Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 10/2016

01-10-2016 | Review

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

Auteurs: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber, Michael Friedlander, Peey-Sei Kok, Melanie Calvert, Derek Kyte, Martin Stockler, Madeleine T. King

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 10/2016

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

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient’s perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

Methods

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

Results

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995–2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8–66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

Conclusions

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference King, M. T., Stockler, M. R., Butow, P., O’Connell, R., Voysey, M., Oza, A. M., et al. (2014). Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: Aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 24(5), 865–873.CrossRefPubMed King, M. T., Stockler, M. R., Butow, P., O’Connell, R., Voysey, M., Oza, A. M., et al. (2014). Development of the measure of ovarian symptoms and treatment concerns: Aiming for optimal measurement of patient-reported symptom benefit with chemotherapy for symptomatic ovarian cancer. International Journal of Gynecological Cancer, 24(5), 865–873.CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
go back to reference American Cancer Society (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. In American Cancer Society (Ed.). Atlanta. American Cancer Society (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. In American Cancer Society (Ed.). Atlanta.
4.
go back to reference Friedlander, M. L., & King, M. T. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Annals of Oncology, 24(suppl 10), x64–x68.CrossRefPubMed Friedlander, M. L., & King, M. T. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Annals of Oncology, 24(suppl 10), x64–x68.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 8(346), e7586.CrossRef Chan, A. W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Gotzsche, P. C., Altman, D. G., Mann, H., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: Guidance for protocols of clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 8(346), e7586.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Kyte, D., von Hildebrand, M., King, M., & Moher, D. (2015). Putting patients at the heart of health-care research. The Lancet, 385(9973), 1073–1074.CrossRef Calvert, M., Kyte, D., von Hildebrand, M., King, M., & Moher, D. (2015). Putting patients at the heart of health-care research. The Lancet, 385(9973), 1073–1074.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., et al. (2014). Systematic evaluation of the patient reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS One, 9(10), e110229.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Fletcher, B., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M., et al. (2014). Systematic evaluation of the patient reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols. PLoS One, 9(10), e110229.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Ives, J., et al. (2014). Patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: A systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers. PLoS One, 9(10), e110216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Calvert, M., Kyte, D., Duffy, H., Gheorghe, A., Mercieca-Bebber, R., Ives, J., et al. (2014). Patient reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: A systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers. PLoS One, 9(10), e110216.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Chan, A.-W., Tetzlaff, J. M., Altman, D. G., Laupacis, A., Gøtzsche, P. C., Krleža-Jerić, K., et al. (2013). SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Annals of Internal Medicine, 158(3), 200–207.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency Oncology Working Party (2014). Draft Reflection Paper on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. European Medicines Agency Oncology Working Party (2014). Draft Reflection Paper on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies.
13.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures—Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures—Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.
14.
go back to reference Kyte, D., Reeve, B. B., Efficace, F., Haywood, K., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., et al. (2016). International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the draft European Medicines Agency reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 359–362.CrossRefPubMed Kyte, D., Reeve, B. B., Efficace, F., Haywood, K., Mercieca-Bebber, R., King, M. T., et al. (2016). International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the draft European Medicines Agency reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Quality of Life Research, 25(2), 359–362.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Patrick, D. L., Guyatt, G. H., Acquadro, C., & Cochrane Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group. (2011). Chapter 17: Patient-reported outcomes. In J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.0.). London: The Cochrane Collaboration. Patrick, D. L., Guyatt, G. H., Acquadro, C., & Cochrane Patient Reported Outcomes Methods Group. (2011). Chapter 17: Patient-reported outcomes. In J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.0.). London: The Cochrane Collaboration.
16.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K. (1990). Quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: A need for common rules and language. Oncology, 4(5), 59–66.PubMed Aaronson, N. K. (1990). Quality of life research in cancer clinical trials: A need for common rules and language. Oncology, 4(5), 59–66.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., & King, M. (2015). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. BMJO. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010938. Mercieca-Bebber, R., Palmer, M., Brundage, M., Calvert, M., Stockler, M., & King, M. (2015). Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: A systematic review. BMJO. doi:10.​1136/​bmjopen-2015-010938.
19.
go back to reference Kyte, D., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2013). Patient-reported outcome alerts: Ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. JAMA, 310(12), 1229–1230.CrossRefPubMed Kyte, D., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2013). Patient-reported outcome alerts: Ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. JAMA, 310(12), 1229–1230.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2016). Management of patient-reported outcome (PRO) alerts in clinical trials: A Cross sectional survey. PLoS One, 11(1), e0144658.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., & Calvert, M. (2016). Management of patient-reported outcome (PRO) alerts in clinical trials: A Cross sectional survey. PLoS One, 11(1), e0144658.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Skogvoll, E., & Kramer-Johansen, J. (2013). Publication of clinical trial protocols—what can we learn? Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 21, 12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Skogvoll, E., & Kramer-Johansen, J. (2013). Publication of clinical trial protocols—what can we learn? Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, 21, 12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
go back to reference Weston, J., Dwan, K., Altman, D., Clarke, M., Gamble, C., Groves, T., et al. (2015). Selective reporting in clinical trials—An examination of discrepancy rates in pre-specified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to the BMJ. Trials, 16(2), 1. doi:10.1186/1745-6215-16-s2-o72. Weston, J., Dwan, K., Altman, D., Clarke, M., Gamble, C., Groves, T., et al. (2015). Selective reporting in clinical trials—An examination of discrepancy rates in pre-specified and reported outcomes in articles submitted to the BMJ. Trials, 16(2), 1. doi:10.​1186/​1745-6215-16-s2-o72.
23.
go back to reference Schandelmaier, S., Conen, K., von Elm, E., You, J. J., Blumle, A., Tomonaga, Y., et al. (2015). Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials. Annals of Oncology, 26(9), 1966–1973.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schandelmaier, S., Conen, K., von Elm, E., You, J. J., Blumle, A., Tomonaga, Y., et al. (2015). Planning and reporting of quality-of-life outcomes in cancer trials. Annals of Oncology, 26(9), 1966–1973.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
24.
go back to reference Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRef Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. The Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Friedlander, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & King, M. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials—Lost opportunities and lessons learned. Annals of Oncology, 27(S1), i66–i71.CrossRefPubMed Friedlander, M., Mercieca-Bebber, R., & King, M. (2016). Patient reported outcomes in ovarian cancer clinical trials—Lost opportunities and lessons learned. Annals of Oncology, 27(S1), i66–i71.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols
Auteurs
Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber
Michael Friedlander
Peey-Sei Kok
Melanie Calvert
Derek Kyte
Martin Stockler
Madeleine T. King
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 10/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1339-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 10/2016

Quality of Life Research 10/2016 Naar de uitgave