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

Lived experiences of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) management: a qualitative phenomenological study in Southwest China

OBJECTIVES

To explore the lived experiences of patients with advanced pancreatic cancer enrolled in a patient-reported outcomes (PROs) management programme and to preliminarily understand how PROs management influences various aspects of patient care and overall quality of life.

DESIGN

A qualitative phenomenological study.

SETTING

A national cancer care centre in Southwest China specialised in cancer care, with a comprehensive PROs management programme.

PARTICIPANTS

15 participants diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer.

RESULTS

Five key themes emerged from our interviews, including enhanced communication with healthcare providers, attributed to the structured nature of PROs; increased perceived sense of care, with patients feeling more valued and heard; PROs management facilitated better treatment decision-making, with patients feeling more involved and empowered; improved communication with family members, aiding in better understanding and support; and varied perceptions of the impact on quality of life, with some noting improvements in specific aspects like symptom management, while others were uncertain about the overall benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs management plays a significant role in improving communication between patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and their healthcare providers, enhancing patients' involvement in treatment decisions, and potentially improving family dynamics. However, the impact of PROs management on the overall quality of life of patients remains complex and individualised. The findings suggest that further research with a more diverse patient population is needed to fully understand the implications of PROs management in advanced cancer care.

Improving real-world evaluation of patient- and physician-reported tolerability: niraparib for recurrent ovarian cancer (NiQoLe)

BACKGROUND

Maintenance niraparib at an individualized starting dose (ISD) is established in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC). However, patients' perspectives on the burden of prolonged maintenance therapy have not been reported in prospective trials or routine practice.

METHODS

In the real-life multicenter NiQoLe study, patients with PSROC received ISD maintenance niraparib. The primary objective was to describe physician-reported adverse events (AEs) leading to treatment modification during the first 3 months. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported outcomes (symptomatic AEs using PRO-CTCAE, self-reported fatigue, and impact on daily activities/function using FACT-F) collected remotely weekly using a specifically designed electronic device.

RESULTS

Most (80%) of 139 treated patients (median age = 70 years) began niraparib at 200 mg/day. Median treatment duration was 5.7 (range = 0.2-21.4) months. During the first 3 months, 86 patients (62%) required treatment modification (median = 27 days to modification). Physician-reported grade ≥3 niraparib-related AEs occurred in 34 patients (24%); 68 patients (49%) had treatment modification for AEs, predominantly thrombocytopenia. The most frequent patient-reported AEs (PRO-CTCAE) were fatigue, insomnia, constipation, and dry mouth. Self-reported AEs were severe in 66% of patients. At baseline, 33% of patients reported severe fatigue (FACT-F), which generally persisted during niraparib. Physicians systematically underestimated major patient-reported symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine practice, niraparib dose modification was often required during the first 3 months despite individualized dosing. Physicians underestimated the burden of fatigue and symptomatic AEs. Digital self-reporting of AEs is feasible, provides patient-centered information complementing physician-reported AEs, and allows fuller appreciation of toxicity in real-world studies.

CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION

NCT03752216.

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.

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are different modes and ways to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. However, there is little systematic information on how often different modes of assessment (MOA) are used in cancer clinical trials and how exactly assessments are conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to gain an understanding of the MOA and data management of PROs in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the reporting quality thereof.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant trials will be identified via their indexed publications. We will search PubMed for RCTs conducted in cancer populations that evaluate a biomedical treatment with a PRO endpoint. Trials with publications published between January 2019 and November 2023 will be included. Two independent reviewers will review the references for both the abstract and full-text screening. We will extract data from the publications from a trial and the trial protocol if a protocol can be traced. Data will be summarised at the trial level. We will focus on a descriptive analysis of the MOA of PROs and on the relative frequencies of the different MOA. We will also evaluate the quality of reporting for the relevant SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines that refer to the assessment of PROs in trials. Due to the scoping nature of our review, we will not perform a dedicated quality assessment of all trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed review is based on secondary, published data. Hence, no ethics review is necessary. The review is part of an ongoing project on the use of electronic data capture methods in cancer clinical trials. The findings from the review will support the project and contribute to synthesising guidance to ultimately improve the (electronic) measurement of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

The State of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatology

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate the quality and timeliness of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure reporting, which have not been previously studied.

METHODS

Clinical trials that informed new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the first rheumatological indication between 1995 and 2021 were identified. Data were recorded to determine whether collected PROs were published, met minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or statistical significance (P < 0.05) thresholds, and were consistent with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO standards. Hazard ratios and Kaplan-Meier estimate were used to assess the time from FDA approval to PRO publication.

