Inclusion of older patients with cancer in randomised controlled trials with patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review

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.

Feasibility, usability and acceptance of weekly electronic patient-reported outcomes among patients receiving pelvic CT- or online MR-guided radiotherapy - A prospective pilot study

•

Recruitment for weekly self-reporting of symptoms in radiotherapy is feasible.

•

The frequency and time spent on responding to 18 symptomatic AEs weekly is feasible.

•

Adherence to weekly self-reporting is high in a population with a sizable proportion of patients age 70 or above.

•

Real-time feedback from clinicians is requested by the patients.

Introduction

The potential of patient symptoms being monitored longitudinally in radiotherapy (RT) is still unexploited. When novel technologies like online adaptive MR-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) are evaluated, weekly electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) may add knowledge about the symptom trajectory. This study aimed at evaluating feasibility, usability and acceptance of weekly ePRO among patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy.

Materials and Methods

In a mixed-methods convergent design, a prospective pilot study enrolled patients referred to pelvic radiotherapy with curative intent. Patients used their own device at home to self-report PRO weekly during and four weeks following radiotherapy and week 8, 12, and 24 (paper-questionnaire as an alternative). Feasibility was extracted from the ePRO software. The Patient Feedback Form and patient interviews were used to explore usability and patient acceptance. Patients were informed that clinicians had no access to PRO responses.

Results

In total, 40 patients were included; 32 patients with prostate cancer and 8 with cervical cancer (consent rate 87%), median age 68 (36–76). The majority did digital reporting (93%). 85% of patients responded to ≥80% of the weekly questionnaires with 91% average adherence to weekly completion (60% for follow-up), although lower for patients ≥age 70. Time spent on ePRO (97%) and frequency of reporting (92%) was considered appropriate. Interviews (n = 14) revealed the application was usable and the patients requested real-time feedback from the clinicians.

Conclusion

Recruitment for ePRO during radiotherapy was feasible and adherence to weekly self-reporting high. The digital application was usable and weekly frequency and time spent acceptable. Real-time feedback from the clinicians is requested by the patients.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

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

Treatment goals and changes over time in older patients with non-curable cancer

PURPOSE

To investigate the treatment goals of older patients with non-curable cancer, whether those goals changed over time, and if so, what triggered those changes.

METHODS

We performed a descriptive and qualitative analysis using the Outcome Prioritization Tool (OPT) to assess patient goals across four conversations with general practitioners (GPs) over 6 months. Text entries from electronic patient records (hospital and general practice) were then analyzed qualitatively for this period.

RESULTS

Of the 29 included patients, 10 (34%) rated extending life and 9 (31%) rated maintaining independence as their most important goals. Patients in the last year before death (late phase) prioritized extending life less often (3 patients; 21%) than those in the early phase (7 patients; 47%). Goals changed for 16 patients during follow-up (12 in the late phase). Qualitative analysis revealed three themes that explained the baseline OPT scores (prioritizing a specific goal, rating a goal as unimportant, and treatment choices related to goals). Another three themes related to changes in OPT scores (symptoms, disease course, and life events) and stability of OPT scores (stable situation, disease-unrelated motivation, and stability despite symptoms).

CONCLUSION

Patients most often prioritized extending life as the most important goal. However, priorities differed in the late phase of the disease, leading to changed goals. Triggers for change related to both the disease (e.g., symptoms and course) and to other life events. We therefore recommend that goals should be discussed repeatedly, especially near the end of life.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

OPTion study: NTR5419.