S Schandelmaier1, K Conen2, E von Elm3, J J You4, A Blümle5, Y Tomonaga6, A Amstutz7, M Briel8, B Kasenda9. 1. Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Academy of Swiss Insurance Medicine. 2. Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel. 3. Cochrane Switzerland, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada. 5. German Cochrane Centre, Medical Center-University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. 6. Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich. 7. Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics. 8. Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Department of Clinical Research, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 9. Basel Institute for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics; Department of Oncology, University Hospital of Basel, Basel; Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: benjamin.kasenda@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.
BACKGROUND: Information about the impact of cancer treatments on patients' quality of life (QoL) is of paramount importance to patients and treating oncologists. Cancer trials that do not specify QoL as an outcome or fail to report collected QoL data, omit crucial information for decision making. To estimate the magnitude of these problems, we investigated how frequently QoL outcomes were specified in protocols of cancer trials and subsequently reported. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of RCT protocols approved by six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada between 2000 and 2003. We compared protocols to corresponding publications, which were identified through literature searches and investigator surveys. RESULTS: Of the 173 cancer trials, 90 (52%) specified QoL outcomes in their protocol, 2 (1%) as primary and 88 (51%) as secondary outcome. Of the 173 trials, 35 (20%) reported QoL outcomes in a corresponding publication (4 modified from the protocol), 18 (10%) were published but failed to report QoL outcomes in the primary or a secondary publication, and 37 (21%) were not published at all. Of the 83 (48%) trials that did not specify QoL outcomes in their protocol, none subsequently reported QoL outcomes. Failure to report pre-specified QoL outcomes was not associated with industry sponsorship (versus non-industry), sample size, and multicentre (versus single centre) status but possibly with trial discontinuation. CONCLUSIONS: About half of cancer trials specified QoL outcomes in their protocols. However, only 20% reported any QoL data in associated publications. Highly relevant information for decision making is often unavailable to patients, oncologists, and health policymakers.
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: Rachel Rosenthal; Benjamin Kasenda; Salome Dell-Kuster; Erik von Elm; John You; Anette Blümle; Yuki Tomonaga; Ramon Saccilotto; Alain Amstutz; Theresa Bengough; Joerg J Meerpohl; Mihaela Stegert; Kari A O Tikkinen; Ignacio Neumann; Alonso Carrasco-Labra; Markus Faulhaber; Sohail Mulla; Dominik Mertz; Elie A Akl; Dirk Bassler; Jason W Busse; Ignacio Ferreira-González; Francois Lamontagne; Alain Nordmann; Viktoria Gloy; Kelechi K Olu; Heike Raatz; Lorenzo Moja; Shanil Ebrahim; Stefan Schandelmaier; Xin Sun; Per O Vandvik; Bradley C Johnston; Martin A Walter; Bernard Burnand; Matthias Schwenkglenks; Lars G Hemkens; Heiner C Bucher; Gordon H Guyatt; Matthias Briel Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Kerry Dwan; Douglas G Altman; Lynne Cresswell; Michaela Blundell; Carrol L Gamble; Paula R Williamson Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-01-19
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Michael Friedlander; Peey-Sei Kok; Melanie Calvert; Derek Kyte; Martin Stockler; Madeleine T King Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Melanie Calvert; Madeleine King; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Olalekan Aiyegbusi; Derek Kyte; Anita Slade; An-Wen Chan; E Basch; Jill Bell; Antonia Bennett; Vishal Bhatnagar; Jane Blazeby; Andrew Bottomley; Julia Brown; Michael Brundage; Lisa Campbell; Joseph C Cappelleri; Heather Draper; Amylou C Dueck; Carolyn Ells; Lori Frank; Robert M Golub; Ingolf Griebsch; Kirstie Haywood; Amanda Hunn; Bellinda King-Kallimanis; Laura Martin; Sandra Mitchell; Thomas Morel; Linda Nelson; Josephine Norquist; Daniel O'Connor; Michael Palmer; Donald Patrick; Gary Price; Antoine Regnault; Ameeta Retzer; Dennis Revicki; Jane Scott; Richard Stephens; Grace Turner; Antonia Valakas; Galina Velikova; Maria von Hildebrand; Anita Walker; Lari Wenzel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Paul B Chapman; Nathan J Liu; Qin Zhou; Alexia Iasonos; Sara Hanley; George J Bosl; David R Spriggs Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Michael J Palmer; Michael Brundage; Melanie Calvert; Martin R Stockler; Madeleine T King Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-06-15 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Khaled Ahmed; Derek Kyte; Thomas Keeley; Fabio Efficace; Jo Armes; Julia M Brown; Lynn Calman; Chris Copland; Anna Gavin; Adam Glaser; Diana M Greenfield; Anne Lanceley; Rachel Taylor; Galina Velikova; Michael Brundage; Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Madeleine T King; Melanie Calvert Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.692