Johannes M Giesinger1, Fabio Efficace2, Neil Aaronson3, Melanie Calvert4, Derek Kyte5, Francesco Cottone6, David Cella7, Eva-Maria Gamper8. 1. University Hospital of Psychiatry II, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria. Electronic address: johannes.giesinger@i-med.ac.at. 2. Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center, Rome, Italy and Department of Medical Social Sciences, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 3. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK; Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 5. Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. 6. Health Outcomes Research Unit, Italian Group for Adult Hematologic Diseases (GIMEMA) Data Center, Rome, Italy. 7. Department of Medical Social Sciences, and Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 8. Innsbruck Institute of Patient-centered Outcome Research (IIPCOR), Innsbruck, Austria.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site. RESULTS: Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.
OBJECTIVES: In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site. RESULTS: Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.
Authors: Micha J Pilz; Eva-Maria Gamper; Fabio Efficace; Juan I Arraras; Sandra Nolte; Gregor Liegl; Matthias Rose; Johannes M Giesinger Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-05-24 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Fabio Efficace; David Cella; Neil K Aaronson; Melanie Calvert; Francesco Cottone; Massimo Di Maio; Francesco Perrone; Francesco Sparano; Eva-Maria Gamper; Marco Vignetti; Johannes M Giesinger Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-03-08 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Jens Lehmann; Maria Rothmund; David Riedl; Gerhard Rumpold; Vincent Grote; Michael J Fischer; Bernhard Holzner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Maria Manuel Teixeira; Fábio Cardoso Borges; Paula Sousa Ferreira; João Rocha; Bruno Sepodes; Carla Torre Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-08-12
Authors: Michael D Brundage; Norah L Crossnohere; Jennifer O'Donnell; Samantha Cruz Rivera; Roger Wilson; Albert W Wu; David Moher; Derek Kyte; Bryce B Reeve; Alexandra Gilbert; Ronald C Chen; Melanie J Calvert; Claire Snyder Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 11.816