Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials

Overview of systemic anticancer treatments: conventional cytotoxics

Cancer treatment is rapidly evolving and this review provides healthcare professionals who are not specialists in cancer therapeutics with a broad overview of the role of cancer systemic therapy, with a particular focus on chemotherapy.Historically, the majority of cytotoxic chemotherapy was used in patients with incurable or metastatic disease with the goal of disease control and symptom palliation. Now, with the advent of more effective, targeted systemic therapies (incorporating both cytotoxic and non-cytotoxic agents), systemic therapies are being used in more diverse treatment settings, both to increase the likelihood of cure and to induce prolonged disease remission.Chemotherapy (henceforth referring specifically to cytotoxic chemotherapy) remains important for the treatment of many cancer types. This article will review the principles of chemotherapy and the first-line systemic treatment paradigm of different cancer types. The potential toxicities of chemotherapy will also be described.

Best practices and pragmatic approaches for patient-reported outcomes and quality of life measures in cancer clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often collected in cancer clinical trials. Data obtained from trials with PROs are essential in evaluating participant experiences relating to symptoms, financial toxicity, or health-related quality of life. Although most features of clinical trial design, implementation, and analyses apply to trials with PROs, several considerations are unique. In this paper, we focus on specific issues such as selection of the tool, timing and frequency of assessments, and data collection methods. We discuss how the estimand framework can be used in connection with PROs, properties of common estimation methods, and handling of missing outcomes. With a plethora of literature available, we aim to summarize best practices and pragmatic approaches to the design and analysis of the studies incorporating PROs.

Cancer-specific utility instrument for health economic evaluations: A synopsis of the EORTC QLU-C10D user manual and current validity evidence

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Utility - Core 10 Dimensions (QLU-C10D) adds a preference-based scoring algorithm to the EORTC measurement portfolio. It is built on the most widely used health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measure in oncology, the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire - Core 30 (QLQ-C30), allowing for the calculation of both HRQoL profiles and health utilities. This is an important advancement for integrating cancer-specific values into health economic evaluations and decision making, offering greater content validity and statistical power than some generic measures. This article presents an outline of the EORTC QLU-C10D User Manual to inform health-technology bodies, academic researchers, and industry, on the why and how of using this instrument for utility measurement. It covers basic concepts, proper use of the tool, including administration and scoring. Further, we summarise the presently published valuation studies, country-specific value sets, and body of evidence about psychometric properties. Current methodological questions are discussed, including mapping between utility measures and adaptions of generic measures for use in cancer populations. Taking into account empirical studies on psychometric properties, like content and construct validity, and comparisons with generic measures, we argue that the QLU-C10D is a reliable and valid instrument for cancer populations. Without imposing additional patient and administrative burden it has the potential to support health economic decisions in cancer by providing high-quality cancer-specific utility scores, to complement the more detailed HRQoL information from the QLQ-C30.

Access to results of patient reported outcome surveys did not improve longitudinal patient reported outcomes in breast cancer patients in a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

We assessed the impact of breast cancer (BC) patients receiving their own patient-reported outcome (PRO) results on future PROs.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed female BC patients completed validated measures of satisfaction with breasts (SB), and psychosocial (PsyW), physical (PhW), and sexual wellbeing (SW) longitudinally during treatment. Patients were randomized to receive their PRO scores (Intervention) or not (Control). The primary outcome was difference in PRO scores from baseline to 1-year post-surgery. T- and chi2-tests compared baseline characteristics between groups. Linear mixed models assessed differences in PRO changes over time.

RESULTS

131 patients (70 intervention, 61 control) completed baseline and 1-year modules; groups were well-balanced. At 1-year, the intervention group had less improvement in PsyW compared to controls with a t-test (mean difference: 1.2 vs 8.3, p ​= ​0.04); this difference did not remain in mixed models (intervention group effect estimate (SE) 1.7 (2.1) vs control group 7.0 (2.2), p ​= ​0.08). Changes in SB, PhW, and SW did not differ.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to individual PRO scores throughout treatment did not improve BC patients' future PROs.

Minimally invasive vs open vs hybrid esophagectomy for esophageal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) for esophageal carcinoma has emerged as the contemporary alternative to conventional laparoscopic minimally invasive (LMIE), hybrid (HE) and open (OE) surgical approaches. No single study has compared all four approaches with a view to postoperative outcomes. A systematic search of electronic databases was undertaken. A network meta-analysis was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-network meta-analysis guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using R and Shiny. Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 1063 patients were included. Overall, 32.9% of patients underwent OE (350/1063), 11.0% underwent HE (117/1063), 34.0% of patients underwent LMIE (361/1063), and 22.1% of patients underwent RAMIE (235/1063). OE had the lowest anastomotic leak rate 7.7% (27/350), while LMIE had the lowest pulmonary 10.8% (39/361), cardiac 0.56% (1/177) complications, re-intervention rates 5.08% (12/236), 90-day mortality 1.05% (2/191), and shortest length of hospital stay (mean 11.25 days). RAMIE displayed the lowest 30-day mortality rate at 0.80% (2/250). There was a significant increase in pulmonary complications for those undergoing OE (OR 3.63 [95% confidence interval: 1.4-9.77]) when compared to RAMIE. LMIE is a safe and feasible option for esophagectomy when compared to OE and HE. The upcoming RCTs will provide further data to make a more robust interrogation of the surgical outcomes following RAMIE compared to conventional open surgery to determine equipoise or superiority of each approach as the era of minimally invasive esophagectomy continues to evolve (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews Registration: CRD42023438790).

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes amongst randomized clinical trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review using CONSORT-PRO

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key to investigating patient perspectives in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Standardization of PRO reporting is critical for trial generalizability and the application of findings to clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs published in the top plastic surgery journals according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT)-PRO extension.

