Dataset Information

The Use of Wearables in Clinical Trials During Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Interest in the use of wearables in medical care is increasing. Wearables can be used to monitor different variables, such as vital signs and physical activity. A crucial point for using wearables in oncology is if patients already under the burden of severe disease and oncological treatment can accept and adhere to the device. At present, there are no specific recommendations for the use of wearables in oncology, and little research has examined the purpose of using wearables in oncology.

Objective

The purpose of this review is to explore the use of wearables in clinical trials during cancer treatment, with a special focus on adherence.

Methods

PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched prior and up to October 3, 2019, with no limitation in the date of publication. The search strategy was aimed at studies using wearables for monitoring adult patients with cancer during active antineoplastic treatment. Studies were screened independently by 2 reviewers by title and abstract, selected for inclusion and exclusion, and the full-text was assessed for eligibility. Data on study design, type of wearable used, primary outcome, adherence, and device outcome were extracted. Results were presented descriptively.

Results

Our systematic search identified 1269 studies, of which 25 studies met our inclusion criteria. The types of cancer represented in the studies were breast (7/25), gastrointestinal (4/25), lung (4/25), and gynecologic (1/25); 9 studies had multiple types of cancer. Oncologic treatment was primarily chemotherapy (17/25). The study-type distribution was pilot/feasibility study (12/25), observational study (10/25), and randomized controlled trial (3/25). The median sample size was 40 patients (range 7-180). All studies used a wearable with an accelerometer. Adherence varied across studies, from 60%-100% for patients wearing the wearable/evaluable sensor data and 45%-94% for evaluable days, but was differently measured and reported. Of the 25 studies, the most frequent duration for planned monitoring with a wearable was 8-30 days (13/25). Topics for wearable outcomes were physical activity (19/25), circadian rhythm (8/25), sleep (6/25), and skin temperature (1/25). Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) were used in 17 studies; of the 17 PRO studies, only 9 studies reported correlations between the wearable outcome and the PRO.

Conclusions

We found that definitions of outcome measures and adherence varied across studies, and limited consensus among studies existed on which variables to monitor during treatment. Less heterogeneity, better consensus in terms of the use of wearables, and established standards for the definitions of wearable outcomes and adherence would improve comparisons of outcomes from studies using wearables. Adherence, and the definition of such, seems crucial to conclude on data from wearable studies in oncology. Additionally, research using advanced wearable devices and active use of the data are encouraged to further explore the potential of wearables in oncology during treatment. Particularly, randomized clinical studies are warranted to create consensus on when and how to implement in oncological practice.

SUBMITTER: Beauchamp UL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7688381 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Use of Wearables in Clinical Trials During Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.

Beauchamp Ulrikke Lyng UL Pappot Helle H Holländer-Mieritz Cecilie C

JMIR mHealth and uHealth 20201111 11

<h4>Background</h4>Interest in the use of wearables in medical care is increasing. Wearables can be used to monitor different variables, such as vital signs and physical activity. A crucial point for using wearables in oncology is if patients already under the burden of severe disease and oncological treatment can accept and adhere to the device. At present, there are no specific recommendations for the use of wearables in oncology, and little research has examined the purpose of using wearables ...[more]

PMID: 33174852

Similar Datasets

Project description:The potential of gossypol and of its R-(-)-enantiomer (R-(-)-gossypol acetic acid, AT-101), has been evaluated for treatment of cancer as an independent agent and in combination with standard chemo-radiation-therapies, respectively. This review assesses the evidence for safety and clinical effectiveness of oral gossypol/AT-101 in treating various types of cancer. The databases PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov were examined. Phase I and II trials as well as single arm and randomized trials were included in this review. Results were screened to determine if they met inclusion criteria and then summarized using a narrative approach. A total of 17 trials involving 759 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, orally applied gossypol/AT-101 at low doses (30 mg daily or lower) was determined as well tolerable either as monotherapy or in combination with chemo-radiation. Adverse events should be strictly monitored and were successfully managed by dose-reduction or treating symptoms. There are four randomized trials, two performed in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer, one in subjects with head and neck cancer, and one in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Thereby, standard chemotherapy (either docetaxel (two trials) or docetaxel plus cisplatin or docetaxel plus prednisone) was tested with and without AT-101. Within these trials, a potential benefit was observed in high-risk patients or in some patients with prolongation in progression-free survival or in overall survival. Strikingly, the most recent clinical trial combined low dose AT-101 with docetaxel, fluorouracil, and radiation, achieving complete responses in 11 of 13 patients with gastroesophageal carcinoma (median duration of 12 months) and a median progression-free survival of 52 months. The promising results shown in subsets of patients supports the need of further specification of AT-101 sensitive cancers as well as for the establishment of effective AT-101-based therapy. In addition, the lowest recommended dose of gossypol and its precise toxicity profile need to be confirmed in further studies. Randomized placebo-controlled trials should be performed to validate these data in large cohorts.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine concordance between treatment effects in animal experiments and clinical trials. Study design Systematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, SIGLE, NTIS, Science Citation Index, CAB, BIOSIS.Study selectionAnimal studies for interventions with unambiguous evidence of a treatment effect (benefit or harm) in clinical trials: head injury, antifibrinolytics in haemorrhage, thrombolysis in acute ischaemic stroke, tirilazad in acute ischaemic stroke, antenatal corticosteroids to prevent neonatal respiratory distress syndrome, and bisphosphonates to treat osteoporosis. Review methods Data were extracted on study design, allocation concealment, number of randomised animals, type of model, intervention, and outcome.ResultsCorticosteroids did not show any benefit in clinical trials of treatment for head injury but did show a benefit in animal models (pooled odds ratio for adverse functional outcome 0.58, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 0.83). Antifibrinolytics reduced bleeding in clinical trials but the data were inconclusive in animal models. Thrombolysis improved outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tissue plasminogen activator reduced infarct volume by 24% (95% confidence interval 20% to 28%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 23% (17% to 29%). Tirilazad was associated with a worse outcome in patients with ischaemic stroke. In animal models, tirilazad reduced infarct volume by 29% (21% to 37%) and improved neurobehavioural scores by 48% (29% to 67%). Antenatal corticosteroids reduced respiratory distress and mortality in neonates whereas in animal models respiratory distress was reduced but the effect on mortality was inconclusive (odds ratio 4.2, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 20.9). Bisphosphonates increased bone mineral density in patients with osteoporosis. In animal models the bisphosphonate alendronate increased bone mineral density compared with placebo by 11.0% (95% confidence interval 9.2% to 12.9%) in the combined results for the hip region. The corresponding treatment effect in the lumbar spine was 8.5% (5.8% to 11.2%) and in the combined results for the forearms (baboons only) was 1.7% (-1.4% to 4.7%).ConclusionsDiscordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately.

