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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |