Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in prostate cancer treatment trials

Patient-reported outcomes in cancer survivorship

BACKGROUND

There are currently 33 million cancer survivors worldwide. With improvements in early cancer detection and treatments, patients are living longer - and it is well-recognized that many survivors develop short- and long-term physical, psychosocial and spiritual effects as a result of their diagnoses and treatments. There is increasing awareness of the importance of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to accurately assess these effects in cancer survivors. Validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Traditionally, physicians have assessed the acute and late side effects of cancer treatments with standardized scales such as the CTCAE. However, multiple studies have demonstrated that PROs more accurately capture patient symptoms than physician assessment. In this article we describe frequently used, validated, general and cancer-specific PRO instruments that assess symptoms. We describe additional PRO instruments that assess unmet needs, interpersonal relationship issues, and psychosocial and financial problems. Published studies using these instruments have identified issues commonly faced by cancer survivors worldwide. Discussion and summary: While PROs are increasingly used in research, further efforts are needed to integrate PRO assessment into routine clinical care, so that timely and accurate assessments can translate into better management of issues - ultimately improving the lives of cancer survivors.

Irrational Exuberance: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation as Fetish

The Institute of Medicine and the American Heart Association have issued a "call to action" to expand the performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in response to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Widespread advertising campaigns have been created to encourage more members of the lay public to undergo training in the technique of closed-chest compression-only CPR, based upon extolling the virtues of rapid initiation of resuscitation, untempered by information about the often distressing outcomes, and hailing the "improved" results when nonprofessional bystanders are involved. We describe this misrepresentation of CPR as a highly effective treatment as the fetishization of this valuable, but often inappropriately used, therapy. We propose that the medical profession has an ethical duty to inform the public through education campaigns about the procedure's limitations in the out-of-hospital setting and the narrow clinical indications for which it has been demonstrated to have a reasonable probability of producing favorable outcomes.

Predictors of multidomain decline in health-related quality of life after stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for localized prostate cancer involves high-dose-per-fraction radiation treatments. Its use is increasing, but concerns remain about treatment-related toxicity. The authors assessed the incidence and predictors of a global decline in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after prostate SBRT.

METHODS

From 2008 to 2014, 713 consecutive men with localized prostate cancer received treatment with SBRT according to a prospective institutional protocol. Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) HRQOL data were collected at baseline and longitudinally for 5 years. EPIC-26 is comprised of 5 domains. The primary endpoint was defined as a decline exceeding the clinically detectable threshold in ≥4 EPIC-26 domains, termed multidomain decline.

RESULTS

The median age was 69 years, 46% of patients had unfavorable intermediate-risk or high-risk disease, and 20% received androgen-deprivation therapy. During 1 to 3 months and 6 to 60 months after SBRT, 8% to 15% and 10% to 11% of patients had multidomain declines, respectively. On multivariable analysis, lower baseline bowel HRQOL (odds ratio, 1.8; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.7; P < .01) and baseline depression (odds ratio, 5.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-24.3; P = .02) independently predicted for multidomain decline. Only 3% to 4% of patients had long-term multidomain declines exceeding twice the clinical threshold, and 30% of such declines appeared to be related to prostate cancer treatment or progression of disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Prostate SBRT has minimal long-term impact on multidomain decline, and the majority of more significant multidomain declines appear to be unrelated to treatment. This emphasizes the importance of focusing not only on the side effects of prostate cancer treatment but also on other comorbid illnesses that contribute to overall HRQOL. Cancer 2017;123:1635-1642. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

Impact of enzalutamide on patient-related outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: current perspectives

Prostate cancer claims the lives of more than 25,000 men in the United States yearly, most from metastatic disease. In the past decade, several new medications have been approved for the treatment of metastatic prostate cancer including the antiandrogen enzalutamide. In addition, there has been mounting interest in evaluating health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with cancer including new more detailed recommendations released by the Prostate Cancer Working Group 3 on how to evaluate patient-related outcomes in clinical trials. A total of four randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials have evaluated patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) randomized to receive enzalutamide vs control or bicalutamide. Each study used validated health-related QoL and pain surveys to evaluate patient-related outcomes. The studies suggest that patients with mCRPC, including those aged 75 years and older, have favorable overall QoL scores taking enzalutamide compared to standard of care. There was short-term improved pain control in patients taking enzalutamide compared to those in the placebo group. Some commonly reported adverse effects included fatigue, back pain, and hot flashes. These studies were limited in their patient attrition in filling out surveys as well as difficulty in comparing them to each other. Future studies examining patients with mCRPC taking enzalutamide will have to rigorously standardize ways patient-reported outcomes are collected and evaluate patients in a more diversified real-world population.

Focal therapy as primary treatment for localized prostate cancer: definition, needs and future

Focal therapy (FT) may offer a promising treatment option in the field of low to intermediate risk localized prostate cancer. The aim of this concept is to combine minimal morbidity with cancer control as well as maintain the possibility of retreatment. Recent advances in MRI and targeted biopsy has improved the diagnostic pathway of prostate cancer and increased the interest in FT. However, before implementation of FT in routine clinical practice, several challenges are still to overcome including patient selection, treatment planning, post-therapy monitoring and definition of oncologic outcome surrogates. In this article, relevant questions regarding the key steps of FT are critically discussed and the main available energy modalities are analyzed taking into account their advantages and unmet needs.

Assessment of Multiple Co-Occurring Cancer Symptoms in the Clinical Setting

OBJECTIVES

To discuss multiple co-occurring cancer symptoms, review symptom assessment instruments, identify innovative methods to integrate symptom assessment and management in the clinical setting, and examine barriers and facilitators for implementation of symptom assessment and use of clinical practice guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

Peer-reviewed articles, guidelines, systematic reviews, and web-based resources.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of brief, reliable, and valid instruments, symptom assessment has not been integrated as a routine aspect of clinical care. New technologies and changes in health policy provide an optimal environment to integrate electronic symptom assessment and management into cancer care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Oncology nurses play a key role in early identification and management of distressing symptoms.

MRI-guided focal therapy of prostate cancer

With the advent of focal therapy as a recognized treatment option for men with prostate cancer, there are a host of emerging interventions that take advantage of MRI for image guidance. Focal therapy affords a middleground option for patients with low- to intermediate-grade prostate cancer by providing a means of keeping their cancer at bay while avoiding the negative consequences of radical therapies. However, the practice of focal treatment is far from straightforward, with some believing focal treatment errs on the side of overtreatment among patients with low-grade cancer; others worry it is undertreatment in potentially significant multifocal disease. Further research is necessary, both relating to focal therapy in general and to the utility of each MRI-guided focal treatment discussed.

Patient-Reported Outcomes after Monitoring, Surgery, or Radiotherapy for Prostate Cancer

BACKGROUND

Robust data on patient-reported outcome measures comparing treatments for clinically localized prostate cancer are lacking. We investigated the effects of active monitoring, radical prostatectomy, and radical radiotherapy with hormones on patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

We compared patient-reported outcomes among 1643 men in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial who completed questionnaires before diagnosis, at 6 and 12 months after randomization, and annually thereafter. Patients completed validated measures that assessed urinary, bowel, and sexual function and specific effects on quality of life, anxiety and depression, and general health. Cancer-related quality of life was assessed at 5 years. Complete 6-year data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The rate of questionnaire completion during follow-up was higher than 85% for most measures. Of the three treatments, prostatectomy had the greatest negative effect on sexual function and urinary continence, and although there was some recovery, these outcomes remained worse in the prostatectomy group than in the other groups throughout the trial. The negative effect of radiotherapy on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but sexual function then recovered somewhat and was stable thereafter; radiotherapy had little effect on urinary continence. Sexual and urinary function declined gradually in the active-monitoring group. Bowel function was worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months than in the other groups but then recovered somewhat, except for the increasing frequency of bloody stools; bowel function was unchanged in the other groups. Urinary voiding and nocturia were worse in the radiotherapy group at 6 months but then mostly recovered and were similar to the other groups after 12 months. Effects on quality of life mirrored the reported changes in function. No significant differences were observed among the groups in measures of anxiety, depression, or general health-related or cancer-related quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of patient-reported outcomes after treatment for localized prostate cancer, patterns of severity, recovery, and decline in urinary, bowel, and sexual function and associated quality of life differed among the three groups. (Funded by the U.K. National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Program; ProtecT Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN20141297 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02044172 .).

Patient-reported outcomes in the ProtecT randomized trial of clinically localized prostate cancer treatments: study design, and baseline urinary, bowel and sexual function and quality of life

Objectives

To present the baseline patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) randomized trial comparing active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and external‐beam conformal radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer and to compare results with other populations.

Materials and Methods

A total of 1643 randomized men, aged 50–69 years and diagnosed with clinically localized disease identified by prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing, in nine UK cities in the period 1999–2009 were included. Validated PROMs for disease‐specific (urinary, bowel and sexual function) and condition‐specific impact on quality of life (Expanded Prostate Index Composite [EPIC], 2005 onwards; International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire‐Urinary Incontinence [ICIQ‐UI], 2001 onwards; the International Continence Society short‐form male survey [ICSmaleSF]; anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), generic mental and physical health (12‐item short‐form health survey [SF‐12]; EuroQol quality‐of‐life survey, the EQ‐5D‐3L) were assessed at prostate biopsy clinics before randomization. Descriptive statistics are presented by treatment allocation and by men's age at biopsy and PSA testing time points for selected measures.

Results

A total of 1438 participants completed biopsy questionnaires (88%) and 77–88% of these were analysed for individual PROMs. Fewer than 1% of participants were using pads daily (5/754). Storage lower urinary tract symptoms were frequent (e.g. nocturia 22%, 312/1423). Bowel symptoms were rare, except for loose stools (16%, 118/754). One third of participants reported erectile dysfunction (241/735) and for 16% (118/731) this was a moderate or large problem. Depression was infrequent (80/1399, 6%) but 20% of participants (278/1403) reported anxiety. Sexual function and bother were markedly worse in older men (65–70 years), whilst urinary bother and physical health were somewhat worse than in younger men (49–54 years, all P < 0.001). Bowel health, urinary function and depression were unaltered by age, whilst mental health and anxiety were better in older men (P < 0.001). Only minor differences existed in mental or physical health, anxiety and depression between PSA testing and biopsy assessments.

Conclusion

The ProtecT trial baseline PROMs response rates were high. Symptom frequencies and generic quality of life were similar to those observed in populations screened for prostate cancer and control subjects without cancer.

Clinical Use of Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice to Assess Patient Reported Prostate Cancer Quality of Life Following Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy

PURPOSE

EPIC-CP (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite for Clinical Practice) is a short questionnaire that comprehensively measures patient reported health related quality of life at the point of care. We evaluated the feasibility of using EPIC-CP in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer without research infrastructure. We compared longitudinal patient and practitioner reported prostate cancer outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed health related quality of life outcomes in 482 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2010 to 2014. EPIC-CP was administered and interpreted in routine clinical practice without research personnel. We compared practitioner documented rates of incontinence pad use and functional erections to patient reported rates using EPIC-CP.

RESULTS

A total of 708 EPIC-CP questionnaires were completed. Mean urinary incontinence domain scores were significantly higher (worse) than baseline (mean ± SD 0.6 ± 0.2) 3 and 6 months after treatment (mean 3.1 ± 2.3 and 2.2 ± 2.1, respectively, each p <0.05) but they returned to baseline at 12 months (mean 1.6 ± 1.7, p >0.05). Mean sexual domain scores were significantly worse than baseline (mean 2.4 ± 2.8) at all posttreatment time points (each p <0.05). Practitioners significantly overestimated incontinence pad-free rates at 3 months (48% vs 39%) and functional erection rates at 3 months (18% vs 12%), 6 months (38% vs 23%) and 12 months (45% vs 23%, each p <0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

EPIC-CP is feasible to use in the routine clinical care of patients with prostate cancer without requiring a research infrastructure. Using EPIC-CP in clinical practice may help practitioners objectively assess and appropriately manage posttreatment side effects in patients with prostate cancer.

Reduction of quality of life in prostate cancer patients: experience among 6200 men in the Nordic countries

OBJECTIVE

Although many studies have dealt with adverse effects (AEs) and quality of life (QoL) in prostate cancer (PCa) patients, the quantification of the patients' perspective on AE-related reduction in QoL has been less studied. This study describes the impact of self-reported local (erectile, bowel, urinary dysfunction) or systemic (mental distress, fatigue, virility loss) AEs on QoL reduction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nordic PCa patients completed a questionnaire containing 84 multiple-choice questions. The main outcome variable of the survey was patient-reported PCa-induced QoL reduction, assessed by descriptive and regression analyses. The level of significance was p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among 6200 patients, 39% described their QoL as reduced owing to the PCa trajectory: radical prostatectomy group (RPGroup): 42%, radiotherapy without hormones (RADGroup): 27%, hormones (HormGroup): 47% and no treatment (NoTrtGroup): 19%. Except for the NoTrtGroup, urinary leakage and fatigue doubled the risk of QoL reduction, while virility loss and erectile dysfunction tripled the risk. Significant intergroup differences emerged for the age-adjusted odds of QoL reduction: RPGroup (0.66), RADGroup (0.40), HormGroup (0.95) and NoTrtGroup (0.22).

CONCLUSIONS

After RP, RAD or hormone treatment of PCa, systemic AEs, in particular loss of virility, significantly reduce PCa patients' QoL similarly to or more than local AEs. The probability of reduced QoL is highest during hormone treatment and lowest in patients without anticancer therapy, and seems lower in patients treated with RAD without hormones than after RP. The treatment-related risk of reduced QoL due to systemic AEs should become a part of the pretreatment counselling of patients.

Patient-reported outcomes in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer

Many novel therapies are available for use in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), some of which convey substantial progression-free survival and overall survival benefits. Delaying disease progression and providing palliation of symptoms are primary therapeutic aims of treating patients with mCRPC; therefore, ensuring that the benefit-to-harm ratios are acceptable to patients, through systematic measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) using validated tools, is vital. In this Perspectives, we appraised the published reports from clinical trials testing treatments of mCRPC over the past 5 years and found that PROs were either not being measured routinely, or if used, were often not reported adequately, thus hampering evaluation of the true effects of many of these treatments on patients' quality of life. Improvements are needed because data collected directly from patients, not just physician-collected safety data and adverse events, are crucial to inform clinical decision-making on treatment options.

Trial Design and Objectives for Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: Updated Recommendations From the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3

PURPOSE

Evolving treatments, disease phenotypes, and biology, together with a changing drug development environment, have created the need to revise castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) clinical trial recommendations to succeed those from prior Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Groups.

METHODS

An international expert committee of prostate cancer clinical investigators (the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 3 [PCWG3]) was reconvened and expanded and met in 2012-2015 to formulate updated criteria on the basis of emerging trial data and validation studies of the Prostate Cancer Clinical Trials Working Group 2 recommendations.

RESULTS

PCWG3 recommends that baseline patient assessment include tumor histology, detailed records of prior systemic treatments and responses, and a detailed reporting of disease subtypes based on an anatomic pattern of metastatic spread. New recommendations for trial outcome measures include the time to event end point of symptomatic skeletal events, as well as time to first metastasis and time to progression for trials in the nonmetastatic CRPC state. PCWG3 introduces the concept of no longer clinically benefiting to underscore the distinction between first evidence of progression and the clinical need to terminate or change treatment, and the importance of documenting progression in existing lesions as distinct from the development of new lesions. Serial biologic profiling using tumor samples from biopsies, blood-based diagnostics, and/or imaging is also recommended to gain insight into mechanisms of resistance and to identify predictive biomarkers of sensitivity for use in prospective trials.

CONCLUSION

PCWG3 moves drug development closer to unmet needs in clinical practice by focusing on disease manifestations most likely to affect prognosis adversely for therapeutics tested in both nonmetastatic and metastatic CRPC populations. Consultation with regulatory authorities is recommended if a trial is intended to seek support for drug approval.

Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Symptomatic Adverse Events, Physical Function, and Disease-Related Symptoms

Cancer clinical trials have relied on overall survival and measures of tumor growth or reduction to assess the efficacy of a drug. However, benefits are often accompanied by significant symptomatic toxicities. The degree to which a therapy improves disease symptoms and introduces symptomatic toxicity affects how patients function in their daily lives. These concepts are important contributors to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In this article, we discuss patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in cancer trials and challenges relying solely on static multi-item HRQOL instruments. We propose focusing on three separate measures of well-defined concepts: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms, which are key contributors to the effect of a therapy on HRQOL. Separate measures of these three concepts may facilitate the incorporation of emerging contemporary instruments that can tailor the PRO assessment strategy to different trial contexts. Irrespective of the PRO measures used, continued improvement in trial design and conduct is crucial to decrease missing data and optimize the quality of PRO information. International stakeholder collaboration and continued research into optimal practices for PRO and other clinical outcome assessments are necessary to advance a common framework for generating and reporting rigorous patient-centered data from cancer clinical trials.

Partial Gland Ablation for Prostate Cancer: Report of a Food and Drug Administration, American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology Public Workshop

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the discussion that took place at a public workshop, co-sponsored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the American Urological Association, and Society of Urologic Oncology reviewing the current state of the art for partial gland ablation (PGA) for the management of patients with prostate cancer. The purpose of this workshop was to discuss potential indications, current available evidence, and designs for future trials to provide the evidence needed by patients and providers to decide how and when to use PGA.

METHODS

A workshop evaluating PGA for prostate cancer was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, in May 2015. Invited experts representing all stakeholders and attendees discussed the regulatory development of medical products, technology available, potential indications, and designs of trials to evaluate this modality of therapy.

RESULTS

The panel presented the current information on the technologies available to perform PGA, the potential indications, and results of prior consensus conferences. Use of magnetic resonance imaging for patient selection, guide therapy, and follow-up was discussed. Designs of trials to assess PGA outcomes were discussed.

CONCLUSION

The general consensus was that currently available technologies are capable of selective ablation with reasonable accuracy, but that criteria for patient selection remain debatable, and long-term cancer control remains to be established in properly designed and well-performed prospective clinical trials. Concerns include the potential for excessive, unnecessary use in patients with low-risk cancer and, conversely, that current diagnostic techniques may underestimate the extent and aggressiveness of some cancers, leading to inadequate treatment.

Integrating Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Routine Cancer Care: Cancer Patients' and Clinicians' Perceptions of Acceptability and Value

INTRODUCTION

Despite growing interest in integrating patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of symptoms and functional status into routine cancer care, little attention has been paid to patients' and clinicians' perceptions of acceptability and value.

