Cargando…

Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making

BACKGROUND: Given the growing importance of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) as part of “big data” in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state‐of‐the‐art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize th...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Van Hemelrijck, Mieke, Sparano, Francesco, Moris, Lisa, Beyer, Katharina, Cottone, Francesco, Sprangers, Mirjam, Efficace, Fabio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32333639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3018
_version_ 1783547583975653376
author Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Sparano, Francesco
Moris, Lisa
Beyer, Katharina
Cottone, Francesco
Sprangers, Mirjam
Efficace, Fabio
author_facet Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Sparano, Francesco
Moris, Lisa
Beyer, Katharina
Cottone, Francesco
Sprangers, Mirjam
Efficace, Fabio
author_sort Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Given the growing importance of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) as part of “big data” in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state‐of‐the‐art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize the most recent high‐quality PRO evidence‐based knowledge from PCa RCTs and to examine whether quality of PRO reporting in PCa research improved over time. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, from April 2012 until February 2019. For benchmarking purposes, we also included RCTs identified in our previously published review of RCTs (2004‐2012). Methodology for study identification and evaluation followed standardized criteria and a predefined data extraction form was used to abstract information. PRO quality of the studies was evaluated using the International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended criteria. RESULTS: A total of 55 new RCTs were published between April 2012 and February 2019. About 24 (43.6%) RCTs were found to be of high‐quality regarding PRO assessments. Of these, 13 (54.2%) have been reported in the most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) PCa Guidelines. Overall QoL and sexual, urinary, and bowel function were the most commonly reported PROs. FACT‐P, EPIC‐26, and EORTC QLQ‐C30 and/or its module PR25 were most frequently used as measurement tools. An overall improvement in the completeness of PRO reporting was noted over time. CONCLUSION: Many PRO trials are currently not included in the EAU guidelines. Our findings suggest that there has to be a better consensus on the use of PRO data for PCa patients, which will then be reflected in the PCa Guidelines and future data collection. Homogeneity in PROs collection and measurement tools will in turn enable “big data” Consortia to increase the patients’ voice in clinical research.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7300413
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73004132020-06-18 Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making Van Hemelrijck, Mieke Sparano, Francesco Moris, Lisa Beyer, Katharina Cottone, Francesco Sprangers, Mirjam Efficace, Fabio Cancer Med Clinical Cancer Research BACKGROUND: Given the growing importance of patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) as part of “big data” in improving patient care, there is a need to provide a state‐of‐the‐art picture of the added value of using PROs in prostate cancer (PCa) randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We aimed to synthetize the most recent high‐quality PRO evidence‐based knowledge from PCa RCTs and to examine whether quality of PRO reporting in PCa research improved over time. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search using PubMed, from April 2012 until February 2019. For benchmarking purposes, we also included RCTs identified in our previously published review of RCTs (2004‐2012). Methodology for study identification and evaluation followed standardized criteria and a predefined data extraction form was used to abstract information. PRO quality of the studies was evaluated using the International Society of Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) recommended criteria. RESULTS: A total of 55 new RCTs were published between April 2012 and February 2019. About 24 (43.6%) RCTs were found to be of high‐quality regarding PRO assessments. Of these, 13 (54.2%) have been reported in the most recent European Association of Urology (EAU) PCa Guidelines. Overall QoL and sexual, urinary, and bowel function were the most commonly reported PROs. FACT‐P, EPIC‐26, and EORTC QLQ‐C30 and/or its module PR25 were most frequently used as measurement tools. An overall improvement in the completeness of PRO reporting was noted over time. CONCLUSION: Many PRO trials are currently not included in the EAU guidelines. Our findings suggest that there has to be a better consensus on the use of PRO data for PCa patients, which will then be reflected in the PCa Guidelines and future data collection. Homogeneity in PROs collection and measurement tools will in turn enable “big data” Consortia to increase the patients’ voice in clinical research. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-04-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7300413/ /pubmed/32333639 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3018 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Clinical Cancer Research
Van Hemelrijck, Mieke
Sparano, Francesco
Moris, Lisa
Beyer, Katharina
Cottone, Francesco
Sprangers, Mirjam
Efficace, Fabio
Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title_full Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title_fullStr Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title_full_unstemmed Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title_short Harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: Systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
title_sort harnessing the patient voice in prostate cancer research: systematic review on the use of patient‐reported outcomes in randomized controlled trials to support clinical decision‐making
topic Clinical Cancer Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7300413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32333639
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cam4.3018
work_keys_str_mv AT vanhemelrijckmieke harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT sparanofrancesco harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT morislisa harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT beyerkatharina harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT cottonefrancesco harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT sprangersmirjam harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking
AT efficacefabio harnessingthepatientvoiceinprostatecancerresearchsystematicreviewontheuseofpatientreportedoutcomesinrandomizedcontrolledtrialstosupportclinicaldecisionmaking