Search

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., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: Decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is complex due to the heterogeneity of the disease. This study aimed to understand women's experience of making treatment decisions for DCIS, their information and support needs, and factors that influenced decisions., Methods: We searched six electronic databases, conference proceedings, and key authors. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria, and extracted findings. Thematic analysis was used to combine and summarise findings., Results: We identified six themes and 28 subthemes from 18 studies. Women with DCIS have knowledge deficits about DCIS, experience anxiety related to information given at diagnosis and the complexity of decision-making, and have misconceptions regarding risks and outcomes of treatment. Women's decisions are influenced by their understanding of risk, the clinical features of their DCIS, and the benefits and harms of treatment options. Women are dissatisfied with the decisional support available., Conclusions: Informed and shared decision-making in this complex decision setting requires clear communication of information specific to DCIS and individual's, as well as decision support for patients and clinicians., Practice Implications: This approach would educate patients and clinicians, and assist clinicians in supporting patients to an evidence-based treatment plan that aligns with individual values and pReferences., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To explore quality-of-life (QOL) issues considered important when deciding on treatment for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS)., Methods: Breast Cancer Network of Australia members diagnosed with DCIS in the past 5 years (self-identified) participated in an online survey (Sep-Nov 2015). From a list of 74 QOL issues, participants selected all issues they experienced during DCIS diagnosis, treatment or recovery, then the issues they felt important to making a DCIS treatment decision, and completed the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Associations between QOL issues and self-reported treatment received were assessed with χ 2 tests., Results: The primary analysis included 38 participants treated with breast-conserving surgery (n = 15), mastectomy (n = 23), and/or radiotherapy (n = 14). Fatigue-related symptoms (82%) and "fear of progression" (50%) were the most frequently-experienced issues. When deciding on DCIS treatment, the most important consideration was "fear of progression" (50%). A higher proportion of mastectomy (compared to non-mastectomy) patients considered "difficultly looking at yourself naked" (p = 0.03). Radiotherapy (compared to non-radiotherapy) patients were more likely to consider "feeling unwell" important (p = 0.006). Results were similar in a sensitivity analysis involving all 101 respondents (i.e., including 63 respondents who reported receiving chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and/or Herceptin, suggesting that they may have been treated for invasive breast cancer). Health literacy was high across all nine HLQ scales., Conclusion: Fear of progression is a key consideration in DCIS treatment decision making for women with high health literacy. QOL treatment considerations differed by treatments received. Women diagnosed with DCIS may benefit from evidence about QOL to inform treatment decision making.

We aimed to summarize survival data from RCTs in patients with GO adenocarcinoma; estimate and explain worst-, typical-, and best-case-scenarios of survival time; and determine if simple multiples of median overall survival (mOS) could estimate these percentiles. We systematically searched RCTs of systemic therapies for GO adenocarcinoma published 2000–2022. The following key percentiles were extracted from overall survival curves: 90th (worst-case), 75th (lower-typical), 25th (upper-typical), and 10th (best-case). We tested if these percentiles could be estimated by simple multiples of mOS: 0.25 of the median for the 90th percentile, 0.5 for the 75th, 2 for the 25th, and 3 for the 10th. We identified 44 trials (22,447 participants). For first line chemotherapy and immunotherapy combined (CI) trials (n = 3) worst-to-best case survival time ranged from 4 months to not reached, compared to 3–30 months for other trials (n = 27) and 1–23 months for subsequent lines (n = 14). Simple multiples of mOS accurately estimated the following survival percentiles: 90th (n = 3/3 trials), 75th (n = 3/3), and 25th (n = 2/3) in first line CI trials. In other first line trials, the mOS accurately estimated the 90th survival percentile in n = 22/27 trials, 75th percentile in n = 26/27, 25th percentile in 27/27 trials, and 10th percentile in 22/27 trials. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately predicted the 90th, 75th, 25th, and 10th survival percentiles in the majority of trials of second and subsequent lines apart from chemotherapy and immunotherapy only trials. We provide realistic, evidence-based prognostic information as scenarios for survival time which can inform clinical decision-making. Simple multiples of the mOS accurately estimated the percentiles for most groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance.Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension).Design, Setting, and Participants: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols.Results: The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care.Conclusions and Relevance: The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely used cancer-specific quality-of-life (QOL) questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with four levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required.Objective: The aim of this study was to provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D.Methods: An Australian online panel was quota-sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥ 18 years). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy.Results: A total of 1979 panel members opted in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death.Conclusions: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Decision-making in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is complex due to the heterogeneity of the disease. This study aimed to understand women's experience of making treatment decisions for DCIS, their information and support needs, and factors that influenced decisions.Methods: We searched six electronic databases, conference proceedings, and key authors. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and quality criteria, and extracted findings. Thematic analysis was used to combine and summarise findings.Results: We identified six themes and 28 subthemes from 18 studies. Women with DCIS have knowledge deficits about DCIS, experience anxiety related to information given at diagnosis and the complexity of decision-making, and have misconceptions regarding risks and outcomes of treatment. Women's decisions are influenced by their understanding of risk, the clinical features of their DCIS, and the benefits and harms of treatment options. Women are dissatisfied with the decisional support available.Conclusions: Informed and shared decision-making in this complex decision setting requires clear communication of information specific to DCIS and individual's, as well as decision support for patients and clinicians.Practice Implications: This approach would educate patients and clinicians, and assist clinicians in supporting patients to an evidence-based treatment plan that aligns with individual values and pReferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]