METHODS

We completed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All RCTs with a validated PRO endpoint published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals (based on the 2021 Web of Science Impact Factor) from 2014 to 2023 were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and scored the included studies using the CONSORT-PRO checklist. Univariate regression was applied to assess factors associated with reporting adherence. Studies were assessed for their risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 88 RCTs were included. PROs were the primary endpoint in 50 (57%) and the secondary endpoint of 38 (43%) studies. Mean overall reporting adherence was poor (39% (±12) and 36% (±13) in studies with PRO as primary and secondary endpoints, respectively). The presence of industry support was significantly associated with greater adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low adherence to the CONSORT-PRO extension among plastic surgery RCTs published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals. We encourage journals and authors to endorse and apply the CONSORT-PRO extension. This may optimize the dissemination of clinical findings from RCTs and assist patient-centered care.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis

Background

Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies.

Methods

A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL).

Findings

We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations.

Interpretation

Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care.

Funding

None.

Low-quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomized clinical trials of major depressive disorder-a meta-epidemiological review

Objective

Our goal was to review current peer-reviewed articles in which the BDI (Beck Depression Inventory), PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), or QIDS-SR16 (16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) was used as the primary or secondary outcome measure and to evaluate the quality of PRO (Patient-Reported Outcome) reporting in RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) according to the 2013 PRO-specific CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension.

Methods

We systematically searched in electronic databases. A study would be included if it included patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10) as participants, was a randomized controlled trial, included the BDI, PHQ-9, or QIDS-SR16 as the primary or secondary outcome measure, published between 1990 and 2013, and was in English. Two of the authors evaluated the quality of PRO reporting according to the 2013 CONSORT-PRO. Logistic regression were used to evaluate the association between reporting completeness and trial characteristics.

Results

A total of 116 studies were included. These studies were conducted in 25 countries. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 750. The CONSORT-PRO was not cited in any one of the included studies. Among the 116 studies, 2 (1.72%) studies introduced the rationale for PRO assessment, 60 (51.72%) studies explicitly stated statistical approaches for dealing with missing data, 87 (75.00%) studies reported PRO outcome data at baseline and at subsequent time points. The mean score of reporting completeness was 66.24%. Significantly higher reporting completeness was found for RCTs published after 2013 (OR, 95%CI: 3.81, 1.32-10.99). Studies with a higher sample size were more completely reported than studies with a lower sample size (OR, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.00-1.02).

Conclusion

The CONSORT-PRO guidance was rarely cited. The quality of PRO reporting in depression studies requires improvement. This result may be meaningful for the promotion of PRO reporting in RCTs.

Developing tumor-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets: analysis of a cross-sectional survey in three German outpatient cancer centers

BACKGROUND

To include the patient perspective in the assessment of adverse events in oncology, a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) was developed by the US National Cancer Institute, the so called PRO-CTCAE. The objective of this study was the development of disease-specific PRO-CTCAE item sets for patients with breast cancer (BC), multiple myeloma (MM), and prostate cancer (PC).

METHODS

The cross-sectional survey was conducted at three German outpatient cancer centers. Prevalence and importance of the 78 PRO-CTCAE symptoms were assessed using a patient questionnaire. To select the most relevant PRO-CTCAE items for each tumor entity, symptoms were ranked based on patient answers.

RESULTS

101 patients with BC, 107 with MM, and 66 with PC participated. The final item sets contained 21 symptoms (BC) or 19 symptoms (MM and PC), respectively. Eight symptoms (fatigue, muscle pain, insomnia, joint pain, general pain, dizziness, shortness of breath, and swelling) were represented in all three item sets. Fatigue was the symptom with the highest ranking across item sets followed by insomnia. Symptoms with the highest rankings represented in only one item set were symptoms affecting the urogenital system in the PC item set, blurred vision in the BC item set, and decreased appetite in the MM item set.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual PRO-CTCAE item sets for a German patient population were developed for the three tumor entities on the basis of patients' differences in symptom profiles and perceptions. The quality and psychometric criteria of the newly compiled item sets should be evaluated in validation studies.

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist.

RESULTS

Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.

Correlation of Clinician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes in the BC2001 Trial

AIMS

To evaluate whether there is sufficient correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) in bladder cancer follow-up post-radiotherapy to streamline data collection and to reduce trial follow-up burden on patients, clinicians and trial programmes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROs data were collected within the BC2001 trial using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy specific to bladder cancer (FACT-BL) questionnaire. CROs data were collected by clinicians using Late Effects in Normal Tissues Subjective, Objective and Management (LENT/SOM). Data were collected at baseline, post-treatment, at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and then annually to 5 years. The percentage agreement between CROs and PROs measures was evaluated at 2 and 5 years post-randomisation. Concordance was tested using the weighted Kappa statistic with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Correlation was evaluated between six categories of the FACT-BL and LENT/SOM scores. At 2 years the percentage agreement across these domains ranged from 45 to 78%, with the weighted Kappa statistic between 0.07 and 0.35. Results were similar in year 5 with 48-83% agreement and kappa statistics between -0.02 and 0.21.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between CROs and PROs in patients treated with radiotherapy for bladder cancer were generally poor. PROs appear to be more sensitive, with higher grade events reported. Further work is needed to evaluate whether PROs alone can be used to evaluate toxicity-related outcomes in randomised controlled trials.

Predictive value of health-related quality of life on radiotherapy-related toxicities in patients with head and neck cancer

PURPOSE

Little is known about whether baseline health-related quality of life (HRQoL) scores also could predict occurrence radiotherapy-related toxicities, which we aim to assess in this study.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from 200 patients enrolled in randomized study investigating the utility of HRQoL. HRQOL was assessed at baseline and during follow up using QLQ-C30 questionnaire and major toxicity was considered as adverse event ≥ 3 according to NCI-CTCAE classification. Cox regressions adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic data were used to assess prognostic significance of HRQOL scores.

RESULTS

In multivariable analyses adjusted on clinical and sociodemographic data, every 10-point improvement in physical (HR = 0.74), role (HR = 0.87) and social (HR = 0.88) functioning was associated with 24%, 13% and 12% lower hazard of occurrence of major toxicity respectively while every 10 point-increase in dyspnea (HR = and loss appetite was associated with 15% and 16% increased hazard of major toxicity.

CONCLUSION

Certain baseline HRQoL scores were found to be significantly associated with the occurrence of major toxicity.

Evaluating the underreporting of patient-reported outcomes in carpal tunnel syndrome randomized controlled trials

CONTEXT

In recent years, patient-centered healthcare has become a primary concern for researchers and healthcare professionals. When included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve a critical role in supplementing efficacy outcomes with a patient perspective.

