Characteristics of Participation in Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Data Capture Components of NRG Oncology Clinical Trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
To assess the reasons why patients do not consent to patient-reported outcome (PRO) and electronic PRO data capture components of clinical trials and potential selection bias by having a separate consent.Methods and materials
Selected NRG Oncology trials were included based on disease site and inclusion of PROs and electronic PRO data capture via VisionTree Optimal Care as separate consent questions. Reasons for not participating were assessed. Pretreatment characteristics between patients who did and did not consent were tested using χ2 and t tests for univariate comparisons and logistic regression for multivariable analyses.Results
Ten trials were selected in head and neck, prostate, gynecologic, breast, lung, and gastrointestinal cancers, with 4 of these trials having electronic PRO data capture. Most patients consented to the PRO component (75.3%) but not electronic PRO data capture (37.8%). More white patients consented to PROs than nonwhite patients across all trials (odds ratio [OR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.63; P < .001), and more patients with education after high school consented compared with those with less education (OR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.46-2.02; P < .001). Patients who are younger (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.85; P = .002), white (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.44-0.82; P = .001), and a never or former smoker (OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.78; P = .001) are more likely to participate in electronic PRO data capture.Conclusions
These results suggest that a patient's race, age, and education can affect whether a patient chooses to consent or is offered to participate in PRO or electronic PRO data capture components. More investigation is needed, but this analysis provides support for making PROs integrated in the trial.
SUBMITTER: Pugh SL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572717 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Purpose NRG Oncology/RTOG 1203 was designed to compare patient-reported acute toxicity and health-related quality of life during treatment with standard pelvic radiation or intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) in women with cervical and endometrial cancer. Methods Patients were randomly assigned to standard four-field radiation therapy (RT) or IMRT radiation treatment. The primary end point was change in patient-reported acute GI toxicity from baseline to the end of RT, measured with the bowel domain of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC). Secondary end points included change in patient-reported urinary toxicity, change in GI toxicity measured with the Patient-Reported Outcome Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and quality of life measured with the Trial Outcome Index. Results From 2012 to 2015, 289 patients were enrolled, of whom 278 were eligible. Between baseline and end of RT, the mean EPIC bowel score declined 23.6 points in the standard RT group and 18.6 points in the IMRT group ( P = .048), the mean EPIC urinary score declined 10.4 points in the standard RT group and 5.6 points in the IMRT group ( P = .03), and the mean Trial Outcome Index score declined 12.8 points in the standard RT group and 8.8 points in the IMRT group ( P = .06). At the end of RT, 51.9% of women who received standard RT and 33.7% who received IMRT reported frequent or almost constant diarrhea ( P = .01), and more patients who received standard RT were taking antidiarrheal medications four or more times daily (20.4% v 7.8%; P = .04). Conclusion Pelvic IMRT was associated with significantly less GI and urinary toxicity than standard RT from the patient's perspective.
| S-EPMC6097832 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6248906 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:GOG 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. METHODS:Eligible 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. FINDINGS:Between 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). INTERPRETATION:Improvements 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. FUNDING:National Institutes of Health.
| S-EPMC4479218 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The aim of this study was to identify patient and physician factors related to enrollment onto Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) trials. METHODS:Prospective study of women with primary or recurrent cancer of the uterus or cervix treated at a GOG institution from July 2010 to January 2012. Logistic regression examined probability of availability, eligibility and enrollment in a GOG trial. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for significant (p<0.05) results reported. RESULTS:Sixty institutions, 781 patients, and 150 physicians participated, 300/780 (38%) had a trial available, 290/300 had known participation status. Of these, 150 women enrolled (59.5%), 102 eligible did not enroll (35%), 38 (13%) were ineligible. Ethnicity and specialty of physician, practice type, data management availability, and patient age were significantly associated with trial availability. Patients with >4 comorbidities (OR 4.5; CI 1.7-11.8) had higher odds of trial ineligibility. Non-White patients (OR 7.9; CI 1.3-46.2) and patients of Black physicians had greater odds of enrolling (OR 56.5; CI 1.1-999.9) in a therapeutic trial. Significant patient therapeutic trial enrollment factors: belief trial may help (OR 76.9; CI 4.9->1000), concern about care if not on trial (OR12.1; CI 2.1-71.4), pressure to enroll (OR .27; CI 0.12-.64), caregiving without pay (OR 0.13; CI .02-.84). Significant physician beliefs were: patients would not do well on standard therapy (OR 3.6; CI 1.6-8.4), and trial would not be time consuming (OR 3.3; CI 1.3-8.1). CONCLUSIONS:Trial availability, patient and physician beliefs were factors identified that if modified could improve enrollment in cancer cooperative group clinical trials.
| S-EPMC4489417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients. METHODS:In the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors. RESULTS:In total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life. CONCLUSIONS:This study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.
| S-EPMC6685133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeDespite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.MethodsThe guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).ResultsSelection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.ConclusionE-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the "data actionable" within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.
| S-EPMC9296709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are limited data regarding the quality of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) clinical trial publications.MethodsA systematic search of citations from various databases was conducted to identify prospective clinical trials involving ICI in advanced tumors from 2003 to 2020. A 30-point score was adapted from the CONSORT PRO extension statement to assess adherence to CONSORT PRO reporting. Linear regression was used to identify factors associated with quality reporting.ResultsAfter the review of 8058 articles, 33 trials were included with ICIs as either monotherapy (91%) or part of a combination regimen (9%). The median score was 23.5 points (range 15-29). In the majority of cases (82%), PROs were reported in a separate publication from the original study. Most of the trials were conducted in the metastatic setting and predominantly in melanoma, lung, and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) (73%). Univariate analysis revealed that trials with greater than 250 patients were associated with a higher score. The score was more likely to be lower in disease sites other than melanoma, lung, and RCC and was higher in the KEYNOTE than in the CHECKMATE trial series. There was no significant correlation between the score and whether a trial met its primary end-point or if the trial improved or worsened the quality of life. In the multivariate analysis, the number of patients enrolled to the trial, disease site, and trial series remained significant.ConclusionsThe quality of reporting of PROs in ICI phase II and III clinical trials is heterogeneous across various cancer sites. As PRO data are increasingly used to counsel patients and complement clinical decision making, innovative and collaborative efforts are required to improve the reporting of these essential data.
| S-EPMC8335827 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeIn oncology trials, the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the standard tool for reporting adverse events (AEs), but it may underreport symptoms experienced by patients. This analysis of the NRG Oncology RTOG 1203 compared symptom reporting by patients and clinicians during radiotherapy (RT).Patients and methodsPatients with cervical or endometrial cancer requiring postoperative RT were randomly assigned to standard 4-field RT or intensity-modulated RT (IMRT). Patients completed the 6-item patient-reported outcomes version of the CTCAE (PRO-CTCAE) for GI toxicity assessing abdominal pain, diarrhea, and fecal incontinence at various time points. Patients reported symptoms on a 5-point scale. Clinicians recorded these AEs as CTCAE grades 1 to 5. Clinician- and patient-reported AEs were compared using McNemar's test for rates > 0%.ResultsOf 278 eligible patients, 234 consented and completed the PRO-CTCAE. Patients reported high-grade abdominal pain 19.1% (P < .0001), high-grade diarrhea 38.5% (P < .0001), and fecal incontinence 6.8% more frequently than clinicians. Similar effects were seen between grade ≥ 1 CTCAE toxicity and any-grade patient-reported toxicity. Between-arm comparison of patient-reported high-grade AEs revealed that at 5 weeks of RT, patients who received IMRT experienced fewer GI AEs than patients who received 4-field pelvic RT with regard to frequency of diarrhea (18.2% difference; P = .01), frequency of fecal incontinence (8.2% difference; P = .01), and interference of fecal incontinence (8.5% difference; P = .04).ConclusionPatient-reported AEs showed a reduction in symptoms with IMRT compared with standard RT, whereas clinician-reported AEs revealed no difference. Clinicians also underreported symptomatic GI AEs compared with patients. This suggests that patient-reported symptomatic AEs are important to assess in this disease setting.
| S-EPMC7238486 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Researchers in clinical and pharmacoepidemiology fields have adopted information technology (IT) and electronic data capture, but these remain underused despite the benefits. This review discusses electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, specifically within pharmacoepidemiology and clinical research.The review used PubMed and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers library. Search terms used were agreed by the authors and documented. PubMed is medical and health based, whereas Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers is technology based. The review focuses on electronic case report forms and electronic data capture, but briefly considers other relevant topics; consent, ethics and security.There were 1126 papers found using the search terms. Manual filtering and reviewing of abstracts further condensed this number to 136 relevant manuscripts. The papers were further categorized: 17 contained study data; 40 observational data; 27 anecdotal data; 47 covering methodology or design of systems; one case study; one literature review; two feasibility studies; and one cost analysis.Electronic case report forms, electronic data capture and IT in general are viewed with enthusiasm and are seen as a cost-effective means of improving research efficiency, educating participants and improving trial recruitment, provided concerns about how data will be protected from misuse can be addressed. Clear operational guidelines and best practises are key for healthcare providers, and researchers adopting IT, and further work is needed on improving integration of new technologies with current systems. A robust method of evaluation for technical innovation is required.
| S-EPMC5555865 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported adverse events (AEs) may be a useful adjunct to clinician-assessed AEs for assessing tolerability in early phase, dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs). We reviewed DFOTs on ClinicalTrials.gov to describe trends in patient-reported outcome (PRO) use.MethodsDFOTs commencing 01 January 2007 - 20 January 2020 with 'PROs' or 'quality of life' as an outcome were extracted and inclusion criteria confirmed. Study and PRO characteristics were extracted. Completed trials that reported PRO outcomes and published manuscripts on ClinicalTrials.gov were identified, and PRO reporting details were extracted.Results5.3% (548/10 372) DFOTs included PROs as an outcome. 231 (42.2%) were eligible: adult (224, 97%), solid tumour (175, 75.8%), and seamless phase 1/2 (108, 46.8%). PRO endpoints were identified in more trials (2.3 increase/year, 95% CI: 1.6-2.9) from an increasing variety of countries (0.7/year) (95% CI: 0.4-0.9) over time. PROs were typically secondary endpoints (207, 89.6%). 15/77 (19.5%) completed trials reported results on the ClinicalTrials.gov results database, and of those eight included their PRO results. Eighteen trials had published manuscripts available on ClinicalTrials.gov. Three (16.7%) used PROs to confirm the maximum tolerated dose. No trials identified who completed the PROs or how PROs were collected.ConclusionsPRO use in DFOT has increased but remains limited. Future work should explore the role of PROs in DFOT and determine what guidelines are needed to standardise PRO use.
| S-EPMC8607259 | biostudies-literature