Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in ovarian cancer clinical trials-lost opportunities and lessons learned

From the Formation of Conceptual Framework to Regulatory Decision-Making: Considerations for the Developments of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments

In recent years, patient-focused drug development (PFDD) has received widespread attention as a new paradigm in clinical trials. The PFDD emphasizes patients are partners in research projects, where patients can participate in research design, implementation, and outcome measurement, rather than just providing data. PFDD has shown great value in the research and development of pharmaceutical products, such as in accelerating the process of patient enrollment and improving the success rate of drug approval. Many countries and regions, including the United States, China, and Europe, have issued relevant regulatory policies and guidelines related to PFDD, covering study design, implementation, and risk-benefit assessment. The core of PFDD implementation is clinical outcome assessment (COA), of which patient-reported outcome (PRO) is most common. As far as the US Food and Drug Administration is concerned, there are numerous COA tools waiting for qualification, but currently all qualified are PROs. This review focuses on PRO and explores the key elements of PRO instruments' development, application, and inclusion in regulatory decision-making.

Quality of life in ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bevacizumab is widely used in ovarian cancer due to its ability to extend survival. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy may increase the toxicities that affect quality of life (QOL). To investigate the impact of bevacizumab on QOL during the increased survival, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and ClinicalTrials.gov. for RCTs comparing the QOL of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy (BEV-CT) versus chemotherapy (CT) in ovarian cancer. The primary outcome was the difference in change in QOL from baseline to follow-up between groups.

RESULTS

Four RCTs involving 3454 patients were included in this meta-analysis. There was no difference in change in QOL between patients treated with BEV-CT and CT at the end of follow-up (pooled SMD= -00.05; 95%CI = -00.34 to 0.23; P = 0.71). Subgroup analyses showed similar results in the frontline and recurrent setting of ovarian cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first meta-analysis investigating QOL in ovarian cancer patients treated with bevacizumab. The extended survival associated with bevacizumab is not accompanied by a significant deterioration in QOL. Combined with the efficacy and safety outcomes, these results further support the clinical benefit of bevacizumab for ovarian cancer.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

Usability and acceptability of the electronic self-assessment and care (eSAC) program in advanced ovarian cancer: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

To determine usability and acceptability of the electronic self-assessment and care (eSAC) web-based, patient reported outcome (PRO) program for people with advanced ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Patient participants recruited from a single ambulatory site were prompted by email to answer symptom/quality of life items prior to each clinic visit. Patient participant acceptability was measured with the Acceptability E-Scale Score (AES). Usability was measured among a subset of patient participants using semi-structured interviews. Clinician participant acceptability and usability were measured via survey and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic content analysis. A mixed methods analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Of 163 eligible patients approached, 143 (87.7%) provided written consent. Patient participants (n = 71) who created an eSAC report prior to at least 3 clinic visits, rated eSAC as acceptable with a mean AES score of 26.19 ± 3.36 (out of 30). Interview data from patient participants (n = 33) revealed that eSAC was easy to use and important to the clinic visit conversation. Data from clinician surveys (n = 8) and focus groups (n = 3) revealed that the eSAC program was acceptable and useful for clinicians. Qualitative analysis suggested process improvements from patients and clinicians for effectiveness in the advanced ovarian cancer setting. Mixed methods analysis demonstrated no major discrepancies between quantitative and qualitative findings, with the qualitative data broadening understanding of quantitative ratings.

CONCLUSION

eSAC was useful and acceptable in this setting. This PRO is a promising strategy for enhancing patient-centered care for people with advanced ovarian cancer.

Evaluating reporting of patient-reported outcomes in peptic ulcer disease: a meta-epidemiological study of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Peptic ulcer disease (PUD) can significantly affect quality of life (QoL). These QoL outcomes are often patient-reported, and their inclusion in clinical trials supplements efficacy outcomes to provide the patients' perspective. This study aimed to assess existing literature for completeness of PRO reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating PUD.

