Overcoming barriers to the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials: the PROMOTION Registry

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.

Feasibility of Large-Scale Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Remote Monitoring System for Patients on Active Treatment at a Community Cancer Center

PURPOSE

The use of digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The evidence of benefit has been largely derived from research studies. The feasibility of adopting this technology in the real-world setting is unknown.

METHODS

We report on the clinical implementation of a proprietary electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based digital symptom monitoring platform at the Highlands Oncology Group practice, a large community oncology practice. We present here our experience with patient enrollment, engagement, and retention; reasons for discontinued use; proportion of reports generating alerts and containing severe symptoms; and the responses to alerts including nursing telephone consultations and urgent office visits.

RESULTS

Over an approximately 17-month period, 923 patients were successfully enrolled. Patients enrolled from June 20, 2020, through November 30, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2022. Retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 94%, 88%, 73%, and 67%, respectively, with greater retention at 12 months in patients age 65 years or older. Few patients discontinued use for reasons related to the platform (n = 47; 5%). Of the 25,311 ePRO reports submitted, 49% (n = 12,334) exceeded the predefined alert thresholds and 8% (n = 1,920) included severe symptoms. The nursing team responded within 24 hours by telephone to 31.2% (n = 3,910) of all reports with alerts. Of reports with severe symptoms, 72.7% (n = 1,395) received a call. Only 6.4% (n = 249) of phone calls required an office evaluation within 72 hours of the report.

CONCLUSION

This single-center experience indicates that an ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring platform can be effectively implemented at a large scale with a high level of long-term patient engagement. Most reports could be effectively resolved by nurses, and physician intervention was infrequently required.

Patient-reported outcomes are under-utilised in evaluating supportive therapies in paediatric oncology - A systematic review of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Children with cancer suffer from numerous symptoms and side-effects, making supportive interventions indispensable to improve their quality of life. The gold standard for evaluating the latter is patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. This systematic review investigates the current practice of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in clinical trials on supportive interventions.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT were searched for trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer receiving supportive care registered 2007-2020. The use of different types of COAs was analysed, focusing on PRO assessment and the domains measured with PRO measures (PROMs). Associations with trial characteristics were investigated using univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Of 4789 identified trials, 229 were included. Among them, 44.1 % relied on PROMs, the most commonly used COA. The proportion of trials using PROMs did not significantly differ over time. In the multivariable analysis, intervention type (higher PROM use in behavioural vs. medical interventional trials) and cancer type (higher PROM use in mixed and solid tumour samples vs. haematological samples) were significant predictors of PROM use. The majority of trials using PROMs (59.6 %) measured more than one health domain. 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of registered clinical trials investigating supportive interventions for children with cancer used PROMs. This result is striking since supportive care explicitly focuses on patients' quality of life, which is best assessed using PROMs. Our systematic review underlines the need to identify barriers for PROM implementation and to improve PRO research in paediatric oncology.

Use of Daily Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Pediatric Cancer Care

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are emerging as an important component of adult cancer care, but little has been done with regard to PROMs for pediatric cancer care.

OBJECTIVES

To identify pediatric patients with cancer who are at risk of severe adverse effects of treatment and provide individualized supportive care using PROMs.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This single-center cohort study with PROMs implemented in daily clinical routine was conducted from May 1, 2020, to November 15, 2021, among pediatric patients with a cancer diagnosis or their proxies. Inclusion criteria were treatment with chemotherapy and at least 30 days of active participation. Patients were followed up until completion of therapy or through ongoing therapy until November 15, 2021; data were analyzed from November 15, 2021, through January 31, 2022.

EXPOSURES

Cancer treatment, including chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was occurrence and severity of ubiquitous complications of cancer treatment, such as nausea, appetite loss, pain, sleep disturbance, and deterioration of physical functioning. The secondary outcome was the identification of early and appropriate clinical interventions based on detection of cancer-related symptoms via PROMs.

