Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomised controlled trials of haematological malignancies according to international quality standards: a systematic review

Reporting of patient-reported outcomes amongst randomized clinical trials in plastic surgery: a systematic review using CONSORT-PRO

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are key to investigating patient perspectives in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Standardization of PRO reporting is critical for trial generalizability and the application of findings to clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs published in the top plastic surgery journals according to the consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT)-PRO extension.

METHODS

We completed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All RCTs with a validated PRO endpoint published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals (based on the 2021 Web of Science Impact Factor) from 2014 to 2023 were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and scored the included studies using the CONSORT-PRO checklist. Univariate regression was applied to assess factors associated with reporting adherence. Studies were assessed for their risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

A total of 88 RCTs were included. PROs were the primary endpoint in 50 (57%) and the secondary endpoint of 38 (43%) studies. Mean overall reporting adherence was poor (39% (±12) and 36% (±13) in studies with PRO as primary and secondary endpoints, respectively). The presence of industry support was significantly associated with greater adherence.

CONCLUSIONS

There is low adherence to the CONSORT-PRO extension among plastic surgery RCTs published in the top 10 plastic surgery journals. We encourage journals and authors to endorse and apply the CONSORT-PRO extension. This may optimize the dissemination of clinical findings from RCTs and assist patient-centered care.

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.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit.

Objective

To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval.

Results

A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy).

Conclusions and Relevance

Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Toward a more patient-centered drug development process in clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Practical considerations from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)

Notable treatment advances have been made in recent years for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS), and several new drugs are under development. For example, the emerging availability of oral MDS therapies holds the promise of improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within this rapidly evolving landscape, the inclusion of HRQoL and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to inform the benefit/risk assessment of new therapies or to assess whether patients live longer and better, for what will likely remain a largely incurable disease. We provide practical considerations to support investigators in generating high-quality PRO data in future MDS trials. We first describe several challenges that are to be thoughtfully considered when designing an MDS-focused clinical trial with a PRO endpoint. We then discuss aspects related to the design of the study, including PRO assessment strategies. We also discuss statistical approaches illustrating the potential value of time-to-event analyses and their implications within the estimand framework. Finally, based on a literature review of MDS randomized controlled trials with a PRO endpoint, we note the PRO items that deserve special attention when reporting future MDS trial results. We hope these practical considerations will facilitate the generation of rigorous PRO data that can robustly inform MDS patient care and support treatment decision-making for this patient population.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Low-quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomized clinical trials of major depressive disorder-a meta-epidemiological review

Objective

Our goal was to review current peer-reviewed articles in which the BDI (Beck Depression Inventory), PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), or QIDS-SR16 (16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) was used as the primary or secondary outcome measure and to evaluate the quality of PRO (Patient-Reported Outcome) reporting in RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) according to the 2013 PRO-specific CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension.

Methods

We systematically searched in electronic databases. A study would be included if it included patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10) as participants, was a randomized controlled trial, included the BDI, PHQ-9, or QIDS-SR16 as the primary or secondary outcome measure, published between 1990 and 2013, and was in English. Two of the authors evaluated the quality of PRO reporting according to the 2013 CONSORT-PRO. Logistic regression were used to evaluate the association between reporting completeness and trial characteristics.

Results

A total of 116 studies were included. These studies were conducted in 25 countries. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 750. The CONSORT-PRO was not cited in any one of the included studies. Among the 116 studies, 2 (1.72%) studies introduced the rationale for PRO assessment, 60 (51.72%) studies explicitly stated statistical approaches for dealing with missing data, 87 (75.00%) studies reported PRO outcome data at baseline and at subsequent time points. The mean score of reporting completeness was 66.24%. Significantly higher reporting completeness was found for RCTs published after 2013 (OR, 95%CI: 3.81, 1.32-10.99). Studies with a higher sample size were more completely reported than studies with a lower sample size (OR, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.00-1.02).

Conclusion

The CONSORT-PRO guidance was rarely cited. The quality of PRO reporting in depression studies requires improvement. This result may be meaningful for the promotion of PRO reporting in RCTs.

Adverse Event Reporting in Randomized Clinical Trials for Multiple Myeloma

Importance

Cancer treatment can result in burdensome toxic effects that profoundly affect patient quality of life. In seeking to emphasize the efficacy of tested treatments, clinical trial reports may use subjective or minimizing terms to describe adverse events (AEs).