OBJECTIVES

The goals of this study are to evaluate the reporting completeness of PROs within literature concerning carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) utilizing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Patient-Reported Outcomes (CONSORT-PRO) extension.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published RCTs relating to CTS with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2020. Two investigators screened all RCTs for inclusion utilizing Rayyan (https://rayyan.qcri.org/), a systematic review screening platform. In an independent, masked fashion, investigators then evaluated all RCTs utilizing the CONSORT-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. Bivariate regression analyses were utilized to assess relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting.

RESULTS

Our search returned 374 publications, yet only 31 unique RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The mean overall percent of adherence for CONSORT-PRO was 41%. Our secondary outcome-assessing study characteristics-indicated significantly higher completeness of reporting in the absence of a conflict of interest statement (p<0.05), 'some concerns' for bias (p<0.005), and when journals required the use of the CONSORT statement (p<0.005). The RoB assessment determined overall suspicion for bias among included RCTs, with 35% (n=11/31) being labeled as 'high,' 58% (n=18/31) as 'some concerns,' and 7% (n=2/31) as 'low.'

CONCLUSIONS

Our study indicated that the completeness of CONSORT-PRO reporting was deficient within CTS trials. Because of the importance placed on PROs in clinical practice, we recommend adherence to CONSORT-PRO prior to publication of RCTs to increase the understanding of various interventions on patients' quality of life (QoL).

Health-Related Quality of Life and Healthcare Events in Patients with Monotherapy of Anti-Diabetes Medications

This study aimed to examine the difference in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and diabetes-related healthcare events (HCEs) among adults with diabetes who were on metformin, sulfonylurea, insulin, or thiazolidinedione (TZD) monotherapy. The data were sourced from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS). Diabetes patients ≥18 years old who had a complete record of physical component score and mental component scores in round 2 and round 4 of the survey were included. The primary outcome was HRQOL of diabetes patients as measured by the Medical Outcome Study short-form (SF-12v2^TM). Multinomial logistic regression and negative binomial regression were conducted to determine associated factors of HRQOL and HCE, respectively. Overall, 5387 patients were included for analysis. Nearly 60% of patients had unchanged HRQOL after the follow-up, whereas almost 15% to 20% of patients showed improvement in HRQOL. The relative risk of declined mental HRQOL was 1.5 times higher relative to unchanged mental HRQOL in patients who were on sulfonylurea 1.55 [1.1-2.17, p = 0.01] than metformin users. The rate of HCE decreased by a factor of 0.79, [95% CI: 0.63-0.99] in patients with no history of hypertension. Patients on sulfonylurea 1.53 [1.20-1.95, <0.01], insulin 2.00 [1.55-2.70, <0.01], and TZD 1.78 [1.23-2.58, <0.01] had increased risk of HCE compared to patients who were on metformin. In general, antidiabetic medications modestly improved HRQOL in patients with diabetes during the follow-up period. Metformin had a lower rate of HCE as compared to other medications. The selection of anti-diabetes medications should focus on HRQOL in addition to controlling glucose level.

Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed.

RESULTS

A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004-2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment.

CONCLUSION

When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in trials on alcohol use disorder: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Currently, limited research exists to assess the extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) reporting among randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating alcohol use disorder (AUD). We sought to investigate the completeness of reporting of PROs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO (CONSORT-PRO) extension in AUD RCTs.

DESIGN SETTING

Meta-epidemiological study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 29 June 2021 for published RCTs focused on AUD. Following these searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening were performed by two investigators. To be included, a study must have employed a randomised trial design, published in English, focused on treatment of AUD and included at least one PRO. Trials meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the CONSORT-PRO extension adaptation. These trials were also evaluated for risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool. Additionally, an exploratory analysis of each RCT's therapeutic area was extracted using the Mapi Research Trust's ePROVIDE platform. Screening and data collection were all performed in masked, duplicate fashion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRO completeness of reporting, identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting and PRO measures used in RCTs to evaluate patients with AUD.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were evaluated in our analysis. Our primary outcome, the mean completion score for CONSORT-PRO, was 40.8%. Our secondary outcome-the identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting-found that trials published after 2014 (ie, 1 year after the publication of the CONSORT-PRO extension) were 15.0% more complete than trials published before 2014. We found no additional associations with better reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the completeness of PRO reporting in RCTs involving AUD was deficient. Complete reporting of PROs is instrumental in understanding the effects of interventions, encourages patient participation in their treatment and may increase clinician confidence in the value of PROs. High quality treatment strategies for AUD require properly reported PROs.

Assessing the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome data in interventional cancer trials: a single institution, retrospective systematic evaluation

BACKGROUND

To understand our performance with respect to the collection and reporting of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure (PROM) data, we examined the protocol content, data completeness and publication of PROs from interventional trials conducted at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust (RM) and explored factors associated with data missingness and PRO publication.

DESIGN

From local records, we identified closed, intervention trials sponsored by RM that opened after 1995 and collected PROMs as primary, secondary or exploratory outcomes. Protocol data were extracted by two researchers and scored against the SPIRIT-PRO (PRO protocol content checklist; score 0-100, higher scores indicate better completeness). For studies with locally held datasets, the information team summarized for each study, PRO completion defined as the number of expected (as per protocol) PRO measurements versus the number of actual (i.e. completed) PRO measurements captured in the study data set. Relevant publications were identified by searching three online databases and chief investigator request. Data were extracted and each publication scored against the CONSORT-PRO (PRO manuscript content checklist; scored as SPIRIT-PRO above). Descriptive statistics are presented with exploratory comparisons of point estimates and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 65 studies were included in the review. Nineteen studies had accessible datasets and 18 studies published at least one article. Fourteen studies published PRO results. Most studies had a clinical (rather than PRO) primary outcome (16/26). Across all studies, responses in respect of 35 of 69 PROMs were published. Trial protocols scored on average 46.7 (range 7.1-92.9) on the SPIRIT-PRO. Among studies with accessible data, half (10/19) had less than 25% missing measurements. Publications scored on average 80.9 (range 36-100%) on the CONSORT-PRO. Studies that published PRO results had somewhat fewer missing measurements (19% [7-32%] vs 60% [- 26 to 146%]). For individual PROMs within studies, missing measurements were lower for those that were published (17% [10-24%] vs 41% [18-63%]). Studies with higher SPIRIT-PRO scores and PROs as primary endpoints (13% [4-22%] vs 39% [10-58%]) had fewer missing measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Missing data may affect publication of PROs. Extent of inclusion of SPIRIT-PRO protocol items and PROs as primary endpoints may improve data completeness. Preliminary evidence from the study suggests a future larger study examining the relationship between PRO completion and publication is warranted.