RESULTS

A total of 4410 daily PROMs from 7082 therapy days for 40 children (35 children aged 5-18 years and 5 proxies for children aged 1-4 years) (median age, 9.1 [IQR, 6.3-12.2] years; 26 [65.0%] male) were analyzed during a median follow-up of 145.5 (IQR, 103.8-244.5) days. All participants were White. The overall median completion rate was 60.1% (IQR, 37.9%-81.0%); this rate was slightly lower during home care vs inpatient stay (57.5% [IQR, 30.7%-85.9%] vs 65.0% [IQR, 49.6%-92.5%], respectively; P = .01), with a decreasing trend over time (65.6% [IQR, 51.6%-85.9%] for the first 90 days vs 42.9% [IQR, 29.3%-82.3%] for beyond 90 days; P < .001). Severe symptoms were reported on 657 days (14.9%); most symptoms were associated with physical functioning, followed by pain, sleep disturbance, and nausea and appetite loss. In total, 321 adverse events (AEs) and cases of health deterioration were documented, and PROMs were completed for 251 (78.2%) of these events. Across all AEs, self-reported pain was the most useful marker, particularly when analyzed on the day before onset, and was associated with an odds ratio of 3.65 (95% CI, 1.54-8.62; P = .005) for the presence of mucositis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cohort study suggest that PROMs reflect daily symptoms in pediatric patients with cancer and assist in clinical management and intervention for AEs.

A Multinational Pilot Study on Patients' Perceptions of Advanced Neuroendocrine Neoplasms on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-GINET21 Questionnaires

Among the available neuroendocrine neoplasm (NEN)-specific HR-QoL scales, only the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-G.I.NET21 questionnaires have been validated in several languages. We aim to assess patients' perceptions of these questionnaires. A cross-sectional qualitative pilot study was conducted among 65 adults from four countries with well-differentiated advanced gastro-entero-pancreatic (GEP) or unknown primary NENs. Patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-G.I.NET21 questionnaires and then a survey containing statements concerning the questionnaires. The majority of patients had a small intestine NET (52%). Most tumors were functioning (55%) and grade 2 NET (52%). Almost half of the patients identified limitations in the questionnaires, with nine (14%) patients scoring the questionnaires as poor and 16 (25%) patients as moderate. Overall, 37 (57%) patients were positive towards the questionnaires. Approximately a quarter of patients considered the questionnaires not suitable for all ages, missing some of their complaints, not representative of their overall HR-QoL regarding the treatment of their NET and too superficial. The current validated EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-G.I.NET21 questionnaires may show some limitations in the design of questions and the patients' final satisfaction reporting of the questionnaire. Large-scale, high-quality prospective studies are required in HR-QoL assessment regarding NETs.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Rare use of patient-reported outcomes in childhood cancer clinical trials - a systematic review of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to assess the patients' subjective health status. While both the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommend the use of PROs as end-points in paediatric clinical trials to support claims for medical product labelling, it is not known how often PROs are actually used. The aim of this study was to assess the usage of PRO instruments in childhood cancer clinical trials investigating anti-cancer medication.

METHODS

In June 2020 ClinicalTrials and EudraCT were systematically searched for all trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer registered between 2007 and 2020. The use of PRO measures and trials characteristics were analysed. To investigate which trial characteristics are associated with the use of PROs, a binary logistic regression was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 4789 identified trials, 711 were included. The most frequent reason for exclusion was age limitation (age >21 years). Of all included trials, only 8.2% used PROs as end-points; .6% as the primary end-point. The most commonly used questionnaire was the PedsQL™ (32.8%), followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales (12.1%). No association was observed between the use of PROs and trial region, number of centres, trial phase, time period or intervention type (all p > .05). The use of PROs did not substantially increase over time. Only 20.3% of the closed studies had published their results.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations of regulatory agencies, PRO assessment is extremely rare in paediatric oncology clinical trials. More efforts should be undertaken to facilitate implementation of PRO in paediatric trials to guarantee patient-centred research and treatments.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index

OBJECTIVE

To develop a symptom-focused index to evaluate representative symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional and functional well-being of patients with carcinoid syndrome (CS).

METHODS

The development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Carcinoid Syndrome Symptom Index (FACT-CSI) followed US Food and Drug Administration guidelines for the development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and involved the following: (a) literature review; (b) interviews with 14 CS patients; (c) interviews with 9 clinicians; and (d) instrument development involving input from a range of PRO measure development and CS experts. The resulting draft instrument underwent cognitive interviews with 7 CS patients.

RESULTS

Forty-six CS sources were reviewed. Analysis of patient interviews produced 23 patient-reported symptoms. The most frequently endorsed physical symptoms were flushing, diarrhea, abdominal pain, fatigue, and food sensitivity/triggers. Seven priority CS emotional and functional themes were also identified by patients. Expert interviews revealed 12 unique priority symptoms - the most common being diarrhea, flushing, wheezing, edema, abdominal pain/cramping, fatigue, and 8 emotional and functional concerns. Through an iterative process of team and clinical collaborator meetings, data review, item reduction and measure revision, 24 items were selected for the draft symptom index representing symptoms, emotional concerns, global assessment of treatment side effects, and functional well-being. Cognitive interview results demonstrated strong content validity, including positive endorsement of item clarity (>86% across items), symptom relevance (>70% for most items), and overall measure content (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

The FACT-CSI is a content-relevant, symptom-focused index reflecting the highest priority and clinically relevant symptoms and concerns of people with CS.

Investigating the impact of open label design on patient-reported outcome results in prostate cancer randomized controlled trials

Background

While open‐label randomized controlled trials (RCT) are common in oncology, some concerns have been expressed with regard to Patient‐Reported Outcomes (PRO)‐based claims stemming from these studies. We aimed to investigate the impact of open‐label design in the context of prostate cancer (PCa) RCTs with PRO data.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials of PCa with a PRO endpoint published between 2004 and 2018 were considered. RCTs were systematically evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including international PRO reporting quality standards and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing Risk of Bias. The rate of concordance was estimated and compared between traditional clinical outcomes (eg, survival or tumor response) and PRO in open and blinded RCTs.

Results

We identified 110 RCTs published between 2004 and 2018, of which 62% (n = 68) were open‐label. The general characteristics of PCa RCTs were not different according to their design (open‐label vs blinded). The proportion of PCa RCTs with high‐quality PRO reporting was not different between open‐label RCTs and blinded RCTs (41.2% vs 38.1%; P = .75). No statistically significant difference was found between PRO results and concordance with traditional clinical outcomes according to the study design.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that there is no evidence of significant bias for PROs due to the absence of blinding in the context of PCa RCTs. Further analyses should be conducted in other cancer disease sites.

Quality of life in a real-world cohort of advanced breast cancer patients: a study of the SONABRE Registry

Purpose

We aimed to evaluate quality of life (QoL) using the European Quality of Life Five-Dimensions questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) in a real-world cohort of Dutch advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients. Secondary, we reported differences in QoL between subgroups of patients based on age, comorbidity, tumor-, and treatment characteristics, and assessed the association of duration of metastatic disease and time to death with QoL.

Methods

ABC patients who attended the outpatient clinic between October 2010 and May 2011 were asked to fill out the EQ-5D-3L questionnaire. Patient-, disease-, and treatment characteristics were obtained from the medical files. Health-utility scores were calculated. Subgroups were described and compared for utility scores by parametric and non-parametric methods.

Results

A total of 92 patients were included with a median utility score of 0.691 (Interquartile range [IQR] 0.244). Patients ≥ 65 years had significantly worse median utility scores than younger patients; 0.638 versus 0.743, respectively (p = 0.017). Moreover, scores were significantly worse for patients with versus those without comorbidity (medians 0.620 versus 0.725, p = 0.005). Utility scores did not significantly differ between subgroups of tumor type, type of systemic treatment, number of previous palliative treatment(s), or number or location of metastatic site(s). The remaining survival was correlated with utility scores (correlation coefficient (r) = 0.260, p = 0.0252), especially in the subgroup < 65 years (r = 0.340, p = 0.0169), whereas there was no significant correlation with time since metastatic diagnosis (r = − 0.106, p = 0.3136).

