Skip to main content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 7/2015

01-07-2015 | Commentary

Content validity and legacy patient-reported outcome measures in cancer

Auteurs: Adam B. Smith, Kim Cocks

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Excerpt

The publication in 2009 of the Guidance for Industry by US Food and Administration (FDA) [ 1] ushered in a significant change in the way patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are evaluated when used by pharmaceutical companies to support product label claims. In particular, the FDA Guidance emphasised patient input in the development of PROMs. To underline this point, a review of the reasons for FDA rejections of PRO label claims [ 2] concluded that just under 40 % of all rejections were due to the PROM not being fit for purpose; 31 % of product PRO claims were rejected due to a lack of content validity. This approach adopted by the FDA may be problematic for those legacy PROMs whose development predates the Guidance, one of which is the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 [ 3]. There is no evidence that the early development of the EORTC QLQ-C30 incorporated patient involvement in the content validity other than in rating the acceptability of items. Despite this, the instrument continues to be widely used in oncology clinical trials: a search on clinicaltrials.gov for the period 1 January 2009 to 31 December 2013 revealed 207 registered trials that included the EORTC QLQ-C30. Furthermore, its inclusion has been recommended in comparative effectiveness research [ 4], and it has been shown to be of use in facilitating patient–clinician communication [ 5]. Beyond that the instrument has been part of a successful PRO product label claim granted by the FDA [ 6] after the publication of the Guidance document. …
Literatuur
2.
go back to reference DeMuro, C., Clark, M., Mordin, M., Fehnel, S., Copley-Merriman, C., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2012). Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: A compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006–2010. Value in Health., 15, 443–448. PubMedCrossRef DeMuro, C., Clark, M., Mordin, M., Fehnel, S., Copley-Merriman, C., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2012). Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: A compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006–2010. Value in Health., 15, 443–448. PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 4249–4255. PubMedCrossRef Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., Reeve, B. B., Smith, M. L., Coons, S. J., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30, 4249–4255. PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. PubMedCrossRef Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A. B., Brown, P. M., Lynch, P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724. PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference DeMuro, C., Clark, M., Doward, L., Evans, E., Mordin, M., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2013). Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006–2010). Value in Health, 16, 1150–1155. PubMedCrossRef DeMuro, C., Clark, M., Doward, L., Evans, E., Mordin, M., & Gnanasakthy, A. (2013). Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006–2010). Value in Health, 16, 1150–1155. PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Reeve, B.B., Mitchell, S.A., Dueck, A.C., Basch, E., Cella, D., Reilly, C.M., Minasian, L.M., Denicoff, A.M., O’Mara, A.M., Fisch, M.J., Chauhan, C., Aaronson, N.K., Coens, C., Bruner, D.W. (2014). Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 106(7). Reeve, B.B., Mitchell, S.A., Dueck, A.C., Basch, E., Cella, D., Reilly, C.M., Minasian, L.M., Denicoff, A.M., O’Mara, A.M., Fisch, M.J., Chauhan, C., Aaronson, N.K., Coens, C., Bruner, D.W. (2014). Recommended patient-reported core set of symptoms to measure in adult cancer treatment trials. Journal of National Cancer Institute, 106(7).
Metagegevens
Titel
Content validity and legacy patient-reported outcome measures in cancer
Auteurs
Adam B. Smith
Kim Cocks
Publicatiedatum
01-07-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0890-6

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2015

Quality of Life Research 7/2015 Naar de uitgave