Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Scoping Review

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) provide reports from patients on their own health, quality of life, or functional status associated with their disease, and the care they have received. In treating metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), it is important to obtain information about the impact of a treatment on various aspects of patients’ lives besides overall survival. We performed a review on the use of PROMs in phase III clinical trials started between 2010 and 2021, evaluating systemic therapy in patients with metastatic CRC. We demonstrate that the quality of reporting on PROMs has increased over the last decade, but is still not optimal. Moreover, PROM results are underreported in studies on metastatic CRC, impeding the optimal incorporation of trial and PROM results into daily clinical practice. ABSTRACT: Purpose: To perform a scoping review on the use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in randomized trials on systemic therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) between 2010 and 2021. Methods: First, a search on clinicaltrials.gov was performed, looking for randomized trials in mCRC. The use of PROMs was analyzed quantitatively. Subsequently, we assessed the completeness of PROM reporting based on the CONSORT PRO extension in publications related to the selected trials acquired using Embase and PubMed. Results: A total of 46/176 trials were registered on clinicaltrials.gov used PROMs. All these trials used validated PROM instruments. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was most frequently used (37 times), followed by the EQ-5D (21 times) and the EORTC QLQ-CR29 (six times). A total of 56/176 registered trials were published. In 35% (n = 20), the results of the PROMs were available. Overall, 7/20 (35%) trials documented all items of the CONSORT PRO extension and quality of reporting according to the CONSORT PRO extension was higher than in the period 2004–2012. In 3/20 (15%) of the published trials, the results of PROMs were not discussed nor included in the positioning of the new treatment compared to the reference treatment. Conclusion: When PROMs are used, the quality of reporting on patient-reported outcomes is improving, but this must continue in order to optimize the translation of trial results to individual patient values.