Conclusion

Within this real-world cross-sectional study, QoL was significantly associated with age, comorbidity, and remaining survival duration. The observation of a lower QoL in ABC patients, possibly indicating the last period of life, may assist clinical decision-making on timing of cessation of systemic antitumor therapy.

Quality of life in patients with gastroenteropancreatic tumours: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NETs) are slow-growing cancers that arise from diffuse endocrine cells in the gastrointestinal tract (GI-NETs) or the pancreas (P-NETs). They are relatively uncommon, accounting for 2% of all gastrointestinal malignancies. The usual treatment options in advanced GEP-NET patients with metastatic disease include chemotherapy, biological therapies, and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy. Understanding the impact of treatment on GEP-NET patients is paramount given the nature of the disease. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is increasingly important as a concept reflecting the patients’ perspective in conjunction with the disease presentation, severity and treatment.

AIM

To conduct a systematic literature review to identify literature reporting HRQoL data in patients with GEP-NETs between January 1985 and November 2019.

METHODS

The PRISMA guiding principles were applied. MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library were searched. Data extracted from the publications included type of study, patient population data (mid-gut/hind-gut/GI-NET/P-NET), sample size, intervention/comparators, HRQoL instruments, average and data spread of overall and sub-scores, and follow-up time for data collection.

RESULTS

Forty-three publications met the inclusion criteria. The heterogeneous nature of the different study populations was evident; the percentage of female participants ranged between 30%-60%, whilst average age ranged from 53.8 to 67.0 years. Eight studies investigated GI-NET patients only, six studies focused exclusively on P-NET patients and the remaining studies involved both patient populations or did not report the location of the primary tumour. The most commonly used instrument was the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (n = 28) with consistent results across studies; the GI-NET-specific module Quality of Life Questionnaire-GINET21 was used in six of these studies. A number of randomised trials demonstrated no HRQoL changes between active treatment and placebo arms. The Phase III NETTER-1 study provides the best data available for advanced GEP-NET patients; it shows that peptide receptor radionuclide therapy can significantly improve GEP-NET patients’ HRQoL.

CONCLUSION

HRQoL instruments offer a means to monitor patients’ general disease condition, disease progression and their physical and mental well-being. Instruments including the commonly used European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 and GINET21 lack, however, validation and a defined minimal clinical important difference specifically for GI-NET and P-NET patients.

Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes That Are Most Frequently Detected in Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Solid Tumors: A Pooled Analysis of 229 Trials

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements used in cancer research can assess a number of health domains. Our primary objective was to investigate which broad types of PRO domains (namely, functional health, symptoms, and global quality of life [QoL]) most frequently yielded significant differences between treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A total of 229 RCTs published between January 2004 and February 2019, conducted on patients diagnosed with the most common solid malignancies and assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, were considered. Studies were identified systematically using literature searches in key electronic databases. Unlike other PRO measurements typically used in RCTs, the scoring algorithm of the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-C30 allowed us to clearly distinguish the 3 broad types of PRO domains.

RESULTS

In total, 134 RCTs (58.5%) reported statistically significant differences between treatment arms for at least 1 of the QLQ-C30 domains. Most frequently, differences were reported for 2 or all 3 broad types of PRO domains (78 of 134 trials; 58.2%). In particular, 35 trials (26.1%) found significant differences for symptoms, functional health, and global QoL, 24 trials (17.9%) for symptoms and functional health, 11 trials (8.2%) for functional health and global QoL, and 8 trials (6.0%) for symptoms and global QoL. The likelihood of finding a statistically significant difference between treatment arms was not associated with key study characteristics, such as study design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) and industry support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the importance of a multidimensional PRO assessment to most comprehensively capture the overall burden of therapy from the patients' standpoint.

