Dataset Information

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence-based recommendations.

Methods and analysis

An electronic search strategy will be performed in PubMed to identify studies developing or validating a prognostic model which includes PROs as predictors. Two reviewers will independently be involved in data collection using a predefined and standardised data extraction form including information related to study characteristics, PROs measures used and multivariable prognostic models. Studies selection will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, with data extraction form using fields from the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) checklist for multivariable models. Methodological quality assessment will also be performed and will be based on prespecified domains of the CHARMS checklist. As a substantial heterogeneity of included studies is expected, a narrative evidence synthesis will also be provided.

Ethics and dissemination

Given that this systematic review will use only published data, ethical permissions will not be required. Findings from this review will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at major international conferences. We anticipate that this review will contribute to identify key areas of improvement for conducting and reporting prognostic factor analyses with PROs in oncology and will lay the groundwork for developing future evidence-based recommendations in this area of research.

Prospero registration number

CRD42018099160.

SUBMITTER: Deliu N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6224737 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol.

Deliu Nina N Cottone Francesco F Collins Gary S GS Anota Amélie A Efficace Fabio F

BMJ open 20181024 10

<h4>Introduction</h4>While there is mounting evidence of the independent prognostic value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for overall survival (OS) in patients with cancer, it is known that the conduct of these studies may hold a number of methodological challenges. The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the quality of published studies in this research area, in order to identify methodological and statistical issues deserving special attention and to also possibly provide evidence ...[more]

PMID: 30361409

Similar Datasets

Project description:PURPOSE:There is considerable interest in very short (ultrahypofractionated) radiation therapy regimens to treat prostate cancer based on potential radiobiological advantages, patient convenience, and resource allocation benefits. Our objective is to demonstrate that detectable changes in health-related quality of life measured by the bowel and urinary domains of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-50) were not substantially worse than baseline scores. METHODS AND MATERIALS:NRG Oncology's RTOG 0938 is a nonblinded randomized phase 2 study of National Comprehensive Cancer Network low-risk prostate cancer in which each arm is compared with a historical control. Patients were randomized to 5 fractions (7.25 Gy in 2 weeks) or 12 fractions (4.3 Gy in 2.5 weeks). The co-primary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a change in EPIC-50 bowel score at 1 year (baseline to 1 year) >5 points and in EPIC-50 urinary score >2 points tested with a 1-sample binomial test. RESULTS:The study enrolled 127 patients to 5 fractions (121 analyzed) and 128 patients to 12 fractions (125 analyzed). Median follow-up for all patients at the time of analysis was 3.8 years. The 1-year frequency for >5 point change in bowel score were 29.8% (P < .001) and 28.4% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. The 1-year frequencies for >2 point change in urinary score were 45.7% (P < .001) and 42.2% (P < .001) for 5 and 12 fractions, respectively. For 5 fractions, 32.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ?11 points (P = .34); for 12 fractions, 30.9% of patients had a drop in 1-year EPIC-50 sexual score of ? 11 points (P = .20). Disease-free survival at 2 years is 99.2% (95% confidence interval: 97.5-100) in the 5-fraction arm and 97.5% (95% confidence interval: 94.6-100) in the 12-fraction arm. There was no late grade 4 or 5 treatment-related urinary or bowel toxicity. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms that, based on changes in bowel and urinary domains and toxicity (acute and late), the 5- and 12-fraction regimens are well tolerated. These ultrahypofractionated approaches need to be compared with current standard radiation therapy regimens.

Project description:ObjectivesPatients with severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages, managed in intensive care units, face ethical issues regarding the difficulty of anticipating their recovery. Prognostic tools help clinicians in counselling patients and relatives and guide therapeutic decisions. We aimed to methodologically assess prognostic tools for functional outcomes in severe spontaneous intracranial haemorrhages.Data sourcesFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations, we conducted a systematic review querying Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane in January 2020.Study selectionWe included development or validation of multivariate prognostic models for severe intracerebral or subarachnoid haemorrhage.Data extractionWe evaluated the articles following the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies and Transparent Reporting of multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis statements to assess the tools' methodological reporting.ResultsOf the 6149 references retrieved, we identified 85 articles eligible. We discarded 43 articles due to the absence of prognostic performance or predictor selection. Among the 42 articles included, 22 did not validate models, 6 developed and validated models and 14 only externally validated models. When adding 11 articles comparing developed models to existing ones, 25 articles externally validated models. We identified methodological pitfalls, notably the lack of adequate validations or insufficient performance levels. We finally retained three scores predicting mortality and unfavourable outcomes: the IntraCerebral Haemorrhages (ICH) score and the max-ICH score for intracerebral haemorrhages, the SubArachnoid Haemorrhage International Trialists score for subarachnoid haemorrhages.ConclusionsAlthough prognostic studies on intracranial haemorrhages abound in the literature, they lack methodological robustness or show incomplete reporting. Rather than developing new scores, future authors should focus on externally validating and updating existing scores with large and recent cohorts.

