Cargando…

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cance...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brundage, Michael D, Crossnohere, Norah L, O’Donnell, Jennifer, Cruz Rivera, Samantha, Wilson, Roger, Wu, Albert W, Moher, David, Kyte, Derek, Reeve, Bryce B, Gilbert, Alexandra, Chen, Ronald C, Calvert, Melanie J, Snyder, Claire
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35900186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac128
_version_ 1784806222077100032
author Brundage, Michael D
Crossnohere, Norah L
O’Donnell, Jennifer
Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Wilson, Roger
Wu, Albert W
Moher, David
Kyte, Derek
Reeve, Bryce B
Gilbert, Alexandra
Chen, Ronald C
Calvert, Melanie J
Snyder, Claire
author_facet Brundage, Michael D
Crossnohere, Norah L
O’Donnell, Jennifer
Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Wilson, Roger
Wu, Albert W
Moher, David
Kyte, Derek
Reeve, Bryce B
Gilbert, Alexandra
Chen, Ronald C
Calvert, Melanie J
Snyder, Claire
author_sort Brundage, Michael D
collection PubMed
description Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians’ reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9552306
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95523062022-10-12 Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials Brundage, Michael D Crossnohere, Norah L O’Donnell, Jennifer Cruz Rivera, Samantha Wilson, Roger Wu, Albert W Moher, David Kyte, Derek Reeve, Bryce B Gilbert, Alexandra Chen, Ronald C Calvert, Melanie J Snyder, Claire J Natl Cancer Inst Commentaries Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians’ reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials. Oxford University Press 2022-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9552306/ /pubmed/35900186 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac128 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (https://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 Commentaries
Brundage, Michael D
Crossnohere, Norah L
O’Donnell, Jennifer
Cruz Rivera, Samantha
Wilson, Roger
Wu, Albert W
Moher, David
Kyte, Derek
Reeve, Bryce B
Gilbert, Alexandra
Chen, Ronald C
Calvert, Melanie J
Snyder, Claire
Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title_full Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title_fullStr Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title_full_unstemmed Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title_short Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials
title_sort listening to the patient voice adds value to cancer clinical trials
topic Commentaries
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9552306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35900186
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djac128
work_keys_str_mv AT brundagemichaeld listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT crossnoherenorahl listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT odonnelljennifer listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT cruzriverasamantha listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT wilsonroger listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT wualbertw listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT moherdavid listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT kytederek listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT reevebryceb listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT gilbertalexandra listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT chenronaldc listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT calvertmelaniej listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials
AT snyderclaire listeningtothepatientvoiceaddsvaluetocancerclinicaltrials