Carey S. Physical functioning: definitions, measurement, and expectations. Adv Ren Replace Ther. 1999;6(2):110–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1073-4449(99)70028-2.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Guidi J, BerrocalMontiel C, Cao J, Charlson ME, Christensen KS, Concato J, De Las CC, de Leon J, Eöry A, Fleck MP, Furukawa TA, Horwitz RI, Nierenberg AA, Rafanelli C, Wang H, Wise TN, Sonino N, Fava GA. Clinimetric criteria for patient-reported outcome measures. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(4):222–32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000516599.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

van der Willik EM, Terwee CB, Bos WJW, Hemmelder MH, Jager KJ, Zoccali C, Dekker FW, Meuleman Y. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) making sense of individual PROM scores and changes in PROM scores over time. Nephrology. 2021;26(5):391–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/nep.13843. This is a good review of PRO interpretation characteristics, especially responsiveness paradigms and the concept of response shift.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(7):737–45.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lesko LJ, Zineh I, Huang SM. What is clinical utility and why should we care? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;88(6):729–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/clpt.2010.229.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Cheville AL, Basford JR, Dos Santos K, Kroenke K. Symptom burden and comorbidities impact the consistency of responses on patient-reported functional outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.08.009.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Anatchkova M, Donelson SM, Skalicky AM, McHorney CA, Jagun D, Whiteley J. Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018;2(1):64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0091-0. This is a systematic review of PRO implementation in cancer care, containing good discussion of feasibility issues and future needs, especially regarding meaningful incorporation into clinical practice.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2022. The use of telehealth for disability evaluations in medicine and allied health: Proceedings of a workshop. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/the-use-of-telehealth-for-disability-evaluations-in-medicine-and-allied-health-a-workshop. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. https://www.healthmeasures.net/. Accessed 19 Nov 2022.

Jette AM, Haley SM, Ni P, Moed R. adaptive short forms for outpatient rehabilitation outcome assessment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008;87:842–52.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Smith SR, Vargo M, Zucker DS, Henderson M, Shahpar S, Wisotzky EM, Custodio C, Basford J, Jay G, Gerber L, Cheville A. The Cancer Rehabilitation Medicine Metrics Consortium: a path to enhanced, multi-site outcome assessment to enhance care and demonstrate value. Front Oncol. 2021;10:article 625700. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.625700. This paper explores the need for an assessment tool in cancer rehabilitation settings to support data-driven decision making, and describes the preliminary development of an IRT-based, PROMIS-derived questionnaire to capture the prioritized functional domains of gross physical function, upper extremity function, fatigue and social participation.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Harrington SE, Stout NL, Hile E, Fisher MI, Eden M, Marchese V, Pfalzer LA. Cancer Rehabilitation Publications (2008–2018) With a focus on physical function: a scoping review. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):363–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz184. This study provides an analysis of functional measurement tools used in cancer-related research studies and includes quantitative breakdown of measurement tools by type of application (screening, assessment, intervention) and by type of cancer. The study highlights commonly used measures and, especially in its appendices, it also includes exhaustive listing of less common measures that have been employed by investigators.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Atkinson TM, Stover AM, Storfer DF, Saracino RM, D’Agostino TA, Pergolizzi D, Matsoukas K, Li Y, Basch E. Patient-reported physical function measures in cancer clinical trials. Epidemiol Rev. 2017;39(1):59–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/epirev/mxx008.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A, Silberman M, Yellen SB, Winicour P, Brannon J, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11(3):570–9. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570.

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Schag CA, Heinrich RL. Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology. 1990;4:135–8.

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, Arraras JI, Chie W-C, Conroy T, Costantini A, Dirven L, Fayers P, Gamper E-M, Giesinger JM, Habets EJJ, Hammerlid E, Helbostad J, Hjermstad MJ, Holzner B, Johnson C, Kemmler G, King MT, Kaasa S, Loge JH, Reijneveld JC, Singer S, Taphoorn MJB, Thamsborg LH, Tomaszewski KA, Velikova G, Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, Young T, Groenvold M. The EORTC CAT Core—the computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Eur J Cancer. 2018;100:8–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.04.016. (ISSN 0959-8049).

