PURPOSE: This report describes interventions undertaken by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) to improve compliance with patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in the setting of multicenter cancer clinical trials. We describe the effectiveness of several interventions and of observational factors. METHODS:PRO submission rates were analyzed for the following three NSABP protocols: the Study of Raloxifene and Tamoxifen (STAR), B-32, and B-35. Institutions participating in protocol B-35 were randomly assigned to receive automated reminders of upcoming assessments or not. Compliance was analyzed with a logistic repeated measures mixed modeling. RESULTS:Compliance was high in the three protocols, with rates greater than 80% for nearly all time points. Institutions were a significant source of variability (P < .01). The largest institutions had the highest compliance in STAR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68 for < 50 participants enrolled and OR = 0.82 for 50 to 99 participants enrolled v larger institutions; P < .001). Midsized institutions had highest compliance in B-32 (OR = 4.63 for 31 to 50 patients enrolled and OR = 3.12 for > 50 patients enrolled v small institutions; P = .007). Compliance increased with participant age in STAR (OR = 0.57, 0.89, and 1.01 for ages < 50, 50 to 60, and 60 to 70 years, respectively, v > 70 years; P < .001). Race was significant in B-32 (OR = 2.63 for white v nonwhite; P < .001) and in STAR (OR = 1.41 for white v nonwhite; P < .001). Treatment group was significant in B-32 (OR = 0.74; P = .006). The B-35 prospective reminder did not improve compliance significantly (P = .30), but in B-32, delinquency sanctions were significant (OR = 1.56; P = .007). CONCLUSION:Compliance in NSABP PRO studies is higher now than a decade ago. Results for compliance initiatives were mixed. Age and race are important factors, but institutional variation remains significant and largely unexplained.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: This report describes interventions undertaken by the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project (NSABP) to improve compliance with patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in the setting of multicenter cancer clinical trials. We describe the effectiveness of several interventions and of observational factors. METHODS: PRO submission rates were analyzed for the following three NSABP protocols: the Study of Raloxifene and Tamoxifen (STAR), B-32, and B-35. Institutions participating in protocol B-35 were randomly assigned to receive automated reminders of upcoming assessments or not. Compliance was analyzed with a logistic repeated measures mixed modeling. RESULTS: Compliance was high in the three protocols, with rates greater than 80% for nearly all time points. Institutions were a significant source of variability (P < .01). The largest institutions had the highest compliance in STAR (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68 for < 50 participants enrolled and OR = 0.82 for 50 to 99 participants enrolled v larger institutions; P < .001). Midsized institutions had highest compliance in B-32 (OR = 4.63 for 31 to 50 patients enrolled and OR = 3.12 for > 50 patients enrolled v small institutions; P = .007). Compliance increased with participant age in STAR (OR = 0.57, 0.89, and 1.01 for ages < 50, 50 to 60, and 60 to 70 years, respectively, v > 70 years; P < .001). Race was significant in B-32 (OR = 2.63 for white v nonwhite; P < .001) and in STAR (OR = 1.41 for white v nonwhite; P < .001). Treatment group was significant in B-32 (OR = 0.74; P = .006). The B-35 prospective reminder did not improve compliance significantly (P = .30), but in B-32, delinquency sanctions were significant (OR = 1.56; P = .007). CONCLUSION: Compliance in NSABP PRO studies is higher now than a decade ago. Results for compliance initiatives were mixed. Age and race are important factors, but institutional variation remains significant and largely unexplained.
Authors: Stephanie R Land; Jacek A Kopec; Thomas B Julian; Ann M Brown; Stewart J Anderson; David N Krag; Nicholas J Christian; Joseph P Costantino; Norman Wolmark; Patricia A Ganz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Andrea Cercek; Karyn A Goodman; Carla Hajj; Emily Weisberger; Neil H Segal; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Zsofia K Stadler; Abraham J Wu; Martin R Weiser; Philip B Paty; Jose G Guillem; Garrett M Nash; Larissa K Temple; Julio Garcia-Aguilar; Leonard B Saltz Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2014-04 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Stephanie L Pugh; Joseph P Rodgers; Jennifer Moughan; Roseann Bonanni; Jaskaran Boparai; Ronald C Chen; James J Dignam; Deborah W Bruner Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-09-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Hanna Bandos; Charles E Geyer; André Robidoux; Alexander H G Paterson; Jonathan Polikoff; Luis Baez-Diaz; Adam M Brufsky; Louis Fehrenbacher; Ann W Parsons; Patrick J Ward; Louise Provencher; John T Hamm; Philip J Stella; Robert L Carolla; Richard G Margolese; Henry R Shibata; Edith A Perez; Norman Wolmark Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2022-02-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Patricia A Ganz; Stephanie R Land; Charles E Geyer; Reena S Cecchini; Joseph P Costantino; Eduardo R Pajon; Louis Fehrenbacher; James N Atkins; Jonathan A Polikoff; Victor G Vogel; John K Erban; Robert B Livingston; Edith A Perez; Eleftherios P Mamounas; Norman Wolmark; Sandra M Swain Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 50.717
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Helen Duffy; Adrian Gheorghe; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Jonathan Ives; Heather Draper; Michael Brundage; Jane Blazeby; Madeleine King Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Katie Gillies; Anna Kearney; Ciara Keenan; Shaun Treweek; Jemma Hudson; Valerie C Brueton; Thomas Conway; Andrew Hunter; Louise Murphy; Peter J Carr; Greta Rait; Paul Manson; Magaly Aceves-Martins Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-03-06