Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards

The Dermatology Life Quality Index as the primary outcome in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However, validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, which could provide support for a primary role for PROMs.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utlizing DLQI, covering all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made using MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records were combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected based on study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were sourced and data were extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating disagreements. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of the 3220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met the eligibility criteria and included 198 587 patients. DLQI scores were used as primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3436 patients. Most study interventions (17 of 24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs, with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for 5 of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treatments comprised 32% (8 studies), whereas nonpharmacological interventions (n = 8) were 24% of the total interventions (N = 33). Three studies used nontraditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four studies (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as a primary outcome in clinical trials. Researchers and clinicians can use this data to inform decisions about further use of the DLQI as a primary outcome.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PURPOSE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the web sites of the journals: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes; Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes; Quality of Life Research.

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.

METHODS

The development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.

RESULTS

From the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final checklist to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review's title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.

CONCLUSION

PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding explanation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application. NOTE: This paper was jointly developed by Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Quality of Life Research, Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes and jointly published by Elsevier Inc, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, and BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature. The articles are identical except for minor stylistic and spelling differences in keeping with each journal's style. Either citation can be used when citing this article.

Evaluation of Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: What We Know, What We Have, and What to Consider

Measurement of success following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) hinges on the appropriate use of high quality and meaningful outcome measures. We identified and categorized over 100 outcome measures for ACLR using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) model. The ICF model is a useful framework to facilitate decisions about outcome selection and describe recovery following ACL injury. We outline key considerations when selecting outcome measures during study design (purpose, measurement properties, sample size, global assessment) or evaluating reported outcomes (measurement properties, sample size, magnitude/precision, clinical relevance, applicability), and discuss challenges in outcome measurement following ACLR.

PROpwr: a Shiny R application to analyze patient-reported outcomes data and estimate power

Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) are widely used in quality of life (QOL) studies, health outcomes research, and clinical trials. The importance of PRO has been advocated by health authorities. We propose this R shiny web application, PROpwr, that estimates power for two-arm clinical trials with PRO measures as endpoints using Item Response Theory (GRM: Graded Response Model) and simulations. PROpwr also supports the analysis of PRO data for convenience of estimating the effect size. There are seven function tabs in PROpwr: Frequentist Analysis, Bayesian Analysis, GRM power, T-test Power Given Sample Size, T-test Sample Size Given Power, Download, and References. PROpwr is user-friendly with point-and-click functions. PROpwr can assist researchers to analyze and calculate power and sample size for PRO endpoints in clinical trials without prior programming knowledge.

The impact of current therapeutic options on the health-related quality of life of patients with relapse/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review of clinical studies

PURPOSE

Patients with relapse and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a high disease burden with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which worsens with each additional relapse. We aimed to review the impact of triplet, doublet, monotherapies, and salvage autologous stem cell transplantation on the HRQoL of RRMM patients.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of Medline/PubMed, Wiley Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify clinical studies in RRMM patients with HRQoL as an outcome measure. The ISOQoL and CONSORT-PRO extension guidelines were used to assess the quality of HRQoL reporting. We synthesized the result using a qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10,245 RRMM patients enrolled in 28 eligible studies received either a triplet, doublet regimen, monotherapy, or salvage autologous stem cell transplantation. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most used questionnaire, and compliance with HRQoL reporting standards is generally poor among studies without an additional HRQoL publication. Most of the current therapeutic options are at best able to maintain HRQoL at baseline but not improve it. The methodological and reporting heterogeneity among the studies complicates generalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the current treatment regimens for RRMM have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in trials. Unlike newly diagnosed MM, these regimens are less likely to result in significant improvement in HRQoL in RRMM. This should be communicated to patients before initiating therapies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Individualized therapeutic approach for RRMM should be chosen based on a shared decision-making process that aligns clinical efficacy with patients' treatment priorities and HRQoL.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey

PURPOSE

Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables.

RESULTS

Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level.

CONCLUSION

Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

Statistical Analysis Methods and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials for Cancer Conducted in Japan: A Systematic Review

The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data (SISAQOL) initiative was established in 2016 to assess the quality and standardization of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data analysis in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on advanced breast cancer. The initiative identified deficiencies in PRO data reporting, including nonstandardized methods for handling missing data. This study evaluated the reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Japanese cancer RCTs to provide insights into the state of PRO reporting in Japan. The study reviewed PubMed articles published from 2010 to 2018. Eligible studies included Japanese cancer RCTs with ≥50 adult patients (≥50% were Japanese) with solid tumors receiving anticancer treatments. The evaluation criteria included clarity of the HRQOL hypotheses, multiplicity testing, primary analysis methods, and reporting of clinically meaningful differences. Twenty-seven HRQOL trials were identified. Only 15% provided a clear HRQOL hypothesis, and 63% examined multiple HRQOL domains without adjusting for multiplicity. Model-based methods were the most common statistical methods for the primary HRQOL analysis. Only 22% of the trials explicitly reported clinically meaningful differences in HRQOL. Baseline assessments were reported in most trials, but only 26% reported comparisons between the treatment groups. HRQOL analysis was based on the intention-to-treat population in 19% of the trials, and 74% reported compliance at follow-up; however, 41% did not specify how missing values were handled. Although the rates of reporting clinical hypotheses and clinically meaningful differences were relatively low, the current state of HRQOL evaluation in the Japanese cancer RCT appears comparable to that of previous studies.