Project description:ContextPatient-reported outcomes (PRO) data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are increasingly used to inform patient-centred care as well as clinical and health policy decisions.ObjectiveThe main objective of this study was to investigate the methodological quality of PRO assessment in RCTs of prostate cancer (PCa) and to estimate the likely impact of these studies on clinical decision making.Evidence acquisitionA systematic literature search of studies was undertaken on main electronic databases to retrieve articles published between January 2004 and March 2012. RCTs were evaluated on a predetermined extraction form, including (1) basic trial demographics and clinical and PRO characteristics; (2) level of PRO reporting based on the recently published recommendations by the International Society for Quality of Life Research; and (3) bias, assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Studies were systematically analysed to evaluate their relevance for supporting clinical decision making.Evidence synthesisSixty-five RCTs enrolling a total of 22 071 patients were evaluated, with 31 (48%) in patients with nonmetastatic disease. When a PRO difference between treatments was found, it related in most cases to symptoms only (n=29, 58%). Although the extent of missing data was generally documented (72% of RCTs), few reported details on statistical handling of this data (18%) and reasons for dropout (35%). Improvements in key methodological aspects over time were found. Thirteen (20%) RCTs were judged as likely to be robust in informing clinical decision making. Higher-quality PRO studies were generally associated with those RCTs that had higher internal validity.ConclusionsIncluding PRO in RCTs of PCa patients is critical for better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches. Marked improvements in PRO quality reporting over time were found, and it is estimated that at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make critical appraisals of results.Patient summaryIn this report, we have investigated the methodological quality of PCa trials that have included a PRO assessment. We conclude that including PRO is critical to better evaluating the treatment effectiveness of new therapeutic approaches from the patient's perspective. Also, at least one-fifth of PRO RCTs in PCa have provided sufficient details to allow health policy makers and physicians to make a critical appraisal of results.

