Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
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.
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.
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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
Siegel, R. L., Miller, K. D., & Jemal, A. (2016). Cancer statistics, 2016. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 66(1), 7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332.
American Cancer Society (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. In American Cancer Society (Ed.). Atlanta.
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
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
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2016). Clinical Trial Registration. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html. Accessed 6 April 2016.
European Medicines Agency Oncology Working Party (2014). Draft Reflection Paper on the use of patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies.
Food and Drug Administration (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures—Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.
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
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.
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
Kyte, D., Ives, J., Draper, H., Keeley, T., & Calvert, M. (2013). Inconsistencies in quality of life data collection in clinical trials: A potential source of bias? Interviews with research nurses and trialists. PLoS One, 8(10), e76625. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076625. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.
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.
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
- The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols
Madeleine T. King
- Springer International Publishing