METHODS

This was a meta-epidemiological, cross-sectional study which assessed completeness of reporting among RCTs addressing management of PUD. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs with a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. These RCTs were assessed for completion of reporting according to the PRO adaptation of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials checklist. RCTs were also assessed for Risk of Bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

Masked, duplicate screening of 829 results from our search yielded a final sample of 35 RCTs. The average completeness of reporting was 32.9% according to the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Twenty-one (of 35; 60%) of the RCTs were assessed as having 'high' risk of bias and nine (of 35; 25.71%) were assessed as having 'some concerns' for risk of bias. Bivariate regression found completeness of reporting to be positively associated with increased PRO follow-up duration, larger sample size, and studies which report conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

RCTs examining the treatment and prevention of PUD with PROs as an outcome measure have deficient reporting and 'high' risk of bias according to the CONSORT-PRO and Cochrane RoB guidelines.

Symptom burden and quality of life with chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer: the Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup-Symptom Benefit Study

OBJECTIVE

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG)-Symptom Benefit Study was designed to evaluate the effects of chemotherapy on symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in women having chemotherapy for platinum resistant/refractory recurrent ovarian cancer (PRR-ROC) and potentially platinum sensitive with ≥3 lines of chemotherapy (PPS-ROC ≥3).

METHODS

Participants completed the Measure of Ovarian Cancer Symptoms and Treatment (MOST) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every 3-4 weeks until progression. Participants were classified symptomatic if they rated ≥4 of 10 in at least one-third of symptoms in the MOST index. Improvement in MOST was defined as two consecutive scores of ≤3 in at least half of the symptomatic items at baseline. Improvement in HRQL was defined as two consecutive scores ≥10 points above baseline in the QLQ-C30 summary score scale (range 0-100).

RESULTS

Of 948 participants enrolled, 910 (96%) completed baseline questionnaires: 546 with PRR-ROC and 364 with PPS-ROC ≥3. The proportions of participants symptomatic at baseline as per MOST indexes were: abdominal 54%, psychological 53%, and disease- or treatment-related 35%. Improvement was reported in MOST indexes: abdominal 40%, psychological 35%, and disease- or treatment-related 38%. Median time to improvement in abdominal symptoms occurred earlier for PRR-ROC than for PPS-ROC ≥3 (4 vs 6 weeks, p=0.044); median duration of improvement was also similar (9.0 vs 11.7 weeks, p=0.65). Progression-free survival was longer among those with improvement in abdominal symptoms than in those without (median 7.2 vs 2.5 months, p<0.0001). Improvements in HRQL were reported by 77/448 (17%) with PRR-ROC and 61/301 (20%) with PPS-ROC ≥3 (p=0.29), and 102/481 (21%) of those with abdominal symptoms at baseline.

CONCLUSION

Over 50% of participants reported abdominal and psychological symptoms at baseline. Of those, 40% reported an improvement within 2 months of starting chemotherapy. Approximately one in six participants reported an improvement in HRQL. Symptom monitoring and supportive care is important as chemotherapy palliated less than half of symptomatic participants.

Development and validation of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns for surveillance (MOST-S26): An instrument to complement the clinical follow-up of women with ovarian cancer after completion of first-line treatment

OBJECTIVE

The Measure of Ovarian Symptoms and Treatment (MOST-T35) is a patient-reported symptom index, developed and validated in the context of palliative chemotherapy for recurrent ovarian cancer (OC). We aimed to develop and validate a version suitable for surveillance of symptoms following first-line treatment for OC to support clinical follow-up.

METHODS

In a prospective study of women following completion of first-line chemotherapy for OC, patients completed MOST-T35 every 3 months for up to 3.5 years and other patient-reported outcome measures. Construct validity (Spearman's correlations), discriminative validity (t-tests/ANOVAs assessing differences between clinically distinct groups), ability to detect clinically important symptoms (receiver operating characteristic analysis), and responsiveness (t-tests examining change) were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 726 women who received ≥3 cycles of chemotherapy, did not progress within 3 months, and completed ≥one MOST-T35 were analysed. The revised version, MOST-S26, has 26 items and 5 multi-item indexes: peripheral neuropathy (MOST-NTx), disease or treatment-related (MOST-DorT), abdominal (MOST-Abdo), and psychological symptoms (MOST-Psych), and MOST-Wellbeing, plus 9 individual items. Construct validity was confirmed (r range = 0.43-0.88). Discriminative validity confirmed expected differences between groups. MOST-NTx and MOST-Psych detected improvements in peripheral neuropathy and psychological symptoms respectively, whereas MOST-Abdo detected worsening of abdominal symptoms pre-recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

This study developed and validated the MOST-S26, for surveillance of women in follow-up after first-line chemotherapy for OC. MOST-S26 reliably detected improvement in symptoms of peripheral neuropathy, psychological distress and may detect symptoms of relapse. Administration of MOST-S26 in follow-up consultations could identify concerning symptoms and facilitate timely and appropriate intervention.

Advances in the treatment of platinum resistant epithelial ovarian cancer: an update on standard and experimental therapies

Introduction: Platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (PROC) is broadly defined as disease recurrence within 6 months of completing platinum-based chemotherapy, either in the primary or recurrent setting. Although there is significant heterogeneity, PROC is generally associated with poor outcomes and low response rates to standard chemotherapy. There have been novel developments in therapeutics for PROC based on biomarkers and a more nuanced understanding of DNA repair and immunologic pathways.Areas covered: This review provides a summary of standard of care and experimental therapies for patients with PROC. Recent advances in our understanding of the DNA damage response and immunobiology of ovarian cancer have paved the way for single agent and combinatorial strategies involving PARP inhibitors, cell cycle checkpoint inhibitors, and immune checkpoint inhibitors to overcome PARP resistance, capitalize on high replication stress, and promote effective anti-tumor immunity, respectively. Furthermore, novel agents including antibody drug conjugates, bispecific antibodies, and recombinant fusion proteins show promise as experimental treatment options.Expert opinion: Standard and experimental treatment options available to patients with PROC have expanded. Testing for BRCA status, tumor mutational burden, and mismatch repair deficiency is recommended to guide therapy. Clinical trial participation is strongly encouraged with a focus on biomarker-driven trials targeting specific patient populations. Novel approaches such as ADCs, bispecific antibodies, targeting the GAS6/AXL and Notch pathways, and oncolytic virotherapy show considerable promise as emerging therapies.

Measuring Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials-Can We Improve Objectivity and Cross Trial Comparisons?

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a lethal disease for the majority of women diagnosed with it worldwide. For the majority of patients, diagnosis occurs late, in the advanced setting. Disease-induced as well as treatment-related adverse events can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Research to date has captured these data through use of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and, increasingly, has become an area of increased attention and focus in clinical trial reporting. QoL/PRO measurements in EOC clinical trials at different transition points in a patient's journey are increasingly being recognized by patients, clinicians and regulatory agencies as the key determinants of treatment benefit. Various context-specific PROs and PRO endpoints have been described for clinical trials in EOC. Standardized approaches and checklists for incorporating PRO endpoints in clinical trials have been proposed. In a real-world clinical practice setting, PRO/QoL measures, which are meaningful, valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, need to be implemented and used. These may assist by serving as screening tools; helping with the identification of patient preferences to aid in decision making; improving patient-provider communication; facilitating shared decision making. Importantly, they may also improve quality of care through an increasingly patient-centered approach. Potential areas of future research include assessment of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. In good prognostic groups, such as maintenance clinical trials, following patients beyond progression will capture possible downstream effects related to delaying the psychological trauma of relapse, symptoms due to disease progression and side-effects of subsequent chemotherapy. Identifying PRO endpoints in next-generation-targeted therapies (including immunotherapies) also warrants investigation.

Including the patient voice in the development and implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

CONTEXT

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in parallel with clinical evidence to inform decisions made by industry, clinicians, regulators, health technology assessment bodies and other health-care decision-makers. In addition, PRO data can also guide shared decision making and individual patient choice. Yet, the quality of many PROs in cancer clinical trials is suboptimal and requires improvement to add value to health care and policy decision making.

OBJECTIVE

To show how the integration of the patient and/or patient advocate at all stages of PRO development can help to realize the full potential of PROs.

METHODS

We examined the literature to show that the patient voice is often absent from the planning and implementation of PROs in cancer clinical trials. Good practice examples from the literature were combined with guideline recommendations, training or educational resources, and our own experience to create detailed practical steps for the inclusion of patients and/or patient advocates throughout PRO development.