Who Are We Missing: Does Engagement in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Breast Cancer Vary by Age, Race, or Disease Stage?

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are used to assess value-based care. Little is known as to whether PROM response in breast cancer reflects the diverse patient population. The BREAST-Q, a validated measure of satisfaction and quality of life, and Recovery Tracker, a postoperative assessment tool, are PROM routinely delivered to all patients undergoing breast surgery at our institution. Here we determine whether response to PROM differs by age, race, language, or disease stage.

METHODS

All patients who had a breast operation between January 2020 and July 2021 were requested to complete the BREAST-Q and Recovery Tracker. Non-responders did not complete the PROM at any timepoint; responders completed 1 or more. Primary outcomes included rates of non-response versus response overall.

RESULTS

Of 6374 patients identified, 5653 (88.7%) responded to either PROM [4366/4751 (91.9%) BREAST-Q; 2746/3384 (81.1%) Recovery Tracker]. On univariate analysis, non-responders were older (60 years versus 55 years, p < 0.001) and more often non-English speaking (p < 0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (p = 0.031), and Black race (p < 0.001), versus responders. On multivariate analysis, non-responders were significantly more often Black race and non-English speaking (p < 0.001). Non-English speakers were significantly less responsive among all ethnicities and races except Black race. Although breast cancer stage did not reach significance for response, patients with malignant disease and those receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy responded more often.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate high patient engagement using 2 different PROM following breast surgery, but suggest that PROM results may not reflect the experience of the entire breast cancer population. Care process changes based solely on PROM should consider these findings to ensure that the views of the entire spectrum of patients with breast cancer are represented.

Linking the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Item Library to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events

PURPOSE

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Item Library is an interactive online platform currently composed of 950 unique items (questions) derived from 67 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. PROs complement clinician adverse event (AE) reporting classifications like the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). This work aims to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from the EORTC Item Library through linking individual items to corresponding AEs.

METHODS

The EORTC Item Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described within the AE's title, description, or grading. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms. Other nonsymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification. Further descriptive codes (eg, multiple issues) were allocated to enable descriptive analysis. Two raters independently coded 26.2% (n = 249) of the items. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, followed by discussion with two additional raters to reach consensus.

RESULTS

Overall, 625 (65.8%) EORTC items were linked to 208 different AEs. Three hundred sixty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer-related issues and were categorized into seven descriptive classifications, including body image; emotional impact of a symptom, diagnosis, or treatment; global health and quality of life; and impact on life and daily activities. Inter-rater agreement for independent coding was 79.1%. Bowel urgency and tenesmus were identified as missing symptoms in CTCAEv5.0.

CONCLUSION

The EORTC Item Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues important to patients with cancer. Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO items may facilitate PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

Diversity of interpretations of the concept "patient-centered care for breast cancer patients"; a scoping review of current literature

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-centered care is considered a vital component of good quality care for breast cancer patients. Nevertheless, the implementation of this valuable concept in clinical practice appears to be difficult. The goal of this study is to bridge the gap between theoretical elaboration of "patient-centered care" and clinical practice. To that purpose, a scoping analysis was performed of the application of the term "patient-centered care in breast cancer treatment" in present-day literature.

METHOD

For data-extraction, a literature search was performed extracting references that were published in 2018 and included the terms "patient-centered care" and "breast cancer". The articles were systematically traced for answers to the following three questions: "What is patient-centered care?", "Why perform patient-centered care?", and "How to realize patient-centered care?". For the content analysis, these answers were coded and assembled into meaningful clusters until separate themes arose which concur with various interpretations of the term "patient-centered care".

RESULTS

A total of 60 publications were retained for analysis. Traced answers to the three questions "what", "why", and "how" varied considerably in recent literature concerning breast cancer treatment. Despite the inconsistent use of the term "patient-centered care," we did not find any critical consideration about the nature of the concept, regardless of the applied interpretation. Interventions that are supposed to contribute to the heterogeneous concept of patient-centered care as such, seem to be judged desirable, virtually without empirical justification.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose, contrary to previous efforts to define "patient-centered care" more accurately, to embrace the heterogeneity of the concept and apply "patient-centered care" as an umbrella-term for all healthcare that intends to contribute to the acknowledgement of the person in the patient. For the justification of measures to realize patient-centered care for breast cancer patients, instead of a mere contribution to the abstract concept, we insist on the demonstration of desirable real-world effects.

Postoperative Packing of Perianal Abscess Cavities (PPAC2): randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Perianal abscess is common. Traditionally, postoperative perianal abscess cavities are managed with internal wound packing, a practice not supported by evidence. The aim of this randomized clinical trial (RCT) was to assess if non-packing is less painful and if it is associated with adverse outcomes.

METHODS

The Postoperative Packing of Perianal Abscess Cavities (PPAC2) trial was a multicentre, RCT (two-group parallel design) of adult participants admitted to an NHS hospital for incision and drainage of a primary perianal abscess. Participants were randomized 1:1 (via an online system) to receive continued postoperative wound packing or non-packing. Blinded data were collected via symptom diaries, telephone, and clinics over 6 months. The objective was to determine whether non-packing of perianal abscess cavities is less painful than packing, without an increase in perianal fistula or abscess recurrence. The primary outcome was pain (mean maximum pain score on a 100-point visual analogue scale).