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.

A Systematic Review of Voice-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Use with Adults

PURPOSE

This paper's purpose is to provide a resource for clinicians and researchers of select voice-related patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available in the English language.

METHOD

A systematic search for voice-related PROMs was conducted between September 2020 and July 17, 2021. Databases included APA PsychInfo, Nursing and Allied Health Source, MEDLINE via the EBSCO interface, and Science Direct. Reference lists for PROMs-related articles were mined for reference to PROMs protocols.

RESULTS

Thirty voice-related PROMs were identified and categorized as either developed primarily for use in the clinic (n = 12), developed primarily for use in a specific research study (n = 6), or translated into English for publication (n = 12). Twelve PROMs were summarized: Aging Voice Index, Disease Specific Self-Efficacy in Spasmodic Dysphonia, Evaluation of the Ability to Sing Easily, Evaluating Voice Disability - Quality of Life Questionnaire, Glottal Function Index, Linear Analog Scale of Assessment of Voice Quality, Quality of Life in Recurrent Respiratory Papillomatosis, Speech Disability Questionnaire, Trans Woman Voice Questionnaire, Vocal Cord Dysfunction Questionnaire, Vocal Fatigue Index, and the Vocal Tract Discomfort Scale.

CONCLUSION

The PROMs can be categorized into English-language voice-related PROMs developed primarily for clinical use, English-language PROMs developed primarily for research use, and English-language PROMs translated into English. The extent of reliability and validity testing completed varies in the PROMs developed primarily for clinical use. A PROM's psychometric properties as well as the language in which the PROM was tested, should guide clinicians and researchers as they consider which instrument(s) to use.

Experiences with Wearable Sensors in Oncology during Treatment: Lessons Learned from Feasibility Research Projects in Denmark

BACKGROUND

The fraction of elderly people in the population is growing, the incidence of some cancers is increasing, and the number of available cancer treatments is evolving, causing a challenge to healthcare systems. New healthcare tools are needed, and wearable sensors could partly be potential solutions. The aim of this case report is to describe the Danish research experience with wearable sensors in oncology reporting from three oncological wearable research projects.

CASE STUDIES

Three planned case studies investigating the feasibility of different wearable sensor solutions during cancer treatment are presented, focusing on study design, population, device, aim, and planned outcomes. Further, two actual case studies performed are reported, focusing on patients included, data collected, results achieved, further activities planned, and strengths and limitations.

RESULTS

Only two of the three planned studies were performed. In general, patients found the technical issues of wearable sensors too challenging to deal with during cancer treatment. However, at the same time it was demonstrated that a large amount of data could be collected if the framework worked efficiently.

CONCLUSION

Wearable sensors have the potential to help solve challenges in clinical oncology, but for successful research projects and implementation, a setup with minimal effort on the part of patients is requested.

Guidelines for the Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials

In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results.

Information about missing patient-reported outcome data in breast cancer trials is frequently not documented: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This review addresses the common problem of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in clinical trials by assessing the current practice of their statistical handling as reported in publications of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with breast cancer.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched PubMed to identify RCTs evaluating biomedical treatments in breast cancer patients with at least one PRO endpoint published between January 2019 and February 2022. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the publications for this scoping review and extracted prespecified information on missing PRO data and related statistical practices.

RESULTS

Of 1,598 publications identified, 118 trials met the inclusion criteria. Eighty-eight (74.6%) trials reported the extent of missing data, with 11 (9.3%) not containing any missing PRO data. Twenty-one (19.6%) trials explicitly stated the statistical approach for handling missing data, with a preference for single imputation over multiple imputation approaches (57.2%/19.0%). Only six (5.6%) trials reported a sensitivity analysis to examine the extent to the results being affected by changes in assumptions made about missing PRO data.

CONCLUSION

International efforts to raise awareness of the importance of accurately reporting state-of-the-art handling of missing PRO data are not yet fully reflected in the current literature of breast cancer RCTs.

Endpoint selection and evaluation in hematology studies

Observational studies and clinical trials in hematology aim to examine treatments for blood disorders. The outcomes being studied must address the goals of the study and provide meaningful information about treatment course, disease progression, describe patients' survival experience and quality of life. Endpoints are the specific measures of these outcomes, and much consideration should be given to their selection. In this review, we describe the outcomes and endpoints frequently used in studying hematologic diseases and provide general guidelines for their statistical analysis. The main focus is on clinical outcomes which are commonly used in establishing treatment safety and efficacy. We also briefly discuss the role surrogate and composite endpoints play in hematology studies. The importance of patient reported outcomes to comprehensive assessment of the treatment effectiveness is highlighted. Provided practical considerations for choosing primary and secondary endpoints may be helpful in designing hematology clinical trials.

Design a Clinical Research Protocol: Influence of Real-World Setting

The design of a clinical research protocol to evaluate new therapies, devices, patient quality of life, and medical practices from scratch is probably one of the greatest challenges for the majority of novice researchers. This is especially true since a high-quality methodology is required to achieve success and effectiveness in academic and hospital research centers. This review discusses the concrete steps and necessary guidelines needed to create and structure a research protocol. Along with the methodology, some administrative challenges (ethics, regulatory and people-management barriers) and possible time-saving recommendations (standardized procedures, collaborative training, and centralization) are discussed.

FAIR Health Informatics: A Health Informatics Framework for Verifiable and Explainable Data Analysis

The recent COVID-19 pandemic has hit humanity very hard in ways rarely observed before. In this digitally connected world, the health informatics and investigation domains (both public and private) lack a robust framework to enable rapid investigation and cures. Since the data in the healthcare domain are highly confidential, any framework in the healthcare domain must work on real data, be verifiable, and support reproducibility for evidence purposes. In this paper, we propose a health informatics framework that supports data acquisition from various sources in real-time, correlates these data from various sources among each other and to the domain-specific terminologies, and supports querying and analyses. Various sources include sensory data from wearable sensors, clinical investigation (for trials and devices) data from private/public agencies, personnel health records, academic publications in the healthcare domain, and semantic information such as clinical ontologies and the Medical Subject Heading ontology. The linking and correlation of various sources include mapping personnel wearable data to health records, clinical oncology terms to clinical trials, and so on. The framework is designed such that the data are Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable with proper Identity and Access Mechanisms. This practically means to tracing and linking each step in the data management lifecycle through discovery, ease of access and exchange, and data reuse. We present a practical use case to correlate a variety of aspects of data relating to a certain medical subject heading from the Medical Subject Headings ontology and academic publications with clinical investigation data. The proposed architecture supports streaming data acquisition and servicing and processing changes throughout the lifecycle of the data management. This is necessary in certain events, such as when the status of a certain clinical or other health-related investigation needs to be updated. In such cases, it is required to track and view the outline of those events for the analysis and traceability of the clinical investigation and to define interventions if necessary.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

Patient-reported outcomes in refractory hormone-producing pituitary adenomas: an unmet need

PURPOSE

To describe quality and outcomes of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) used in patients with refractory hormone-producing pituitary adenomas, and to provide an overview of PROs in these challenging pituitary adenomas.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for studies reporting on refractory pituitary adenomas. For the purpose of this review, refractory adenomas were defined as tumors resistant to primary therapy. General risk of bias was assessed using a component approach and the quality of PROM reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria.

RESULTS

20 studies reported on PROMs in refractory pituitary adenomas, using 14 different PROMs, of which 4 were disease specific (median general risk of bias score: 33.5% (range 6-50%) and ISOQOL score: 46% (range 29-62%)). SF-36/RAND-36 and AcroQoL were most frequently used. Health-related quality of life in refractory patients (measured by AcroQoL, SF-36/Rand-36, Tuebingen CD-25, and EQ-5D-5L) varied greatly across studies, and was not always impaired compared to patients in remission.

CONCLUSION

There is a scarcity of data on PROs in the subset of pituitary adenomas that is more difficult to treat, e.g., refractory and these patients are difficult to isolate from the total cohort. The patients' perspective on quality of life, therefore, remains largely unknown in refractory patients. Thus, PROs in refractory pituitary adenomas require adequate analysis using properly reported disease specific PROMs in large cohorts to enable appropriate interpretation for use in clinical practice.

Ethical and practical considerations related to data sharing when collecting patient-reported outcomes in care-based child health research

Purpose

The collection and use of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in care-based child health research raises challenging ethical and logistical questions. This paper offers an analysis of two questions related to PROs in child health research: (1) Is it ethically obligatory, desirable or preferable to share PRO data collected for research with children, families, and health care providers? And if so, (2) What are the characteristics of a model best suited to guide the collection, monitoring, and sharing of these data?