RESULTS

Thirty-one FDA approvals corresponded with 110 pivotal trials and 262 reported PROs. Of the 90 included studies, 1 (1.1%) met all 5 recommended items, 10 (11.1%) met 4 items, 17 (18.9%) met 3 items, 21 (23.3%) met 2 items, 26 (28.9%) met 1 item, and 15 (16.7%) met none of the reporting standards. Most PROs met MCID thresholds (149/262; 56.9%) and were statistically significant (223/262; 85.1%). Of our subset analysis, one-third of PROs were not published upfront (70/212; 33%) and 1 of 9 (22/212; 10.4%) remained unpublished ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting. Publication rates were highest for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (97.4%) and lowest for the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (81.8%). Less than half of these published PROs met MCID and statistical significance thresholds (94/212; 44.3%).

CONCLUSION

One in 9 PROs remained unpublished for ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting, and compliance with CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines was poor. Efforts should be made to ensure PROs are adequately reported and expeditiously published.

Secondary Endpoint Utilization and Publication Rate among Phase III Oncology Trials

Secondary endpoints (SEP) provide crucial information in the interpretation of clinical trials, but their features are not yet well understood. Thus, we sought to empirically characterize the scope and publication rate of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. We assessed SEPs for each randomized, published phase III oncology trial across all publications and ClinicalTrials.gov, performing logistic regressions to evaluate associations between trial characteristics and SEP publication rates. After screening, a total of 280 trials enrolling 244,576 patients and containing 2,562 SEPs met the inclusion criteria. Only 22% of trials (62/280) listed all SEPs consistently between ClinicalTrials.gov and the trial protocol. The absolute number of SEPs per trial increased over time, and trials sponsored by industry had a greater number of SEPs (median 9 vs. 5 SEPs per trial; P < 0.0001). In total, 69% of SEPs (1,770/2,562) were published. The publication rate significantly varied by SEP category [X2 (5, N = 2,562) = 245.86; P < 0.001]. SEPs that place the most burden on patients, such as patient-reported outcomes and translational correlatives, were published at 63% (246/393) and 44% (39/88), respectively. Trials with more SEPs were associated with lower overall SEP publication rates. Overall, our findings are that SEP publication rates in late-phase oncology trials are highly variable based on the type of SEP. To avoid undue burden on patients and promote transparency of findings, trialists should weigh the biological and clinical relevance of each SEP together with its feasibility at the time of trial design.

SIGNIFICANCE

In this investigation, we characterized the utilization and publication rates of SEPs among late-phase oncology trials. Our results draw attention to the proliferation of SEPs in recent years. Although overall publication rates were high, underpublication was detected among endpoints that may increase patient burden (such as translational correlatives and patient-reported outcomes).

Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology

Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes are important in making clinical and policy decisions. This study aimed to examine the HRQoL reporting in cancer drug trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals.

Methods and analysis

This retrospective cohort study analysed HRQoL data for trials leading to FDA approvals between July 2015 and May 2020. Proportion of included trials that reported HRQoL, latency between FDA approval and first report of HRQoL data, HRQoL outcomes, and their correlation with OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) were analysed.

Results

Of the 233 trials associated with 207 FDA approvals, HRQoL was reported in 50% of trials, of which only 42% had the data reported by the time of FDA approval. There were no changes in frequency of HRQoL reporting between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL data were first reported in the primary publication in only 30% trials. Of the 115 trials with HRQoL data available, HRQoL improved in 43%, remained stable in 53% and worsened in 4% of trials. Among the trials that led to FDA approvals based on surrogate endpoints (79%), HRQoL was reported in 45% and improved only in 18% trials. There was no association between OS and PFS benefit and HRQoL outcomes.

Conclusion

Rates of HRQoL reporting were suboptimal in trials that led to FDA approvals with no improvements seen between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL reporting was often delayed and not presented in the primary publication. HRQoL reporting was further sparse in trials with approvals based on surrogate endpoints and HRQoL improved in only a minority of them.

Critical Comments by Food and Drug Administration Reviewers on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Submissions (2018-2021)

OBJECTIVES

This article examined the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in new drug applications (NDAs) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved from 2018 to 2021. The importance of assessing PROs, which capture patients' perspectives on the disease and treatment experience, has been underscored by many stakeholders, including regulatory authorities. Despite the increasing inclusion of PRO assessments in registration trials, inclusion of language related to PRO results in approved product labeling varies widely.

METHODS

This study examined FDA submission packages for NDAs approved by the FDA from 2018 to 2021 to identify critical reviewer comments related to PROs. Comments were identified and categorized by the type of criticism. Reviewers considered both oncology and nononcology indications.

