Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials of gynaecological cancers: investigating methodological quality and impact on clinical decision-making

15 years of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials leading to GU cancer drug approvals: a systematic review on the quality of data reporting and analysis

Background

Standardized, high-quality PRO data reporting is crucial for patient centered care in the field of oncology, especially in clinical trials that establish standard of care. This study evaluated PRO endpoint design, conduct and reporting methods in FDA approved drugs for GU malignancies.

Methods

A systematic review of the FDA archives identified GU cancer drug approvals from Feb 2007 to July 2022. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to retrieve relevant data. PRO data was screened, and analytic tools, interpretation methods in the published papers and study protocols were reviewed. Compliance with PRO reporting standards were assessed using PRO Endpoint Analysis Score (PROEAS), a 24-point scoring scale from Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium (SISAQOL).

Findings

We assessed 40 trial protocols with 27,011 participants, resulting in 14 renal cell cancer (RCC), 16 prostate cancer (PC), and 10 urothelial cancer (UC) approvals. PRO data was published for 27 trials, with 23 PRO publications (85%) focusing solely on PRO data, while 4 (15%) included PRO data in the original paper. Median time between primary clinical and secondary paper with PRO data was 10.5 months (range: 9-25 months). PROs were not planned as primary endpoints for any study but 14 (52%) reported them as secondary, 10 (37%) as exploratory outcomes, and 3 (11%) lacked any clarity on PRO data as endpoint. Mean PROEAS score of all GU cancers was 11.10 (range: 6-15), RCC (11.86, range: 6-15), UC (11.50, range: 9-14), and PC (10.56, range: 6-15). None met all the SISAQOL recommendations.

Interpretation

Low overall PROEAS score and delays in PRO data publication in GU cancer drug trials conducted in the past decade emphasize the need for improvement in quality of design and conduct of PRO endpoint in future trials and accelerated publication of PRO endpoints, using standardized analysis, and prespecified hypothesis driven endpoint. These improvements are essential for facilitating interpretation and application of PRO study findings to define patient care.

Funding

None.

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in trials on alcohol use disorder: a meta-epidemiological study

OBJECTIVES

Currently, limited research exists to assess the extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) reporting among randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating alcohol use disorder (AUD). We sought to investigate the completeness of reporting of PROs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO (CONSORT-PRO) extension in AUD RCTs.

DESIGN SETTING

Meta-epidemiological study.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on 29 June 2021 for published RCTs focused on AUD. Following these searches, title and abstract screening, and full-text screening were performed by two investigators. To be included, a study must have employed a randomised trial design, published in English, focused on treatment of AUD and included at least one PRO. Trials meeting inclusion criteria were evaluated for completeness of reporting using the CONSORT-PRO extension adaptation. These trials were also evaluated for risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB V.2.0 tool. Additionally, an exploratory analysis of each RCT's therapeutic area was extracted using the Mapi Research Trust's ePROVIDE platform. Screening and data collection were all performed in masked, duplicate fashion.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PRO completeness of reporting, identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting and PRO measures used in RCTs to evaluate patients with AUD.

RESULTS

Nineteen RCTs were evaluated in our analysis. Our primary outcome, the mean completion score for CONSORT-PRO, was 40.8%. Our secondary outcome-the identification of factors associated with completeness of reporting-found that trials published after 2014 (ie, 1 year after the publication of the CONSORT-PRO extension) were 15.0% more complete than trials published before 2014. We found no additional associations with better reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that the completeness of PRO reporting in RCTs involving AUD was deficient. Complete reporting of PROs is instrumental in understanding the effects of interventions, encourages patient participation in their treatment and may increase clinician confidence in the value of PROs. High quality treatment strategies for AUD require properly reported PROs.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome App for Health-Related Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Patients: Evaluation and Acceptability Analysis in a Two-Center Prospective Trial

Background

One in eight women is diagnosed with breast cancer in the course of their life. As systematic palliative treatment has only a limited effect on survival rates, the concept of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was developed for measurement of patient-centered outcomes. Various studies have already demonstrated the reliability of paper-based patient-reported outcome (pPRO) and electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) surveys and that the 2 means of assessment are equally valid.