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Health-Related Quality of Life and Adverse Events of Apalutamide Versus Enzalutamide in Non-Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer

INTRODUCTION

The present study aimed to indirectly compare apalutamide and enzalutamide with respect to tolerability and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among men with non-metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC).

METHODS

Patient-level data from the SPARTAN study [apalutamide + androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) versus placebo + ADT] and aggregate published data from the PROSPER study (enzalutamide + ADT versus placebo + ADT) were used. Anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) was conducted by weighting patients' baseline characteristics from SPARTAN to match aggregated baseline characteristics in PROSPER. Odds ratios (ORs) of reported adverse events (AEs) and baseline-to-follow-up least squares mean differences in HRQoL [measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) score] with 95% credible intervals were re-estimated for SPARTAN arms using weighted population and indirectly compared with those in PROSPER through a Bayesian framework. Events of special interest included fatigue, hot flush, nausea, diarrhea, hypertension, falls, dizziness, decreased appetite, arthralgia, asthenia and headache. In addition, any AEs and serious AEs were explored.

RESULTS

Of 1207 SPARTAN patients, 1171 were matched to 1401 PROSPER patients. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide demonstrated better tolerability as evidenced by the highest probability of reduced occurrence of fatigue [p(OR < 1) = 99.5%], hypertension [p(OR < 1) = 99.2%], decreased appetite [p(OR < 1) = 98.3%], fall [p(OR < 1) = 90.3%], headaches [p(OR < 1) = 86.7%], and nausea [p(OR < 1) = 80.0%]. The probabilities of reduced occurrence of any AEs and SAEs with apalutamide versus enzalutamide were 66.9% and 90.9%, respectively. Relative to enzalutamide, apalutamide treatment was associated with a higher probability of a better HRQoL based on the FACT-P total score [p(diff > 0) = 73.1%]. The probability of a better HRQoL with apalutamide versus enzalutamide was highest for the physical [p(diff > 0) = 97.3%] and functional [p(diff > 0) = 86.7%] wellbeing subscales, and the pain-related subscale [p(diff > 0) = 90.1%].

CONCLUSION

Anchored MAIC suggests that treatment of men with nmCRPC with apalutamide is associated with a higher probability of better tolerability due to fewer AEs and better HRQoL than enzalutamide.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The day after: correlates of patient-reported outcomes with actigraphy-assessed sleep in cancer patients at home (inCASA project)

Subjective sleep assessment in cancer patients poorly correlates with actigraphy parameters that usually encompass multiple nights. We aimed to determine the objective actigraphy measures that best correlated with subjective sleep ratings on a night-by-night basis in cancer patients. Thirty-one cancer patients daily self-rated sleep disturbances using the single dedicated item of the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (0-10 scale) with 18 other items, and continuously wore a wrist actigraph for 30 days. Objective sleep parameters were computed from the actigraphy nighttime series, and correlated with subjective sleep disturbances reported on the following day, using repeated measures correlations. Multilevel Poisson regression analysis was performed to identify the objective and subjective parameters that affected subjective sleep rating. Poor subjective sleep score was correlated with poor sleep efficiency (rrm = -0.13, p = 0.002) and large number of wake episodes (rrm = 0.12, p = 0.005) on the rated night. Multilevel analysis demonstrated that the expected sleep disturbance score was affected by the joint contribution of the wake episodes (exp(β) = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 1.00 to 1.02, p = 0.016), fatigue (exp(β) = 1.35, 95% confidence interval = 1.15 to 1.55, p < 0.001) and drowsiness (exp(β) = 1.70, 95% confidence interval = 1.19 to 2.62, p = 0.018), self-rated the following evening, and sleep disturbance experienced one night before (exp(β) = 1.77, 95% confidence interval = 1.41 to 2.22, p < 0.001). The night-by-night approach within a multidimensional home tele-monitoring framework mainly identified the objective number of wake episodes computed from actigraphy records as the main determinant of the severity of sleep complaint in cancer patients on chemotherapy. This quantitative information remotely obtained in real time from cancer patients provides a novel framework for streamlining and evaluating interventions toward sleep improvement in cancer patients.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Health Economic Decision-Making: A Changing Landscape in Oncology