Objective

To evaluate patterns of AE reporting in multiple myeloma (MM) randomized clinical trials (RCTs) published between 2015 and early 2023.

Design, Setting, and Participants

For this cohort study, the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched to assess the prevalence of minimizing terms in MM RCTs published between January 1, 2015, and March 1, 2023. Minimizing terms were defined as subjective terms used to favorably describe the safety profile of the intervention. The terms searched included convenient, manageable, acceptable, expected, well-tolerated, tolerable, favorable, and safe. Final data analysis was performed on July 21, 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the occurrence of at least 1 minimizing term in an article. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to evaluate the association between the presence of at least 1 minimizing term and the actual incidence of grade 3 or 4 AEs, serious AEs, or grade 5 AEs.

Results

Of the 65 RCTs included, 56 (86%) used minimizing terms when describing treatment-emergent AEs. The most frequently used minimizing terms were well-tolerated or tolerable in 29 trials (45%), manageable in 18 (28%), and acceptable in 16 (25%). Grade 3 or 4 AE rate in the examined RCTs ranged from 23% to 94%, with a median of 75% (IQR, 59%-82%). A univariate regression analysis demonstrated no association between the use of minimizing terms and grade 3 or 4 AE rates (odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 0.88-2.10] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .17) or grade 5 AE rates (OR, 3.16 [95% CI, 0.27-12.7] per 10% AE rate increase; P = .45).

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that trial investigators and sponsors regularly use minimizing terms to describe toxic effects in MM trials, and use of this terminology may not reflect actual AE rates in these studies. Instead of using these terms, trial investigators should highlight event rates and patient-reported outcomes, to allow clinicians and patients to better evaluate the true tolerability of AEs.

Quality of life in the adjuvant setting: A meta-analysis of US Food and Drug Administration approved anti-cancer drugs from 2018 to 2022

BACKGROUND

In oncology, quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were historically designed to be used in the advanced or metastatic setting. We sought to determine the effects of contemporary treatments on QoL in the adjuvant setting and to determine if the QoL instruments used in these studies provide a relevant assessment.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic identification of all anti-cancer drugs used in the adjuvant setting and approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from January 2018 to March 2022. We conducted a quality evaluation and a meta-analysis of reported QoL results. We used the global QoL results when multiple QoL outcomes were reported.

RESULTS

There were 224 FDA approvals reviewed, of which 12 met the inclusion criteria. The placebo was the control arm in 10 out of 12 trials. Of those, 11 trials (92 %) assessed QoL, and ten (83 %) reported results. In reports with QoL results, a moderate-risk of bias was found in 3 out of 10 (30 %) and a high-risk of bias in 6 out of 10 (60 %) of reports, respectively. No trial reported a meaningful difference between arms. The meta-analysis found an overall detrimental effect on QoL in the experimental arm, though it was not statistically different.

CONCLUSION

This study identified 12 FDA registration trials in the adjuvant setting between 2018 and 2022. We found a moderate- to high-risk of bias in 90 % of the ten trials reporting QoL data. Our meta-analysis suggested a detrimental effect on QoL in the experimental arm, questioning the relevancy, in the adjuvant setting, of thresholds that were mostly developed in the advanced or metastatic setting.

POLICY SUMMARY

Future works should focus on specificities of the adjuvant setting when considering QoL evaluation.

Analysis of patient-reported outcomes in the approval of novel oncology drugs in the United States, 2017-2022

Background

With the growing notion of patient-focused drug development, the quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of cancer patients are gaining considerable attention. Several drug regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), are calling attention to PROs. This review aims to comprehensively characterise the application of PROs and regulatory considerations for PROs in the FDA-approved novel oncology drugs.

Methods

The FDA review documents and labels for novel oncology drugs approved from July 2017 to July 2022 were retrieved. We collected and analysed drug approval information, types of endpoints for PROs, PRO measures, designs of trials including PROs, and regulatory comments on PRO-related contents.

Findings

Results demonstrated that PROs were used more commonly for solid tumours than hematologic malignancies, which might be correlated with the disease characteristics. We further categorised and analysed existing PRO measures, providing insight for tool selection in future oncology trial design. Our findings also indicated that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug approvals. The major deficiencies related to PROs commented on by FDA reviewers were analysed, followed by recommendations for improvements.