Methods

A multidisciplinary team of researchers, providers, patient and family partners, and ethicists examined the literature and identified a need for focus on PRO sharing in pediatric care-based research. We constructed and analyzed three models for managing pediatric PRO data in care-based research, drawing on ethical principles, logistics, and opportunities to engage with children and families.

Results

We argue that it is preferable to share pediatric PRO data with providers, but to manage expectations and balance the risks and benefits of research, this requires a justifiable data sharing model. We argue that a successful PRO data sharing model will allow children and families to have access to and control over their own PRO data and be engaged in decision-making around how PROs collected for research may be integrated into care, but require support from providers.

Conclusion

We propose a PRO data sharing model that can be used across diverse research settings and contributes to improved transparency, communication, and patient-centered care and research.

Routine Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment Into Thoracic Surgery Practice

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessment is a necessary component of surgical outcome assessment and patient care. This study examined the success of routine PROs assessment in an academic-based thoracic surgery practice.

METHODS

PROs, measuring pain intensity, physical function, and dyspnea, were routinely obtained using the National Institutes of Health-sponsored Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) on all thoracic surgery patients beginning in April 2018 through January 2021. Questionnaires were administered electronically through a web-based platform at home or during the office visit. Completion rates and barriers were measured.

RESULTS

A total of 9725 thoracic surgery office visits occurred during this time frame. PROs data were obtained in 6899 visits from a total of 3551 patients. The mean number of questions answered per survey was 22.4 ± 2.2. Overall questionnaire completion rate was 65.7%. A significant decline in survey completion was noted in April 2020, after which adjustments were made to allow for questionnaire completion through a mobile health platform. Overall monthly questionnaire completion rates ranged from 20% (April 2020) to 90% (October 2018). Mean T scores were dyspnea, 41.6 ± 12.3; physical function, 42.7 ± 10.5; and pain intensity, 52.8 ± 10.3.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs can be assessed effectively in a thoracic surgery clinic setting, with minimal disruption of clinical activities. Future efforts should focus on facilitating PROs collection from disadvantaged patient populations and scaling implementation across programs.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Intracranial Meningioma: Current Evidence and Future Directions

Historically, largely due to the good prognosis for survival, there has been little attention paid to the possible impact of meningiomas and their treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, in the last decade there has been increasing evidence that patients with intracranial meningiomas suffer from long-term decreases in their HRQoL. Compared with controls and normative data, meningioma patients have worse HRQoL scores both before and after intervention and continuing long term (even after >4 years of follow-up). Overall, surgery results in improvements in many aspects of HRQoL. The limited available studies investigating the impact of radiotherapy suggest that this type of treatment decreases HRQoL scores, especially in the long term. There is however only limited evidence on additional determinants of HRQoL. Patients with anatomically complex skull base meningiomas and severe comorbidities, including epilepsy, report the lowest HRQoL scores. Other tumor and sociodemographic characteristics have shown weak associations with HRQoL. Furthermore, about one-third of caregivers of meningioma patients report caregiver burden, warranting interventions to improve caregiver HRQoL. As antitumor interventions may not improve HRQoL scores to be comparable to those of the general population, more attention should be paid to the development of integrative rehabilitation and supportive care programs for meningioma patients.

Incorporating risk preferences of patients in the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors for non-small cell lung cancer

Immunotherapy offers a distinctive mechanism of action compared to traditional treatments, arising from additional value dimensions that may not be captured in standard health technology assessments. Cancer patients may have the expectation that immunotherapy provides durable, long-term survival gains. Moreover, some patients may be willing to take a 'risk' to undergo immunotherapy to achieve better survival outcomes. We reviewed quantitative methods that explored patients' risk preferences in their non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment choices, in PubMed (MEDLINE), from January 1, 2015, until July 1, 2022. The consideration of a value dimension ('hope') based on patients' risk-seeking preferences is specifically addressed for the valuation of immune checkpoint inhibitors in NSCLC. We reported that the quantitative methods that aim to measure patients' risk preferences or 'hope' empirically are emerging. Value assessments should not only comprise survival improvements for the mean or median patient but also consider methods that reflect durable, long-term overall survival gains for risk-seeking patients. However, the published evidence for incorporating 'hope' based on patients' stated preferences for uncertain treatment profiles is not strong, and future research could strengthen this evidence base. We encourage further research on the development and validation of quantification methods to incorporate 'hope' and risk preferences of patients treated with immunotherapy for NSCLC and beyond.

