PURPOSE: The inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to record patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data has virtually become the norm in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this fact, recent concerns have focused on the quality of reporting of HRQOL. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of HRQOL data from two common instruments in oncology RCTs. DESIGN: A meta-review was undertaken of systematic reviews reporting HRQOL data collected using PRO instruments in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). English language articles published between 2000 and 2012 were included and evaluated against a methodology checklist. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five potential articles were identified. Six systematic reviews were included in the analysis. A total of 70,403 patients had completed PROs. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire accounted for 55 % of RCTs. Eighty per cent of RCTs had used psychometrically validated instruments; 70 % reported culturally valid instruments and almost all reported the assessment timing (96 %). Thirty per cent of RCTS reported clinical significance and missing data. In terms of methodological design, only 25 % of RCTs could be categorised as probably robust. CONCLUSION: The majority of oncology RCTs has shortcomings in terms of reporting HRQOL data when assessed against regulatory and methodology guidelines. These limitations will need to be addressed if HRQOL data are to be used to successfully support clinical decision-making, treatment options and labelling claims in oncology.
PURPOSE: The inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments to record patient health-related quality of life (HRQOL) data has virtually become the norm in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Despite this fact, recent concerns have focused on the quality of reporting of HRQOL. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting of HRQOL data from two common instruments in oncology RCTs. DESIGN: A meta-review was undertaken of systematic reviews reporting HRQOL data collected using PRO instruments in oncology randomised controlled trials (RCTs). English language articles published between 2000 and 2012 were included and evaluated against a methodology checklist. RESULTS: Four hundred and thirty-five potential articles were identified. Six systematic reviews were included in the analysis. A total of 70,403 patients had completed PROs. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire accounted for 55 % of RCTs. Eighty per cent of RCTs had used psychometrically validated instruments; 70 % reported culturally valid instruments and almost all reported the assessment timing (96 %). Thirty per cent of RCTS reported clinical significance and missing data. In terms of methodological design, only 25 % of RCTs could be categorised as probably robust. CONCLUSION: The majority of oncology RCTs has shortcomings in terms of reporting HRQOL data when assessed against regulatory and methodology guidelines. These limitations will need to be addressed if HRQOL data are to be used to successfully support clinical decision-making, treatment options and labelling claims in oncology.
Authors: Michael Brundage; Brenda Bass; Judith Davidson; John Queenan; Andrea Bezjak; Jolie Ringash; Anna Wilkinson; Deb Feldman-Stewart Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-11-26 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Jane Blazeby; Douglas G Altman; Dennis A Revicki; David Moher; Michael D Brundage Journal: JAMA Date: 2013-02-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Deborah Fitzsimmons; Jacqueline Gilbert; Frances Howse; Teresa Young; Juan-Ignacio Arrarras; Anne Brédart; Sheila Hawker; Steve George; Matti Aapro; Colin D Johnson Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2008-09-25 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: D F Cella; D S Tulsky; G Gray; B Sarafian; E Linn; A Bonomi; M Silberman; S B Yellen; P Winicour; J Brannon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1993-03 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: John M Salsman; Suzanne C Danhauer; Justin B Moore; Mollie R Canzona; David E Victorson; Bradley J Zebrack; Bryce B Reeve Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-10 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Stephanie Hui-Su Lim; Emilia Ip; Weng Ng; Wei Chua; Ray Asghari; Aflah Roohullah; Joseph Descallar; Christopher Henderson; Kevin Spring; Paul de Souza; Madeleine T King Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Derek Kyte; Ameeta Retzer; Khaled Ahmed; Thomas Keeley; Jo Armes; Julia M Brown; Lynn Calman; Anna Gavin; Adam W Glaser; Diana M Greenfield; Anne Lanceley; Rachel M Taylor; Galina Velikova; Michael Brundage; Fabio Efficace; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Madeleine T King; Grace Turner; Melanie Calvert Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Alberto Carmona-Bayonas; Caterina Calderón; Raquel Hernández; Ana Fernández Montes; Beatriz Castelo; Laura Ciria-Suarez; Mónica Antoñanzas; Jacobo Rogado; Vilma Pacheco-Barcia; Elena Asensio Martínez; Alejandra Ivars; Francisco Ayala de la Peña; Paula Jimenez-Fonseca Journal: NPJ Breast Cancer Date: 2021-07-13