RESULTS

Between February 2018 and March 2020, 433 participants (mean age 42 years) were randomized across 50 sites. Two hundred and thirteen participants allocated to packing reported higher pain scores than 220 allocated to non-packing (38.2 versus 28.2, mean difference 9.9; P < 0.0001). The occurrence of fistula-in-ano was low in both groups: 32/213 (15 per cent) in the packing group and 24/220 (11 per cent) in the non-packing group (OR 0.69, 95 per cent c.i. 0.39 to 1.22; P = 0.20). The proportion of patients with abscess recurrence was also low: 13/223 (6 per cent) in the non-packing group and 7/213 (3 per cent) in the packing group (OR 1.85, 95 per cent c.i. 0.72 to 4.73; P = 0.20).

CONCLUSION

Avoiding abscess cavity packing is less painful without a negative morbidity risk.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN93273484 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN93273484).

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03315169 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines.

FINDINGS

Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Sickle Cell Disease and Quality of Life: An Evaluation of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

Sickle cell disease significantly impacts one's quality of life (QOL); thus, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have integrated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess patients' health from their perspective. We aim to evaluate the completeness of reporting of PROs included in sickle cell disease RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published sickle cell disease RCTs with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2021. In a masked, duplicate fashion, two investigators evaluated RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting in Trials (CONSORT)-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. The primary objective was mean percent completeness of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Additional relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting were evaluated. Mean completeness of reporting of RCTs was 41.49% (SD = 20.90). Randomized controlled trials with primary outcomes were more complete (57.50%, SD = 8.33) than RCTs with secondary PROs (33.48%, SD = 20.91). We did not find a significant difference in completion between trials with primary PROs and secondary PROs (t₁ = 2.07; p = 0.06). Our secondary objectives included factors that may be associated with completeness of PRO reporting. Of the 12 included studies, five were considered to be overall 'high' RoB (41.67%). In each of the five domains, the majority of studies received 'low' RoB evaluations. Incomplete PRO reporting was common within sickle cell RCTs. Therefore, we recommend future RCTs including PROs should take measures to increase completeness of reporting.

Assessing the methodological quality of quality-of-life analyses in first-line non-small cell lung cancer trials: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Non-cytotoxic therapy has changed the treatment paradigm for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. With unique mechanisms of action, these agents have decidedly improved survival and have demonstrated an improved toxicity profile. However, the real-life experience of the patient, which is commonly assessed by health-related quality of life (HRQoL) measurement, is not clearly established with this new generation of lung cancer treatments. The heterogeneity created by specific patient subgroups and different therapeutics calls for a tailored-approach to analyzing patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of HRQoL analysis in Randomized Clinical Trials (RCTs) involving biologic agents to treat NSCLC.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify NSCLC RCTs published between January 1st, 2000 and January 1st, 2020 reporting HRQoL measures. Only RCTs that both enrolled previously untreated patients with advanced NSCLC and had HRQoL analysis were included.

RESULTS

4203 abstracts were screened, of which only 85 RCTs met inclusion and exclusion criteria for analysis. The most applied HRQoL assessment tools were the EORTC-QLQ-C30 (47, 55.3 %), and EORTC-QLQ-LC13 (35, 41.2 %). The median number of verified CONSORT-PRO Extension criteria in the included trials was 3, and only in 10 (11.8 %) trials were all criteria well-documented. Notably, only 21 (24.7 %) RCTs performed subgroup analyses to specifically evaluate HRQoL in different patient populations.

CONCLUSION

QoL reporting in clinical trials is inconsistent and the quality of QoL measures adopted in a majority of trials is suboptimal. Considering the fact that NSCLC is a biologically diverse disease and that the treatments differ based on patient and tumor-specifics, efforts should be pursued to tailor QoL measures for different subsets of this patient population in addition to mandating QoL reporting in clinical trials. We believe that this is necessary to understand the real-life experience of lung cancer patients in the era of personalized medicine.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China

IMPORTANCE

Regulatory authorities, industry peers, and international health policies have emphasized the value of assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies. Despite the increase in the number of clinical studies in the last decade in China, little is known about the extent of the use of PROs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the application and characteristics of PRO instruments as primary and secondary outcomes in randomized clinical trials in China.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional study of interventional clinical trials conducted in China from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was performed. Data obtained from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trials were categorized according to those that (1) precisely listed PRO tools as outcomes, (2) mentioned patient subjective feelings in outcomes but did not clarify which tools were used for assessment, and (3) did not mention any PRO measurements. Data on study phase, setting, participant age, and sex were extracted from trials that considered patient feelings, along with the target diseases and names of the PRO tools.

RESULTS

Among a total of 34 033 trials, 6915 (20.3%) listed the explicit PRO instruments used and 3178 (9.3%) included PRO in their outcomes but did not include the names of the assessment tools. From more than 32 million people included in the registered trials, data on 1.5 million (4.7%) patients were scientifically collected by PRO instruments, and subjective feelings were assessed for 693 867 (2.1%) participants. Pain (16.8%), cancer (15.6%), and musculoskeletal symptoms (13.3%) were the most common conditions for which PROs were precisely collected by tools. The most common tools for PRO measurements were the visual analog scale, Short-Form 36, and Hamilton Depression Scale.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, the use of PROs increased during the study period in clinical trials conducted in China. However, patient opinion appears to still be rarely measured. The application of PRO is geographically unevenly distributed. Development of PRO instruments, especially those suitable for the Chinese population, may be useful. Further expansion of PROs with respect to the scope of diseases is needed to avoid missing important data.

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium: Optimizing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials

Background:

The assessment of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials has enormous potential to promote patient-centred care, but for this potential to be realized, the patient-reported outcomes must be captured effectively and communicated clearly. Over the past decade, methodologic tools have been developed to inform the design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials. We formed the PROTEUS-Trials Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users and Stakeholders) to disseminate and implement these methodologic tools.

Methods:

PROTEUS-Trials are engaging with patient, clinician, research, and regulatory stakeholders from 27 organizations in the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Europe to develop both organization-specific and cross-cutting strategies for implementing and disseminating the methodologic tools. Guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework, we conducted consortium-wide webinars and meetings, as well as individual calls with participating organizations, to develop a workplan, which we are currently executing.