Sickle Cell Disease and Quality of Life: An Evaluation of Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials

Sickle cell disease significantly impacts one's quality of life (QOL); thus, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have integrated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess patients' health from their perspective. We aim to evaluate the completeness of reporting of PROs included in sickle cell disease RCTs. We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for published sickle cell disease RCTs with at least one PRO measure from 2006 to 2021. In a masked, duplicate fashion, two investigators evaluated RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting in Trials (CONSORT)-PRO adaptation and Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 tool. The primary objective was mean percent completeness of the CONSORT-PRO adaptation. Additional relationships between trial characteristics and completeness of reporting were evaluated. Mean completeness of reporting of RCTs was 41.49% (SD = 20.90). Randomized controlled trials with primary outcomes were more complete (57.50%, SD = 8.33) than RCTs with secondary PROs (33.48%, SD = 20.91). We did not find a significant difference in completion between trials with primary PROs and secondary PROs (t₁ = 2.07; p = 0.06). Our secondary objectives included factors that may be associated with completeness of PRO reporting. Of the 12 included studies, five were considered to be overall 'high' RoB (41.67%). In each of the five domains, the majority of studies received 'low' RoB evaluations. Incomplete PRO reporting was common within sickle cell RCTs. Therefore, we recommend future RCTs including PROs should take measures to increase completeness of reporting.

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

BACKGROUND

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Immune-checkPoint INHIBITORS FOR THE TREATMENT OF NON-SMALL CELL LUNG CANCER: A COMPARIson of THE REGULATORY APPROVALS IN EUROPE AND THE UNITED STATES

Regulatory authorization of oncology drugs, including immune-checkpoint inhibitors, is often based on enhanced efficacy and acceptable toxicity profiles, investigated in randomized, open-label clinical trials. Regulatory approval decisions of the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) are frequently compared and contrasted, specifically based on review requirements, and time to approval or refusal decisions. We reviewed databases of the US FDA, the EMA and Clinicaltrials.gov, from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2021, and analyzed regulatory approvals for immune-checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We specifically focused on time to approval duration of each immune-checkpoint inhibitor, and considerations of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by each regulatory agency. Despite similarities in the regulatory pathways and methods used for immune-checkpoint inhibitor approvals, NSCLC indications that stood out in terms of outcome divergence were mainly first-line drugs for treatment naïve patients. The US FDA was quicker to reach approval decisions, when compared with the EMA. The US FDA and the EMA both recognize the value of PROs as important patient-centered endpoints. Policy statement: There are several regulatory structures in the US and Europe that aim to leverage the latest clinical trial evidence and speed up the regulatory approval processes. In our study, the preponderance of outcome differences in approvals were not influenced by the expedited drug development and access programs. Increased harmonization and collaboration on the PRO measurement and validation are encouraged among these agencies to improve the efficiency of regulatory decisions in the future.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

Analysis of patient reported outcomes included in the registrational clinical trials of nivolumab for advanced non-small cell lung cancer

•

Patients’ perspectives are at the center of value-based oncology care.

•

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) guide clinical and regulatory decisions.

•

PRO instruments do not capture immune-related adverse events in clinical trials.

•

Studies did not accurately report PROs after treatment discontinuation.

•

Precise analyses of longitudinal effects of nivolumab on PROs were lacking.

In the era of value-based oncology care, stakeholders are increasingly using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to guide clinical and regulatory decisions. PROs are also included in health technology assessments to guide patient access, drug reimbursement and pricing. We reviewed PROs collected in the United States Food and Drug Administration approved indications of nivolumab in advanced NSCLC. We analyzed the PRO data reported in the CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), CheckMate 227 (NCT02477826), CheckMate 057 (NCT01673867), and CheckMate 017 (NCT01642004) registrational clinical trials, and concluded that nivolumab alleviated symptom burden and improved health status of patients in this setting. However, inability of the included PRO instruments to measure immune-related adverse events, differences in the timing of PRO evaluation between treatment groups, incomplete patient participation at all time points, limited patient participation in the later time points, and interpretation of the longitudinal data are key challenges that impede accurate analysis and validation of PROs.

State of the Art of Patient-reported Outcomes in Acromegaly or GH Deficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Insight into the current landscape of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROM) and differences between PROs and conventional biochemical outcomes is pivotal for future implementation of PROs in research and clinical practice. Therefore, in studies among patients with acromegaly and growth hormone deficiency (GHD), we evaluated (1) used PROMs, (2) their validity, (3) quality of PRO reporting, (4) agreement between PROs and biochemical outcomes, and (5) determinants of discrepancies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We searched 8 electronic databases for prospective studies describing both PROs and biochemical outcomes in acromegaly and GHD patients. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) criteria. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate determinants.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ninety studies were included (acromegaly: n = 53; GHD: n = 37). Besides nonvalidated symptom lists (used in 37% of studies), 36 formal PROMs were used [predominantly Acromegaly Quality of Life Questionnaire in acromegaly (43%) and Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults in GHD (43%)]. Reporting of PROs was poor, with a median of 37% to 47% of ISOQOL items being reported per study. Eighteen (34%) acromegaly studies and 12 (32%) GHD studies reported discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, most often improvement in biochemical outcomes without change in PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Prospective studies among patients with acromegaly and GHD use a multitude of PROMs, often poorly reported. Since a substantial proportion of studies report discrepancies between PROs and biochemical outcomes, PROMs are pivotal in the evaluation of disease activity. Therefore, harmonization of PROs in clinical practice and research by development of core outcome sets is an important unmet need.

Responsiveness of the Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life Cognition Banks in Recent Brain Injury

Patient report of functioning is one component of the neurocognitive exam following traumatic brain injury, and standardized patient-reported outcomes measures are useful to track outcomes during rehabilitation. The Traumatic Brain Injury Quality of Life measurement system (TBI-QOL) is a TBI-specific extension of the PROMIS and Neuro-QoL measurement systems that includes 20 item banks across physical, emotional, social, and cognitive domains. Previous research has evaluated the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL measures in community-dwelling individuals and found clinically important change over a 6-month assessment interval in a sample of individuals who were on average 5 years post-injury. In the present study, we report on the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL Cognition–General Concerns and Executive Function item bank scores and the Cognitive Health Composite scores in a recently injured sample over a 1-year study period. Data from 128 participants with complicated mild, moderate, or severe TBI within the previous 6 months were evaluated. The majority of the sample was male, white, and non-Hispanic. The participants were 18–92 years of age and were first evaluated from 0 to 5 months post-injury. Eighty participants completed the 1-year follow-up assessment. Results show acceptable standard response mean values (0.47–0.51) for all measures and minimal detectable change values ranging from 8.2 to 8.8 T-score points for Cognition–General Concerns and Executive Functioning measures. Anchor rating analysis revealed that changes in scores on the Executive Function item bank and the Cognitive Health Composite were meaningfully associated with participant-reported changes in the areas of attention, multitasking, and memory. Evaluation of change score differences by a variety of clinical indicators demonstrated a small but significant difference in the three TBI-QOL change scores by TBI injury severity grouping. These results support the responsiveness of the TBI-QOL cognition measures in newly injured individuals and provides information on the minimal important differences for the TBI-QOL cognition measures, which can be used for score interpretation by clinicians and researchers seeking patient-reported outcome measures of self-reported cognitive QOL after TBI.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Place of patient-reported outcomes & experiences measurements (PROMS/PREMS) in the assessment and pricing of Health technologies in France

In the context of health technologies assessment, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have become assessment criteria that are expected by evaluation agencies along with the other usual clinical criteria. PROMs instruments measure all aspects of patient experience in connection with their health: symptoms, activities of daily living (physical function, sleep, etc.), various aspects of health-related quality of life (QoL), compliance, global impression of change in wellbeing. PROMs are useful both as 1) a primary or secondary efficacy endpoints, and 2) a tolerability criterion to supplement vigilance data reported by clinicians. Measurement of PROMs must be subject to methodological rigor that is identical to that of other assessment criteria measured by an observer. Scales must be validated, suitable for the objective, and where possible specific to a disease. In addition to standard measures of quality of life, PROMs are taken into consideration in the assessments performed by the HAS, even if their impact on the conclusions is difficult to isolate, as assessments are multifactorial and take into account all data available with regard to the medical context. The CEPS will indirectly take into account PROMs in the fixing of the price or tariff only if they have contributed to the award of the ASA/ASMR by the ad hoc committee of the HAS. The working group has formulated three recommendations which aim to further the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures: (1) Better information for all parties involved in a dossier for technology assessment, (2) Systematization of the collection of PROMs for evaluation of health products, (3) Improved quality of dossiers thanks to the use of relevant and validated tools.

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.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Background

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of treatment response in heart failure. We assessed temporal trends in and factors associated with inclusion of PROs in heart failure randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods and Results

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and July 2020 in journals with an impact factor ≥10. We assessed temporal trends using the Jonckheere‐Terpstra test and conducted multivariable logistic regression to explore trial characteristics associated with PRO inclusion. We assessed the quality of PRO reporting using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. Of 417 RCTs included, PROs were reported in 226 (54.2%; 95% CI, 49.3%–59.1%), with increased reporting between 2000 and 2020 (P<0.001). The odds of PRO inclusion were greater in RCTs that were published in recent years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per year, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04–1.12; P<0.001), multicenter (aOR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.03–3.46; P=0.040), medium‐sized (aOR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.26–4.40; P=0.008), coordinated in Central and South America (aOR, 5.93; 95% CI, 1.14–30.97; P=0.035), and tested health service (aOR, 3.12; 95% CI, 1.49–6.55; P=0.003), device/surgical (aOR, 6.66; 95% CI, 3.15–14.05; P<0.001), or exercise (aOR, 4.66; 95% CI, 1.81–12.00; P=0.001) interventions. RCTs reported a median of 4 (interquartile interval , 3–6) of a possible of 11 CONSORT PRO items.

Conclusions

Just over half of all heart failure RCTs published in high impact factor journals between 2000 and 2020 included PROs, with increased inclusion of PROs over time. Trials that were large, tested pharmaceutical interventions, and coordinated in North America / Europe had lower adjusted odds of reporting PROs relative to other trials. The quality of PRO reporting was modest.

Estimating power for clinical trials with Patient Reported Outcomes - using Item Response Theory

OBJECTIVES

Patient reported outcomes (PRO) are widely used in quality of life (QOL) studies, health outcomes research, and clinical trials. The importance of PRO has been advocated by health authorities. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a collection of standardized measures of PROs using Item Response Theory (IRT). However, in clinical trials with PROs as endpoints, observed scores are routinely used for power estimation rather than IRT scores. This paper aims to fill this gap and estimate power in a two-arm clinical trials with PROMIS measures as endpoints with IRT model.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a series of simulations to study the IRT power with validated PROMIS measures controlling factors including sample size, effect size, number of items, and missing data proportion.

RESULTS

Our results showed that sample size, effect size, and number of items are important indicators of IRT based power estimation for PROMIS measures. When effect size is small and sample size is limited, IRT model provides higher power than the closed form formula.

CONCLUSION

IRT based simulation should be used for power estimation in two-armed clinical, especially when there is small effect size or small sample size.

Health-related quality of life in primary hepatic cancer: a systematic review assessing the methodological properties of instruments and a meta-analysis comparing treatment strategies

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are important oncological outcome measures. The validation of HRQoL instruments for patients with hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma is lacking. Furthermore, studies comparing different treatment options in respect to HRQoL are sparse. The objective of the systematic review and meta-analysis was, therefore, to identify all available HRQoL tools regarding primary liver cancer, to assess the methodological quality of these HRQoL instruments and to compare surgical, interventional and medical treatments with regard to HRQoL.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, the Cochrane library, PsycINFO, CINAHL and EMBASE. The methodological quality of all identified HRQoL instruments was performed according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) standard. Consequently, the quality of reporting of HRQoL data was assessed. Finally, wherever possible HRQoL data were extracted and quantitative analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 124 studies using 29 different HRQoL instruments were identified. After the methodological assessment, only 10 instruments fulfilled the psychometric criteria and could be included in subsequent analyses. However, quality of reporting of HRQoL data was insufficient, precluding meta-analyses for 9 instruments.

CONCLUSION

Using a standardized methodological assessment, specific HRQoL instruments are recommended for use in patients with hepatocellular and cholangiocellular carcinoma. HRQoL data of patients undergoing treatment of primary liver cancers are sparse and reporting falls short of published standards. Meaningful comparison of established treatment options with regard to HRQoL was impossible indicating the need for future research.

Targeting health-related quality of life in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes - Current knowledge and lessons to be learned

Using a range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments, most - but not all - studies of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) have reported that lower hemoglobin levels and red blood cell transfusion dependency are associated with worse HRQoL. In addition, some MDS treatments may significantly improve HRQoL, particularly among those patients who respond to therapy; however, the majority of these studies were underpowered for this secondary endpoint. Furthermore, decreased HRQoL has been associated with worse survival outcomes, and HRQoL scores can be used to refine classical prognostic systems. Despite the subjective nature of HRQoL, the importance and validity of measuring it in trials and clinical practice are increasingly being recognized, but properly validated MDS-specific instruments are required. We describe what is currently known about HRQoL in patients with MDS, and the limitations of measuring HRQoL, and we provide some recommendations to improve the measurement of this outcome in future trials.

Long-term patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures after injury: the National Trauma Research Action Plan (NTRAP) scoping review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries.

METHODS

Online databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results.

RESULTS

Most studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33).

CONCLUSION

We identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV.

Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site.

RESULTS

Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%).

CONCLUSION

The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.

Incorporating patient centered benefits as endpoints in randomized trials of maintenance therapies in advanced ovarian cancer: A position paper from the GCIG symptom benefit committee

BACKGROUND

Quality of life and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important secondary endpoints and incorporated in most contemporary clinical trials. There have been deficiencies in their assessment and reporting in ovarian cancer clinical trials, particularly in trials of maintenance treatment where they are of particular importance. The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) symptom benefit committee (SBC) recently convened a brainstorming meeting with representation from all collaborative groups to address questions of how to best incorporate PROMs into trials of maintenance therapies to support the primary endpoint which is usually progression free survival (PFS). These recommendations should harmonize the collection, analysis and reporting of PROM's across future GCIG trials.

METHODS

Through literature review, trials analysis and input from international experts, the SBC identified four relevant topics to address with respect to promoting the role of PROMs to support the PFS endpoint in clinical trials of maintenance treatment for OC.

RESULTS

The GCIG SBC unanimously accepted the importance of integrating PROM's in future maintenance trials and developed four guiding principles to be considered early in trial design. These include 1) adherence to SPIRIT-PRO guidelines, 2) harmonization of selection, collection and reporting of PROM's; 3) combining Health Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures with clinical endpoints and 4) common approaches to dealing with incomplete HRQL data.

CONCLUSIONS

Close attention to incorporating HRQL and PROM's is critical to interpret the results of ovarian cancer clinical trials of maintenance therapies. There should be a consistent approach to assessing and reporting patient centered benefits across all GCIG trials to enable cross trial comparisons which can be used to inform practice.

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.

Preoperative Lung Function Is Associated With Patient-Reported Outcomes After Lung Cancer Surgery

BACKGROUND

Patient quality of life (QOL) is a critical outcomes measure in lung cancer surgery. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide valuable insight into the patient experience and allow measurement of preoperative and postoperative QOL. Our objective was to determine which clinical factors predict differences in QOL, as measured by patient-reported physical function and pain intensity among patients undergoing minimally invasive lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

PRO surveys assessing physical function and pain intensity were conducted using instruments from the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. PRO surveys were administered to patients undergoing minimally invasive lung cancer resections at preoperative, 1-month, and 6-month postoperative time points, in an academic institution. Linear mixed-effects regression models were constructed to assess the association between clinical variables on PRO scores over time.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients underwent a thoracoscopic lung resection for cancer. Mean age of the cohort was 67 ± 9.6 years, 43% were male, and 80% were White. When comparing clinical variables with PRO scores after surgery, lower diffusing capacity of the lungs for carbon monoxide (Dlco) was associated with significantly worse physical function (P < .01) and greater pain intensity scores (P < .01) at 6 months, with no differences identified at 1 month. No other studied clinical factor was associated with significant differences in PRO scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Low preoperative Dlco was associated with significant decreases in PRO after minimally invasive lung cancer surgery. Dlco may be of utility in identifying patients who experience greater decline in QOL after surgery and for guiding surgical decision making.

Associations between safety, tolerability, and toxicity and the reporting of health-related quality of life in phase III randomized trials in common solid tumors

Background

Anti‐cancer drugs are approved typically on the basis of efficacy and safety as evaluated in phase III randomized trials (RCTs). Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is a direct measure of patient benefit, but is under‐reported. Here we explore associations with reporting of HRQoL data in phase III RCTs in common solid tumors.

Methods

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov to identify phase III RCTs evaluating new drugs in adults with advanced cancers that completed accrual between January 2005 and October 2016. Data on HRQoL, safety, and tolerability comprising treatment‐related death, treatment discontinuation and commonly reported grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs) were extracted. Associations between these measures and reporting of HRQoL data were explored using logistic regression.

Results

Of 377 phase III RCTs identified initially, 143 studies were analysed and comprised 55% positive trials and 90% industry sponsored trials. HRQoL was listed as an endpoint in 59% trials; and of these, only 65% reported HRQoL data. There were higher odds of reporting HRQoL data for positive trials (OR 2.05, P = .04) and trials published in journals with higher impact factor (OR 1.35, P = .01). Reporting of HRQoL was not associated with treatment‐related death (OR 1.25, P = .40) or treatment discontinuation (OR 1.12, P = .61), but was positively associated with dyspnea and dermatological adverse events.

Conclusions

HRQoL is reported in only two‐thirds of RCTs that describe collecting such data. Reporting of HRQoL is associated with positive trial outcome and higher journal impact factor, but not associated with overall safety and tolerability of anti‐cancer drugs.

Health-Related Quality of Life and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

OPINION STATEMENT

The importance of assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is now well recognized as an essential measure when evaluating the effectiveness of new cancer therapies. Quality of life measures provide for a multi-dimensional understanding of the impact of cancer treatment on measures ranging from functional, psychological, and social aspects of a patient's health. Patient-reported outcomes provide for an assessment of physical and functional symptoms that are directly elicited from patients. Collection of PROs and HRQoL data has been shown to not only be feasible but also provide for reliable measures that correlate with established outcomes measures better than clinician-scored toxicities. The importance of HRQoL measures has been emphasized by both patients and clinicians, as well as policy makers and regulatory bodies. Given the benefits associated with measuring HRQoL and PROs in oncology clinical trials, it is increasingly important to establish methods to effectively incorporate PROs and HRQoL measures into routine clinical practice.

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.