Cancer causes significant death and disability globally. However, costs of more personalized cancer care continue to climb, while access to basic cancer screening and treatment is not available to much of the world. This chapter provides an overview of the status of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical care and research. PROs are valuable for health care and health economic decision-making at institutional, regional, national, and international levels. PRO data should be considered along with cost and survival data when approving new therapies. PRO data can also be helpful when assessing existing treatment options for patients, particularly for drugs with minor outcome and toxicity differences. Finally, PROs can be useful in reimbursement algorithms to ensure delivery of quality cancer care in value-based financing environments. The authors advocate for reframing the concept of health value, aligning PRO measures with societal values, and broadening the definition of society to extend beyond national boundaries.

Quality-of-life outcomes in patients with advanced melanoma: A review of the literature

For patients with metastatic melanoma, the emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted BRAF and MEK inhibitors has markedly enhanced clinical outcomes compared with chemotherapy. However, these novel agents are also associated with unique sets of adverse events, and increased overall survival can lead to prolonged exposure to some novel agents. Therefore, clinical evaluation of these therapies has now included the analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in addition to more traditional efficacy and safety outcomes as a measure of patient perception of benefit. The current review focuses on HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors and targeted therapies in patients with advanced and metastatic melanoma to inform healthcare providers about patient perception of HRQoL as a new perspective in treatment decision making.

Systematic review reveals lack of quality in reporting health-related quality of life in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NET) are often slow-growing and patients may live for years with metastasised disease. Hence, along with increasing overall and progression-free survival, treatments aim at preserving patients' well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, studies on systematic HRQoL assessment in patients with GEP-NET are scarce. Therefore, the purpose of the current review is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies.

METHODS

A targeted database search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Data extraction was conducted by two independent researchers according to predefined criteria. For study evaluation, the Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQoL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials and the CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome extension were adapted.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 48 eligible studies. We found the awareness for the need of HRQoL measurement to be growing and application of cancer-specific instruments gaining acceptance. Overall, studies were too heterogeneous in terms of patient characteristics and treatment interventions to draw clear conclusions for clinical practice. More importantly, a range of methodological shortcomings has been identified which were mainly related to the assessment and statistical analysis, as well as the reporting and interpretation of HRQoL data.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increasing interest in HRQoL in GEP-NET patients, there is still a lack of knowledge on this issue. A transfer of HRQoL results into clinical practice is hindered not only by the scarceness of studies, but also by the often limited quality of HRQoL processing and reporting.

Patient-reported outcomes of brentuximab vedotin in Hodgkin lymphoma and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) or R/R systemic anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (sALCL) treated with brentuximab vedotin (BV) experienced high remission rates in two Phase II trials. With increased response rates and survival times, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are becoming increasingly important and can help inform treatment decisions to enhance care of cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to qualitatively assess HRQoL in long-term survivors treated with BV.

METHODS

An eight-question survey assessing PRO-related aspects was developed and fielded to a subset of patients with HL or sALCL who remained in long-term follow-up after completing BV treatment in the two pivotal studies.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 25 of 38 patients (12 with HL, 13 with sALCL). The majority of patients reported that their energy level, outlook on life, difficulties with daily activities, ability to participate in physical activities, and overall HRQoL improved compared to those before BV treatment.

LIMITATIONS

Small sample size and lack of a baseline questionnaire or validated assessment instrument limit broad applicability of these findings to large populations of patients with HL or sALCL.

CONCLUSION

This is the first report of BV PRO data in R/R HL and sALCL. Given the patients' poor prognostic outcomes before stem cell transplant, these encouraging results warrant formal evaluation of PRO end points in BV trials.