Results:

Six methodologic tools serve as the foundation for PROTEUS-Trials dissemination and implementation efforts: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for writing protocols with patient-reported outcomes, the International Society for Quality of Life Research Minimum Standards for selecting a patient-reported outcome measure, Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium recommendations for patient-reported outcome data analysis, the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials-patient-reported outcome extension for reporting clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes, recommendations for the graphic display of patient-reported outcome data, and a Clinician’s Checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. The PROTEUS-Trials website (www.TheProteusConsortium.org) serves as a central repository for the methodologic tools and associated resources. To date, we have developed (1) a roadmap to visually display where each of the six methodologic tools applies along the clinical trial trajectory, (2) web tutorials that provide guidance on the methodologic tools at different levels of detail, (3) checklists to provide brief summaries of each tool’s recommendations, (4) a handbook to provide a self-guided approach to learning about the tools and recommendations, and (5) publications that address key topics related to patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. We are also conducting organization-specific activities, including meetings, presentations, workshops, and webinars to publicize the existence of the methodologic tools and the PROTEUS-Trials resources. Work to develop communications strategies to ensure that PROTEUS-Trials reach key audiences with relevant information about patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and PROTEUS-Trials is ongoing.

Discussion:

The PROTEUS-Trials Consortium aims to help researchers generate patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials to (1) enable investigators, regulators, and policy-makers to take the patient perspective into account when conducting research and making decisions; (2) help patients understand treatment options and make treatment decisions; and (3) inform clinicians’ discussions with patients regarding treatment options. In these ways, the PROTEUS Consortium promotes patient-centred research and care.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts.

FINDINGS

16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Investigating Trends in the Quality of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Over Time: Analysis of 631 Randomized Controlled Trials Published Between 2004 and 2019

OBJECTIVES

Incomplete reporting of key information on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology has been highlighted repeatedly as a major barrier to the use of study findings in clinical practice. We investigated whether the quality of reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs has improved over the last 15 years.

METHODS

We identified all cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints conducted across the most prevalent solid tumor types worldwide published between 2004 and 2019. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research recommended standards, which include important aspects related to assessment methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of data.

RESULTS

We assessed a total of 631 cancer RCTs in breast (n = 187), lung (n = 131), prostate (n = 120), colorectal (n = 107), and gynecological (n = 86) cancer. We observed a higher adherence to the International Society for Quality of Life Research reporting criteria in the more recently published studies. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, we observed a statistically significant improvement in the quality of PRO reporting over time (P<.001), and this relationship was independent of other measured confounding factors, such as sample size and study sponsorship. Overall, the quality of PRO reporting was higher for studies published after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO Extension.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of PRO reporting in cancer RCTs published in the last 15 years has improved significantly. Our findings are encouraging because better reporting of PRO results may translate into a greater impact of study findings on real-world practice.

Health-related quality of life one year after the diagnosis of oesophageal cancer: a population-based study from the Swedish National Registry for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Population-based patient reported outcome data in oesophageal cancer are rare. The main purpose of this study was to describe health-related quality of life (HRQOL) 1 year after the diagnosis of oesophageal cancer, comparing subgroups of curatively and palliatively managed patients.

METHODS

This is a nationwide population-based cohort study, based on the Swedish National Registry for Oesophageal and Gastric Cancer (NREV) with prospectively registered data, including HRQOL instruments from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer including the core and disease specific questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OG25). Patients diagnosed with oesophageal cancer between 2009 and 2016 and with complete HRQOL data at 1 year follow-up were included. HRQOL of included patients was compared to a reference population matched by age and gender to to a previous cohort of unselected Swedish oesophageal cancer patients. Linear regression was performed to calculate mean scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and adjusted linear regression analysis was used to calculate mean score differences (MD) with 95% CI.

RESULTS

A total of 1156 patients were included. Functions and global health/quality of life were lower in both the curative and palliative cohorts compared to the reference population. Both curatively and palliatively managed patients reported a severe symptom burden compared to the reference population. Patients who underwent surgery reported more problems with diarrhoea compared to those treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) (MD -14; 95% CI - 20 to - 8). Dysphagia was more common in patiens treated with dCRT compared to surgically treated patients (MD 11; 95% CI 4 to 18). Those with palliative intent due to advanced tumour stage reported more problems with dysphagia compared to those with palliative intent due to frailty (MD -18; 95% CI - 33 to - 3).

CONCLUSIONS

One year after diagnosis both curative and palliative intent patients reported low function scores and severe symptoms. Dysphagia, choking, and other eating related problems were more pronounced in palliatively managed patients and in the curative intent patients treated with dCRT.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Background

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of treatment response in heart failure. We assessed temporal trends in and factors associated with inclusion of PROs in heart failure randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and July 2020 in journals with an impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere‐Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with PRO inclusion. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. Of 417 RCTs included, PROs were reported in 226 (54.2%; 95% CI, 49.3%–59.1%), with increased reporting between 2000 and 2020 (P<0.001). The odds of PRO inclusion were greater in RCTs that were published in recent years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per year, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; P<0.001), multicenter (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03–3.46; P=0.040), medium‐sized (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26–4.40; P=0.008), coordinated in Central and South America (aOR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.14–30.97; P=0.035), and tested health service (aOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49–6.55; P=0.003), device/surgical (aOR, 6.66; 95% CI, 3.15–14.05; P<0.001), or exercise (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.81–12.00; P=0.001) interventions. RCTs reported a median of 4 (interquartile interval , 3–6) of a possible of 11 CONSORT PRO items.

Conclusions

Just over half of all heart failure RCTs published in high impact factor journals between 2000 and 2020 included PROs, with increased inclusion of PROs over time. Trials that were large, tested pharmaceutical interventions, and coordinated in North America / Europe had lower adjusted odds of reporting PROs relative to other trials. The quality of PRO reporting was modest.

Reducing bias in trials due to reactions to measurement: experts produced recommendations informed by evidence

OBJECTIVE

This study (MEasurement Reactions In Trials) aimed to produce recommendations on how best to minimize bias from measurement reactivity (MR) in randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve health.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

The MERIT study consisted of: (1) an updated systematic review that examined whether measuring participants had effects on participants' health-related behaviors, relative to no-measurement controls, and three rapid reviews to identify: (i) existing guidance on MR; (ii) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on behavioral or affective outcomes; and (iii) studies that have investigated the effects of objective measurements of behavior on health-related behavior; (2) a Delphi study to identify the scope of the recommendations; and (3) an expert workshop in October 2018 to discuss potential recommendations in groups.

RESULTS

Fourteen recommendations were produced by the expert group to: (1) identify whether bias is likely to be a problem for a trial; (2) decide whether to collect data about whether bias is likely to be a problem; (3) design trials to minimize the likelihood of this bias.

CONCLUSION

These recommendations raise awareness of how and where taking measurements can produce bias in trials, and are thus helpful for trial design.

Trends in patient-reported outcome use in early phase dose-finding oncology trials - an analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.

METHODS

DFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.

RESULTS

5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.

Meta-Analysis of Quality of Life in Cancer Patients Treated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have published patient-reported quality of life (QOL), but the size and heterogeneity of this literature can make patient education difficult. This meta-analysis aimed to describe change in QOL and symptomatology in patients receiving ICIs for cancer.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched through November 2019 for articles or abstracts of prospective, original studies reporting longitudinal QOL in adult cancer patients treated with ICIs. The prespecified primary outcomes were change in global QOL among patients treated with ICIs and difference in change since baseline in global QOL between patients treated with ICI vs. non-ICI active treatment. Secondary outcomes included physical functioning and symptomatology. All statistical tests were 2-sided.

RESULTS

Twenty-six of 20,323 publications met inclusion criteria. Global QOL did not change over time in patients treated with ICIs (k = 26, n = 6,974, P = .19). Larger improvements in global QOL was observed in patients receiving ICI vs. non-ICI regimens (k = 16, ICI n = 3,588, non-ICI n = 2,948, P < .001). Physical functioning did not change in patients treated with ICIs (k = 14, n = 3,169, P=.47); there were no differences in mean change between ICI vs. non-ICI regimens (k = 11, n = 4,630, P=.94. Regarding symptoms, appetite loss, insomnia, and pain severity decreased but dyspnea severity increased in patients treated with ICIs (k = 14, n = 3,243-3,499) (Ps < 0.001). Insomnia severity was higher in patients treated with ICIs than non-ICI regimens (k = 11, n = 4,791) (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study is among the first to quantitatively summarize QOL in patients treated with ICIs. Findings suggest ICI recipients report no change in global QOL and higher QOL than patients treated with non-ICI regimens.

Reducing bias in trials from reactions to measurement: the MERIT study including developmental work and expert workshop

BACKGROUND

Measurement can affect the people being measured; for example, asking people to complete a questionnaire can result in changes in behaviour (the 'question-behaviour effect'). The usual methods of conduct and analysis of randomised controlled trials implicitly assume that the taking of measurements has no effect on research participants. Changes in measured behaviour and other outcomes due to measurement reactivity may therefore introduce bias in otherwise well-conducted randomised controlled trials, yielding incorrect estimates of intervention effects, including underestimates.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were (1) to promote awareness of how and where taking measurements can lead to bias and (2) to provide recommendations on how best to avoid or minimise bias due to measurement reactivity in randomised controlled trials of interventions to improve health.

METHODS

We conducted (1) a series of systematic and rapid reviews, (2) a Delphi study and (3) an expert workshop. A protocol paper was published [Miles LM, Elbourne D, Farmer A, Gulliford M, Locock L, McCambridge J, et al. Bias due to MEasurement Reactions In Trials to improve health (MERIT): protocol for research to develop MRC guidance. Trials 2018;19:653]. An updated systematic review examined whether or not measuring participants had an effect on participants' health-related behaviours relative to no-measurement controls. Three new rapid systematic reviews were conducted to identify (1) existing guidance on measurement reactivity, (2) existing systematic reviews of studies that have quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes relating to behaviour and affective outcomes and (3) experimental studies that have investigated the effects of exposure to objective measurements of behaviour on health-related behaviour. The views of 40 experts defined the scope of the recommendations in two waves of data collection during the Delphi procedure. A workshop aimed to produce a set of recommendations that were formed in discussion in groups.

RESULTS

Systematic reviews - we identified a total of 43 studies that compared interview or questionnaire measurement with no measurement and these had an overall small effect (standardised mean difference 0.06, 95% confidence interval 0.02 to 0.09; n = 104,096, I² = 54%). The three rapid systematic reviews identified no existing guidance on measurement reactivity, but we did identify five systematic reviews that quantified the effects of measurement on outcomes (all focused on the question-behaviour effect, with all standardised mean differences in the range of 0.09-0.28) and 16 studies that examined reactive effects of objective measurement of behaviour, with most evidence of reactivity of small effect and short duration. Delphi procedure - substantial agreement was reached on the scope of the present recommendations. Workshop - 14 recommendations and three main aims were produced. The aims were to identify whether or not bias is likely to be a problem for a trial, to decide whether or not to collect further quantitative or qualitative data to inform decisions about if bias is likely to be a problem, and to identify how to design trials to minimise the likelihood of this bias.

LIMITATION

The main limitation was the shortage of high-quality evidence regarding the extent of measurement reactivity, with some notable exceptions, and the circumstances that are likely to bring it about.

CONCLUSION

We hope that these recommendations will be used to develop new trials that are less likely to be at risk of bias.

FUTURE WORK

The greatest need is to increase the number of high-quality primary studies regarding the extent of measurement reactivity.

STUDY REGISTRATION

The first systematic review in this study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018102511.

FUNDING

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research Programme.

Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review

PURPOSE

Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs published in 2008 and 2018. Secondarily, to describe the study designs, PRO instruments used, patient groups studied, and countries where the clinical studies were conducted.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify eligible publications. To assess the number of publications, all abstracts were screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers. Compliance with PRO-specific criteria and other key characteristics was assessed in a random sample of 150 eligible full-text publications from each year. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed according to the full CONSORT-PRO checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 1692 publications in 2008 and 4290 in 2018. After screening of abstracts, 1240 from 2008 and 2869 from 2018 were clinical studies using PROs. By full-text review, the proportion of studies discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there were no differences in the other selected PRO-specific criteria. In 2018, a higher proportion of studies were longitudinal/cohort studies, included ≥ 300 patients, and used electronic administration of PRO than in 2008. The most common patient groups studied were those with cancer or diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue.

