Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials

Systematic development of a patient-reported ONCOlogical-ROUTinE-Screening (ONCO-ROUTES) procedure at the University Cancer Center Regensburg

PURPOSE

The evaluation of treatment success and progression in oncology patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is playing an increasingly important role. Meanwhile, PROs are a component of the certification requirements of the German Cancer Society for oncology centers. PROs are used to provide supportive therapy. There is currently no instrument that fully covers the requirements. At the University Hospital Regensburg (UKR), a digital ONCOlogical-ROUTinE-Screening (ONCO-ROUTES) procedure was developed in order to assess the need for supportive therapy in a standardized way and to provide patients with supportive interventions tailored to their needs.

METHODS

On the basis of current requirements and guidelines, the development of ONCO-ROUTES was supported by experts in focus groups and interviews, and digitalization was carried out in connection with the IT infrastructure.

RESULTS

A Needs-based, Quality-of-life (QoL) and Symptoms Screening (NQS2) tool already established in the routine at the UKR was further developed into ONCO-ROUTES, which is made up of the domains therapy phase, nutrition, tobacco use, alcohol use, quality of life, general condition/functional status, physical activity, psychooncology, social services, and further support needs. By linking the digitized questionnaire to the hospital information system, the results are available for immediate use in routine operations and thus for the referral of patients for further supportive therapy.

CONCLUSION

The digital PRO application ONCO-ROUTES is designed to involve patients in monitoring additional supportive needs and thus, improves supportive interdisciplinary treatment.

"Peace of Mind" After Mastectomy: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Many women eligible for breast conservation therapy (BCT) elect unilateral mastectomy (UM) with or without contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM) and cite a desire for "peace of mind." This study aimed to characterize how peace of mind is defined and measured and how it relates to surgical choice.

METHODS

Nine databases were searched for relevant articles through 8 October 2023, and data were extracted from articles meeting the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The inclusion criteria were met by 20 studies. Most were prospective cohort studies (65%, 13/20). In the majority of the studies (72%, 13/18), Non-Hispanic white/Caucasian women comprised 80 % or more of the study's sample. Almost half of the studies used the phrase "peace of mind" in their publication (45%, 9/20), and few directly defined the construct (15%, 3/20). Instead, words representing an absence of peace of mind were common, specifically, "anxiety" (85%, 17/20), "fear" (75%, 15/20), and "concern" (75%, 15/20). Most of the studies (90%, 18/20) measured peace of mind indirectly using questionnaires validated for anxiety, fear, worry, distress, or concern, which were administered at multiple postoperative time points (55%, 11/20). Most of the studies (95%, 18/19) reported at least one statistically significant result showing no difference in peace of mind between BCT, UM, and/or CPM at their latest time of assessment.

CONCLUSION

Peace of mind is largely framed around concepts that suggest its absence, namely, anxiety, fear, and concern. Existing literature suggests that peace of mind does not differ among average-risk women undergoing BCT, UM, or CPM. Shared surgical decisions should emphasize at least comparable emotional and/or psychosocial well-being between CPM and breast conservation.

Are Clinical Practice Guidelines Representative of Patients With Distal Radius Fractures? A Review of Patient Demographics and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used to Inform Guidelines

PURPOSE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are recommendations developed for broad application to optimize high-quality care and decision-making. The composition of patients and outcome measures used in studies informing CPGs; however, has not been rigorously evaluated. With growing evidence that outcomes in musculoskeletal surgery vary by sociocultural factors, we aimed to: (1) review the linguistic, racial, and ethnic representation of the patients in the studies informing CPGs for distal radius fractures and (2) assess their use of linguistically and culturally adapted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons website was used to identify relevant studies. Key variables were extracted, including inclusion and exclusion criteria, language of study, patient language and proficiency, patient race and ethnicity, and use of translated or culturally adapted PROMs. If provided, the clinical trial registration page for the study was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the frequency of each variable.

RESULTS

Fifty-four published texts were evaluated. Participant language was reported in four (7%) of the published texts and six (11%) when including the clinical trial registration information. Of the published texts, one (2%) reported ethnic group/race data and 40 (74%) used PROMs. Of those using PROMs, eight (20%) of 40 reported the use of translated PROMs, and three (8%) of 40 reported the use of culturally adapted PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a lack of reporting of linguistic, racial, and ethnic data and inconsistent use of PROMs, particularly those that are translated and culturally adapted, in studies included in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons CPG for distal radius fractures. As sociocultural characteristics and PROMs are associated with outcomes, ensuring they are broadly represented in studies, may improve equity and shared decision-making.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Greater inclusion and reporting of demographic data and PROMs are required in musculoskeletal studies to ensure broad applicability and advance health equity.