RESULTS

Assessment of PROs was included in 66.2% of the 210 submissions reviewed. Critical comments were identified in 45.3% of these applications; comments most commonly related to statistical analysis considerations, fit for purpose, and study design. Other categories of critical comment included data quality, lack of treatment benefit, administrative considerations, and miscellaneous issues. Differences were observed between oncology and nononcology NDAs with regard to the number and type of comments included in each of these categories. The findings highlight the importance of planning statistical analyses, establishing content validity, carefully considering study design, maximizing data quality, and demonstrating treatment benefit, among other issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study offers insight into the landscape of PRO data included in recently approved NDAs, along with recommendations for improving the quality and reporting of PROs in clinical trials.

Toward a more patient-centered drug development process in clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Practical considerations from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)

Notable treatment advances have been made in recent years for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS), and several new drugs are under development. For example, the emerging availability of oral MDS therapies holds the promise of improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within this rapidly evolving landscape, the inclusion of HRQoL and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to inform the benefit/risk assessment of new therapies or to assess whether patients live longer and better, for what will likely remain a largely incurable disease. We provide practical considerations to support investigators in generating high-quality PRO data in future MDS trials. We first describe several challenges that are to be thoughtfully considered when designing an MDS-focused clinical trial with a PRO endpoint. We then discuss aspects related to the design of the study, including PRO assessment strategies. We also discuss statistical approaches illustrating the potential value of time-to-event analyses and their implications within the estimand framework. Finally, based on a literature review of MDS randomized controlled trials with a PRO endpoint, we note the PRO items that deserve special attention when reporting future MDS trial results. We hope these practical considerations will facilitate the generation of rigorous PRO data that can robustly inform MDS patient care and support treatment decision-making for this patient population.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy for advanced soft tissue sarcomas in adults: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

This systematic review evaluates reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) patients.

METHODS

A systematic literature search from January 2000 - August 2022 was conducted for phase II/III RCTs evaluating systemic treatments in adult patients with advanced STS. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the CONSORT PRO extension.

RESULTS

Out of 7294 abstracts, 59 articles were included; comprising 43 RCTs. Only 15 RCTs (35%) included PROs, none as primary endpoints. Only 10 of these RCTs reported PROs, either in the primary (6/10) or secondary publication (1/10) or in both (3/10), with a median time interval of 23 months. The median CONSORT PRO adherence score was 5.5/14, with higher scores in publications focusing exclusively on PROs.

CONCLUSION

These results highlight the need for improved and more consistent PRO reporting to inform patient care in the setting of advanced STS.

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Omission of radiation therapy after breast conserving surgery for older women at low-risk of local recurrence: One option among many

This editorial discusses the evolving landscape of early-stage breast cancer treatment, emphasizing the need to tailor therapies based on disease biology and genomic approaches. The focus is on the reconsideration of postoperative radiation therapy (RT) for older patients with low-risk, hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer. Recent trials show modest long-term local recurrence rates with the omission of RT after BCS in certain cases, challenging the traditional approach. The commentary calls for continued research on predictive tests for treatment response and advocates for a multidisciplinary approach to decision-making, considering factors like quality of life. The nuanced risk/benefit ratio of RT in older patients is explored, emphasizing the importance of comprehensive assessment for optimal therapy.

Analyses of quality of life in cancer drug trials - a review of measurements and analytical choices in post-reimbursement studies

OBJECTIVES

For drugs reimbursed with limited evidence of patient benefits, confirmatory evidence of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) benefits is important. For QoL data to serve as valuable input to patients and decision-makers, it must be measured and analyzed using appropriate methods. We aimed to assess the measurement and analyses of post-reimbursement QoL data for cancer drugs introduced in Swedish healthcare with limited evidence at the time of reimbursement.

METHODS

We reviewed any published post-reimbursement trial data on QoL for cancer drugs reimbursed in Sweden between 2010 and 2020 with limited evidence of improvement in QoL and OS benefits at the time of reimbursement. We extracted information on the instruments used, frequency of measurement, extent of missing data, statistical approaches, and the use of pre-registration and study protocols.

RESULTS

Out of 22 drugs satisfying our inclusion criteria, we identified published QoL data for 12 drugs in 22 studies covering multiple cancer types. The most frequently used QoL instruments were EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3/5L. We identified three areas needing improvement in QoL measurement and analysis: (i) motivation for the frequency of measurements, (ii) handling of the substantial missing data problem, and (iii) inclusion and adherence to QoL analyses in clinical trial pre-registration and study protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that the measurements and analysis of QoL data in our sample of cancer trials covering drugs initially reimbursed without any confirmed QoL or OS evidence have significant room for improvement. The increasing use of QoL assessments must be accompanied by a stricter adherence to best-practice guidelines to provide valuable input to patients and decision-makers.