CONCLUSION

The number of clinical studies from Europe using PROs was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there was little difference in compliance with the PRO-specific criteria. The studies varied in terms of study design and PRO instruments used in both publication years.

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study

PURPOSE

Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame.

RESULTS

Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists' reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified.

CONCLUSION

Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

The effect of geriatric intervention in frail older patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer: a randomised trial (GERICO)

BACKGROUND

Older patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) experience chemotherapy dose reductions or discontinuation. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) predicts survival and chemotherapy completion in patients with cancer, but the benefit of geriatric interventions remains unexplored.

METHODS

The GERICO study is a randomised Phase 3 trial including patients ≥70 years receiving adjuvant or first-line palliative chemotherapy for CRC. Vulnerable patients (G8 questionnaire ≤14 points) were randomised 1:1 to CGA-based interventions or standard care, along with guideline-based chemotherapy. The primary outcome was chemotherapy completion without dose reductions or delays. Secondary outcomes were toxicity, survival and quality of life (QoL).

RESULTS

Of 142 patients, 58% received adjuvant and 42% received first-line palliative chemotherapy. Interventions included medication changes (62%), nutritional therapy (51%) and physiotherapy (39%). More interventional patients completed scheduled chemotherapy compared with controls (45% vs. 28%, P = 0.0366). Severe toxicity occurred in 39% of controls and 28% of interventional patients (P = 0.156). QoL improved in interventional patients compared with controls with the decreased burden of illness (P = 0.048) and improved mobility (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

Geriatric interventions compared with standard care increased the number of older, vulnerable patients with CRC completing adjuvant chemotherapy, and may improve the burden of illness and mobility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02748811.

Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site.

RESULTS

Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%).

CONCLUSION

The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.

Health-related quality-of-life assessment of patients with solid tumors on immuno-oncology therapies

Immuno-oncology therapies have been approved for various solid tumors; however, the high cost of these treatments and their potential toxicities require a thorough assessment of their risks and benefits. Collection of data directly from patients through patient-reported outcome instruments can improve the precision and reliability of adverse event detection, assess tolerability of adverse events, and provide an evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes from immuno-oncology therapies. There is robust development in HRQOL tools specifically for patients treated with immuno-oncology agents. This review examines the history and basic concepts of HRQOL and patient-reported outcome assessments commonly used in oncological trials, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches when applied to immunotherapies, as well as some of the current efforts to develop tools for this field and opportunities for future research. LAY SUMMARY: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are costly and carry potential toxicities known as immune-related adverse events. Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can impact the risk-benefit assessment of IO therapies. Integration of HRQOL end points and patient-reported outcome data for IO therapies are urgently needed. Ongoing robust development of patient-reported outcome tools specific to IO therapies are currently underway and will permit the evaluation of HRQOL for IO agents. Improvement in precision and reliability of HRQOL evaluation will enhance the ultimate true value of these expensive and effective drugs.

Patient-reported outcomes with durvalumab by PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy-related variables in unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: We retrospectively investigated the impact of tumor PD-L1 expression and prior chemoradiotherapy (CRT)-related variables on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from PACIFIC. Patients & methods: PACIFIC was a Phase III study of durvalumab versus placebo after CRT in patients with unresectable, stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. If available, pre-CRT tumor tissue was tested for PD-L1 tumor-cell expression, scored at prespecified (25%) and post-hoc (1%) cut-offs. PROs were assessed using EORTC QLQ C30/-LC13. Results: Similar to the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, most PROs remained stable over time across PD-L1 and CRT subgroups, with few clinically relevant differences between treatment arms. Time to deterioration was generally similar to the ITT population. Conclusion: Neither PD-L1 expression nor prior CRT-related variables influenced PROs with durvalumab therapy. Clinical trial registration: NCT02125461 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Patient-Reported Outcomes as Independent Prognostic Factors for Survival in Oncology: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology is of critical importance because it provides unique information that may also predict clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of prognostic factor studies to examine the prognostic value of PROs for survival in cancer. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed for studies published between 2013 and 2018. We considered any study, regardless of the research design, that included at least 1 PRO domain in the final multivariable prognostic model. The protocol (EPIPHANY) was published and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42018099160).

RESULTS

Eligibility criteria selected 138 studies including 158 127 patients, of which 43 studies were randomized, controlled trials. Overall, 120 (87%) studies reported at least 1 PRO to be statistically significantly prognostic for overall survival. Lung (n = 41, 29.7%) and genitourinary (n = 27, 19.6%) cancers were most commonly investigated. The prognostic value of PROs was investigated in secondary data analyses in 101 (73.2%) studies. The EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire was the most frequently used measure, and its physical functioning scale (range 0-100) the most frequent independent prognostic PRO, with a pooled hazard ratio estimate of 0.88 per 10-point increase (95% CI 0.84-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

There is convincing evidence that PROs provide independent prognostic information for overall survival across cancer populations and disease stages. Further research is needed to translate current evidence-based data into prognostic tools to aid in clinical decision making.

Health-Related Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug Registration: The Value Beyond Reimbursement

PURPOSE

A review of the literature was performed to evaluate how quality of life measures are collected, analyzed, and reported in cancer clinical trials intended to support drug registration.Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data points are one of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments used in clinical trials to evaluate the effects of treatments from the patient perspective. The use of PROs has gained focus in cancer clinical trials as more options become available for greater longevity of patients on treatment. Standardization of PRO data is evolving and involves unique challenges when used for assessing biologic and chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

In this study, a review of literature published between 2009 and 2019 was conducted using PubMed, COCHRANE Library, and Medline. The research focus was on the current guidance, implementation, and reporting as well as highlighting the issues, and recommendations for the inclusion of HRQoL end points in cancer clinical trials intended for use in drug registration.

RESULTS

Although there exist many levels of guidance for HRQoL measures in cancer drug trials, challenges to operational implementation, the current inconsistent adherence to reporting standards, and the lack of consensus and understanding of analyses limit the value and potential of the resulting data collected.

CONCLUSION

The results of HRQoL data collected from cancer clinical trials can be difficult to interpret and apply to inform clinical decision making. Increased reporting and access to these data can provide opportunities for potential applications to improve translatability of HRQoL data collected in clinical trials into practice.