Interpretation

This review demonstrates that PROs currently do not play a significant role in oncology drug marketing review, and how they can be used to support the approval of new oncology drugs is still in the exploratory stage. This current situation is not only related to the deficiencies in the design and implementation of PRO-related contents in oncology trials, but more importantly, it is a reminder that we should pay more attention to patient experience in the development of oncology drugs.

Funding

This study was not supported by any funding.

Value in Myeloma Care: Myth or Reality

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite tremendous advances in multiple myeloma (MM) care, the disease maintains considerable morbidity and requires long-term treatment associated with significant financial toxicity to patients and high costs to society. In this review, we explore why - despite treatment advances - value in MM treatment is largely a myth, then explain some ways the myth might become a reality.

RECENT FINDINGS

We discuss how value-based care in MM should include patient-centered outcomes such as financial toxicity and quality of life, which are heavily impacted by cost of drugs and the indefinite duration of therapy that is standard in MM treatment. We propose multiple paths to work toward reducing cost and augmenting value of care for patients with MM, including improving access to generic drugs, increasing federal funding for clinical trials, designing more patient-centric clinical trials, and exploring the utilization of minimal residual disease (MRD)-driven treatment de-escalation, among others. We remain optimistic that despite the challenges, we can work toward making progress in the realm of value-based care for patients with MM and make it a reality.

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review

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.

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.

Health-related quality of life analysis in ovarian cancer clinical trials involving PARP inhibitors: a critical methodological perspective

The poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors (PARPi) have yielded significant clinical benefits as maintenance therapy in women with newly diagnosed and relapsed platinum-sensitive advanced ovarian cancer. These drugs were approved based on progression-free survival, the primary endpoint of their respective pivotal trials. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and/or patient-reported outcomes were included in these trials as a secondary exploratory endpoint. Nevertheless, many weaknesses in the analysis of HRQoL across these trials can be noticed. Heterogeneity and suboptimal HRQoL analysis in oncology trials contribute to misconceptions about this endpoint among oncologists and prevent quality of life as being an endpoint used for approvals. In this article, we discuss these HRQoL results from a methodological perspective and propose some solutions for improvement that could be used by regulatory and academic institutions running ovarian cancers trials. Notably, we suggest to measure and analyze HRQoL data after disease progression, to focus dedicated papers on the statistical analyses of HRQoL recommended by the SISAQOL consortium (linear mixed model for repeated measures and time-to-event approaches) and to communicate on available guidelines to ensure compliance with best international practices regarding the measurement and analysis of HRQoL.

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.

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.

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.

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

Important breakthroughs in medical treatments have improved outcomes for patients suffering from several types of cancer. However, many oncological treatments approved by regulatory agencies are of low value and do not contribute significantly to cancer mortality reduction, but lead to unrealistic patient expectations and push even affluent societies to unsustainable health care costs. Several factors that contribute to approvals of low-value oncology treatments are addressed, including issues with clinical trials, bias in reporting, regulatory agency shortcomings and drug pricing. With the COVID-19 pandemic enforcing the elimination of low-value interventions in all fields of medicine, efforts should urgently be made by all involved in cancer care to select only high-value and sustainable interventions. Transformation of medical education, improvement in clinical trial design, quality, conduct and reporting, strict adherence to scientific norms by regulatory agencies and use of value-based scales can all contribute to raising the bar for oncology drug approvals and influence drug pricing and availability.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised controlled trials in diabetes and pregnancy: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Diabetes mellitus is the most common metabolic complication of pregnancy and its prevalence worldwide is rising. The number of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) being conducted in people with diabetes is also increasing. Many studies preferentially publish findings on clinical endpoints and do not report patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In studies that do include PROs, PRO reporting is often of poor quality.

METHODS

We will conduct this systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Using a combination of medical subject headings and keywords (combined using Boolean operators), we will search web-based databases (PubMed, Cochrane and EMBASE) for RCTs published in English between 2013 and 2021. Two reviewers will review titles and abstracts. We will review the full texts of any relevant abstracts and extract the following data: date of publication or recruitment period, journal of publication, country of study, multicentre or single centre, population and number of participants, type of intervention, frequency of PRO assessment and type of PRO (or PRO measurement) used. We will also record if the PRO was a primary, secondary or exploratory outcome. We will exclude reviews, observational studies, unpublished data for example, conference abstracts and trial protocols. Any published RCT that includes data on a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome will then be compared against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Patient-Reported Outcome extension checklist, a structured and approved framework for the publication of results of PROs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the ethics committee at Galway University Hospitals on 24 March 2021 (CA 2592). We aim to publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present our findings at national and international conferences.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered prospectively with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). Registration number CRD42021234917.

Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement

Over the past 13 years, there have been advances in characterizing the patient experience in oncology trials, primarily using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review aims to provide details on the PRO measures and analyses used in multiple myeloma (MM) registrational trials. We identified registrational trials supporting MM indications from 2007 to 2020 from FDA databases. Trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports were reviewed for PRO measures used, collection methods, statistical analyses, baseline and instrument completion definitions, and thresholds for clinical meaningfulness. Twenty-five trials supporting 20 MM indications were identified; 17 (68%) contained submitted PRO data. Of the 17 trials, 14 were randomized controlled trials and the remainder were single-arm trials. All but one trial were open label trials. Seven trials collected data electronically and five in paper format. The majority of trials evaluated at least two PRO measures (82%) with two trials (12%) utilizing four measures. Nine unique PRO measures were used, most commonly the EORTC QLQ-30 (87%), EQ-5D (65%), and QLQ-MY20 (47%). All 17 (100%) trials provided descriptive summaries, 10 (59%) carried out longitudinal mixed model analysis, 9 (53%) conducted responder analysis, and 2 (12%) did a basic inferential test. We noted substantial heterogeneity in terms of PRO collection methods, measures, definitions, and analyses, which may hinder the ability to effectively capture and interpret patient experience in future MM clinical trials. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate approaches for statistical and analytical methodologies for PRO data in MM trials.

The GIMEMA-ALLIANCE Digital Health Platform for Patients With Hematologic Malignancies in the COVID-19 Pandemic and Postpandemic Era: Protocol for a Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised unprecedented challenges in the management of patients with cancer and has increased the demands for digital health tools that, for example, could facilitate remote monitoring of patients. Based on this, the Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto (GIMEMA) has recently developed a digital health tool dedicated to patients with hematologic malignancies: the GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform.

Objective

The main objectives of this web-based platform are to generate relevant data to better understand quality of life, symptoms, and medication adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic era; to develop a prospective real-life registry on outcomes of patients with hematologic cancer, with or without a diagnosis of COVID-19; and to facilitate patient-centered care in routine practice.

Methods

The platform consists of physician- and patient-secure portals and enables electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) assessments with real-time graphical presentation to physicians of individual patient symptoms and quality-of-life outcomes. Automated alerts are sent to treating hematologists based on the following predetermined criteria: presence of clinically important problems and symptoms, problems with adherence to therapy, and risk of COVID-19 diagnosis. The platform also allows physicians to set up video consultations. Clinical information regarding disease and treatment as well as clinical and survival outcomes are also prospectively collected.

Results

Recruitment of participants started in December 2020. As of April 2021, a total of 116 patients have been enrolled in this study. Use of this platform may help to improve patient-physician communication and help hematologists in the early recognition of clinically important problems and symptoms of their patients. More than 20 community and university-based hospitals have currently agreed to participate. In addition to patient-reported outcome data, the prospective collection of disease- and treatment-related information, as well as data on possible COVID-19 diagnosis and COVID-19 vaccination, will allow the development of a large database to also identify subgroups of patients at risk of poor outcomes.

Conclusions

Data generated via this platform will help to answer clinically relevant questions for patients with hematologic malignancies during the COVID-19 pandemic and postpandemic era. The use of the GIMEMA-ALLIANCE platform in routine practice may also contribute to enhancing patient-centered care.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04581187; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04581187

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/25271

Optimizing health-related quality of life in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors

Introduction: The current treatment landscape of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is challenging for several reasons, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data may be of critical importance to help physicians and patients make more informed decisions.Areas covered: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed to identify the most recent studies (between April 2016 and June 2020) assessing the impact of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) on adult CML patients' HRQOL. Studies assessing treatment discontinuation were also considered. For each study, we evaluated characteristics of CML patients included, treatment information and basic HRQOL data, including questionnaires used, and summary findings.Expert opinion: Valuable information can be gleaned from recent CML studies including a HRQOL assessment; however, major gaps remain in our knowledge. These include, for example, a better understanding of the impact of second- and third-generation TKIs on patients' HRQOL compared to imatinib therapy. Also, the benefits of TKI treatment discontinuation, in terms of symptom burden and HRQOL, are yet to be fully elucidated. More research efforts are needed in this area to generate high-quality evidence that can facilitate decision-making.