Establishing Meaningful Change Thresholds in Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer in ALTA-1L Trial

OBJECTIVES

An earlier study from the ALTA-1L trial of patients with anaplastic lymphoma kinase-positive non-small cell lung cancer demonstrated that brigatinib produces superior health-related quality of life (QoL) outcomes over crizotinib. This study aimed to derive meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) for European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 to refine the earlier results.

METHODS

Patients from the ALTA-1L trial were administered the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 questionnaires. Responses were analyzed using anchor-based analysis, graphical analysis, distribution-based analysis, longitudinal responder analysis, and time to deterioration.

RESULTS

The patient-reported outcome population comprised 262 patients who completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 at baseline and at least 1 follow-up timepoint. Both anchors (QLQ-C30 items for overall health and QoL) had correlations >0.40 or < -0.40 with all functioning domains, fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and all dyspnea scores. Within-group analysis for most scales found the derived MCT was consistent with a cutoff of 10 points for classifying individual-patient change, except for 3-item dyspnea. The probability of improvement/remaining stable was significantly greater in the brigatinib group over crizotinib for the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning, appetite loss, and constipation domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This study derived MCTs for EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 domains that may be applied in future studies and again demonstrated the superiority of brigatinib over crizotinib in health-related QoL outcomes in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

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.

Assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-related outcomes in randomized cancer clinical trials for older adults: Results of DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative

As older adults with cancer are underrepresented in randomized clinical trials (RCT), there is limited evidence on which to rely for treatment decisions for this population. Commonly used RCT endpoints for the assessment of treatment efficacy are more often tumor-centered (e.g., progression-free survival). These endpoints may not be as relevant for the older patients who present more often with comorbidities, non-cancer-related deaths, and treatment toxicity. Moreover, their expectation and preferences are likely to differ from younger adults. The DATECAN-ELDERLY initiative combines a broad expertise, in geriatric oncology and clinical research, with interest in cancer RCT that include older patients with cancer. In order to guide researchers and clinicians coordinating cancer RCT involving older patients with cancer, the experts reviewed the literature on relevant domains to assess using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) and patient-related outcomes, as well as available tools related to these domains. Domains considered relevant by the panel of experts when assessing treatment efficacy in RCT for older patients with cancer included functional autonomy, cognition, depression and nutrition. These were based on published guidelines from international societies and from regulatory authorities as well as minimum datasets recommended to collect in RCT including older adults with cancer. In addition, health-related quality of life, patients' symptoms, and satisfaction were also considered by the panel. With regards to tools for the assessment of these domains, we highlighted that each tool has its own strengths and limitations, and very few had been validated in older adults with cancer. Further studies are thus needed to validate these tools in this specific population and define the minimum clinically important difference to use when developing RCTs in this population. The selection of the most relevant tool should thus be guided by the RCT research question, together with the specific properties of the tool.

Assessing the completeness of patient-reported outcomes reporting in congestive heart failure clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

We aim to evaluate the quality of patient-reported outcomes included in randomized control trials for the treatment of congestive heart failure using the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) checklist, a validated tool for critically appraising the quality of patient-reported outcomes.

DESIGN

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 65 randomized control trials with patient-reported outcomes for drug intervention trials for treating congestive heart failure.

SETTING

N/A.

PARTICIPANTS

N/A.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome of this study was to evaluate the reporting completeness of patient-reported outcomes in congestive heart failure clinical trials with drug interventions according to the ISOQOL checklist.

RESULTS

Our search returned 1114 studies, of which, 65 are included in the analysis. The average completion of the ISOQOL reporting standards was 44.51%. Higher completion of the ISOQOL patient-reported outcome standards was observed in the clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes as primary endpoints compared to the clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes as a secondary endpoint. The multivariable regression model showed that clinical trials with patient-reported outcomes as a primary endpoint had a 21.46% better completion percentage (t = 4.45, p ⩽ 0.001) when controlling for PRO recording duration and trial registration. Eight (8/65, 12.31%) of the clinical trials met the satisfaction criteria of completing two-thirds of the ISOQOL patient-reported outcomes reporting standards. All of these RCTs had a patient-reported outcome as a primary endpoint.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis of the reporting of patient-reported outcomes in congestive heart failure clinical trials with drug interventions suggests that the quality of reporting is suboptimal. This evidence of substandard reporting of patient-reported outcomes is disconcerting as it reduces the transparency of randomized control trials, which are considered the foundation of evidenced-based medicine. Inadequate reporting may result in clinicians implementing misrepresented or incomplete evidence into clinical practice. Validated reporting tools, such as the ISOQOL, can be used by trialists and clinicians alike to improve and critically appraise the reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized control trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

N/A.

Understanding health-related quality of life measures used in early-stage non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials: A review

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important consideration in cancer clinical research, which can be substantially influenced by cancer treatment procedures and medications. The treatment landscape for early-stage (stage I-III) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is rapidly evolving. In this light, it is important to evaluate the most suitable instruments for HRQoL assessment and timing. Given there is often a requirement for patients with early-stage disease to receive long-term treatment to reduce the risk of disease recurrence after surgery, maintenance or improvement in HRQoL is an important goal of both neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatments. Key challenges with assessing HRQoL relate to the suitability of existing instruments to measure relevant treatment-related adverse effects, consistency in HRQoL assessment approach between similar studies, gaps in data collection and reporting, and interpretation of longitudinal data. Frequent assessments during and after treatment are warranted to capture the true impact of treatment and disease progression on HRQoL, and changes in the relative importance of these factors over time. There is scope for improving existing HRQoL approaches, including ease of use and integration of digital tools to facilitate analysis and interpretation, to enhance the experience of both patients and healthcare professionals. In this narrative review, we discuss key considerations for HRQoL assessment and evaluate the tools currently available to measure HRQoL in NSCLC, many of which were designed with advanced disease in mind. We focus on the key challenges of measuring HRQoL for the specific needs of patients with early-stage disease, and consider future perspectives, to determine the most appropriate HRQoL instruments and analysis methods to use in early-stage NSCLC clinical trials.1.

Reflections on estimands for patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

It is common and important to include the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. In this commentary, we focus on applying the new addendum to ICH E9 guideline E9 (R1) relating to the estimand framework to Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) collected in cancer clinical trials, from a statistician's viewpoint. Currently, common practice for statistical analysis of PRO endpoints of published cancer clinical trials demonstrates ambiguity, leaving critical questions unspecified, hindering conclusions about the effect of treatment on PRO endpoints as well as comparability between clinical trials. To avoid this scenario, we advocate the systematic use of the estimand framework which requires the prospective definition of clear PRO research questions. Among the five attributes of the estimands framework, the definition of the endpoint (what is the right PRO measure and timeframe to target and why?), the intercurrent event identification and management (what happens with PRO data post-disease progression, what is the impact of death?) and the population-level summary (what is an acceptable statistical summary for PRO data?) require the most attention for PRO estimands. We identify good practice and highlight discussion points including the challenges of statistical analysis in the presence of missing and/or unobservable data and in relation to death. Through this discussion we highlight that there is no "statistical magic", but that the estimand framework will help you find out what you really want to know when quantifying the benefit of treatments from the patients' perspective.

The effect of disease modifying therapies on fatigue in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently the gold standard in the treatment of MS and their effectiveness has been assessed through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue in (PwMS). We conducted a systematic review to 1) understand whether fatigue is included as an outcome in MS trials of DMTs; 2) determine the effects on fatigue of treating MS with DMTs and 3) assess the quality of MS trials including fatigue as an outcome.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1993 to January 2023 for RCTs that measured fatigue as an outcome. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), while the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the RoB 2 tool by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383321).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 130 RCTs of DMTs of which 7 (5%) assessed fatigue as an outcome. Of the 7 trials, only two presented statistically significant results. In addition, the reporting of fatigue among RCTs was suboptimal with a mean adherence to the CONSORT-PRO Statement of 36% across all trials. Of the 7 trials included, four were assessed as 'high' RoB..

CONCLUSIONS

Fatigue has a major impact on PwMS yet there is limited trial-based evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue. Assessment of fatigue as an outcome is underrepresented in trials of DMTs and the reporting of PRO trial data is suboptimal. Thus, it is imperative that MS researchers conduct RCTs that include fatigue as an outcome, to support clinicians and people with MS (PwMS) to consider the impact of the different DMTs on fatigue.

Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies.

METHODS

An ePRO system was designed to be used in a single arm, multi-centre, phase II basket trial investigating the safety and activity of the use of ORBCEL-C™ in the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions. ORBCEL-C™ is an enriched Mesenchymal Stromal Cells product isolated from human umbilical cord tissue using CD362+ cell selection. Usability testing sessions were conducted using cognitive interviews and the 'Think Aloud' method with patient advisory group members and Research Nurses to assess the usability of the system.

RESULTS

Nine patient partners and seven research nurses took part in one usability testing session. Measures of fatigue and health-related quality of life, the PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 global tolerability question were included in the ePRO system. Alert notifications to the clinical team were triggered by PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 scores. Patient participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app. Two patients were unable to complete the testing session, due to technical issues. Research Nurses suggested minor modifications to improve functionality and the layout of the clinician dashboard and the training materials.