METHODS

A two-phase qualitative study was conducted to develop a web-based PRO screening system with 21 items assessing symptoms (e.g., nausea) and functional status. Phase 1 involved cognitive interviews with 35 cancer outpatients (n=9 breast chemotherapy, radiation for prostate (n=8) or head and neck cancer (n=10), and n=8 bone marrow transplant [BMT]). In Phase 2, we evaluated the acceptability and perceived value of reviewing a PRO measure during real-time clinical encounters with 39 additional outpatients (n=10 breast, n=9 head and neck, n=10 prostate, n=10 BMT) and 12 clinicians (n=3 breast, n=2 head and neck, n=4 prostate, n=3 BMT). At least 20% of patients were ≥60 years, African American, or ≤ high school.

RESULTS

Patients felt that their PRO summary of symptoms and functional status was helpful in discussing health issues with clinicians (92%), wanted to review their results with clinicians during future visits (82%), and would recommend it to other patients (87%). Clinicians found the PRO summary to be easy to interpret (83%), most helpful for documenting the Review of Symptoms (92%), and would recommend it to future patients (92%). Over 90% of clinicians reported that consultation time did not increase.

CONCLUSION

Both cancer patients and clinicians reported that discussing a PRO summary of symptoms and functional status during an outpatient visit was useful, acceptable, and feasible.

Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a technology-assisted psychosocial intervention for racially diverse men with advanced prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

The utility of psychosocial interventions in reducing symptom burden and improving health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for men with localized prostate cancer has been demonstrated. However, studies have yet to demonstrate the efficacy of interventions in advanced prostate cancer (APC). This study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of a technology-assisted, 10-week, group-based psychosocial intervention for diverse men with APC.

METHODS

The participants were 74 men (mean age, 68.84 years; non-Hispanic white, 57%; black, 40.5%) who were randomized to a cognitive-behavioral stress management (CBSM) treatment or health promotion (HP) attention-control condition. The participants were assessed at the baseline, weekly throughout the 10-week program, and 6 months after the baseline. Outcomes were assessed with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System along with established measures of HRQOL, CBSM intervention targets (eg, relaxation skills), and patient-reported acceptability.

RESULTS

Feasibility was demonstrated through good retention rates (>85%) and acceptable average attendance rates (>70%), and acceptability was demonstrated through very favorable weekly session evaluations (mean score, 4/5) and exit surveys (mean score, 3.6/4). Men randomized to the CBSM condition reported significant reductions (P < .05) in depressive symptoms and improvements in relaxation self-efficacy (P < .05) at the 6-month follow-up. CBSM participants reported trends for improvement in distress and functional well-being (P < .08) in comparison with those in the HP condition. Effect sizes ranged from medium (0.54) to large (1.87) and, in some instances, were clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

Technology-based CBSM interventions among diverse men with APC may be feasible, acceptable, and efficacious.

Cancer and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations

This article provides an overview of the current literature on seven cancer sites that may disproportionately affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) populations. For each cancer site, the authors present and discuss the descriptive statistics, primary prevention, secondary prevention and preclinical disease, tertiary prevention and late-stage disease, and clinical implications. Finally, an overview of psychosocial factors related to cancer survivorship is offered as well as strategies for improving access to care.

Effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes mellitus: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and identification of a core outcomes set using a Delphi survey

Background

Women with pregnancy complicated by pregestational diabetes experience increased rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Prepregnancy care is the targeted support and additional care offered to those women who are planning pregnancy and is associated with improved outcomes. However, there is significant heterogeneity in the outcomes measured and reported in studies evaluating the effects of prepregnancy care, which makes meaningful comparison difficult. The aim of this article is to present a protocol for a study to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials and other studies evaluating the effectiveness of prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes mellitus.

Methods/Design

This study will include a systematic review of the literature to identify outcomes that have previously been reported in studies evaluating prepregnancy care for women with pregestational diabetes. We will then prioritise these outcomes from the perspective of key stakeholders, including women with pregestational diabetes as well as clinicians, using a Delphi survey. A final consensus meeting will be held with stakeholders to review and finalise the outcomes.