Core Patient-Reported Outcomes for Trials in Nephrology

The outcomes reported in trials across all stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD) are highly variable and often do not include outcomes that are directly relevant to patients and caregivers. Frequently, the outcomes reported in trials are often unvalidated surrogate biochemical end points. The omission of outcomes that are meaningful and important to patients can diminish the value of trials in supporting treatment decisions. In response, there have been increasing efforts across many health and medical disciplines to develop core outcome sets, defined as the minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a specific health area to improve the relevance and consistency of reporting trial outcomes. The international Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology (SONG) initiative was established in 2014 and has since developed seven core outcome sets for different diagnosis and treatment stages of CKD. The core outcomes were based on consensus among patients, caregivers, and health professionals. Each core outcome set includes at least one patient-reported outcome, including fatigue (hemodialysis), life participation (kidney transplantation, peritoneal dialysis, early CKD not yet requiring kidney replacement therapy, children and adolescents, and glomerular disease), and pain (polycystic kidney disease). This article outlines how patient-reported outcomes are currently reported in trials, discusses core patient-reported outcomes that have been established for trials in kidney disease, and outlines strategies for implementing core patient-reported outcomes in trials.

Are Orthopaedic Clinical Trials Linguistically and Culturally Diverse? A Systematic Review

Purpose

Underrepresentation and misrepresentation of historically underrepresented populations in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may have implications for the validity of research results and their application for diverse populations. To evaluate the representation of historically linguistically, racially, and ethnically underrepresented participants in orthopaedic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to assess the use of translated and culturally adapted patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

Separate and comprehensive literature searches of PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases were performed to identify RCTs utilizing PROMs between the years 2012 - 2022 among the top five highest 5-year impact factor orthopaedic journals according to the 2021 Journal Citation Reports database. The primary outcomes of interest included reporting of linguistic, racial and ethnic demographic characteristics of trial participants and the utilization of translated PROMs. The methodological quality of each clinical trial was assessed using the Jadad Criteria.

Results

230 RCTs met inclusion criteria. The language of participants was reported in 14% of trials and in 17% of trials when searching both the published text and clinical trial registration information. In addition, race and/or ethnicity was reported in 11% of trials, and the use of translated PROMs was reported in 7% of trials. Among the six multinational studies, none reported the language of the study population nor the use of translated PROMs. Notably, four studies (2%) reported utilizing culturally adapted PROMs. The average Jadad score was 3.07.

Conclusion

Participant language, race, and ethnicity are infrequently reported in orthopaedic clinical trials, potentially limiting the application and interpretation of study results. Similarly, the linguistic and cultural adaptation of PROMs utilized are often not reported, which also limits interpretations of the validity and generalizability of orthopedic study results. Researchers and journals should promote standard reporting of demographic data and methods of PROM adaptation to ensure results are generalizable to diverse patient populations.

Level of Evidence

III.

The effect of disease modifying therapies on fatigue in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently the gold standard in the treatment of MS and their effectiveness has been assessed through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue in (PwMS). We conducted a systematic review to 1) understand whether fatigue is included as an outcome in MS trials of DMTs; 2) determine the effects on fatigue of treating MS with DMTs and 3) assess the quality of MS trials including fatigue as an outcome.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1993 to January 2023 for RCTs that measured fatigue as an outcome. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), while the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the RoB 2 tool by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383321).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 130 RCTs of DMTs of which 7 (5%) assessed fatigue as an outcome. Of the 7 trials, only two presented statistically significant results. In addition, the reporting of fatigue among RCTs was suboptimal with a mean adherence to the CONSORT-PRO Statement of 36% across all trials. Of the 7 trials included, four were assessed as 'high' RoB..

CONCLUSIONS

Fatigue has a major impact on PwMS yet there is limited trial-based evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue. Assessment of fatigue as an outcome is underrepresented in trials of DMTs and the reporting of PRO trial data is suboptimal. Thus, it is imperative that MS researchers conduct RCTs that include fatigue as an outcome, to support clinicians and people with MS (PwMS) to consider the impact of the different DMTs on fatigue.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials: From an Endpoint to an Intervention in Cancer Care

Underreporting of patient symptoms by clinicians is a common and well-documented phenomenon that has led to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as endpoints into clinical trials. While PROs are often used to measure disease symptoms, cancer therapy toxicities, and quality of life, they can also assess patients' general experiences and preferences. With the increasing use of electronic medical records and the digital health revolution in oncology, conversion from paper to electronic PROs (ePROs) has also facilitated the integration of PROs into routine care. Evidence from clinical trials is rapidly emerging to support ePROs as a care delivery innovation, given the potential for ePROs to improve patient outcomes through timely evaluation and response to patient needs. Meanwhile, work is ongoing to understand and address ePRO use and challenges to equitable integration, including technical and language barriers for patients, clinicians, and health systems. Nonetheless, the health system and regulatory bodies continue to develop stipulations to promote the use of ePROs. Herein, we review the evolution of PROs from an endpoint to an intervention in prospective clinical trials in oncology.

Research integrity in randomized clinical trials: A scoping umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are experiencing a crisis of confidence in their trustworthiness. Although a comprehensive literature search yielded several reviews on RCT integrity, an overarching overview is lacking.

OBJECTIVES

The authors undertook a scoping umbrella review of the research integrity literature concerning RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/3ursn), two reviewers independently searched PubMed, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, without language or time restrictions, until November 2021. The authors included systematic reviews covering any aspect of research integrity throughout the RCT lifecycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The authors assessed methodological quality using a modified AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool and collated the main findings.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 55 relevant reviews, summarizing 6001 studies (median per review, 63; range, 8-1106) from 1964 to 2021, had an overall critically low quality of 96% (53 reviews). Topics covered included general aspects (15%), design and approval (22%), conduct and monitoring (11%), reporting (38%), postpublication concerns (2%), and future research (13%). The most common integrity issues covered were ethics (18%) and transparency (18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality reviews identified various integrity issues across the RCT lifecycle, emphasizing the importance of high ethical standards and professionalism while highlighting gaps in the integrity landscape. Multistakeholder consensus is needed to develop specific RCT integrity standards.

Non-English Speakers and Socioeconomic Minorities are Significantly Less Likely to Complete Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Analysis of 16,119 Cases

BACKGROUND

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement requires patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion for total knee/hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA) patients. A 90% completion rate to avoid penalties was planned for 2023 but has been delayed. Our analysis compares TKA/THA PROM completion and results across demographics. We hypothesized that minority groups would be less likely to complete PROMs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed from 2018 to 2021 of 16,119 patients who underwent primary elective TKA or THA at a single institution. Pairwise chi-squared tests, t-tests, analysis of variance, and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to compare PROM completion rates and scores across demographics and surgery type (TKA/THA).

RESULTS

Comparing patients who had (N = 7,664) and did not have (N = 8,455) documented PROMs, completion rates were significantly lower in patients who were women, Black, Hispanic, less educated, used Medicaid insurance, lived in lower income neighborhoods, spoke non-English languages, required an interpreter, and underwent TKA versus THA. After regression analyses, odds ratios for PROM completion remained significantly lower in non-English speakers, Hispanic and Medicaid patients, lower income groups, and patients undergoing TKA. For the 31.8% of patients who completed both preoperative/postoperative PROMs, women, Black, and non-English speaking patients had significantly lower PROM scores for most measures preoperatively and postoperatively despite similar or better improvements after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing TKA and non-English speaking, ethnic, and socioeconomic minorities are less likely to complete PROMs. Strategies to create, validate, and collect PROMs for these populations are needed to avoid exacerbation of healthcare disparities.

Patient Follow-up After Orthopaedic Outreach Trips - Do We Know Whether Patients are Improving?

Background

The burden of traumatic musculoskeletal injuries falls greatest on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To help address this burden, organizations host over 6,000 outreach trips annually, 20% of which are orthopaedic. Monitoring post-surgical outcomes is critical to ensuring care quality; however, the implementation of such monitoring is unknown. The purpose of this review is to identify published follow-up practices of short-term orthopaedic surgery outreach trips to LMICs.

Methods

We completed a systematic review of Pubmed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and ProQuest following PRISMA guidelines. Follow-up method, rate, duration, and types of outcomes measured along with barriers to follow-up were collected and reported.

Results

The initial search yielded 1,452 articles, 18 of which were eligible. The mean follow-up time was 5.4 months (range: 15 days-7 years). The mean follow-up rate was 65.8% (range: 22%-100%), the weighted rate was 57.5%. Fifteen studies reported follow-up at or after 3 months while eight studies reported follow-up at or after 9 months. Fifteen studies reported follow-up in person, three reported follow-up via phone call or SMS. Outcome reporting varied among mortality, complications, and patient-reported outcomes. The majority (75%) outlined barriers to follow-up, most commonly noting transportation and costs of follow-up to the patient.

Conclusions

There is minimal and heterogeneous public reporting of patient outcomes and follow-up after outreach trips to LMICs, limiting quality assessment and improvement. Future work should address the design and implementation of tools and guidelines to improve follow-up as well as outcome measurement to ensure provision of high-quality care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00268-022-06630-w.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.