Rapid Fire Oral Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2026

Mapping patient-reported measures to Australia’s Pan Cancer Core Outcome Set: recommendations for national alignment (146344)

Tamara Jones 1 , Claire Snyder 2 , Mollie Cahill 3 , Carolyn Mazariego 3 , Huw Rees 4 , Nick Cristofani-Wykes 4 , Sarah Weller 4 , Sibilah Breen 4 , Nina Melksham 5 , Darija Kvesic 5 , Emily Symons 5 , Sandra Nolte 1 6
  1. Person-Centred Research, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  2. Johns Hopkins School of Medicine & Bloomberg School of Public Health , East Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  3. Australian Research Centre for Cancer Survivorship, UNSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Movember Institute of Men’s Health, Movember, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
  5. Cancer Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  6. Eastern Health, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Aims: To map patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) used in the Australian cancer sector to the Pan Cancer Core Outcome Set (COS; core or minimum set of outcomes to be measured), identify coverage gaps, and develop practical recommendations for aligning measurement with the national COS.

Methods: An environmental scan of prior work, grey and peer-reviewed literature, and a national stakeholder survey identified current PROM/PREM use in Australian cancer settings and contextualised current practices. General cancer measures were shortlisted based on Australian use, intended scope, and coverage of at least half the relevant COS domains. Items and domains from eight PROMs and eight PREMs were systematically mapped to the COS.

Results: Among valid survey responses (n=157), PROM use was reported by 72% and PREM use by 32% of participants. PROMs that were most commonly used included; NCCN Distress Thermometer/Problem List (31%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (30%). For PREMs, AHPEQS was the most frequently reported (26%). For organisations new to PROM collection, three COS-aligned starting approaches were identified: EORTC QLQ-C30; FACT-G supplemented with cognitive and financial items from the FACIT Searchable Library; or combined ESAS-r and NCCN Distress Thermometer/Problem List. For organisations with existing PROM programs, supplementation strategies were recommended from established measurement systems to ensure complete COS coverage. No PREM was universally suitable in light of jurisdictional programs. New PREM users should leverage existing state recommendations or select a fit-for-purpose instrument based on setting, respondent burden, frequency, and COS coverage.

Conclusions: Australian patient-reported outcomes collection is active but fragmented. The mapping provides practical options for both new and existing users to achieve COS coverage. Standard starting approaches and instrument-specific supplementation strategies can increase COS coverage while preserving existing systems and limiting duplication. Implementation will be undertaken in partnership with the sector, to support comparable data and benchmarking.