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jensen RE, Potosky AL, Moinpour CM, Lobo T, Cella D, Hahn EA, Thissen D, Smith AW, Ahn J, Luta G, Reeve BB. United States population-based estimates of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System symptom and functional status reference values for individuals with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(17):1913–20. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2016.71.4410. This study examines PRO reporting of cancer patients compared to general population reference norms, employing PROMIS short forms of pain interference, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression, physical function, social function and cognitive function.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jensen RE, Potosky AL, Reeve BB, Hahn E, Cella D, Fries J, Smith AW, Keegan TH, Wu XC, Paddock L, Moinpour CM. Validation of the PROMIS physical function measures in a diverse US population-based cohort of cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2333–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0992-9. Four PROMIS Physical Function short forms (4a, 6b, 10a, and 16) were determined to be valid and reliable in a large community cancer population.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Jensen RE, Moinpour CM, Potosky AL, Lobo T, Hahn EA, Hays RD, Cella D, Smith AW, Wu XC, Keegan TH, Paddock LE, Stroup AM, Eton DT. Responsiveness of 8 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures in a large, community-based cancer study cohort. Cancer. 2017;123(2):327–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30354. Responsiveness of 8 PROMIS short forms was verified in a community cancer population, with the short forms including Physical Function (15-items), Fatigue (14-items), Pain Interference (11-items), Anxiety (11-items), Depression (10-items), Ability to Participate in Social Roles v2 (“Social Function” 10-items), Cognitive Function v2 (8-items), and Sleep Disturbance (8-items). The authors note that a 3 to 5 point change is sufficient across all PROMIS measures to identify clinically meaningful change.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

McDonough CM, Ni P, Coster WJ, Haley SM, Jette AM. Development of an IRT-based short form to assess applied cognitive function in outpatient rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016;95(1):62–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHM.0000000000000340.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Barnes CA, Stout NL, Varghese TK Jr, Ulrich CM, Couriel DR, Lee CJ, Noren CS, LaStayo PC. Clinically integrated physical therapist practice in cancer care: a new comprehensive approach. Phys Ther. 2020;100(3):543–53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzz169. This study is noteworthy in that it incorporates implementation of PRO findings, linking the patient’s PRO-derived functional stage to specific functional exercise approaches, and also demonstrates clinical feasibility with more efficient (shorter) physical therapy evaluation sessions.

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Thackeray A, Hanmer J, Yu L, McCracken P, Marcus R. Linking AM-PAC mobility and daily activity to the PROMIS physical function metric. Phys Ther. 2021;101(8):pza084. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab084.

Article  Google Scholar 

Harrington S, Michener LA, Kendig T, Miale S, George SZ. Patient-reported upper extremity outcome measures used in breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(1):153–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.07.022.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

LeBlanc M, Stineman M, DeMichele A, Stricker C, Mao JJ. Validation of QuickDASH outcome measure in breast cancer survivors for upper extremity disability. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(3):493–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.016.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Maldonado E, Thalla N, Nepaul S, Wisotzky E. Outcome measures in cancer rehabilitation: pain, function, and symptom assessment. Front Pain Res. 2021;2:692237. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpain.2021.692237. The authors provide an empiric selection of common measures for use in cancer rehabilitation settings, for purposes including pain outcomes, functional outcomes, quality of life measures, fatigue measures, cognitive assessment, and objective outcome measures, featuring tables including psychometric properties, burden of use, scoring guidelines and clinical relevance.

Article  Google Scholar 

Smith SR, Vargo M, Zucker D, Shahpar S, Gerber L, Henderson M, Jay G, Lee M, Cheville A. Psychometric characteristics and validity of the PROMIS cancer function brief 3D profile. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022;103(5S):S146–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2020.12.027. This paper presents the final 12-item PROMIS Cancer Function Brief 3D, with physical function, fatigue, and social participation domains, including psychometric characteristics and validity data, with T-score conversions for each functional category.

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Lehmann J, Rothmund M, Riedl D, Rumpold G, Grote V, Fischer MJ, Holzner B. Clinical outcome ass