RESULTS

Patient or patient advocates can play an active role in shaping PROs that are meaningful to the patient. They can contribute to content, choice of medium and implementation in a way that may support PRO completion and minimize missing data. Patients and their advocates can work to ensure PRO findings are disseminated appropriately in a way that is accessible to patients.

CONCLUSION

This practical guidance aims to optimize PRO development and implementation in clinical trials, resulting in robust, relevant data that reflect the patient experience and that support decisions made by all stakeholders involved in research and health care.

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.

METHODS

We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.

RESULTS

Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Quality of life outcomes following surgery for advanced ovarian cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Quality of life after ovarian cancer treatment is an important goal for patients. Complex debulking surgeries and platinum based chemotherapy are often required but quality of life after surgery is rarely reported.

OBJECTIVES

To describe quality of life outcomes after surgery for advanced ovarian cancer in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL through March 2019 with no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Included studies reported quality of life in women diagnosed with primary advanced ovarian cancer, fallopian tube carcinoma or primary peritoneal cancer undergoing cytoreduction surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data on extent and timing of surgery, quality of life outcomes, and surgical complications were extracted and study quality assessed.

RESULTS

Three randomized controlled trials comparing primary surgery to neoadjuvant chemotherapy had heterogeneous quality of life outcomes with no difference between arms, although there was a clinical improvement in global quality of life scores in both arms at 6 months compared with baseline. Data from two observational studies showed no meaningful difference in quality of life scores between patients undergoing standard or extensive surgery at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no clinically important difference in the quality of life of patients undergoing either primary debulking surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There is insufficient evidence on quality of life outcomes of patients undergoing extensive or ultra-radical surgery compared with those undergoing less extensive surgery. Quality of life outcomes matter to patients, but there is little evidence to inform patient choice regarding the extent of surgery.

Identification of Key Genes and Pathway for Ovarian Neoplasms Using the OVDM1 Cell Line Based on Bioinformatics Analysis

Background

Ovarian neoplasms are the fifth most common cancer affecting the health of women, and they are the most lethal gynecologic malignancies; however, the etiology of ovarian neoplasms remains largely unknown. There is an urgent need to further broaden the understanding of the development mechanism of ovarian neoplasms through in vitro research using different cell lines.

Material/Methods

To screen the differentially expressed genes (DEGs) that may play critical roles in OVDM1 (an ovarian cancer cell line), the public microarray data (GSE70264) were downloaded and screened for DEGs. Then, Gene Ontology (GO) function analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway analysis were performed. To screen hub genes, the protein–protein interaction network was constructed. The expression level and survival analysis of hub genes in patients with ovarian neoplasms were also analyzed.

Results

There were 79 upregulated and 926 downregulated DEGs detected, and the biological processes of the GO analysis were enriched in extracellular matrix organization, extracellular structure organization, and chromosome segregation, whereas, the KEGG pathway analysis was enriched in cell cycle and cell adhesion molecules. The hub gene BIRC5, which might play a key role in ovarian neoplasms, was further screened.

Conclusions

The present study could deepen the understanding of the molecular mechanism of ovarian neoplasms using the OVDM1 cell line, which could be useful in developing clinical treatments of ovarian neoplasms.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease

The development of guidelines is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on April 12-14, 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

ESMO-ESGO consensus conference recommendations on ovarian cancer: pathology and molecular biology, early and advanced stages, borderline tumours and recurrent disease†

The development of guidelines recommendations is one of the core activities of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) and European Society of Gynaecologial Oncology (ESGO), as part of the mission of both societies to improve the quality of care for patients with cancer across Europe. ESMO and ESGO jointly developed clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations in several selected areas in order to improve the quality of care for women with ovarian cancer. The ESMO-ESGO consensus conference on ovarian cancer was held on 12-14 April 2018 in Milan, Italy, and comprised a multidisciplinary panel of 40 leading experts in the management of ovarian cancer. Before the conference, the expert panel worked on five clinically relevant questions regarding ovarian cancer relating to each of the following four areas: pathology and molecular biology, early-stage and borderline tumours, advanced stage disease and recurrent disease. Relevant scientific literature, as identified using a systematic search, was reviewed in advance. During the consensus conference, the panel developed recommendations for each specific question and a consensus was reached. The recommendations presented here are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. This article presents the recommendations of this ESMO-ESGO consensus conference, together with a summary of evidence supporting each recommendation.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Labeling for Oncology Drugs Approved by the FDA and the EMA (2012-2016)

OBJECTIVES

To compare US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) labeling for evidence based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of new oncology treatments approved by both agencies.

METHODS

Oncology drugs and indications approved between 2012 and 2016 by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. PRO-related language and analysis reported in US product labels and drug approval packages and EMA summaries of product characteristics were compared for each indication.

RESULTS

In total, 49 oncology drugs were approved for a total of 64 indications. Of the 64 indications, 45 (70.3%) included PRO data in either regulatory submission. No FDA PRO labeling was identified. PRO language was included in the summary of product characteristics for 21 (46.7%) of 45 indications. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy measures were used frequently in submissions. FDA's comments suggest that aspects of study design (eg, open labels) or the validity of PRO measures was the primary reason for the lack of labeling based on PRO endpoints. Both agencies identified missing PRO data as problematic for interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

During this time period, the FDA and the EMA used different evidentiary standards to assess PRO data from oncology studies, with the EMA more likely to accept data from open-label studies and broad concepts such as health-related quality of life. An understanding of the key differences between the agencies may guide sponsor PRO strategy when pursuing labeling. Patient-focused proximal concepts are more likely than distal concepts to receive positive reviews.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology, Beyond Randomized Controlled Trials

The goal of the treatment of a disease has moved from treating organs and diseases through symptoms, biological parameters and imaging towards treating a human being as a whole. The treatments should deliver benefits that patients can personally perceive. However, the patient's perspective does not always match the one of those surrounding them. Illustratively, patients' symptom assessments are more predictable for daily health status, whereas clinicians' symptom measurements are more related to clinical outcomes. The term, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), includes any data that are reported directly by the patient without an intermediary, such as a family member or a healthcare professional. The use of PROs in oncology trials is increasing and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published guidelines on the review and evaluation of PROs. However, while PROs are increasingly used in clinical trials, they are rarely used in daily clinical practice. Further, healthcare payers are concerned with issues related to relevance, quality, and interpretability of these outcomes.

Patient-reported distress in Hodgkin lymphoma across the survivorship continuum

Purpose

Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) survivors face long-term, elevated risk of treatment-related sequelae, including psychosocial distress associated with poor health outcomes. The magnitude and sources of distress are not well described in the routine care of HL outside of clinical trials.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients visiting a tertiary-care center for treatment or long-term follow-up of HL. Patient-reported distress was documented using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) and Problem List. Three survivor groups were compared using descriptive methods: on treatment, surviving < 5 years, and surviving ≥ 5 years since diagnosis.

Results

A total of 1524 DT were abstracted for 304 patients (106 on treatment, 77 surviving < 5 years, and 121 surviving ≥ 5 years). Distress was low overall (median DT = 1, inter-quartile range 0–4) and was similar across survivor groups. However, actionable distress (score ≥ 4) was reported at 29.5% of clinical encounters. Patients on treatment more frequently reported actionable distress (32.5% of visits) compared with patients surviving < 5 years (20.4%) and ≥ 5 years (28.7%) (P = 0.065). Distress was associated primarily with physical and emotional problems, especially fatigue, worry, and sleep. We did not observe any associations between distress and clinical prognostic factors.

Conclusions

Distress burden is low in HL, but survivorship is marked by periods of actionable distress, largely related to physical symptoms and emotional issues. This burden may be higher when on treatment and is unrelated to disease-related prognostic factors. Survivorship research typically focuses on the post-therapy period, but our results support testing the efficacy of interventions to address distress in HL during active treatment as well.