Objective

The aim of this study was to analyze the acceptance and evaluation of a tablet-based ePRO app for breast cancer patients and to examine its suitability, effort, and difficulty in the context of HRQoL and sociodemographic factors.

Methods

Overall, 106 women with adjuvant or advanced breast cancer were included in a 2-center study at 2 major university hospitals in Germany. Patients were asked to answer HRQoL and PRO questionnaires both on a tablet on-site using a specific eHealth assessment website and on paper. The suitability, effort, and difficulty of the app and self-reported technical skills were also assessed. Only the results of the electronically acquired data are presented here. The results of the reliability of the pPRO data have already been published elsewhere.

Results

Patients regarded the ePRO assessment as more suitable (80/106, 75.5%), less stressful (73/106, 68.9%), and less difficult (69/106, 65.1%) than pPRO. The majority of patients stated that ePRO assessment improves health care in hospitals (87/106, 82.1%). However, evaluation of ePROs depended on the level of education (P=.003) in the dimensions of effort and difficulty (regression analysis). The app was rated highly in all categories. HRQoL data and therapy setting did not show significant correlations with the app’s evaluation parameters.

Conclusions

The results indicate that ePRO surveys are feasible for measuring HRQoL in breast cancer patients and that those patients prefer ePRO assessment to pPRO assessment. It can also be seen that patients consider ePRO assessment to improve hospital health care. However, studies with larger numbers of patients are needed to develop apps that address the needs of patients with lower levels of education and technical skills.

Initial findings from a prospective, large scale patient reported outcomes program in patients with gynecologic malignancy

INTRODUCTION

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are associated with improved overall survival in patients with metastatic malignancy; however, routine collection of PROMs is nascent. Little is known about PROs in women with gynecologic malignancy outside of a trial setting, limiting our understanding of how routine populations experience treatment, disease and morbidity. The goal of this study was to prospectively collect and describe disease-specific PROs in a non-trial population of women with gynecologic malignancy.

METHODS

PROMs were assigned electronically to all patients presenting for care in our gynecologic oncology clinic. Patients received a general oncology questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) a disease specific questionnaire (FACT V, EORTC EN24, EORTC OV28, EORTC Cx 24), and questionnaires assessing support at home. Responses were mapped to relevant clinical variables. Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons made with parametric and nonparametric analyses. The association between support at home and perioperative complications was assessed via logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the study period, 3239 unique patients were evaluated at new patient visits, post-operative visits, chemotherapy visits and surveillance visits with a PROMs completion rate of 78.1% (n = 2530 women with 4402 completions). There was no difference in completion rates based on age or self-identified race. The EORTC QLQ C-30 questionnaire was able to adequately discern differences between disease sites. Overall, scores were lower than those obtained in trial populations. PROMs responses were not associated with perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Systematic collection of PROMs is feasible and tech-enabled workflows result in high collection rates. Quality of life scores in our clinic population were lower than published data, indicating caution should be used when extrapolating quality of life data from clinical trials to counseling and decision making around routine patient populations.

Selecting a Subset Based on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events for Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring in Lung Cancer Treatment: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) item library covers a wide range of symptoms relevant to oncology care. There is a need to select a subset of items relevant to specific patient populations to enable the implementation of PRO-CTCAE-based symptom monitoring in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to develop a PRO-CTCAE-based subset relevant to patients with lung cancer that can be used for monitoring during multidisciplinary clinical practice.

METHODS

The PRO-CTCAE-based subset for patients with lung cancer was generated using a mixed methods approach based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer guidelines for developing questionnaires, comprising a literature review and semistructured interviews with both patients with lung cancer and health care practitioners (HCPs). Both patients and HCPs were queried on the relevance and impact of all PRO-CTCAE items. The results were summarized, and after a final round of expert review, a selection of clinically relevant items for patients with lung cancer was made.

RESULTS

A heterogeneous group of patients with lung cancer (n=25) from different treatment modalities and HCPs (n=22) participated in the study. A final list of eight relevant PRO-CTCAE items was created: decreased appetite, cough, shortness of breath, fatigue, constipation, nausea, sadness, and pain (general).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of the literature and both professional and patient input, a subset of PRO-CTCAE items has been identified for use in patients with lung cancer in clinical practice. Future work is needed to confirm the validity and effectiveness of this PRO-CTCAE-based lung cancer subset internationally and in real-world clinical practice settings.

Comparing the use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies in Europe in 2008 and 2018: a literature review

PURPOSE

Several guidelines for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies have been published in the past decade. This review primarily aimed to compare the number and compliance with selected PRO-specific criteria for reporting of clinical studies in Europe using PROs published in 2008 and 2018. Secondarily, to describe the study designs, PRO instruments used, patient groups studied, and countries where the clinical studies were conducted.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE to identify eligible publications. To assess the number of publications, all abstracts were screened for eligibility by pairs of reviewers. Compliance with PRO-specific criteria and other key characteristics was assessed in a random sample of 150 eligible full-text publications from each year. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were assessed according to the full CONSORT-PRO checklist.

RESULTS

The search identified 1692 publications in 2008 and 4290 in 2018. After screening of abstracts, 1240 from 2008 and 2869 from 2018 were clinical studies using PROs. By full-text review, the proportion of studies discussing PRO-specific limitations and implications was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there were no differences in the other selected PRO-specific criteria. In 2018, a higher proportion of studies were longitudinal/cohort studies, included ≥ 300 patients, and used electronic administration of PRO than in 2008. The most common patient groups studied were those with cancer or diseases of the musculoskeletal system or connective tissue.

CONCLUSION

The number of clinical studies from Europe using PROs was higher in 2018 than in 2008, but there was little difference in compliance with the PRO-specific criteria. The studies varied in terms of study design and PRO instruments used in both publication years.

Measuring Quality of Life in Ovarian Cancer Clinical Trials-Can We Improve Objectivity and Cross Trial Comparisons?

Epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) remains a lethal disease for the majority of women diagnosed with it worldwide. For the majority of patients, diagnosis occurs late, in the advanced setting. Disease-induced as well as treatment-related adverse events can negatively impact quality of life (QoL). Research to date has captured these data through use of patient-related outcomes (PROs) and, increasingly, has become an area of increased attention and focus in clinical trial reporting. QoL/PRO measurements in EOC clinical trials at different transition points in a patient's journey are increasingly being recognized by patients, clinicians and regulatory agencies as the key determinants of treatment benefit. Various context-specific PROs and PRO endpoints have been described for clinical trials in EOC. Standardized approaches and checklists for incorporating PRO endpoints in clinical trials have been proposed. In a real-world clinical practice setting, PRO/QoL measures, which are meaningful, valid, reliable, feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians, need to be implemented and used. These may assist by serving as screening tools; helping with the identification of patient preferences to aid in decision making; improving patient-provider communication; facilitating shared decision making. Importantly, they may also improve quality of care through an increasingly patient-centered approach. Potential areas of future research include assessment of anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. In good prognostic groups, such as maintenance clinical trials, following patients beyond progression will capture possible downstream effects related to delaying the psychological trauma of relapse, symptoms due to disease progression and side-effects of subsequent chemotherapy. Identifying PRO endpoints in next-generation-targeted therapies (including immunotherapies) also warrants investigation.

The impact of patient-reported outcome data from clinical trials: perspectives from international stakeholders

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly collected in clinical trials as they provide unique information on the physical, functional and psychological impact of a treatment from the patient's perspective. Recent research suggests that PRO trial data have the potential to inform shared decision-making, support pharmaceutical labelling claims and influence healthcare policy and practice. However, there remains limited evidence regarding the actual impact associated with PRO trial data and how to maximise PRO impact to benefit patients and society. Thus, our objective was to qualitatively explore international stakeholders' perspectives surrounding: a) the impact of PRO trial data, b) impact measurement metrics, and c) barriers and facilitators to effectively maximise the impact of PRO trial data upon patients and society.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews with 24 international stakeholders were conducted between May and October 2018. Data were coded and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

International stakeholders emphasised the impact of PRO trial data to benefit patients and society. Influence on policy-impact, including changes to clinical healthcare practice and guidelines, drug approval and promotional labelling claims were common types of PRO impact reported by interviewees. Interviewees suggested impact measurement metrics including: number of pharmaceutical labelling claims and interviews with healthcare practitioners to determine whether PRO data were incorporated in clinical decision-making. Key facilitators to PRO impact highlighted by stakeholders included: standardisation of PRO tools; consideration of health utilities when selecting PRO measures; adequate funding to support PRO research; improved reporting and dissemination of PRO trial data by key opinion leaders and patients; and development of legal enforcement of the collection of PRO data.

CONCLUSIONS

Determining the impact of PRO trial data is essential to better allocate funds, minimise research waste and to help maximise the impact of these data for patients and society. However, measuring the impact of PRO trial data through metrics is a challenging task, as current measures do not capture the total impact of PRO research. Broader international multi-stakeholder engagement and collaboration is needed to standardise PRO assessment and maximise the impact of PRO trial data to benefit patients and society.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Sinonasal and Skull Base Malignancy: An Assessment of Study Quality and Clinical Relevance

BACKGROUND

Sinonasal and skull base malignancies can cause significant adverse effects on functional status and survival.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study was to systematically review the published literature of patient-reported outcomes pertaining to treatment of sinonasal and skull base malignancy.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of Medline was conducted with PubMed to identify studies that assessed patient-reported outcomes in patients with sinonasal or skull base malignancy. Patient-reported outcomes studies with at least 10 patients published in English from January 2000 to April 2017 were included. Criteria from International Society for Quality of Life guidelines and criteria unique to sinonasal and skull base malignancies were used to calculate a composite score for each article. Studies with the top 33% of scores were categorized as high quality articles.

RESULTS

Twenty-two articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three studies (14%) reported a priori hypothesis. Eleven (50%) assessed specific quality of life domains and 10 studies (45%) performed statistical analysis on these domains. Specific symptoms were assessed in up to 32% of studies. Eight studies were characterized as high quality; these studies had higher sample sizes and more often assessed patient-reported outcomes prior to treatment compared to low quality studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The goal of the current study was to evaluate the quality of the current patient-reported outcomes literature on sinonasal and skull base malignancies. Areas of improvement for future studies include analysis of individual domains and disease-specific symptoms, reporting a priori hypotheses, and collecting preoperative and longitudinal patient-reported outcomes data.

Obesity in Pregnancy - Patient-Reported Outcomes in Qualitative Research: A Systematic Review

The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical and non-clinical outcomes that pregnant women with obesity value as pertaining to their health and that of their babies. In this systematic review of the qualitative literature, a search of four databases was conducted for studies using qualitative methods in pregnant women with obesity. From the included studies, the review synthesized relevant themes representing the voiced concerns and perceived benefits of and barriers to the uptake of interventions, to yield patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs were categorized into domains according to the published taxonomy of outcomes in medical research. Of the 89 identified studies, 27 were included, none of which were primarily intended to elicit PROs. A total of 256 PROs and 7 distinct themes were identified. Only 13% of PROs represented physiological or clinical outcomes, whereas 21% represented the core area of emotional functioning or well-being, and 15% represented the area of delivery of care. The most frequently voiced concern was inadequate health care provider support (60%), and women considered intervention-specific challenges to be the greatest barriers to the uptake of interventions (34%). This study synthesized the qualitative evidence of concerns that pregnant women with obesity have regarding their pregnancy and postpartum care, as well as specific barriers they perceive to the uptake of interventions. In addition, this study revealed that clinical outcomes, which are most often reported in clinical trials, comprise only a minority of outcomes considered important by these women. A core outcome set that adequately incorporates PROs is required to inform the conduct of future trials in pregnant women with obesity.

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

OBJECTIVES

Inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may be particularly important for older patients. The objectives of this systematic review were to quantify the frequency with which older patients are included in RCTs with PROs and to evaluate the quality of PRO reporting in those trials.

METHODS

All RCTs with PRO endpoints, published between January 2004 and February 2019, which included a patient sample with a mean/median age ≥70 years, were considered for this systematic review. The following cancer malignancies were considered: breast, colorectal, lung, prostate, gynaecological and bladder cancer.Quality of PRO reporting was evaluated using the International Society for Quality of Life Research-PRO standards. Studies meeting at least two-thirds of these criteria were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting.

RESULTS

Of 649 RCTs identified with a PRO endpoint, only 72 (11.1%) included older patients. Of these, 35 trials (48.6%) were conducted in patients with metastatic/advanced disease. PROs were primary endpoints in 20 RCTs (27.8%). Overall survival was the most frequently reported clinical outcome in studies of patients with metastatic/advanced cancer (n=28, 80%). One-third of the RCTs (n=24, 33.3%) were considered to have high-quality PRO reporting. Overall, the largest prevalence of RCTs with high-quality PRO reporting was observed in prostate and colorectal cancers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review indicates not only that PRO-RCT-based studies in oncology rarely include older patients but also that completeness of PRO reporting of many of them is often suboptimal.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

The impact of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials: a systematic review and critical analysis

Background

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies.

Methods

Two independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial.

Results

Thirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals.

Conclusions

PRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste.

Trial registration

Systematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

US Food and Drug Administration review of statistical analysis of patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer clinical trials approved between January, 2008, and December, 2017

With the advent of patient-focused drug development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials submitted as part of a drug's marketing application. This Review aims to characterise the statistical analysis of PRO data from pivotal lung cancer trials submitted to support FDA drug approval between January, 2008, and December, 2017. For each trial and PRO instrument identified, we evaluated prespecified PRO concepts, statistical analysis, missing data and sensitivity analysis, instrument completion, and clinical relevance. Of the 37 pivotal lung cancer trials used to support FDA drug approval, 25 (68%) trials included PRO measures. The most common prespecified PRO concepts were cough, dyspnoea, and chest pain. At the trial level, the most common statistical analyses were descriptive (24 trials [96%]), followed by time-to-event analyses (19 trials [76%]), longitudinal analyses (12 trials [48%]), and basic inferential tests or general linear models (10 trials [40%]). Our findings indicate a wide variation in the analytic techniques and data presentation methods used, with very few trials reporting clear PRO research objectives and sensitivity analyses for PRO results. Our work further supports the need for focused research objectives to justify and to guide the analytic strategy of PROs to facilitate the interpretation of patient experience.

Clinician-reported symptomatic adverse events in cancer trials: are they concordant with patient-reported outcomes?

AIM

We investigate the concordance, in terms of favoring the same treatment arm, between clinician-reported symptomatic adverse events (AEs) and information obtained via patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures in cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify all RCTs conducted in breast, colorectal, lung and prostate cancer, published between 2004 and 2017.

RESULTS

We identified 207 RCTs. In the majority of RCTs (n=133, 64.2%) a discordance between PROs and AEs was found. In 104 studies (50.2%), PRO data favored the experimental arm when AEs did not, while the opposite situation was found in 29 trials (14.0%).

CONCLUSION

Frequently, information obtained via PRO measures and clinician-reported AEs do not favor the same treatment arm in RCT settings.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

Taking patient reported outcomes centre stage in cancer research - why has it taken so long?

PLAIN ENGLISH SUMMARY

Roger Wilson challenged cancer professionals in research and care to place the patient perspective and patient reported outcome measures centre stage. The ability to collect information from patients using structured questionnaires (known as Patient Reported Outcome Measures or PROMs) which ask about clinical issues (such as disease symptoms or treatment side-effects) as well as social, emotional and psychological issues has existed for 40 years. They provide a powerful way of working out whether an aspect of diagnosis or treatment for cancer is bringing real benefits to patients that can be measured using these structured questionnaires. When they are used, studies and cancer service developments are clearly constrained to focus on what matters to patients rather than, perhaps what matters to health service professionals or recent exciting but perhaps relatively unproven new technologies. There is good evidence that PROMs can contribute valuable inputs into the results of randomised controlled trials, clinical consultations and surveys of whole populations even at a national level. However, there is a great deal more work to be done on methodology and perhaps to change attitudes and cultures within the healthcare professions before they can deliver all of their potential to bring benefits to cancer patients.

ABSTRACT

In response to Roger Wilson's challenge to place a patient-centred approach using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) across all of the patient pathway, we have summarised progress over 40 years. We have critically evaluated what has been achieved to use patient reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials, in routine clinical practice and in population surveys. We conclude that there has been substantial scientific progress but that it has, arguably, been relatively slow. Barriers to placing PROMs centre stage in all of these areas of activity remain in methodology and to a degree in professional attitudes and culture. Active research programmes on methodology and closer working between healthcare professionals, cancer patients and patient advocates are the key requirements to speed up the use and application of PROMs and which should bring benefits to cancer patients and healthcare services.

Development and Validation of Ovarian Symptom Index-18 and Neurotoxicity-4 for Korean Patients with Ovarian, Fallopian Tube, or Primary Peritoneal Cancer

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to develop Korean versions of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (NCCN-FACT) Ovarian Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) and FACT/Gynecologic Oncology Group (FACT-GOG) Neurotoxicity 4-item (NTX-4), evaluating their reliability and reproducibility.

Materials and Methods

In converting NFOSI-18 and NTX-4, the following steps were performed: forward translation, backward translation, expert review, pretest of preliminary format, and finalization of Korean versions (K-NFOSI-18 and K-NTX-4). Patients were enrolled from six institutions where each had completed chemotherapy for ovarian, tubal, or peritoneal cancer at least 1 month earlier. In addition to demographics obtained by questionnaire, all subjects were assessed via K-NFOSI-18, K-NTX-4, and a Korean version of the EuroQoL-5 Dimension. Internal structural validity and reliability were evaluated using item internal consistency, item discriminant validity, and Cronbach's α. To evaluate test-retest reliability, K-NFOSI-18 and K-NTX-4 were readministered after 7-21 days, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated.

Results

Of the 250 women enrolled during the 3-month recruitment period, 13 withdrew or did not respond, leaving 237 (94.8%) for the analyses. Mean patient age was 54.3±10.8 years. Re-testing was performed in 190 patients (80.2%). The total K-NFOSI-18 and K-NTX-4 scores were 49 (range, 20 to 72) and 9 (range, 0 to 16), respectively, with high reliability (Cronbach's α=0.84 and 0.89, respectively) and reproducibility (ICC=0.77 and 0.84, respectively) achieved in retesting.

Conclusion

Both NFOSI-18 and NTX-4 were successfully developed in Korean with minimal modification. Each Korean version showed high internal consistency and reproducibility.

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve

BACKGROUND

Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy in OC from 1980 to 2014. The adequacy of reporting QOL was evaluated with respect to adherence to established guidelines on reporting QOL in clinical trials and the recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

RESULTS

Of 3,247 abstracts, 35 studies, including 24,664 patients, met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two trials (63%) were in the first-line setting, with 13 (37%) in the recurrent setting. The inclusion of QOL assessments increased from 2% (1980s) to 62% (2010+). Quality of life was a co-primary endpoint in only one trial.Minimal clinically important differences in QOL were defined in eight trials (23%), with results included in the abstract in 37% and article in 86%. Compliance was reported in 26 trials (74%), with 13 trials (37%) reporting specifically how they dealt with missing data. Only seven trials reported the reasons for missing data (20%).Group results were published in 29 trials (83%), with 6 (17%) reporting individual patient results. Results were more commonly reported as a mean overall score (21 trials; 60%), with specific domain scores in only 9 trials (26%). No studies reported QOL beyond progression or included predefined context-specific endpoints based on objectives of treatment (i.e., palliation/cure/maintenance) and the patient population. Duration of benefit of palliative chemotherapy was reported in only one study.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials in OC, but there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) is an important consideration in patients with ovarian cancer for whom treatment is often given with palliative intent. Both the disease and treatment impact a patient's QOL and require careful evaluation in clinical trials. Matching the QOL questions to the patient population of interest is critical. Similar rigor to that used to assess progression-based endpoints is essential to guide clinical decisions. This systematic review demonstrated that although the inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in ovarian cancer clinical trials-lost opportunities and lessons learned

Despite increased recognition of the value of including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as important end points in phase III clinical trials, there has been a lack of pre-specified PRO hypotheses and shortcomings with the analyses and interpretation of PROs in many ovarian cancer trials. This paper discusses and provides examples of the so-called lost opportunities in ovarian cancer trials. These include: (i) no clear pre-specified PRO hypotheses; (ii) PRO end points not included; (iii) insensitive PRO end point selection; (iv) collection of poor-quality PRO data not suitable for analysis; (v) differences in PROs between treatment arms ignored; and (vi) poor reporting quality. We can learn from the past and with relatively little additional effort, improve the collection and interpretation of PRO data in future ovarian cancer trials. The importance of doing so is underpinned by recent initiatives to improve the standard and usefulness of PRO data in clinical trials. These include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for PROs to support labelling claims, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO MCBS), the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research PRO reporting guidance and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials (CONSORT)-PRO-extension statement which includes a checklist of recommended items to include in PRO sections of trial protocols. Promoting the importance of hypothesis-driven PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials will lead to improvements in the design of these trials and the interpretation of their results.

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension

PURPOSE

This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO.

METHODS

CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO.

RESULTS

Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R ² = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background

Assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provides valuable information to inform patient-centered care, but may also reveal ‘PRO alerts’: psychological distress or physical symptoms that may require an immediate response. Ad-hoc management of PRO alerts in clinical trials may result in suboptimal patient care or potentially bias trial results. To gain greater understanding of current practice in PRO alert management we conducted a national survey of personnel involved in clinical trials with a PRO endpoint.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 767 UK-based research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials using PROs. Respondents were self-selected volunteers from a non-randomised sample of eligible individuals recruited via 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks. Questions centred on the proportion of trial personnel encountering alerts, how staff responded to PRO alerts and whether current guidance was deemed sufficient to support research personnel. We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. 20% of research nurses did not view completed PRO questionnaires and were not in a position to discover alerts, 39–50% of the remaining respondent group participants reported encountering PRO alerts. Of these, 83% of research nurses and 54% of data managers/trial coordinators reported taking action to assist the trial participant, but less than half were able to record the intervention in the trial documentation. Research personnel reported current PRO alert guidance/training was insufficient.

Conclusions

Research personnel are intermittently exposed to PRO alerts. Some intervene to help trial participants, but are not able to record this intervention in the trial documentation, risking co-intervention bias. Other staff do not check PRO information during the trial, meaning alerts may remain undiscovered, or do not respond to alerts if they are inadvertently encountered; both of which may impact on patient safety. Guidance is needed to support PRO alert management that protects the interests of trial participants whilst avoiding potential bias.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting across cancer randomized controlled trials according to the CONSORT patient-reported outcome extension: A pooled analysis of 557 trials

BACKGROUND

The main objectives of this study were to identify the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including a patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoint across a wide range of cancer specialties and to evaluate the completeness of PRO reporting according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension.

METHODS

RCTs with a PRO endpoint that had been performed across several cancer specialties and published between 2004 and 2013 were considered. Studies were evaluated on the basis of previously defined criteria, including the CONSORT PRO extension and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias of RCTs. Analyses were also conducted by the type of PRO endpoint (primary vs secondary) and by the cancer disease site.

RESULTS

A total of 56,696 potentially eligible records were scrutinized, and 557 RCTs with a PRO evaluation, enrolling 254,677 patients overall, were identified. PROs were most frequently used in RCTs of breast (n = 123), lung (n = 85), and colorectal cancer (n = 66). Overall, PROs were secondary endpoints in 421 RCTs (76%). Four of 6 evaluated CONSORT PRO items were documented in less than 50% of the RCTs. The level of reporting was higher in RCTs with a PRO as a primary endpoint. The presence of a supplementary report was the only statistically significant factor associated with greater completeness of reporting for both RCTs with PROs as primary endpoints (β = .19, P = .001) and RCTs with PROs as secondary endpoints (β = .30, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the CONSORT PRO extension is equally important across all cancer specialties. Its use can also contribute to revealing the robust PRO design of some studies, which might be obscured by poor outcome reporting.

Health-related quality of life and symptom assessment in randomized controlled trials of patients with leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes: What have we learned?

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are crucial for a comprehensive evaluation of treatment effectiveness. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with a PRO endpoint conducted in patients with leukemia and myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) was performed. Eligible studies were evaluated independently, according to a pre-defined coding scheme, by two reviewers. Thirteen RCTs, enrolling overall 3380 patients were identified. There were four RCTs involving acute myeloid leukemia patients (AML), one with acute lymphoid leukemia (ALL), five with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and three with MDS. Six RCTs accurately documented PRO methodology assessment and were thus considered likely to robustly inform clinical decision-making. Of these, three RCTs dealt with AML, two with CLL, one with MDS. A growing number of RCTs in leukemia and MDS have included a PRO component in recent years. Inclusion of PROs in RCTs is feasible and can provide unique information to facilitate clinical decision-making.

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

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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