Discussion

The expectation is that the COS will always be collected and reported in all clinical trials, audits of practice and other forms of research that involve prepregnancy care programs for women with pregestational diabetes. This will facilitate comparing and contrasting of studies and allow for combining of appropriate studies with the ultimate goal of improved patient care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0894-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Design and feasibility of integrating personalized PRO dashboards into prostate cancer care

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valued source of health information, but prior work focuses largely on data capture without guidance on visual displays that promote effective PRO use in patient-centered care. We engaged patients, providers, and design experts in human-centered design of "PRO dashboards" that illustrate trends in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) reported by patients following prostate cancer treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed and assessed the feasibility of integrating dashboards into care in 3 steps: (1) capture PRO needs of patients and providers through focus groups and interviews; (2) iteratively build and refine a prototype dashboard; and (3) pilot test dashboards with patients and their provider during follow-up care.

RESULTS

Focus groups (n = 60 patients) prioritized needs for dashboards that compared longitudinal trends in patients' HRQOL with "men like me." Of the candidate dashboard designs, 50 patients and 50 providers rated pictographs less helpful than bar charts, line graphs, or tables (P < .001) and preferred bar charts and line graphs most. Given these needs and the design recommendations from our Patient Advisory Board (n = 7) and design experts (n = 7), we built and refined a prototype that charts patients' HRQOL compared with age- and treatment-matched patients in personalized dashboards. Pilot testing dashboard use (n = 12 patients) improved compliance with quality indicators for prostate cancer care (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

PRO dashboards are a promising approach for integrating patient-generated data into prostate cancer care. Informed by human-centered design principles, this work establishes guidance on dashboard content, tailoring, and clinical use that patients and providers find meaningful.

Assessment of anticancer-treatment outcome in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer-going beyond PSA and imaging, a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In the past years, there has been significant progress in anticancer drug development for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). However, the current instruments to assess clinical treatment response have limitations and may not sufficiently reflect patient benefit. Our objective was to systematically identify tools to evaluate both patient benefit and clinical anticancer-treatment response as basis for an international consensus process and development of a specific pragmatic instrument for men with CRPC.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase and CINAHL were searched to identify currently available tools to assess anticancer-treatment benefit, other than standard imaging procedures and prostate-specific antigen measurements, namely quality of life (QoL), detailed pain assessment, physical function and objective measures of other complex cancer-related syndromes in patients with CRPC. Additionally, all CRPC phase III trials published in the last 5 years were reviewed as well as studies using physical function tools in a general cancer population. The PRIMSA statement was followed for the systematic review process.

RESULTS

The search generated 1096 hits, 185 full-text papers were screened and finally 73 publications were included. Additional 89 publications were included by hand-search. We identified a total of 98 tools used in CRPC trials and grouped these into three categories: 22 tools assessing QoL domains and subgroups, 47 tools for pain assessment and 29 tools for objective measures, mainly physical function and assessment of skeletal disease burden.

CONCLUSION

A wide variety of assessment tools and also efforts to standardize and harmonize patient-reported outcomes and pain assessment were identified. However, the specific needs of the increasing CRPC population living longer with their incurable cancer are insufficiently captured and objective physical outcome measures are under-represented. In the age of new anticancer drug targets and principles, new methods to monitor patient relevant outcomes of antineoplastic therapy are of utmost importance.

A core outcome set for localised prostate cancer effectiveness trials: protocol for a systematic review of the literature and stakeholder involvement through interviews and a Delphi survey

Background

Prostate cancer is a growing health problem worldwide. The management of localised prostate cancer is controversial. It is unclear which of several surgical, radiotherapeutic, ablative, and surveillance treatments is the most effective. All have cost, process and recovery, and morbidity implications which add to treatment decision-making complexity for patients and healthcare professionals. Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal because of uncertainty as to what constitutes important outcomes. Another issue hampering evidence synthesis is heterogeneity of outcome definition, measurement, and reporting. This project aims to determine which outcomes are the most important to patients and healthcare professionals, and use these findings to recommend a standardised core outcome set for comparative effectiveness trials of treatments for localised prostate cancer, to optimise decision-making.