A practical guide to understanding, using and including patient reported outcomes in clinical trials in ovarian cancer

Health related quality of life (HRQOL) is a key priority for patients with ovarian cancer as there is significant morbidity associated with the disease and the treatment. It is therefore essential to include measures of HRQOL and patient reported outcomes (PROs) in all clinical trials and ideally report them in the initial manuscript. The results of these analyses help interpret the primary trial endpoints which are typically progression free survival and overall survival from the perspective of the patients, but can also assist with regulatory approval of new drugs and inform future patients regarding the potential benefits and downsides of the treatment as well as help support clinical recommendations. Including PROs in clinical trials allows patient-defined clinical benefits to be assessed in parallel to traditional survival outcomes to provide a more holistic overview and aid in the interpretation of the trial results. Given the importance of these instruments in clinical trials, greater effort is required to improve the appropriate inclusion, quality of analyses and reporting of PROs. It is also essential that all clinicians understand the intricacies of the selection, implementation and interpretation of these measures of HRQOL and PRO's and how important their contribution is to clinical trials as well as clinical practice. This review is a practical guide for clinicians to gain a better understanding of PROs and how they can be incorporated into ovarian cancer trials.

A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: implications for generalisability and clinical practice

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomised-controlled trial (RCT) publications, describe PRO compliance, and explore potential relationships among these and completeness of PRO protocol content.

Methods

Publications of Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified by Medline and Cochrane systematic search: January 2000 to February 2016. Two reviewers determined the number of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO Extension items addressed in publications. Compliance rates (defined as the proportion of participants included in the principal PRO analysis, of those from whom PRO assessments were expected) were extracted. The relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and compliance rates was explored using scatter plots. Additionally CONSORT-PRO score and PRO compliance rates respectively were compared with corresponding PRO protocol scores obtained from a previous study.

Results

Thirty-six eligible RCTs (n = 33 with secondary PRO endpoint) were identified and analysed. The average number of CONSORT-PRO items addressed in publications was 6.7 (48%; Range 0–13.5/14). Three RCTs did not report PRO results; in 1 case due to poor compliance. Some compliance information was reported in 26 RCTs, but was considered complete for only 10 (28%) RCTs. Compliance rates were poor overall, ranging from 59 to 83%; therefore missing PRO data from 17 to 41% of participants in these trials could have been avoided.

Of the 26 (73%) RCTs for which PRO protocol completeness scores were available, 6 RCTs reported complete compliance information and the 3 of these RCTs with highest PRO compliance had highest protocol checklist scores.

Conclusions

Few RCTs reported PRO compliance information in a manner enabling assessment of the generalisability of PRO results. This information is particularly important in RCTs of advanced ovarian cancer because it is important to be able to determine if missing data was due to worsening illness compared to methodological issues. Poor compliance appeared related to poor PRO protocol content, and in one case prevented PRO results from being reported, highlighting the need to address compliance strategies in the protocol. Adhering to protocol and CONSORT-PRO reporting guidance should improve PRO implementation and reporting respectively in ovarian cancer RCTs and allow results to meaningfully inform clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important information about the impact of treatment from the patients' perspective. However, missing PRO data may compromise the interpretability and value of the findings. We aimed to report: (1) a non-technical summary of problems caused by missing PRO data; and (2) a systematic review by collating strategies to: (A) minimise rates of missing PRO data, and (B) facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data in clinical research. Our systematic review does not address statistical handling of missing PRO data.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases (inception to 31 March 2015), and citing articles and reference lists from relevant sources.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

English articles providing recommendations for reducing missing PRO data rates, or strategies to facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data were included.

METHODS

2 reviewers independently screened articles against eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved with the research team. Recommendations were extracted and coded according to framework synthesis.

RESULTS

117 sources (55% discussion papers, 26% original research) met the eligibility criteria. Design and methodological strategies for reducing rates of missing PRO data included: incorporating PRO-specific information into the protocol; carefully designing PRO assessment schedules and defining termination rules; minimising patient burden; appointing a PRO coordinator; PRO-specific training for staff; ensuring PRO studies are adequately resourced; and continuous quality assurance. Strategies for transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data include utilising auxiliary data to inform analysis; transparently reporting baseline PRO scores, rates and reasons for missing data; and methods for handling missing PRO data.

CONCLUSIONS

The instance of missing PRO data and its potential to bias clinical research can be minimised by implementing thoughtful design, rigorous methodology and transparent reporting strategies. All members of the research team have a responsibility in implementing such strategies.

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

METHODS

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

RESULTS

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.