CONCLUSION

By testing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of our novel ePRO system (PROmicsR), we learnt that most people with an inflammatory condition found it easy to report their symptoms using an app on their own device. Their experiences using the PROmicsR ePRO system within a trial environment will be further explored in our upcoming feasibility testing. Research nurses were also positive and found the clinical dashboard easy-to-use. Using ePROs in early phase trials is important in order to provide evidence of therapeutic responses and tolerability, increase the evidence based, and inform methodology development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN80103507. Registered 01 April 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80103507.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue.

METHODS

We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development.

RESULTS

Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials

BACKGROUND

Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape.

METHODS

Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends.

RESULTS

Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events.

CONCLUSION

While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022

Background

With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs.

Methods

The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents.

Findings

Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements.

Interpretation

This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Time trends in health-related quality of life assessment and reporting within publications of oncology randomised phase III trials: a meta-research study

Objective

To assess time trends in the inclusion of health-related quality of life (QoL) among study endpoints and in the reporting of QoL results in study publications, randomised phase III oncology trials published between 2017 and 2021 were compared with the trials published in the previous 5 years.

Methods and analysis

All issues published between 2012 and 2021 by 11 major journals were handsearched for primary publications of phase III trials in adult patients with solid tumours. Trials published in 2017-2021 were compared with trials published in 2012-2016 for three endpoints: (1) proportion of publications including QoL among endpoints out of all the eligible publications; (2) proportion of publications presenting QoL results out of those including QoL among endpoints and (3) proportion of publications presenting QoL data out of all the eligible publications.

Results

388 publications between 2017 and 2021 were eligible and compared with 446 publications between 2012 and 2016. QoL was included among endpoints in 67.8% of trials in 2017-2021 vs 52.9% in 2012-2016 (univariate OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.48, p<0.001). QoL results were available in 52.1% in 2017-2021 vs 62.3% in 2012-2016 of primary publications of trials including QoL among endpoints (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.46 to 0.94, p=0.02). Overall, QoL was analysed and presented in 35.3% of primary publications in 2017-2021 vs 33.0% in 2012-2016 (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48, p=0.48).

Conclusions

The proportion of oncology trials including QoL among endpoints increased in 2017-2021 compared with 2012-2016. However, the proportion of primary publications reporting QoL results remains suboptimal.

The role of patient-reported outcome measures in trials of artificial intelligence health technologies: a systematic evaluation of ClinicalTrials.gov records (1997-2022)

The extent to which patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used in clinical trials for artificial intelligence (AI) technologies is unknown. In this systematic evaluation, we aim to establish how PROMs are being used to assess AI health technologies. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for interventional trials registered from inception to Sept 20, 2022, and included trials that tested an AI health technology. We excluded observational studies, patient registries, and expanded access reports. We extracted data regarding the form, function, and intended use population of the AI health technology, in addition to the PROMs used and whether PROMs were incorporated as an input or output in the AI model. The search identified 2958 trials, of which 627 were included in the analysis. 152 (24%) of the included trials used one or more PROM, visual analogue scale, patient-reported experience measure, or usability measure as a trial endpoint. The type of AI health technologies used by these trials included AI-enabled smart devices, clinical decision support systems, and chatbots. The number of clinical trials of AI health technologies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and the proportion of trials that used PROMs increased from registry inception to 2022. The most common clinical areas AI health technologies were designed for were digestive system health for non-PROM trials and musculoskeletal health (followed by mental and behavioural health) for PROM trials, with PROMs commonly used in clinical areas for which assessment of health-related quality of life and symptom burden is particularly important. Additionally, AI-enabled smart devices were the most common applications tested in trials that used at least one PROM. 24 trials tested AI models that captured PROM data as an input for the AI model. PROM use in clinical trials of AI health technologies falls behind PROM use in all clinical trials. Trial records having inadequate detail regarding the PROMs used or the type of AI health technology tested was a limitation of this systematic evaluation and might have contributed to inaccuracies in the data synthesised. Overall, the use of PROMs in the function and assessment of AI health technologies is not only possible, but is a powerful way of showing that, even in the most technologically advanced health-care systems, patients' perspectives remain central.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Considerations in Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee Meetings (2016-2021)

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to gain insight into the role of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) reviews and recommendations by documenting PRO-related considerations that appear in transcripts of ODAC meetings over a 6-year period (2016-2021).

