Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS:A systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE identified randomized clinical trials of systemic therapy in OC from 1980 to 2014. The adequacy of reporting QOL was evaluated with respect to adherence to established guidelines on reporting QOL in clinical trials and the recent recommendations on the inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials from the Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference. RESULTS:Of 3,247 abstracts, 35 studies, including 24,664 patients, met inclusion criteria. Twenty-two trials (63%) were in the first-line setting, with 13 (37%) in the recurrent setting. The inclusion of QOL assessments increased from 2% (1980s) to 62% (2010+). Quality of life was a co-primary endpoint in only one trial.Minimal clinically important differences in QOL were defined in eight trials (23%), with results included in the abstract in 37% and article in 86%. Compliance was reported in 26 trials (74%), with 13 trials (37%) reporting specifically how they dealt with missing data. Only seven trials reported the reasons for missing data (20%).Group results were published in 29 trials (83%), with 6 (17%) reporting individual patient results. Results were more commonly reported as a mean overall score (21 trials; 60%), with specific domain scores in only 9 trials (26%). No studies reported QOL beyond progression or included predefined context-specific endpoints based on objectives of treatment (i.e., palliation/cure/maintenance) and the patient population. Duration of benefit of palliative chemotherapy was reported in only one study. CONCLUSION:Inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials in OC, but there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE:The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL) is an important consideration in patients with ovarian cancer for whom treatment is often given with palliative intent. Both the disease and treatment impact a patient's QOL and require careful evaluation in clinical trials. Matching the QOL questions to the patient population of interest is critical. Similar rigor to that used to assess progression-based endpoints is essential to guide clinical decisions. This systematic review demonstrated that although the inclusion and reporting of QOL as a trial endpoint has improved in phase III trials there are still significant shortfalls that need to be addressed in future trials.

SUBMITTER: Wilson MK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5813744 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

Wilson Michelle K MK Friedlander Michael L ML Joly Florence F Oza Amit M AM

The oncologist 20171108 2

<h4>Background</h4>Epithelial ovarian cancer (OC) remains a significant cause of morbidity and mortality for women worldwide. Patients may experience a multitude of disease- and treatment-related symptoms that can impact quality of life (QOL) and should be measured and reported in clinical trials. This systematic review investigated the adequacy of reporting of QOL in randomized phase III trials in OC in both the first-line and recurrent disease setting.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>A systematic ...[more]

PMID: 29118265

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite more than 60 years of clinical trials, tuberculosis (TB) still causes a high global burden of mortality and morbidity. Treatment currently requires multiple drugs in combination, taken over a prolonged period. New drugs are needed to shorten treatment duration, prevent resistance and reduce adverse events. However, to improve on current methodology in drug development, a more complete understanding of the existing clinical evidence base is required. METHODS:A systematic review was undertaken to summarise outcomes reported in phase III trials of patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary TB. A systematic search of databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and LILACs) was conducted on 30 November 2017 to retrieve relevant peer-reviewed articles. Reference lists of included studies were also searched. This systematic review considered all reported outcomes. RESULTS:Of 248 included studies, 229 considered "on-treatment" outcomes whilst 148 reported "off-treatment" outcomes. There was wide variation and ambiguity in the definition of reported outcomes, including their relationship to treatment and in the time points evaluated. Additional challenges were observed regarding the analysis approach taken (per protocol versus intention to treat) and the varying durations of "intensive" and "continuation" phases of treatment. Bacteriological outcomes were most frequently reported but radiological and clinical data were often included as an implicit or explicit component of the overall definition of outcome. CONCLUSIONS:Terminology used to define long-term outcomes in phase III trials is inconsistent, reflecting evolving differences in protocols and practices. For successful future cumulative meta-analysis, the findings of this review suggest that greater availability of individual patient data and the development of a core outcome set would be desirable. In the meantime, we propose a simple and logical approach which should facilitate combination of key evidence and inform improvements in the methodology of TB drug development and clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundPhase II clinical trials are a cornerstone of the development in experimental treatments They work as a "filter" for phase III trials confirmation. Surprisingly the attrition ratio in Phase III trials in oncology is significantly higher than in any other medical specialty. This suggests phase II trials in oncology fail to achieve their goal. Objective The present study aims at estimating the quality of reporting in published oncology phase II clinical trials.Data sourcesA literature review was conducted among all phase II and phase II/III clinical trials published during a 5-year period (2010-2015).Study eligibility criteriaAll articles electronically published by three randomly-selected oncology journals with Impact-Factors>4 were included: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Annals of Oncology and British Journal of Cancer.InterventionQuality of reporting was assessed using the Key Methodological Score.Results557 articles were included. 315 trials were single-arm studies (56.6%), 193 (34.6%) were randomized and 49 (8.8%) were non-randomized multiple-arm studies. The Methodological Score was equal to 0 (lowest level), 1, 2, 3 (highest level) respectively for 22 (3.9%), 119 (21.4%), 270 (48.5%) and 146 (26.2%) articles. The primary end point is almost systematically reported (90.5%), while sample size calculation is missing in 66% of the articles. 3 variables were independently associated with reporting of a high standard: presence of statistical design (p-value <0.001), multicenter trial (p-value = 0.012), per-protocol analysis (p-value <0.001).LimitationsScreening was mainly performed by a sole author. The Key Methodological Score was based on only 3 items, making grey zones difficult to translate.Conclusions & implications of key findingsThis literature review highlights the existence of gaps concerning the quality of reporting. It therefore raised the question of the suitability of the methodology as well as the quality of these trials, reporting being incomplete in the corresponding articles.

Project description:Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.

Project description:Simple Summary The initial tumour burden is a strong and well-known prognostic factor in oncology. A systematic review was performed to examine if and how the initial tumour burden is reported in phase III clinical trials in the most frequent and deadly cancers. Seventy trials were selected, which mostly included biologic agents. The identification of low-burden metastatic disease was performed in 28.6% of studies; it was a stratification factor for randomisation in only 25.7% of studies. In two studies, a significant imbalance between arms in patients with low-burden disease was revealed. Our findings emphasise the need for the better assessment of tumour burden in clinical trials. Abstract Background: Randomised phase III clinical trials represent a methodological milestone to select effective drugs against metastatic cancers. In this context, and particularly in the efficacy assessment of biologic drugs, the initial metastatic tumour burden is a strong prognostic factor. Methods: A systematic literature review of randomised, phase III, first-line, clinical trials in metastatic breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, published from 2016 to 2021, was performed. Three groups of variables were collected: identity-, method- (including tumour burden assessment) and outcome-related. Results: Seventy trials were selected. A large portion of studies (41.4%) focused on the effects of biologic agents (signal inhibitors and immuno-therapies). A definition of low-burden disease based predominantly on the number of involved organs was reported in 28.6% of studies. No explicit reference to oligo-metastatic disease was found either in inclusion/exclusion criteria or in final descriptive data analyses. Disease extent, heterogeneously defined, was a stratification factor for randomisation in only 25.7% of studies. In two studies, a significant imbalance between arms in patients with low-burden disease was revealed. Conclusions: Attention to initial tumour burden in designing future clinical trials (including the harmonisation of definitions and the reporting of eventual oligo-metastatic disease, complete estimates of tumour volume, and its consideration as a stratification factor) should be increased.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

Publications

A Systematic Review of Health-Related Quality of Life Reporting in Ovarian Cancer Phase III Clinical Trials: Room to Improve.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets