Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function correlates with Toronto Extremity Salvage Score in an orthopaedic oncology population()()

BACKGROUND: The National Institute of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses computerised-adaptive testing to reduce survey burden and improve sensitivity. PROMIS is being used across medical and surgical disciplines but has not been studied in orthopaedic oncology. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: The aim of the study was to compare PROMIS measures with upper extremity (UE) and lower extremity (LE) Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) by assessing the following: (1) responder burden, (2) correlation between scores and (3) floor/ceiling effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional trial analysed all 97 adult patients treated surgically for a bone or soft tissue tumour at a tertiary institution between November 2015 and March 2016. TESS (UE or LE) and PROMIS (Physical Function, Pain Interference and Depression) surveys were administered preoperatively. Pearson correlations between each PROMIS domain and TESS were calculated, as were floor/ceiling effects of each outcome measure. RESULTS: (1) Completion of three PROMIS questionnaires required a mean total of 16.8 (+/− 5.8 standard deviation) questions, compared with 31 and 32 questions for the LE and UE TESS questionnaires, respectively. (2) The PROMIS Physical Function scores demonstrated a strong positive correlation with the LE TESS (r = 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72–0.91; p < 0.001) and moderate positive correlation with the UE TESS (r = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34–0.83; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Depression scores demonstrated a weak negative correlation with both the LE TESS (r = −0.38; 95% CI, –0.61 to −0.10; p = 0.010) and with UE TESS (r = −0.38; 95% CI, –0.67 to −0.01; p = 0.055). The PROMIS Pain Interference scores demonstrated a strong negative correlation with the LE TESS (r = −0.71; 95% CI, –0.83 to −0.52; p < 0.001) and a moderate negative correlation with the UE TESS (r = −0.62; 95% CI, –0.81 to −0.30; p = 0.001). (3) The UE TESS had a range of scores from 16 to 100 with a 27% ceiling effect and no floor effect, and the LE TESS had a range from 10 to 98 with no floor or ceiling effect. There was no floor or ceiling effect for any PROMIS measures. CONCLUSIONS: In an orthopaedic oncology population, the PROMIS Physical Function and Pain Interference scores correlate with the TESS and have the benefit of reduced survey burden and ceiling effect. The PROMIS Depression scores may provide additional information regarding patient outcomes not captured by the TESS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. THE TRANSLATIONAL POTENTIAL OF THIS ARTICLE: Patient reported outcome measures asses patients' symptoms, function and health-related quality of life and are designed to capture more clinical information than can be gathered by objective medial testing alone. As reimbursements and the understanding of patient outcomes are becoming tied to performance on PROMIS measures, it is an important step to establish how PROMIS measures correlate and compare to traditional legacy measures.