Developing a core set of patient-reported outcomes in pancreatic cancer: A Delphi survey

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are amongst the most relevant outcome measures in pancreatic cancer care and research. However, it is unknown which out of the numerous PROs are most important to patients and health care professionals (HCPs) in this setting. The aim of this study was to identify a core set of PROs to be incorporated in a nationwide prospective multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer registry.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a two-round Delphi survey among 150 patients diagnosed with pancreatic or periampullary cancer (treated either with curative intent or in palliative setting) and 78 HCPs (surgeons, medical oncologists, gastroenterologists, radiotherapists, nurses, and dietitians) in The Netherlands. In round 1, participants were invited to rate the importance of 53 PROs, which were extracted from 17 different PRO measures and grouped into global domains, on a 1-9 Likert scale. PROs rated as very important (score 7-9) by the majority (≥ 80%) of curative and/or palliative patients as well as HCPs were considered sufficiently important to be incorporated in the core set. PROs not fulfilling these criteria in round 1 were presented again to the participants in round 2 along with individual and group feedback.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients (94%) in curative-intent setting, 38 patients (81%) in palliative setting and 73 HCPs (94%) completed both rounds 1 and 2. After the first round, 7 PROs were included in the core set: general quality of life, general health, physical ability, satisfaction with caregivers, satisfaction with services and care organisation, coping and defecation. After the second round, 10 additional PROs were added: appetite, ability to work/do usual activities, medication use, weight changes, fatigue, negative feelings, positive feelings, fear of recurrence, relationship with partner/family, and pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy use.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a core set of PROs selected by patients and HCPs, which may be incorporated in pancreatic cancer care and research. Validation outside the Dutch context is recommended for generalisation and use in international studies.

Overcoming Organizational Challenges of Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Clinical Trials

Patients with cancer frequently experience multiple symptoms that may cause significant distress and may impair physical, emotional, and social functioning and health-related quality of life. Drug development in oncology is characterized by a high attrition rate of new compounds, faster development times encouraged by the regulatory process, studies that are often open and single-arm, and emphasis on survival-related endpoints, creating unique challenges for the inclusion of patient reported outcomes (PROs). These challenges to include PRO-related endpoints in oncology research are further exacerbated by downward pressure on budget and resources and also an overly rigorous application of the US Food and Drug Administration's PRO guidance, which can in turn prevent study teams from optimally including PROs in oncology clinical trials. With increasing calls for demonstration of value of new cancer drugs from payers, patients, and their caregivers, study teams should consider the utility of PROs beyond regulatory needs. Optimal implementation of a PRO strategy in oncology research can be achieved by applying the PRO guidance to the greatest extent possible, making use of off-the-shelf PRO measures to capture concepts of interest, discussing plans with the regulatory bodies early in the process, and treating PRO-related endpoints with the same level of rigor as other endpoints.

Quality of life and symptom assessment in randomized clinical trials of bladder cancer: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) help patients, caretakers, clinicians, and policy makers make informed decisions regarding treatment effectiveness. Our objective was to assess the quality of PRO reporting and methodological strengths and weaknesses in randomized controlled trials (RCT) in bladder cancer.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of bladder cancer RCT published between January 2004 and March 2014 was performed. Relevant studies were evaluated using a predetermined extraction form that included trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics, and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendations of the International Society for Quality of Life Research.

RESULTS

In total, 9 RCTs enrolling 1,237 patients were evaluated. All studies were in patients with nonmetastatic disease. In 5 RCTs, a PRO was the primary end point. Most RCTs did not report the mode of administration of the PRO instrument or the methods of collecting data. No RCT addressed the statistical approaches for missing data.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that few RCTs in bladder cancer report PRO as an outcome. Efforts to expand PRO reporting to more RCTs and improve the quality of PRO reporting according to recognized standards are necessary for facilitating clinical decision making.