Clinical research in cancer palliative care: a metaresearch analysis

Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals

BACKGROUND

Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research.

METHODS

A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

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.

The genetic landscape of germline DDX41 variants predisposing to myeloid neoplasms

Germline DDX41 variants are the most common mutations predisposing to acute myeloid leukemia (AML)/myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in adults, but the causal variant (CV) landscape and clinical spectrum of hematologic malignancies (HMs) remain unexplored. Here, we analyzed the genomic profiles of 176 patients with HM carrying 82 distinct presumably germline DDX41 variants among a group of 9821 unrelated patients. Using our proposed DDX41-specific variant classification, we identified features distinguishing 116 patients with HM with CV from 60 patients with HM with variant of uncertain significance (VUS): an older age (median 69 years), male predominance (74% in CV vs 60% in VUS, P = .03), frequent concurrent somatic DDX41 variants (79% in CV vs 5% in VUS, P < .0001), a lower somatic mutation burden (1.4 ± 0.1 in CV vs 2.9 ± 0.04 in VUS, P = .012), near exclusion of canonical recurrent genetic abnormalities including mutations in NPM1, CEBPA, and FLT3 in AML, and favorable overall survival (OS) in patients with AML/MDS. This superior OS was determined independent of blast count, abnormal karyotypes, and concurrent variants, including TP53 in patients with AML/MDS, regardless of patient's sex, age, or specific germline CV, suggesting that germline DDX41 variants define a distinct clinical entity. Furthermore, unrelated patients with myeloproliferative neoplasm and B-cell lymphoma were linked by DDX41 CV, thus expanding the known disease spectrum. This study outlines the CV landscape, expands the phenotypic spectrum in unrelated DDX41-mutated patients, and underscores the urgent need for gene-specific diagnostic and clinical management guidelines.

Patient-reported outcomes are under-utilised in evaluating supportive therapies in paediatric oncology - A systematic review of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Children with cancer suffer from numerous symptoms and side-effects, making supportive interventions indispensable to improve their quality of life. The gold standard for evaluating the latter is patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. This systematic review investigates the current practice of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in clinical trials on supportive interventions.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT were searched for trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer receiving supportive care registered 2007-2020. The use of different types of COAs was analysed, focusing on PRO assessment and the domains measured with PRO measures (PROMs). Associations with trial characteristics were investigated using univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Of 4789 identified trials, 229 were included. Among them, 44.1 % relied on PROMs, the most commonly used COA. The proportion of trials using PROMs did not significantly differ over time. In the multivariable analysis, intervention type (higher PROM use in behavioural vs. medical interventional trials) and cancer type (higher PROM use in mixed and solid tumour samples vs. haematological samples) were significant predictors of PROM use. The majority of trials using PROMs (59.6 %) measured more than one health domain. 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of registered clinical trials investigating supportive interventions for children with cancer used PROMs. This result is striking since supportive care explicitly focuses on patients' quality of life, which is best assessed using PROMs. Our systematic review underlines the need to identify barriers for PROM implementation and to improve PRO research in paediatric oncology.

Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis

PURPOSE

Up to 50% of radiotherapy courses are delivered in palliative intent for various indications. Despite the large number of treated patients, we know little about the choice of endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. Our primary aim was, therefore, to analyze primary endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy.

METHODS

We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMCAF) meta-research analysis searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and "ClinicalTrials.gov" for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published 1990-2020. Endpoints were categorized in "patient-centered endpoints", including overall survival and patient-reported outcomes, and "tumor-centered endpoints" such as local control. The remainder were "other endpoints" including toxicity or observer-rated symptoms. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize data and logistic regression to assess if year of publication predicted the choice of primary endpoints.

RESULTS

Of 7379 records screened, 292 were eligible. Trials were characterized by small sample sizes and use of external beam radiotherapy for metastases or thoracic primaries. Median patient age was 64 and median ECOG was 1. Only 64.4%(145/225) of published trials clearly stated their primary endpoint. Published trials employed a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 45.5%(66/145) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 17.3%(25/145) of the cases. There was no statistically significant trend in time for the use of "patient-centered primary endpoints". Registered ongoing trials used a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 32.8%(22/67) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 26.9%(18/67) of the cases.

CONCLUSION

Although "patient-centered primary endpoints" appear relatively prevalent in published trials of palliative radiotherapy, their use is still suboptimal and appears to be lower in currently ongoing trials.

Influencing factors of depressive symptoms in patients with malignant tumour

OBJECTIVE

To assess the influencing factors of depressive symptoms in malignant tumour patients.

METHODS

Participants were 2079 inpatients with malignant tumour (1291: depressive symptoms; 788 no depressive symptoms). Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to evaluate sociodemographic and clinical factors influencing depressive symptoms.

RESULTS

Risk factors were family income ≤5000 yuan (odds ratio [OR]: 4.966, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.938-8.395) and 5001-10,000 yuan (OR: 3.111, 95% CI: 1.840-5.260); Karnofsky Performance Status of 70 (OR: 2.783, 95% CI: 1.281-6.042) and 80 (OR: 1.834, 95% CI: 1.139-2.953); disease course ≤1 year; palliative treatment (OR: 2.288, 95% CI: 1.292-4.055); progressive disease (OR: 1.876, 95% CI: 1.284-2.739); pain (OR: 1.973, 95% CI: 1.555-2.505); cancer type: lung (OR: 3.199, 95% CI: 1.938-5.279), oesophagus (OR: 3.288, 95% CI: 1.673-6.464), cervix (OR: 1.542, 95% CI: 1.056-2.253) and partial knowledge of disease condition (OR: 2.366, 95% CI: 1.653-3.385). Return to work (OR: 0.503, 95% CI: 0.348-0.727) and physical exercise (OR: 0.437, 95% CI: 0.347-0.551) were protective against depressive symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors affected depressive symptoms in malignant tumour patients, including income, disease type and course, palliative treatment, return to work and physical exercise.

When Should Neuroendovascular Care for Patients With Acute Stroke Be Palliative?

Noncurative surgeries intended to relieve suffering during serious illness or near end of life have been analyzed across palliative settings. Yet sparse guidance is available to inform clinical management decisions about whether, when, and which interventions should be offered when ischemic stroke and other neurological complications occur in patients whose survival is extended by other novel disease-modifying interventions. This case commentary examines key ethical and clinical considerations in palliative neuroendovascular care of patients with acute stroke.

Pediatric Oncology Clinical Trials and Collaborative Research in Africa: Current Landscape and Future Perspectives

PURPOSE

Adequate clinical services have yet to be established in the majority of African countries, where childhood cancer survival rates vary from 8.1% to 30.3%. The aim of this review is to describe the landscape of pediatric oncology trials in Africa, identify challenges, and offer future opportunities for research collaborations.

METHODS

The study includes data from the International Pediatric Oncology Society (SIOP) global mapping survey, meta-research identifying trials in Africa in ClinicalTrials.gov, and a literature overview of publications on the subject of pediatric oncology clinical research supported by expert opinions on the current situation and challenges.

RESULTS

The SIOP global mapping survey received responses from 47 of 54 African countries, of which 23 have active clinical research programs. A preliminary search of ClinicalTrials.gov showed that only 105 (12.1%) of 868 African oncology studies included children and adolescents. Of these, 53 (50.5%) were interventional trials according to the registry’s classification. The small number of African trials for children and adolescents included palliative care and leukemia trials. In African oncology journals and international pediatric oncology journals, < 1% of the pediatric oncology publications come from Africa. Services and research were strengthened by international collaboration. National studies focused on clinical needs, local challenges, or interventional priorities. Both the literature review and the expert opinions highlight the need to expand clinical research in Africa, despite ongoing regional instability and lack of resources.

CONCLUSION

While a low number of pediatric clinical treatment trials are open to African children and adolescents, clinical research of high quality is being done in Africa. Several initiatives are stimulating the development of the research capacity across the continent, which should increase the publication output.

Rare use of patient-reported outcomes in childhood cancer clinical trials - a systematic review of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to assess the patients' subjective health status. While both the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommend the use of PROs as end-points in paediatric clinical trials to support claims for medical product labelling, it is not known how often PROs are actually used. The aim of this study was to assess the usage of PRO instruments in childhood cancer clinical trials investigating anti-cancer medication.

METHODS

In June 2020 ClinicalTrials and EudraCT were systematically searched for all trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer registered between 2007 and 2020. The use of PRO measures and trials characteristics were analysed. To investigate which trial characteristics are associated with the use of PROs, a binary logistic regression was calculated.

RESULTS

Of 4789 identified trials, 711 were included. The most frequent reason for exclusion was age limitation (age >21 years). Of all included trials, only 8.2% used PROs as end-points; .6% as the primary end-point. The most commonly used questionnaire was the PedsQL™ (32.8%), followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales (12.1%). No association was observed between the use of PROs and trial region, number of centres, trial phase, time period or intervention type (all p > .05). The use of PROs did not substantially increase over time. Only 20.3% of the closed studies had published their results.

CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations of regulatory agencies, PRO assessment is extremely rare in paediatric oncology clinical trials. More efforts should be undertaken to facilitate implementation of PRO in paediatric trials to guarantee patient-centred research and treatments.

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care

Background/aims

Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials.

Methods

The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures.

Results

The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers.

Conclusions

There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety.

Trial registration

ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014).

Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00714-5.