1
|
Ojo AS, Araoye MO, Ali A, Sarma R. 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. J Cancer Surviv 2024; 18:673-697. [PMID: 36645615 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-023-01332-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/05/2022] [Accepted: 01/05/2023] [Indexed: 01/17/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ademola S Ojo
- Department of Internal Medicine, Howard University Hospital, 2041 Georgia Ave. NW, Washington, DC, USA.
| | - Mojisola O Araoye
- Hematology/Oncology Division, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI, USA
| | - Ahmed Ali
- Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology Division, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Ravi Sarma
- Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology Division, Howard University Hospital, Washington, DC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wilson BE, Sengar M, Tregear M, van der Graaf WTA, Luca Battisti NM, Csaba DL, Soto-Perez-de-Celis E, Gyawali B, Booth CM. Common Sense Oncology: Equity, Value, and Outcomes That Matter. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2024; 44:e100039. [PMID: 38788178 DOI: 10.1200/edbk_100039] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/26/2024]
Abstract
While some recent drug treatments have been transformative for patients with cancer, many treatments offer small benefits despite high clinical toxicity, time toxicity and financial toxicity. Moreover, treatments that do provide substantial clinical benefits are not available to many patients globally due to issues with availability and affordability. The Common Sense Oncology's vision is that patients will have access to treatments that provide meaningful improvements in outcomes that matter, regardless of where they live. In recognition of the growing challenges in the field of oncology, Common Sense Oncology seeks to achieve this vision by improving evidence generation, evidence interpretation and evidence communication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brooke E Wilson
- Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
- School of Population Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia
| | - Manju Sengar
- Tata Memorial Hospital, Affiliated to Homi Bhabha National Institute, Mumbai, India
| | | | - Winette T A van der Graaf
- Department of Medical Oncology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
- Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Nicolò Matteo Luca Battisti
- Department of Medicine, Breast Unit, The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom
- Inequalities Focused Topic Network, European Cancer Organisation, Brussels, Belgium
- International Society of Geriatric Oncology, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Degi Laszlo Csaba
- Faculty of Sociology and Social Work, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj Napoca, Romania
| | - Enrique Soto-Perez-de-Celis
- Department of Geriatrics, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico
- Division of Medical Oncology, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO
| | - Bishal Gyawali
- Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| | - Christopher M Booth
- Department of Oncology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
- Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Duan Y, Zhao P, Liu S, Deng Y, Xu Z, Xiong L, Chen Z, Zhu W, Wu S, Yu L. Reporting and influencing factors of patient-reported outcomes in acupuncture randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study protocol. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e079218. [PMID: 38326262 PMCID: PMC10860004 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079218] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/25/2023] [Accepted: 01/17/2024] [Indexed: 02/09/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are health reports that come directly from the patients themselves and represented the experience and insights of the patient's perspective on the impact of the intervention. PROs were increasingly emphasised in acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the reporting quality of PROs in acupuncture RCTs has not been investigated to date. Therefore, we constructed this study to reveal the basic characteristics and reporting quality of PROs in acupuncture RCTs, and explore the relationship between concealment, blinding and RROs. We hope our findings can provide guidance for the reporting standards and future development of PROs in acupuncture RCTs in reverse. METHODS AND ANALYSIS RCTs using acupuncture treatment as the intervention and PROs as primary outcomes or secondary outcomes will be systematically searched through seven databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and VIP between 1 January 2012 and 15 October 2022. The basic characteristics, concealment, blinding design and the characteristics of PROs in included RCTs will be summarised. The reporting quality of PROs will be assessed based on the CONSORT PRO extension. Logistic analysis will be performed to identify the association between concealment, blinding and RROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethical approval is not required for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (OSF) Registries. The findings of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed academic journal.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuting Duan
- Sleep Research Institute of Chinese Medicine, The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
- Evidence-based Medicine Center, The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Pinge Zhao
- Key Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Channelopathies of Guangdong Province and the Ministry of Education, Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shujuan Liu
- The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Yuening Deng
- The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zhirui Xu
- Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China
| | - Linghui Xiong
- Key Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Channelopathies of Guangdong Province and the Ministry of Education, Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Zewei Chen
- Key Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Channelopathies of Guangdong Province and the Ministry of Education, Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Weifeng Zhu
- The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Shengwei Wu
- Key Laboratory of Neurogenetics and Channelopathies of Guangdong Province and the Ministry of Education, Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| | - Lin Yu
- The Affiliated TCM Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