Project description:BackgroundGOG 240 was a practice-changing randomised phase 3 trial that concluded that chemotherapy plus bevacizumab for advanced cervical cancer significantly improves overall and progression-free survival, and the proportion of patients achieving an overall objective response, compared with chemotherapy alone. In this study, we aimed to analyse patient-reported outcomes in GOG 240.MethodsEligible adult participants (aged ≥18 years) had primary stage IVB or recurrent or persistent carcinoma of the cervix with measurable disease and GOG performance status of 0-1. Participants were randomly assigned by web-based permuted block randomisation (block size 4) in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to the four treatment groups: cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 or 2 of the treatment cycle) and paclitaxel (135 mg/m(2) intravenously over 24 h or 175 mg/m(2) intravenously over 3 h on day 1), with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 or 2), or paclitaxel (175 mg/m(2) over 3 h on day 1) and topotecan (0·75 mg/m(2) for 30 min on days 1-3) with or without bevacizumab (15 mg/kg intravenously on day 1). Treatment assignment was concealed at randomisation (everyone was masked to treatment assignment, achieved by the use of a computer encrypted numbering system at the National Cancer Institute) and became open-label when each patient was registered to the trial. Treatment cycles were repeated every 21 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, whichever occurred first. The coprimary endpoints of the trial were overall survival and safety; the primary quality-of-life endpoint was the score on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix Trial Outcome Index (FACT-Cx TOI). For our analysis of patient-reported outcomes, participants were assessed before treatment cycles 1, 2, and 5, and at 6 and 9 months after the start of cycle 1, with the FACT-Cx TOI, items from the FACT-GOG-Neurotoxicity subscale, and a worst pain item from the Brief Pain Inventory. All patients who completed baseline quality-of-life assessments and at least one further follow-up assessment were evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00803062.FindingsBetween April 6, 2009, and Jan 3, 2012, a total of 452 patients were enrolled in the trial, of whom 390 completed baseline quality-of-life assessment and at least one further assessment and were therefore evaluable for quality-of-life outcomes. In these patients, patient-reported outcome completion declined from 426 (94%) of 452 (at baseline) to 193 (63%) of 307 (9 months post-cycle 1), but completion rates did not differ significantly between treatment regimens (p=0·78). The baseline FACT-Cx TOI scores did not differ significantly between patients who received bevacizumab versus those who did not (p=0·27). Compared with patients who received chemotherapy alone, patients who received chemotherapy plus bevacizumab reported FACT-Cx TOI scores that were an average of 1·2 points lower (98·75% CI -4·1 to 1·7; p=0·30).InterpretationImprovements in overall survival and progression-free survival attributed to the incorporation of bevacizumab into the treatment of advanced cervical cancer were not accompanied by any significant deterioration in health-related quality of life. Patients responding to anti-angiogenesis therapy who maintain an acceptable quality of life could be suitable at progression for treatment with other novel therapies that might confer additional benefit.FundingNational Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundThere is increasing awareness that, besides patient survival, Quality of Life (QOL) is a relevant outcome factor for patients who have a chronic disease. In haemodialysis (HD) patients, intradialytic hypotension (IDH) is considered one of the most frequent complications, and this is often accompanied by symptoms. Several studies have investigated QOL in dialysis patients, however, research on the association between intradialytic symptoms and QOL is minimal. The goal of this study was to determine whether the occurrence of IDH has an influence on the perception of QOL.MethodsDuring 3 months, haemodynamic data, clinical events, and interventions of 2623 HD-sessions from 82 patients were prospectively collected. The patients filled out a patient-reported intradialytic symptom score (PRISS) after each HD session. IDH was defined according to the EBPG as a decrease in SBP ≥20 mmHg or in MAP ≥10 mmHg associated with a clinical event and need for nursing interventions. Patient's self-assessment of QOL was evaluated by the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.ResultsThere were no significant associations between the mental summary score or the physical summary score and the proportion of dialysis sessions that fulfilled the full EBPG definition. A lower PRISS was significantly associated with the proportion of dialysis sessions that fulfilled the full EBPG definition (R = - 0.35, P = 0.0011), the proportion of dialysis sessions with a clinical event (R = - 0.64, P = 0.001), and the proportion of dialysis sessions with nursing interventions (R = - 0.41, P = 0.0001). The physical component summary and mental component summary were significantly negatively associated with the variable diabetes and positively with PRISS (P = 0.003 and P = 0.005, respectively). UF volume was significantly negatively associated with mental health (P = 0.02) and general health (P = 0.01).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the EBPG definition of IDH does not capture aspects of intradialytic symptomatology that are relevant for the patient's QOL. In contrast, we found a significant association between QOL and a simple patient-reported intra-dialytic symptom score, implying that how patients experience HD treatment influences their QOL.

Project description:BackgroundWhen assessing the efficacy of a treatment in any clinical trial, it is recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation to select a single meaningful endpoint. However, a single endpoint is often not sufficient to reflect the full clinical benefit of a treatment in multifaceted diseases, which is often the case in rare diseases. Therefore, the use of a combination of several clinically meaningful outcomes is preferred. Many methodologies that allow for combining outcomes in a so-called composite endpoint are however limited in a number of ways, not in the least in the number and type of outcomes that can be combined and in the poor small-sample properties. Moreover, patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life, often cannot be integrated in a composite analysis, in spite of their intrinsic value.ResultsRecently, a class of non-parametric generalized pairwise comparisons tests have been proposed, which members do allow for any number and type of outcomes, including patient reported outcomes. The class enjoys good small-sample properties. Moreover, this very flexible class of methods allows for prioritizing the outcomes by clinical severity, allows for matched designs and for adding a threshold of clinical relevance. Our aim is to introduce the generalized pairwise comparison ideas and concepts for rare disease clinical trial analysis, and demonstrate their benefit in a post-hoc analysis of a small-sample trial in epidermolysis bullosa. More precisely, we will include a patient relevant outcome (Quality of life), in a composite endpoint. This publication is part of the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) series on innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials, which is based on the webinars presented within the educational activity of EJP RD. This publication covers the webinar topic on composite endpoints in rare diseases and includes participants' response to a questionnaire on this topic.ConclusionsGeneralized pairwise comparisons is a promising statistical methodology for evaluating any type of composite endpoints in rare disease trials and may allow a better evaluation of therapy efficacy including patients reported outcomes in addition to outcomes related to the diseases signs and symptoms.

Dataset Information

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Prospero registration number

Publications

Evaluating methodological quality of Prognostic models Including Patient-reported HeAlth outcomes iN oncologY (EPIPHANY): a systematic review protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets