Trustworthiness of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Unblinded Cancer Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Atkinson TM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5362349 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trustworthiness of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Unblinded Cancer Clinical Trials.
Atkinson Thomas M TM Wagner Jan-Samuel JS Basch Ethan E
JAMA oncology 20170601 6
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDespite international recommendations of including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomised clinical trials (RCTs), a 2014 review concluded that few RCTs of bladder cancer (BC) report PRO as an outcome. We therefore aimed to update the 2014 review to synthesise current evidence-based knowledge of PROs from RCTs in BC. A secondary objective was to examine whether quality of PRO reporting has improved over time and to provide evidence-based recommendations for future studies in this area.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed/Medline, from April 2014 until June 2018. We included the RCTs identified in the previous review as well as newly published RCTs. Studies were evaluated using a predefined electronic-data extraction form that included information on basic trial demographics, clinical and PRO characteristics and standards of PRO reporting based on recommendation from the International Society of Quality of Life Research.ResultsSince April 2014 only eight new RCTs for BC included PROs as a secondary outcome. In terms of methodology, only the proportion of RCTs documenting the extent of missing PRO data (75% vs 11.1%, p = 0.03) and the identification of PROs in trial protocols (50% vs 0%, p = 0.015) improved. Statistical approaches for dealing with missing data were not reported in most new studies (75%).ConclusionLittle improvement into the uptake and assessment of PRO as an outcome in RCTs for BC has been made during recent years. Given the increase in (immunotherapy) drug trials with a potential for severe adverse events, there is urgent need to adopt the recommendations and standards available for PRO use in bladder cancer RCTs.
| S-EPMC6744649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPatient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve to capture vital patient information not otherwise obtained by primary study endpoints. This paper examines how PROs are utilized as endpoints in industry-sponsored metastatic breast cancer clinical trials.MethodsA search was conducted in the clinicaltrials.gov web site for trials involving common treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight clinical trials were identified which included a PRO endpoint in the study, and data were extracted and summarized.ResultsOverall, 17 unique PRO questionnaires and 14 concepts of measurement were identified as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast was the most frequently utilized questionnaire, commonly implemented to assess quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was also frequently used to measure quality of life or pain.ConclusionThis review shares insights into the role of PROs in trials for metastatic breast cancer from which treatment developers and other stakeholders can enhance successful implementation of the patient voice into future trials.
| S-EPMC4946584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Investigators of clinical trials in which the list of outcomes include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) - usually labeled quality of life (QoL) - have a large number of instruments from which to choose. The extent and manner in which PRO instruments are used in clinical trials can be assessed using data from clinical trial registries. Most medical journals now require a clinical trial be registered before its results are considered for publication. This requirement is intended to discourage publication bias, such as the reporting of tests of hypotheses different from those stipulated at the start of the trial and selective reporting of partial results.To assess the usage of PRO instruments in registered trials by various trial characteristics and to determine if the instruments are adequately identified in the registry.A local copy of the ClinicalTrials.gov database was made in September 2007. The outcomes of all interventional trials registered since September 2004 were assessed for usage of a PRO instrument. Odds ratios of PRO usage were estimated by a logistic regression model.Of 17,704 interventional trials, 2481 (14.0%) used at least one PRO instrument. However, less than half of those trials (41.0%) identified the instrument to be used. PRO usage is positively associated with phase (III), randomization type (randomized), intervention type (behavior) and sponsorship type (university/research organization).PRO instruments are used in a significant percentage but minority of clinical trials. Trial registries should require that all PRO instruments be identified, including the concepts or outcomes they are intended to measure.
| S-EPMC2683916 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMissing patient reported outcomes data threaten the validity of PRO-specific findings and conclusions from randomized controlled trials by introducing bias due to data missing not at random. Clinical Research Associates are a largely unexplored source for informing understanding of potential causes of missing PRO data. The purpose of this qualitative research was to describe factors that influence missing PRO data, as revealed through the lived experience of CRAs.MethodsMaximum variation sampling was used to select CRAs having a range of experiences with missing PRO data from academic or nonacademic centers in different geographic locations of Canada. Semistructured interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed according to descriptive phenomenology.ResultsEleven CRAs were interviewed. Analysis revealed several factors that influence missing PRO data that were organized within themes. PROs for routine clinical care compete with PROs for RCTs. Both the paper and electronic formats have benefits and drawbacks. Missing PRO data are influenced by characteristics of the instruments and of the patients. Assessment of PROs at progression of disease is particularly difficult. Deficiencies in center research infrastructure can contribute. CRAs develop relationships with patients that may help reduce missing PRO data. It is not always possible to provide sufficient time to complete the instrument. There is a need for field guidance and a motivation among CRAs to contribute their knowledge to address issues.ConclusionThese results enhance understanding of factors influencing missing PRO data and have important implications for designing operational solutions to improve data quality on cancer RCTs.
| S-EPMC8085912 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function.
| S-EPMC5858035 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of a person's health status that provide a global perspective of patient well-being. PROs can be classified into 4 primary domains: global, mental, physical, and social health. In this descriptive review, we focus on how PROs can be used in cardiac clinical trials, with an emphasis on cardiac surgical trials for patients with coronary heart disease and heart failure. We also highlight ongoing challenges and provide specific suggestions and novel opportunities to advance cardiac clinical trials. Current challenges include the long-term measurement of PROs in clinical trials beyond 1 year, inconsistency in the choice of the outcome measures among studies, and the lack of measurement of PROs across multiple domains. Opportunities for advancement include measuring PROs using consumer health informatics tools, including returning information back to participants in formats that they can understand using visualization. Future opportunities include quantifying cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences for PROs.
| S-EPMC8487900 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSymptoms are common among patients enrolled in phase I trials. We assessed the validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) items in relation to previously validated assessments of quality of life and psychological distress. We used data from a randomized trial testing a palliative care support intervention for patients enrolled on phase I trials.MethodsPatients (n = 479) were accrued to the parent study prior to initiating a phase I clinical trial with data collected at baseline, 4, and 12 weeks. We determined the correlation of PRO-CTCAE with distress level, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General (FACT-G) total, and subscale domain scores.ResultsPatients were predominantly female (56.8%) and older than age 60 years, and 30.7% were from minority populations. The correlation coefficient for distress level for all PRO-CTCAE items was small to moderate (Pearson r = 0.33-0.46). Pearson correlation coefficient for FACT-G total was moderate (r = -0.45 to -0.69). Stronger associations were noted for mood items of the PRO-CTCAE only (with distress level, r = 0.55-0.6; with FACT-G, r = -0.54 to -0.6). PRO-CTCAE symptom interference scores had the strongest correlation with distress level (Pearson r = 0.46) and FACT-G total (Pearson r = -0.69). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE items and corresponding FACT-G (total and subscales) and distress levels reached statistical significance for all items (P <.001).ConclusionEvidence demonstrates validity of PRO-CTCAE in a heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment on phase I trials, with small to moderate correlations with distress level for all PRO-CTCAE items and moderate correlations with quality of life as measured by FACT-G total.
| S-EPMC7768928 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Disparities in care, treatment-related toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 15-39 years) with cancer are under-addressed partly because of limited collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The AYA years include key developmental milestones distinct from younger and older patients, and cancer interrupts attainment of critical life goals. Lack of consensus on a standardized approach to assess HRQoL and treatment-related toxicity in AYA CCTs has limited the ability to improve patient outcomes. The National Cancer Institute's Clinical Trials Network AYA PRO Task Force was assembled to reach consensus on a core set of PROs and foster its integration into AYA CCTs. Eight key considerations for selecting the core PRO AYA battery components were identified: relevance to AYAs; importance of constructs across the age continuum; prioritization of validated measures; availability of measures without licensing fees; availability in multiple languages; applicability to different cancer types and treatments; ability to measure different HRQoL domains and toxicities; and minimized burden on patients and sites. The Task Force used a modified Delphi approach to identify key components of the PRO battery. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Measurement System met all criteria and were selected to assess HRQoL and treatment toxicity, respectively. Investigators are rapidly incorporating the recommendations of the Task Force into AYA trials. Inclusion of a standardized assessment of HRQoL and treatment toxicities in AYA CCTs is a vital first step to develop interventions to improve health outcomes for AYAs diagnosed with cancer.
| S-EPMC9830479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are playing an increasing role in multiple sclerosis (MS) research and practice, and are essential for understanding the effects that MS and MS treatments have on patients' lives. PROs are captured directly from patients and include symptoms, function, health status, and health-related quality of life. In this article, we review different categories (e.g., generic, targeted, preference-based) of PRO measures and considerations in selecting a measure. The PROs included in MS clinical research have evolved over time, as have the measures used to assess them. We describe findings from recent MS clinical trials that included PROs when evaluating Food and Drug Administration-approved disease-modifying therapies (e.g., daclizumab, teriflunomide). Variation in the measures used in these trials makes it difficult to draw any conclusions from the data. We therefore suggest a standardized approach to PRO assessment in MS research and describe 2 generic, National Institutes of Health-supported measurement systems [Neuro-QoL and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)] that would facilitate such an approach. The use of PROs in MS care and research is expanding beyond clinical trials, as is demonstrated by examples from comparative effectiveness and other patient-centered research. The importance of PRO assessment is expected to continue to grow in the future.
| S-EPMC5722775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To optimize the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical research, it is first necessary to review the current use of these outcomes in clinical trials to determine under what circumstances they are most useful, and to reveal current limitations.To investigate current patterns of use of PROs in clinical trials.We conducted a systematic literature review of all double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials using one or more PROs as a study outcome from 2004 to 2006. Data were abstracted and analyzed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression to characterize the use of PROs in clinical trials.The 180 clinical trials that met the study inclusion criteria used 173 unique instruments to measure a total of 466 PROs. Most PRO measurements were obtained using relatively few PRO instruments, with one-third of PRO instruments applied in more than 1 trial. In multivariable analysis, tests of statistical significance were more often reported for PROs used as primary trial outcomes. Statistically significant PRO outcomes (P<0.05) were more likely among disease-specific PROs compared with general PROs, PROs with a discussion of minimally important difference, and larger trials.PRO instruments may be improved through efforts to provide centralized electronic administration, cross-validation, and standardized interpretation of clinically relevant outcomes. The majority of PROs used in current clinical trials come from relatively few, commonly used disease-specific PRO instruments within major therapeutic areas.
| S-EPMC3682647 | biostudies-literature