Patient‐reported outcomes and personalised cancer care

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) Patient Reported Outcomes Working Group
Med J Aust || doi: 10.5694/mja2.50893
Published online: 29 March 2021

Putting the patient at the core of personalised cancer care delivery remains the elusive final frontier

Over 20 years ago, the Australian House of Representatives Inquiry into the management of breast cancer recommended that cancer care should be delivered using a multidisciplinary approach.1 Ten years later, an article published in this Journal articulated how to put multidisciplinary care into practice,2 paving the way for the concept to be embedded into clinical cancer practice and policy of today.3 One of the key recommendations made in the article, and since adopted as national policy, was for the patient to be included “as a member of the multidisciplinary team”. But as of today, multidisciplinary care does not routinely include input from patients themselves. Patients do not attend multidisciplinary meetings. Rather, their circumstances are discussed and treatment recommendations are made. They may subsequently make a shared decision with the clinician, but their input tends to occur after the multidisciplinary discussion and it is uncommon for the patients’ perspectives to systematically inform these discussions.

  • Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) Patient Reported Outcomes Working Group

Clinical Oncology Society of Australia (COSA) Patient Reported Outcomes Working Group:

Bogda Koczwara1,2

James Bonnamy3

Peggy Briggs4

Bena Brown5

Phyllis N Butow6

Raymond J Chan7,8

Richard J Cohn9,10

Afaf Girgis11

Michael Jefford12

David JL Joske13,14

Sharon Licqurish3

Gillian Mackay15

Christobel M Saunders14

Kate Webber3,16


1 Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, SA

2 Flinders University, Adelaide, SA

3 Monash University, Melbourne, VIC

4 WA Country Health Service, Perth, WA

5 Menzies School of Health Research, Brisbane, QLD

6 Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence‐based Decision Making, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW

7 Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD

8 Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, QLD

9 Long Term Follow‐up Program, Sydney Children’s Hospital Randwick, Sydney, NSW

10 UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW

11 Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW

12 Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC

13 Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, Perth, WA

14 University of Western Australia, Perth, WA

15 Clinical Oncology Society of Australia, Sydney, NSW

16 Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC


Competing interests:

The PRO Working Group is supported by COSA as a subgroup of the COSA Survivorship Group. COSA received financial support from MSD to host a PRO Think Tank on 23 August 2018. The recommendations of that Think Tank have informed this work.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.