METHODS

ODAC meeting transcripts were reviewed for any mention of PRO-related concepts. Meetings that reviewed biosimilars and meetings that discussed conceptual matters were excluded. For each identified transcript, the meeting date, brand and generic names of the drug, and indication were collected from the meeting minutes. Comments by ODAC members, FDA reviewers, and study sponsors on PRO data were captured during the review. Qualitative review of transcripts included both reading and searching for key terms, including PROs, quality of life, and health-related quality of life. Discussion of PRO-related topics was captured verbatim, organized thematically, and analyzed by two independent reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven transcripts of reviews were identified for 2016-2021. Topics related to PROs were included in 12 of those 27 reviews. The ODAC was satisfied with PROs included in 2 of those 12 reviews. Reasons for dissatisfaction in 10 of the 12 reviews included key concepts not assessed (5/12), missing data (5/12), and disagreement with sponsors' interpretation (3/12). The ODAC also expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of PRO data in 6 of 15 reviews that did not include PROs.

CONCLUSION

Less than half of ODAC reviews in 2016-2021 included PROs, and reviewers expressed frustration at the lack of PRO data. Even when included, evidence on the basis of PROs was rarely deemed adequate for benefit-risk assessments.

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.

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.

Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from a patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The collection of PROs in routine practice can facilitate monitoring of patient symptoms; identification of unmet needs; prioritisation and/or tailoring of treatment to the needs of individual patients and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. However, respondent burden needs to be carefully considered and addressed to avoid high rates of missing data and poor reporting of PRO results, which may lead to poor quality data for regulatory decision making and/or clinical care.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

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.

Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis

PURPOSE

Up to 50% of radiotherapy courses are delivered in palliative intent for various indications. Despite the large number of treated patients, we know little about the choice of endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. Our primary aim was, therefore, to analyze primary endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMCAF) meta-research analysis searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and "ClinicalTrials.gov" for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published 1990-2020. Endpoints were categorized in "patient-centered endpoints", including overall survival and patient-reported outcomes, and "tumor-centered endpoints" such as local control. The remainder were "other endpoints" including toxicity or observer-rated symptoms. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize data and logistic regression to assess if year of publication predicted the choice of primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 7379 records screened, 292 were eligible. Trials were characterized by small sample sizes and use of external beam radiotherapy for metastases or thoracic primaries. Median patient age was 64 and median ECOG was 1. Only 64.4%(145/225) of published trials clearly stated their primary endpoint. Published trials employed a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 45.5%(66/145) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 17.3%(25/145) of the cases. There was no statistically significant trend in time for the use of "patient-centered primary endpoints". Registered ongoing trials used a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 32.8%(22/67) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 26.9%(18/67) of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Although "patient-centered primary endpoints" appear relatively prevalent in published trials of palliative radiotherapy, their use is still suboptimal and appears to be lower in currently ongoing trials.

Implications of Oncology Trial Design and Uncertainties in Efficacy-Safety Data on Health Technology Assessments

Background: Advances in cancer medicines have resulted in tangible health impacts, but the magnitude of benefits of approved cancer medicines could vary greatly. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is a multidisciplinary process used to inform resource allocation through a systematic value assessment of health technology. This paper reviews the challenges in conducting HTA for cancer medicines arising from oncology trial designs and uncertainties of safety-efficacy data. Methods: Multiple databases (PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar) and grey literature (public health agencies and governmental reports) were searched to inform this policy narrative review. Results: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data from clinical trials and other relevant sources of evidence has made HTA for cancer medicines challenging. The approval of cancer medicines through expedited pathways has increased in recent years, in which surrogate endpoints or biomarkers for patient selection have been widely used. Using these surrogate endpoints has created uncertainties in translating surrogate measures into patient-centric clinically (survival and quality of life) and economically (cost-effectiveness and budget impact) meaningful outcomes, with potential effects on diverting scarce health resources to low-value or detrimental interventions. Potential solutions include policy harmonization between regulatory and HTA authorities, commitment to generating robust post-marketing efficacy-safety data, managing uncertainties through risk-sharing agreements, and using value frameworks. Conclusion: A lack of robust efficacy-safety data is a central problem for conducting HTA of cancer medicines, potentially resulting in misinformed resource allocation.

A review of patient-reported outcome assessments in registration trials of FDA-approved new oncology drugs (2014-2018)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014-2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively).

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Patients with Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Literature Review of Studies Published Between 2014 and 2021

BACKGROUND

We performed a systematic literature review to identify the most recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in multiple myeloma (MM) with a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint, and to summarize both clinical and PRO results, as well as to examine the quality of reporting by phase of disease. We also aimed to describe main type of PRO analysis used and interpretation of clinical significance of PRO findings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs of cancer-directed therapy in patients with MM published between January 2014 and April 2021.

RESULTS

Thirty-two RCTs with a total of 19,798 patients enrolled were identified in our review. In all studies, PROs were secondary or exploratory endpoints. Half of the studies (n = 16) included newly diagnosed patients, 15 RCTs included patients with relapsed/refractory MM, and one study included patients with smoldering MM. Progression-free survival was the most frequently used primary endpoint. All studies provided unique PRO information that could be used to more comprehensively assess the risk/benefit of the newly tested drugs. However, the identified RCTs were heterogeneous regarding the presentation, and interpretation of PRO results.

CONCLUSION

The number of RCTs including PROs in MM research has notably increased in recent years. However, more consistency in the methodological approach to PRO assessment, and interpretation of outcomes is needed to ensure that PRO findings will be more impactful on patient care.

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.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Increasing Inclusiveness of Patient-Centric Clinical Evidence Generation in Oncology: Real-World Data and Clinical Trials

Rapid advancements in cancer discovery, diagnosis, and treatment options available to patients with cancer have highlighted the need for enhancements in clinical trial design. The drug development process is costly, with more than 80% of trials failing to reach recruitment targets. Historical approaches to trial design are increasingly burdensome and lack real-world application in the intent-to-treat patient population. Equitable access to clinical trials combined with increased availability of real-world data are creating new opportunities for inclusiveness, improved outcomes, and evidence-based advances in therapies that will generate more generalizable data to better inform clinical decision-making. Clinical trials need to be inclusive if lifesaving data are not to be missed and investigational therapies are to be more accessible to a broader patient base. Real-world data can facilitate the conduct of studies that are identifying and understanding where disparities exist and developing new interventions to improve patient care. The clinical trial design process should be a multistakeholder and consensus- and evidence-driven process in which stakeholders are working together across the health care industry to close the care gap and ensure elimination of barriers that prevent equal access to specialized cancer care and advanced therapies available in clinical trials. The patient voice is essential throughout the trial process; however, it is often excluded from the design process. Integrating real-world data as well as ensuring patient involvement in early trial design during drug development can enhance enrollment and retention, leading to greater diversity.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

Introduction

Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018.

Method

Annual workshops were conducted 2011–2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann–Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall.

Results

Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: ‘specify PRO concepts/domains’ (p = 0.05); ‘methods for handling missing data’ (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03127-w.

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.

Patient-reported outcomes and target effect sizes in pragmatic randomized trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient and public engagement are critical ingredients of pragmatic trials, which are intended to be patient centered. Engagement of patients and members of the public in selecting the primary trial outcome and determining the target difference can better ensure that the trial is designed to inform the decisions of those who ultimately stand to benefit. However, to the best of our knowledge, the use and reporting of PROs and patient and public engagement in pragmatic trials have not been described. The objectives of this study were to review a sample of pragmatic trials to describe (1) the prevalence of reporting patient and public engagement; (2) the prevalence and types of PROs used; (3) how its use varies across trial characteristics; and (4) how sample sizes and target differences are determined for trials with primary PROs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a methodological review of primary reports of pragmatic trials. We used a published electronic search filter in MEDLINE to identify pragmatic trials, published in English between January 1, 2014 and April 3, 2019; we identified the subset that were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Trial descriptors were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov; information about PROs and sample size calculations were extracted from the manuscript. Chi-squared, Cochran-Armitage, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to examine associations between trial characteristics and use of PROs. Among 4,337 identified primary trial reports, 1,988 were registered in CT.gov, of which 415 were explicitly labeled as pragmatic. Use of patient and public engagement was identified in 39 (9.4%). PROs were measured in 235 (56.6%): 144 (34.7%) used PROs as primary outcomes and 91 (21.9%) as only secondary outcomes. Primary PROs were symptoms (64; 44%), health behaviors (36; 25.0%), quality of life (17; 11.8%), functional status (16; 11.1%), and patient experience (10; 6.9%). Trial characteristics with lower prevalence of use of PROs included being conducted exclusively in children or adults over age 65 years, cluster randomization, recruitment in low- and middle-income countries, and primary purpose of prevention; trials conducted in Europe had the highest prevalence of PROs. For the 144 trials with a primary PRO, 117 (81.3%) reported a sample size calculation for that outcome; of these, 71 (60.7%) justified the choice of target difference, most commonly, using estimates from pilot studies (31; 26.5%), standardized effect sizes (20; 17.1%), or evidence reviews (16; 13.7%); patient or stakeholder opinions were used to justify the target difference in 8 (6.8%). Limitations of this study are the need for trials to be registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, which may have reduced generalizability, and extracting information only from the primary trial report.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that pragmatic trials rarely report patient and public engagement and do not commonly use PROs as primary outcomes. When provided, target differences are often not justified and rarely informed by patients and stakeholders. Research funders, scientific journals, and institutions should support trialists to incorporate patient engagement to fulfill the mandate of pragmatic trials to be patient centered.

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.