Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials
Open Access
- 11 April 2019
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
- Vol. 111 (11), 1170-1178
- https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz038
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.Keywords
Funding Information
- Macmillan Cancer Support
This publication has 38 references indexed in Scilit:
- Inconsistencies in Quality of Life Data Collection in Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Bias? Interviews with Research Nurses and TrialistsPLOS ONE, 2013
- Toward Patient-Centered Drug Development in OncologyThe New England Journal of Medicine, 2013
- Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized TrialsJAMA, 2013
- SPIRIT 2013 Statement: Defining Standard Protocol Items for Clinical TrialsAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2013
- The Use of Patient-reported Outcomes (PRO) Within Comparative Effectiveness ResearchMedical Care, 2012
- Patterns of reporting health-related quality of life outcomes in randomized clinical trials: implications for clinicians and quality of life researchersQuality of Life Research, 2010
- CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised TrialsPLoS Medicine, 2010
- Adverse Symptom Event Reporting by Patients vs Clinicians: Relationships With Clinical OutcomesJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2009
- Development of indicators for patient-centred cancer careSupportive Care in Cancer, 2009
- Quality of life and/or symptom control in randomized clinical trials for patients with advanced cancerAnnals of Oncology, 2007