Methods/Design

The range of potentially important outcomes and measures will be identified through systematic reviews of the literature and semi-structured interviews with patients. A consultation exercise involving representatives from two key stakeholder groups (patients and healthcare professionals) will ratify the list of outcomes to be entered into a three round Delphi study. The Delphi process will refine and prioritise the list of identified outcomes. A methodological substudy (nested RCT design) will also be undertaken. Participants will be randomised after round one of the Delphi study to one of three feedback groups, based on different feedback strategies, in order to explore the potential impact of feedback strategies on participant responses. This may assist the design of a future core outcome set and Delphi studies. Following the Delphi study, a final consensus meeting attended by representatives from both stakeholder groups will determine the final recommended core outcome set.

Discussion

This study will inform clinical practice and future trials of interventions of localised prostate cancer by standardising a core outcome set which should be considered in comparative effectiveness studies for localised prostate cancer.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-015-0598-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Minimally important difference for the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite Short Form

OBJECTIVE

To establish a score threshold that constitutes a clinically relevant change for each domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) Short Form (EPIC-26). Although its use in clinical practice and clinical trials has increased worldwide, the clinical interpretation of this 26-item disease-specific patient-reported quality of life questionnaire for men with localized prostate cancer would be facilitated by characterization of score thresholds for clinically relevant change (the minimally important differences [MIDs]).

METHODS

We used distribution- and anchor-based approaches to establish the MID range for each EPIC-26 domain (urinary, sexual, bowel, and vitality/hormonal) based on a prospective multi-institutional cohort of 1201 men treated for prostate cancer between 2003 and 2006 and followed up for 3 years after treatment. For the anchor-based approach, we compared within-subject and between-subject score changes for each domain to an external "anchor" measure of overall cancer treatment satisfaction.

RESULTS

We found the bowel and vitality/hormonal domains to have the lowest MID range (a 4-6 point change should be considered clinically relevant), whereas the sexual domain had the greatest MID values (10-12). Urinary incontinence appeared to have a greater MID range (6-9) than the urinary irritation/obstruction domain (5-7).

CONCLUSION

Using 2 independent approaches, we established the MIDs for each EPIC-26 domain. A definition of these MID values is essential for the researcher or clinician to understand when changes in symptom burden among prostate cancer survivors are clinically relevant.

Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials

BACKGROUND

The National Cancer Institute's Symptom Management and Health-Related Quality of Life Steering Committee held a clinical trials planning meeting (September 2011) to identify a core symptom set to be assessed across oncology trials for the purposes of better understanding treatment efficacy and toxicity and to facilitate cross-study comparisons. We report the results of an evidence-synthesis and consensus-building effort that culminated in recommendations for core symptoms to be measured in adult cancer clinical trials that include a patient-reported outcome (PRO).

METHODS

We used a data-driven, consensus-building process. A panel of experts, including patient representatives, conducted a systematic review of the literature (2001-2011) and analyzed six large datasets. Results were reviewed at a multistakeholder meeting, and a final set was derived emphasizing symptom prevalence across diverse cancer populations, impact on health outcomes and quality of life, and attribution to either disease or anticancer treatment.

RESULTS

We recommend that a core set of 12 symptoms--specifically fatigue, insomnia, pain, anorexia (appetite loss), dyspnea, cognitive problems, anxiety (includes worry), nausea, depression (includes sadness), sensory neuropathy, constipation, and diarrhea--be considered for inclusion in clinical trials where a PRO is measured. Inclusion of symptoms and other patient-reported endpoints should be well justified, hypothesis driven, and meaningful to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This core set will promote consistent assessment of common and clinically relevant disease- and treatment-related symptoms across cancer trials. As such, it provides a foundation to support data harmonization and continued efforts to enhance measurement of patient-centered outcomes in cancer clinical trials and observational studies.