Project description:BackgroundClinical significance in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) can be determined using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), which should inform the delta value used to determine sample size. The primary objective was to assess clinical significance in the pediatric oncology randomized controlled trial (RCT) treatment literature by evaluating: (1) the relationship between the treatment effect and the delta value as reported in the sample size calculation, and (2) the concordance between statistical and clinical significance. The secondary objective was to evaluate the reporting of methodological attributes related to clinical significance.MethodsRCTs of pediatric cancer treatments, where a sample size calculation with a delta value was reported or could be calculated, were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Childhood Cancer Group Specialized Register through CENTRAL were searched from inception to July 2016.ResultsRCTs (77 overall; 11 and 66), representing 95 (13 and 82) randomized questions were included for non-inferiority and superiority RCTs (herein, respectively). The minority (22.1% overall; 76.9 and 13.4%) of randomized questions reported conclusions based on clinical significance, and only 4.2% (15.4 and 2.4%) explicitly based the delta value on the MCID. Over half (67.4% overall; 92.3 and 63.4%) reported a confidence interval or standard error for the primary outcome experimental and control values and 12.6% (46.2 and 7.3%) reported the treatment effect, respectively. Of the 47 randomized questions in superiority trials that reported statistically non-significant findings, 25.5% were possibly clinically significant. Of the 24 randomized questions in superiority trials that were statistically significant, only 8.3% were definitely clinically significant.ConclusionsA minority of RCTs in the pediatric oncology literature reported methodological attributes related to clinical significance and a notable portion of statistically insignificant studies were possibly clinically significance.

Project description:IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) continue to provide the best evidence for treatment options, but the quality of reporting in RCTs and the completeness rate of reporting of surgical outcomes and complication data vary widely. The aim of this study was to measure the quality of reporting of the surgical outcome and complication data in RCTs of rectal cancer treatment and whether this quality has changed over time.MethodsEligible articles with the keywords ("rectal cancer" OR "rectal carcinoma") AND ("radiation" OR "radiotherapy") that were RCTs and published in the English, German, Polish, or Italian language were identified by reviewing all abstracts published from 1982 through 2022. Two authors independently screened and analysed all studies. The quality of the surgical outcome and complication data was assessed based on fourteen criteria, and the quality of RCTs was evaluated based on a modified Jadad scale. The primary outcome was the quality of reporting in RCTs and the completeness rate of reporting of surgical results and complication data.ResultsA total of 340 articles reporting multimodal therapy outcomes for 143,576 rectal cancer patients were analysed. A total of 7 articles (2%) met all 14 reporting criteria, 13 met 13 criteria, 27 met from 11 to 12 criteria, 36 met from 9 to 10 criteria, 76 met from 7 to 8 criteria, and most articles met fewer than 7 criteria (mean 5.5 criteria). Commonly underreported criteria included complication severity (15% of articles), macroscopic integrity of mesorectal excision (17% of articles), length of stay (18% of articles), number of lymph nodes (21% of articles), distance between the tumour and circumferential resection margin (CRM) (26% of articles), surgical radicality according to the site of the primary tumour (R0 vs. R1 + R2) (29% of articles), and CRM status (38% of articles).ConclusionInconsistent surgical outcome and complication data reporting in multimodal rectal cancer treatment RCTs is standard. Standardised reporting of clinical and oncological outcomes should be established to facilitate comparing studies and results of related research topics.

