Cargando…

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kyte, Derek, Retzer, Ameeta, Ahmed, Khaled, Keeley, Thomas, Armes, Jo, Brown, Julia M, Calman, Lynn, Gavin, Anna, Glaser, Adam W, Greenfield, Diana M, Lanceley, Anne, Taylor, Rachel M, Velikova, Galina, Brundage, Michael, Efficace, Fabio, Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca, King, Madeleine T, Turner, Grace, Calvert, Melanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6855977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038
_version_ 1783470481366581248
author Kyte, Derek
Retzer, Ameeta
Ahmed, Khaled
Keeley, Thomas
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Efficace, Fabio
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Turner, Grace
Calvert, Melanie
author_facet Kyte, Derek
Retzer, Ameeta
Ahmed, Khaled
Keeley, Thomas
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Efficace, Fabio
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Turner, Grace
Calvert, Melanie
author_sort Kyte, Derek
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. METHODS: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. RESULTS: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. CONCLUSIONS: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6855977
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68559772019-11-20 Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials Kyte, Derek Retzer, Ameeta Ahmed, Khaled Keeley, Thomas Armes, Jo Brown, Julia M Calman, Lynn Gavin, Anna Glaser, Adam W Greenfield, Diana M Lanceley, Anne Taylor, Rachel M Velikova, Galina Brundage, Michael Efficace, Fabio Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca King, Madeleine T Turner, Grace Calvert, Melanie J Natl Cancer Inst Articles BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. METHODS: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. RESULTS: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. CONCLUSIONS: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future. Oxford University Press 2019-04-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6855977/ /pubmed/30959516 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038 Text en © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.
spellingShingle Articles
Kyte, Derek
Retzer, Ameeta
Ahmed, Khaled
Keeley, Thomas
Armes, Jo
Brown, Julia M
Calman, Lynn
Gavin, Anna
Glaser, Adam W
Greenfield, Diana M
Lanceley, Anne
Taylor, Rachel M
Velikova, Galina
Brundage, Michael
Efficace, Fabio
Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
King, Madeleine T
Turner, Grace
Calvert, Melanie
Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title_full Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title_fullStr Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title_full_unstemmed Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title_short Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
title_sort systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6855977/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30959516
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038
work_keys_str_mv AT kytederek systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT retzerameeta systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT ahmedkhaled systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT keeleythomas systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT armesjo systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT brownjuliam systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT calmanlynn systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT gavinanna systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT glaseradamw systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT greenfielddianam systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT lanceleyanne systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT taylorrachelm systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT velikovagalina systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT brundagemichael systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT efficacefabio systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT merciecabebberrebecca systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT kingmadeleinet systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT turnergrace systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials
AT calvertmelanie systematicevaluationofpatientreportedoutcomeprotocolcontentandreportingincancertrials