King-Kallimanis BL, Calvert M, Cella D, Cocks K, Coens C, Fairclough D, Howie L, Jonsson P, Mahendraratnam N, Maues J, Sarac S, Shaw J, Stigger N, Trask P, Wieseler B. Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2023; 26:1543-1548. [PMID: 37422075 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2023.06.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/22/2023] [Revised: 06/21/2023] [Accepted: 06/26/2023] [Indexed: 07/10/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK; Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, England, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, UK; Health Data Research UK, London, England, UK; NIHR Birmingham-Oxford Blood and Transplant Research Unit in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - David Cella
- Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Kim Cocks
- Adelphi Values, Cheshire, England, UK
| | - Corneel Coens
- Quality of Life Department, EORTC HQ, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | - Lynn Howie
- Pardee Cancer Center, Hendersonville, NC, USA
| | - Pall Jonsson
- Data and Analytics, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Manchester, UK
| | | | | | - Sinan Sarac
- Member of CHMP (EMA), Danish Medicines Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Jim Shaw
- Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lawrenceville, NJ, USA
| | | | - Peter Trask
- Genentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Beate Wieseler
- Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), Cologne, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Krepper D, Giesinger JM, Dirven L, Efficace F, Martini C, Thurner AMM, Al-Naesan I, Gross F, Sztankay MJ. Information about missing patient-reported outcome data in breast cancer trials is frequently not documented: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2023; 162:1-9. [PMID: 37517504 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/09/2023] [Revised: 07/19/2023] [Accepted: 07/24/2023] [Indexed: 08/01/2023]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniela Krepper
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
| | - Johannes Maria Giesinger
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Linda Dirven
- Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Fabio Efficace
- Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA), Data Center and Health Outcomes Research Unit, Rome, Italy
| | - Caroline Martini
- Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Anna Margarete Maria Thurner
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Imad Al-Naesan
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Franziska Gross
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| | - Monika Judith Sztankay
- Department of Psychiatry, Psychotherapy Psychosomatics and Medical Psychology, University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kim Y, Gilbert MR, Armstrong TS, Celiku O. Clinical outcome assessment trends in clinical trials-Contrasting oncology and non-oncology trials. Cancer Med 2023; 12:16945-16957. [PMID: 37421295 PMCID: PMC10501237 DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/18/2023] [Revised: 05/30/2023] [Accepted: 06/28/2023] [Indexed: 07/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are key to patient-centered evaluation of novel interventions and supportive care. COAs are particularly informative in oncology where a focus on how patients feel and function is paramount, but their incorporation in trial outcomes have lagged that of traditional survival and tumor responses. To understand the trends of COA use in oncology and the impact of landmark efforts to promote COA use, we computationally surveyed oncology clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov comparing them to the rest of the clinical research landscape. METHODS Oncology trials were identified using medical subject heading neoplasm terms. Trials were searched for COA instrument names obtained from PROQOLID. Regression analyses assessed chronological and design-related trends. RESULTS Eighteen percent of oncology interventional trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 35,415) reported using one or more of 655 COA instruments. Eighty-four percent of the COA-using trials utilized patient-reported outcomes, with other COA categories used in 4-27% of these trials. Likelihood of COA use increased with progressing trial phase (OR = 1.30, p < 0.001), randomization (OR = 2.32, p < 0.001), use of data monitoring committees (OR = 1.26, p < 0.001), study of non-FDA-regulated interventions (OR = 1.23, p = 0.001), and in supportive care versus treatment-focused trials (OR = 2.94, p < 0.001). Twenty-six percent of non-oncology trials initiated 1985-2020 (N = 244,440) reported COA use; they had similar COA-use predictive factors as oncology trials. COA use increased linearly over time (R = 0.98, p < 0.001), with significant increases following several individual regulatory events. CONCLUSION While COA use across clinical research has increased over time, there remains a need to further promote COA use particularly in early phase and treatment-focused oncology trials.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yeonju Kim
- Neuro‐Oncology BranchNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaMarylandUSA
| | - Mark R. Gilbert
- Neuro‐Oncology BranchNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaMarylandUSA
| | - Terri S. Armstrong
- Neuro‐Oncology BranchNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaMarylandUSA
| | - Orieta Celiku
- Neuro‐Oncology BranchNational Cancer Institute, National Institutes of HealthBethesdaMarylandUSA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Fabian A, Domschikowski J, Letsch A, Schmalz C, Freitag-Wolf S, Dunst J, Krug D. Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review. JAMA Netw Open 2022; 5:e2231930. [PMID: 36136335 PMCID: PMC9500555 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.31930] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications. OBJECTIVE To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy. EVIDENCE REVIEW This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines. FINDINGS Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexander Fabian
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Justus Domschikowski
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Anne Letsch
- Department of Haematology and Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Claudia Schmalz
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - Sandra Freitag-Wolf
- Institute of Medical Informatics and Statistics, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany
| | - Juergen Dunst
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| | - David Krug
- Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany
| |
Collapse
|