Project description:ImportanceBiologics account for almost half of US drug spending but may be subject to competitive pricing pressures by US Food and Drug Administration-approved biosimilars. The extent of the preapproval clinical testing that is needed and how these biosimilars compare with the originator biologic products remain critical issues in establishing a vibrant biosimilar market.ObjectivesTo analyze the design of cancer biosimilar efficacy studies compared with the reference drug pivotal trials and provide summary risk ratio estimates for each cancer type drug subgroup.Data sourcesA systematic search was performed of articles and abstracts published using Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated April 18, 2021.Study selectionAll studies or abstracts in English comparing a disease-modifying cancer biologic and its biosimilar and reporting efficacy or surrogate efficacy results were included.Data extraction and synthesisOutcome estimates and study characteristics were extracted from each study. Among biosimilar efficacy studies, random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each cancer type molecule outcome subgroup, calculating pooled relative estimates and 95% CIs.Main outcomes and measuresStudy characteristics, such as population size, blinding, and randomization, were compared between biosimilar trials and those of reference drugs. Risk ratio estimates for relative change to surrogate measures (eg, progression-free survival) were collected for biosimilars and their reference products.ResultsA total of 31 cancer biosimilar studies of 3 reference products involving 12 310 patients were included. In all 7 subgroups, the biosimilars analyzed were indistinguishable from their reference drug on surrogate efficacy. Six reference drug trials were included, involving 1811 patients. On average, biosimilar studies involved more patients than reference drug trials (mean number of patients, 397 vs 302), were more likely to be randomized clinical trials rather than single-group or observational studies (100% [31 of 31] vs 50% [3 of 6]), and were more likely to be double blind rather than open label (84% [26 of 31] vs 17% [1 of 6]).Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis found that the biosimilars for the cancer drugs in this sample were subjected to rigorous clinical evaluations, and the results were statistically indistinguishable from those of original products across drugs, cancer types, and outcome measures.

Project description:BackgroundCancer is a major cause of morbidity, disability, and mortality worldwide, and breast cancer is the most common cause of death in women. Different modalities of cancer treatment can have adverse effects that reduce the quality of life of patients and lead to treatment interruptions, if not managed properly. The use of mobile technologies has brought innovative possibilities for improving health care. Mobile apps can help individuals manage their own health and well-being and may also promote healthy lifestyles and information access.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to identify available evidence on the use of mobile apps to provide information and facilitate communication regarding self-care management related to the adverse effects of toxicities owing to breast cancer therapy.MethodsThis systematic review includes studies which were identified using a search strategy adapted for each electronic database: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, LILACS, LIVIVO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. In addition, a gray literature search was performed using Google Scholar. All the electronic database searches were conducted on April 17, 2019. Two investigators independently reviewed the titles and abstracts of the studies identified and then read the full text of all selected papers. The quality of the included studies was analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies.ResultsA total of 9 studies which met the eligibility criteria-3 randomized clinical trials and 6 nonrandomized studies published in English from 2010 to 2018-were considered for this systematic review; 396 patients with breast cancer, as well as 40 experts in the medical and nursing fields, and 3 software engineers were included.ConclusionsThe evidence from the studies included in this systematic review is currently limited but suggests that mobile apps for women with breast cancer might be an acceptable information source that can improve patient well-being; they can also be used to report symptoms and adverse treatment-related effects and promote self-care. There is a need to test more evidence-based apps in future randomized clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundContinued smoking after a diagnosis of cancer negatively impacts cancer outcomes, but the impact of tobacco on newer treatments options is not well established. Collecting and evaluating tobacco use in clinical trials may advance understanding of the consequences of tobacco use on treatment modalities, but little is known about the frequency of reporting and analysis of tobacco use in cancer cooperative clinical trial groups.Patients and methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify cancer cooperative group clinical trials published from January 2017-October 2019. Eligible studies evaluated either systemic and/or radiation therapies, included ≥100 adult patients, and reported on at least one of: overall survival, disease/progression-free survival, response rates, toxicities/adverse events, or quality-of-life.ResultsA total of 91 studies representing 90 trials met inclusion criteria with trial start dates ranging from 1995 to 2015 with 14% involving lung and 5% head and neck cancer patients. A total of 19 studies reported baseline tobacco use; 2 reported collecting follow-up tobacco use. Seven studies reported analysis of the impact of baseline tobacco use on clinical outcomes. There was significant heterogeneity in the reporting of baseline tobacco use: 7 reported never/ever status, 10 reported never/ex-smoker/current smoker status, and 4 reported measuring smoking intensity. None reported verifying smoking status or second-hand smoke exposure. Trials of lung and head and neck cancers were more likely to report baseline tobacco use than other disease sites (83% versus 6%, P < 0.001).ConclusionsFew cancer cooperative group clinical trials report and analyze trial participants' tobacco use. Significant heterogeneity exists in reporting tobacco use. Routine standardized collection and reporting of tobacco use at baseline and follow-up in clinical trials should be implemented to enable investigators to evaluate the impact of tobacco use on new cancer therapies.

Dataset Information

The Use of Wearables in Clinical Trials During Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Use of Wearables in Clinical Trials During Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets